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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

04/18/2016
09:10 AM NOTICE OF APPEAL JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: OF CROSS APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR
Images WEB04/18/2016
09:10 AM NOTICE OF APPEAL JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: OF CROSS APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR
Images WEB https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FOURTH DIVISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF
VS. CR14-3928
AARON LEWIS DEFENDANT
NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL

Comes now the State of Arkansas, by and through John F. Johnson, Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney for the Sixth Judicial District and pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the
Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure gives notice of its intent to enter a cross appeal
in the above-styled case the for which the final judgement and commitment was entered
on March 30, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John F. Johnson______________
John F. Johnson
Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=XD55NFXFS5XEDQP9P5FQ6RMWWF9EXQ
 
Anyone happen to read Carl, Jr's recent Facebook post? He went to the little bit of AL's Federal trial against the officers yesterday. Worth going to read. I want to give him a hug.
 
jstkiddn said:
Anyone happen to read Carl, Jr's recent Facebook post? He went to the little bit of AL's Federal trial against the officers yesterday. Worth going to read. I want to give him a hug.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read it. I want to hug him too! Sad that AL continues to haunt the Carter family!!
 
^^^^ from link KayKay posted:

But an attorney for the sheriff's office argued that Lewis' numerous lawsuits claiming injuries at the hands of law enforcement officials and contradictory statements Lewis' made about Carter's death discredited his claims.

District Judge Billy Roy Wilson declined to rule how Lewis dislocated his shoulder but said that Lewis "is obviously an intelligent individual, but he is not a believable individual."

---- He's not believable. Precisely. All of his contradictions discredited him. Thank you, big mouth. You don't even know how to help yourself. Big Mouth Strikes Again!!
 
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/apr/20/deputies-deny-lewis-deliberately-injure/

Allison noted that during the ride after Lewis' interrogation at the sheriff's office, he allowed Lewis to smoke a cigarette in the back seat of a patrol car, where he sat with his feet shackled, and his hands cuffed to a "belly chain." He noted that Lewis didn't seem to have trouble maneuvering his arm to flick ashes off his cigarette out the car window, despite the chains.

---- His public admission (or rather complaint) that he was allowed to smoke in the car hurt his case again. <3

Anyway, I'm so over Arrogant. I mean Arron. I am ready for him to fade.

I wanted to say that Beverly's Dateline was heart breaking and touching and well done. Although it felt a little like watching a movie after we read the novel. Only so many details can fit in 1 hour! Her family will be sure she lives on through memories. She was loved by many and her smile says it all. You should still be here, Beverly, but now that justice has been served, I hope you can sleep in peace.
 
01/26/2016
02:09 PM PROSECUTORS REPORT HON. HERBERT WRIGHT - 4TH DIVISION 6TH CIRCUIT,
Entry: none.
Images No Images

01/26/2016
05:00 PM MOD JUDGMENT/DECREE/ORDER LEWIS, AARON M
Entry: TRIAL TYPE: J
Images No Images

02/10/2016
02:38 PM ORDER OTHER
Entry: ORDER IS ENTERED NUNC PRO TUNC
Images WEB

02/11/2016
10:24 AM NOTICE OF APPEAL JAMES JR , WILLIAM OWEN
Entry: none.
Images WEB

03/30/2016
10:56 AM AMENDED SENTENCING ORDER HON. HERBERT WRIGHT - 4TH DIVISION 6TH CIRCUIT,
Entry: none.
Images WEB

04/18/2016
09:10 AM NOTICE OF APPEAL JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: OF CROSS APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR
Images WEB

04/29/2016
03:40 PM TRANSCRIPT
Entry: APPEAL TRANSCRIPT PICKED UP 4-29-16 AT 3:40 P.M. BY PAUL HAMPTON.
Images No Images

https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=

Lawd. I know how many notebooks I have ... bet that was a big file. All the Hearings, and all the trial. Be a book to read here soon when it gets filed. :findinglink:
 
arkansasmimi said:
JMHO, but the federal suit outcome could possibly have some bearing on the Appeal. I believe too that the recording being used will be a big issue due to the fact it came from the illegal questioning (remember everything else was thrown out, except for after AL asked for when AL initiated the contact. Very little was gleaned from that.

