Question For The Nons...

[Nova]

Originally Posted by Dirty larry

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.

[Dirty larry]

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.

[~Lisa~]

Originally Posted by nephers

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

[Dirty larry]

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.