Arkansas Blog

Is it always necessary to challenge someone's integrity anytime that person does not reach a decision that the venerable staff at the Arkansas Times thinks is the correct one? I have no problem with the AT, and Max in particular, taking a contrary position to individuals on issues, but are the insults necessary? Damn, David Burnett has been a judge for what, 30 years? He is widely respected by his peers and the people in his circuit and you have the audacity to just casually state with no basis that he will not carefully adjudicate this matter? I think it's wholly irresponsible and intellectually simple minded to cast insults like that. If I were Judge Burnett or Pat Hays or any number of others who catch your insults on a regular basis, it would be damned difficult to not punch you in the jaw.

ARK. BLOG: Should I land in your jursidiction, I hope you give me a shoutout so I can have my guard up. Burnett's conduct in this hearing alone is sufficient for criticism, never mind past episodes worthy of recall. There's no need for the gag order, save sparing the public further reason to question official conduct in the case. People who were in the courtroom report his lack of familiarity with the pleadings in this particular portion of the case and a dismissive attitude to the appellants. It is no exaggeration to say that the attitude doesn't befit a case where a life is at stake.

Max is not the only one who believes Judge Burnett will not carefully adjudicate this matter. Most likely, he made his mind up long ago. Odds are he won't even grant a full hearing.

>>If I were Judge Burnett or Pat Hays or any number of others who catch your insults on a regular basis, it would be damned difficult to not punch you in the jaw.<<<The Pig__

Really a deep respect you have for the First Amendment there Pig.

Why do you suppose the Gov of Illinois canceled all death row executions a few years back?
Biased police work?
Skimpy evidence?
Jury prejudice?
Sloppy jurisprudence?
Wrongful convictions?
All of the above.

.

We're not talking about traffic court here. An innocent man could be put to death by the state.

Pig- First, get your panties out of your crack. Burnett needs his feet held to the fire... especially in this case. Second, I'd think twice before taking a swing at Max...... I imagine he can kick some ass.

By his own account, the jury foreman sought a position on the jury and also likely took the leadership role upon himself. My bet is that he knew exactly what decision he would make before he got on the jury or heard any testimony, so he really didn't hear anything which would influence his findings -- at least not at the trial. All that and he didn't have enough sense to keep his mouth shut forever? Talk about nutcakes. Both he and his attorney should be kicked to the moon and back, but I guess it's too late for that, at least for the juror. Is the attorney still practicing?

In addition to the possibility of serious juror misconduct that might call for a new trial, there's this: There was no DNA evidence whatsoever of the WM3 having been at the crime scene. In fact, new DNA evidence has emerged to suggest the real killer or killers are still at large and that three innocent men have been behind bars for almost 15 years. It doesn't seem to matter; both the lack of and existence of DNA have been brushed aside by Arkansas authorities. Never mind that DNA evidence or the lack of it has been the key to freeing more than 200 wrongfully convicted people elsewhere in this country.

One thing that has always struck me about this case is how three youth the ages of Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin could avoid leaving a single piece of DNA evidence if they had committed the 3 murders.

Given their ages (17 & 18) at the time, I find it impossible to believe they were capable of doing so even if they tried.

And on top of that no physical evidence was found elsewhere, in their homes for example, linking them to these horrific murders.

I've always felt the local officials needed to convict somebody, anybody, and these 3 young guys sadly strayed into their line of fire and were easy to take down.

Okay, we got 'em folks, you can go back to your lives.

how many of you hicks even read Devil's Knot ?

I'm going to rant and ramble, so stop reading right here if you expect me to make much sense

There are about 125 people on death row in Arkansas. Do you think that on every one of those cases - if someone claims he talked to one of the members of the jury during the defendant's trial -- the defendant should automatically get a new trial? F@ck no they don't get a new trial - or else we would just try them over and over because someone new would pop up and claim they "tained" one of the jurors.

