 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Previous Next
|
|
Riley, Bob (Republican) - Governor , State of Alabama |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
Sugarjoe,
You are vastly oversimplifying a very complex situation. I was a prosecutor for seven years and while I did not deal with death cases (b/c the state where I practiced law had no death penalty) I did work on appellate briefs and worked with colleagues who dealth with DNA testing for closed cases.
Furthermore if you read the Judge's ruling as Ken has shown it is clear the DNA evidence would not change anything as to the MURDER conviction which is all he was convicted of. The DNA evidence cannot and will not exonerate him regardless of the results. In other cases it might and in those cases the testing is almost always ordered by the courts -- in this case it was not. That should tell you something.
I would suggest that you read the extensive written opinion from the Judge and you will realize how extensively this case has been reviewed and how many differents Judges have ruled against him. The fact that he could not convince one of these judges is a strong indicator of the meritless nature of his arguments.
The vast majority of judges, prosecutors, and police officers are interested in the truth and support efforts to get to it -- to suggest otherwise without very good reason (particularl without full knowledge of the facts as you have) is unfair and demeaning to these public servants.
In the future I would suggest fully informing yourself as to the facts before going of on a self-righteous crusade. I've been there as a prosecutor and it sucked to be second guessed by people who new little about the case.
Brian bbursiek, You are vastly underestimating my ability to deal with complex situations. I have read everything and I take it as an insult that you suggest I haven't, I have just arrived at another conclusion. This conclusion is not that he is innocent, but if after testing it shows it wasn't his DNA then the story has some loopholes and would needed to be looked upon again. This tactics of personally discrediting your opponent must be something that you took with you from your previous job, that is if this is true at all. | | | | Last edited: by sugarjoe |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
Unfortunately, the anti-capital punishment crowd doesn't want to talk about the "preponderance" of the evidence that Athur is guilty. They would have you believe that there was only the wife's testimony and a very little evidence. But that's not the truth, but a biased interpretation meant to support the anti-death penalty agenda. "Never let facts get in the way of a good argument." I hope you were not aiming that statement at me. First, I have not stated my stance on capital punishment. Second, I read the judge's ruling as well as the biased interpretations of the case. Based on what I have read, I would have a few questions. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hola Amigos, Brian - Green one to you. It's a wonderful to read your fair, & well thought out posts  Sugar - Quote:
I hereby rest my case, full of respect for people that took the time to dig deep into the facts, although the came up with another conclusion and not so much respect for people that have made inhuman and degrading comments before. You seem like a nice caring human Take Care Rico | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz | | | | Last edited: by Rico |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Unicus, You made some worthwhile points when you said: Quote:
I know there wasn't a rape but, from my reading of the court papers, a rape kit was done and fluids were collected. That means she had sex with someone...which makes sense, if you are going to claim 'rape', to cover up your part in the murder, there should be some evidence.
According to her story, the killer knew she was going to claim rape. Since I haven't found a single statement claiming she had sex with a third party, to make the rape story believable, the killer had to have sex with her. If her story is true, the DNA from the rape kit should match this guy. If it doesn't, then there is a problem with her story.
At the very least, it would raise some doubt. Would it be 'reasonable doubt'? I don't know but, if we are going to take his life, we should find out. However I would respond by pointing out that the defendant had two full blown trials where he could have requested this testing (it wasn't technologically possible at his first trial) and he didn't do so. Your points would have been best addressed at a trial as part of the arguments to the jury -- he chose not to make that argument or request the testing (maybe b/c he knew it would hurt him?) and now when he has no other options he finally pulls this rabbit out of the hat? The reason that cases need to handled a certain way on appeal is that there has to be some finality about the case. If he got the testing it would not prove anything but (at best) merely provide more fodder to argue about --- like you say about reasonable doubt. However since it is likely that many of the state's witnesses may have died or be hard to find given the 20 year time frame it would be highly prejudicial to the Prosecution to make them retry him a fourth time 20 years later. The only place "reasonable doubt" is addressed is at trial. Otherwise a defendant could always simply hold certain tactics or options back at his first trial and see if he was convicted and then if he loses he can just come back on appeal and say I want to try again because this or that could possibly change the outcome. That would enable a nearly endless series of retrials. If Arthur wanted the benefit of the arguments you suggested he had his chance and he chose to forego it. Letting him bring it up now when he has no reason for not bringing it up then will create a mess. Remember prosecutors can NEVER come back and say we found more evidence or someone lied and now they say the defendant did it so we want another chance -- so it's only reasonable to limit the ability of a defendant to get another bite at the apple. Remember this guy got 3 trials before 3 different juries. Brian |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Guys,
While judge Brian is handy. If it was to Arthur's advantage shouldn't his attorneys, have brought up the DNA thing? And would it make sense for Arthur to now argue, he was not properly represented, for the lack of using DNA evidence? Kind of like "My Cousin Vinny" if Joe Pesci were to have lost?
Take Care
Rico | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rico: Quote:
Hi Guys,
While judge Brian is handy. If it was to Arthur's advantage shouldn't his attorneys, have brought up the DNA thing? And would it make sense for Arthur to now argue, he was not properly represented, for the lack of using DNA evidence? Kind of like "My Cousin Vinny" if Joe Pesci were to have lost?
