Question For The Nons...

Because an appellate review is not the same - not even close - to a trial. It's only a review. They don't look at the evidence and basically re-try the case; they only look for procedural errors.
This is not true.

Appellate claims take many forms, some review evidence presented, some consider new evidence, and some simply review rulings for procedural errors.

It may also result in evidence formerly allowed to be ruled inadmissible under fresh eyes and without the prejudice that permeated the atmosphere at the time.
I don't suppose you could provide us with an example or two?
the truth is important to me...call me crazy but that's how I feel.
If you feel justice has not been served, Then I suspect the place to start is to offer some sort of challenge to the convictions.
I think a big factor was Arkansas in that time period - jury prejudice - good ole boyisms; a complete misunderstanding of occult ritual killings and the evidence that would accompany them; the complete and utter farce of an expert witness on the occult etc.
It wasn't Griffis' opinion that Echols was a violent psychotic dabbler in Satanism, it's a documented fact.
Let's get to the truth.
The jurors already have - The presumption is guilt now.

It's up to the Defense to prove actual innocence - and they have failed for a decade and a half in three seperate courts.

Why do you suppose that is?
 
Did anyone get a chance to read the affidavit pertaining to the jury tampering? It was the previously sealed document that has been mentioned, not necessarily on this thread but on others. The contents have been rumored but now the actual, leaked, document is available.

I'm curios if it has changed anyones mind on if a new trial should be granted.
 
This is not true.

Appellate claims take many forms, some review evidence presented, some consider new evidence, and some simply review rulings for procedural errors.


I don't suppose you could provide us with an example or two?

If you feel justice has not been served, Then I suspect the place to start is to offer some sort of challenge to the convictions.

It wasn't Griffis' opinion that Echols was a violent psychotic dabbler in Satanism, it's a documented fact.

The jurors already have - The presumption is guilt now.

It's up to the Defense to prove actual innocence - and they have failed for a decade and a half in three seperate courts.

Why do you suppose that is?

I admit that Arkansas often seems like a foreign country, but in the United States of America the defense never has to prove actual innocence. Ziggy is basically correct that the appellate process only deals with the procedural validity of the trial and any underlying constitutional issues attaching to the law upon which the verdict is based.

The U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that proof of actual innocence is NOT grounds for a habeas corpus release absent a finding of procedural error on appeal. See Herrera v. Collins.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-15710052.html


ETA: Okay, I think I see what you are talking about. Most states with the death penalty allow for a habeas corpus claim of "actual innocence" (usually used in DNA exoneration cases), and when such a writ is filed, it's true the burden of proof falls on the defense.

http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/09/28/actual-innocence-in-post-conviction-proceedings/


But this is not the only avenue of appeal. The way you state it, it sounds as if once a jury verdict is reached, the burden of proof immediately falls on the defense to prove actual innocence. In fact, this is true only when an "actual innocence" writ is filed. In the vast majority of cases, the defense is arguing that the jury verdict was reached improperly because of procedural error.

"Actual innocence" writs are rare (usually DNA cases) because proving actual innocence is very nearly impossible except through the DNA testing of semen, etc. Even "air-tight alibis" are commonly ignored by juries unless the alibi witness has no relation to the defendant whatsoever.
 
I admit that Arkansas often seems like a foreign country, but in the United States of America the defense never has to prove actual innocence.
They do if there is no constitutional error.

Ziggy is basically correct that the appellate process only deals with the procedural validity of the trial and any underlying constitutional issues attaching to the law upon which the verdict is based.
You are confused, Appellate claims take many forms beyond constitutional errors.
The U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that proof of actual innocence is NOT grounds for a habeas corpus release absent a finding of procedural error on appeal. See Herrera v. Collins.
Herrea v. Collins simply states that the convict isn't eligible for a federal HC writ with a claim of actual innocence alone.