So what if one of the jurors talked to an outside lawyer during the trial. That juror thought they were guilty no matter what --- so it didn't matter to that juror who he talked to. It's not like he was bribed or threatened to vote guilty -- he was going to vote guilty anyway. Where a juror has outside contact with someone during the triall --- if it didn't have any impact on how he voted -- how was the defendant harmed. If every time a juror had outside contact with someone during a trial --- the defendant got a new trial even 15 years later -- we would never have any type of finality. If you look at what was claimed in the affidavit -- the juror just told the lawyer lots of information - it doesnt allege that the lawyer said anything to the juror or tried to have any influence at all. So what's the big f@cking deal ?

You know its not like there are the WM3 rules and then the rules that apply to everyone else. The same legal rules apply to every one. If we are going to change the rules for the WM3 -- we have to change them for everyone. I don't feel like we should give any murderer a new trial anytime the dig up someone to claim a member of their jury called them to chat about the case.

Welcome aboard mzarkansas. Next time would you bring an interpreter.

>>Where a juror has outside contact with someone during the triall --- if it didn't have any impact on how he voted -- how was the defendant harmed.<<<

That in itself is a sick bird...illegal.

Missarkansas,
The juror broke the law, and probably tainted the rest of the jury. The lawyer knew better.
A complete review of this case says that 3 people have been in prison for a crime they did not commit, while the real killers are still free.
Read Mara's book. It's an eye-opener. But don't rely on it - read the trial transcript. No evidence, No evidence, No evidence.
Recent DNA evidence has been introduced, and the damn judge in Jonesboro may or may not grant a new trial.
Don't you believe in justice, Missarkansas?

I'll try to dumb this down for you elwood. I did read the book and because it is not objective and is a huge comspiracy theory, it's better to read the transcript so you know what really happend, not Leveritt's distored version of what was said.

When is a trial ever over ? For celebrity defendants like the WM3, who have apparently unlimited legal resources, the answer is never. They realize that their "new evidence" doesn't mean squat. So what that one hair from one of the victim's fathers was found at the crime scene. That doesn't mean the father did it. It doesn't mean the WM3 are innocent either. At this point - it is their burden to prove they are actually innocent right ? There ain't no presumption of anything but that they are guilty at this point, and rightfully so.

Getting back to my point, when is a trial over. Now the WM3's big dog legal team realizes they don't have enough evidence to prove they are innocent - they are getting desparate - so they come up with this affidavit of someone who says he talked to a jury member during the trial. I didn't see anything in that statement that looked like the affiant, a lawyer, was trying to influence the jury in any way. Echols attorneys haven't even read the damn affidavit, but they claim to know what it says --- Leveritt says:

According to Echols's attorneys:
> Arnold, who is identified only as "Juror Number Four," was in contact with the attorney over matters pertaining to a relative and to Arnold's real estate business.
> Arnold "informed the attorney that he wanted to be selected as a juror" and that he "did not wish to answer any questions by the court or counsel that might reveal nformation or attitudes on his part that might lead to his being struck from the jury pool."
> While evidence was still being presented, Arnold "expressed to the attorney the opinion that most jurors were prepared to convict before the trial was over, but that a few jurors still had to be convinced."
> During one conversation, Arnold "told the attorney the evidence was to close the next day; that the prosecution had presented a weak case; and that the prosecution had better present something powerful the next day or it would be up to [him] to secure a conviction."
> Following the verdicts, when Judge Burnett asked the jurors if they could give him their assurances "that there has been no contacts from outside, the family, media, or anyone else, that would in any influence your findings," Arnold "falsely assured the court that he had not engaged in misconduct."

WHERE IS THERE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE JUROR ? I'm sorry, I can't find that part. So, according to the WM3 wacky version of the law --- even though there was no attempt to influence this juror -- because the juror simply talked to this unknown lawyer --- Echols should get a new trial. WTF ? Why ? Because they are celebrities and if a juror in a celebrity case talks to anyone --- they think they didn't get a fair trial What is so unfair about a juror venting to a lawyer if that lawyer do not respond, does not answer questions, does not give his opinion, does not give legal advice --- all he did was listen to the juror - from what Echols own lawyers are claiming.

