Just days before inmate Freddie Owens is set to die by lethal injection in South Carolina, the friend whose testimony helped send Owens to prison is saying he lied to save himself from the death chamber.

Owens is set to die at 6 p.m. Friday at a Columbia prison for the killing of a Greenville convenience store clerk in 1997.

But Owens’ lawyers on Wednesday filed a sworn statement from his co-defendant Steven Golden late Wednesday to try to stop South Carolina from carrying out its first execution in more than a decade.

Prosecutors reiterated that several other witnesses testified that Owens told them he pulled the trigger. And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution last week after Golden, in a sworn statement, said that he had a secret deal with prosecutors that he never told the jury about.

  • macniel
    link
    fedilink
    9212 hours ago

    And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution

    When the blind justice has a hard-on for killing people…

      • macniel
        link
        fedilink
        3312 hours ago

        still bloodthirsty that they refuse that execution even though new information have come to light.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -2711 hours ago

          Anybody can say anything. They held a trial. Testimonies were given under oath. Other witnesses testified.

          You can’t throw out every conviction after-the-fact because somebody says something new. It would be trivial to overturn sentences and lock up the courts for decades.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 hour ago

            Who gives a shit if someone gave an oath beforehand? Do you really think that’s going to stop a liar from lying?

          • macniel
            link
            fedilink
            21
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            they fucking LIED UNDER OATH. The entire case needs to be reevaluated.

            • @Tyfud
              link
              English
              129 hours ago

              This is the correct answer. It sounds like they’re admitting to perjury. So the case needs to be re-evaluated or set for a mistrial if it was a critical witness testimony that’s been proven to be lying under oath.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -57 hours ago

                that’s been proven to be lying under oath.

                That’s a very big assumption you’re making. They could be lying now.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  260 minutes ago

                  You’re right they should have made them take an oath first so we’d know without a doubt that their statement is the truth. /s

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -77 hours ago

              Or are they lying now? You can’t know. Do you reevaluate every case when somebody says something other than their sworn testimony?

              • Krzd
                link
                96 hours ago

                Yes??? What kinda bullshit take is that?
                The whole issue with capital punishment is that you can’t ever be sure, and you have to do your best to make sure you’re punishing the correct person.

          • snooggums
            link
            English
            33
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            Guess innocence isn’t as important as the death penalty. They should have known that someone lied under oath at the time, right?

            Or maybe they could not execute him and take the time to find out if the new information is true or not.

            • @NotMyOldRedditName
              link
              29
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              Or you know… just don’t execute people ever because they can’t ever be 100% sure.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -1410 hours ago

              Guess innocence isn’t as important as the death penalty. They should have known that someone lied under oath at the time, right?

              Don’t be obtuse. Multiple lines of evidence were presented to convince 12 people that he was guilty.

              Guess we should just release everybody from prison because we can never know with 100% certainty that anyone ever did anything.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                139 hours ago

                There are a lot of options between release and execution. Maybe we should consider those.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                15
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                Don’t be obtuse. Multiple lines of evidence were presented to convince 12 people that he was guilty.

                No matter how many people believe that Haitian immigrants are eating cats, it doesn’t become true just because it is believed by many.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                49 hours ago

                I hope, if your life ever ends up on the line, you’re met with more sympathy and care than you are willing to show others. You’re being non-chalant about killing someone. Maybe you’re young and will develop empathy, but if this is you and always will be you then frankly I’d make the trade here.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -5
                  edit-2
                  7 hours ago

                  You’re being non-chalant about killing someone.

                  I’m absolutely not. I don’t believe in the death penalty - and I’m not defending it. But you can’t throw out every case because somebody makes a new claim. Everybody in this thread is believing the new information unquestionably. The trial would have presented other corroborating evidence as well.

                  It’s like how you still need to determine if somebody committed a crime even if they confess.

              • pupupipi
                link
                410 hours ago

                but the cheap labor?? the us wouldn’t survive without the prison system, don’t know why they’re wasting good drugs on the guy though, why waste a life unless we get to make some burgers out of him or something, right? god bless

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            89 hours ago

            Do you think that if the prosecution made a secret deal with the witness, a deal that the jury didn’t know about, would that make another trial or reexamination of evidence necessary? Because that’s what happened.

            And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution last week after Golden, in a sworn statement, said that he had a secret deal with prosecutors that he never told the jury about.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            410 hours ago

            Anybody can say anything.

            Anybody can say anything to convict someone of a crime.
            But, once the convenience of finding someone guilty has been done, it doesn’t matter what anybody says.

            In the end, the human world works on fabricating answers more than it does on finding more truthful ones.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            29 hours ago

            One of these outcomes is irreversible. Preventing that outcome should take precedence over any other factor in the case.

      • @thesohoriots
        link
        English
        48 hours ago

        In South Carolina? First on-the-books in nearly 10 years.