S.C. High Court Clears Freddie Owens’ Execution Amid New Affidavit

On September 19, South Carolina’s Supreme Court has determined that death row inmate Freddie Owens will proceed with his execution as planned on Friday, despite the introduction of a new affidavit from his co-defendant declaring Owens’ innocence.

Owens, who is slated to receive a lethal injection at 6 p.m. EDT on Friday, was convicted for the 1997 murder of Irene Graves, a clerk at a convenience store in Greenville, marking the state’s first execution in 13 years.

As the date of execution drew near, Owens’ legal team submitted a statement from Steven Golden, his co-defendant during the trial in 1999 for the murder of Graves during a robbery at a Speedway convenience store.

Golden, who is serving a 30-year sentence for his involvement in the crime, claimed in the new affidavit that, against his original trial testimony, Owens was not the one who pulled the trigger and was not present at the robbery. He asserted that another unidentified individual was responsible for killing Graves.

In explaining his previous silence, Golden stated, “I thought the real shooter or his associates might kill me if I named him to the police. I am still afraid of that.” He admitted that in 1997, he had identified Owens in exchange for a plea deal to avoid the death penalty. However, he now wishes to prevent Owens from being executed for a crime he did not commit.

At the time of the incident, Owens, who is now 46, was just 19 years old. His attorneys filed an emergency motion arguing that this newly presented information justified halting the execution and warranted a new trial. Nonetheless, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

The court’s order stated, “This new affidavit is squarely inconsistent with Golden’s testimony at Owens’ 1999 trial, at the first resentencing trial in 2003, and in the statement he gave law enforcement officers immediately after he participated in committing the crimes in 1997.”

Furthermore, the justices noted that there was “considerable other evidence” supporting Owens’ role as the triggerman. This evidence includes confessions he made to various individuals, including his girlfriend, his mother, another accomplice, and two law enforcement officers.

The decision has sparked discussions about the implications of such last-minute revelations in capital cases and the justice system’s handling of potentially exculpatory evidence. As the execution time approaches, many advocates for criminal justice reform are expressing their concerns over the case. They argue that credible evidence of innocence should prompt comprehensive scrutiny before an irreversible act such as execution is carried out.

Critics of the death penalty often point to cases where new evidence has emerged, demonstrating potential wrongful convictions, raising alarms about the reliability of the judicial process in capital cases. The landscape of legal challenges for individuals facing the death penalty remains complicated, with additional layers of public and media scrutiny intensifying as execution dates near.

As discussions about Owens’ case unfold, they highlight broader issues surrounding capital punishment and the crucial need for rigorous standards in evaluating claims of innocence.

In South Carolina, the last execution took place over a decade ago, and the state’s approach to capital punishment remains a topic of great debate. With the execution now confirmed, observers will watch closely for any further legal maneuvers or public reactions in the wake of this controversial ruling.