What I dont understand and how they could have gotten by possibly legally, is that that came from AL cellphone. They had the cellphone and could have gotten that directly from that cellphone. They could have used Cellebright to get into his phone same as they did CL phone. From all accounts (from hearings and trial anyways) they didnt. No testimony was used FROM AL PHONE. I (public) is unsure if they did or did not get into AL phone. Plausible deniability? Thats my thinking on that. They were going to use the whole interviews prior to June 2016 when AL requested and was appointed Bill James as his defense attorney.

There was also a witness that testified at the trial, a LEO that Sgt Blain contacted after AL said in his illegal interview about going back to the abduction house on Old River Drive. And the whole thing about the Inv now working for AG office... witness. Who didnt write any reports from the ride along of allegedly what AL said. And freaking used verbatim Det Allison testimony as his Hearing and TRIAL testimony! Even had it with him. I do think that will come up.

Morally and Legally are two different things in cases like these. Thats why I always have and do state, go by the book, get all the facts so it done right the first time. I pray all the mishaps in this case doesn't let Justice be denied. I still believe that CL had a much bigger part than she stated. I also think that she plead not because it was the right thing to do (it was for the case) but I think she did it from not knowing the system.

They are both where they deserve to be. Hope legally they stay there.
Click to expand...

This case is already over and justice has won. There's no need for sitting on pins and needles and worrying about the outcome, because the has been tried and convicted.

Drama in his jail life won't have any impact on his conviction. In relation to his case (and the conviction for the murder), what happened between him and jailers is irrelevant.

And the appeal is not some sort of redo. It is NOT a rehearing and re-weighing of the evidence and fine points about it, nor an opportunity to enter new evidence, because that's not how appeals work. Instead, it's an argument on technicalities, which given the nature of the evidence against him in this trial are rather pointless. Yes, the defense attorney will still argue the appeal items, but it's like a batter who hits the ball to the first baseman standing by the bag and runs out the play anyhow, going through the motions because that's what you're supposed to do. Meanwhile, everyone (including the runner) already knows the outcome while the runner is running.

He's locked up for up to two lifetimes, doomed to stay there until they carry him out in a body bag.
 
SteveS said:
This case is already over and justice has won. There's no need for sitting on pins and needles and worrying about the outcome, because the has been tried and convicted.

Drama in his jail life won't have any impact on his conviction. In relation to his case (and the conviction for the murder), what happened between him and jailers is irrelevant.

And the appeal is not some sort of redo. It is NOT a rehearing and re-weighing of the evidence and fine points about it, nor an opportunity to enter new evidence, because that's not how appeals work. Instead, it's an argument on technicalities, which given the nature of the evidence against him in this trial are rather pointless. Yes, the defense attorney will still argue the appeal items, but it's like a batter who hits the ball to the first baseman standing by the bag and runs out the play anyhow, going through the motions because that's what you're supposed to do. Meanwhile, everyone (including the runner) already knows the outcome while the runner is running.

He's locked up for up to two lifetimes, doomed to stay there until they carry him out in a body bag.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, Thanks was not enough!
 
Case Description NEW CASE NUMBER AND LINK TO DOCKET https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=

Case ID: CR-16-413 - AARON MICHAEL LEWIS V STATE OF ARKANSAS
Filing Date: Wednesday, May 11th, 2016
Court: AR - STATE OF ARKANSAS
Location: SC - SUPREME COURT
Type: AF - APPELLATE FELONY
Status: ACTIVE - ACTIVE


Seq # Assoc End Date Type ID Name
1 APPELLANT 14414550 LEWIS, AARON MICHAEL
Aliases: none

2 APPELLEE 11457024 STATE OF ARKANSAS
Aliases: none

3 APPELLANT COUNSE 1005706 JAMES JR , WILLIAM OWEN
Aliases: JAMES, WILLIAM
JR, WILLIAM O. JAMES
JR, WILLLIAM OWEN JAMES

6 LOWER COURT JUDGE 1004512 WRIGHT JR , HERBERT THOMAS
Aliases: WRIGHT, HERBERT
JR., HERBERT THOMAS WRIGHT

5 APPELLEE COUNSEL 1004610 RAUPP, DAVID ROBERT
Aliases: none

7 LOWER COURT CLERK 8211392 CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY
Aliases: none

4 APPELLEE COUNSEL 11225348 ATTORNEY GENERAL
Aliases: none

Violations

LEWIS, AARON MICHAEL


Violation: 1 Citation#: Age at Violation: Plea:
5-10-101 CAPITAL MURDER; FY Disp:
Level: FY CLASS Y FELONY
Violation Date: 25-SEP-14
Violation Time:
LOWER COURT SENTENCE: DOC, LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AND LIFE, CONSECUTIVE

