CORRECTION: This post stated that Judge Burnett's denial of the defense's claim that post-mortem animal predation applied to both Baldwin and Misskelley, when in fact it only applied to Jason Baldwin.  The claim may logically apply to both defendants, but legally, since Baldwin was tried with Echols, it only applies to Baldwin. 

With his ruling today against Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley in their motions for new trials, Judge David Burnett is officially finished with the case of the West Memphis Three. After almost sixteen years, two trials, countless hearings and appeals, and an HBO documentary that he said was "one-sided", the book is closed on what to many is a most bewildering conflict of interest.

When Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley were convicted in early 1994 for the May 5^th, 1993 murders of eight-year-olds Steven Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore, most of the public expected Judge Burnett’s role in the case to be over. Not so. Not only did he preside over the immediate post-conviction hearings, including one for prosecutorial misconduct (ruled in favor of the prosecution), but over the years has overseen every appeal for relief made by each defendant. This was true even after Burnett retired in January of 2009. He agreed to stay on the case as a "special" judge, reasoning that it would place an impossible burden on a new judge to pick up the appeals at that time. Maybe so. But given Burnett’s statement in the December 26^th Jonesboro Sun, the public has a right to wonder just what his motives really were. "I can tell you one thing", Burnett said. "I’m tired of this case." Burnett also said that it was a mistake to allow the HBO crew into the courtroom to film the trials in 1994 (Paradise Lost.) A mistake perhaps, but it was his to make. It was apparently okay with co-prosecutor John Fogleman. During jury selection at the Echols trial, Fogleman said, "Because of the high interest in the area, the state, the nation, we felt like it would be appropriate to have cameras in the courtroom to record the proceedings, rather than have ’em outside the courtroom and hundreds of ‘em just hovering around everyone who goes in and out." Perhaps it was only because the local media didn't question the verdicts that Burnett has a problem with the documentary.

Although Judge Burnett - or should we start calling him Senator - later apologized for his remarks in the Sun, he didn’t retract them, and it probably would have made little difference to those who believe that the idea of a judge making rulings on his own rulings is preposterous.

Burnett’s decision not only denies Baldwin and Misskelley’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, but also the defense’s theory that post-mortem animal predation - not knives - caused most of the wounds to the victims.

Appeals for Baldwin and Misskelley are surely forthcoming. Meanwhile, Damien Echols still awaits a ruling from the Arkansas Supreme Court (ASC) on his own motion for a new trial. In October of 2007, Echols filed a second motion for a new trial in federal court, claiming that there was new evidence that would prove his innocence. The federal court ruled that Echols had not exhausted his state remedies, and the case was sent back to circuit court. Burnett promptly refused to even hold an evidentiary hearing. The ASC has not given a date on which it expects a decision.