The necklace

[mayanmoon]

Polly"

"What I resent in Burnett is that he purposely gave the necklace information to the person doing his interview, knowing that it would go to the papers. "

_________________________________________________________

This BS about it being to late to enter the necklace in & Burnett saying he couldn't let it in or it would cause a mistrial is the biggest load of bull & Burnett knows it.  Investigating a murder case & the gathering & testing of new evidence can & does continue during trial's everyday & even IF the prosecution didn't have the testing back during their case in chief they can & DO proffer the circumstances to the court and get the evidence in.

How unfitting for a judge of all people to tout a necklace as evidence of guilt that HE wouldn't allow to be entered into evidence for the jury to consider.  One would think a judge & prosecution would tout the evidence they had & actually presented to the jury & not evidence he wouldn't allow.....oh unless you know the evidence you did allow the state to bring in isn't compelling nor convincing beyond a reasonable doubt & you're worried that your case is unraveling before your eyes.

[Chase456]

At the time the necklace came up and its potential as evidence discovered, the combined Echols/Baldwin trial was in process. The necklace had DNA material on it from BOTH Damien and Jason. In order for it to be introduced into the trial, the trials would need to be severed....thus a mistrial in the combined case and two new trials, one for each defendent. The prosecution was confident they could get a conviction for Damien but not so sure they could railroa...er...convict Jason separately so the necklace was not introduced as evidence.

[mayanmoon]

Thanks Chase i didn't factor in that Damien & Jason were tried together but that just makes you scratch your head even more coz IF the state who knows there's only 50/50 chance of getting them convicted and Damien's the ringleader & you feel u had credible physical evidence to convict em (necklace  HAH) wouldn't' you want to use it to nail down the mastermind of this brutal triple murder instead of relying on a 50/50 chance that he;d go free?  

Chase what reason was given for trying D, & Jason together since J's conffession wasn't coming in?  I can't for the life of me remember that reason.  What is just cost related?  coz i can't think of or remember a legal reason for doing so if the confession's not coming in.  Could the defense atty's have fought harder to sever those trial's?


eta:  i know you would  (not arguing)  

 

[herb4]

...IF the state who knows there's only 50/50 chance of getting them convicted and Damien's the ringleader & you feel u had credible physical evidence to convict em (necklace  HAH) wouldn't' you want to use it to nail down the mastermind of this brutal triple murder instead of relying on a 50/50 chance that he;d go free?  

What does that tell you about the strength of that evidence?

[davedave11]

At the time the necklace came up and its potential as evidence discovered, the combined Echols/Baldwin trial was in process. The necklace had DNA material on it from BOTH Damien and Jason. In order for it to be introduced into the trial, the trials would need to be severed....thus a mistrial in the combined case and two new trials, one for each defendent. The prosecution was confident they could get a conviction for Damien but not so sure they could railroa...er...convict Jason separately so the necklace was not introduced as evidence.

It is meaningless that it had material from Damien and Jason.  If it had material on it that was UNIQUE to one of the VICTIMS, then I would be interested.

[effigy]

It is the State's position that under what the defense has outlined, there is no basis or reason or under the rule any cause to sever these two defendants and have an additional trial which will require additional expense when there's no jeopardy to either defendant as to their right to a fair trial.

THE COURT: I'm going to deny the motion for severance and specifically find that there's no reason that either defendant would be unduly jeopardized by a joint trial and that is not necessary to sever them to achieve a fair determination of one or both of the defendants.

The jury, of course, will be instructed that they are to treat each defendant separately in viewing and evaluating the evidence, and their verdicts must be individual as to each of the defendants, and any evidence that might be adduced against one that would not apply to the other, the Court will on request give a cautionary instruction that that evidence is being received as to one defendant and not the other, but apparently you're telling me there's no evidence of that nature, that the evidence basically is so -- well, I'm finding at least at this time there's no reason to sever the cases.

[Paid]

the Court will on request give a cautionary instruction that that evidence is being received as to one defendant and not the other, but apparently you're telling me there's no evidence of that nature, that the evidence basically is so -- well, I'm finding at least at this time there's no reason to sever the cases.

   "...the evidence basically is so---".......So what?   Was Burnett going to say that the evidence was "so limited" that there wasn't enough to use against each defendant separately?

[Justice]

the Court will on request give a cautionary instruction that that evidence is being received as to one defendant and not the other, but apparently you're telling me there's no evidence of that nature, that the evidence basically is so -- well, I'm finding at least at this time there's no reason to sever the cases.

   "...the evidence basically is so---".......So what?   Was Burnett going to say that the evidence was "so limited" that there wasn't enough to use against each defendant separately?

That would be my guess.

[Justice]

It is the State's position that under what the defense has outlined, there is no basis or reason or under the rule any cause to sever these two defendants and have an additional trial which will require additional expense when there's no jeopardy to either defendant as to their right to a fair trial.

THE COURT: I'm going to deny the motion for severance and specifically find that there's no reason that either defendant would be unduly jeopardized by a joint trial and that is not necessary to sever them to achieve a fair determination of one or both of the defendants.

This is total BS because Jason was convicted by ASSOCIATION!

[effigy]

Burnett knew he wouldn't get a conviction for Jason without Damien being in the same courtroom.

[Larner]

That Burnett, who is supposed to have been THE one impartial individual in the courtroom other than the members of the jury, should have decided that all three defendants were guilty from the get-go has had me steamed from the first time I ever heard of the case.

Burnett's obvious bias has done a great deal of damage to the lives of these three young men as well as making it just about impossible to get justice for Michael, Christopher, and Steve.

[Tags:]

WM3 Blackboard > WM3 > The West Memphis Three > Topic: The necklace