LEWIS, AARON MICHAEL


Violation: 2 Citation#: Age at Violation: Plea:
5-11-102 KIDNAPPING; FY Disp:
Level: FY CLASS Y FELONY
Violation Date: 25-SEP-14
Violation Time:
LOWER COURT SENTENCE: DOC, LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AND LIFE, CONSECUTIVE
 
APPEAL DOCKET: https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=

Milestone Tracks

MILESTONE DESCRIPTION DUE DATE CHANGED DUE DATE FILING DATE
BRIEFING COMMENCED 05/11/2016 05/11/2016
APPELLANT'S BRIEF 06/20/2016
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
REPLY BRIEF


Docket Entries

Filing Date Description Name Monetary
05/11/2016
04:01 PM RECORD LODGED
Entry: 8 volumes, 2581 pages.
Images No Images

05/11/2016
04:01 PM BRIEFING COMMENCED LEWIS, AARON MICHAEL
Entry: Appellant's brief due 6-20-16. Notice sent to Bill James and AG.
Images OTHER

05/11/2016
04:01 PM LOWER COURT INFORMATION
Entry: none.
Images No Images
 
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
625 MARSHALL STREET
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201

NOTICE OF FILING OF APPEAL

MAY 13, 2016

TRANSCRIPT WAS FILED TODAY IN THE CASE OF

RE: SUPREME COURT CASE NO. CR-16-413

AARON MICHAEL LEWIS V STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLANT&#8217;S BRIEF DUE 20-JUN-2016

APPELLEE&#8217;S BRIEF DUE 30 DAYS AFTER APPELLANT&#8217;S BRIEF FILED

REPLY BRIEF DUE 15 DAYS AFTER APPELLEE&#8217;S BRIEF FILED

PLEASE SEE RULE 1-8 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS EFFECTIVE

AUGUST 1, 2013, REQUIRING ELECTRONIC COPIES AND CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE ON ALL

MOTIONS, PETITIONS, WRITS, BRIEFS, RESPONSES AND REPLIES FILED IN THE APPELLATE COURT.

AS A COURTESY TO THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, THIS OFFICE CAN REVIEW BRIEFS FOR
COMPLIANCE BY E-MAILING THE BRIEF TO KYLE.BURTON@ARCOURTS.GOV,
BOBBY.JACKSON@ARCOURTS.GOV OR AMANDA.HAGAR@ARCOURTS.GOV.
STACEY PECTOL
BY Renee R. Herndon, Deputy
Clerk
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=7WU1XBTPGIFFE54NO1HF3TSYF0RNZ9
 
I know this conversation has long passed, but I saw a Nightline the other night and couldn't stop thinking about the discussion here. It was about Backpage and what it is really about (basically prostitution, including young girls). It was very enlightening, especially for anyone with a young child who tries to convince you Backpage is just another selling site, like Craigslist:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/young-girls-sold-sex-backpagecom-part-39388829
 
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=

6/01/2016
02:01 PM MOTION EXTENSION OF TIME JAMES JR , WILLIAM OWEN
Entry: Appellant's motion for extension of brief time.
Images MOTION AL Motion for extention to file brief.JPG https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=1M6QWT0LIPFUX5V1SQ7S4E766ILT8O

06/01/2016
02:44 PM GRANTED - FINAL EXTENSION
Entry: Appellant's brief due August 19, 2016. Final extension.
Images LETTER AL Letter of 60 day extention.JPG https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=E73RTK1MANRJ6D1X5QJPYKOB0UWHJ3
 
Looks like little Arron just can't stay out of trouble. Out of the blue I decided to go check up on him today and I don't think these last few have been posted. Wonder what scam he was trying to pull with mail or phone?

