GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #13

[111addict]

Thanks so much, Steve. I appreciate that you took the time to explain. I have a very hard time comprehending a lot of the terms used in law lingo.

I sure hope the ruling for #3 will be overturned.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Steve S http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...e-Rock-25-Sep-2014-13&p=13299627#post13299627
IN YOUR POST 297 ... When you say "not true" and then offer the red bold followed by the black bold, it looks to me like you are actually saying the very same thing I had already summarized. Which is that the state in its investigation didn't get a warrant for certain info, with the belief and claim they didn't need one, the judge at trial agreed they didn't need one, and the defense is now re-raising that issue on appeal.

This is what I identified as "Item 2" in my summary. As I said...
*Item 2 is the defense arguing that the state abused its subpoena powers (issued by a prosecutor) to get access to info for an investigation, when a warrant (issued by a judge) was required by law.
*The state says that the specific info being requested never requires a judge's permission-to-search (ie search warrant), therefore a subpoena was a better method since it didn't involve a judge where one was not required.
*In the courtroom, the judge agreed with the state.
*The appeals court is being asked (by the defense) to consider the same question (and rule differently)."LATER IN 297 ..."Now I may have misunderstood your point of "Three distinct items being worked here, each separately, in front of the appeals court". But there is more than 3 points being argued by the Def and 2 by the State on Cross Appeal. There are 5 for the Def (a, b, c, d, e, f http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...6#post13296146 )

RBBM, What? That is NOT what is being argued on Appeal. And that is not the only thing that only 1 of 5 points on Appeal. No, what I said is nothing liike you "summarized". The RED was quoted from the actual document. Respectfully maybe you should actually read the documents to understand. The Def Brief is 558 pages, and split into 2 sections. The actual Motions and Replies are in there too. Read not only the Def Briefs but the States and it would be helpful if you read the actual testimony transcript. I will provide the links to help you.

Docket https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=

*Def Brief filed 8/19/16 *Part 1 has the Motions and Replies that were argued prior to trial as well as Testimony from Hearings and Trial* Part 2 link 375/558 starts https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS "The entire resulting investigation was a product of those initial prosecutor subpoenas."
*Appellee's Brief Cross Appellant's Brief (State's Reply toDef orig Brief ^^ & State Cross Appeal Brief) 12/15/16 Page 47/99 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
*Appellant's Reply/Cross-Appellee Brief (Def Reply to States Reply to orig Brief^^ & Reply to State Cross Appeal Argument) Filed 2/16/17 - Pg 15/34 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
*CROSS-APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (State's Reply to Def ^^ Reply on the Cross Appeal Argument) Filed 3/17/17

Clearly this is an Appeal and no one knows how the AR SC will rule in their Opinion, that is common sense JMHO.

But you are Clearly wrong in what you state the State was saying. The State argues in their Reply, as linked by me, but no where is what you stated factual:""*The state says that the specific info being requested never requires a judge's permission-to-search (ie search warrant), therefore a subpoena was a better method since it didn't involve a judge where one was not required"
Page 45/99
III. THE CIRCUIT COURT DID NOT ERR BY REJECTING
APPELLANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE USE OF PROSECUTOR’S
SUBPOENAS.
Appellant argues that the circuit court erred by refusing to suppress evidence
resulting from prosecutor’s subpoenas. Investigator Michael Hendrix prepared
those subpoenas for Yahoo, Google, and AT&T to obtain the call log associated
with the “spoof number” used to contact Carter. (Ab. 3, 122; R. 549, 851). Citing
State v. Hamzy, 288 Ark. 561, 709 S.W.2d 397 (1986), Appellant argued below
that police officers are unauthorized to issue prosecutor subpoenas. (Add. 18; R.
223). The court found that Appellant “omit[ed] the actual holding of the case.
Hamzy held that, prosecutorial misconduct aside, a defendant had no legitimate
expectation of privacy in his telephone records” and thus has no standing under the
Fourth Amendment to challenge the subpoenas or phone records obtained. (Add.
68; R. 366). On appeal, Appellant makes the same argument he did below, but
ignores the finding that he lacked standing to challenge the subpoenas or phone
records obtained therefrom. *more in Reply doc link provided above.* then finishes >
Here, just as in Hamzy, subpoenas were issued to third parties. Because
Appellant lacked standing to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained from
prosecutor’s subpoenas, the court’s denial of his motion should be affirmed.

