Justice

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

[112886]

112886 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4616 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Sterling84]

Angela, did you have a brain tumor for breakfast today? holy shit

[addict]

misskelley recanted his confessions thats why they could not use it.

They couldn't use it because he wouldn't testify against Damien and Jessie. The whole right to face your accuser thing.

[angela]

Angela, did you have a brain tumor for breakfast today? holy shit

nope. how about you?

[~Steph]

If you aren't sure about what you're saying. Form your statement as a question. Someone will help direct you in the right way to find the answer.

[angela]

thanx steph, will do

[BlackAngel]

Angela

misskelley recanted his confessions thats why they could not use it. i use the word confessions because he changed his damn story 2-3 times.   
 
But if you look at the Feb 17th confession the one were Stidham is present you will see that Jessie admits lying to the police in the first confession to confuse them, like when he said Rope in the first confession and he admits shoelaces, he also gave them the wrong time in his first confession, and admits it.

But if this confession is brought up, they can't use it against Jessie because he was granted Use Immunity. Meaning anything he said in this confession cannot be used against him.

[CCL]

Can his statements be used against the other 2 IF they got a new trial? AND does Jessie have to testify for the confessions/statements he made to be used against Jason and Damien?
I understand the use immunity, but I'm not clear on whether the confessions/statements can be used against the other 2.

Also, with the use immunity, can Jessie's original (where the use immunity didn't apply) confessions/statements be used against himself in a new trial?

I know he has recanted his statements, but they used his original ones against him in his original trial.....so I guess what I'm asking here is, will ALL his statements be of use in an evidenciary hearing or new trial, should one be issued?

[addict]

If there was a new trial, then the February confession could not be used against Jessie due to the use immunity. His original confession could still be used against him, however. If Jessie agreed to testify against Jason and Damien in a new trial, then both the June and February confessions could be used against them. Without him testifying, his confessions can't be used against them, since they have the right to face their accuser (which they don't have unless Jessie takes the stand).

All of Jessie's confessions can be used at the evidentiary hearing, however. The ASSC agreed that Burnett did not err when considering the February 17 statement as part of "all other evidence" to be considered.

From the ASSC Order re: Misskelley (emphasis added):

But, in addition, as we set out in Echols v. State, handed down this same date, the plain
language of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-208(e)(3) states that the trial court is
to consider the DNA test results “with all other evidence in the case, regardless of whether the
evidence was introduced at trial” in deciding whether to grant a new trial. Ark. Code Ann. §16-
112-208(e)(3) (Repl. 2006) (emphasis added). In Echols, we said all other evidence means any
evidence, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, that is relevant to a determination of whether
the petitioner has established, by compelling evidence, that a new trial would result in
acquittal. Echols, 2010 Ark. 417, ___ S.W.3d___. Thus, while the trial court erred in its
interpretation of section 16-112-208(e)(3) to include only evidence of guilt, it was not error
for the court to consider the immunized statement of Misskelley taken on February 17, 1994.
We affirm the trial court on this point.

[Farm]

Can his statements be used against the other 2 IF they got a new trial?

They won't need them.

Stidham already convinced Misskelley to refuse to testify once because he had "new evidence", and where is Misskelley 17 years later.

He won't make the same mistake twice - unlike Stidham, his current defense are actually representing his best interests.

Why do you think his attorneys are advising him not to tell the media he wasn't there?

I know he has recanted his statements

Really?

When?