At the end of the case the Judge asked "And can you give the Court the assurance that you have lived up to the warning and admonition of the Court and your duty as jurors?" They all gave their assurance apparently. In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that was published on June 11, 2008, the same juror was quoted as saying that he may have called an attorney and "asked questions about procedures during the trial." But nowhere is it alleged that the attorney answered these questions. Now when the affidavit is revealed, we might get a different and more complete story.

Reading between the lines -- it looks like the juror did talk to this attorney; and this attorney has prepared an affidavit. I predict in this affidavit --- there will be no proof that he deliberately tried to influence the outcome of the trial. ( but we might be surprised, and that lawyer might lose his license if he admits such acts, and would deserve to )

Back to my theme, when is a trial over? When, after a trial and sentencing, someone claims that they had improper contact with a juror --- what should be done? Leveritt thinks we should give them a new trial. If that is true --- I know a quick way to stop every single execution in Arkansas -- just write a letter to the judge and falsely claim "I had improper discussions with the jury in (fill in the blank of each death row inmate) and I feel bad now so please give them a new trial." I bet you could find one juror on each death penalty case who regrets giving out that death penalty -- and to the degree that they would lie and say "yes, I was improperly contacted, and I'm sorry and now I don't think the death penalty was right." If they are smart, they will wait until the statute of limitations on perjury has passed so they can't be held accountable. A few white lies and bam, they get a new trial right? Death penalty problems solved.

Why stop at death penalty cases ? If we really want justice for all -- then anyone convicted should get a new trial in similar circumstances right? Why not ? No one will answer this I bet -- let's stick to the celebrity defendants, who cares about all those other guys.

This is not going to work to get Echols a new trial. Despite what you hicks think - a defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial. There can be errors - but some errors are harmless. Based on the allegations so far --- any error from the juror talking to the attorney was harmless, no matter how bad it might look.

Check out my photo: http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:QnV5kMoDJN_UOM:http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u37/larn18/redneck.jpg

Sounds like a perfect script for an expose' by Dateline etc. of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Shame on you Judge Burnett. Given recent facts and claims, there is clear evidence of the potential for justice denied. Therefore only harm can come to our system of justice by not reopening the case to answer these facts and claims in a TRANSPARENT manner once and for all as the notoriety of this case demands.

Jurors are instructed not to discuss the case and the evidence with anyone during the trial. This juror did not abide by that instruction, and thus violated the law. Jurors are also instructed that defendants are presumed innocent until the State proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This juror, according to your post, came in to jury service with the idea already formed that Echols was guilty - before he ever heard any evidence presented by the State. According to your post, he expressed to the lawyer that he did not want his pre-formed opinion of guilt exposed because he wanted to be selected as a juror. So, he apparently made a conscious effort to conceal his pre-formed opinion of guilt. When a trial starts out this way, do you honestly believe a fair trial can result? It doesn't matter that the lawyer he spoke to did not influence him. What matters is that he was influenced by matters and made up his mind even before the trial started, and then he lied about it so that he could get onto the jury and make sure Echols got burned.

Any case in which something like this happens should result in a new trial. I don't care any more about Echols than I do any other defendant who has not received a fair trial. No trial is perfect, but I don't understand how anyone could think this one was fair under the circumstances.

By the way, there is nowhere close to 125 people on death row in Arkansas. There are currently 39: http://www.adc.arkansas.gov/deathrow.html

Let me add that people who come in to jury service with an agenda, and who lie to cover up that agenda so they will be selected as jurors, should be subject to severe punishments. They are the ones undermining our system of justice.

The newspaper this morning has chilling evidence from the Nona Dirksmeyer murder that cases can be botched and the innocent tried for murder. I feel sorry for the Jones boy and his family for all the pre and post trial anguish caused by outcome focused police work without balance. Get a conviction any way you can and to hell with the truth. I apologize on behalf of all Arkansans to the Jones family for your wrongful suffering. I also feel very bad for Nona's family for what they had to feel against Mr. Jones and now to know it was false feeling while they still must face another trial.

three innocent boys that were not even there at the crime scene, YET, one of them gives a full confession and implicates the other two.... I say give em a new trial and offer Misskelly (spl) his freedom if he tells the jury what happened..... he was there, he knows what happened....if judge Burnett was a dumbass why didnt the appeals work once this got above his head? I guess it is because all judges are stupid when they dont rule in a certain way....

"I say give em a new trial and offer Misskelly (spl) his freedom if he tells the jury what happened..... he was there, he knows what happened...." --- walkinsmall

Have another trial and leave it all up to Misskelly who "was there and knows what happened?" Misskelly is mentally handicapped. His confession was coerced by the police and he has since recanted it.

Uh, missarkansas, what's with the juvenile "hick" thing? Are we supposed to be offended, sweetheart?

missarkansas- I've had the opportunity to serve as a juror 2 or 3 times over the years. I'm certainly no expert, but here is what I remember from my experiences.

Before being selected to serve on a jury, the judge and attorneys for both sides question potential jurors to determine whether or not they are unbiased (in other words, no preformed opinions re guilt or innocence), capable of listening to testimony and entering a fair verdict based only on the evidence presented in court. The first 12 folks plus alternates who survive that initial round of questions get seated.

When the trial concludes, the judge then reads a set of instructions to jurors. They must follow those instructions.

The foreman in the West Memphis 3 trial violated several of his sworn duties by his own admission. In doing so, he eliminated the possibility of a fair trial which is fundamental to the U.S. justice system.

If you should ever be charged with committing a serious crime, I ask if you would want a jury foreman who believed you to be guilty before the trial had even started, and who was willing to violate the court's instructions intended to to insure fair trial. I think not.

missarkansas- I've had the opportunity to serve as a juror 2 or 3 times over the years. I'm certainly no expert, but here is what I remember from my experiences.

Before being selected to serve on a jury, the judge and attorneys for both sides question potential jurors to determine whether or not they are unbiased (in other words, no preformed opinions re guilt or innocence), capable of listening to testimony and entering a fair verdict based only on the evidence presented in court. The first 12 folks plus alternates who survive that initial round of questions get seated.

When the trial concludes, the judge then reads a set of instructions to jurors. They must follow those instructions.

The foreman in the West Memphis 3 trial violated several of his sworn duties by his own admission. In doing so, he eliminated the possibility of a fair trial which is fundamental to the U.S. justice system.

If you should ever be charged with committing a serious crime, I ask if you would want a jury foreman who believed you to be guilty before the trial had even started, and who was willing to violate the court's instructions intended to ensure a fair trial. I think not.

I didn't call anyone a juvenile hick. I presume you are all adult hicks.

No one gets my point, so I'm not making myself very clear obviously. What should be the rule about the minimum necessary to get a new trial in a death penalty case. So some unknown lawyer claims he had improper conversations with the juror. From what I Mrs. Leveritt and several of you saying -- that's enough, standing alone, to get a new trial. B@llshit. So now, over a decade later -- we just start from stratch because someone claims there was improper contact ( and there probably was improper conduct, based on the juror's own admissions in his interview, but not necessarily enough to warrant a new trial)

I think it's interesting that everyone presumes what was claimed in a sealed affidavit must be true --- and how the juror now is some type of criminal. Don't we presume people are innocent until proven guilty - like the WM3 have been ? But the mantra seems to be -- any allegation in their favor must be true -- anything that was presented to show their guilty is automatically suspect. These are not little angels you know. Damien wanted to eat his own father remember.

It does matter if the improper contact influenced the juror's decision. Otherwise, in every high profile case --- someone would find a way to contact at least one juror and try to influence their decision - so later they could claim they didn't get a fair trial. Following Leveritt's logic --- this should be enough to get a new trial years down the road ---- even if the juror denies that the improper contact had any effect at all on his eventual decision.

I'll stop using the term hicks -- I'll just say -- you people are ignorant of a hundred years of legal tradition, the rules of criminal procedure, and seem to think we should just throw out jury verdicts willy nilly whenever something isn't perfect. Here is news for you --- a criminal defendant - even in a death penalty trial - doesn't have the right to a perfect trial. There can be errors -- but as long as the errors are harmless -- then the verdict should not be disturbed. What is a harmless error? An error where there is no prejudice to the defendant. As as you can see --- the lawyer didn't tell the juror do do anything, he didn't advise him of anything -- basically all he did was listen. How did this harm Echols ? Nada.