Per ARK Code, Pros is NOT suppose to file Pros Subpoenas in a Police Investigation. THAT is what the Def is arguing on that point.
And just as the Def stated in their 2/16/17 Reply in regards to his point the State :
Snip Pg 15/34
The Circuit Court Erred By Rejecting Lewis’s Challenge to the Use
of Prosecutor Subpoenas.
The circuit court clearly erred by denying Lewis’s motion to suppress
evidence resulting from the illegal use of prosecutor’s subpoenas. The State makes
no attempt—at either the trial level or on appeal—to argue that the use of
prosecutor’s subpoena power to aid law enforcement’s investigation was lawful in
this case, and rightly so. This case involved an obvious abuse of the prosecutor’s
subpoena power under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-212. Using a prosecutor’s
subpoena, officers tied the TextMe account to Lewis’s wife Crystal Lowery. (Ab.
3; R. 549, 582). Google even released records to Investigator Michael Hendrix of
the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office specifically, rather than a member of the
prosecuting attorney’s office, noting that the records were issued “[p]ursuant to the
Subpoena issued in the above-referenced matter”. (Add. 243; R. 2455). Instead, the
State points only to Lewis’s lack of standing to challenge this abuse. Appellee’s
Brief at 16-17

 

[arkansasmimi]

Steve S http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...e-Rock-25-Sep-2014-13&p=13299627#post13299627
To clarify for you, my point was that (to use a sports analogy) it's like 3 separate games are being played. In each, it's the state versus AL and all 3 are being played at somewhat the same time, so it can be somewhat confusing to the layman as to what applies to which. There will of course be multiple points raised and argued in each of those 3 separate "games." But they are separate "games," and what is done in one of them isn't part of what's done in another, so I went through and distinguished the 3 from each other, to make it easier for readers here to follow.
*#1 was the "game" of whether or not the trial record, as transmitted to the appeals court, was complete. That game is already over, and in it both the state and AL agreed that part of it had been omitted, and it was ordered by the higher court that it be corrected.
*#2 was the "game" of a defense appeal over some of the evidence used at trial, and deciding whether or not the lower court judge had properly allowed that evidence into the trial. As I noted previously, the answer to that hinges on technical details about the way and from whom the evidence was obtained. I can't predict how they will rule, but think it necessary to understand that a ruling in AL's favor will not necessarily lead to a new trial - it would take a favorable ruling on that issue PLUS some more favorable rulings in his favor.
*#3 was the "game" of a state appeal (called a "cross-appeal") over some of the evidence barred from trial, and whether or not the lower court judge had acted properly in barring it. On this matter, I think he was way off base and it's very likely that the higher court will overturn his ruling, but we have to wait and see it play out because that's for the judges to decide.

Respectfully I split your orig reply in parts.

In ref to your #1, no need to talk down to any "layman". Unless one is VI Expert we are all on the same playing field here.
Your #1 is not a "game on its own". It is in reference to the Appeal challenging the use of Pros Subpoenas in this case. The actual Pros Subpoena for the GOOGLE was not in the Record, and it is part of the evidence. It was a Petition filed 1/25/17, to complete the record by the Def, because (and if you will read Motion it will explain) that when the Def was preparing their Reply (filed 2/16/16) to the State, "While preparing Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s reply brief, undersigned counsel discovered that the prosecutor’s subpoena commanding Google to disclose records associated with a particular TextMe account to members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office was not part of the record." https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

6. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 3-5, Appellant requests that the Court issue a Writ of Certiorari to the Pulaski County Circuit
Clerk and Reporter, directing them to complete the record within thirty (30) days. Alternatively, if the Court deems it necessary to remand to the circuit court to settle the record, Appellant moves that the case be remanded for that purpose.