Take Care
Rico Arthur was an idiot and chose to represent himself at trial. If he didn't request the test at trial, he has nobody to blame but himself. As they say, "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client." | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sugar, Quote:
This tactics of personally discrediting your opponent must be something that you took with you from your previous job, that is if this is true at all. If you choose to believe I'm lying about my background I can't stop you. I'm not lying but I can't prove it to you so.... I don't know where you get this "personally discrediting" stuff from and I don't know why you feel the need to demean the profession of prosecutor as part of this argument. That seems to be what you are doing with that remark. I tried to make a constructive criticism about your approach to this subject from experience about this kind of thing. I am as certain as I can be under the circumstances that you knew rather little of the details about this Arthur guy's claims when you made your initial post. Many people (including me sometimes) are guilty of jumping to conclusions that fit our preconcieved notions about things and that's what I think you did here by becoming the champion for a 3x convicted murderer (who by the way was previously convicted of killing someone else - so he's killed two people in his life despite being behind bars for many years of it). Fundamentally what you appear to lack is a substantial background in the American legal system. Quite frankly the vast majority people lack my level of knowledge (but there are many that know far more than me). These matters are very complex and the standards by which judges review these matters are generally well established and there a generally very good reasons for them (as I have tried to explain). There have been numerous hearings, briefs, rulings etc. at all levels of the state and federal court system. This guy has received extensive and intricate review of every aspect of his case by numerous impartial magistrates (some of whom overturned two seperate murder convictions due to what were deemed significant errors in his first and second trials -- this demonstrates these judges are more than willing to set aside a guilty verdict if they feel it is the correct course). But they refused numerous attempts to overturn this conviction and death sentence. What I objected to was the self-righteous tone of your comments. You seemed (and seem) awfully certain of the merits of this guy's claims without extensive knowledge of the case. This is seperate and apart from any argument about the merits of the death penalty b/c everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion on that question even if not an expert. I don't know anything about particle physics or repairing cars so when a physicist or a mechanic gives me their opinion about their area of knowledge I at least respect their opinion as being based on a lot more knowledge than mine. Brian |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wow! At all three trials, he represented himself, in a death penalty trials amazing. I will bet with him, acting as his own attorney, the judges showed extraordinary leniency & tolerance. Perhaps this explains why it took 3 trials. Given that he acted as his own attorney, perhaps life with no chance, would have been a more fair verdict, but once the wheels are in motion, I guess we have to follow through.
Take Care
Rico | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
| | Registered: March 17, 2007 | | Posts: 853 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting sugarjoe: Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:
Quote:
I know I am going to get a red arrow for this but I think what people are asking you sugar is since no one is interviewing the prosecutor how do any of us know if the DNA has been run or not?
Nobody has asked that question and I guess nobody, not even Hal, disputes the fact that no DNA was run, I think the test were not even available at that time.
No red arrow from me, why would I? Wasn't accusing you of reds. When I ask questions like this I normally reveive them. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Rico, The issue that you raise below is an interesting one. Quote:
While judge Brian is handy. If it was to Arthur's advantage shouldn't his attorneys, have brought up the DNA thing? And would it make sense for Arthur to now argue, he was not properly represented, for the lack of using DNA evidence? Kind of like "My Cousin Vinny" if Joe Pesci were to have lost? You are correct that the decisions of a defendant's attorney's can be the subject of an appeal issue and often are -- the term is "ineffective assistance of counsel". I don't know whehter at some point Arthur may have raised that issue -- he did have an attorney represent him at trials 1 and 2 I believe (but those 2 convictions were later overturned on unrelated grounds so the performance of his attorney's at those trials no longer matters) but represented himself at trial 3 with legal "advisors" (as Unicus pointed out) which severely limits your ability to argue "ineffective assistance". In order to represent yourself you are strongly cautioned by the trial judge about how it may hurt your chances and almost always the judge insists that you have "legal advisors" that can object to inadmissable evidence etc. on your behalf. The standard for review on "ineffective assistance" claims is not easy to reach because often these decisions were a decision of "trial strategy" by the lawyer and the fact that the trial was lost is not proof the attorney was incompetent. In this case the strategy may have been to avoid testing the material b/c it would likely hurt his case and make his situation worse. Also it would as the judges have pointed out not been a determining factor even if the results helped him. The basic standard for reviewing an attorney's performance (if memory serves) is that the decision has to have been clearly bad and likely to have impacted the outcome. As you might guess many convicted defendants have less than rosy views of how well their attorney did and whether he followed their advice on how to try the case. I once knew a public defender who said he let the defendant make only 3 decisions about their case -- the rest was his call. They were -- (1) whether to take a plea bargain (2) whether to have a judge or jury trial, and (3) whether to testify in their own behalf. He'd be happy to advise them on these issues of course but it was fundamentally the client's choice on those issues. It's an interesting subject if you're into that kind of thing -- which I still am to a degree. Brian | | | | Last edited: by bbursiek |
| | Registered: March 17, 2007 | | Posts: 853 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting Rico:
Quote:
Hi Guys,
While judge Brian is handy. If it was to Arthur's advantage shouldn't his attorneys, have brought up the DNA thing? And would it make sense for Arthur to now argue, he was not properly represented, for the lack of using DNA evidence? Kind of like "My Cousin Vinny" if Joe Pesci were to have lost?
