Motion Dismissed
As expected by many, Craighead County Circuit Judge David Burnett dismissed Damien Echols’s motion for a new trial. The motion was originally filed in federal court in October of last year, but was remanded to state court by federal judge William R. Wilson. Burnett had scheduled evidentiary hearings to be held during September and October, but abruptly dismissed the motion yesterday. "I’m not at all surprised", Mark Byers said. "It’s pretty much exactly as I expected." Citing sources that he says he is not at liberty to divulge, Mark said, "The real fireworks will be in federal court. Jury misconduct goes to the heart of the Constitution. Federal courts take that kind of thing very seriously." He is referring, of course, to the sealed affidavits concerning allegations of juror misconduct that were a part of Echols’s habeas petition. Echols has claimed that jurors in his and Jason Baldwin’s trial in 1994 relied on the confession of Jessie Misskelley during their deliberations, despite an admonition from the bench to disregard any knowledge of it. The petition also alleges that Little Rock homebuilder Kent Arnold, known officially as "Juror number four", allegedly had a conversation with a "non juror" at the time of the trial, where he asked for advice on how to "correctly" answer questions during voir dire. Once he secured a seat on the jury, and became its foreman, Arnold allegedly used knowledge of facts not in evidence - primarily the confession - to sway fellow jurors toward a conviction.
Burnett flatly ruled against Echols’s claim that new DNA evidence would prove him actually innocent of the 1993 murders of Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore. The statute under which Echols filed his original motion for DNA testing in 2002 has since been amended, and the DNA evidence offered by Echols, "does not meet the strictures of the new statute." Echols, Burnett said in his ruling, "cannot produce material evidence raising a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offense, as is now required by the statute."
Mark Byers was not, of course, the only one who wasn’t surprised. Lorri Davis spoke to her husband yesterday about the ruling. "We see this as a blessing", she told KARK in Little Rock. Getting the case out of the hands of retiring justice David Burnett has long been a goal of attorneys for all three appellants. Burnett’s ruling moves Echols’s case to the Arkansas State Supreme Court for appeal. Should he fail there, Echols will move his case to federal district court. Therein, his supporters hope, lies the plum.
The dismissal of Echols’s motion leaves Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley with only Rule 37 petitions to be heard in circuit court. Burnett has scheduled hearings for the two on September 24th and September 30th respectively. Mark Byers says he plans on attending at least some of the hearings. "If Jason or Jessie are there, they’ll see me." Mark continues to maintain the innocence of the three men after being convinced that the new evidence points away from the West Memphis Three, and towards someone else.
I wish more people were like Beyers who actually had the guts to look at the facts and change his mind and speak to the truth. That's an admirable quality considering that he lost his son in such a horrible way. I hope the District Court will now unravel the prosecutions twisted case resulting in this travesty of justice and the real killer(s) going free. It shouldn't have taken this long to exhaust all state remedies and to finally get away from this biased judge who obviously is covering for the prosecution and who has made a career out of denying these men justice. The last thing in the world he wants is for these 3 men to ever be found innocent. DNA is definitive but not in his courtroom, because it can't be. He seems to be going to the ends of the earth to prevent this case from unraveling. I believe in the system of justice and I believe the truth will come out and justice will be done. It may take way too long, but I believe in it. Prayers to all who are supporting the WM3 and the families of the victim's. Everyone's dedication and devotion to these 3 innocent men is admirable and heartwarming, especially Mark Beyer who seems to have been able to see beyond the anger and bitterness that could have blinded him and destroyed him. Damien, Jason and Jessie, keep the faith. My hope is for the real killer(s) to be found so these families may finally have some peace. Now that Burnett is done, maybe that can happen.
Reply to this
Thanks for expressing such profound sentiment, Pam. Thanks too, Mark, for sorting out so much updated information so concisely. Only one minor correction -- Kent Arnold is a Jonesboro real estate mogul and member, I've been told, of the city council.
Reply to this
Note: Brent is correct about Arnold's place of residence. Had he been in Little Rock, he would not have been called for jury duty in Jonesboro. Thanks Brent.
Reply to this
"The statute under which Echols filed his original motion for DNA testing in 2002 has since been amended, and the DNA evidence offered by Echols, "does not meet the strictures of the new statute."
No, What Burnet said was that under the structures of the new statute, Echols isn't even eligible for testing at all.
That had nothing to do with the results.
Reply to this
Let me say it again: "The statute under which Echols filed his original motion for DNA testing in 2002 has since been amended, and the DNA evidence offered by Echols, "does not meet the strictures of the new statute."
If you re-read your comment, you will see that the difference between your comment and mine is irrelevant.
The order states that, "under the statute, results that might support relief will necessarily raise a reasonable probability that a petitioner did not commit an offense, because only testing that could yield such results can be ordered."
The "strictures" (not "structures") of the new statute require that testing results raise a reasonable probability that a petitioner did not commit an offense. Whether the testing was ordered before or after the amendment to the statute, the results do not comply with the new statute. Had the testing yielded compliant results, the fact that they were ordered under the old statute would be moot. That the results met the "strictures of the new statute" would have superseded the fact that they were ordered under the old statute, at least that's my read.
Lawyers, feel free to jump in
Reply to this
i went to school with kent jr, and believe his father is as dishonest and stuck up as he is. think about this, during the time of this trial there was much public outcry to convict these "devil worshipers" so that they could not do this to others. if you find these boys not guilty, could this hurt your business? who would buy a home from a man who helped set these "killers" free. it is obvious that as a businessman these thoughts would cross your mind. it seems to me that the only option Kent Sr. had would be to help convict the wm3 or risk losing lots of money, which trust me is extremely important to the arnold family. more important than the lives of some economically challenged "Satanists"
Reply to this