2/16/17 SC in Letter . stated Appellant/cross-appellee's petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record or, in the alternative, motion to remand to settle the record. Writ of certiorari to complete the record is granted in part and denied in part. Granted for the subpoena issued and denied as to the interrogatories. Complete record due in thirty days (March 18, 2017).

"*#2 was the "game" of a defense appeal over some of the evidence used at trial, and deciding whether or not the lower court judge had properly allowed that evidence into the trial. As I noted previously, the answer to that hinges on technical details about the way and from whom the evidence was obtained. I can't predict how they will rule, but think it necessary to understand that a ruling in AL's favor will not necessarily lead to a new trial - it would take a favorable ruling on that issue PLUS some more favorable rulings in his favor."
Again, I have followed and sleuth and attended Hearings and Trial. I totally understand, and know both sides of the issues argued. No way you could predict how they will rule, nor can I but I do have enough sense to know that as I have stated prior IF the SC Opinion sides with any of the points, especially the Pros Subpoena what that means. JMHO I would say that on these issues raised IF the SC were to side with Def, they would have to grant a retrial. Again, not being snarky but knowing what these mean.

Not saying that AL would not end right back where he is, because I think he would. They, he and CL murdered BC. He helped the State by posting his "affidavit on FB" and taking the stand. CL gave them info that the State did not have and she and AL both got their own sentences, the State didn't prove much considering what how the case was handled and what was excluded. JMHO from documents and hearing first hand.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Steve S http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...e-Rock-25-Sep-2014-13&p=13299627#post13299627
*#3 was the "game" of a state appeal (called a "cross-appeal") over some of the evidence barred from trial, and whether or not the lower court judge had acted properly in barring it. On this matter, I think he was way off base and it's very likely that the higher court will overturn his ruling, but we have to wait and see it play out because that's for the judges to decide.

Respectfully, the Judge listened to testimony at a Hearing. Then the State asked again to be heard and Judge Wright allowed. Read the Orders and testimony.
From the Docket pertaining to the Trial : https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=

Read the Testimony from Hearing Dec 30, 2015 in the Appeal part 1 link provide up thread. Read the PCSO tow policy.

Judges Order: https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

From Order 1/5/16 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

The Defendant is charged with capital murder, kidnapping, and possession of firearms bycertain persons. On December 16,2015, the Court entered an Order denying the State's Motionto Consider an Inventory Search of the Defendant's2012 Ford Fusion vehicle. The Court had previously held that evidence found in the vehicle would be suppressed, having been discovered
pursuant to an illegally overbroad search warrant. The Court's December 16 Order found that the evidence found in the vehicle was not admissible under the "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule, as the State had offered no evidence at omnibus or in its Motion that there had been any inventory search done at all. The State contacted the Court, and after a meeting in chambers where the State and Defense were both present, the Court agreed to hold another hearing. This hearing would give the state the opportunity to present evidence showing that an inventory search was acttally done or that any items found in the vehicle pursuant to the illegal warrant would have been found by PCSO investigators under the inevitable discovery doctrine.
The hearing was held December 30, 2015. The State introduced the testimony of two sergeants (investigators at the time of the searches) from the Pulaski County Sheriff s Office Mike Blaine and Shane Hastings - and David Haris, a forensic serologist from the Arkansas State Crime Lab. The Defense team offered a brief rebuttal from the Defendant.

