MO - Samara Kitts, 23, Harley, 24, & Willa Million, 1, slain, Wayne Co., 25 Jan 2018
- Thread starter JoeFromLB
- Start date
New Posts
-
Still Missing OH - Glenna White, 16, Alliance, 2 June 2009 *endangered* *Mistrial*
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
06/25/2018 Motion for Disclosure
Request for Penalty Phase Disclosure; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. sns
Filed By: KEVIN MICHAEL ZOELLNER
Notice
Notice of Evidence in Aggravation and Supplemental Disclosure Pursuant to Section 565005 RSMo; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. Forwarded to Div I queue for Judge's review. sns
Filed By: KEVIN MICHAEL ZOELLNER
Notice
States Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. Forwarded to Div I queue for Judge's review. sns
Filed By: KEVIN MICHAEL ZOELLNER
per casenet.mo
Request for Penalty Phase Disclosure; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. sns
Filed By: KEVIN MICHAEL ZOELLNER
Notice
Notice of Evidence in Aggravation and Supplemental Disclosure Pursuant to Section 565005 RSMo; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. Forwarded to Div I queue for Judge's review. sns
Filed By: KEVIN MICHAEL ZOELLNER
Notice
States Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. Forwarded to Div I queue for Judge's review. sns
Filed By: KEVIN MICHAEL ZOELLNER
per casenet.mo
The initial Public Defender has requested to be withdrawn, only to leave DP qualified defense counsel.
08/21/2018 Motion to Withdraw
Motion to Withdraw; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: JORDAN MICHAEL CANTONI
On Behalf Of: DREW D ATCHISON
08/21/2018 Motion to Withdraw
Motion to Withdraw; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: JORDAN MICHAEL CANTONI
On Behalf Of: DREW D ATCHISON
Does anybody know what this means as to this particular case? Does it mean he wants the trial to get done and overwith?
10/24/2018 Suggestions Filed
Suggestions in Opposition to Defendants Request to EX Parte the Trail Court; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. sns
Filed By: KEVIN MICHAEL ZOELLNER
10/23/2018 Mot to Adjust Court Proceed
accuseds motion to proceed ex parte in accordance with Ake v Oklahoma; proposed order allowing the accused to proceed ex parte when deemed appropriate by the Court; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. Forwarded to Div I queue for Judge's review. sns
Filed By: CHARLES DOUGLAS MORELAND
10/24/2018 Suggestions Filed
Suggestions in Opposition to Defendants Request to EX Parte the Trail Court; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. sns
Filed By: KEVIN MICHAEL ZOELLNER
10/23/2018 Mot to Adjust Court Proceed
accuseds motion to proceed ex parte in accordance with Ake v Oklahoma; proposed order allowing the accused to proceed ex parte when deemed appropriate by the Court; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. Forwarded to Div I queue for Judge's review. sns
Filed By: CHARLES DOUGLAS MORELAND
mickey2942
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 13,908
- Reaction score
- 132,578
What is the world coming to...killing a family, a baby, is this a product of our society becoming more immune to violence?
Counsel Status Hrng Scheduled
Scheduled For: 01/03/2019; 11:00 AM ; JON EDWARD BEETEM; Cole Circuit
I am stumped as to the ex-parte the defendant has filed to the Court. BTW his Jury trial scheduled for June 1, 2020 will be held in the same Court as the defendant in the Darnell Gray case, unless she files for a change of venue.
Scheduled For: 01/03/2019; 11:00 AM ; JON EDWARD BEETEM; Cole Circuit
I am stumped as to the ex-parte the defendant has filed to the Court. BTW his Jury trial scheduled for June 1, 2020 will be held in the same Court as the defendant in the Darnell Gray case, unless she files for a change of venue.
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 83,992
- Reaction score
- 280,084
jggordo - here's what I found when I googled....
