986 users online (168 members and 818 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39
  1. #1

    Evidentiary Hearings Ordered for All Three Defendants

    The ASSC has ruled on Damien's appeal and the Rule 37 Hearings for Jessie and Jason. Evidentiary hearings have been ordered for all three. Here's the link to Damien's opinion. The site is so swamped that it will take some time to get the others.

    http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/Web...lectronic.aspx

  2. #2
    Here are the other two opinions:

    Jason:

    http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/Web...lectronic.aspx

    Jessie:

    http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/Web...lectronic.aspx

    Now we wait until the new hearings are scheduled by the new judge.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    Isn't it amazing?!?!?!

  4. #4
    What I found amazing was, well two things: the oral arguments were for Damien's trial, and both Jessie's and Jason's trials were also "reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing" and the number of times the Justices pointed out where the trial court was wrong.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    What I found amazing was, well two things: the oral arguments were for Damien's trial, and both Jessie's and Jason's trials were also "reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing" and the number of times the Justices pointed out where the trial court was wrong.
    I know reader...so awesome. So much for "the courts ruled this and that"!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    45
    I am so thankful that David Burnett is off the case and it will be reassigned to another judge!!! I really believe this is the beginning of the end!! Free the West Memphis Three.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SoCal LB area
    Posts
    4,748
    I'm glad to hear this news. It's a good day for lady justice. Let the chips fall where they may - at least the new hearings will give people a chance to weed out the bias, misconduct etc. and if the prosecution has new evidence bring it! I just want to know who is REALLY responsible for killing these three little boys.
    __________________
    Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    45
    How long do you think it will take for the judge to have the hearings? I hope that it happens soon...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SoCal LB area
    Posts
    4,748
    Not done reading the entire thing but this stood out to me.

    From the Arkansas Supreme Court decision today regarding interpretation of the statute and the DNA results “…In addition, the term “inconclusive” in section 208(b) is not ambiguous. When read with the rest of section 19-112-208, it is evident that it refers to DNA test results that are scientifically inconclusive, not results that are legally inconclusive.”

    So, the circuit court’s reasoning was that the DNA results were inconclusive because they did not raise a reasonable probability that Damien did not commit the offenses and therefore inconclusive as to his actual innocence and that was the basis for their denials and the stone-walling. That should outrage the people of Arkansas. What if it were you? Would you like the court finding a way to interpret very plain meaning language in a convoluted way so as to keep your heiny in prison?

    It reminds me of reading very complex Contract cases in our text books…seems like the judge pretty much figured out who was right and who was wrong and then just figured out how to apply the rule of law to, as Tim Gunn would say, “make it work”! My contracts professor who is a seated judge pretty much confirmed that is what sometimes happens. Here a man’s life is at stake so this approach is repulsive.

    The court “interpreted” this language the way that they could in order to deny Echols. Here The Supreme Court didn’t have that much trouble figuring out what the language of the statute had to say and what it meant.

    I find it quite odd that some would use that erroneous circuit court decision as back up to their theory as though it were somehow unmistakably correct, even after claiming they had read everything in the case without questioning that even just a little. I wish I had had a chance to seriously read everything, but I’ve only just started following this in the last few months.
    __________________
    Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SoCal LB area
    Posts
    4,748
    Wow this is a huge deal in this case but all I hear over here is the sound of silence. What's up with that?
    __________________
    Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    Lol sorry ziggy....homework, projects, u know the good stuff! And I think I am in shock lol....I agree with ur post above...there were many surprises in their opinions!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    488
    This is a big development! It isn't a get out of jail free card (for lack of a better phrase), but it is a major step in the right direction.

  13. #13
    It's especially great because we were just expecting a ruling on Damien's case and all three got reversed and remanded. As I read the opinions, one thing that struck me was the number of times the ASSC pointed out the errors the trial court made. With the trial court judge running (unopposed as it turns out) for State Senate and the AG running for reelection, it's little wonder that the decision was delayed until the Thursday after the election. Anybody still believe that politics weren't involved?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    Not done reading the entire thing but this stood out to me.

    From the Arkansas Supreme Court decision today regarding interpretation of the statute and the DNA results “…In addition, the term “inconclusive” in section 208(b) is not ambiguous. When read with the rest of section 19-112-208, it is evident that it refers to DNA test results that are scientifically inconclusive, not results that are legally inconclusive.”

    So, the circuit court’s reasoning was that the DNA results were inconclusive because they did not raise a reasonable probability that Damien did not commit the offenses and therefore inconclusive as to his actual innocence and that was the basis for their denials and the stone-walling. That should outrage the people of Arkansas. What if it were you? Would you like the court finding a way to interpret very plain meaning language in a convoluted way so as to keep your heiny in prison?

    It reminds me of reading very complex Contract cases in our text books…seems like the judge pretty much figured out who was right and who was wrong and then just figured out how to apply the rule of law to, as Tim Gunn would say, “make it work”! My contracts professor who is a seated judge pretty much confirmed that is what sometimes happens. Here a man’s life is at stake so this approach is repulsive.

    The court “interpreted” this language the way that they could in order to deny Echols. Here The Supreme Court didn’t have that much trouble figuring out what the language of the statute had to say and what it meant.

    I find it quite odd that some would use that erroneous circuit court decision as back up to their theory as though it were somehow unmistakably correct, even after claiming they had read everything in the case without questioning that even just a little. I wish I had had a chance to seriously read everything, but I’ve only just started following this in the last few months.
    ziggy, I'm sorry to report that my close friend the appellate attorney (juvenile court in CA) reports that appeals courts manipulate the law like that all the time. And almost always to uphold a shaky verdict and deny a defendant due process.

    Appellate defense lawyers really are the Don Quixotes of our legal system. God bless them!

    Looks like maybe this time, at least for the moment, the windmills lost.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    Wow this is a huge deal in this case but all I hear over here is the sound of silence. What's up with that?
    It only seems silent because you can't hear the whooping and hollering at my house!

    And the crying, because I may have to take back all my snarky comments about Arkansas and "hillbilly justice." Of course, time will tell on that.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Proposed Settlement with Defendants
    By STEADFAST in forum Phoebe Prince
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-07-2014, 11:55 AM
  2. Replies: 577
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 11:48 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2011, 04:28 PM
  4. How to Build an Evidentiary Timeline and Sample
    By ChaCha in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2009, 01:35 PM

Tags for this Thread