Page 5/7:
The Court does not find, however, that the possibility of further inventory of the trunk anticipated by the PCSO before the illegal warrant was executed should place the items illegally discovered within the inevitable discovery exception. Once the vehicle had been released to the wrecker for transportation to PCSO custody, the goal of safekeeping the vehicle and its contents would have been complete. Any further inventory of the vehicle would be simply a "ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence." Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (citing Florida v. Wells,495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990)).
Blaine testified at the December 30 hearing that the purpose of the tow and inventory policy is to ensure that there are no valuables missing when a towed vehicle is eventually returned to its owner. He also testified that he wanted to look at the trunk in a "controlled environment." The Court does not find that further inventory in a controlled environment would have accomplished the purposes of the inventory search as testified to by Blaine. Here, an inventory search had been done at the scene and a vehicle storage report was done pursuant to the PCSO's tow policy, in the manner anticipated by that policy. Though Blaine and Hastings
anticipated further inventory search of the trunk once it arrived at the PCSO, the investigators did not do that. They instead "locked and secured" the vehicle and went about the process of obtaining a search warrant for further investigation. At that point, the interests of the PCSO tow policy and the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure had been accomplished.

The Court's November order indicated that the Court would allow evidence found in the vehicle if the State could show that they were found pursuant to a legitimate inventory search. Now that the State has introduced the vehicle storage report, reciting the items found in the interior passenger compartment, the Court finds that the items listed on it were legitimately inventoried and may be properly admitted into evidence. Anything found after that was the result of the illegal warrant. The vehicle storage report having already been completed at the scene, and the vehicle having been surrendered to a private wrecker for transport to the PCSO, the Court does not find that a further inventory at the PCSO would have served the purposes asserted in the PCSO's tow policy or Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.6(b). The inevitable discovery doctrine therefore does not apply, and anything found pursuant to that illegal warrant that does not also appear on the vehicle storage report will remain suppressed.

As a final note, even if a theoretical "second inventory" had been permissible once the vehicle had been towed to the PCSO, the Court would still suppress the duct tape and hair evidence. Based on the items listed on the PCSO's vehicle storage report completed prior to towing, and taking into account the wording of the tow policy, the Court finds it improbable that the two pieces of duct tape and hair evidence would have been listed in any further inventorysearch.2 Whether these items were in plain view or not, the tow policy anticipates that items will be listed where they are "of significant value." The duct tape and hair are obviously of
significant evidentiary value, but their financial value is essentially nonexistent, and the idea that there might have been a dispute over their presence or absence later is improbable. The Court does not find that these items would have been listed in a vehicle storage report even if the fruits of a further inventory search would have been inevitably discovered.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Dec 30, 2015 Hearing testimony starts on page 170Beginning page 178/558 the LEO who did the inventory report testimony. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF INV. HASTINGS BY MR. JOHNSON
snip beginning at page 179
I called for the tow company. Once the vehicle was put back the right way we inventoried it to make sure there was no valuables or anything like that that was going to the impound yard with it. I was the person who inventoried it. I filled out
a vehicle storage report. (1107) I recognize State’s Exhibit 2 as the storage report that I filled out on the scene. That was done before the vehicle was taken from the scene. I found inside the cabin of the vehicle a baseball hat in the driver’s seat floorboard,
Samsung Galaxy S4 phone, an IBM laptop with power cord. There was also a white rope, a red umbrella, an orange iphone case cover, some white earbuds, a black watch, a cell phone power cord, and a powerconverter for a vehicle. Those are the things that I noted that were in the cabin of the vehicle. I wrote, “We did not open or inventory the trunk.” I am familiar with the Pulaski County Sheriff’s policy with regard to inventorying vehicles. Typically, we would inventory the entire vehicle, including the trunk, before it got towed. In this case, I didn’t do that and I noted that in my report. I didn’t do it because I was advised by Sergeant Blain that they were already in the process of attempting to get a search warrant for the trunk of the vehicle. (1109) I noted in my report just to make sure that it was clear that we hadn’t looked through it already. For Sergeant Blain telling me not to inventory the trunk pursuant to policy, I would have inventoried the trunk. Always. Except for this is the only case I’ve never done it. Once the vehicle was towed from the accident scene I had no more dealing with it

