GUILTY AL - J.B. Beasley & Tracie Hawlett, both 17, murdered, Ozark, 31 July 1999 *ARREST in 2019* #5

[Mind your biscuits]

As promised, I would present updates as they came available on my case file tickler.
This is an edited/ corrected post


Monitored Case: MCCRANEY COLEY LEWIS Charge: MURDER CAPITAL-RAPE/
Case Number: CC201900018700
County: 26 - DALE
Judge Id: WHF
The following Changes have occurred:
Date : 12/6/2021 10:35:36 AM
Comments : PROSECUTOR 3 ASSIGNED: MASSEY DANIEL EMMETT IV

Basically a routine filing. The DA has added an additional (3rd) member the prosecution team.

The only new motion filed was a blanket discovery motion filed by the state. It is a routine motion and was granted. I will post a download link for your review below. This is not unexpected. If anything else comes up that is significant and not sealed I will post further.

As always, I thank everyone for your interest in this case and the pursuit of justice.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d8m4fvkys5dk5yx/Alabama State Motion 12-6-21.pdf?dl=0

Thanks for the update.

 

[Niner]

@Blacklist - was wondering if you can access the court site "where" his court dates might be? And if so - what is the next one?

TIA!

 

[Blacklist]

@Blacklist - was wondering if you can access the court site "where" his court dates might be? And if so - what is the next one?

TIA!

The only future appearance that is showing on Alacourt is 05/02/2022.(Jury Trial). I see no change of venue motion that has been granted.

 

[Niner]

The only future appearance that is showing on Alacourt is 05/02/2022.(Jury Trial). I see no change of venue motion that has been granted.

Okay - that's the next date that I have too. Thanks!

 

[Blacklist]

I have a query of those that follow this thread.
I have followed this case for decades now. Long before this thread or website. I try to be spot on with everything , but my memory is not infallible.

I have been reviewing this case file pretty deeply in my available time. I ran across two requests for discovery by the defense dated September, 2019. The requests named two individuals that I do not ever recall being named in local news venues. Because of this fact I will not list the two individual’s names on this open thread. I will say that these subjects are not law enforcement officers and I do not believe they were connected with the Barrentine issue. (But I do not know, thus I ask). But one of the individuals were interviewed as early as August , 1999, so who knows.
I will however provide below download links for true copies of the discovery motions. They are, after all public information.

If any of my friends here can perhaps refresh my memory on what the connection is with this case that could possibly involve these subjects, I would certainly appreciate it. Please feel free to direct/private message me. I am just wanting to make sure my knowledge is complete without rehashing or confusing the current climate of the case. I want to make sure your knowledge is complete also.

Dropbox - Production Request - Bell.pdf - Simplify your life

Dropbox - Production Request - Glass.pdf - Simplify your life

As always, thank you for being what I feel is a determined team. Perhaps even friends

 

[killarney rose]

District Attorney files motion against Coley McCraney trial | WDHN - DothanFirst.com

 

[killarney rose]

I think David Harrison will pull out all stops with flinging smoke and mirrors to try to deflect from the dna and McCraney’s guilt. Looks like the prosecution is anticipating this happening.

 

[killarney rose]

Prosecutors: Bar speculation that others, not Coley McCraney, killed Dothan teens

 

[cherrymeg]

I think David Harrison will pull out all stops with flinging smoke and mirrors to try to deflect from the dna and McCraney’s guilt. Looks like the prosecution is anticipating this happening.

McCraney claimed he never ejaculated in or on either teen. Or had sex with JB Beasley or Tracie Hawlett. He straight up lied and the police did a solid job of keeping facts of the case under wraps. He got caught with DNA and lying. You have to wonder if they are his only victims.

 

[TedMac]

McCraney claimed he never ejaculated in or on either teen. Or had sex with JB Beasley or Tracie Hawlett. He straight up lied and the police did a solid job of keeping facts of the case under wraps. He got caught with DNA and lying. You have to wonder if they are his only victims.

You are correct. He (McCraney) also claimed that he didn't even know either of the girls. Harrison will try his best to get the DNA evidence thrown out either saying the Lab mishandled the specimen or LE failed to maintain chain of custody. Once that fails, he will claim that McCraney had a relationship with JB and the semen found on and in her was from a consensual act that occurred earlier in the evening. I don't believe the jury will buy that pack of lies. Regardless, I hope the entire story gets told, meaning we learn how and where he managed to gain control of them, why he drove their car to the location it was found and WHY he had to kill them.

 

[Catmommy]

McCraney has lied every step of the way. I see no Perry Mason/Jessica Fletcher moment where he suddenly tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He will go to prison/death row denying his guilt, I do believe.

