Worth a chuckle...

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

[112883]

112883 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Farm]

http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/de_status_state_court_proceedings_5_2_08.pdf

(3) the state is to respond to the Baldwin and Misskelley pleadings by July 15, 2008;

(4) the Court will hold a status hearing on August 20, 2008 to determine the scope of the hearing on petitioners’ motions and pleadings; and

(5) hearing on petitioners’ motions and pleadings will commence on September 8, 2008, and, if needed, extend to and including October 3, 2008.

Excuse me there Dennis, but the Federal court couldn't care less about Baldwin and Misskelley's status.

The State's deadline to respond to YOUR client's claim was Friday.

There's little doubt Burnett will rule on it in short order.

Don't worry about October, your client's six year DNA nap in State court is over.

[Fwarm]

A person might think with all that "wait and see evidence" out there that the defense would be in a hurry to have a hearing. Of course we all know there is no new evidence and that DNA did nothing but waste years of time.

[LaCosaNostra44]

Sometimes you don't get what you paid for....

And they thought Val did a bad job...and he was FREE (well sorta)

[Fwarm]

It's funny because Big R is a Federal Appeals attorney and I wonder if the WM3 supporters will tar and feather him when gets the ruling here soon. :cussing:

[Farm]

Like he said, he took this case as a federal appeal case.... he never had any intention of filing in state court.

What cracks me up is that it's clear from his State filing he's not even remotely familiar with the history of this case in state court.

Hell, he's not even familiar with the testimony from the original trial!

[Mary7875]

A person might think with all that "wait and see evidence" out there that the defense would be in a hurry to have a hearing. Of course we all know there is no new evidence and that DNA did nothing but waste years of time.

Not a waste of time for Damien, Scott.  He's still alive and kickin', lol.

Which brings me to the latest episode in the Darlie Routier soap opera.  She's at the same point in her appeals as Damien is.  Her latest appeal has been held in abeyance for years, while the defense & the state courts wrangle about further DNA testing, retesting, re-retesting, etc.  They've already turned her down once, but our Darlie is not a quitter.

D-Day is June 21st.  The Judge said, "The parties are advised this Court will not hold this cause in abeyance indefinitely.  Absent some determination as to whether there is anything left to test at this juncture, continuing the stay in this cause is a useless act."

And away we go...

[Farm]

The parties are advised this Court will not hold this cause in abeyance indefinitely.

Yes, the US District court was pretty clear about this as well.

Even where stay and abeyance is appropriate, the district court's discretion in structuring the stay is limited by the timeliness concerns reflected in AEDPA. A mixed petition should not be stayed indefinitely. Though, generally, a prisoner's "principal interest...is in obtaining speedy federal relief on his claims," Lundy, supra, at 520. 102 S.Ct. 1198 (plurality opinion), not all petitioners have an incentive to obtain federal relief as quickly as possible. In particular, capital petitioners might deliberately engage in dilatory tactics to prolong their incarceration and avoid execution of the sentence of death. Without time limits, petitioners could frustrate AEDPA's goal of finality by dragging out indefinitely their federal habeas review. Thus, district courts should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, e.g., Zarvela, 254 F.3d. at 381 ("[District courts] should explicitly condition the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to federal court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days, after state court exhaustion is completed").

And while they ruled there was no evidence of dilatory tactics at that time, if Burnett rules there were (and there were), Echol's Federal writ is pretty much doomed if the State files a motion to dismiss.

[jvince1]

The parties are advised this Court will not hold this cause in abeyance indefinitely.

Yes, the US District court was pretty clear about this as well.

Even where stay and abeyance is appropriate, the district court's discretion in structuring the stay is limited by the timeliness concerns reflected in AEDPA. A mixed petition should not be stayed indefinitely. Though, generally, a prisoner's "principal interest...is in obtaining speedy federal relief on his claims," Lundy, supra, at 520. 102 S.Ct. 1198 (plurality opinion), not all petitioners have an incentive to obtain federal relief as quickly as possible. In particular, capital petitioners might deliberately engage in dilatory tactics to prolong their incarceration and avoid execution of the sentence of death. Without time limits, petitioners could frustrate AEDPA's goal of finality by dragging out indefinitely their federal habeas review. Thus, district courts should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, e.g., Zarvela, 254 F.3d. at 381 ("[District courts] should explicitly condition the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to federal court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days, after state court exhaustion is completed").

And while they ruled there was no evidence of dilatory tactics at that time, if Burnett rules there were (and there were), Echol's Federal writ is pretty much doomed if the State files a motion to dismiss.

Too bad Burnett, is off the case, Moron.

[Mary7875]

The parties are advised this Court will not hold this cause in abeyance indefinitely.

Yes, the US District court was pretty clear about this as well.

Even where stay and abeyance is appropriate, the district court's discretion in structuring the stay is limited by the timeliness concerns reflected in AEDPA. A mixed petition should not be stayed indefinitely. Though, generally, a prisoner's "principal interest...is in obtaining speedy federal relief on his claims," Lundy, supra, at 520. 102 S.Ct. 1198 (plurality opinion), not all petitioners have an incentive to obtain federal relief as quickly as possible. In particular, capital petitioners might deliberately engage in dilatory tactics to prolong their incarceration and avoid execution of the sentence of death. Without time limits, petitioners could frustrate AEDPA's goal of finality by dragging out indefinitely their federal habeas review. Thus, district courts should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, e.g., Zarvela, 254 F.3d. at 381 ("[District courts] should explicitly condition the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to federal court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days, after state court exhaustion is completed").

And while they ruled there was no evidence of dilatory tactics at that time, if Burnett rules there were (and there were), Echol's Federal writ is pretty much doomed if the State files a motion to dismiss.

Too bad Burnett, is off the case, Moron.

Hey moron.  Farm wrote that post 2 1/2 years ago, when Burnett was on the case.

Is that the best you can do?