CROSS EXAMINATION OF INV. HASTINGS BY MR. SHORT page 181/558
It is Sergeant now, but at the time it was Deputy. Back then when this happened, I was familiar with the tow policy. (1110) In this particular case it wasn’t drivable and so nobody would have been able to come pick it up. On arrest you can have someone else come pick up your vehicle depending on the situation. If it’s evidence, then no. (1111) Typically that would be what I do if there is an owner that can be ascertained, that they can decide what to have happen to their vehicle unless it is evidence. If there is an owner not under arrest they get to decide whether they want to turn it over to a third party or call their own wrecker. That is per directive.
In this case, the vehicle was evidence is my understanding. [Witness is excused.]

 

[SteveS]

Mimi, I don't wish to get in a back-and-forth with you. Not meant with disrespect or snark, but when you say repeatedly that what I have said is "not true" then according to TOS at WS you are overstepping your bounds, because you really aren't qualified to make such a determination. You can certainly offer your OPINION as to what is going on in the case. But so can I. As they are only opinions, then it's up to the reader to determine which makes more sense and whose explanation is helpful and credible, absent a "verified expert."

I made the mistake earlier of arguing with you, when you said what I wrote was not true. My apologies. While I objected to you saying that, the same applies to my reply. Neither of us are a WS "expert" on the law, and are not qualified to give such a legal opinion here as to the true meaning of legal docs and arguments and process. So my apologies for responding improperly before.

You or I or any non-expert per WS can bring cut-and-paste of text from legal filings, and offer a link to such docs, to a WS conversation, but in so doing we still don't become a "WS expert" in their meaning. It takes a legal mind to fully understand the meaning of legalese and process being cited, as well as the broader context (both within the case, and also beyond it) that further defines the full meaning and import.

I well understand that the law is confusing to the average person, legalese is hard to follow, and the process is hard to understand if you don't have experience in such things. I don't claim to be a WS "expert" who has been verified as such, because I prefer my anonymity here, but I am willing to use my "life experience" to offer my personal explanation on documents, meaning, and process, for the benefit of readers who might need and desire such. My preference is just simple language explanation, easy to follow.

If you have a different way to post and a different understanding of what's going on, so be it. I will try to refrain from evaluating what you say, because it's your opinion on what you think you see, and I am not an "expert" here, but I respectfully ask that you give me the same consideration.

Peace.

 

[DeDee]

Defense Appeal:
a. The Trial Court Erred in Admitting the Cell Phone Seized from Lewis Following a Car Accident
b. The Trial Court Erred in Admitting the Nontestimonial Fruit of Lewis’s Illegal Interrogation
i. The Arkansas Constitution Can Provide Greater Protections Than the Federal Constitution
ii. Several Other States Have Rejected Patane
iii. This Court Should Reject Patane and Find That the Arkansas Constitution Warrants Exclusion of Nontestimonial Fruit of an Illegal Interrogation
iv. Patane Was Wrongly Decided
v. The Recording Should Be Suppressed Under the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.
c. The Trial Court Erred By Admitting Evidence Obtained Through Abuse of the Prosecutorial Subpoena Power
d. The Trial Court Erred in Admitting Lewis’s Second Custodial
Statement Because it Was the Involuntary Product of False
Promises by Law Enforcement.
e. The Trial Court Erred in Admitting Certain Items Located in Lewis’s Car Pursuant to an Inventory Search
i. Law Enforcement Lacked Good Cause to Retain Lewis’s Car in Official Custody
ii. The Purpose of the Inventory Search was to Obtain Evidence Rather than to Protect Lewis’s Property
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

This was a trial I so wanted to follow but didn't since I can usually can only keep up with several cases at any one time and found myself recently immersed in a couple. I'll add the programs you and others mentioned for summer viewing during the insomnia.