Major Guilty Disciplinary Violations

Threat(s) To Inflict Injury 03/16/2016
Unauthorized Use Of Mail Or Telephone 04/27/2016
Lying To A Staff Member 04/27/2016
Click to expand...

http://adc.arkansas.gov/inmate_info/search.php?dcnum=151373&lastname=lewis&firstname=aaron&sex=M&agetype=1&disclaimer=1&__utma=7441378.1878156688.1442932060.1444849048.1457641696.2&__utmz=7441378.1444849048.1.1.utmcsr%3Dgoogle%7Cutmccn%3D%28organic%29%7Cutmcmd%3Dorganic%7Cutmctr%3D%28not+provided%29&_gat=1&liveagent_oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&liveagent_sid=2960ade8-b21a-4c3b-8893-12cfd7d93540&liveagent_vc=2&liveagent_ptid=2960ade8-b21a-4c3b-8893-12cfd7d93540&exp_last_visit=1154966496&exp_last_activity=1470326496&exp_csrf_token=15544a1b805cf31f5b263d370410e89a0336b3e0&_ga=GA1.2.1878156688.1442932060
 
AL Appeals Brief filed today. 654 Pages, State has until Sept 23, 2016 to file their Brief. Just keeping the thread current as it is in the Appeals Court. Haven't looked yet wondering what they are going to Appeal...

Case ID: CR-16-413
Citation No:
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:


Case Description

Case ID: CR-16-413 - AARON MICHAEL LEWIS V STATE OF ARKANSAS
Filing Date: Wednesday, May 11th, 2016
Court: AR - STATE OF ARKANSAS
Location: SC - SUPREME COURT
Type: AF - APPELLATE FELONY
Status: ACTIVE - ACTIVE
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=



Milestone Tracks

MILESTONE DESCRIPTION DUE DATE CHANGED DUE DATE FILING DATE
BRIEFING COMMENCED 05/11/2016 05/11/2016
APPELLANT'S BRIEF 06/20/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016
APPELLEE'S BRIEF 09/18/2016 09/23/2016
REPLY BRIEF


08/19/2016
12:36 PM APPELLANT'S BRIEF LEWIS, AARON MICHAEL
Entry: Typed
Images Appellant's Brief Part 1
Appellant's Brief Part 2


Appellant's Brief Part 1 (558 pages) https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=5N8VDTBN6W5VARBE88XB5ZLXJNZIGQ

Appellant's Brief Part 2 ( 96 Pages) https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=JSNJAZROYGQ2432ZFQ39MUPCUIAN83
 
This has testimony from all the hearing and trial. Interesting for those wanting to see exactly what was said on witness stand.

The Arguments are interesting to me. *again I like the legal aspect of it.

I am interesting in seeing the State response to this. Again I didn't realize that the PROS is who filed for the ATT and Google Search Warrants for BC phone. I had thought the PCSO did as they did the other SW.
 
