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

[jstkiddn]

They might not have this and they might not have that. BUT, they do have an alleged co-defendant who is going to testify regarding what his (AL) participation in the crime was. So, instead of concentrating on what CANNOT be used, maybe we should also look at what CAN be used.

Also, what about the posting on his FB page that is signed by him (as far as we know anyways) discussing his participation regarding burying the body etc??

And, if I understand it correctly, your knowledge and/or participation of a crime before, during and/or after, means that you can be charged with the exact same charges for that crime. Isn't that how it works??

I'm starting to get more and more suspicious about that thing on FB. I'm beginning to wonder if the lawyer didn't put him up to it? I cannot believe he has not forced him to take it down unless he wants it there for a reason....but what in the world could the reason be? I can't wrap my head around why he would allow it to stay.

Regarding his admitted participation in burying the body, etc.....yes, that is a crime, but it's a much lesser crime than kidnapping and murder. As asinine as his story is (and honestly...who in the world would EVER believe it...the whole thing is stupid), if one were to be believed that the death was an accident and then they panicked and hid the body, that's going to carry a much lesser sentence than possible life without parole or maybe even the 30 years that CL took.

If they can get all that other evidence thrown out, is there really a way he could weasel out with his "it was an accident" story? At this point, can CL renege on her promise to testify and take her chances with a trial at a later date using the same "it was an accident" story?

Geesh....it makes my head spin to think about it.

 

[arkansasmimi]

JMO but I think what the investigator is saying by "did not have any knowledge that any of the items sought in the warrant would be inside the vehicle" meant that yes, they were looking for items related to the crime, but they did not KNOW prior to the search/serving the warrant whether they would find anything or not. I think the "inventory sheet" comes into play after the warrant has been served and the search has been conducted and then they list/write down what items were taken, if any. That's my understanding but this is JMO and I could be misunderstanding how it all works.

At the hearing the Pros and Def questioned the Investigators who wrote the Affidavits for a Search Warrant and then wrote the actual Search Warrant. 1 wrote one for the home on Randall Drive and another wrote for the 2012 Ford Fusion. The Def attorney went line by line asking if they knew those items would be in the places listed on the Search Warrants. Both Investigators answered NO, they did not know. The Def argued that they were general warrants and illegal. The Judge agreed that is why he granted the Motion by the Def. Instead of "clothing" it should have had listed last known clothing that BC was wearing for instance. The Def asked both the Inv on the stand if they could have gotten anything they wanted and they reluctantly answered Yes. That is not how a Search Warrant is suppose to be (overly broad) suppose to be specific.

As to the veh, what the Judge was saying about taking inventory.. he gave a case ref, but the way I understand what he is saying and I could be wrong but I think I am right... IF the State can prove that they took an inventory of items in the car between the time the car was towed until the Illegal Search Warrant was carried out searching that Judge will consider allowing use of the evidence. If they didnt do an inventory search prior, than they cant use. That inventory is different that the lists of items they took out and wrote down as items taken with their Illegal Search Warrant. (thats how the Judge called. The Judge even said in his Order that they were copied (from Affidavit to Warrant, even typos) at bottom of page 11 in the ref #s, it says

, for example, the investigator, discovered and confiscated multiple firearms in the home, as
well as a credit card reader, something the investigators speculated was an instrument of an
identity theft scheme on the part of the Defendant. The State has not suggested that these items
are part of its case against the Defendant.

^^ That makes me wonder if they will be allowed to go forth with the firearms charges. I dont know how that works. He wasn't suppose to have them, but they weren't suppose to take them.

Page 19/29 this is what I was talking about the different inventory than what was on the Search Warrant inventory list.

