I can only hope...

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

[~Steph]

Nope. I don't think they'll make it past a hearing.

[Farm]

Exactly.

I realize that supporters think that during this hearing the circuit court judge is going to presume the convicts are innocent - but it doesn't fucking work that way.

The Defense has the burden of proving that DESPITE THE CONVICTIONS - new evidence indicates Echols would be aquitted.

There is no such evidence.

[jake]

Farm, the ASC said a lower court must examine claims of misconduct by the jurors in the E/B trial. I know this claim was dealt with years ago by Burnett, but here it is again. This is the reason that may bring it back to trial. I agree with you and Steph that there is no solid evidence to overturn.

[~Steph]

There's no solid evidence to prove anything to bring it back to trial. It's not going anywhere.

[Farm]

Farm, the ASC said a lower court must examine claims of misconduct by the jurors in the E/B trial. I know this claim was dealt with years ago by Burnett, but here it is again.

No.

Burnett has never dealt with it.

In fact, in his ruling on the DNA claim he specifically noted that the ASSC had already barred him from considering it.

The Armold misconduct claim has been raised three times with the ASSC, they ruled that it was untimely, improper, and refused to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to hear the claim three years ago.

This is the reason that may bring it back to trial.

No.

This hearing is over the Scientific evidence claim of actual innocence, not constitutional claims.

[jake]

Hey Farm, sorry, you are right. I went back and read the ruling again. It only referenced the juror misconduct in terms of all evidence that might point toward their innocence

 http://www.arktimes.com/images/blogimages/2010/11/04/1288880045-echols.pdf

[Farm]

Exactly.

In what world would a Defense team even allow the mention of a prior conviction on the same charges in a new trial.

[jake]

The jury misconduct issue would absolutely not help them in a new trial, but would it in a hearing to determine if a new trial should be granted? When I read this decision by the ASC, I get the impression that a new trial is exactly what the ASC wants, and that may carry some weight down the line. I think the Free the WM3 chant, and the celebrity power has worn down the state of Arkansas. I think they will go free. Do I agree?  I personally am not convinced of their innocence, but I think the only thing that could stop them from walking is a fifth Jessie M confession. That probably won't happen. I don't make any claims of special knowledge here, or even sound judgement, HA!. It is just my opinion.   

[Farm]

The jury misconduct issue would absolutely not help them in a new trial, but would it in a hearing to determine if a new trial should be granted?

Not when the burden of said hearing is the determination that a new jury would aquit.

When I read this decision by the ASC, I get the impression that a new trial is exactly what the ASC wants, and that may carry some weight down the line.

Nah.

The ASSC has upheld these convictions for over a decade.

It's fairly safe to assume they are familiar with the facts of the case at this point.

I think the Free the WM3 chant, and the celebrity power has worn down the state of Arkansas. I think they will go free.

Not a chance - even if new trials were granted, as there is far more new evidence of guilt that there is new "reasonable doubt".

I think the only thing that could stop them from walking is a fifth Jessie M confession.

Nah.

The presumption is still guilt, and the Defense in this case have nothing to challenge this presumption in order to acheive new trials.

That probably won't happen.

I think you might need to give this a little more thought.

Let's say the incredibly unlikely happens, and all three are granted new trials.

Do you honestly think Misskelley will go to trial again?

He has less of a case than he did last time - and he failed miserably then.

Ofshe was his primary witness during his trial, and the State now has incontrovertable documented evidence that Ofshe is a fraud, which pretty much eliminates the possibility of his "expert" testimony ever being admitted again.

The notion that Misskelley would refuse a plea bargain a second time is absurd.

[jake]

I don't think any of them will go to trial. I think that's what Arkansas wants now, makes them look like hero's, again just my guess, I just just have this feeling about it. But yes, if it went to trial, I could see Jessie taking a plea for time served. The interesting thing is would he also turn on E/B if that was part of the agreement? Would he confess yet a fifth time? Would it mean anything if he did? 

[Farm]

I don't think any of them will go to trial.

Nor do I - but only because they won't ever get the opportunity.

The interesting thing is would he also turn on E/B if that was part of the agreement?

In most plea agreements, it's the possibility of aquittal that brings the state to the table.

Let's face it, Misskelley doesn't have the luxury of a questionable verdict to use as leverage - his case is weaker than it was when he was convicted.

His testimony against the others is all he has to offer the State.

[jake]

Thanks Farm. I just can't wait to see this all play out