Mimi, I see you are still a stickler for the law. I know you are not an attorney, by profession, but you would make one heck of an awesome Judge. You wore me out with your insertions of the facts and the laws during the Cooper Harris Hot Car Death Trial. I was overjoyed that his father received a harsh sentence. I know you didn't always agree on the court's rulings but I still love ya!

I wish you would consider joining the Delphi murders threads for those two young girls, Abigail and Liberty. We need someone who can track legal links without bearing prejudice.

More than anything in this case, I want justice to be done for sweet Beverly.

 

[arkansasmimi]

This was a trial I so wanted to follow but didn't since I can usually can only keep up with several cases at any one time and found myself recently immersed in a couple. I'll add the programs you and others mentioned for summer viewing during the insomnia.

Mimi, I see you are still a stickler for the law. I know you are not an attorney, by profession, but you would make one heck of an awesome Judge. You wore me out with your insertions of the facts and the laws during the Cooper Harris Hot Car Death Trial. I was overjoyed that his father received a harsh sentence. I know you didn't always agree on the court's rulings but I still love ya!

I wish you would consider joining the Delphi murders threads for those two young girls, Abigail and Liberty. We need someone who can track legal links without bearing prejudice.

More than anything in this case, I want justice to be done for sweet Beverly.

Thanks De! And Beverly did and will continue to get Justice. AL will spend rest of life in jail. CL will be iirc 72 before she can apply for parole. No one deserves to be murdered.

Problem with this case was some of the ultimate things that LEO did. JMHO the State thought it was a slam dunk because AL was going Pro Se and he is very arrogant. THEN they were shocked he asked for a lawyer and was appointed Bill James. More pressure of a deal with CL and she kinda caught them off guard at Hearing July 7 taking the plea for 30 yrs. IIRC on date. We will possibly never know what they had on her, but she gave them much of what they had on AL. She was a prostitute but never been charged with anything so she took a plea. SW against the house where she was lease holder was thrown out in AL case, but unsure if her PD would have gotten on hers, BC iPhone was found in the home. CL knew what happened. She is where she needed to be. Death Penalty was off at beginning so not an issue. She didn't get much of a deal but where she need to be. I still believe she had more of a role than she admitted. She said what she was told to testify about.

I am not legal trained, but I can read and what I do not understand I try to research until I do. I post documents because long ago we had multiple conversations that some on tablets and phones cant read the documents from the links.

For someone to state that someone who hasn't gone to law school can not get the full meaning of legalese is bs. I remember being told over and over in another case Missy Bevers murder that there no way that there were any sealed search warrants. I read the Texas Statute and posted it. (multiple times) told I didn't and couldn't understand. Well guess what, July 1 or 2nd 2016 those SEALED not once but TWICE SEALED SW for FB accounts were unsealed.

This is a True Crime Forum and people from all walks of life and life experiences are here. Many of us have LEO in our family and some even have Attorneys or ARE attorneys yet don't get verified. I am not an attorney but do have multiple professional individual resources to fall back on when I have question on something. I don't get caught up in the emotional part of trials. Can't stay openminded. On Ross Harris trial, what got me was the LEO antics that happened and the down right lying. Then the Def was not allowed to question those that made false statements to a magistrate to get search warrants and thus charges. In this case (BC murder case) we had LEO who testified making SW they say they wrote themselves yet mirrored typos and all of another LEO SW. Both of those Inv now work for the State Attny General office (did at time of trial). One of those, even used the LEAD Det NOTES highlighted .. while on the witness stand AT TRIAL! Def Attorney Short walked up and got the folder and opened it, and showed it. Crazy! I totally understand trying to locate BC. There just a lot to this case.