It should be pointed out that the record is silent as to whether an inventory search was
done on the Defendant's vehicle between the time when it was towed away by the investigators **towed from the accident location to the crime scene bay**
and the point where the invalid search warrant was executed. There is an inventory search"
exception to the warrant requirement. "Pursuant to this exception, police officers may conduct a
warrantless inventory search of a vehicle that is being impounded in order to protect an owner's
property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or
vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. Benson v. State,342 Atk.684, 688. If
the State can show that any items found in the vehicle that they seek to introduce were
discovered during an inventory search and not during the search pursuant to the illegal warrant,
this Court will consider admitting them into evidence. Without that showing, all evidence found
in the vehicle is to be suPPressed

We will have to wait and see if they did that or if they just did with the Search Warrant. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

They might not have this and they might not have that. BUT, they do have an alleged co-defendant who is going to testify regarding what his (AL) participation in the crime was. So, instead of concentrating on what CANNOT be used, maybe we should also look at what CAN be used.

Also, what about the posting on his FB page that is signed by him (as far as we know anyways) discussing his participation regarding burying the body etc??

And, if I understand it correctly, your knowledge and/or participation of a crime before, during and/or after, means that you can be charged with the exact same charges for that crime. Isn't that how it works??

I agree that concentrate on what they do have but at this point I personally am trying to figure out what they had, what they cant use so as to know (best we can in the public) know what is left. If you think about it there is a whole bunch of stuff that was suppressed. Not able to bring into the trial. Fingerprints on BC iphone, on the baseball bat, whatever the tape would give them to with what was on the body when found. The hair in the trunk that was identified as BC. There is not much of what went on in the interrogation left to be able to use, what was said after AL yelled for the FBI guyto come back, none of that was taped nor was what went on in the car on the ride with detectives or what was said when returned from that ant took back to CID office. Only thing can is the recording of BC that he played and was picked up on the recorder where they were recording the interviews without his knowledge.

All I know is AL and CL were both charged initially with the same charges. CL plead down to lesser Murder and Kidnapping in exchange for testifying against AL. So as far as the charges those have already been charged.

The Defendant's wife will be permitted to testifu against him, and the defense's Motion
is essentially denied. More specifically, under the precedent cited by this Court, Lowery may
testiff to anything she saw, heard, or observed that was not a confidential communication. If her
testimony does involve a confidential communication made during the joint criminal activity of
the pair, that testimony will be admitted under the'Joint criminal activity" exception to the
marital privilege. If her testimony involves a confidential communication made prior to the joint criminal activity of the pair**I am wondering if this mean the planning?**, that communication will not be allowed unless the State can show it
was made in the presence of or disclosed to a third party.12

12 The State has submitted three compact discs containing interviews with the Defendant where
he is alleged to have revoked the confidentiality of statements he made to Lowery. The Court has
reviewed all of this material, and his only mention of Lowery involves extramarital affairs he
participated in. Nothing in these interviews suffices to waive any confidential communications of
which the Court is aware

page 28

 

[arkansasmimi]

I'm starting to get more and more suspicious about that thing on FB. I'm beginning to wonder if the lawyer didn't put him up to it? I cannot believe he has not forced him to take it down unless he wants it there for a reason....but what in the world could the reason be? I can't wrap my head around why he would allow it to stay.

Regarding his admitted participation in burying the body, etc.....yes, that is a crime, but it's a much lesser crime than kidnapping and murder. As asinine as his story is (and honestly...who in the world would EVER believe it...the whole thing is stupid), if one were to be believed that the death was an accident and then they panicked and hid the body, that's going to carry a much lesser sentence than possible life without parole or maybe even the 30 years that CL took.

If they can get all that other evidence thrown out, is there really a way he could weasel out with his "it was an accident" story? At this point, can CL renege on her promise to testify and take her chances with a trial at a later date using the same "it was an accident" story?

Geesh....it makes my head spin to think about it.

