Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Crimes and Trials > West Memphis III

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-19-2010, 05:07 AM
Nova Nova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 18,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty larry View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-19-2010, 03:36 PM
Dirty larry Dirty larry is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 110
Quote:
after several exchanges I think you and I are both saying much the same thing.
No, we aren't.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-20-2010, 02:57 AM
~Lisa~'s Avatar
~Lisa~ ~Lisa~ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephers View Post
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/...-warford-.html


JMO
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ~Lisa~ For This Useful Post:
  #54  
Old 10-20-2010, 05:25 AM
Dirty larry Dirty larry is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 110
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirty larry For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Copyright question/ Online photo question laini Forum Finesse 6 07-08-2008 10:54 AM
A Question Elisea JonBenet Ramsey 8 08-25-2006 05:26 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:46 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!