September

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

[Tricky8oy]

Not sure where to post this, so i will post in both Trials.

Hearings for the WM3 Scheduled for September
April 15, 2008



At 9:30 Tuesday morning the courtroom filled with attorneys and supporters of the West Memphis Three.


However, by 10:00, just 30 minutes later, the hearing was over and rules were laid out.


Judge David Burnett started the morning by telling attorneys for both the state and the defense that any further contact with the media would result in contempt of court.


He also noted that he is ready for the case to be closed once and for all.


Prosecuting Attorney Brent Davis told the judge that he had just received an amended filing of Damien Echols Act 1780 petition and would need time to review and respond to it.


Judge Burnett gave Davis 60 days to respond to this motion.


However, any further motions were given 45 days to be filed and 30 days to be responded to. Those motion include Rule 37 motions being filed by Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin's attorneys.


Judge Burnett told the lawyers that he wanted all motions filed by May 30th and the State to respond by July 15th.


While both sides argued that this may not be enough time, the judge stayed firm and told them that this was all of the time they were getting.


Finally after looking at schedules, hearings for the West Memphis Three motions were scheduled for September 8th through October 3rd.<


Outside the courtroom attorneys held to the judge's orders and refused comment to the media, but we did get response from those in support.


Lori Davis, Echols' Wife, told Region 8 News, "I'm happy that it's going. I'm happy that it is finally getting its day in court. Really that's the news from our side, we are just happy to see it moving along."


Got this from the wm3.org website.
My question is, Will this September be the end all be all of the question of innocence? Will there any more appeals? If found not guilty, will they be released? If so will the prosecution be able to appeal the decision? If still found guilty, Will the defense have any other legal avenues to pursue?

Ultimately, Is this the final roll of the dice for both the defense and prosecution?

[DogIsYourName]

My question is, Will this September be the end all be all of the question of innocence?

No.

Will there any more appeals?

Yes.

If found not guilty, will they be released?

Yes.

If so will the prosecution be able to appeal the decision?

No.  But they can retry them.

If still found guilty, Will the defense have any other legal avenues to pursue?

Yes.

Ultimately, Is this the final roll of the dice for both the defense and prosecution?
No.

[Farm]

As usual, Dog is completly fucked up.

My question is, Will this September be the end all be all of the question of innocence?

Echols has no September hearing in State court.

All he had remaining was his Act 1780 claim - and it has been filed and responded to.

Once Burnett rules, he will move on to his Federal HC writ which is his last chance.

Will there any more appeals?

Not for Echols, no.

Misskelly and Baldwin still have rule37 hearings remaining however.

If found not guilty, will they be released?

They cannot be found "not guilty".

The best they could hope for is an overturned conviction.

If so will the prosecution be able to appeal the decision?

Depends on who's decision it is.

But I doubt anyone thinks for a second that McDaniel will simply dismiss the charges.

If still found guilty, Will the defense have any other legal avenues to pursue?

Not Echols, no.

Ultimately, Is this the final roll of the dice for both the defense and prosecution?

For Echols, yes.

The Federal HC writ is it.

And none of it really matters anyway, because the convicts have no more defense than they did 13 years ago.

[DogIsYourName]

Once Burnett rules, he will move on to his Federal HC writ which is his last chance.
Will there any more appeals?

Not for Echols, no.

Farm, the Federal HC writ is another appeal....

If found not guilty, will they be released?

The answer is yes.  Only a jury can find him not guilty.  If his convictions are overturned, he would also be released unless the state tries him again.

If still found guilty, Will the defense have any other legal avenues to pursue?

Echols still has plenty of legal maneuvering left -- further DNA testing requests, Federal Appeals, petition for cert to the US Supreme Ct., etc.

[Farm]

Farm, the Federal HC writ is another appeal....

And it's already been filed, you total moron.

If you get some spare time, maybe you can look up how many ammendments he's allowed?

The answer is yes.

You're an idiot, Dog.

In the incredibly unlikely event the conviction was remanded, there is absolutely no question he would be immediately charged and taken into custody.

Only a jury can find him not guilty.

No shit.

That's probably why I said that.

If his convictions are overturned, he would also be released unless the state tries him again.

Did you have some sort of comprehension problem with McDaniel's statement to the press?

