West Memphis Three

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

I've addressed this already. You ignored it. Go back and read. That is not the law, and was certainly not the law in California.

'This issue was brought up in Manson's Appeal. In that appeal the California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto, wherein a United States Federal Appeals Court ruled "Although California defendant's trial occurred prior to United States Supreme Court's Faretta decision confirming to state defendants the constitutional right to self-representation, denial of the California defendant's right of self-representation was a federal constitutional defect requiring setting aside of his conviction". Manson is mentioned specifically in footnote # 2 of this decision.'

As posted previously:

soulsinging wrote:

"Thus, the issue framed by Edwards, "... presents an opportunity to revisit the holdings of Faretta and Godinez, if the Supreme Court decides that it is to be done" (Edwards, 866 N.E.2d, p 260). However, although the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case on December 7, 2007, it plans to address only the more limited question: "May states adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial?" Nonetheless, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's past holdings that heavily weigh substantive due process for disadvantaged defendants (e.g., providing for access to counsel and expert witnesses), the Court's consideration of this case may result in some interesting opinions that will be very important for our field relative to the broader issues."

The jury's still out on this issue. The holding was from the Indiana supreme court (not binding on anyone but Indiana), was decided years after Manson's conviction, and SCOTUS has yet to take it up. The law in California is still:

"However, it also held that "a trial court must... satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence" (Godinez, 509 U.S., pp 400–1)."

As I said, it's to the discretion of the trial court judge. It's been reviewed endlessly by appellate courts who have affirmed that trial judge's decision.

Of course, your response was that what the judge did was weird, and when I pointed out that it's perfectly logical and done frequently, you ignored it. We've been over this ground repeatedly. Every time I provide a rational trial practice based explanation for what happened, you bring up another point I've already rebutted and when I rebut that you bring up another point I've already rebutted. Quit chasing your tail dude.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

by all means. please tell us how stupid we are. I'm on the edge of my seat.

Just keep posting here Jlew. That will do just fine.

Byrnzie

I BrisK I wrote:

Wow, i was just about to make a thread about this.

I just watched Paradise 1 + 2 back to back and what can i say, i just don't get how they be sentenced, nevermind on death row, and the evidence?

Mike Byrnes, hmm something just isn' quite right with him, i dont think he did it but its just weird. I never knew what happened with those teeth marks at the end, i guess i need to go back and read on from what happened and continue after Paradise 2.

Don't think my blood has ever boiled that much before, just watc0hing those southerners.

I'd be careful, Soulsinging may accuse you of trying to derail this thread about the fact he's studying for a law degree.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

That's my point. Yet you assume the other guy is 100% accurate because he agrees with you, and assume I am lying and making things up because I disagree with you.

I am not the last word. But the appeals court is and the appeals court has agreed with my position, multiple times.

Lastly, I don't have to prove shit. The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish their case. But I'm sure you already knew that, what with your extensive experience in American criminal appellate practice. The appellee only has the burden of rebutting the arguments of the appealing party, which I've done. I can assure you, you have to have a VERY powerful and persuasive argument to even merit an opinion denying your appeal from an appellate court. You don't. Which is why the appeals court has summarily denied all of Manson's petitions.

So now you assume to know why the appeals court has denied his petitions? That's strange, I could have sworn that you just admitted to not having the answer.

All of these petitions have been dismissed at the Superior Court level with no explanation other than that the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ.
'None of the legal arguments advanced in any of these writs has ever been addressed.'

But yet you pretend to be privy to this information?

No, I deduce that their denial is perfectly reasonable. If there was a constitutional problem, why would they deny his petition? You have no answer to that, other than some huge conspiracy by everyone in the US justice system to keep poor Charlie down.

95% of habeas petitions are denied outright with no explanation. It is not unusual or indicative of anything other than what I said. Check it out:

"Superior Court level with no explanation other than that the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ." - Appeals court

"The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish their case... The appellee only has the burden of rebutting the arguments of the appealing party... I can assure you, you have to have a VERY powerful and persuasive argument to even merit an opinion denying your appeal from an appellate court." -me

Kinda similar aren't they? Manson's petitions didn't make claims sufficient for the appellate court to review the record.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

I've addressed this already. You ignored it. Go back and read. That is not the law, and was certainly not the law in California.

'This issue was brought up in Manson's Appeal. In that appeal the California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto, wherein a United States Federal Appeals Court ruled "Although California defendant's trial occurred prior to United States Supreme Court's Faretta decision confirming to state defendants the constitutional right to self-representation, denial of the California defendant's right of self-representation was a federal constitutional defect requiring setting aside of his conviction". Manson is mentioned specifically in footnote # 2 of this decision.'

As posted previously:

soulsinging wrote:

"Thus, the issue framed by Edwards, "... presents an opportunity to revisit the holdings of Faretta and Godinez, if the Supreme Court decides that it is to be done" (Edwards, 866 N.E.2d, p 260). However, although the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case on December 7, 2007, it plans to address only the more limited question: "May states adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial?" Nonetheless, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's past holdings that heavily weigh substantive due process for disadvantaged defendants (e.g., providing for access to counsel and expert witnesses), the Court's consideration of this case may result in some interesting opinions that will be very important for our field relative to the broader issues."

The jury's still out on this issue. The holding was from the Indiana supreme court (not binding on anyone but Indiana), was decided years after Manson's conviction, and SCOTUS has yet to take it up. The law in California is still:

"However, it also held that "a trial court must... satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence" (Godinez, 509 U.S., pp 400–1)."

As I said, it's to the discretion of the trial court judge. It's been reviewed endlessly by appellate courts who have affirmed that trial judge's decision.

