Possible results of the appeal (re: writ, et al)

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[dharpernyc]

Good afternoon, all - for those to whom my name is new, nice to meet you. I am always greatful in advance for your consideration of my posts.

To help clarify things in my mind, could someone tackle the "for real I know it for sure" answer to just how separate and/or together are the Echols and Baldwin decisions. Those who read other boards will see this was a question I had recently when it seemed that some were under the belief that the success of the current Riordan led charge of the appeal may result in a "new trial" for all three defendants. I immediately rejected this as at least the JM, Jr. trial was a separate event (mathematically speaking) but it did illustrate to me a failure of understanding on my part. In the Venn diagram of the Echols and Baldwin decisions, what is in the overlap?

My armchair quarterback attorney feels that it should be true that there are three separate decisions (guilty) (with three juries, or is that even germaine?) and that the fruits of this linear line of appeal would be only for Echols (notwithstanding any intangible benefits of status, awareness or "good will.") But that's just a feeling. I am not an attorney (nor...play one...tv)

Boiled down, the elements that I'd enjoy clarified...

Who benefits from this appeal? (The writ, et al.) ("Benefits" assuming a positive outcome for the petitioner (? vocab usage)

Two trials: Three juries:  Does that matter? (Is it 3 decisions BECAUSE of 3 juries, or vice versa due to xyz?)

Three separate "appeals" - meaning separate, severed and a whole new roll of the dice for each subsequent defendant regardless the success of the first - yes?

Thanks for any help,

d

[Fwarm]

Who benefits from this appeal? (The writ, et al.) ("Benefits" assuming a positive outcome for the petitioner (? vocab usage)

Damien Echols. Baldwin would benefit secondary perhaps but the WRIT is for Damien Echols he is the petitioner.

Two trials: Three juries:  Does that matter? (Is it 3 decisions BECAUSE of 3 juries, or vice versa due to xyz?)

Two trials Two Juries, Baldwin/Echols and Misskelley. Echols is fighting to stay alive he has many more appeals than non-DP convicts.

Three separate "appeals" - meaning separate, severed and a whole new roll of the dice for each subsequent defendant regardless the success of the first - yes?

Yes each person is granted an appeals process regardless if they were convicted with 100 people they each have their own appeals and their own rights. However one appeal may help another convict convicted of the same crime then again it may not.

Also there could be joint appeals it all depends on strategy and sentence.

[Farm]

Just to add, Echol's and Baldwin are seperated on appellate level primarily because of Echol's capitol sentence.

[dharpernyc]

Just to add, Echol's and Baldwin are seperated on appellate level primarily because of Echol's capitol sentence.

Thanks so much for your answers.

This is what I get from your responses, please correct me if wrong:

In a single proceeding, separate juries handed down separate decisions for two defendants.
Joint appeals were/are a possibility.
The current active (read: notorious) appeal is in benefit of Echols should there be a positive outcome for the petitioner. Any benefit to the other two convicts is "intangible." (Quotes mine to indicate reset of probability.)


So:

The recognition of my misunderstanding occurred in the context of people debating an "all or nothing" outcome of this appeal. Some felt that a "win" for the petitioner would mean a "new trial" for all three. This is not the case. Therefore, anyone having doubts about JM, Jr's individual culpability need not worry about this action whatsoever. Agree?

[Farm]

The appeals are so seperate in fact, that I would go so far as to wager that in the incredibly unlikely event that Echols were to actually get a new trial, Misskelly would probably testify against him.

[Fwarm]

So:

The recognition of my misunderstanding occurred in the context of people debating an "all or nothing" outcome of this appeal. Some felt that a "win" for the petitioner would mean a "new trial" for all three. This is not the case. Therefore, anyone having doubts about JM, Jr's individual culpability need not worry about this action whatsoever. Agree?

Well in theory it would depend if it was a technicality that got the case overturned and sent for retrial or actual innocence. If it were proven Damien was innocent (in theory) then most likely the other two would benefit quickly from that and they would be released. The AG would most likely support such a move. However, if there was a retrial due to legal issue and not actual innocence most likely Jessie would be offered some deal to testify.

There is no all or nothing with this appeal in fact the Defense for whatever reason filed it in the wrong court to start with. The state has to deal with Damien's DNA testing first the Writ is in limbo the hearing is going to be for DNA testing not turtles and herons and one man theories from Celebrity Doctors. The appeal originally was to allow DNA testing not all the other fat the Defense used for the Writ of HC.

[orangeblue]

The appeals are so seperate in fact, that I would go so far as to wager that in the incredibly unlikely event that Echols were to actually get a new trial, Misskelly would probably testify against him.

What do you base that on? That Misskelly would testify against Echols?

[Farm]

He has nothing to lose.

His testimony can't be used against him, and yet any benefit from Echols appeal that relates to his conviction will still be available, So it would have absolutely no effect on his appeal.

On the other hand, Jessie still has a possibility for parole.

I'm positive his NEW attorney will point out that cooperation with the state would weigh heavily with a parole board.

He will NEVER be paroled if he maintains his innocence.

Stidham convinced him that if Echols was aquitted he would be too, Jessie won't fall for that shit again.

Not after being inside for 14 years.

[Fwarm]

Absolutely and all that camaraderie supporters think these three have is horseshit. Show Jessie a Larry King interview with all the "retarded guy" stuff and he would not be hard to turn and as farm stated it would go very well for him for parole.

[Farm]

That's right, Scott.

Anyone who thinks "Jessie wouldn't get up there and lie on Damien" isn't thinking at all.

He would likely testify against Echols even if he WERE innocent.

[Rugs]

He would likely testify against Echols even if he WERE innocent

He? Do you mean Echols, Misskelley or both?

[Farm]

Echols.

[DogIsYourName]

When is Jessie up for parole?

[Christian]

When is Jessie up for parole?

Never.

From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette February 5, 1994:

HEADLINE: JURY CONVICTS MISSKELLEY TEEN DRAWS LIFE TERM IN SLAYINGS

BYLINE: GLEN CHASE AND LARRY YOUNG, Democrat-Gazette State Reporters

BODY:
CORNING -- Members of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr.'s family burst into tears Friday after Circuit Judge David Burnett announced that jurors had convicted Misskelley of first-degree murder in the death of 8-year-old Michael Moore.

A Clay County jury Friday also convicted Misskelley, 18, of Marion (Crittenden County), of two counts of second-degree murder in the deaths of Christopher Byers and Steve Branch.

Burnett of Osceola (Mississippi County) accepted the jury recommendations and imposed the maximum penalties for the crimes -- life in prison for first-degree murder and 20 years each for the second-degree murder counts. He also set the sentences to run one after another.

A prominent Little Rock defense lawyer said anyone serving a life sentence for first-degree murder does not qualify for parole. "Life is life in Arkansas," John Wesley Hall said.

While some states allow parole for people serving life sentences, the only way they can be released in Arkansas is through executive clemency, Hall said.

"The difference is meaningless" between sentences of life in prison for first-degree murder and life in prison without parole for capital murder, he said.

"You just don't reduce life sentences without reason," he said.

(snip)

[Fwarm]

I will have to research that but I think he will come up for parole someday it may just be late in his life. It could be changed also if not mistaken.