Yes I'd like to see quotations of the rulings you allude to, also an explanation of how you've determined that those rulings were made "to benefit the State and to hamstring the defense" rather than in adherence to established standards of admissibility. Of course you've no obligation to provide anything of the sort, but that's what is needed to substantiate your claim of bias in Burnett's rulings regarding witness testimony.
Read
Ofshe's testimony in the Misskelley trial. If you pay special attention to the bench conferences, you will see that the judge eventually bases his opinion to not allow Ofshe to testify as to the coerced and involuntary nature of Misskelley's statement on the fact that Ofshe's testimony will contradict the judge's own opinion. That is not basing a ruling on law but on a feeling that his (the judge's) opinion is not being accepted without questioning. This is only one example.
You may disagree, but that's the trouble with this case. Those who have followed it for years disagree on what the trial proved or didn't prove. Simply saying that "the jury found them guilty" is unacceptable. Juries make mistakes. Judges make mistakes and get petty - usually when their opinion is questioned, which is what happened here.
Since Stidham stated, initially, that the defense would be that Jessie wasn't there and that his initial statement was "coerced and involuntary," Burnett's rulings on Ofshe's testimony
did hamstring the defense. (See the
October 19, 1993 pre-trial hearing for Stidham's statement of initial defense.) By not allowing Ofshe to testify as to the nature of the "confession," Jessie was denied his Constitutional right, under the Sixth Amendment, to a fair trial.
Reading the pre-trial hearings on both trials leads me to believe that Burnett, Davis, Fogleman, (and probably most of the State of Arkansas back in 1994) had the preconceived idea that the three were guilty, which is totally out of keeping with their right to be presumed innocent guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. When
The Commercial Appeal printed Jessie's statement before the trial had begun, his right (and, by association, the rights of the other two) to both a fair trial and the presumption of innocence were seriously infringed.
Now, one might opine that the attorneys should have complained at the time. However, they were all so inexperienced that they simply didn't know how to proceed. Also, in some cases, they
did complain, but Burnett simply overruled their objections and continued to lean toward the State, thus ensuring the convictions.
IMO, one of the main reasons that the three were found guilty was the inexperience of their initial attorneys. Then, this was exacerbated by Burnett's refusal to recuse himself at the Rule 37 hearings. I believe it is very interesting that the first time a judge (other than Burnett) heard evidence in a Circuit court the judge (Laser) was much more sympathetic to the three. IMO, had Burnett been on the bench on August 19, 2011, the three would still be imprisoned, albeit falsely. I seriously doubt that Burnett would have allowed the Alford pleas at all!