One only has to look into why Federal Habeas Corpus writs were concieved to see why.
Most states with the death penalty allow for a habeas corpus claim of "actual innocence" (usually used in DNA exoneration cases), and when such a writ is filed, it's true the burden of proof falls on the defense.
I know.

The way you state it, it sounds as if once a jury verdict is reached, the burden of proof immediately falls on the defense to prove actual innocence.
The way I stated it is that once a verdict is reached, the presumption is guilt.
In fact, this is true only when an "actual innocence" writ is filed.
As opposed to a "possible innocence" writ?

Is that a state or federal claim?
In the vast majority of cases, the defense is arguing that the jury verdict was reached improperly because of procedural error.
In the vast majority of WHAT cases exactly?
"Actual innocence" writs are rare
Actual innocence writs do not exist.

However, there are many appellate claims where evidence of actual innocence are presented.
(usually DNA cases)
Like this one.
proving actual innocence is very nearly impossible except through the DNA testing of semen, etc.
This is not true.

There are many cases where people have proven actual innocence which predate DNA testing.

In some, for example, irrefutable alibi evidence was discovered post conviction.

In others, the actual offender was conclusively identified by overwhelming evidence.
 
Dirty Larry the point you are missing is that you keep claiming that they've had all these chances "appeal after appeal" etc. when that is disingenuous because the appellate review does not even look at the evidence and any discretionary calls by the judge are not questioned; the judge is given the benefit of the doubt. It is strictly to see if any procedural errors were made - a jury instruction that was wrong; a constitutional right that was violated etc. The appellate judges are not weighing the evidence here and they are looking at things in a light more favorable to the prosecution and that is what frustrates people because the jury may have been overly prejudiced - a conclusion that is not far fetched due to the lack of evidence against these guys.
 
Dirty Larry the point you are missing is that you keep claiming that they've had all these chances "appeal after appeal" etc. when that is disingenuous because the appellate review does not even look at the evidence and any discretionary calls by the judge are not questioned
You could be more wrong, but it would take some serious effort on your part.
the judge is given the benefit of the doubt.
Wrong.

It's the JURY who is given the benifit of the doubt.
It is strictly to see if any procedural errors were made - a jury instruction that was wrong; a constitutional right that was violated etc.
There's is no polite way to say this, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I suggest you review Echols rule37 for example.

Then come back and try to tell us that appellate claims are all abouot procedural errors.

The appellate judges are not weighing the evidence here
Seriously.

You need to actually look into the claims which have already been ruled on, because at this point you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

they are looking at things in a light more favorable to the prosecution
Absolutely.

Once convicted, the presumption is guilt.

What part of this do you not understand?
that is what frustrates people because the jury may have been overly prejudiced
That's why there is an appeals process.

Do you know how many times Echols has raised the jury bias issue?

In how many different courts?

Do you know what ANY of those rulings were?
a conclusion that is not far fetched due to the lack of evidence against these guys.
But again, you aren't nearly as familiar with the facts of this case as you like to make out.
 
They do if there is no constitutional error.


You are confused, Appellate claims take many forms beyond constitutional errors.

Herrea v. Collins simply states that the convict isn't eligible for a federal HC writ with a claim of actual innocence alone.

One only has to look into why Federal Habeas Corpus writs were concieved to see why.

I know.


The way I stated it is that once a verdict is reached, the presumption is guilt.

As opposed to a "possible innocence" writ?

Is that a state or federal claim?

In the vast majority of WHAT cases exactly?

Actual innocence writs do not exist.

However, there are many appellate claims where evidence of actual innocence are presented.

Like this one.

This is not true.

There are many cases where people have proven actual innocence which predate DNA testing.

In some, for example, irrefutable alibi evidence was discovered post conviction.

In others, the actual offender was conclusively identified by overwhelming evidence.

Would it be possible to see citations for any of the claims you make here?

To take but one example, I know more than a few appellate attorneys. Not a one of them is aware of this shifting "burden of proof" you insist takes place (the exception being, as we both acknowledge, those incidents where actual innocence is asserted instead of procedural error).

