GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #11

[arkansasmimi]

I was just showing you that yes that is what the LEO said they did. Went in and took what they wanted. It their words not mine. And on the google envelope it was in the trash and they said didnt have to have warrant for that . No expectation for privacy once put in trash out side the house.

And all I know or anyone for that matter is Judge Wayne Gruber signed off on it and Judge Herbert Wright deemed the 2 copied search warrants as General warrants and illegal. I doubt this is the first time this has happened but it happened here. All I know.

 

[NWLady]

I was paying attention. It is the SAME LAWS THAT ARE BEING USED IN THIS CASE AS IN EVERY OTHER CASE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND ANY OTHER CASE ON WS THAT IS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Not a special set of laws for Arron Lewis and Crystal Lowery. JMHO

I will agree to disagree as I was talking specifically about this case, not "every other case in the United States of America and any other case on WS"

 

[mpnola]

And all I know or anyone for that matter is Judge Wayne Gruber signed off on it and Judge Herbert Wright deemed the 2 copied search warrants as General warrants and illegal. I doubt this is the first time this has happened but it happened here. All I know.

Which has been exactly what several of us have been saying. What makes Judge Wright's opinion of the warrant being illegal more important that Judge Gruber's stamp of approval on that warrant. THIS is the type of loophole that needs to be closed. Exactly. One judge saying this warrant is sufficient to not violate rights, then another saying too bad- it is all thrown out. Don't you think if the first said it wasn't sufficient that the police would have re-written before entering? They would have. They were given the stamp of approval by a judge and that is what should be upheld. They were not trying to enter illegally, they secured a warrant. That's the bottom line. They were given the go-ahead, and so they did. They didn't do anything wrong.

 

[NWLady]

JMO, it seems there is one person on this thread who constantly posts in AL's defense and who seems almost happy that so many things regarding evidence etc have been thrown out and who IMO is actually looking forward to him not being convicted of this crime, which is truly sickening, but IMO it appears rather obvious.

Again, this is JMO from observing certain posts and how defensive it becomes when Justice For Beverly is being discussed.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I will agree to disagree as I was talking specifically about this case, not "every other case in the United States of America and any other case on WS"

I can agree to disagree on most anythings but fact is its all the same law. I dont understand what you mean that the laws in this case are protecting AL. Its not a diff law just for him. Sorry. Not meaning to argue, just dont understand how you see it being diff laws.
:lookingitup: fftobed: :bedtime:

 

[arkansasmimi]

JMO, it seems there is one person on this thread who constantly posts in AL's defense and who seems almost happy that so many things regarding evidence etc have been thrown out and who IMO is actually looking forward to him not being convicted of this crime, which is truly sickening, but IMO it appears rather obvious.

Again, this is JMO from observing certain posts and how defensive it becomes when Justice For Beverly is being discussed.

:thinking: seems like same thing was said on another thread yet in that case someone was on "different side" and it was ok to stand up for the legal part of the case. All I am doing. I am not defending anyone or anyside. Just looking at the Legal side open minded. Cant go wrong there. I like looking at facts not theories when we have some actual legal documents and stuff to look at. JMHO.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Which has been exactly what several of us have been saying. What makes Judge Wright's opinion of the warrant being illegal more important that Judge Gruber's stamp of approval on that warrant. THIS is the type of loophole that needs to be closed. Exactly. One judge saying this warrant is sufficient to not violate rights, then another saying too bad- it is all thrown out. Don't you think if the first said it wasn't sufficient that the police would have re-written before entering? They would have. They were given the stamp of approval by a judge and that is what should be upheld. They were not trying to enter illegally, they secured a warrant. That's the bottom line. They were given the go-ahead, and so they did. They didn't do anything wrong.

RBBM, Just my guess but Judge Wrights Orders are what stand because he is the Circuit Judge in this Criminal Case. Judge Gruber was District Judge prior to Formal Charges Nov 24, 2014 iirc, Circuit Judge Wright has the say in the criminal case. He is trying to keep the case from being a mistrial or being possibly overturned on errors (what he is suppose to do) on appeal.

 

[mpnola]

RBBM, Just my guess but Judge Wrights Orders are what stand because he is the Circuit Judge in this Criminal Case. Judge Gruber was District Judge prior to Formal Charges Nov 24, 2014 iirc, Circuit Judge Wright has the say in the criminal case. He is trying to keep the case from being a mistrial or being possibly overturned on errors (what he is suppose to do) on appeal.

I get that. But why would Judge Gruber approve something illegal? He obviously didnt think it was illegal. He thought it was appropriate. This is why I am 100% sure that this is a subjective process. Right and wrong is only in who is deciding it, not an ACTUAL right and wrong. Its a big mess that needs to be cleaned up! No one should ever obtain evidence with a warrant, signed by a judge, only to have that evidence then inadmissible because another judge says the first judge's word wasn't good enough. That doesn't seem basic? To be expected of the judicial system? Cause it does to me. Otherwise, criminals continue to get away with crimes! Its a piece of paper. No evidence was claimed to be fabricated. All of the evidence is real and was obtained with a warrant.

 

[NWLady]

To my fellow sleuthers, I found an easy fix to limit the amount of posts you have to weed thru - it's called the ignore function. JMO, but I have found it very helpful tonight.

 

[Tallula.Belle]

JMO, it seems there is one person on this thread who constantly posts in AL's defense and who seems almost happy that so many things regarding evidence etc have been thrown out and who IMO is actually looking forward to him not being convicted of this crime, which is truly sickening, but IMO it appears rather obvious.

Again, this is JMO from observing certain posts and how defensive it becomes when Justice For Beverly is being discussed.

This is not solely a justice for Beverly thread. It is to discuss all parts of the case. I personally stopped posting here, because I was constantly accused of the same things you are accusing Mimi of. Lord knows Mimi and I have disagreed, but she is taking time out of her life to go to the courtroom and get facts. She has never once given the impression that she is an AL fan and wants him found not guilty. Actually quite the opposite. We all want justice for the family but just because the guy is a convicted felon doesn't make this a slam dunk. Personally, I can't believe all of the things that have been legally tossed but they have and to me, this is very concerning. I fail to see how Mimi posting the true facts of the matter can be construed as her hoping AL goes free. What I see is people getting defensive towards her for posting the facts.

 

[111addict]

Which has been exactly what several of us have been saying. What makes Judge Wright's opinion of the warrant being illegal more important that Judge Gruber's stamp of approval on that warrant. THIS is the type of loophole that needs to be closed. Exactly. One judge saying this warrant is sufficient to not violate rights, then another saying too bad- it is all thrown out. Don't you think if the first said it wasn't sufficient that the police would have re-written before entering? They would have. They were given the stamp of approval by a judge and that is what should be upheld. They were not trying to enter illegally, they secured a warrant. That's the bottom line. They were given the go-ahead, and so they did. They didn't do anything wrong.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[arkansasmimi]

JMO, it seems there is one person on this thread who constantly posts in AL's defense and who seems almost happy that so many things regarding evidence etc have been thrown out and who IMO is actually looking forward to him not being convicted of this crime, which is truly sickening, but IMO it appears rather obvious.

Again, this is JMO from observing certain posts and how defensive it becomes when Justice For Beverly is being discussed.

IF you and the jury and the public would have had the ability to hear the now deemed Suppressed recorded interrogations and what was on them. You would be as upset as I was/am. Knowing what I heard and those others that sat in that courtroom for HOURS, that none of that is able to be heard by jury, you would understand how HUGE it is that all this is thrown out. It Pi$$es me off. Its not as simple as wanting to focus on the positive. Positively tragic is all I see. AL told an officer he wanted a Lawyer. That is a fact, because the officer wrote it in his report. I doubt that the officer just did it for any other reason. Get him a lawyer and go from there. LAW. Whats left is gonna be argued by Def as prove it, its the Inv word. Had they done what was legal, they would have had a HUGE amount of evidence. (just from what been shown in hearings so far) All this stuff that is being Suppressed, has not a dang thing to do with what AL did or didn't do. Everything that has been suppressed has had testimony and case law to back it up. (per the Court Order)
Had proper steps been taken at the time, the hard working Investigators work wouldn't have been Suppressed. JMHO.

The Defendant introduced the arrest report created by Officer Cedric Roy of the LRPD'
Defendant,s Ex. l. In that report, Officer Roy indicates that the Defendant requested an attomey
when he was transferred to the custody of the Sheriff. Officer Roy did not convey this
information to the Sheriff s investigators. The state did not call officer Roy as a witness, but
they also did not dispute the authenticity of the report or the facts contained therein. The court
finds the information contained in the report credible and finds that this request by the Defendant
at the time of transfer from LRPD to PCSO constituted an assertion of his right to have an
attorney present during interrogation.l0 once an accused has expressed his desire to deal with the
police only through counsel, he is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until
counsel has been made available to him, unless he himself initiates further communication'
exchanges, or conversations with the police. Edwards v. Arizona 451 U'S' 477,484-485 (1981)'
see also wedgeworth v. State ,374 Ark.373 (200s) (accused may waive his rights by initiating
further communication with the police...any resulting statements may be admissible')

