WM3: Judge Recuses Himself from Case
Friday September 26, 2008
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 acquitances and friends of mine," and has stepped down from hearing the case. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not.
I do wonder, once again, about the possibility of Burnett recusing himself. No word yet on how Wilson's move will effect Echols' pending appeal to the Arkansas State Supreme Court.
In another update from the case, a Texarkana newspaper reports that Baldwin's former attorney, Paul Ford, has potential witnesses who could have provided alibis for the three convicted men back in 1994. Ford says that although Baldwin’s mother and an uncle "could have provided an alibi for Baldwin, they would not have made good witnesses," but he doesn't elaborate on why they wouldn't have been good witnesses.
Baldwin's current attornies have asked Burnett to void their client's original conviction, on the basis of "ineffectual counsel" during the trial. State prosecutors say that Baldwin's claim of ineffectual cousel is rooted in a disagreement over “strategic decisions about what witnesses should have been called.”
I do wonder, once again, about the possibility of Burnett recusing himself. No word yet on how Wilson's move will effect Echols' pending appeal to the Arkansas State Supreme Court.
In another update from the case, a Texarkana newspaper reports that Baldwin's former attorney, Paul Ford, has potential witnesses who could have provided alibis for the three convicted men back in 1994. Ford says that although Baldwin’s mother and an uncle "could have provided an alibi for Baldwin, they would not have made good witnesses," but he doesn't elaborate on why they wouldn't have been good witnesses.
Baldwin's current attornies have asked Burnett to void their client's original conviction, on the basis of "ineffectual counsel" during the trial. State prosecutors say that Baldwin's claim of ineffectual cousel is rooted in a disagreement over “strategic decisions about what witnesses should have been called.”
Comments
This scenario is all too familiar. I’m working on a case of a 15 year old in Mississippi who got a life sentence where he was the only one to take the stand. His grandmother and father were ready to testify with very, very powerful evidence in favor of this young defendant, but they were kept in a closet, yes, with brooms, mops and buckets for the two day trial. Never called. The reason: his attornies said they wouldn’t make good witnesses. Well, they would have been better than NOTHING!! And in my opinion now that I have been working on his PCR with his attorney, they would have been very good witnesses, especially his grandmother, the widow of the victim. I have gotten to know her and she is sharp as a tac. She has filed a very powerful affadavit finally able to help her grandson. I can’t figure out what is wrong with attornies. Wouldn’t they want a few witnesses to back them up if they were on trial??? I would think so. Especially an alibi witness. I’m beginning to think these attornies are a bit off. I have heard this excuse, “wouldn’t make a good witness” too many times to think it is believable anymore. In my opinion, this is ineffective counsel. It seems the trials I know about involving there being absoltely no defense witnesses called, seem to end in convictions and life sentences. No effort put into the defense at all. I’m involved in another case where discovery and the witness list was filed the day before trial by defendant’s lawyer. The trial went ahead anyway, the 16 year old was convicted and given a life sentence. No interviews, no affadavits, no witness statements, even very important ones. No defense was mounted on his behalf, let alone one shred of work done until the day of the trial. I’m outraged. How can these juries convict and give children life sentences on the most basic flimsy defenses. And the appeals courts see nothing wrong with anything!@!!
I remember that case and my point of view is the true murderer is the step father. Why not use forensic testing if there is any evidence left and set Mr. Nichols free.