If you think for a second he wouldn't be tried again, you've been asleep for quite some time.

Echols still has plenty of legal maneuvering left

No, he doesn't.

As usual you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

further DNA testing requests

From WHO, idiot?

Federal court?

Federal Appeals

He has no other federal appeals, you stupid dickweed.

His only federal claim was HC - which only protects against constitutional errors.

Any estimate on how many more times I'm going to have to show you that Federal courts do NOT re-judicate State claims?

It's REALLY getting tiring.

petition for cert to the US Supreme Ct

On what grounds?

Let me help you again.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/10.html

Why do you bother Dog?

[DogIsYourName]

Let me get this straight, Farm...

You actually think Damien will not petition to the US Supreme Ct?

[BlackAngel]

Dog

You actually think Damien will not petition to the US Supreme Ct?


He can petition all he wants, the chances of them even looking at his case are less than zero.

Jan

[DogIsYourName]

I like that yellow bold.  I might have to use that.

I can see a constitutionality challenge of the Death Penalty based on some of the stuff they've already raised, such as their DNA results.  No, I am not saying it's a winner or that cert will even be granted.  But the best argument against the DP is that you might be executing the wrong guy... This thing has been packaged and sealed as the next great Anti-DP case for many years now.  They will hope with massive media coverage that the US Supreme Ct will indeed pick this up.

Plus, you never know what twists and turns await.  Some of us save the best for last.

[taylorjaysmommy]

I like that yellow bold.  I might have to use that.

But the best argument against the DP is that you might be executing the wrong guy... This thing has been packaged and sealed as the next great Anti-DP case for many years now.  They will hope with massive media coverage that the US Supreme Ct will indeed pick this up.

Plus, you never know what twists and turns await.  Some of us save the best for last.

Well spoken from a true supporter!  The only thing IMO is that the last massive media coverage (Larry King) ploy..........well, kinda' screwed the pooch, if you know what I mean.   That was pretty awesome, I am thinking.  I would love to see more of them with him, then JMB and then Maines.  All three of them are doing nothing but helping to seal his fate.  Thats just my opinion.  And what is worse, is that I am thinking that there are possibly some that might even be worse for his cause.......and I am just hoping that they are saving them as the twist and turns that you are speaking about.   I can hardly wait ! 

TJM

[BlackAngel]

Dog

Plus, you never know what twists and turns await.  Some of us save the best for last.

You have been reading the Stain board too much. I believe nothing will happen at the hearings. Unless they throw Byers in jail, for causing a ruck ass.They have nothing new, and its awful funny that Byer's suddenly thinks Jacoby had nothing to do with it though his hair was found on the tree, but Terry is guilty because Byers says so. If you take a look at Byers record compared to Hobbs, Byer's is the better suspect.

Jan

[Farm]

It was a simple question, Dog.

I showed you the rules for petetioning the SC, and asked you what grounds Echols had.

If you can't answer... it's ok.

By now, we all understand.

[chitown_alex]

If the prosecution loses, they cannot retry Echols unless the case is remanded for a new trial.  In other scenarios, if the conviction is overturned, then the case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision (this is different than a new trial).

Once again Farm, you enter the legal domain and make a fool out of yourself.

[Farm]

If the prosecution loses, they cannot retry Echols unless the case is remanded for a new trial.

What another load of bullshit.

First off, if the Prosecution "loses" in state court, the Defense will simply be granted the new trial they requested in the motion, you pathetic moron.

If the Prosecution "loses" in federal court, all that court can do is vacate the sentence - they have no say over the prosecution of State cases.

You're such a fucking idiot, Alex.

[chitown_alex]

You obviously, and not surprisingly, missed the context of my post.  It clearly referred to the state action.  Once again you have proven how misinformed and stupid you are, Farm.

[Farm]

You obviously, and not surprisingly, missed the context of my post.  It clearly referred to the state action.

Hey stupid.

You said:

If the prosecution loses, they cannot retry Echols unless the case is remanded for a new trial. 

As I pointed out - the State action is a MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.

How the fuck are the Prosecution precluded from a new trial if "they lose" and one is granted?

Jesus Alex,  you are without a doubt the biggest idiot to come around here in quite some time.

Seriously - you are a retard.