Of course, your response was that what the judge did was weird, and when I pointed out that it's perfectly logical and done frequently, you ignored it.

I didn't say it was weird. I said it was illegal. And you still have no idea why his right was revoked. He was deemed fit to represent himself. Therefore, there was no legitimate reason to then revoke this right. The judge could have simply over-ruled any motions that he found to be unconventional or inappropriate.

'California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto'

Seems to me like it's you that's chasing your own tail. The above is perfectly straightforward.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

I didn't say it was weird. I said it was illegal. And you still have no idea why his right was revoked. He was deemed fit to represent himself. Therefore, there was no legitimate reason to then revoke this right.

I love that I don't know why his right was revoked, but YOU KNOW it was illegal and there was no legit reason to revoke it.

it's not illegal and it's done all the time. The judge could have overruled the motions, but he didn't have to. It's up to him. That's judicial discretion.

Byrnzie wrote:

The judge could have simply over-ruled any motions that he found to be unconventional or inappropriate.

'California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto'.

They denied one petition on a ground that was later overruled. That doesn't mean there weren't other reasons to deny his petition. Seeing as how he filed other petitions after this and they were denied, it seems pretty clear they found those grounds, namely:

"the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ."

Byrnzie

Some may call it a miscarriage of justice. Others may call it the law. I suppose it just depends on what side of the fence you sit, and who pays your wages.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

Some may call it a miscarriage of justice. Others may call it the law. I suppose it just depends on what side of the fence you sit, and who pays your wages.

Now you're getting the picture.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Some may call it a miscarriage of justice. Others may call it the law. I suppose it just depends on what side of the fence you sit, and who pays your wages.

Now you're getting the picture.

The law put the West Memphis 3 behind bars - remember them?

What's your take on that?

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Some may call it a miscarriage of justice. Others may call it the law. I suppose it just depends on what side of the fence you sit, and who pays your wages.

Now you're getting the picture.

The law put the West Memphis 3 behind bars - remember them?

What's your take on that?

There are serious problems with that conviction and significant exonerating evidence that should be explored at a new trial. That said, having just been involved with a similar trial (small redneck town, conviction of an 'outsider' based on a confession obtained under pretty sketchy circumstances, DNA evidence that excludes the convicted), his odds aren't good of getting out. Our guy got convicted anyway. And we didn't even get to present a false confession expert.

decides2dream

i just watched that paradise lost documentary last night.....and i still don't know what to think. i do believe they were convicted on very sketchy/weak evidence, so a re-trial does seem in order...but i don't think the film in one or another really illuminated much for me personally. honestly, just watching it i kept thinking...this is MY country, these are my people? it is amazing to me just how different we all are, and how different so many places within this country are. :shock:

fuck

Our justice system is actually a lot worse than people give credit for. From my experience, I think it's mostly cowardly judges and prosecutors with a political agenda. Both are supported by the government, of course.

decides2dream

alrighty, finished up watching paradise lost 2: revelations.......and it does indeed appear that at the very least, these 3 were rushed thru on VERY scant 'evidence' if any at all, and some serious accusations/questions rasied against others, specifically, michael myer's stepdad. damn, that whole documentary was just scary. bottomline, these boys and ALL the parents, let alone the idea of true JUSTICE...a retrial is in order.

musicismylife78

I just wonder when will the case be reopened and Terry Hobbs arrested?

musicismylife78

decides2dream wrote:

alrighty, finished up watching paradise lost 2: revelations.......and it does indeed appear that at the very least, these 3 were rushed thru on VERY scant 'evidence' if any at all, and some serious accusations/questions rasied against others, specifically, michael myer's stepdad. damn, that whole documentary was just scary. bottomline, these boys and ALL the parents, let alone the idea of true JUSTICE...a retrial is in order.

These 2 films are very important. Two of the best documentaries ever made, but their conclusion that John mark Byers (myers stepdad) was guilty is 100 percent false.

That guy JMB has done a 360. Far from being like he is in the documentary, angry at the WM3 and sure Damien, Jessie and Jason are guilty, he now believe they are 100 percent innocent, and has been at Free the Wm3 rallies. He will be there to shake Damien's hand when he is released he said.

The real killer as I said, is another stepdad, just not Byers. Its Terry Hobbs. He along with another guy jacoby, murdered all 3 boys. His stepson and the 2 other boys did something, something that made him mad. He went to punish them. And it got out of hand.

Look at it this way. There is NO DNA whatsoever, of John Mark Byers or Damien, Jessie and Jason anywhere at the crime scene. However, the hair of Hobbs was found at the scene. I think its quite clear who killed the kids. And it aint the WM3 and it aint Byers.

His exwife, shown in both documentaries, Pam Hobbs is convinced Terry is the killer. She has mentioned he has a knife in his drawer, years after the crime, one that his stepson carried with him every where he went. Hobbs also has a bizaare history. From beating his brother in law, to sneaking into a neighbors house and watching a neighbor, a woman, take a shower.

JonnyPistachio

Echols was definitely a disturbed kid. but i've seen some recent interviews with him, and he seems more intelligent than I originally thought he would be. His upbringing and family life was not good.

And yes, that whole trial stunk to high hell. There was nothing fair about it. Last I read, however, that their motions for retiral and new DNA evidence was rejected. Sad.

Byrnzie

What's the latest on this case?

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Byrnzie wrote:

What's the latest on this case?

Good to see you back here Byrnzie......

Byrnzie

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

What's the latest on this case?

Good to see you back here Byrnzie......

Thanks man.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Byrnzie and I make peace......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epUk3T2Kfno