I don't get that fb stuff either. I looked up the person who notorized it and that person is at at prison. What is odd to me is iirc, the thing was notorized day prior to one hearing and that hearing was continued because of the various Motions and then day prior to THAT hearing is when it was put on that fb. Why even put it there I dont get that part either. I agree makes my head spin too. I read in the paper this morning, well the paper said the Pros can appeal the Judges Order. I wondered about that. IIRC in the George Zimmerman case the Def Appealed something by the Judge Ruling. I also wondered last night about CL if she could renig on her deal. My head hurts from reading lol

ETA: on the FB tho, everything is read that goes out unless it is one of those privileged (media, legal so forth) so if it was sent to anyone else the prison would surely have copy of it (like they did of Wesley Hadsell letter to his Mother in the AJ Hadsell case) JMO

 

[jstkiddn]

I don't get that fb stuff either. I looked up the person who notorized it and that person is at at prison. What is odd to me is iirc, the thing was notorized day prior to one hearing and that hearing was continued because of the various Motions and then day prior to THAT hearing is when it was put on that fb. Why even put it there I dont get that part either. I agree makes my head spin too. I read in the paper this morning, well the paper said the Pros can appeal the Judges Order. I wondered about that. IIRC in the George Zimmerman case the Def Appealed something by the Judge Ruling. I also wondered last night about CL if she could renig on her deal. My head hurts from reading lol

ETA: on the FB tho, everything is read that goes out unless it is one of those privileged (media, legal so forth) so if it was sent to anyone else the prison would surely have copy of it (like they did of Wesley Hadsell letter to his Mother in the AJ Hadsell case) JMO

What if it was given to the lawyer/legal team? The prison can't read legal mail, right? But if that were so, then how does it wind up going from the lawyer to AL's FB page?

 

[arkansasmimi]

What if it was given to the lawyer/legal team? The prison can't read legal mail, right? But if that were so, then how does it wind up going from the lawyer to AL's FB page?

Dang computer update right in middle of a thought lol.
That what I think (that they aren't suppose to read that stuff, remember the whole thing about them keeping his legal mail when he had that first lawyer? He said was in retaliation for filing suit. ... I have no idea how it would get there or by whom.

On the Inventory prior to Search Warrant search, JMHO if they did do that it should be in the Discovery case files or whatever its called. The Pros and Def should both have it if it was done. Not something I would think they could whip up and give to judge. He only has what they have submitted. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

Just rec'd a call from VINE stating that Crystal Lowery has been transferred to the Wrightsville Unit. I thought all women were at the McPherson Unit. Guess not

ETA: guess they have a Womens unit there hmm
Name: LOWERY, CRYSTAL HOPE
Custody Status: In Custody
Age: 42
Location: Wrightsville Women's Unit
Race: White
Contact Facility:

 

[jstkiddn]

To try to put a positive spin on the judge's rulings, when they do get a conviction (notice the positive thinking here....when, not if!) then the judge has removed many reasons for a future appeal. It's best to have those things removed now, before the trail, than to risk having a shaky conviction that will just wind up being thrown out on appeal anyway. If there are things that shouldn't legally be allowed for whatever reason, I'm glad they are being caught now instead of later.

JMO

(of course, I wish they weren't there in the first place....goes without saying)

 

[arkansasmimi]

Oh like in Orange is the New Black? :silly:
Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) - Wrightsville Unit
Pulaski County
State Prison
Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) - Wrightsville Unit is a low security correctional facility. Inmates are housed together in dormitories or cubicle housing. They are provided with access to programs and training that will help to rehabilitate them so that they’re ready to get their lives back on track when released. As a low security facility, Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) - Wrightsville Unit has a lower staff to inmate ratio than medium or high security jails.

 

[jstkiddn]

Oh like in Orange is the New Black? :silly:
Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) - Wrightsville Unit
Pulaski County
State Prison
Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) - Wrightsville Unit is a low security correctional facility. Inmates are housed together in dormitories or cubicle housing. They are provided with access to programs and training that will help to rehabilitate them so that they’re ready to get their lives back on track when released. As a low security facility, Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) - Wrightsville Unit has a lower staff to inmate ratio than medium or high security jails.

Is it bad of me to wish that her new cubicle mate is Crazy Eyes?

 

[arkansasmimi]

Is it bad of me to wish that her new cubicle mate is Crazy Eyes?

