have you guys seen this??

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

[76387]

76387 Posts in 6760 Topics by 681 Members
Latest Member: wiltar

[tom2009]

http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/10-Mitchell.pdf

if so, what do you make of it?

[BlackAngel]

Need time to read it.

That sucker is long.

[flexj]

I just skimmed over it, but it appears to be the same stuff that he was already denied on.

I thought if the hair was used against him (or anything for that matter), and the DNA shows that it was not his, then he would have an argument for a new trial?

[tom2009]

the body of the review explains how they came to this, here is the conclusion of it:

"V. CONCLUSION
The circuit court failed in its interpretation of Arkansas’s
post-conviction relief statute. In doing so, it also failed to meet
the Arkansas Legislature’s goal of accounting for the ability of
new technology to accomplish the mission of criminal law—to
punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent. As U.S.
Congressman Bill Delahunt stated, “[T]he criminal justice
system is about the search for the truth, and like all human
enterprises, it is fallible . . . ut now we have the means at our
disposal to minimize the possibility of error, and especially
where lives are at stake, we have no choice . . . we must take
advantage of them.”224 A close examination of the legal and
factual issues presented by Echols’s motion for a new trial
reveals the circuit court’s failures on each level, particularly the
way the circuit court’s interpretation of the statute eviscerated its
purpose. In the context of Echols’s motion, Arkansas courts
have the opportunity to interpret this statute in accordance with
its express language and the legislature’s purpose, as well as to
provide much needed guidance to other jurisdictions in
interpreting similar statutory schemes. If Arkansas seeks to
accomplish the mission of the criminal law by way of new
technology, then Arkansas courts must grant Echols’s motion
for a new trial under Arkansas’s statute for post-conviction relief
based on new scientific evidence.
DAVID S. MITCHELL, JR."

[Rudder]

This guy, Mitchell, wants to rewrite Arkansas law so that Echols' argument would work. Echols didn't come close to the House v Bell case, in which semen on the murder victim matched someone else.

This guy admits that the dna evidence in Echols' case is legally inconclusive...after that, I don't see the bother in his argument. If the dna is legally inconclusive, then you can't argue that a reasonable jury would acquit Echols on it, correct? He wants Arkansas to change their statutes and set precedents over results that are "legally inconclusive"? He's fucking high. The title of the "comment" made me think it was Dave, or maybe one of his buddies: Lock ʻEm Up and Throw Away the Key: “The West Memphis Three” and Arkansasʼs Statute for Post-Conviction Relief Based on New Scientific Evidence∗, sort of immature for a legal opinion. Where'd you find this, Tom?

[tom2009]

i found the link to it on the stain board.....been trying to find it with the University of Arkansas School of Law, haven't found anything yet....which is having me question if this was just a student paper.....

edited to add: The Arkansas Law Review is student-edited and published on a quarterly basis and distributed statewide to members of the Arkansas Bar, as well as legal libraries throughout the nation......so i guess this review is written by a student.

[flexj]

Well Tom I think we should give that student the "F"

[Farm]

I thought if the hair was used against him (or anything for that matter), and the DNA shows that it was not his, then he would have an argument for a new trial?

The hair was never used at trial.

[flexj]

Yea I know, that's why I thought it would be irrelevant that it didn't match Damien.  Sorry it was a hypothetical suggegtion, had the hair been used against damien or one of the 3 then maybe the statue for DNA would have granted a new trial. 

[auburnesq]

You are correct Tom, it is a law review article written by a law student. Students and potential employers consider being a member of law review as prestigious because in most schools you must be asked to participate and most school ask only the top few percent of any class to join.

While it is a great resume builder, it has very little practical application and usually consists of scholarly what ifs and little else. Most law schools are heavy on theory and light on practical experience.

[Farm]

According to Alex, Mitchell built Harvard brick by brick.

[tom2009]

auburn: thats what i figured

farm: lmao at the Harvard thing