The Court finds that the introduction of any statements the Defendant made after he
invoked his right to counsel in the presence of officer Roy would be a violation of his right to an
attorney under Edwards. The court finds further that the Defendant's yelling for the investigators
to return was a voluntary re-initiation of communication with the investigators' http://static.lakana.com/nxsglobal/.../12/09/Judge Wright Ruling_5937691_ver1.0.pdf

 

[arkansasmimi]

The Def on Dec 28th, filed a new Motion - MOTION TO COMPEL CRYSTAL LOWERY TO SPEAK WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL. Judge is going to listen to argument/rule on at a Hearing set for Jan 5. The trial starts the next week.

IF the Judge were to deny the Motion, I wonder if Def Attorney Bill James would do like Mark O'Mara did and file a PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ? O'Mara wanted to depose Benjamin Crump and Judge ruled against. O'Mara petitioned the District Court of Appeals in FL, to get a revere on the Order. (which was Granted)


O'Mara wrote

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI snip>
The denial of this pretrial
discovery request causes irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on appeal
after final judgment. Office of Attorney General v. Millennium Communications &
Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf

District Court of Appeals Opinion:

Snip>
We grant the writ because we would be unable to ascertain
the degree of harm resulting from the wrongful denial of this discovery in a plenary
appeal. See, e.g., Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp., 8 So. 3d 1232, 1234-35 (Fla.
2d DCA 2009) (although certiorari is rarely available to review orders denying discovery
because the harm can usually be remedied on appeal, relief by writ of certiorari is
appropriate when "there is no practical way to determine after judgment how the
requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings.").
http://www.5dca.org/Clerk/George Zimmerman 13-1233/13-1233_Opinion.pdf

In that case, the witness the Def was wanting to depose was an Attorney for the victims family, who had spoken to another witness. In the case here, is a Co-defendant who has took a plea bargain and agreed to testify against AL. JMHO though, I don't see how they would be able to not depose CL.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Certiorari
Definition

A word from Law Latin, meaning "to be more fully informed." If an appellate court has the power to review cases at its discretion, certioari is the formal instrument by which that power gets used. A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it. The U.S. Supreme Court uses certiorari to pick most of the cases that it hears.

Overview

The U.S. Supreme Court gives full consideration to but a small fraction of the cases it has authority to review. With many important categories of cases, the party seeking Supreme Court review does so by "petitioning" the Court to issue a "writ of certiorari." (See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254, 1257, 2350.) (Note: Some state appeals courts -- e.g., Ala., Ark., Colo., Conn., Fla., Ga., La., N.J. -- employ the same terminology.) If the Court decides to review one or more issues in such a case it grants "certiorari" (often abbreviated as "cert."). If the Court decides not to review the case it denies "cert."
more at link https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari

 

[arkansasmimi]

Jury Duty in Pulaski County Circuit Court is for 3 months. Jurors for the Jan/Feb/March session for Judge Wrights court (if like others Judges) those Jurors would have had an orientation in Dec and the Tuesday Jurors will have to call to see if they have a trial to report for. All will appear and Voir Dire will start, and continue til they have a jury seated with alternates. That will take place in Judge Wrights normal courtroom and closed to the public iirc. Trial will be in a larger courtroom.

When a jury summons is rec'd you have questions to answer on it and it is turned into the Bailiff at Orientation. The Attorneys and State Pros will have copies of ALL the potential Jurors. As I heard a Bailiff tell in Jury Selection before in another county, they will know everything about each potential juror when jury selection begins. (*Request for Disclosure of Criminal History of Potential Jurors
This Motion is granted. The State is ordered to provide any material of this nature in its possession https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=ACXKXLCEERPBZK3SW89972Z8QDIRSA )

I wonder if they will do as they did in the Casey Anthony High Profile Voir Dire... where as the potential Juror was called up, they did a social media internet search? Or maybe prior to Voir Dire? To help weed out people who "want to sit on the jury"

voir dire
(vwahr [with a near-silent "r"] deer) n. from French "to see to speak," the questioning of prospective jurors by a judge and attorneys in court. Voir dire is used to determine if any juror is biased and/or cannot deal with the issues fairly, or if there is cause not to allow a juror to serve (knowledge of the facts; acquaintanceship with parties, witnesses or attorneys; occupation which might lead to bias; prejudice against the death penalty; or previous experiences such as having been sued in a similar case). Actually one of the unspoken purposes of the voir dire is for the attorneys to get a feel for the personalities and likely views of the people on the jury panel. In some courts the judge asks most of the questions, while in others the lawyers are given substantial latitude and time to ask questions. Some jurors may be dismissed for cause by the judge, and the attorneys may excuse others in "peremptory" challenges without stating any reason. 2) questions asked to determine the competence of an alleged expert witness. 3) any hearing outside the presence of the jury held during trial.

