Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 )
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.
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.
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 Lewiss 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 Lewiss 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 Lewiss Car Pursuant to an Inventory Search
i. Law Enforcement Lacked Good Cause to Retain Lewiss Car in Official Custody
ii. The Purpose of the Inventory Search was to Obtain Evidence Rather than to Protect Lewiss 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.
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
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'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.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.
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.
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