The Supreme Court Hearing

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

[RustyShackleford]

Riordan wants a hearing in circuit court, not a decision from the ASSC- is this because the ASSC would deny a new trial in rather quick fashion, and this circuit court hearing a delay tactic? Say it does get sent back to circuit court and it's dismissed or whatever...then Riordan takes it back to the ASSC yet again on appeal? I don't understand the strategy here unless it's just stalling for as much time as possible. The justices asked him if he was asking them for a new trial and he said no, send it back to circuit court-why? If the case has any kind of substance, wouldn't he just ask them to make the decision?

rudder, maybe what he is trying to do is to go back to the circuit court to introduce new "evidence". new evidence cannot be introduced at the supreme court level. the supreme court at the state level usually doesn't hold any trials: it exists to hear appeals.

here's more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court

i wouldn't put stalling past him but i'm not sure that's the only reason.

[Farm]

Riordan wants a hearing in circuit court, not a decision from the ASSC

It's not what Riordan want's - it's that he doesn't have a choice.

The justices asked him if he was asking them for a new trial

Only to make sure he understood that wasn't an option.

If the case has any kind of substance, wouldn't he just ask them to make the decision?

The DNA claim is a circuit court claim - it's their jurisdiction, It was never up to the ASSC to rule on the claim itself, only on whether or not the circuit court erred in it's ruling on that claim.

Riordan admitted this himself:

We recognize that an appellate court, particularly a court of last jurisdiction such as the ASSC is not generally in the process of holding evidentary hearings or weighing the credibility of evidence, it bestows that function on circuit courts.


Say it does get sent back to circuit court and it's dismissed or whatever...then Riordan takes it back to the ASSC yet again on appeal?

No.

If the ASSC decides there was an error, they will clearly define what it was in their opinion, and the circuit court will ammend their ruling to comply.

Again, this already happened after Echol's rule37.

On 3/15/01, they held oral arguments before the ASSC regarding Burnett's ruling.

On 4/26/01, the ASSC issued their opinion affirming parts of his ruling, and remanding others.

On 7/30/01 Burnett issued an order ammending his ruling, and denying the rule 37.

http://www.callahan.8k.com/custom3.html

[DEU1952]

If the ASSC decides there was an error, they will clearly define what it was in their opinion, and the circuit court will amend their ruling to comply.

So that's the reason they spent the time parsing the language of the statute to decide what the legislature intended?

Then it would follow that Riordan hit all of the "new evidence" talking points for the benefit of the supporter peanut gallery and not because they had any relevance for the ASSC?