Paul House Innocent Supreme Court Ruling Asserts
No Reasonable Juror Could Convict House Viewing All Evidence

Nashville: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the innocence claims of Paul Gregory House were strong enough to have his case remanded back to Eastern District Federal Judge Jarvis. By a 5-3 vote the court ruled that “no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt.”

“Innocence matters – that what the U.S. Supreme Court asserted today,” said Randy Tatel. “The court has rejected the view that if evidence of your innocence is found after you've been convicted, you have no right to have that evidence brought to the attention of a court.”

That view has been fateful for Paul House and his mother Joyce. Apparently, prosecutor Paul Philips who put Paul House on Tennessee’s death row more than 20 years ago would rather execute an innocent person than to see justice finally done. Philips prosecuted House for the murder of Carolyn Muncey in Union County in 1985. The motive given by Philips for the murder was to cover up the rape of the victim.

In overturning the 6th Circuit ruling the U.S. Supreme Court considered that DNA evidence has now proven that Paul Gregory House did not rape Carolyn Muncey before she was murdered in Union County in 1985. In addition, two witnesses say the victim’s husband, Hubert “Little Hube” Muncey, confessed to killing his wife accidentally after he had been out at the local community center, drinking and dancing. The jury never heard that testimony.

“The court ruled that no reasonable jury would have convicted House,” said Tatel. “That is, Paul House is not guilty.”

House’s case made national news last October when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 8-7 that the new evidence warranted neither a new trial nor House’s immediate release. The dissenting opinion in House’s 6th Circuit ruling noted that, “This case and the few empirical studies that we have reinforce Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor's view that the system is allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.”

The 6th Circuit’s dissenting opinion asserted that, “Once the initial trial and appeal have occurred, the State, and its officials who have prosecuted, sentenced, and reviewed the case, is inclined to believe that the State was right all along. They tend to close ranks and resist admission of error.”

The system is designed to insure fairness of procedure. It is not concerned with fairness in the outcome even if, as Justice Antonin Scalia has often asserted, that means executing an innocent person.

“Innocence does matter,” said Tatel. “Paul House should be given a new trial immediately, or he should be exonerated and released from death row.”

# # #