I allow for the possibility that you and I are merely using different terminology. Citations supporting your claims would clear up any semantic problems.

It's true that appellate courts are reluctant to second-guess juries, but that's hardly the same thing.
 
Would it be possible to see citations for any of the claims you make here?
Which claims are you questioning exactly?
I know more than a few appellate attorneys.
Of course you do.
[/quote]Not a one of them is aware of this shifting "burden of proof" you insist takes place [/quote]
They are probably all too busy working on those "actual innocence writs".
I allow for the possibility that you and I are merely using different terminology.
You should probably allow for the possibility that you really aren't as familiar with the appellate process as you make out.

It's true that appellate courts are reluctant to second-guess juries, but that's hardly the same thing.

Once again:

The law attaches a strong presumption of finality to a criminal conviction. The conviction will be treated as final unless the inmate can show in one of two special ways that he or she is actually innocent. First, the inmate is able to prove by new evidence that he is actually innocent. New evidence means evidence that was not introduced in trial, nor was it available to the defense to introduce at trial. An example would be if physical evidence was not subjected to DNA testing before conviction, but such testing after trial excludes the inmate as a perpetrator of the offense. This is called a bare claim of actual innocence. It does not require that any constitutional error have occurred during the inmate’s trial, but it must be based on evidence discovered after trial.

The second method occurs when there was a constitutional error during trial and that error resulted in information that might have proved the inmate’s innocence from being introduced at the trial. An example would be if the defense lawyer was ineffective in the investigation or trial of the case and as a result a valid defense of alibi was not presented at trial. This method does not depend upon new evidence of actual innocence, but instead upon evidence of a constitutional violation that probably resulted in a trial in which an innocent person may have been convicted.


I trust you can see that this is a little more than a reluctance to second guess a jury.
 
Which claims are you questioning exactly?

Of course you do.
Not a one of them is aware of this shifting "burden of proof" you insist takes place [/quote]
They are probably all too busy working on those "actual innocence writs".

You should probably allow for the possibility that you really aren't as familiar with the appellate process as you make out.



Once again:

The law attaches a strong presumption of finality to a criminal conviction. The conviction will be treated as final unless the inmate can show in one of two special ways that he or she is actually innocent. First, the inmate is able to prove by new evidence that he is actually innocent. New evidence means evidence that was not introduced in trial, nor was it available to the defense to introduce at trial. An example would be if physical evidence was not subjected to DNA testing before conviction, but such testing after trial excludes the inmate as a perpetrator of the offense. This is called a bare claim of actual innocence. It does not require that any constitutional error have occurred during the inmate’s trial, but it must be based on evidence discovered after trial.

The second method occurs when there was a constitutional error during trial and that error resulted in information that might have proved the inmate’s innocence from being introduced at the trial. An example would be if the defense lawyer was ineffective in the investigation or trial of the case and as a result a valid defense of alibi was not presented at trial. This method does not depend upon new evidence of actual innocence, but instead upon evidence of a constitutional violation that probably resulted in a trial in which an innocent person may have been convicted.


I trust you can see that this is a little more than a reluctance to second guess a jury.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you are so snippy about, since the passage you post in bold (which appears to be a cite from somewhere else, though the source is not credited) confirms what ziggy and I both said.

All it does NOT say is that the vast majority of appeals are based on procedural issues rather than claims of "actual innocence," because these require evidence not available to the defense at the time of trial.

And this is because, as the site which I am repeating below explains, it is almost impossible to prevail on appeal with "actual innocence" claims.

http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/09/28/actual-innocence-in-post-conviction-proceedings/
 
I'm not sure what you are so snippy about, since the passage you post in bold (which appears to be a cite from somewhere else, though the source is not credited) confirms what ziggy and I both said.
Uhhh... no, it doesn't.

Here, let me help you again:

The law attaches a strong finality to a criminal conviction. The conviction will be treated as final unless the inmate can show in one of two special ways that he or she is actually innocent.