The ones prior to this Argument iii are interesting too.
PG 377/558

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE
OBTAINED THROUGH ABUSE OF THE PROSECUTORIAL
SUBPOENA POWER
In the early stages of the investigation into Beverly Carter&#8217;s disappearance,
prosecutor subpoenas were sent to companies including AT&T and Google. (Ab.
122; R. 851). Law enforcement then used the records it obtained from those
subpoenas to develop its investigation against Lewis. First, law enforcement used
the records to determine that Carter communicated by phone with a particular 914
phone number on several occasions just before her disappearance. (Ab. 1; R. 540).
Based on those phone records, law enforcement determined that the number was
associated with a TextMe account, a cell phone application that allows users to
make phone calls using a &#8220;spoof&#8221; number. (Ab. 3; R. 548). Law enforcement
determined that the TextMe number was associated with Lewis&#8217;s wife Crystal
Lowery based on those phone records. (Ab. 3; R. 546-51). Law enforcement then
determined Lowery&#8217;s home address and determined that Lewis also lived there.
(Ab. 11; R. 605). Law enforcement then began to conduct surveillance on the
home. (Ab. 3; R. 550-51). The entire resulting investigation was a product of those
initial prosecutor subpoenas.
Prosecutors have the power to issue subpoenas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.
16-43-212, but this power &#8220;must only be used for a prosecutor&#8217;s investigation.&#8221;
State v. Hamzy, 288 Ark. 561, 563, 709 S.W.2d 397, 398 (1986). The police do not
have such subpoena power. Id. The prosecutor may only use the subpoena power
to investigate and prepare for trial so long as the power is not abused. See Todd v.
State, 283 Ark. 492, 678 S.W.2d 345 (1984). This Court noted &#8220;a prosecutor
abuses the subpoena power when he or she commands that records be produced for
police agencies because such action amounts to giving the subpoena power to the
police.&#8221; Gulley v. State, 2012 Ark. 368, at *7-*8, 423 S.W.3d 569, 575 (citing
Hamzy, 288 Ark. at 563).
This Court has held that a case will be reversed when &#8220;a prosecutor abuses
the subpoena power.&#8221; Anderson v. State, 357 Ark. 180, 211, 163 S.W.3d 333, 349
(2004) (citing Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917, 993, 936 S.W.2d 509, 549 (1996)).
Appellant must show some prejudice from the misuse of the subpoena power in
order for this Court to reverse a denial of a motion to suppress. Anderson, 357 Ark.
at 208, 163 S.W.3d at 349. This Court has done just that by suppressing evidence
obtained by prosecutorial abuse of this power on multiple occasions. See Foster v.
State, 285 Ark. 363, 687 S.W.2d 829 (1985); Cook v. State, 274 Ark. 244, 623
S.W.2d 820 (1981).
The use of the prosecutorial subpoenas in this case is clearly an example of
the kind of case this Court has said it will reverse. There is little argument that the
subpoenas were used for law enforcement&#8217;s, rather than the prosecutor&#8217;s,
investigation. This was a clear violation of the prosecutorial subpoena power.
Arkansas law makes clear that this constitutes an abuse of the prosecutorial power,
as mentioned above.
Lewis could not have been more prejudiced by the products of this abuse. It
was only due to the phone records obtained through law enforcement&#8217;s use of
prosecutor subpoenas that Lewis was developed as a suspect in the first place. The
trial court should have suppressed all information discovered as a result of this
obvious abuse of the prosecutorial subpoena power. Such action amounted to
giving subpoena power to the police in violation of Arkansas law. Under
established Arkansas caselaw, the prosecutorial abuse of subpoena in this case
warrants reversal of Appellant&#8217;s conviction.
 
This argument could set precedent in Arkansas. (the playing of the recording from AL phone, in the suppressed interrogation) *remember that Judge Wright ruled that AL had indeed asked for an attorney when he arrived and told Officer Roy wanted a lawyer, and Officer Roy put that in his report.

PG 367/558 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=5N8VDTBN6W5VARBE88XB5ZLXJNZIGQ
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE
NONTESTIMONIAL FRUIT OF LEWIS’S ILLEGAL
INTERROGATION.
 
:websleuther: Kinda drives me crazy when see errors
(no I am not perfect, but I do think legal stuff is suppose to be. If not what is the purpose? There was lots of stuff messed up in this case, proof is stuff that got suppressed) JMHO

In this passage (found others so far, in the transcripts) but here they are saying Inv Jeff Allison which is incorrect. Allison didn't come in contact with Lewis unti he was arrested Monday. Investigator Mark Swaggerty was following and Swaggerty took the phone. IIRC Blaine was at the accident scene but def not Allison. ** Pretty proud of my notes so far :silly:

"The wrecked car needed a tow truck and was taken by Ronald Wrecker." RYNO Wrecker was the tow company lol ** yes phonics but they have they reports**

"Here, Lewis&#8217;s car was impounded and inventoried with the aim of obtaining
evidence regarding Beverly Carter. This was a blatant pretextual search under the
guise of an inventory search. This was not a case of law enforcement performing a
care taking function for the purpose of protecting Lewis&#8217;s property, as in the cases
mentioned above. As law enforcement testified, Lewis was already under
surveillance at the time of his accident. (Ab. 4-5; R. 558-59). According to
Investigator Allison, who was tailing Lewis before the accident and ultimately
seized the phone from Lewis on scene, &#8220;all [he] wanted was the phone.&#8221; (Ab. 6; R.
569). According to Lt. Mark Swaggerty, who was also present at the scene of the
accident, &#8220;[w]e took the car in anticipation of getting a search warrant.&#8221; (Ab. 5; R.
561). This was not a good-faith inventory search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 191 more.
Total: 494 (members: 192, guests: 302)

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
302
Total visitors
494
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,298
Messages
18,252,218
Members
234,599
Latest member
Shayolanda
Back
Top