Improper rullings by Burnett regarding witnesses?

[reedus23]

1/26/94

Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert During Testimony
Denied
Pro-Defendant
Sound

There were no other rulings from the Court during openings or questioning of witnesses until Mike Allen.

Motion to Exclude Photos
Denied
Pro-State
Court's discretion though my experience has been that it is unusual for the Court to accept all of them into evidence as they do inflame the jury and are duplicitous.

No more rulings from the Court during Ridge's or Griffin's testimony.

1/27/94

Motion to Exclude Photos
Denied with the exception of a few photographs.
Pro-State
Again, Court's discretion but attorneys learn to offer 20 in the hopes of getting 10 in. In this case, they percent admitted was much higher.

Motion to Exclude Knife and Hair
Denied
Pro-State
Personally believe this is a very questionable ruling, however I also understand there are arguments to the contrary.

Motion to Exclude Echol's Statements
Passed at this time.

Motion to Use Polygraph Results
Ruling: Can introduce evidence that Jessie was told he flunked the exam but could not introduce evidence that he did not, in fact, flunk the exam.
Pro-State
I'll see what I can find on the state of Arkansas law before saying it was sound or not. What I can say without seeing the law is that this ruling absolutely hamstrings the defense. They were put in a position of "You can tell them the good parts, but you can't tell them the good parts." Effectively eliminating an argument on how Jessie was "coerced".

 

[missy_g]

This is my opinion...

After reading many threads over a long period of time (give or take a few years) I have come to the realization that nons will ask for evidence then ignore said evidence once produced. They then will criticize and offer no input whatsoever (or evidence of their own) and will fail to answer simple questions.

Like I said, this is my opinion only.

I guess you didn't read this.

For your information I looked at all your posts and threads and unless I missed one, you have never provided an idea of what happened that night.

I'm moving on because obviously non supporters have a hard time answering simple questions.

If I made a separate thread asking everyone what they thought happened that night, it would be full of Nons quoting that untying the knot book that is full of opinions and no sources or the wm3truth website that sources the books.

Sorry to go off topic but it seems like most of the threads here do that anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[kyleb]

You must have missed this above so I will provide it again.

Rather, I'm interested in seeing a quote of the ruling regarding Ofshe's testamentary which CR keeps alluding to, not a quote of yourself making an argument which I've already addressed in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9917384&postcount=6"]this post[/ame].

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I guess you didn't read this.

For your information I looked at all your posts and threads and unless I missed one, you have never provided an idea of what happened that night.

I'm moving on because obviously non supporters have a hard time answering simple questions.

If I made a separate thread asking everyone what they thought happened that night, it would be full of Nons quoting that untying the knot book that is full of opinions and no sources or the wm3truth website that sources the books.

Sorry to go off topic but it seems like most of the threads here do that anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I don't think so. You haven't spent much time researching much of anything. Besides that why did the three child murderers plea guilty? And now that they are out where is the evidence they promised? I guess they are still trying to get money from supporters.

 

[missy_g]

I think you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about or asking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Compassionate Reader]

From Ofshe's testimony to which I previously provided a link, during one of the Bench Conferences (which, I am sure you know, are outside the hearing of the jury):

THE COURT: Don't even try to ask him whether or not he has an opinion whether the confession was true or false, because I'm ruling that he cannot do that.

Here Burnett has ruled that Ofshe cannot state his opinion that Jessie's statement was a false confession. Again, as I linked previously, the initial position of the defense was that Jessie wasn't present at the murders and that his statement was coerced and false. So, as I stated previously, this ruling hamstrings the defense and is a violation of Jessie's right to a fair trial.

 

[reedus23]

I don't think so. You haven't spent much time researching much of anything. Besides that why did the three child murderers plea guilty? And now that they are out where is the evidence they promised? I guess they are still trying to get money from supporters.

Dang. More personal attacks? Why the need?

And you can't seriously be asking why they entered the Alford Pleas. :banghead:

 

[kyleb]

From Ofshe's testimony to which I previously provided a link, during one of the Bench Conferences (which, I am sure you know, are outside the hearing of the jury):

THE COURT: Don't even try to ask him whether or not he has an opinion whether the confession was true or false, because I'm ruling that he cannot do that.

Sure, and after further testimony Burnett went on to elaborate:

You can ask him to talk about the facts and circumstances, the conditions that he observed and that he saw these factors for what the police did, that they -- that they're suggestive techniques. Those are the kinds of things I'm going to allow him to testify to. But I'm not going to allow him to give that ultimate opinion, an I know what the rules say, and I'm saying that our Court will adopt the modification that the federal court made, and that you're trying to get this witness to supplant the Jury and to become the jury on that issue. I'm not going to allow it.

