U.S. justices grant Georgia death row inmate's appeal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted an appeal by a Georgia death row inmate and ruled he should get a hearing to assess what he says is new evidence that will show his innocence.

The justices transferred the case of convicted murderer Troy Davis to a U.S. District Court in Georgia for a hearing and determination of his claims that new witnesses will clearly establish his innocence.

Davis had been convicted and sentenced to death for the killing 20 years ago of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia.

Lawyers for Davis said in their appeal that seven of nine prosecution witnesses have recanted their trial testimony and several new witnesses have identified or implicated a different individual as the shooter who killed police officer Mark MacPhail in a parking lot.

A number of prominent opponents of the death penalty have supported the appeal by Davis and said the execution cannot go forward as long as there are doubts about his guilt.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu were among those who have expressed concern about the fairness of Davis' trial.

Attorneys for the state of Georgia told the Supreme Court the appeal should be rejected. They said every court that has reviewed the claims by Davis has found he failed to establish his innocence.

The Supreme Court's newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in on August 8, did not take part in the decision in the Davis case. No reason was given on why she did not participate.

Two of the court's conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented. Scalia wrote that the Supreme Court was sending the federal judge in Georgia on a "fool's errand" because the evidence had been reviewed and rejected at least three previous times.

Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, responded to Scalia and said he was wrong.

"The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing," Stevens wrote.

(Editing by Eric Beech)