Darlie Routier's Appeals & Court Rulings

[Mama-cita]

Whoa, I think her new camp wants to go after Darin, this is evident from the first few paragraphs. Wonder how Darin thinks about this. Also, the intruder now has a long ponytail? That's the first I heard of that. Geesh, do you think the lawyers that wrote it believe the *manure* they are shoveling out?

 

[justice2]

The Darin stuff starts on page 45.

Was Mulder really as incompetent as this makes him out to be? Does anyone know what they original two Parks and Huff were relieved of the case?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Mulder wasn't incompetent in the least, but they had to throw that in the writ anyway. Standard writ language.

 

[Goody]

The Darin stuff starts on page 45.

Was Mulder really as incompetent as this makes him out to be? Does anyone know what they original two Parks and Huff were relieved of the case?

I think it will depend on how the law reads on just what his responsibilities to Darlie were. They will probably fine line it. Or that is what the defense hopes. I don't know how the federal courts will look at it. I am only on about page 28 so far though.

The thing they have going against them is Darlie herself told him she didn't want them to go after Darin and that Darin definitely was not the person she saw. Her attys make an interesting argument but I don't know if it rises to a level that would make Mulder's representation a conflict of interest. Maybe it will all boil down to whether an atty has a duty to protect his client even from herself. Maybe Jeana can tell us what the ethics laws say about that.

 

[CyberLaw]

First of all, a lawyer goes to Law School, they do not nor should they offer any type of social services to cleints.

We advise, suggest, and instruct, plus do all of the legal work as in being a lawyer.

If my client wants to testify(which no lawyer likes) and I advise them not to, or it would not be in their best interest, or they should think about it, well in the end, the client decides and I take my instructions from the client.

If I win or lose the case, I still get paid. I can't make someone do something or not do something.

This sound like the same garbage that has been rehashed in the old appeal court.

So if Darlie still testified, even though her lawyer most likely did not encourage it, well that was Darlie's decision. A lawyer opens up their client to agressive cross on the direct testimony. Why. Because they have opened themselves up to it by testifying on their own behalf.

Like Jeana said: This is standard appeal writ BS.

If someone who is kind enough to paraphrase the highlights. I would appreciate it.

I have a new wireless keyboard and mouse. Love the mouse, but the keyboard is STIFF. Big Time. So be patient........thanks........I am quite annoyed these days, I really don't need the keyboard drama.

 

[Goody]

First of all, a lawyer goes to Law School, they do not nor should they offer any type of social services to cleints.

We advise, suggest, and instruct, plus do all of the legal work as in being a lawyer.

If my client wants to testify(which no lawyer likes) and I advise them not to, or it would not be in their best interest, or they should think about it, well in the end, the client decides and I take my instructions from the client.

If I win or lose the case, I still get paid. I can't make someone do something or not do something.

This sound like the same garbage that has been rehashed in the old appeal court.

So if Darlie still testified, even though her lawyer most likely did not encourage it, well that was Darlie's decision. A lawyer opens up their client to agressive cross on the direct testimony. Why. Because they have opened themselves up to it by testifying on their own behalf.

Like Jeana said: This is standard appeal writ BS.

If someone who is kind enough to paraphrase the highlights. I would appreciate it.

I have a new wireless keyboard and mouse. Love the mouse, but the keyboard is STIFF. Big Time. So be patient........thanks........I am quite annoyed these days, I really don't need the keyboard drama.

Well, hi, Cyber. I didn't know you were a lawyer. Excellent! I think our laws and yours are very similiar, esp where ethics are concerned.

Thanks for the input in that dept. I am on page 40 something now of the writ. It has the same issues that have been brought up before, but they show a whole lot of detail they didn't before with quotes to back up their arguments. The problem I have is that I am not a lawyer and while I have had some law classes, I don't know ethics in detail, esp as it applies to lawyers, and don't know how it all falls within legal boundaries.

So, tell me this.....If your client doesn't have enough money for tests to refute the state's case, what does a lawyer do? Go to trial without the tests? Ask the court for money for the tests? Maybe Jeana can weigh in here, too.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Well, hi, Cyber. I didn't know you were a lawyer. Excellent! I think our laws and yours are very similiar, esp where ethics are concerned.

Thanks for the input in that dept. I am on page 40 something now of the writ. It has the same issues that have been brought up before, but they show a whole lot of detail they didn't before with quotes to back up their arguments. The problem I have is that I am not a lawyer and while I have had some law classes, I don't know ethics in detail, esp as it applies to lawyers, and don't know how it all falls within legal boundaries.

