And so Damien Echols states his case for the first time since learning of the Arkansas State Supreme Court’s (ASSC) decision to remand the case of the West Memphis Three to the Second District court for an evidentiary hearing, something former Judge David Burnett refused to do. An evidentiary hearing is a long way from a trial, but Echols is just as unwavering on that front.

KATV (ABC, Little Rock) reporter Heather Crawford conducted her fourth interview with Echols on November 17^th to get his reaction to the unanimous decision (7-0) by the ASSC. "I suspected it would [be] sent back. I didn’t think it would be unanimous. That in itself was a huge confidence booster that every single judge on the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed that this evidence should be heard and they sent it back to be heard. That in itself felt like almost a miracle to me." Indeed, unanimous decisions are relatively rare, though the WM3 supporter community has often been characterized by unwarranted optimism. "We are ecstatic and hopeful", Lorri Davis said when she got the news. "I told Damien, this is just the beginning, and he said, no Lorri, quite frankly this is the end", though what he meant by that somewhat cryptic statement is unclear.

The bench on the ASSC seemed to be favorably disposed toward Echols from the beginning of Riordan’s argument. Associate Justice Elana Cunningham Wills had recused herself, possibly due to her having spent twenty-two years in the Attorney General’s office. Her replacement, Little Rock attorney Jeff Priebe, seemed as open to a wide interpretation of the statute in question (Arkansas code 16-112-201 to -208) as his did his fellow justices. This exchange between Priebe and Assistant Attorney General David Raupp is a case in point:

Priebe, and his six colleagues on the bench, didn’t buy Raupp’s argument. According to the sixteen page opinion issued on November 4^th, "Echols was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under this subsection [of the law] before the motion for a new trial was ruled upon", and further stated that "Echols’ petition and the files and records of the proceedings do not conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief, and the circuit court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion for a new trial." This time, and according to the statute, the high court ruled that Echols’ hearing is to include "all evidence", regardless of whether that evidence was introduced at the original trial in 1994. This point was the thrust of Dennis Riordan’s argument during his twenty minutes before the court.

The ASSC ordered that the lower court "promptly set an early hearing for the petition and response." The order will become final on November 25^th. .

Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel responded to the decision, saying that he "respects the decision" of the ASSC, adding that the State, "intends to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to defend the jury verdicts in this case." There have been many in the supporter community who have mocked this statement, but the jury system in America is sacrosanct and must be defended. The State’s high court has seen fit to allow Echols to present his side virtually unfettered by further legal obstacle. If Echols is innocent, is justice delayed justice denied? Not when you’re facing execution.

If the lower court decides that new trials (or possibly trial, singular) are justified, the high visibility of this case, combined with a changing social mores (what the USSC has termed "evolving standards of decency") and a high-powered ($$) defense team, Echols may prove hard to beat. Echols and his wife, Lorri Davis, have made the "helpful suggestion" that the hearing be skipped, and the proceedings move straight to the trial phase: it would save time and money, they say, since, should they prevail in the hearing, a jury trial would have to be held where they would present the same case again. That is very unlikely, but it shows the confidence that Echols and his supporters are gaining.

A date for the hearing will be set sometime after the ruling becomes final, and will likely take considerable time to schedule. The second quarter of 2011 is what one of the Misskelley attorneys predicts.