Exonerate the WM3 Official Blog

Damien Echols asks for new trial in West Memphis 3 murder case

Today's THV.com

Ashley Blackstone

He says he's innocent and is appealing his
conviction. Echols' legal team presented oral
arguments before the Arkansas State Supreme Court
at 9 a.m. Thursday.

More than two hours before Echols appeal hearing,
a line started forming outside the Arkansas Supreme
Court building. It was a crowd of about 200, most of
them West Memphis Three supporters.

Stewart Faulks came all the way from Australia. He
says, "I am not only here to raise awareness but to
see justice finally served."

Attorney Dennis Riordan told the high court
Thursday that Damien Echols' case should be sent
back to a circuit court for an evidentiary hearing.

However, Senior Assistant Attorney General David
Raupp argues that Echols has not proven that there
was a constitutional flaw in his trial or an error
relating to the evidence.

Thursday's Statement from Attorney General
Dustin McDaniel:

"Today, attorneys from our office appeared before
the Arkansas Supreme Court to again address the
post-trial motions filed in this case. It is a testament
to the fact that our system affords inmates multiple
opportunities to be heard that this matter remains in
court more than a decade after the jury rendered its
verdict.

"Our priority in this case is the same as it is in
every case: To pursue justice and fairness with
integrity and professionalism. The trial-court judge
ruled that the standard to invalidate the jury's
verdict and retry this case has not been met. Our
lawyers defended that ruling today in reliance upon
solid precedent.

"Our justice system affords safeguards to protect
the rights of all. That includes not only defendants,
but also, in this case, the three innocent little boys
who were viciously murdered in 1993."

According to a Supreme Court spokesperson, the
justices normally take two to three weeks to make a
decision, but there is no time limit.

This case has received world wide attention, so
Arkansas Supreme Court officials are bracing
themselves for a large crowd. Echols tells Today's
THV people were expected from as far away as
California and South Carolina.

Echols' lawyers and the state each got 20 minutes to
argue their case before the seven Supreme Court
Justices. The time limit may seem short. However,
Echols says they are quite familiar with this case.
They've been reviewing the briefs and new evidence
for two years now, according to Echols.

Cameras were recently installed in the court, so
proceedings were streamed live online. It's a first in
state history. The video of the oral arguments made
for Damien Echols is archived on the Arkansas
Supreme Court website and can be watched at any
time.

Today's THV spoke to Damien Echols from death
row. He says, "I have more hope about the Arkansas
State Supreme Court hearings than I did six months
or a year ago. I am not exactly sure why. Maybe it's
because they are going to have cameras in the court
room where people can actually see what's going
on. I think that has been a lot of the problem with
this case from the very beginning is the lack of
transparency. I know that I don't have anything to
hide. I'm not covering anything up."

Echols argues for a new trial because DNA found at
the scene doesn't match the three men but rather
one of the victim's stepfather, Terry Hobbs. Plus,
there are three witnesses claiming they saw Hobbs
with the boys shortly before they disappeared.
Finally, there's a sworn affidavit that the original
jury foreman engaged in juror misconduct.

Riodran says, "Obviously we would like to get to a
new trial as quickly as possible but there are sound
legal reasons that the court may feel like the
appropriate remedy is in the evidentiary hearing."

Until then, Echols' wife Lorri Davis will keep
working. She explains, "I think you continue to look
for evidence. You continue to work for justice and I
think that we want to see, to find out who actually
committed these murders and I am hoping everyone
involved works to that end."

Echols adds, "I can wait. I have time. I have done it
for 17.5 years. Another year or so, I take naps
longer than that now."

His attorneys argue he deserves a new trial because
he's innocent and that DNA evidence showed no
trace of him at the crime scene. Attorneys for the
state say Echols received a fair trial and that the
jury's verdict should stand.

The victims are Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and
Christopher Byers.

Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were also
convicted. They are serving life sentences.

