How did defense get around State court?

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

[112888]

112888 Posts in 8615 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Fwarm]

Oh and if you people think you are going to get a free ride from Wilson you are a fool.

He was a Deputy Prosecutor, Navy man, Attorney General for Arkansas, he is left of center they say in politics but so is Farm. LMFAO 

Don't let that left of center thing fool ya there Squire Dave I think Wilson is going to go by the fine points of the law.

[Fishmonger Dave]

Farm:  Ummm, thanks love - but I was kind of hoping for a response from RonnyK (or someone else without his head in his rectum) to the legal issues I touched on.

[Fwarm]

Put down the crack pipe.

[Farm]

So how is there no proceeding that the Arkansas Supreme Court will entertain?

Because the circut court gave them three fucking years for testing that was supposed to take 120 days on the outside, moron.

Let me help you out further.

The Hobbs bullshit?

Never even be considered.

It doesn't matter how many times the Defense or brain dead idiots like yourself repeat it, the possibility of alternate suspect is in no way relevant - let alone exculpatory - in a claim of actual innocence.

Not under the State statute, not under Schlupo/House,... not anywhere.

Your loverboy is a dead man, and you are still a fucking idiot.

[Fwarm]

Dave the state has their conviction not much else to say really.

[Farm]

There are no question a long list of idiots supporting the WM3, But it's rare to see one of the magnatude of Dave.

This idiotic fuck actually cited the Defense from their own writ stating that they have no further claims at the state level, and then insists they must be mistaken?

Can you honestly not see just how pathetically stupid you look?

 

[RonnyK]

How can it be said that "(a) the Arkansas Supreme Court will not entertain any additional challenges by Echols to his convictions"?? There are no direct appeals remaining, but isn't "his motion for relief under 16-112-201" a proceeding which could result in review by the AR Supreme Court?

There are two possible conclusions I think one can draw-- (1) that the relief under 16-112-201 is for some reason not considered a "challenge" to the conviction or (2) that by implication, Echols has waived any further pursuance of relief under 16-112-201.  The latter is more problematic for me to accept because there does not appear to have been a final or otherwise self-effectuating order (or even a Rule to Show Cause) that gave the defense an ultimate date to respond by or else risk having the claim be dismissed.  As I mentioned in earlier exchanges with Farm, I do not understand the need for the defense to raise these jurisdictional exceptions unless it felt it was subject to claims by the State that it had not exhausted all state remedies.

and (b) petitioner’s successful meeting of the Schlup-House actual innocence standard overcomes any otherwise applicable state procedural bar to this Court’s rendering of a decision on the merits on any and all of petitioner’s claims.

There is no "state procedural bar" nor are there the "defaulted claims" in State court that Schlup-House speaks of.

Schlup and House stand for, among other things, the proposition that when a petitioner's initial habeas claim raises the issue of innocence, the court can consider the "big picture," which can include points that might have been held waived by the state court during its appellate review of the case.

If simply not pursuing a claim under state law was deemed a waiver (and therefore it could be said that the exhaustion requirement was met), the exhaustion requirement would be meaningless.  Any defendant could just file a WofHC in federal court and when exhaustion was raised by the State to dismiss the WofHC, the defendant would say "oh, those claims are waived since I didn't pursue them."  If not pursuing = waiving = exhaustion, then there is no exhaustion requirement.  Don't make any sense to this fishmonger.

I agree-- it doesn't make complete sense to me either (which is why it is the more problematic conclusion to draw from the brief's jurisdictional statement).

[Farm]

Schlup and House stand for, among other things, the proposition that when a petitioner's initial habeas claim raises the issue of innocence, the court can consider the "big picture,"

The "big picture" under Schlup/House still means only relevant evidence.

It doesn't matter how many times the Defense repeats it,... evidence which potentially incriminates another suspect is not relevant to the guilt or innocence of Echols.

The Defense would be hard pressed to get the court to hear evidence against Terry even if it were clear and convincing - and the evidence put forth in this writ doesn't even come close.

[RonnyK]

The "big picture" under Schlup/House still means only relevant evidence.

It doesn't matter how many times the Defense repeats it,... evidence which potentially incriminates another suspect is not relevant to the guilt or innocence of Echols.

The Defense would be hard pressed to get the court to hear evidence against Terry even if it were clear and convincing - and the evidence put forth in this writ doesn't even come close.

I wasn't commenting on the strength or lack thereof of the Hobbs-related evidence.  Personally, I find it interesting but not compelling.  I would certainly want to understand better what a polymorphism is in the context of mitochondrial DNA testing and whether this difference in the comparisons is significant or trivial.  I actually believe the evidence concerning the cause of injuries to be more weighty, but it remains to be seen how this is viewed by the federal court.  One thing that does seem clear is that if the State argues that the animal-causation evidence is not new evidence and should have been raised at trial, the defense is going to argue under Schlup/House that the State's position is one of procedural waiver and that this notwithstanding, the federal court is free to consider and weigh this evidence in consideration of a claim of innocence.

It will be interesting to see how the state responds; in particular, whether it will submit what we already know on record to be Peretti's opinion or whether it will present new material in support of Peretti's original findings.

[Farm]

I wasn't commenting on the strength or lack thereof of the Hobbs-related evidence.

Yet you go on to question it.

I would certainly want to understand better what a polymorphism is in the context of mitochondrial DNA testing and whether this difference in the comparisons is significant or trivial.

Since there is no way to determine the cause of the polymorphism, the results are effectively inconclusive.

And it wouldn't matter even if there was a match, since all of the children had previous contact with Hobbs.

I actually believe the evidence concerning the cause of injuries to be more weighty,

Actually it's ludicris.

but it remains to be seen how this is viewed by the federal court.

Well let's see.

It's not new.

It's neither exculpatory or incriminating.

It's not even remotely compelling.

One thing that does seem clear is that if the State argues that the animal-causation evidence is not new evidence and should have been raised at trial, the defense is going to argue under Schlup/House that the State's position is one of procedural waiver and that this notwithstanding, the federal court is free to consider and weigh this evidence in consideration of a claim of innocence.

Schlup/House doesn't just throw procedure out the window, Ronny.

claims defaulted in state court due to state procedural rules generally cannot be heard in federal court, but that there is a “miscarriage of justice” exception for extraordinary cases where it appears likely that the defendant is innocent.    

Do you honestly think this writ could ever convince a judge defendant is likely innocent during the gateway stage?

It will be interesting to see how the state responds; in particular, whether it will submit what we already know on record to be Peretti's opinion or whether it will present new material in support of Peretti's original findings.

I agree that the State's response will be interesting, but in reality there is little they need to do, since the evidence in the writ is almost entirely unsubstantial conjecture.

The simple truth here is that after 14 years the Defense still has no case.