|
BlackAngel
|
 |
« on: June 17, 2009, 08:28:21 AM » |
|
RESPONSE TO APPELLANT ECHOLS'S MOTION TO CORRECT SUPPLEMENTED RECORD ON APPEAL http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/damienaffidavit.pdf]http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/damienaffidavit.pdf In other words The state attorney general doesn't want the Supreme Court to consider a lawyer's affidavit that suggests improper communication by a juror who convicted and sentenced Damien Echols to die in the deaths of three West Memphis children |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  . Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter...don't mind... and those that mind...don't matter." |
|
|
|
Farm
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2009, 06:43:02 PM » |
|
This court has already rejected Echol's efforts to raise such a claim either by recalling it's mandate or reinvesting the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider it in a petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
Could've SWORN I heard this somewhere else before?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"c'monnnn supporters.... mama needs a new pair of titties!" ~ Lori Davis.
|
|
|
|
taylorjaysmommy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2009, 08:16:48 PM » |
|
I am thinking that the BBQ or tailgate party will possibly be May 5th 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Farm
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2009, 10:22:37 PM » |
|
I don't ever mean to sound arrogant - i don't claim to have a "JD" like Dave, but For fucks sake (thnx Sheer) I can read a fucking document, and this claim has been dead for years.
This Juror misconduct bullshit was exausted four years ago - it's a done fucking deal.
And yet here we have Mara claiming the ASSC has agreed to hear it, and Chase, and Dave claiming it's Echol's ticket to the street!
In case I haven't mentioned it before, what a bunch of IDIOTS.
He's a DEAD man - whether you agreee with CP or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"c'monnnn supporters.... mama needs a new pair of titties!" ~ Lori Davis.
|
|
|
|
taylorjaysmommy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2009, 06:33:13 AM » |
|
I got a little carried away...............it won't be 2010. 2011 maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mary7875
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2009, 08:21:28 PM » |
|
This Juror misconduct bullshit was exausted four years ago - it's a done fucking deal.
Yes, it is. When will they get it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Farm
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2009, 11:00:58 AM » |
|
When will they get it? When Echol's ashes hit E-bay. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"c'monnnn supporters.... mama needs a new pair of titties!" ~ Lori Davis.
|
|
|
Storm
Little Miss Sunshine
Hero Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3427
Where is justice for the real 3?
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2009, 01:57:26 PM » |
|
I dont claim to know anything about legal talk... But being involved with the courts processes and death penalty before, I know there are soooo many little legal manuevers defense attorneys do till its all said and done. I have a feeling all this bullshit will go on till the last hour of his life. But it will all have the end result..A CHILD MURDERER DEAD!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 When ya come to the Farm, that has an Angel protecting it, she will bring the wrath of our Goddess, to cast a Storm on you..and then you might get bitten by the dog! ~Flex |
|
|
|
Farm
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2009, 06:39:04 PM » |
|
The title of this thread and a quick read of Jan's link really explains it all.
The Defense moved to correct the supplemented record on the DNA claim.
The State in it's reply said the Defense were attempting to supplement the records with unfortified documents, and that the proper course of action was for the ASSC to remand it to the circuit court so the certified document (currently filed in Baldwin's rule 37 proceeding) could be entered to settle Echol's record.
The ASSC followed the State's advice and remanded it to the circuit court to settle the record, and somehow these idiotic supporters feel this was some sort of "victory" for Echols?
What a bunch of morons.
What this amounts to is Riordan once again trying to enter an "account" of the Warford statement without actually entering Warford's statement. (just as he did in the circuit court claim)
That shouldn't really be much of a surprise considering Riordan can't manage to get his own sworn statement from Warford.
Anyone wonder why that is?
Anyone wonder why the ASSC chose not to grant the Defense motion?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"c'monnnn supporters.... mama needs a new pair of titties!" ~ Lori Davis.
|
|
|
|
kerriew
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2009, 05:55:17 AM » |
|
I posted this document on the Borg yesterday in response to Larner's post and it disappeared. I just re posted it. Let's see if it magically disappears again  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Farm
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2009, 12:55:07 AM » |
|
I find it difficult to believe the Borg would manipulate content?
If this continues, I will stop putting my teeth beneath my pillow at night!
If you can't believe in Borg honesty, what is left?
Next you will tell me that huge rabbits don't really have chickens which lay such colorful eggs delivered in April.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"c'monnnn supporters.... mama needs a new pair of titties!" ~ Lori Davis.
|
|
|
|
kerriew
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2009, 05:51:19 AM » |
|
LOL So far it's still there. I reposted it. Anyway Larner is claiming the DNA and juror misconduct is new evidence  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BlackAngel
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2009, 10:23:07 AM » |
|
Kerriew Larner is in her own little world, shes better off staying there. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
. Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter...don't mind... and those that mind...don't matter." |
|
|
|
Farm
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2009, 07:11:28 PM » |
|
Look at it this way.
If the Defense had claimed on direct appeal that the injuries were caused by predation, and lost the ruling.... they can't just get another witness to say the same thing and file the claim again - that's just stupid.
Same with the accusations against Arnold.
I don't care HOW many "witnesses" they drum up, the claim was heard and dismissed in the ASSC three times now, and it had nothing to do with witness credibility - it was an improper and untimely claim.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"c'monnnn supporters.... mama needs a new pair of titties!" ~ Lori Davis.
|
|
|
|
DogIsYourName
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2009, 08:09:52 AM » |
|
What happened to page 4 of the State's argument?
Farm,
You are right that there is a very real possibility that the ASSC will reject this claim as untimely, but I think they might want to see what's in the affidavit first. If the evidence is compelling enough, and if it appears there was no way to get this evidence earlier, then they will at least consider it. Were this not the case, then they probably would not have requested Burnett to add it to the record.
As the State argued (their second argument), the ASSC could deny the claim without supplementing the record since the content of the document should not make any difference -- i.e., the ASSC could deny the claim based on timeliness, no matter what. But the ASSC chose not to go that route, so I think people can read something into that.
HOWEVER, I agree with you that nobody can read too much into what the ASSC did. Like you pointed out already, even the State thought remand would be an appropriate remedy. So it's probably not a victory for Echols that the ASSC followed that course rather than what the State implied in their second argument.
At the end of the day, the Arkansas judiciary would like to make sure it does not execute anyone unless that person was given due process. They want a clear record to make sure that occurs. Nobody wants to carry out an execution and have the public scream that it was done based on a technicality.
-dog
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Author