:laughcry: She probably wont have any problems adjusting if ya know what I mean:giggle:

Kinda weird that she was moved today. And that YESTERDAY the AG office filed their response to AL Appeal. I hope they are not playing games. Serves good for no one. JMHO But made me laugh on ole Crazy Eyes... CL kinda has a crazy eye now that think about it :giggle:

 

[arkansasmimi]

General Docket
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

10/27/2015 Open Document Prisoner case docketed. [4330301] [15-3398] (PSA)
10/27/2015 Open Document Originating court document filed consisting of magistrate's report filed 9/11/15, order and judgment filed 9/23/15, order filed 10/6/15, notice of appeal, docket entries, [4330340] [15-3398] (PSA)
10/27/2015 Open Document BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS: If the original file of the U.S. District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by 8th Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with 8th Circuit Local Rule 30A (a)(2), the clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format or filed under seal, exhibits, administrative records and state court files.
BRIEF OF APPELLANT Arron M. Lewis due 12/07/2015.
Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.
Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. [4330343] [15-3398] (PSA)

11/09/2015 Open Document BRIEF FILED - APPELLANT BRIEF filed by Mr. Arron M. Lewis. w/service 11/10/2015 , Length: 7 pages
Brief of Wendy Kelley, Steve Outlaw and Stanley Robinson due on 12/09/2015 [4335295] [15-3398] (SRD)

12/09/2015 Open Restricted Document APPELLEE brief of Steve Outlaw submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. [4344904] [15-3398] (ARS)

 

[arkansasmimi]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
ARRON MICHAEL LEWIS PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 6:14-cv-06147
KARCEY J. KIKER, Advanced Practice
Nurse (APN), Ouachita Regional Unit (ORU);
NURSE DENISE J. BARTHEL, ORU;
and NURSE ANDREA HAZELWOOD, ORU DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Motion (ECF No. 70) asking that he be allowed to procure, at his own
expense, a copy of the American Correctional Association Standards. He indicates that the
Defendants’ policies refer to those standards. The Motion (ECF No. 70) is GRANTED. As long
as this book is available to members of the public, Plaintiff should be allowed to purchase and retain
this book for purposes of this case.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion (ECF No. 71) asking that the Summary Judgment Hearing
be rescheduled. He asserts that he did not deliberately interfere with his transport on December 1,
2015. The Motion (ECF No. 71) is GRANTED. By separate order, the hearing will be rescheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of December 2015.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

**AL in his response to Judge showed that they took him to the hosp that date, with copy of wrist band. He also stated that he has not gotten written up and if he had acted like they said he would have. Gave a copy of his rating. I guess that was enough for the judge.

 

[beaglebrd]

:laughcry: She probably wont have any problems adjusting if ya know what I mean:giggle:

Kinda weird that she was moved today. And that YESTERDAY the AG office filed their response to AL Appeal. I hope they are not playing games. Serves good for no one. JMHO But made me laugh on ole Crazy Eyes... CL kinda has a crazy eye now that think about it :giggle:

I'm thinking they moved her because it's closer to the courthouse. She was all the way in Newport. I'm not sure about the move though because normally they would be housed at Pulaski County jail for court. AL, not so much, because he has lawsuits against everyone and nobody wants him. As you all know, they are supposedly going to transport him back and forth. CL may have just been moved because she seems pretty low key and not needing to be with the really high security prisoners. Even at the maximum security units they house men/women who are not high risk for causing harm to others or trying to escape. AL can't even get to Little Rock without having to stop and have a medical check and then saying he needed to pee so judge said just take him back to prison, court cancelled for the day. He was probably trying to set up another law suit: they wouldn't let me pee and it hurt.

 

[klily444]

Ohhhh sh&t is all I can muster up right now!

 

[Zuri]

After reading the documents, I can't get over that LEO would have written such a broad warrant that was signed off on by a judge without someone saying something to the author. As I understand it, the Prosecution has lost the ability to introduce a lot of the incriminating evidence against AL. Not good. In most of the cases I have seen, LE is usually so very careful about warrants and Miranda Rights.

What they do have is CL and as she has already taken a plea deal and started serving her sentence, she basically has nothing to lose. IIRC, part of the plea deal was testifying for the State.

It looks like the Judge is granting latitude to AL regarding the Summary Judgement Hearing and rescheduled it. AL seems like a master manipulator and is going to file a lot more Motions.

