�
 |
|
 |
|
|
| No New Trial - |
| Do you agree with Judge Burnett's decision? |
| Yes. |
|
20% |
[ 1 ] |
| No. |
|
60% |
[ 3 ] |
| Undecided. |
|
20% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 5 |
|
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Obscuregawdess
 Posted:
Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:30 pm |
|
|
|
No New Trial
Some documents and articles were posted in the "New Hearings" thread... This one should be dedicated specifically for thoughts, opinions, news, and a poll regarding Burnett's recent decision.
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11978
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Obscuregawdess
Posted:
Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:31 pm |
|
|
|
No new trial in West Memphis killings, judge rules
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/sep/10/no-new-trial-west-memphis-killings-judge-rules/
JONESBORO — A judge has denied a request for a new trial for three men convicted of killing three boys in West Memphis 15 years ago.
Circuit Court Judge David Burnett issued an order Wednesday denying the request. Lawyers for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley had requested a new trial, arguing that new DNA evidence clears their clients.
Both Baldwin and Misskelley claim their lawyers failed to adequately represent them during their separate trials. Their lawyers also say DNA evidence provided by Echols' defense team shows the men did not kill Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.
"The court finds that (Echols's) DNA-testing results are inconclusive because they do not raise a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offenses; that is, they are inconclusive as to his claim of actual innocence" Burnett wrote in the order.
In his appeal, Echols argued that newly analyzed DNA found no trace of him, Misskelley or Baldwin at the crime scene. But Burnett said he agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the absence of DNA didn't equal innocence.
"Proof of actual innocence requires more than his exclusion as the source of a handful of biological material that is not dispositive of the identity of a killer," Burnett wrote.
Burnett also said that even if he agreed that the new DNA evidence should be heard in court, he would deny Echols' request for a trial because there was "not compelling evidence that he would be acquitted."
U.S. District Court Judge William R. Wilson Jr. ruled in November that claims about the DNA evidence first needed to be heard in state courts. The Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld their convictions.
This article was published Wednesday, September 10, 2008.
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11978
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obscuregawdess
Posted:
Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:44 am |
|
|
|
From another board... (great post)
-----------------
From: dpd@dpdlaw.com
To: WM3discussion@topica.com
Date: Sat 9/6/2008 11:35 PM
RE: [WM3d] Hearing delay and status / What the hell's going on?
While I pretty much agree with the comments about Burnett, they don't really answer the question of what's going on - why hearings were ordered, then Burnett said they might not be held at all, and now they're apparently going to be held on 9/24 (coincidentally, the day after Georgia kills Troy Davis, even though 7 of the 9 witnesses against him have recanted and cited police pressure in their original statements and 1 of the 2 who hasn't recanted is probably the killer).
Anyway, in April, Burnett issued an order. It stated he would conduct hearings on (in this order): Jessie's Rule 37 (postconviction relief), Damien's DNA motion, and then Jason's Rule 37. He invited final paperwork and amendments from all three and the state to respond.
Before I go on, I want to add -- Although as a supporter and a logical human being, I agree that any of the above should have been sufficient in an of itself to vacate the convictions, I've read enough of the pleadings and the law to realize that's not what's going to happen in the courtroom.
1. Jessie's Rule 37 is 100% valid (reviewing false confessions, etc); it's also not going to fly. Although it makes a few good points about physical evidence, it's in essence a rehash of the arguments Stidham presented at trial. I think his counsel gave it the best shot possible, but a rule 37 isn't a retrial, it's an opportunity to show constitutional error in the process.
2. Damien's DNA motion. The state has argued that the fact that testing showed very little, nothing from defendants and items from Hobbs that could be innocent transfer. It argues that there's no "silver bullet" (their phrase) that warrants overturning the convictions. Riordan's response, that even if not enough to declare them innocent and end this, there's enough to vacate the convictions and order a new trial, carries weight with me, but I don't think it'll sway Burnett. He'll rule that, as a matter of law, the remaining evidence (softball girls crap, Jessie's statements [admissible here], Carson statements) is such that Damien hasn't shown "no reasonable juror would convict on a retrial."
