Yoo Hoo...Alex?

Farm: It's not that complicated Alex... you have been shown over and over again that the Federal court will NOT consider the evidence from the trial or any which was procedurally barred unless the Defense can meet the Schlup/House gateway with new evidence.

Everyone else here already understands this means that nothing in the Writ will be considered beyond the DNA results unless those results are compelling enough to merit a "miscarriage of Justice" exception.

You can continue avoiding this fact until they strap Echols down, but I'm still going to point out you had no idea what you were talking about - and the others here will just continue to laugh at you.

Do you honestly not think folks here know why you absolutely refuse to answer the question regarding the DNA results?

You're pathetic, Alex... Simple as that.

Alex: This is the "gateway" stage, where procedurally-barred state claims can be heard in federal court if a miscarriage of justice would result, where it appears that the defendant is actually innocent. Justice Kennedy in House said that where a Schlup gateway showing raises doubts about the defendant's guilt, the review of Constitutional claims is appropriate. The gateway "burden" is for the petitioner to show that, in light of the new evidence, no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the new DNA evidence, which suggest that the defendants were not at the scene of the crime, appears to be exculpatory. If pieces of evidence found at the scene of the crime are not consistent with DNA of the defendants, a reasonable jury may find that it is doubtful the defendants were at the scene. Once the judge finds that a reasonable jury would have a reasonable doubt (with all the other evidence not mentioned),the showing will have been satisfied.

Yes I did read the 2nd Writ. Did you? It clearly and substantially proves how the actual innocence burden is met.

Farm: Here Alex,.. In case you've forgotten.

You were supposed to show us:

How Echol's DNA gateway claim compares to House's.

How all the case law I have presented showing that the Federal court does not re-judicate state claims has been "superceded'.

How the "predation theory" is relevant to a scientific evidence claim.

You can start there any time you're ready.

Unless you are ready to simply admit that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - and you never have.

Alex: Please refer to the thread herein where I finally put to rest your nonsense about me refusing to "show" you these things.

Farm: For those who haven't followed this issue - House's case wasn't that complicated.

Through scientific testing which wasn't available at trial, House was able to present compelling evidence that there was a "miscarrrige of justice" in his case - even though on it's own it failed to prove actual innocence.

(Semen which was attributed to him at trial later proved through DNA testing to be that of the victim's husband)

Because of this, the court ruled that he should be allowed to present other evidence from the trial to support his actual innocence claim.

Enter Alex the incredible idiot - who believes Echols has just as strong a claim.

His pathetically ridiculous argument?

That Echols DNA results when coupled with inadmissable evidence meets the "gateway" which would allow the other evidence to be considered in the first place.

And this idiot claims to be a law student!

Alex: Lol how quickly the sheep come to their leader's aid!

For those of you who are legitimately interested, I'm working on writing it again since the post is nowhere to be found.

Like I said before, I'll post it at the Black Board since it will likely be safe there. I'll let you all know when it is posted.

Order Denying Motion for a New Trial

The Court agrees with the State's analysis that, upon comparison to House v. Bell, the Petitioner has fallen well short of the stringent showing of a compelling claim of actual innocence found there. While the Petitioner, like House, has some DNA results that exclude him as a source, they are not as significant as the evidence to which House pointed. House had new DNA evidence linking the victim's abusive husband to the crime as well as evidence of the husband's admissions of guilt. The Petitioner's claim would fail even under House.