I was rather surprised he filed one against the nurses. Their lawyer messed up on some things too. Is the Correctional System paying the nurses' legal fees? I really hope AL does not walk free or serve anything less than LWOP in view of the apparent LE missteps. The Carter Family and Beverley deserve justice. IMO

 

[NWLady]

I haven't read thru all the documents because I'm not going to waste my time in doing so. It seems in these high profile cases that it's kind of standard practice to see so many motions filed etc.

Even if the search warrant for AL's car was considered illegal that does not mean that everything that was taken can never be brought up or discussed etc. For example, the duct tape. What if AL's or CL's fingerprints were on the duct tape that Beverly was bound in? It doesn't mean that nothing about the duct tape cannot be brought up, but rather they (the prosecutors/state) cannot say for example 'well the duct tape found on Beverly's body matches the roll of duct tape found in AL's car'.

And if the search warrant for their shack/house where they lived is illegal and if that's where Beverly's phone was found, that doesn't mean that nothing about her phone can be brought in as evidence. Because they have phone records including calls, texts etc. and if everything that was happening on her phone synced with her I-pad then in all actuality, does the state/prosecutors even need the actual phone itself in their hand?

Same goes for if they found any DNA at their shack of Beverly's. If the search of the house was illegal that doesn't mean that any DNA found anywhere else cannot be introduced/used as evidence. What if AL and/or CL's DNA was found on Beverly's clothes, under Beverly's fingernails, or where ever.

And we cannot forget, there is an alleged witness that saw AL leaving the house where Beverly was taken from, so what if this alleged witness is going to testify as to what he/she may have seen? We don't know. There's a lot of things we don't know I am quite confident that will be brought into all of this once it goes to trial. That's JMO.

Also, we have to remember he is a 7-time convicted felon with an extensive criminal history, plus hasn't it been mentioned that AL and CL had made a prior attempt at something similar but it failed?? What if that individual is able to provide helpful testimony?

CL plead guilty and took a plea deal and still got 30 years. That we must not forget. And I'm sure there will be some who say, 'well her lawyer didn't properly represent her, she plead guilty to get it over with', and yada yada. But if that's the case, wouldn't she be able to say she was misrepresented. IMO she plead guilty and took the plea bargain for good reason.

Lastly, as sad as it is to say...it seems as if some are hopeful that AL gets a mistrial. Not me, I want Justice for Beverly. This thread is about Beverly and for Justice for Beverly. May she rest in peace. I feel so sorry for her, her family, her friends...all those who loved her.

 

[NWLady]

I'm starting to get more and more suspicious about that thing on FB. I'm beginning to wonder if the lawyer didn't put him up to it? I cannot believe he has not forced him to take it down unless he wants it there for a reason....but what in the world could the reason be? I can't wrap my head around why he would allow it to stay.

Regarding his admitted participation in burying the body, etc.....yes, that is a crime, but it's a much lesser crime than kidnapping and murder. As asinine as his story is (and honestly...who in the world would EVER believe it...the whole thing is stupid), if one were to be believed that the death was an accident and then they panicked and hid the body, that's going to carry a much lesser sentence than possible life without parole or maybe even the 30 years that CL took.

If they can get all that other evidence thrown out, is there really a way he could weasel out with his "it was an accident" story? At this point, can CL renege on her promise to testify and take her chances with a trial at a later date using the same "it was an accident" story?

Geesh....it makes my head spin to think about it.

JMO (as I don't have time to research it) but I do remember reading and looking up links that showed where a person can be charged with the exact same charges as another individual even if they just had knowledge of the crime being committed, even if they didn't actually 'participate' (and more so if it was premeditated etc).

 

[zxbeer]

Carl jr was on 5 news ( Northwest Arkansas ) stating he can't believe the evidence that are being removed because of illegal search included a hair from his mother found in the car. The news stated that if they can prove that items were found in the inventory from the car wreck it might be used.

 

[beaglebrd]

http://www.thv11.com/story/news/2015/12/10/beverly-carters-son-reacts-to-judges-decision/77121510/

Carl Jr. speaks to THV about the evidence and there is a little bit of information from an attorney.