So, tell me this.....If your client doesn't have enough money for tests to refute the state's case, what does a lawyer do? Go to trial without the tests? Ask the court for money for the tests? Maybe Jeana can weigh in here, too.

Goody, if a defendant is indigent, the state pays for their trial costs. That's not to say that they're allowed to go hog wild and just start running up costs unnecessarily.

As you know, there are people in prison and on death row who claim that DNA evidence would overturn their convictions, but they don't have enough money for the tests and/or for appellate fees. The state will only do so much for an indigent defendant once he/she is that far up in the appeals process. Its a sticky situation to be sure. However, the good thing is that most death row inmates have 20+ years in order to raise the money to pay for those tests. Its my feeling that most of that talk is shouting at the moon because they know damn well that if anyone actually stepped in and paid for the tests, they'd just prove the person's guilt.

 

[CyberLaw]

DNA test are expensive. There have been many instances, where DNA was available at trial, but DNA testing was never developed.

So now 20+ years later, a convict may have the means by way of donations or family to test the DNA to see if the person is indeed guilty.

The Innocence Project in New York will test DNA in some instances if the technology was not available at trial. In some cases a person is found not to be involved due to DNA testing, and in other cases their guilt is proved.

Usually if there is DNA available, the Crown(D.A.) will test the DNA to "bolster" their evidence in court. Or the DNA was tested prior to arrest to "narrow" down a suspect.

Because I would use that point if DNA was available and not tested to bolster my case..........

BTW - if you rehash the same points but only include "quotes" well "'quotes" are not evidence. It is what another person thinks and is quoted on.

Darlie would need "compelling" evidence of another person at the scene, or "compelling" evidence if Darin was directly involved int he murders.

It seems the same old smoke and mirrors.......grasping at straws.....yet again..

I very much doubt the Federal Writ is going to make much diffrences, but at least it will hopefully be the end of Darlie Appeal process.

I wonder if Darlie will come "clean" in the days or hours leading up to her death or if she will be the "drama" queen and deny till the end that she was responsible for the death of her kids.

 

[j2mirish]

DNA test are expensive. There have been many instances, where DNA was available at trial, but DNA testing was never developed.

So now 20+ years later, a convict may have the means by way of donations or family to test the DNA to see if the person is indeed guilty.

The Innocence Project in New York will test DNA in some instances if the technology was not available at trial. In some cases a person is found not to be involved due to DNA testing, and in other cases their guilt is proved.

Usually if there is DNA available, the Crown(D.A.) will test the DNA to "bolster" their evidence in court. Or the DNA was tested prior to arrest to "narrow" down a suspect.

Because I would use that point if DNA was available and not tested to bolster my case..........

BTW - if you rehash the same points but only include "quotes" well "'quotes" are not evidence. It is what another person thinks and is quoted on.

Darlie would need "compelling" evidence of another person at the scene, or "compelling" evidence if Darin was directly involved int he murders.

It seems the same old smoke and mirrors.......grasping at straws.....yet again..

I very much doubt the Federal Writ is going to make much diffrences, but at least it will hopefully be the end of Darlie Appeal process.

I wonder if Darlie will come "clean" in the days or hours leading up to her death or if she will be the "drama" queen and deny till the end that she was responsible for the death of her kids.

my vote is she will be the drama queen until the end:loser:

 

[SnootyVixen]

Cyberlaw post:

BTW - if you rehash the same points but only include "quotes" well "'quotes" are not evidence. It is what another person thinks and is quoted on.

Darlie would need "compelling" evidence of another person at the scene, or "compelling" evidence if Darin was directly involved int he murders.

It seems the same old smoke and mirrors.......grasping at straws.....yet again..

Cyberlaw I would ask what is the fingerprint times 2 in blood that is not from Darlie but compelling evidence? Maybe I am not so smart but it seem to be important thing to me. An the thing is that defense not even investigate this or brought it to trial? What is that mean but not so good defense? What do the blood on the jeans of Darin mean? They say spatters like it mean from offf of a knife blade I think. Is this what they say? And they say contact blood also there. What do this mean? An what do blood stain on Darin "briefs" mean? When I read this it do say to me that seem to be suspicion could be on Darin more than on Darlie. Please be so kind as to tell me what you do think about thes thing. I am not lawyer or jury but they make me think Darlie maybe don do this thing.

