Favorite

Above the law 

Add another cynical twist to the farce masquerading as justice in the case of the West Memphis Three. And jot up another reason to distrust Arkansas's Supreme Court.

As those who've followed the West Memphis case are aware, the high court ruled unanimously that there was nothing legally amiss in the two 1994 trials that led to the convictions of Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Jason Baldwin, who were 18, 17, and 16 years old at the time.

Echols was sentenced to death, Misskelley and Baldwin to life in prison. All are now middle-aged men.

The justices were willing to accept Misskelley's so-called confession, in which almost every detail he offered police was something they knew to be wrong. The court was not troubled by the fact that a minor had been questioned for hours and allowed to make a statement without a parent or lawyer present.

They also had no problem swallowing the testimony of a self-proclaimed “expert in the occult,” whose testimony supported the state's theory that the murders were part of a satanic ritual, despite his admission that his Ph.D. came from a mail-order university.

On the other hand, the justices dismissed defense arguments that the state had produced no weapon, no eyewitness, no sign of a satanic ritual, and no credible physical evidence linking the three to the murders.

Because of his death sentence, appeals for Echols have proceeded faster than for the other two. Affidavits filed earlier this year allege that serious juror misconduct occurred during the trial of Echols and Baldwin; specifically, that the foreman discussed the case outside of court, in violation of the judge's orders.

Judge David Burnett ordered the affidavits to be sealed. The documents were supposed to have been sent to the Arkansas Supreme Court as part of Echols' final state appeal. But, to the surprise of Echols' lawyers, they were not.

When the lawyers complained, the Supreme Court ordered Burnett to forward the affidavits. In June, a clerk for Burnett told me, “We searched for them and eventually found them. We didn't realize we had them.”

In July, I contacted Leslie Steen, the clerk for the Supreme Court, and asked to see all the documents recently filed on behalf of Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley. It was a reasonable request. With few exceptions, court records are supposed to be public.

Steen told me that I could see none of them. He explained that, because some of the documents for Echols had been sealed by Burnett, he had taken it upon himself to seal the filings of all three men in their entirety.

I was under the impression that only courts have the power to seal records. I asked Steen to cite the statute that granted that power to a clerk.

“There is none,” he said. “This is just one of our internal procedures.”

I asked if there was a written policy or even a memo from the Supreme Court to that effect. “No,” he said. “It's not in writing.”

Steen continued: “The court understands how we do things down here, and it seems to meet with their approval.” He said that in the 29 years he'd worked for the court he had been sealing records as he saw fit, that the justices were aware that he was, “could have stopped me but they haven't.”

I then filed a written Freedom of Information request with Steen for the records. He called me the next day to say my request was denied “because the records are sealed.”

In February 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued an administrative order addressing public access to court records. It says that, “Public access shall be granted to court records,” subject to certain limitations, such as for records that have been “rendered confidential by protective order, by this order, or otherwise by law.”

Nowhere does the order mention that records may be sealed and barred to public access by a clerk. To the contrary, the Supreme Court's Administrative Order Number 19 declares:

“This order recognizes there are strong societal reasons for allowing public access to court records, and denial of access could compromise the judiciary's role in society, inhibit accountability, and endanger public safety.

“Open access allows the public to monitor the performance of the judiciary, furthers the goal of providing public education about the results in cases, and, if properly implemented, reduces court staff time needed to provide public access.”

I believe that the Arkansas Supreme Court is in violation of this state's Freedom of Information Act and that its own clerk is violating an administrative order that every other court clerk is obliged to obey.

Like so much about this case, it's a shame.

 

Mara Leveritt, senior editor of the Arkansas Times, has written extensively on the West Memphis Three, including the book, “Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three.”

Favorite

From the ArkTimes store

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Mara Leveritt

  • Who's afraid of Barry Seal?

    The 'true lie' behind Tom Cruise's new film on the notorious drug-trafficker-turned-federal-informant who operated out of Arkansas.
    • Sep 28, 2017
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Schlafly's influence

    Phyllis Schlafly, mother, attorney and longtime antifeminist, died recently. What Schlafly promoted was not novel or new. Men had been saying that men and women were not equal for years. However, anti-feminism, anti-women language had much more power coming from a woman who professed to be looking out for the good of all women and families.
    • Sep 15, 2016
  • Seven

    The controversy over the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol lawn just won't go away.
    • Feb 9, 2017
  • Another Jesus

    If you follow the logic of Jason Rapert and his supporters, God is very pleased so many have donated money to rebuild a giant stone slab with some rules on it. A few minutes on Rapert's Facebook page (if he hasn't blocked you yet) also shows his supporters believe that Jesus wants us to lock up more people in prison, close our borders to those in need and let poor Americans fend for themselves for food and health care.
    • Jul 20, 2017

Most Shared

Latest in Guest Writer

  • Gratitude

    Now, more than ever, I find myself thankful for those who resist. Those who remind us of our higher common values. The fact-checkers and truth-tellers. Those who build bridges in communities instead of walls to segregate. The ones who stand up and speak out against injustice.
    • Dec 14, 2017
  • Good anger

    Recently, I attended a training session with the Little Rock Organizing Committee, an alliance of churches, schools, unions and other organizations concerned with social justice. The three-day workshop was essentially a crash course in community organizing. There were multiple lessons, but the biggest benefit to me was learning that anger is not always bad.
    • Nov 30, 2017
  • Tax truths

    The idea that a tax cut for the wealthy will help everyone, though false, is a stubbornly marketable notion.
    • Nov 9, 2017
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »

December

S M T W T F S
  1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31  

Most Viewed

  • A difference

    How low can a columnist go? On evidence, nowhere near as low as the president of the United States. I'd intended to highlight certain ironies in the career of U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The self-anointed moral arbiter of the Senate began her career as a tobacco company lawyer — that is, somebody ill-suited to demand absolute purity of anybody, much less Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
  • Gratitude

    Now, more than ever, I find myself thankful for those who resist. Those who remind us of our higher common values. The fact-checkers and truth-tellers. Those who build bridges in communities instead of walls to segregate. The ones who stand up and speak out against injustice.
  • Money talks

    Democratic candidates face a dilemma in Arkansas. To take on the GOP members who are firmly entrenched in the state Legislature and Congress, they will need lots of money and lots of votes. The easiest way to get more votes is to spend more money. Obscene amounts of money. And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and President Trump's judicial appointments, this will be our reality for a long time. The six Republicans who make up our congressional delegation have stopped pretending to care about their constituents. They vote in line with the interests of big corporations and lobbyists. They know what side their bread is buttered on.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Money talks

    • I understand what you are saying about money, but there are always exceptions and a…

    • on December 15, 2017
  • Re: A difference

    • History is likely to move with light speed in concluding that in late 2017 society…

    • on December 14, 2017
  • Re: A difference

    • Gillibrand is a tough chick, and she knows she is a political whore, like 95%…

    • on December 14, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation