"The federal judge who sent Damien Echols' appeal back to state court -- where it was denied by Judge David Burnett -- has recused himself from the cases of Echols, Jessie Miskelly and Jason Baldwin. Judge William R. Wilson said in a very brief order that “some of the principals in this case are long-time acquaintances and friends of mine," and has stepped down from hearing the case."
This bothers me.
Were Fogleman and Davis not long-time acquaintances and friends of Burnett? I know Stidham wasn't.
No, Paid, I'm pretty sure that the conflict had to do with Lloyd Warford -- remember, Wilson stepped off within a couple of weeks of the revelation that he'd submitted the affidavit on Kent Arnold.
I would say time will tell, but my hope is the case never gets to Judge Miller. I would rather see the Arkansas Supreme Court reverse Judge Burnett on his construction of the DNA statute, and remand the case back for the actual innocence analysis provided under that statute.
Not sure on that -- it would mean another trip down to the trial level in the State court. According to Burnett, every judge in Jonesboro has recused from the case, so it would have to be heard elsewhere. Does that mean an actual shot? If they sent it to the opposite end of the state, might sanity prevail in an AR state court? One thing is for sure ... it would mean a delay, maybe 2-3 years worth? It would go back down, be reassigned, a hearing would be held (anywhere from a couple of months to ... well, we just saw the R 37 hearings take a year from when they finally started), then, if loses, another trip to the ASSC to exhaust state remedies.... I don't know. No "bite at the apple" should be avoided, but - are his odds better in federal court, especially while we have Miller assigned to it?
Paid, the federal habeas was filed to avoid a limitations problem, that is to keep that option open. I think Mr. Riordan was well aware he still had some exhaustion issues and I don't think he fought Judge Wilson (a good friend and one of my law school professors) on the point. In other words, Mr. Riordan covered his bases by filing the federal habeas, just as he is covering his bases by filing motions to remand with the ASSC. I assure you Mr. Riordan would be happy to accept a victory at the ASSC. I can also assure you he will fight to keep the federal habeas case alive while the state courts proceed. You never give up the last step, you just hope you don't need it to reach your goal.
Paid, the federal habeas was filed to avoid a limitations problem, that is to keep that option open. I think Mr. Riordan was well aware he still had some exhaustion issues and I don't think he fought Judge Wilson (a good friend and one of my law school professors) on the point.
Thank-you.
I'm hearing so much from "the Echols' camp" stating that they just want to get out of State Court that I thought Riordan was trying to jump to Federal.
I understand that they're frustrated with the pace of the system, but in this case...the delay may have helped due to the uncovering of new evidence.
Agreed 100%. I also think he needs to amend it yet again (last time I hope) to include the new issues?
Sorry if this has been asked before (this question just came to me now, it's very possibly been discussed at length before and I just can't remember):
If the 3 were to have their convictions overturned based on technicalities (with no re-trial), would they have an opportunity to file actual innocence claims after that (or something similar)? Or would that be a bad move? I'm not sure what the process is, but would their convictions and prison time still remain on their records if it was overturned by a technicality? My only concern is they will still be considered criminals by the system (and I can't imagine child murderers are particularly employable etc...).
Not sure what you mean by "filing an actual innocence claim" - if the criminal case is over, it's over. When someone (ASSC, subsequent state court judge, Judge Miller, of the 8th Circuit) reverses and vacates the conviction, the state will either retry them or it won't.
The only thing that will really "clear" them in the mind of the public is the arrest and successful prosecution of Hobbs.
If the convictions are reversed and either (1) they're not retried or (2) they are acquitted at a retrial, they're records are clear - no conviction as far the "official record."
Judge Burnett's decision is overly simplistic and some of his findings of fact are supported by little or no competent evidence. I will be disappointed if the appellate courts do not dig deeper and independently assess whether the original trials met the requirements of fundamental fairness.
My sentiments also, yet far better worded.
I'd love to think so, Wolf ..... but hasn't that ship sailed with the ASSC affirmance years ago? Wouldn't an appellate court be reviewing only the issue of Burnett's ruling(s) on the Rule 37 actions?