 

[SnootyVixen]

I have one question more. What you posters say about Linch who tells that the firing of 2 investigationers that first were working case and not using the things they find would be poor defense of Darlie?
Do you think that mean enough for court to say poor defense? An why do defense do that? Why do defense have the investigationers work to use for defense of Darlie and not use it. This let the state say that the defense does not even offer a defense to what they accuse Darlie and this make her look bad and guilty I think.
An this is first time I learn of what the blood was like on Darin's clothing. This seem to be important to me.
I am not say about new trial or no, but what this evidence mean in the case.

 

[Goody]

If someone who is kind enough to paraphrase the highlights. I would appreciate it.

I have a new wireless keyboard and mouse. Love the mouse, but the keyboard is STIFF. Big Time. So be patient........thanks........I am quite annoyed these days, I really don't need the keyboard drama.

Here are my notes on the writ. Hope it helps.

Defense states that trial def attys dismissed Laber and Epstein (forensic experts) after learning that they believed Darlie to be innocent. I wonder is fhis is true. Did Laber and Epstein believe her to be “innocent.?” (page 1)

The appellate attys seem to be saying that the expert testimony does not match the state’s theory (specifically Cron), implying, I guess, that if the state’s theory is wrong, the conviction must be overturned because the state didn’t meet its burden. Hmm…..Is that an appealable issue? (page 8-10)

Apellate attys challenge the time line (using the sock evidence and prosecutor’s closing arguments to dispute it) as further proof the state’s theory doesn’t work. I thought these arguments were pretty weak. (page 10-12)

Appellate attys state there is limited amounts of blood spatter on Darlie’s shirt and what is there was not tested genetically. What spatter? Are they referring to what Bevel called cast off or is this other blood we haven’t talked about because it wasn’t tested? Where would spatter come from? The wounds didn’t spurt out and there was no blunt object like a bat used to create spatter. Am I missing something here? (page 17)

Apellate attys use Darin’s insurance scam on the Jag two years before the murders as proof of his claims to do the same with the Routier household possessions in 1996.

But they never say that he ever collected a dime’s worth of insurance money on it. No one ever has stated that any money ever changed hands in that deal, so how is it relevant now? It sounds like an offhanded comment he made to someone who mistakenly took him serious and stole his car, ending with a no harm, no foul solution. Were the cops involved? What really happened back then? I don’t think one claim of Darin’s can be used as proof another claim of his is true. I am thinking this is just a bait and switch parlor game This one won’t go anywhere with the federal judges. Not unless they can come up with some neutral third party to verify that any of it ever happened. (Page 27/42)

They claim Darin has blood spatter on his jeans in two areas, and they also claim it indicates he was present during the stabbings.

I wonder if they have real evidence of this or if it is just a word spin on some expert’s opinion that really doesn’t prove anything. Be interesting if it it is true though. (Page 40)

• Legal basis for conflict of interest:

Failure to investigate and refute state’s staging evidence/state’s expert witness testimony re: physical evidence.



“Where counsel chooses to forego the duty to investigate,the Supreme Court has stated, such a choice is “reasonable” only “to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigations.”



“ ….In other words,” the Court clarified, “counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” (page 37/38)



Apparently because Laber and Epstein recommended further testing and stated the state’s case had holes in it, Mulder had a duty to follow up with more testing. The question is will the federal courts see it the same way.



· Failure to object to character assassination & use of inadmissible expert testimony

By medical personnel & crime scene techs

Prosecutor’s remarks and statements

Silly String video

Cron’s opinions lacking specifics (good ol’ boy verbage)

FBI profiler being allowed to testify without Daubert Hearing. (his opinion also lacked specifics)



v. Horbauer, 228 F.3d 689, 699 (6th Cir. 2000)

(noting that a prosecutor who dwells on a defendant’s alleged bad character in this prohibited manner may be found to have

engaged in prosecutorial misconduct). (page 48)



The defense goes on to say (referring to Darlie’s case) that the “error was compounded by the introduction of ‘expert” opinion that is nothing more than subjective opinion.” They cite another case where the ruling stated when a (…”expert witness brings to

court little more than his credentials and a subjective opinion this is not evidence that will support a judgment.”) (page 41-48)



There is also a portion relating to the judge’s performance in the court room. I scanned it but have not studied it yet.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Goody, empty your Pm Box please. I'm trying to send you a note.