May Beverly L Carter rest in peace. What now happens is what does happen in our legal system in the US. Auto Appeal in Life Sentences. And the Pul County Pros office filed the Cross Appeal because it will have a big impact on their cases. Thing is on this particular case, the Deputy that wrote signed off on the Inventory Report said this is the first time he has ever been told not to search. Lots at play here as there always is. Hugs. Mimi

 

[SteveS]

Mimi, yes you're entitled to your opinion as to what an "accurate understanding" of this statute or that consists of, and as to whether or not you are fully grasping what the statutes and legal docs are saying and how the legal process has been operating. Have at it. As I said earlier, I will state my own opinion, but I'm not going to argue with you over yours, even if I think you're off base. That's not my place to figure out if and when you're wrong and correct it, so I won't.

As for me, it's my opinion that a layperson is not going to fully grasp the details and distinctions of the law like someone who is legally trained - - I am of the mindset (and have observed) that the law and its documents and processes can be so complex that an untrained person can think they understand things such as statutes and processes better than they really do, because they don't know what they don't know. It can be confusing, and in some cases the technicalities they fail to grasp can make it where they don't even realize when they have it wrong. That's why IMO a person really needs a lawyer when dealing with such things, and is foolish without one.

Anyhow, enough of such silliness. Let's move back to talking about the BC case in this thread. My observations, summaries, and explanations regarding this case (or others), which at times will entail what I know from my "life experience" about statutes, documents, and processes, are posted for the benefit of those who find them helpful. They may not be for everyone. But I know some really appreciate the input, so I will continue to share.

 

[jstkiddn]

Changing the subject, but just watching the Web of Lies episode on ID about the BC case and these actors have the most ridiculous southern accents that it's almost funny.


Edit....particularly the actress playing Beverly. She's channeling her best bad imitation of scarlet o'hara.

 

[SteveS]

Changing the subject, but just watching the Web of Lies episode on ID about the BC case and these actors have the most ridiculous southern accents that it's almost funny.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Being a southerner myself, I didn't really notice ... In any event, gotta say I thought it was a worthwhile summary of the case in docu-drama form.

 

[gnsndr33]

Changing the subject, but just watching the Web of Lies episode on ID about the BC case and these actors have the most ridiculous southern accents that it's almost funny.


Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

I totally agree... accents are funny

 

[jstkiddn]

Being a southerner myself, I didn't really notice ... In any event, gotta say I thought it was a worthwhile summary of the case in docu-drama form.

I'm in arkansas where the murder happened. That might be a poor imitation of maybe a Georgia or alabama accent....but nowhere close to Arkansas. No super big deal but im finding it distracting. It's like that episode of The Office where michael makes them all play that murder mystery game and they all try to sound like they are from Savannah.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[PlateSpinner]

Changing the subject, but just watching the Web of Lies episode on ID about the BC case and these actors have the most ridiculous southern accents that it's almost funny.


Edit....particularly the actress playing Beverly. She's channeling her best bad imitation of scarlet o'hara.

The accent was so bad it was distracting. However, I did notice the the audio recording at the end really was Beverly talking.

 

[TTF14]

I'm in arkansas where the murder happened. That might be a poor imitation of maybe a Georgia or alabama accent....but nowhere close to Arkansas. No super big deal but im finding it distracting. It's like that episode of The Office where michael makes them all play that murder mystery game and they all try to sound like they are from Savannah.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

I'm from the northeast, and even I knew that accent was awful lol! I was glad the documentary didn't get into any of AL's ridiculous sex claims.

