Saturday, August 16, 2008
Get your head out of your ass Arkansas
Even before he was seated as a member of the jury he would eventually direct as foreman, Juror Four had violated his oath to this Court. He deliberately failed to give truthful answers to voir dire questions in order to avoid being removed from the venire; during the taking of evidence, he constantly discussed the case with an attorney he had hired to represent his close relative in a separate criminal matter; he informed other members of the jury of matters not in evidence in order to persuade them to convict on the basis of that unadmitted and inadmissible information; he expressed his intention to convict Echols even though he himself believed that the evidence presented in court did not suffice to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and, once he had succeeded in that objective, he lied to the Court regarding his conduct as a juror.
...
In his opening brief, Echols demonstrated that neither he nor his co-petitioners, Jason Baldwin or Jesse Misskelley, can be linked to any of the DNA recovered from the crime scene or from the bodies of the three victims in this case. On the other hand, he has presented reliable DNA evidence that, if credited, conclusively excludes him and his co-petitioners as the source of the DNA recovered at four relevant locations, including a ligature used to bind one of the victims; a tree stump at the crime scene; a cutting from the jeans of one of the victims; and the penis of one of the victims. Given that the new scientific evidence excludes him as the source of relevant DNA, petitioner is entitled to a new trial under Arkansas's new scientific evidence statute
...
There are enormous problems with the state's analysis under 16-112-208(b). To begin, suppose a situation in which a defendant was convicted of a rape-murder at a trial in which the prosecution argued strongly that semen on the victim's clothing was the same blood type as the defendant's, and on that basis the jury should find him guilty. Years later, DNA testing conclusively establishes that the semen came not from the defendant but from the victim's husband, who could not have committed the crime. Furthermore, a third party recently confessed to the murder in question. According to the state, while the DNA evidence conclusively excludes the defendant as the contributor of the semen and therefore wholly undermines the state’s theory at trial, it alone does not establish his innocence, as it does no more than prove the semen evidence is not relevant to the crime. - WM3.org
...
There's seven pages of this document over at the WM3.org site - makes for a dry, but interesting read. Of those who know the details surrounding the West Memphis Three there are two camps - guilty or innocent. Personally, I'm hovering around 95% sure they are innocent. However I'm 100% sure they didn't get a fair trial. So what's the harm in having a new, unbiased trial where things like DNA evidence are introduced instead of Metallica lyrics? It seems like a win/win situation. If they are innocent, they go home. If they are found guilty, they are guilty and they stay where they are. Either way, justice is served....albeit 15 years too late.
Labels: WM3
|
