Columbia, S.C. – The tension surrounding the impending execution of Freddie Owens has reached fever pitch, with the South Carolina Supreme Court rejecting a last-minute emergency motion aimed at halting the procedure just hours before it was scheduled to take place. This case, steeped in uncertainty and conflicting testimonies, has ignited concerns over the possible execution of an innocent man, as new allegations have surfaced from key witnesses.
Freddie Owens, also known as Khalil Divine Black Sun Allah, was sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Irene Graves, a convenience store clerk, during what prosecutors described as part of a robbery gone awry. The crime occurred on Halloween night; Owens was merely 19 years old at the time. After being convicted posthumously of armed robbery and murder, he has always maintained his innocence, asserting he did not kill Graves.
A pivotal moment occurred when Owens’s co-defendant, Steven Golden, came forth with startling revelations just two days before the planned execution, stating through a sworn affidavit: “Freddie Owens is not the person who shot Irene Graves.” Golden claimed he had previously lied about Owens’s involvement, citing fear of retribution and police pressure as motivation behind his initial testimony during the 1999 trial.
Golden’s recent affidavit painted a disturbing picture of his state of mind at the time of the original trial. He admitted to being under the influence of drugs when questioned by authorities and expressed remorse about his decision to name Owens as the shooter. “I did not want to lie, but I was afraid for my life,” Golden stated. He claimed the actual shooter was someone else, whose identity he withheld due to fear for his safety.
Despite this troubling new information, the court ruled against the appeal, stating Golden's latest assertions conflicted sharply with his previous testimonies. The justices maintained there was ample evidence tying Owens to the crime—evidence they believed outweighed Golden's recantation.
Prosecutors highlighted Owens's own admissions of guilt, which had been made multiple times to various individuals throughout different phases of his life since the crime. These confessions, coupled with additional testimony from Owens's girlfriend at the time, played a significant role in the conviction. Their claims have cast shadows on the possibility of Owens's innocence.
Defense attorney Gerald "Bo" King expressed his frustration with the court's decision, arguing, "We are disappointed by the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene. It seems South Carolina is on the verge of executing a man for something he did not do." He reiterated their commitment to advocating for Owens, who now awaits clear direction from Governor Henry McMaster on potential clemency.
Governor McMaster is said to be deliberative about whether to grant mercy, stating he would not make his decision until right before the execution begins. It’s noteworthy, though disheartening, to recognize no South Carolina governor has ever granted such requests since the death penalty was reinstated nearly fifty years ago.
The broader picture reveals South Carolina on the cusp of reintroducing executions after more than thirteen years without carrying one out. This situation has put additional pressure on state officials, particularly as five more executions have been scheduled, creating what many are dubbing a “death row” resurgence.
Owens's execution, scheduled for lethal injection, could serve as the tipping point for many others awaiting similar fates. This case has ignited discourse not only on the ethical motivations of capital punishment but also on the judicial system's reliability concerning evidence and witness credibility.
Overall, the concern rests heavy over whether justice is truly being served, or if the state is prepared to execute what may be, according to new evidence presented, possibly the wrong individual. For hours leading up to the scheduled execution time, communities both within South Carolina and nationally remain glued to updates, highlighting humanity’s unyielding conflict between law, emotion, and the palpable weight of life and death.
With lives hanging precariously on fragile stands of justice, this situation is far from resolved. Rather, as the clock ticks down to what might become South Carolina’s first execution on record following the long hiatus, the conversation around justice, innocence, and the true role of the judicial system grows louder.
Freddie Owens’s story, punctuated with contentious elements, will likely remain a significant flashpoint as debates on the ethics and morality of capital punishment become more pronounced. It poses the perennial question about the very nature of justice itself: Does the system, under pressure, sometimes overlook the humanity of the condemned?
For the latest updates on the case, visit WSPA 7NEWS and stay informed as the situation develops.