 

[arkansasmimi]

04/20/2017
11:17 AM SUP CRT ORAL ARGUMENT ISSUED
Entry: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4-21-17 Michael Kaiser confirmed on behalf of appellant. 4-24-17 Nicholas Bronni confirmed on behalf of appellee.
Images Oral Argument Notice
Michael Kaiser confirmed
Nicholas Bronni Confirmed

04/21/2017
02:30 PM EFILING NOTICE OF APPEARANCE KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: none.
Images No Images
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
625 MARSHALL STREET
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201

APRIL 20, 2017

RE: SUPREME COURT CASE NO. CR-16-413
ARRON MICHAEL LEWIS V. STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

THE ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, MAY 4, 20177 HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE ABOVE
STYLED CASE ON THURSDAY, MAY I l, 2017, AT 9:00 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT
COURTROOM. TWENTY MINUTES WILL BE ALLOWED TO EACH SIDE FOR ARGUMENT
AND NOT MORE THAN TWO COUNSELS WILL BE HEARD FOR EACH SIDE
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

 

[arkansasmimi]

Who you choose to hang out with matters:

Crystal Lowery good friend that CL listed as next of kin on her arrest document, who also helped get CL the lawyer who was kind enough to pack her belongings and allegedly "store" them. Well next of kin was found guilty on 15 counts of wire fraud, 6 counts of money laundering, and 4 counts of willfully making and subscribing a false income tax return, all a result of a scheme in which *advertiser censored* stole more than $600,000 from her employer. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edar/p...-office-manager-lynn-espejo-guilty-25-federal

 

[mpnola]

I haven't seen this posted and I don't have the full version.

http://m.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/mar/27/dismiss-2nd-injury-lawsuit-judge-advise-1/

Wamp, Wamp, waaaamp. Game Over. Not this time, Arron. You don't get free money this time. And hopefully never again.

It's amazing the mindset of always claiming to be wronged and accusing others of everything under the sun when YOU are the monster. The things he did are unspeakable, yet he is always in some claim against someone else. Can't wait til he is forgotten.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

This Thursday and supposed to be recorded. Maybe live stream from AR Supreme Court. I think this new lawyer at the firm, who was a PD prior, maybe hasn't done too many cases? So should be interesting. Also lol new Motion to dismiss the State Cross Appeal filed yesterday and State replied today.

4/20/2017
11:17 AM SUP CRT ORAL ARGUMENT ISSUED
Entry: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4-21-17 Michael Kaiser confirmed on behalf of appellant. 4-24-17 Nicholas Bronni confirmed on behalf of appellee. 4-26-17 Lee Rudofsky confirmed on behalf of appellee. https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=

 

[arkansasmimi]

05/08/2017
12:18 PM MOTION DISMISS KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: Appellant/Cross Appellee's motion to dismiss State's cross-appeal as untimely.
Images MOTION https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
ARRON MICHAEL LEWIS APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE
VS. CASE NO. CR-16-413
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

MOTION TO DISMISS STATE’S CROSS-APPEAL AS UNTIMELY
COMES NOW the Appellant/Cross-Appellee Arron Lewis, by and through
his counsel, the James Law Firm, and for his Motion to Dismiss, states:
1. On January 26, 2016, the trial court entered a Sentencing Order in Mr.
Lewis’s case. Lewis filed a timely notice of appeal with the trial court on
February 11, 2016.
2. The trial court later entered an amended sentencing order on March 30,
2016, making clerical corrections to the original sentencing order:
• The date of the Defendant’s appearance was changed from
“1/12/2016” to “1/15/2016.” (Add. 121, 127; R. 441, 447).
• In the section regarding the Defendant’s Attorney, the amended
order changed the checked box from “Appointed” to “Private.”
(Add. 121, 127; R. 441, 447).
• The amended order noted that Lewis was convicted of a DNA
Sample qualifying offense as defined in A.C.A. § 12-12-918, and
assessed a $250 DNA Sample Fee, whereas the original order
noted that Lewis was not convicted of such an offense. (Add. 123,
129; R. 443; 449).
• On the last page, under “TOTAL TIME TO BE SERVED FOR
ALL OFFENSES In months,” the amended order has the box
checked for “Life,” whereas the original order had the box checked
for “LWOP.” (Add. 123, 129; R. 443, 449).
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS