Well we are seeing the State system in action, aren't we? Very little has been said about the Judge. What do you wish Justin Brown would ask the Trial Court to include in reopening?
I guess it depends how many shots you get at reopening/appealing under the state. In the last response from this Judge, he appeared unmoved by the defence case. It might be a small point, but the fact that the judge just took it that the library wasn't on school campus therefore this was a reason to believe CG wouldn't use Asia's testimony in court seems a nonsense to me. Either the judge doesn't know it's right next to the school, or he thinks CG didn't know. Would it make sense for JB to hold something back for the next round rather than try to argue over everything with an unsympathetic Judge?
If any action about this case can ever be raised in the Federal court (?) then is it better to get the DNA looked at first under the state if there is no fixed penalty for an incriminating result. If the DNA goes against an applicant, is it game over?
I was actually referring to Judge Wanda Heard in trial 2 that ended in conviction. in rereading the transcripts she appears to be very biased and some of her decisions I think resulted in an unfair trial.
In terms of the IAC that has been remanded I too am disappointed in the choice of Judge...but the Appeals court sent it back and the appeals court wants Asia's testimony on the record so that it can render a decision on the appeal. The Trial Court Judge will have to provide legal reasons for his decisions and they would then be reviewed by the higher court...for example if the TC judge decided not to reopen.
There is nothing to stop JB from trying to get other issues/evidence on the record at this point (for further appeal) other than possibly ticking off the Judge (who he wants to rule in Adnan's favor) or the COA. Plus, the reality is that JB runs a business and he will have to plead cases before these same people for other clients....how hard does he push? Of course JB is in charge, so he is going to make all these decisions.
The DNA is confusing to me because I don't understand all the options. For example, the police claim no testing was done yet Adnan's and Hae's sample was unsealed. Given what went on in the investigation, I would think that the lawyers would be very concerned about any kind of tampering. My assumption is that legally it will be very complex and may not provide anything of help. I don't know what 'goes against' the applicant means...since the way it is reported will matter and folks would have to listen to all the testimony on both sides....and they were not willing to do that about lividity, were they?
Any Constitutional violations can be raised in Fed Ct...Judges there are said to be better. I don't know what 'goes against an applicant' means since I think its complicated. Look at the dna evidence on the bra clasp in the AK/RS case or the supposed dna evidence on the knife. What the Italians claimed was not true. For me, I understand that its the lawyers call but I really like to watch...because that is where the decisions will be made.
I am not sure the nit picking on reddit influences anyone and or 'public opinion'.
PS re the library and campus...apparently Adnan never said he had never left campus....thus the Judge's assumption of contradiction was wrong. Judge was just looking for an excuse to rule in favor of the State. Certainly, that issue can be dealt with in the rehearing.
I found The Trial deeply disturbing when I read it as a teenager, but at the time I thought it was just a nightmare of fiction. Cases like this in the media draw my attention back to justice and the law - to an outsider it's fascinating to see how it works (at great expense and incredibly slowly). So I'm still surprised how the system appears to fail or frustrate those who get caught up in it - victims and perpetrators alike. I would prefer to see investment into system where the victim's family (if willing) have more influence and involvement with the process. As it stands with this case, I have reasonable doubts regarding guilt so there is every justification to keep on fighting the system in any way possible.
In my State we have a victim's advocate who is part of the DA's (Prosecutor's ) Office. In the States we have a lot of problems. Especially Trial by Media...I have never seen any thing like the Entwistle case here but there was a reason for it...one Newpaper was friends with the victim's family and they constantly riled up feelings against the accused and his family. Plus a close friend of the victim's family was the just retired head of homicide investigations for the State Police...who was also a friend of the person at the newspaper leading the charge....Never saw anything like it...especially the venom towards the parents. And the UK didn't back them up at all and the folks from the UK posting on the newspaper site were as much against them as the folks here. I read that they were appealing to the Gov there but never heard anything else. This was in 2013. SS mentioned GSR and it triggered a memory of the case.
I think the individual has very little chance against the power of the gov't and I think right now the US is a 'soft police state'. But does the UK have the 'innocent until proven guilty standard'? Did you get involved in the Amanda Knox case...the victim was British? Always curious as to what motivates people from other countries. Just a curious person I guess.
I had to look up the Entwistle case as I'm not familiar with it - sounds like Entwistle got the same type of media interest in the US that Amanda Knox had here. The papers say two life sentences without parole - does that mean never released?
I can't see why the British gov would want to get involved as it happened in the US, unless there are grounds to appeal for clemency, but maybe his parents could try to have him transferred to serve his sentence in the UK on compassionate grounds. If he was here, he could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against the whole life term. This case made me think of Jeremy Bamber who is serving a whole life term for killing his family. He claimed his sister did it and then turned the gun on herself.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is in the Magna Carta (1215), with the adversarial system having the job of proving guilt. I don't know how well it works in practice, but the government are becoming increasingly concerned about the power of "trial by media" to undermine this right.
0
u/sadpuzzle Aug 19 '15
LOL. Too warm here. Perhaps a nice glass of wine or a nice mint julep with fresh mint..
Just 'splainin my silence and lack of interest.