Use of Misskellys confession in the E/B trial.

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

[orangeblue]

In that media conference with the appeal lawyers, there was a section about the use of Misskellys confession being used to convict E/B in their trial.
They showed a list of topics that the jurors wrote up and I guess used as a point of reference to come up with there verdict, one was well.. redacted by the jurors and according to the new defense they have an un-redacted copy showing that it was Misskellys confession. Seeing though the jurors were instructed to ignore this piece of evidence in there deliberation it seems the defense can possibly prove that it was a factor.

Putting innocence and guilt aside for a second, from a legal pov, if this was heard in the original trial, wouldnt this be grounds for like a mistrial?
And what would it be labeled as in an appeal? Would it still constitute some sort of breach of duties or something in the appeal?

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this..

[Farm]

from a legal pov, if this was heard in the original trial, wouldnt this be grounds for like a mistrial?

No.

And Riordan tried this approach already with the ASSC, he failed.

The Defense knew before trial that the jurors were aware Misskelly had made a statement - they admitted this during Voir Dire.

Seeing though the jurors were instructed to ignore this piece of evidence in there deliberation it seems the defense can possibly prove that it was a factor.

But they couldn't.... they already tried three years ago.

[orangeblue]

I understand that farm, i understand they heard it form outside sources, but the point is did they use it to convict the three, and if they did that is against the trial rules

[orangeblue]

AS for they tried, wouldnt a "better" lawyer be able to manipulate the statute a bit better?

[Farm]

but the point is did they use it to convict the three,

They said no.

They said it under oath.

The assumption at that point is that they didn't.

Riordan claimed he had proof otherwise, but he didn't.

It was just another Press scam like the DNA nonsense.

Riordan told the press he had sworn affidavits from jurors that they used it to convict - (which he had sealed from public view BTW).

Yet in his own motion, he only claimed the two affidavits showed that jurors six and seven were aware of the fact Jessie had made a statement.

In her affidavit of June 8, 2004, Juror Six stated, “I made it clear prior to being seated as a juror that I knew about the Jessie Misskelley case through the newspaper and having seen stories about him and his case on television.” Juror Six did not state on voir dire, however, that she “was aware that Misskelley had confessed to the police,” a fact she has now revealed in her affidavit which would have provided a basis for a challenge for cause.

On June 7, 2004, Juror Seven signed a notarized affidavit describing aspects of her participation in petitioner’s trial. (Exhibit U)  She stated under oath that before serving on the jury, she knew about the earlier trial of Jessie Misskelley in Corning in which Misskelley had been found guilty; she believed she also knew that he had confessed to the crime.

There was never any evidence that the jurors based their verdicts on Misskelly's statement, simple as that.

It was just another donation generating "false hope" load of bullshit.

[orangeblue]

So that list he claimed he had with the name scrubbed out and the copy of the list with the name not scrubbed out is BS?

[Farm]

So that list he claimed he had with the name scrubbed out and the copy of the list with the name not scrubbed out is BS?

Who knows, and who cares?

He told the press he had sworn affidavits from jurors admitting they used the confession to reach their verdicts and he was lying.

[cjm0161]

It amazes me that people continue to buy Riordan's bullshit....

When the defense attorney is busted for lying, doesnt that cause
anyone to think..........Maybe this fucker aint got nothing?????

And then he continues with the next lie....

Help me understand.....

[MachaSidhe]

For anyone who knows...

How is citing juror misconduct\bias in this lastest round any different from what the ASSC has already shot down before?

Also about juror #7 - found this in one of the ASSC rulings

 "However, the record reflects that Juror Tate (7) was ultimately excused by the trial court before Price had the opportunity to question her, because she stated that she could not set aside what she had read about the murders. It can hardly be error to fail to voir dire a juror that has already been struck."

I know nothing about law but how can  Echols defense use this juror's statement to try to show proof of bias if that juror was excused? Maybe I'm reading that wrong or is it talking about a different #7?

Macha
 

[Farm]

Riordan's tactic is clear.

He throws a potporri into every motion hoping it will look like more than it is.

He's done it since day one, and it looks like he's playing to the court of public opinion more than to the actual court.

[orangeblue]

Yeah, and southern hick prosecutors are known all over the world for their honesty and integrity.

Want some fried chicken with your klan meeting?

[Fwarm]

Something wrong with Fried Chicken?

Davis is for sure southern but Hick just doesn't fit him.

[orangeblue]

Beacause he wears a suit instead of overalls? lol

[Fwarm]

Beacause he wears a suit instead of overalls? lol

No but because it takes a certain type of character to be a prosecutor as long as he has been. Plus he is well educated and pretty damn good at what he does.

Anyway the opinion of the world has never much impressed me. The mass-think doesn't work very well.

[orangeblue]

If only he was around in civil war times