U.S. Supreme Court
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)
Ake v. Oklahoma
No. 83-5424
Argued November 7, 1984
Decided February 26, 1986
470 U.S. 68
Syllabus
Petitioner, an indigent, was charged with first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill. At his arraignment in an Oklahoma trial court, his behavior was so bizarre that the trial judge, sua sponte, ordered him to be examined by a psychiatrist. Shortly thereafter, the examining psychiatrist found petitioner to be incompetent to stand trial, and suggested that he be committed. But six weeks later, after being committed to the state mental hospital, petitioner was found to be competent on the condition that he continue to be sedated within an antipsychotic drug. The State then resumed proceedings, and, at a pretrial conference, petitioner's attorney informed the court that he would raise an insanity defense, and requested a psychiatric evaluation at state expense to determine petitioner's mental state at the time of the offense, claiming that he was entitled to such an evaluation by the Federal Constitution. On the basis of United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U. S. 561, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for such an evaluation. At the guilt phase of the ensuing trial, the examining psychiatrists testified that petitioner was dangerous to society, but there was no testimony as to his sanity at the time of the offense. The jury rejected the insanity defense, and petitioner was convicted on all counts. At the sentencing proceeding, the State asked for the death penalty on the murder counts, relying on the examining psychiatrists' testimony to establish the likelihood of petitioner's future dangerous behavior. Petitioner had no expert witness to rebut this testimony or to give evidence in mitigation of his punishment, and he was sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. After rejecting, on the merits, petitioner's federal constitutional claim that, as an indigent defendant, he should have been provided the services of a court-appointed psychiatrist, the court ruled that petitioner had waived such claim by not repeating his request for a psychiatrist in his motion for a new trial.
and thanks for the court date!
U.S. Supreme Court
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)
Ake v. Oklahoma
No. 83-5424
Argued November 7, 1984
Decided February 26, 1986
470 U.S. 68
Syllabus
Petitioner, an indigent, was charged with first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill. At his arraignment in an Oklahoma trial court, his behavior was so bizarre that the trial judge, sua sponte, ordered him to be examined by a psychiatrist. Shortly thereafter, the examining psychiatrist found petitioner to be incompetent to stand trial, and suggested that he be committed. But six weeks later, after being committed to the state mental hospital, petitioner was found to be competent on the condition that he continue to be sedated within an antipsychotic drug. The State then resumed proceedings, and, at a pretrial conference, petitioner's attorney informed the court that he would raise an insanity defense, and requested a psychiatric evaluation at state expense to determine petitioner's mental state at the time of the offense, claiming that he was entitled to such an evaluation by the Federal Constitution. On the basis of United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U. S. 561, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for such an evaluation. At the guilt phase of the ensuing trial, the examining psychiatrists testified that petitioner was dangerous to society, but there was no testimony as to his sanity at the time of the offense. The jury rejected the insanity defense, and petitioner was convicted on all counts. At the sentencing proceeding, the State asked for the death penalty on the murder counts, relying on the examining psychiatrists' testimony to establish the likelihood of petitioner's future dangerous behavior. Petitioner had no expert witness to rebut this testimony or to give evidence in mitigation of his punishment, and he was sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. After rejecting, on the merits, petitioner's federal constitutional claim that, as an indigent defendant, he should have been provided the services of a court-appointed psychiatrist, the court ruled that petitioner had waived such claim by not repeating his request for a psychiatrist in his motion for a new trial.
and thanks for the court date!
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 83,992
- Reaction score
- 280,084
jggordo - here's what I found when I googled....
U.S. Supreme Court
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)
Ake v. Oklahoma
No. 83-5424
Argued November 7, 1984
Decided February 26, 1986
470 U.S. 68
Syllabus
Petitioner, an indigent, was charged with first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill. At his arraignment in an Oklahoma trial court, his behavior was so bizarre that the trial judge, sua sponte, ordered him to be examined by a psychiatrist. Shortly thereafter, the examining psychiatrist found petitioner to be incompetent to stand trial, and suggested that he be committed. But six weeks later, after being committed to the state mental hospital, petitioner was found to be competent on the condition that he continue to be sedated within an antipsychotic drug. The State then resumed proceedings, and, at a pretrial conference, petitioner's attorney informed the court that he would raise an insanity defense, and requested a psychiatric evaluation at state expense to determine petitioner's mental state at the time of the offense, claiming that he was entitled to such an evaluation by the Federal Constitution. On the basis of United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U. S. 561, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for such an evaluation. At the guilt phase of the ensuing trial, the examining psychiatrists testified that petitioner was dangerous to society, but there was no testimony as to his sanity at the time of the offense. The jury rejected the insanity defense, and petitioner was convicted on all counts. At the sentencing proceeding, the State asked for the death penalty on the murder counts, relying on the examining psychiatrists' testimony to establish the likelihood of petitioner's future dangerous behavior. Petitioner had no expert witness to rebut this testimony or to give evidence in mitigation of his punishment, and he was sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. After rejecting, on the merits, petitioner's federal constitutional claim that, as an indigent defendant, he should have been provided the services of a court-appointed psychiatrist, the court ruled that petitioner had waived such claim by not repeating his request for a psychiatrist in his motion for a new trial.
and thanks for the court date!
U.S. Supreme Court
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)
Ake v. Oklahoma
No. 83-5424
Argued November 7, 1984
Decided February 26, 1986
470 U.S. 68
Syllabus
Petitioner, an indigent, was charged with first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill. At his arraignment in an Oklahoma trial court, his behavior was so bizarre that the trial judge, sua sponte, ordered him to be examined by a psychiatrist. Shortly thereafter, the examining psychiatrist found petitioner to be incompetent to stand trial, and suggested that he be committed. But six weeks later, after being committed to the state mental hospital, petitioner was found to be competent on the condition that he continue to be sedated within an antipsychotic drug. The State then resumed proceedings, and, at a pretrial conference, petitioner's attorney informed the court that he would raise an insanity defense, and requested a psychiatric evaluation at state expense to determine petitioner's mental state at the time of the offense, claiming that he was entitled to such an evaluation by the Federal Constitution. On the basis of United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U. S. 561, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for such an evaluation. At the guilt phase of the ensuing trial, the examining psychiatrists testified that petitioner was dangerous to society, but there was no testimony as to his sanity at the time of the offense. The jury rejected the insanity defense, and petitioner was convicted on all counts. At the sentencing proceeding, the State asked for the death penalty on the murder counts, relying on the examining psychiatrists' testimony to establish the likelihood of petitioner's future dangerous behavior. Petitioner had no expert witness to rebut this testimony or to give evidence in mitigation of his punishment, and he was sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. After rejecting, on the merits, petitioner's federal constitutional claim that, as an indigent defendant, he should have been provided the services of a court-appointed psychiatrist, the court ruled that petitioner had waived such claim by not repeating his request for a psychiatrist in his motion for a new trial.
and thanks for the court date!
ElementalLaura
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,324
- Reaction score
- 5,947
From the link:
24-year-old Drew Atchison will go to trial June 1st of 2020 with a counsel status hearing set for January 3rd of 2019.
The State is seeking the death penalty against Atchison.
He faces three counts of first degree murder, three counts of armed criminal action, two counts of child kidnapping and tampering with a vehicle.
—-
24-year-old Drew Atchison will go to trial June 1st of 2020 with a counsel status hearing set for January 3rd of 2019.
The State is seeking the death penalty against Atchison.
He faces three counts of first degree murder, three counts of armed criminal action, two counts of child kidnapping and tampering with a vehicle.
—-
JON EDWARD BEETEM 11:00 AM 1 OF 1 Counsel Status Hearing
Event Text: Location: DIVISION 1 COURTROOM Cole Circuit
Address: 301 E HIGH JEFFERSON CITY MO
January 3, 2019 11:00 AM
Per Docket Entries and Schedule Casenet.MO
Event Text: Location: DIVISION 1 COURTROOM Cole Circuit
Address: 301 E HIGH JEFFERSON CITY MO
January 3, 2019 11:00 AM
Per Docket Entries and Schedule Casenet.MO
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 83,992
- Reaction score
- 280,084
JimmyPerez
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2017
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 909
Hi jggordo and Niner. Happy New Year to both of you.
Attached are both sides' Ake filings, and the Judge's initial ruling on the motion. It's pretty self-explanatory when you read through them (though impossible to figure out solely from the Casenet entries!). Basically, the defense wants to stretch Ake as far as possible to get resources for their client, while the prosecution wants it interpreted as narrowly as possible, and the Judge seems to have taken a sensible middle of the road approach.
I should get auto-updates on any new filings in this case now and will pop in to update as I get them.
Attached are both sides' Ake filings, and the Judge's initial ruling on the motion. It's pretty self-explanatory when you read through them (though impossible to figure out solely from the Casenet entries!). Basically, the defense wants to stretch Ake as far as possible to get resources for their client, while the prosecution wants it interpreted as narrowly as possible, and the Judge seems to have taken a sensible middle of the road approach.
I should get auto-updates on any new filings in this case now and will pop in to update as I get them.
Thank You Niner and Jimmy Perez, and Happy New Year to both of you! I don't know if it is just my imagination or not but it seems there is little to no regard to killing children these days. In this particular case the confession as to how he killed this 16 month old baby has given me chills that I still cannot shake! To claim mental illness to me is the same as admitting Rabid Dog Syndrome and the need to be "put down".
JMO
DNASolves
Staff online
-
CarlK90245UID Moderator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 179
- Guests online
- 3,655
- Total visitors
- 3,834