See also: expert witness jury peremptory challenge

Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2229#ixzz3w9Tr80vL

 

[arkansasmimi]

Reading and trying to understand :lookingitup:
From MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLEGED PHONE RECORDING OF BEVERLY CARTER https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=R9EZ0XAX7729VH0YOEB7GWFFSRLPYO
B. Arkansas Rule Of Criminal Procedure 16.2 Dictates That The Recording
Should Be Suppressed.


What that is:

Rule 16.2. Motions To Suppress Evidence.

(a) Objection to the use of any evidence, on the grounds that it was illegally obtained, shall be made by a motion to suppress evidence. The phrase "objection to the use of any evidence, on the grounds that it was illegally obtained," shall include but is not limited to evidence which:

1. Consists of tangible property obtained by means of an unlawful search and seizure; or

2. Consists of a record of potential testimony reciting or describing declarations or conversations overheard or recorded by means of eavesdropping; or

3. Consists of a record or potential testimony reciting or describing a confession or admission of a defendant involuntarily made; or

4. Was obtained as a result of other evidence obtained in a manner described in subdivisions one, two, and three; or

5. Consists of the prospective in-court identification of the defendant based on an unlawful pre-trial confrontation.

The motion shall be made to the court which is to conduct the trial at which such evidence may be offered in evidence.

(b) The motion to suppress shall be timely filed but not later than ten (10) days before the date set for the trial of the case, except that the court for good cause shown may entertain a motion to suppress at a later time.

(c) Renewal of a motion to suppress which has been denied may be allowed on the ground of newly discovered evidence or as the interests of justice require.

(d) An order granting a motion to suppress prior to trial shall be reviewable on appeal pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure — Criminal 3.

(e) Determination. A motion to suppress evidence shall be granted only if the court finds that the violation upon which it is based was substantial, or if otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or of this state. In determining whether a violation is substantial the court shall consider all the circumstances, including:

(i) the importance of the particular interest violated;

(ii) the extent of deviation from lawful conduct;

(iii) the extent to which the violation was willful;

(iv) the extent to which privacy was invaded;

(v) the extent to which exclusion will tend to prevent violations of these rules;

(vi) whether, but for the violation, such evidence would have been discovered; and

(vii) the extent to which the violation prejudiced moving party's ability to support his motion, or to defend himself in the proceedings in which such evidence is sought to be offered in evidence against him.

Associated Court Rules:
Rules of Criminal Procedure
Group Title:
Article IV. Search and Seizure
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...ourt-rules/rule-162-motions-suppress-evidence

 

[arkansasmimi]

Interesting Read:
University of Arkansas
Arkansas Law Review

The Forgotten Rule: Rule 16.2(e) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure
66 Ark. L. Rev. 661

http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawrev...-of-the-arkansas-rules-of-criminal-procedure/

 

[arkansasmimi]

This is not solely a justice for Beverly thread. It is to discuss all parts of the case. I personally stopped posting here, because I was constantly accused of the same things you are accusing Mimi of. Lord knows Mimi and I have disagreed, but she is taking time out of her life to go to the courtroom and get facts. She has never once given the impression that she is an AL fan and wants him found not guilty. Actually quite the opposite. We all want justice for the family but just because the guy is a convicted felon doesn't make this a slam dunk. Personally, I can't believe all of the things that have been legally tossed but they have and to me, this is very concerning. I fail to see how Mimi posting the true facts of the matter can be construed as her hoping AL goes free. What I see is people getting defensive towards her for posting the facts.

Thank You.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Timeline, to best of my ability eyeballing JMHO
2014

11/2014 AL files request to write to CL at the Pul County Regional Jail Faculity

12/3/2014 goes to court before Judge Herbert Wright

12/10/2014 AL makes filed Motion to Dismiss Attorney James Hensley

12/13 or 12/15 can tell from AL writing denied from Unit Warden to write CL

12/13/2014 AL alleges in an exhibit Attorney James Hensley tells him in a letter about how to communicate, "if you want me to get a
letter to your wife, I'll be happy to give it to her attorney. If it comes through my office, I believe her lawyer will have to give it to her"

12/17/2014 AL has a legal letter to James Hensley, 5 pages specifically discussing Discovery and other sensitive details not released to the public and under seal. 1 page was to CL in regards to 2 affidavits AL had written for her defense and a suggestion about their divorce.

12/18/2014 Judge Wright denied the Motion to Dismiss James Hensley

12/18/2014 AL Disiplined at ADOC for misuse of mail

12/19/2014 Attorney James Hensley writes back a 2 page letter to Captain Stanley Robinson (at ADOC Tucker) informing him that he was wrong for confinscating the legal mail and instructs him to forward the confinscated mail immediatedly.

2015

1/5/2015 AL renews his desire to dismiss James Hensley in another Motion to Judge Wright

1/20/2015 AL goes for his Mental Eval against his wishes

2/10/2015 AL vol dismisses case to exhaust all appeals with in ADOC

2/18/2015 AL Mental Eval is submitted to Court

2/24/2015 refiles the Civil Suit because unable to write to CL per ADOC guidelines.

3/4/2015 in Judge Wrights court again, judge goes over the Mental Eval and signs Order to dismiss James Hensley and approves AL to proceed ProSe

3/9/2015 Complete case file deadline for James Hensley to have complet case file to AL

3/25/2015 ADOC Tucker Unit Warden Outlaw is served with new Civil Suit filing on First Amendment Violation

3/27/2015 AL approved to correspond with CL

6/1/2015 OH Judge Wright gave 1 week to file if wanted to be appointed an Attorney

6/9/2015 Letter rec'd from AL to Judge Wright as his wish to have an Attorney appointed

6/10/2015 Judge Wright appoints Def Attorney Bill James for AL

7/6/2015 Federal Judge James Moody denies Defendant Outlaw Motion to Dismiss, case allowed to move forward "Mr. Lewis may proceed on his first amendment claim against Defendant Outlaw"
AL alleges that he was brought into office and tried to get to sign a dismissal of case, which he allegedly refused.

7/7/2015 CL takes a Plea Deal of 30 yrs for 1st Degree Murder and 30 yrs for Kidnapping Beverly Carter

7/22/2015 moved from Tucker Max to Varner Super Max

 

[arkansasmimi]

Going back and reviewing:

AL complained at his hearing Dec 3 iirc, about CL not getting his letters. So from Nov to Dec 13/or 15th he was probably sending her letters. Then from March 25th 2015 until July 6th 2015 (**DAY PRIOR TO CL TAKING PLEA on July 7) when he was moved from Tucker to Varner. No telling what any of that correspondence said. (they would have copies of any of his outgoing mail I feel sure).

But way back to his exhibit about the Dec 15th confiscating of legal mail, is when he stated

Per AL Letter dated 12/17/2014 in his Fed Civil Suit 5:14-CV-457-SWW-JJV, he stated that "on 12/3/2014 while in court he asked Judge Wright how we (he and CL) could communicate to coordinate a defense. He states he was told they could go through their attorneys (AL then attorney James Hensley ). AL quoted a letter from the attorney alleging " my lawyer wrote me back a letter dated 12/13/2014 and in response stated 'if you want me to get a letter to your wife, I'll be happy to give it to her attorney. If it comes through my office, I believe her lawyer will have to give it to her'. ** JMHO I think that since he gave a date and quoted the lawyer that that probably happened. JMHO**

AL goes on to say that "I only did as my lawyer instructed me. The letter was to my wife in regards to 2 affidavits I had written for her defense and a suggestion about our divorce"The exhibit further states it was a 6 page correspondence with the last page to CL that was confiscated.
**looks like she took his advise on not getting the divorce. If I read the statute correctly, if they had been divorced at TIME of trial? Then the marriage privilege would be not an option. But again I may be wrong. Either way they are still married so doesnt matter on that.

AL was moved to Varner beginning of summer iirc. "Affidavit" posted on his Facebook page is "notorized" in different ink on Oct 5, 2015. Possible he had a copy that was notarized and just changed the date. From my untrained eye it appears to be same writing as AL just different ink. JMHO

Could be the same affidavit but seems to be an awful lot of writing to be in a 5 page legal letter. And there was allegedly 2 per AL writings.

Another thought... Since they have taken the Insanity Defense off the table does that mean they will not be able to state anything that was talked about or use the Dr from the State Hospital as a witness? Serious question . :thinking: all JMHO