 

[Goody]

Goody, if a defendant is indigent, the state pays for their trial costs. That's not to say that they're allowed to go hog wild and just start running up costs unnecessarily.

As you know, there are people in prison and on death row who claim that DNA evidence would overturn their convictions, but they don't have enough money for the tests and/or for appellate fees. The state will only do so much for an indigent defendant once he/she is that far up in the appeals process. Its a sticky situation to be sure. However, the good thing is that most death row inmates have 20+ years in order to raise the money to pay for those tests. Its my feeling that most of that talk is shouting at the moon because they know damn well that if anyone actually stepped in and paid for the tests, they'd just prove the person's guilt.

Okay, Jeana, here come more hypotheticals.

Say, the defendant does not have the money for tests. All she has is the money to pay the atty for his services and the services of his co-counsel. Does Texas kick in for the costs or some of them? Or is the fact that the defendant hired a private atty enough to make them ineligible for money from the state for testing? If so, what is the atty required to do? If he knows that testing could prove his client innocent, is he required ethically to work pro bono in order to get the testing done?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Okay, Jeana, here come more hypotheticals.

Say, the defendant does not have the money for tests. All she has is the money to pay the atty for his services and the services of his co-counsel. Does Texas kick in for the costs or some of them? Or is the fact that the defendant hired a private atty enough to make them ineligible for money from the state for testing? If so, what is the atty required to do? If he knows that testing could prove his client innocent, is he required ethically to work pro bono in order to get the testing done?

If a defendant runs out of funds in the middle of the trial, they simply have to tell the judge they can't pay an attorney and the state will provide one for them. In most instances, that means that the state will just start paying the current attorney, but NOT the attorney's rate, but the rate that a court appointed attorney would receive.

I'm not sure about the state strictly paying for testing with a private attorney. Good question.

 

[Goody]

I can't find delete in the PM mailbox. How do I delete the old messages?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I can't find delete in the PM mailbox. How do I delete the old messages?

WAYYYY on the bottom right in your PM box, you'll see "move to specific folders" or something to that effect. There is a drop down selection button. Click on that and select "delete."

 

[Goody]

BTW - if you rehash the same points but only include "quotes" well "'quotes" are not evidence. It is what another person thinks and is quoted on.

I get that. But the state CCA is typically more objective than the local courts, esp small county local courts, and the federal CCA is generally more objective than the state CCA. At least that is my experience, as limited as it is.

Darlie would need "compelling" evidence of another person at the scene, or "compelling" evidence if Darin was directly involved int he murders.

So if the state doesn't let her test Darin's jeans and the fed CCA thinks only blood spatter tested and proved to be on Darin's jeans at the time of the stabbings is compelling evidence, Darlie stays on death row?

What does it take to get an evidenciary hearing? The test results or is preliminary expert opinion enough?

It seems the same old smoke and mirrors.......grasping at straws.....yet again..

A lot of it is but some of it sounded like it might be worth consideration, depending on how the law reads precisely.

I very much doubt the Federal Writ is going to make much diffrences, but at least it will hopefully be the end of Darlie Appeal process.

OMG, I can't imagine life without Darlie. Whatever will I do? Seriously though, as awful as the crime was, I really do hope she gets a new trial.

I wonder if Darlie will come "clean" in the days or hours leading up to her death or if she will be the "drama" queen and deny till the end that she was responsible for the death of her kids.

I think she might if there is a new trial. If she faces the executioner....I don't know. It depends on what Darin's role really was. If he helped her kill the kids or was part of the plan or even just a part of killing only one and participating in the cover up, I think she just might tell someone the whole story, maybe to be released after her death. Esp if she feels abandoned by him or like she is holding the bag and he gets off scotfree. I would certainly encourage her to tell, and I would encourage her to do it BEFORE she dies so that she can be interviewed by some of these major programs. I think her story just might prevent other young mothers from going down similiar paths. It could end up being the one good deed she can contribute.

One thing for sure. She is a part of history now. Nothing can change that. The best thing she can do is do the right thing before she dies. It may be the only chance for retribution she will ever have.

 

[Goody]

Well, Jeff, since you are here, would you mind opining on her chances in this current appeal? Do you think she will get a new trial? if so, on what basis? Which issue is her strongest complaint?

 

[G.I.RattlesnakeJane]

Who is JEFF/ I'm assunming it is someone who used to come here and changed hat names and came back. Read some posts but got scared when I saw that someone starred in someone elses nightmares.