 

[killarney rose]

And it begins…..

Attorneys: Officer spotted with car where murdered teens were found

 

[Blacklist]

District Attorney files motion against Coley McCraney trial | WDHN - DothanFirst.com

I am having a ton of problems with Alacourt this evening. I am not seeing the motion in Limine. But I do see a response to that motion. When Alacourt straightens out I will post the actual motions.
nevertheless neither motion will proffer any surprises in my opinion.

I will post more when I can. Thank you folks

 

[Blacklist]

Here is the State’s motion in Limine

Dropbox - Microsoft Word - mcranney mo tion in lime.docx - 26-CC-2019-000191.00 - STATE OF ALABAMA; MOTION - IN LIMINEIn Limine.pdf - Simplify your life

 

[Blacklist]

Here is the defense response the motion in Limine by the State. (It could have been a bit more detailed and well written IMO)

Dropbox - 26-CC-2019-000191.00 - STATE OF ALABAMA; MOTION - OTHER - DEFENDANT''S RESPONSE TO STATE''S MOTION IN LIMINEOther - Defendant''s Response to State''s Motion in Limine.pdf - Simplify your life

 

[Blacklist]

Circuit Judge Fillmore set a hearing date on the motions for January 6th. here is the order. ( you heard it hear first )



Dropbox - 26-CC-2019-000191.00 - ORDER FOR IN LIMINE - MOTION OTHER - In Limine.pdf - Simplify your life

 

[Blacklist]

Just in case you have been reading the posted motions and have seen a reference to the “Daubert Standard” listed in the defense response to the State’s motion in limine in that Parabon does not meet such said standard.

If proper pleading style had been followed it would have cited the actual case that promulgated the standard.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579.

The U.S. Supreme Court case listed basically rests itself on three general tenants that scientific testimony must be based on in order to be admissible. Basically, the defense council is attempting to disqualify Parabon’s work as inadmissible as it does not (in their opinion) meet the standard of proven scientific basis and method as well as the level of expertise of those offering such testimony or evidence.

After examination of available information, it is (just) my opinion I feel this motion will fail in all likelihood. However not to submit the challenge would constitute legal malpractice.

Just extra side facts.
If I have bored anyone, I apologize in advance

#TheMoreYouKnow

As I am confident that both State and defense council most likely monitors this and all other relevant social media as they should, might I suggest the use of spellcheck when drafting motions and pleadings. Some judges frown on poorly written memoranda.
#youarewelcome.

 

[Andreee]

Just in case you have been reading the posted motions and have seen a reference to the “Daubert Standard” listed in the defense response to the State’s motion in limine in that Parabon does not meet such said standard.

If proper pleading style had been followed it would have cited the actual case that promulgated the standard.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579.

The U.S. Supreme Court case listed basically rests itself on three general tenants that scientific testimony must be based on in order to be admissible. Basically, the defense council is attempting to disqualify Parabon’s work as inadmissible as it does not (in their opinion) meet the standard of proven scientific basis and method as well as the level of expertise of those offering such testimony or evidence.

After examination of available information, it is (just) my opinion I feel this motion will fail in all likelihood. However not to submit the challenge would constitute legal malpractice.

Just extra side facts.
If I have bored anyone, I apologize in advance

#TheMoreYouKnow

As I am confident that both State and defense council most likely monitors this and all other relevant social media as they should, might I suggest the use of spellcheck when drafting motions and pleadings. Some judges frown on poorly written memoranda.
#youarewelcome.

Lol well said!

 

[Andreee]

dbm

 

[TedMac]

Just in case you have been reading the posted motions and have seen a reference to the “Daubert Standard” listed in the defense response to the State’s motion in limine in that Parabon does not meet such said standard.

If proper pleading style had been followed it would have cited the actual case that promulgated the standard.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579.

The U.S. Supreme Court case listed basically rests itself on three general tenants that scientific testimony must be based on in order to be admissible. Basically, the defense council is attempting to disqualify Parabon’s work as inadmissible as it does not (in their opinion) meet the standard of proven scientific basis and method as well as the level of expertise of those offering such testimony or evidence.

After examination of available information, it is (just) my opinion I feel this motion will fail in all likelihood. However not to submit the challenge would constitute legal malpractice.

Just extra side facts.
If I have bored anyone, I apologize in advance

#TheMoreYouKnow

As I am confident that both State and defense council most likely monitors this and all other relevant social media as they should, might I suggest the use of spellcheck when drafting motions and pleadings. Some judges frown on poorly written memoranda.
#youarewelcome.

Thank you for your updates and timely information you provide.