The results of the testing established that neither Echols, Baldwin, nor Misskelley was the source of any of the biological material tested, which included a foreign allele from a penile swab of victim Steven Branch; a hair from the ligature used to bind victim Michael Moore; and a hair recovered from a tree stump, near where the bodies were recovered. In addition, the DNA material from the hair found in the ligature used to bind Moore was found to be consistent with Terry Hobbs, Branch’s stepfather. The hair found on the tree stump was consistent with the DNA of David Jacoby, a friend of Terry Hobbs....While there is a significant dispute in this case as to the legal effect of the DNA test results, it is undisputed that the results conclusively excluded Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley as the source of the DNA evidence tested.The Circuit Court had found with the State but was ruled to have done so erroneously: misinterpreting statutes by concluding that other evidence to be considered referred only to evidence of guilt for example. The ruling has a lot to say about the Circuit Courts (and States) failure to interpret the meaning of statutes expressed in straight forward language including the gem cited above (which refers directly to the ruling that the DNA test were inconclusive, (because they were incapable of ruling out that Echols wasn't there anyway, despite the test results and couldn't conclusively prove who the killer was if it was not him).
...
In contravention of this straightforward language, the State argues that Echols’s test results were inconclusive under section 208(b) because they were “inconclusive as to his claim of actual innocence.” However, nothing in section 208(b) requires the test results to be conclusive as to the petitioner’s claim of actual innocence. Furthermore, it is unclear to this court how DNA test results alone could ever produce legally-conclusive evidence of innocence under the State’s interpretation of the statute. The State argues that “without DNA testing results that could be dispositive of the identity of the killers here, the appellant cannot raise a reasonable probability that he was not one of them.”
Despite this statement, the State fails to provide any example of when DNA evidence could
be dispositive of the identity of the killers and states in a footnote to its brief that it “believes
that the forum the statute provides may well never yield relief due to confidence that the
Arkansas criminal-justice system does not convict the innocent.” We decline the invitation
to interpret the statutes in this way because it would render them meaningless. See, e.g., State
v. Owens, 370 Ark. 421, 426, 260 S.W.3d 288, 292 (2007) (this court will not interpret a
statute to yield an absurd result).
Offender Name: DAMIEN WAYNE ECHOLSOther two show the same. Holy shit.
Offender ID: 208369
Date of Birth: 12/11/1974
Age: 36
Race: White
Gender: Male
Custody Status: Out of Custody
Date: 08/19/2011
Reason: General release
"I think there were three turning points that helped make this resolution possible, three new things," he said. "A lot of new evidence, DNA evidence ... new witnesses, different things coming to fore. A new hearing, the Arkansas Supreme Court gave these young men a new hearing last November in a ruling that was unprecedented and that hearing was coming up in December so there was some pressure there.As others have said, the deal itself indicates clearly that the prosecutors no longer liked their chances of getting another set of convictions a second time around. Since the DNA evidence and other factors have been around for awhile, it seems a good bet to me that what changed so suddenly (given that Braga says the deal has only been in the works for a couple of weeks and that the defense teams themselves were shocked by it) was that something was recently made clear that Judge Laser was not going to be so biased to the prosecution as Judge Burnett had repeatedly been -- and it was the judge's bias that the prosecution had to rely on, given that their actual case had pretty much collapsed.
"Perhaps most importantly, a new judge. The trial judge [David Burnett] who had been on the case for 17 years was elected to the State Senate. [!!!] A new judge, David Laser, was appointed, and that brought a fresh perspective to the whole case."
I also think that despite the allegations of “politics” being invoked by some people in the case, issues I cannot address personally, Prosecutor Scott Ellington has shown considerable courage in agreeing to the “Alford” plea. He deserves great credit for this decision, demonstrated an ability to make tough decisions, and has taken considerable heat over this which I believe is quite unfair. He simply doesn’t deserve it. After all, this case is a case he inherited just last year and he made none of the original decisions that were made in the case back in 1993 and 1994.posted by scody at 10:41 AM on August 28, 2011 [3 favorites]
Mr. Ellington announced on Thursday that despite the fact that he considers the case “closed” he would consider any new evidence brought to him and would prosecute the real killers if adequate proof was presented to him. Again, quite a courageous move on his part.
I will say that I was proud of the courage the Arkansas Supreme Court displayed for remanding the case back to the trial Court because former Judge, now State Senator, David Burnett earlier had refused to even consider the new and overwhelming evidence in the case in earlier hearings.I'm not from Arkansas, and can't vote him out, but if there is any kind of Ethics committee, David Burnett should have to face charges of ethical violations.
« Older The Outer Limits episode, The Architects of Fear i... | Maybe It’s Time for Plan C - s... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:20 PM on August 18, 2011 [9 favorites]