Damien's juror misconduct / Kent Arnold claims aren't procedurally before Burnett; the only thing that is is "new scientific evidence." Damien raised juror misconduct on direct appeal and in his Rule 37 - the issue is "over" as to him and has been for at least six years.
That would be the end of the story in state court - the hope would be on federal habeas, except....
3. Jason's Rule 37. It raises juror misconduct and (paragraph 300ish) specifically references the "sealed affidavit." I have thought and thought and cannot find a way for Burnett to credibly deny that this warrants a hearing. The strongest argument against it would be that if he's already ruled Damien's claims as to jury misconduct didn't warrant reversal, he by implication ruled that Jason has no claim. I don't think that would fly even in the AR state court... Burnett could have ordered that the Rule 37's be consolidated at least as to this point and permitted Jason to participate years ago - he didn't. Even if it in effect gives Damien a second bite at the Rule 37 issue (since vacating Jason's conviction would mean vacating Damien's as well), he's got to consider it.
Now, the facts have to be developed - the affidavit unsealed and testimony taken (at least from Arnold and probably from other jurors), but unless Riordan is seriously mis-stating what's in the affidavit (which I doubt), it's way, way over the standard of what's required under both AR law and federal law to invalidate the convictions and order a new trial. And that's where the DNA, the Hutchinson recantation, the animal predation and everything else comes in. Competently tried before a fair jury, they'll be acquitted.
So, my wager is Burnett is going to deny Jessie's Rule 37 and Damien's DNA motion without much of a hearing, if any. How he'll handle Jason's rule
37 is the question.
Either as a result of Burnett being backed into a corner not even he can wiggle out of with the misconduct issue or (add a year) as a result of Damien's habeas, the writing is on the wall as to the convictions being toast.
- Dave
David Perry Davis, Esq.
http://www.dpdlaw.com/jmstatements.htm
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of David Perry Davis
----------------------------------------------------
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
http://rugsville.yuku.com/topic/1094
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11978
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obscuregawdess
Posted:
Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Video of News
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Look at the poll at the end of the broadcast. Thats the highest we have ever had in Arkansas people being positive about the mistreatment of the WM3. ! yes.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
..TR> 6:50-More Developments in West Memphis 3 Case
Reported by: Cecillea Pond-Mayo, KARK 4 News
Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 @06:49pm CST
The wife of one of the defendants in the West Memphis 3 case tells KARK there is another piece of evidence which she says should call for a new trial.
Lorri Davis, who is married to Damien Echols, claims an Arkansas attorney is quoted in a sealed affidavit as saying he had conversations with a member of the jury in Echols and Jason Baldwin's 1994 trial.
Echols, Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley were convicted of killing 3 eight year old boys in West Memphis.
Misskelley confessed to the crime, but later recanted. His confession was not allowed to be presented in the trial against Echols and Baldwin. Now Davis claims they have proof that jurors were discussing the confession during deliberations.
"We have proof from their notes, that they used the Misskelley confession to convict," said Davis.
http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/news/?cid=111541
To see video: http://arkansasmatters.com/media_player.php?media_id=105571
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=91005397&blogID=432279372&Mytoken=C3E8BF5F-555C-4ABA-8CA9EADA2454298354638689
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11978
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obscuregawdess
Posted:
Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:21 pm |
|
|
|
WM3 slam of Jonesboro judge
Sunday, September 14, 2008
WM3 slam of Jonesboro judge
For Immediate Release..:
Supporters Call Judges Ruling a "Mockery"
As the Plot Thickens in the case of the West Memphis Three
September 12, 2008: Little Rock, AR — Following a ruling Wednesday that no new evidence would be heard in the case of the West Memphis Three, supporters of the three men maintain vehement opposition to what they call the "mockery" being made of the Arkansas legal system in this case.
"Judge [David] Burnett's order yesterday denying Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin a new trial, based on DNA findings, was more than just another injustice in the long and tragic history of this case; it blatantly disregarded the statute that our Legislature enacted in 2001 to ensure that citizens are not executed or imprisoned when new scientific evidence demonstrates that they are innocent," said Capi Peck, activist for the release of the West Memphis Three.
According to Arkansas Take Action, a non-profit organization formed to seek justice for three men convicted of the triple homicide of three young boys in 1993, the 2001 statute requires a judge to weigh all evidence regarding guilt or innocence. The statute expressly orders that a judge will consider new items of evidence not presented at the original trial to determine whether a jury of peers would now acquit a defendant. If Burnett had allowed it, the court would have heard a multitude of evidence, including the following:
1. that none of the collected DNA matched any of the defendants, but DNA evidence points to another suspect, Terry Hobbs (stepfather of one of the victims);
2. that witnesses placed Echols at his residence on the phone several miles away from the crime scene;
3. that the wounds the prosecution claimed were inflicted in a satanic ritual by a survival knife found near Baldwin's house were shown by forensic pathologists to be the result of post-mortem animal predation;
4. that the state's Satanic expert was a fraud, having obtained his Ph.D. through a now-defunct mail-order college, and later having written a book claiming that two girls were abducted by aliens but recalled nothing of the encounter until he, Dale Griffis, was able to extract the information through hypnosis; and,
5. that a key prosecution witness, Anthony Hollingsworth, who testified to seeing Echols near the crime scene, had conspicuous motive to lie to prosecutors. Not only was he on probation for sexually assaulting his sister at the time of his testimony, but also recent child rape charges against him were dismissed by one of the prosecutors in the case.
In addition, ATA co-chair Capi Peck said, "the notion that Echols', Misskelley's, and Baldwin's guilt was determined by facts presented from the witness stand at trial is preposterous in light of what has been revealed as jury misconduct." A sworn affidavit from a Little Rock attorney, hired on an unrelated matter in 1994 by original Echols-Baldwin trial jury foreman Kent Arnold, outlines the misconduct in explicit detail.
According to the affidavit, still under seal, Arnold admitted that he had:
1. misled the court about his opinions in order to secure his selection as a jury member;
2. prejudged the defendants' guilt;
3. used a statement from Jessie Misskelley from a separate trial in the case to sway the jury to return a guilty verdict. (This despite the fact that Arnold told the Little Rock lawyer the prosecution had not proved its case and that the Misskelley statement was all they would have to go on).
Misskelley's statement was inadmissible in the Echols-Baldwin trial, as Misskelley had recanted and refused to testify against the other two men. The jury's consideration of it, from what had been gleaned from news sources, and the prosecution's "slip" in referring to it during arguments was a clear violation of the defendants' sixth amendment rights.
"By refusing to hear the evidence not presented at the first trial, Judge Burnett has evaded, but cannot suppress, a simple truth," Peck said. "Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin would surely be acquitted of these charges if they were tried today.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=41045221&blogID=432558090&Mytoken=72D30DE3-9EC8-4A1C-886AF56A731BE2AB13073465
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11978
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:35 am |
|
|
|
I voted undecided. As horrible and tragic as it is that the WM3 did not receive fair trials, I'm not sure the state appeals were well-grounded in law or fact.
I think the federal courts have every reason to throw out the convictions of all three, and hope it happens asap. I think the case was an outrageous miscarriage of justice. It's about goddamn time all three are released from prison. The federal appeal should emphasize the totality of the cases all together. There is ample evidence to support the claim that all three convictions should be immediately thrown out.
I believe the Justice Department should launch an immediate investigation into corruption of the judicial system in Arkansas. I believe if Obama is elected that will happen and if McCain is elected it might not. This is the single most outrageous miscarriage of criminal justice I've seen in my lifetime, the sole exception being innocence project cases that reverse death row convictions. Am I surprised by Burnett's decision? No. He and his cronies have a lot at stake in pretending justice was impartial. It was not. Some do not want any investigation of this case, as they might very well wind up disgraced, disbarred, impeached and yes, in jail.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16089
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obscuregawdess
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:14 am |
|
|
|
EXCELLENT post, Pax! I agree with everything you said.
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11978
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
�
Jasidogdotcom template v.1.0.4 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2004 phpBB Group
|