You may remember that the term "finality of convictions" was mentioned in the recent ASSC hearing.

As I said, in our system, once convicted, the presumption is guilt, and the burden shifts to the convict.

What part of this do you or your "more than a few appellate attorneys" not understand?

All it does NOT say is that the vast majority of appeals are based on procedural issues rather than claims of "actual innocence," because these require evidence not available to the defense at the time of trial.

I wonder if there's a reason it doesn't say that?

And this is because, as the site which I am repeating below explains, it is almost impossible to prevail on appeal with "actual innocence" claims.

Tell us, all this incredible work from the innocence project and other organizations you mentioned?

What type of claims do you suppose THEY filed?

I'll give you a hint.

A conviction overturned on a procedural error is not an exhoneration.
 
Uhhh... no, it doesn't.

Here, let me help you again:

The law attaches a strong finality to a criminal conviction. The conviction will be treated as final unless the inmate can show in one of two special ways that he or she is actually innocent.

You may remember that the term "finality of convictions" was mentioned in the recent ASSC hearing.

As I said, in our system, once convicted, the presumption is guilt, and the burden shifts to the convict.

What part of this do you or your "more than a few appellate attorneys" not understand?



I wonder if there's a reason it doesn't say that?



Tell us, all this incredible work from the innocence project and other organizations you mentioned?

What type of claims do you suppose THEY filed?

I'll give you a hint.

A conviction overturned on a procedural error is not an exhoneration.

That last sentence is quite the non sequitur as no one has claimed otherwise.

Although it is difficult to pierce your condescension, after several exchanges I think you and I are both saying much the same thing.

What is misleading is your demand that supporters produce "proof of actual innocence" when that is not required to overturn a verdict.

Certainly appellants have the burden of showing a trial was procedurally flawed, but that is not the same thing as saying they have a burden to prove innocence (as I'm sure you'll agree).

In most cases, appeals are granted on procedural grounds and a new trial is ordered. The prosecution then has the option of retrying or dismissing the charges.

Claims of actual innocence are very, very difficult to prove (and a few hundred DNA exonerations doesn't prove otherwise) and appellate decrees of actual innocence (in which charges are dismissed and no new trial is allowed) are relatively rare. This is because "actual innocence" is very difficult to prove. Even with DNA, except where the issue is semen in a rape case, the presence of foreign DNA or the absence of the defendant's DNA is often not considered definitive proof.

As I'm sure you know.
 
after several exchanges I think you and I are both saying much the same thing.
No, we aren't.
What is misleading is your demand that supporters produce "proof of actual innocence" when that is not required to overturn a verdict.
No, what is misleading is your refusal to acknowledge that the only claims remaining to Echols are actual innocence claims.
Certainly appellants have the burden of showing a trial was procedurally flawed
Not in Echol's case - those claims have all been exausted years ago.

The only reason the Federal court has held his Habeas Corpus writ in abeyance all these years is so that he could exaust the State DNA claim.

I suggest you look into not only Echol's dockets, but the actual appeals process in general.
 
Did anyone get a chance to read the affidavit pertaining to the jury tampering? It was the previously sealed document that has been mentioned, not necessarily on this thread but on others. The contents have been rumored but now the actual, leaked, document is available.

I'm curios if it has changed anyones mind on if a new trial should be granted.


Yes I read it, but I was already convinced that they should get a new trial.
Even though I'm still not 100% sure of their innocence. It makes me furious
that these things happen and a man is sitting on death row bcuz of it!

Here's the link in case anyone else wants to read it.

Affidavit of Lloyd Warford

http://wm3org.typepad.com/blog/2010/10/affidavit-of-lloyd-warford-.html


JMO
 
It makes me furious that these things happen and a man is sitting on death row bcuz of it!
Echols is sitting on death row because he comitted murder.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
933
Total visitors
1,083

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,846
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top