Besides, you people just assume everyting in this secret affidavit that Echols lawyers haven't even seen is the gospel. Maybe this lawyer doens't remember things right - maybe he has motive to lie.

I think the author of this affidavit should be forced to come forward and explain himself. If he denies trying to influence the outcome of the haring --- I say no harm, no foul.

Last thought. Hard cases make bad law. If we say that these allegations in the affidavit must be considered by the judge --- that sets bad law that will let anyone convicted try to find someone who will vouch for them.

Ok, I'm done ranting now.

PS: I am not a crackpot. I just write like one.

missarkansas- let me repeat points Pippy and others have made. This juror, who ended up being the foreman, worked to get seated on the jury by LYING during pre-trial questioning. When asked during jury questioning before the trial if he had any preconceived opinions re guilt or innocence of the accused and if he could base his decision solely on the evidence presented during the trial, HE LIED. He knew how he intended to vote before the trial had even started. And then he did his best to convince his fellow jurors to vote to convict. Talk about your kangaroo court!

Let me make this simple for you. You've been charged with murdering 3 young boys. Unknown to you or your attorney, a family member of one of the victims who 'knows' you are guilty lies, gets seated on the jury, gets elected foreman and convinces other jurors to convict you of murder. I take it you have no problem with that scenario?

Give it up, Sound Policy: It's beyond her grasp.

Sorry but I read a few of these comments and I am saddened by the lack of knowledge of being on a jury. It is told to you when you take an oath on a jury not to speak to any outside influence. Whether it tainted the jury pool or not is irrelevant. I have to agree with a few comments about the evidence in this trial, or lack thereof. There was none and there is none now. A hair from a stepfather was found--that was more evidence than what was found from the WM3. I tell you what pisses me off about this case is there are people that think that since these men have sat in prison for 15 years-that they can sit in prison for many more on absolutely NO evidence. Where is the justice in that? Because the prosecution won the original trial, that means that they were right? I am afraid to say there is not a smoking gun in this case to point to the real killer or killers. I just know that these men are innocent and railroaded by an overzealous prosecution and an unfair judge. Whether this Judge Burnett is respected in Arkansas or not is also immaterial. People do make mistakes or haven't you watched the news lately? Getting these people in Arkansas to admit they made a mistake is going to be an uphill battle indeed. I am just glad that these men do have some support from "high-priced" attorneys and celebrities. Because no matter who you are, you deserve a FAIR trial--there is a man's life at stake, remember?" Those are some of the basic rights of our justice system. This could happen to anyone, don't forget that? If this was your life and your rights, wouldn't you want the laws to be followed to the letter? There are so many doubts in this case that it boggles the mind! Its time for justice to be served in Arkansas--its been 15 years too long!

I have a few things to say about all the Judge Burnett and Arkansas System defenders, first off this should have never come to this, this case was handled poorly from the word go. The cops made blunder after blunder, the D.A. had nothing to present. They had no evidence that put the three at the crime scene, except a beaten down boys false confession. C'mon people wake up. There was a restaurant that had some guy in there and the police could only ask about it through a drive -up window. Man now that is police work at it's finest. Just a few points there, now how many of the police were charged in illegal activities after the case was through, that was part of this case? I'm sorry but I don't have an ounce of respect or compassion for the Arkansas Police, The D.A. or Judge Burnett. Burnett has tried to make this into a nice little package that he can throw away, but it keeps coming back, and he and the rest have to face up that they were wrong, are wrong. The trial wasn't fair, Burnett threw everything out that was relevant to the defense. Sorry nay sayers but the film doesn't lie. People made a lot of their bones on this case, and it is all under a false cloud. They are scared it will get out. If these three people don't deserve a new trial, I will never know who does. Nothing from them at the crime scene, wow

thats unbelievable, I don't think that can happen. Oh wait one moment it did. Please wake up, please get this to an end. Burnett go away, I wonder how much else he has covered up, go away and live with what you have done."