And later in the testmony Burnnet went on to cite the Federal Rules of Evidence (Article VII):

Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

(b) No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.

Given those rules of evidence, I'm at a loss as to how any judge could rightly allow an expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant to state their opinion as to whether or not a confession is true or false. Can you cite any legal precedent to support your claim that disallowing such testimony violates the right to a fair trial, or even prior example of such an argument being made, or is your claim that the ruling you quoted from Burnett demonstrates bias simply an opinion you claim up with on your own?

 

[reedus23]

Can you cite any legal precedent

93 F.3d 1337(actually involves Ofshe)
825 So. 2d 418
1998 WL 879723
2002 WL 392191
770 N.E.2d at 773-74
415 N.W.2d at 668-69
572 N.W.2d at 73
557 S.E.2d at 208

Haven't read them all but that should be a start.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

93 F.3d 1337(actually involves Ofshe)
825 So. 2d 418
1998 WL 879723
2002 WL 392191
770 N.E.2d at 773-74
415 N.W.2d at 668-69
572 N.W.2d at 73
557 S.E.2d at 208

Haven't read them all but that should be a start.

Clicking "Thanks" wasn't enough. Thank you for your list of precedents. I trust that this issue is now settled.

 

[kyleb]

If you found any actual precedent to support you claim in the cases Reedus listed or otherwise, then please cite it here.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If you found any actual precedent to support you claim in the cases Reedus listed or otherwise, then please cite it here.

IMO, no other precedents are necessary. As I said before, I consider this issue to be settled.

 

[kyleb]

Yet in reality no precedent to substantiate your claim has been demonstrated here. Accomplishing that would require actually quoting a ruling which demonstrates what you claim, not simply presenting a list of cases with the inference that such quotes can be found in them.

 

[reedus23]

Yet in reality no precedent to substantiate your claim has been demonstrated here. Accomplishing that would require actually quoting a ruling which demonstrates what you claim, not simply presenting a list of cases with the inference that such quotes can be found in them.

Those that are truly interested can read for themselves. Not going and doing your work for you when it would be meaningless anyways. If I thought for even a brief second you were truly interested in a discussion on it, I might go out of my way.

 

[kyleb]

Nonsense. Substantiating CR's claims of improper rulings by Burnett regarding witnesses is not my work to do, and it's your incessant attempts to bully me into accepting her claims as fact without demonstrating as much which are meaningless here.

 

[reedus23]

Nonsense. Substantiating CR's claims of improper rulings by Burnett regarding witnesses is not my work to do, and it's your incessant attempts to bully me into accepting her claims as fact without demonstrating as much which are meaningless here.

Not trying to bully you into anything. Just the opposite. I realize no matter what is provided you aren't going to change your position so it seems rather pointless. And just to be clear, it is absolutely your right to keep your opinion. I'm not trying to get you to change it much less bullying you to try. I simply spent way to much time trying to summarize each and every ruling and realized it was too much work for too little purpose. I also went out of my way to provide cases and again spent way too much time for too little purpose. Not sure how providing information, even if it's not the information you want is considered bullying but ok. You're right and you win. I'm moving on.

 

[kyleb]

Well to get back to the topic of the thread, here's CR's claim again:

From Ofshe's testimony to which I previously provided a link, during one of the Bench Conferences (which, I am sure you know, are outside the hearing of the jury):

THE COURT: Don't even try to ask him whether or not he has an opinion whether the confession was true or false, because I'm ruling that he cannot do that.

Here Burnett has ruled that Ofshe cannot state his opinion that Jessie's statement was a false confession. Again, as I linked previously, the initial position of the defense was that Jessie wasn't present at the murders and that his statement was coerced and false. So, as I stated previously, this ruling hamstrings the defense and is a violation of Jessie's right to a fair trial.

And again, if anyone has found any actual precedent to support CR's claim in the cases Reedus listed or otherwise, please cite it here.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

And again, if anyone has found any actual precedent to support CR's claim in the cases Reedus listed or otherwise, please cite it here.

And again, the cases reedus23 cited offer such precedents. If you don't accept these precedents, I'm sorry. We are going in circles here. Please move on.

 

[kyleb]

Reedus hasn't cited anything thread, let alone any precedent to back your claim that restricting Ofshe from stating his opinion on the ultimate matter of whether the confession was true or false violated Misskelley's right to a fair trial. So again, if you can quote any actual precedent to support you claim, from cases Reedus listed or otherwise, then have out with it already. If you can't do so, please fess up to as much and move on, as three weeks of tap dancing around doing either have been absurd.

 

[Kimster]

:modstop:


Discuss the case and not each other!