Take Care
Rico
Arthur was an idiot and chose to represent himself at trial. If he didn't request the test at trial, he has nobody to blame but himself.
As they say, "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client." That must be a state thing because in AZ if you cannot represent yourself in a capital case unless you are a lawyer. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Sugarjoe: Quote:
Nobody questions the fact, that there is DNA evidence. My simple question is why it is not being used when a life is at stake? The reasons are stated below by one court reviewing the decision of another court (both decisions made by impartial judges) where they essentially state that the "DNA evidence" that the defendant refers to would NOT prove his innocence -- not even close -- it would merely provide more evidence to challenge the testimony of the victim's wife which the defendant aggressively did at trial several times. Relevant Court Quotes Quote:
We affirmed, noting that Arthur failed to satisfy the diligence requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 2254, failed to pursue the testing of the requested evidence during his
three trials or during state court postconviction proceedings, and failed to
demonstrate good cause for his failure to seek the evidence. Arthur XV at 1248.
We also noted that “good cause for discovery cannot arise from mere speculation”
and that the Arthur’s claim that the discovery might prove that he was not the
perpetrator was “not enough.” Arthur XVI at 1311. What the court is saying here is that Arthur failed to ask for these tests at any time when it would have made sense and he has no excuse why he didn't do so -- this goes to my point about a defendant manufacturing grounds for a new trial by foregoing certain options so he can then argue later he needs the chance to present this "new evidence" to a jury (it isn't NEW at all). Quote:
4 Each of these claims was also presented in his 2001 habeas petition and his 2002 motion
for leave to conduct discovery and considered by the district court. As to Judy Wicker’s clothing,
the district court concluded that there was no basis in the record for Arthur’s belief that the blood
on her clothing belonged to her assailant, Arthur XIII at 7 n.6, or to anyone other than Judy Wicker,
Arthur XIV at 5. As to the rape kit, the vacuum sweepings, and the hair samples taken from the
residence, the district court concluded that [b]merely showing that another person was with Judy
Wicker or in her home at some unspecified time does little to support her testimony or to further
impeach her testimony about Arthur’s involvement[/b] and, at best, would provide further information about Judy Wicker’s veracity which was amply covered during the state trial, and that Arthur did not offer any reason to believe that testing the rape kit would help show that he was more likely than not actually innocent. Arthur XIII at 7 and n.6; Arthur XIV at 3, 5-7. As to the wig and hair samples, the district court found that expert testimony at trial indicated that the hair samples were of African
American origin, and that Arthur provided no support for his speculation that different tests could
impeach Judy Wicker’s testimony. Arthur XIII at 7 and n.6. In denying his motion to alter or amend
the judgment, the district court concluded that, although no explanation had been offered for the hair
found in the car or for the lack of the hair in the wig, the findings were not inconsistent with Judy
Wicker’s testimony and Arthur offered no reason to believe that an examination would reveal
anything other than what was already established. Arthur XIV at 5-6. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 07-13933________________________ D.C. Docket No. 07-00319-CV-WKW | | | | Last edited: by bbursiek |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Another point about this whole controversy.
It seems to me that this defendant is simply trying to use the public's growing interest in the DNA phenomenon (and the exoneration's of other death row defendants to prove their innocence) to create a groundswell of public support for himself (with some success obviously). It is true that some defendants have been exonerated (and freed from prison) based on post-conviction DNA evidence.
However those defendants got a judge to order the testing b/c it might actually prove their innocence. In this case the defendant has been unable to convince a judge (out of many) to order the test which some in this thread have argued seems like a no brainer. Why have all of these judges refused his requests? Mainly because the tests would NOT prove his innocence as in those other cases.
I want to make it clear that I do not always oppose these kinds of requests. I think in the cases where a defendant can convince an impartial judge that the tests could actually prove his innocence he should get the test and in most cases the defendant will. I think most judges would favorably look at the request and grant it if they thought it appropriate -- the cases where they don't do it like this one should be scrutinized closely.
Brian | | | | Last edited: by bbursiek |
| | Registered: May 22, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | some other food for thought, as far as the comment(s) made earlier about the wife having sex with Arthur so that she could claim rape and the rape kit would get trace, to help support their story (remember, she was tried and convicted as well; that was stated in the judges decision that was linked to) DNA testing may not have been available at that time, but it would still be dumb for Arthur and her to actually have sex to 'set up' the rape if they were in fact conspiring. She could have had sex with her husband shortly before Arthur showed up to kill him. The info in the judges ruling also said something about the possibility she was having sexual relations with one of the cops that showed up at the scene. So it could have been anyone she had sex with (it wouldn't even be rape if it was part of the plan) and he was never charged with rape. So what a positive or negative match prove? Nothing.
-Agrare |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | |  All we need now is to add religion and politics to this thread.  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Don't encourage them, Doc.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |