Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
I simply don't understand how there can be a time limit on revealing juror misconduct in a CAPITAL case!
I agree, Nova, but that was one of the considerations that Judge Burnett based his ruling on at the time. However, I'm of the opinion that, since there's no statute of limitations on charging someone with murder, then there should be no statute of limitations on the presentation of evidence to overturn a convicted murderer's conviction, especially when the sentence is death. I'm very familiar with the term "getting off on a technicality" but, in this case, they're not asking that the WM3 be freed on the jury misconduct issue alone but only that a new trial should have been granted on the issue many years ago. IMO, this is just another of many examples of the mishandling of this case.
Now, before all you nons start yelling about finality, this situation doesn't happen all the time. Like I Must Break You was saying, there are plenty of cases where the guilt is obvious to any astute person. However, in a case like the WM3, when there are still so many lingering questions as to the guilt of the convicted in many people's minds, finality should be suspended until all questions are answered. Remember, in this case, you can't release Damien after he's executed. I would think that any sane and rational person would want to be as sure as possible (the law says beyond a reasonable doubt, and I simply don't believe that standard has been met here) of guilt before executing someone. Execution can't be "corrected" later if additional information is obtained that further proves innocence.