(Source: Today's THV and The Associated Press)

 

Hearing Over in AR Supreme Court West Memphis 3 Case

   

Echols' Lawyer Asks for New Trial

From KATV.com

Posted: Sep 29, 2010 1:58 PM  Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:58 PM EST

Updated: Sep 30, 2010 3:50 PM Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:50 PM EST

John Mark Byers, step-father of Chris Byers, speaks with the media following Thursday's hearing.

A lawyer for one of the men convicted of killing three 8-year-old Cub Scouts in West Memphis says the Arkansas Supreme Court should grant a new trial because of scientific evidence developed since his client's conviction.

Attorney Dennis Riordan told the high court Thursday that Damien Echols' case should be sent back to a circuit court for an evidentiary hearing.  He maintains DNA testing not available at the time of 1994 trial proves his client is innocent.  He also spelled out in a brief to the Justices that juror misconduct resulted in Echols not receiving a fair trial.

However Senior Assistant Attorney General David Raupp argues that Echols has not proven that there was a constitutional flaw in his trial or an error relating to the evidence.

Each attorney had just twenty minutes to argue their side before the Justices and both spent a majority of time talking about how they interpret the state's DNA statute which was passed in 2001.

Echols has maintained his innocence since he was arrested for the 1993 murders of Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. Echols and his co-defendants, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Miskelley, who both are serving life sentences, have become known as the "West Memphis Three."

The courtroom was at capacity with spectators and an overflow room was set up to accommodate everyone. West Memphis Three supporters came from as far away as Australia.  Among the supporters was John Mark Byers, the father of Chris Byers.  He now wants to see all three men set free.

Echols' wife, Lorri Davis, said after the hearing she was optimistic and pleased with the hearing.

The Justices have no time limit in which to render their opinion, but typically it is released within a few weeks of oral arguments.  The Court could rule in a number of ways including granting or denying a new trial, or granting or denying an evidentiary hearing.  If the appeal is outright denied the case would go before Federal Judge Brian Miller.

Following the hearing, which lasted just short of an hour, West Memphis Three supporters rolled out a banner of thousands of postcards from supporters around the world and walked it to the steps of the State Capitol.

Update: Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued the following statement after Thursday's hearing:

"Today, attorneys from our office appeared before the Arkansas Supreme Court to again address the post-trial motions filed in this case. It is a testament to the fact that our system affords inmates multiple opportunities to be heard that this matter remains in court more than a decade after the jury rendered its verdict.  
 
"Our priority in this case is the same as it is in every case: To pursue justice and fairness with integrity and professionalism. The trial-court judge ruled that the standard to invalidate the jury's verdict and retry this case has not been met. Our lawyers defended that ruling today in reliance upon solid precedent. 
 
"Our justice system affords safeguards to protect the rights of all. That includes not only defendants, but also, in this case, the three innocent little boys who were viciously murdered in 1993."

State Supreme Court to Stream Arguments

By Gavin LesnickArkansas Online

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas State Supreme
Court will begin streaming live video of oral arguments to its website, a
move members of the court hailed as "historic" and said would greatly
increase the public's access to proceedings.

Chief Justice Jim Hannah used the new technology to announce the
video stream Tuesday, appearing live online with the rest of the
justices from the courtroom before a nearby room full of supporters. The
streaming will officially begin when the court convenes Thursday.

Hannah said the court is "committed to providing greater access to
justice and to facilitate a better understanding of the judiciary." The
video is a part of a multi-phase effort that also included developing a
statewide case management system for retrieving and viewing documents
online.

"We are often slow to embrace change, but we know that technology
provides a way to move forward," Hannah said, adding the case management
system is already online in several parts of the state.Gov. Mike Beebe, who was in attendance for the announcement, said
afterward he believes it will be a strong education tool for the general
public as well as for lawyers preparing to go in front of the state's
highest court.

"They'll have the opportunity to see what goes on in an oral
argument," he said. "They'll be able to see who does it well and who
does it poorly."

About 30 states across the country have some form of video of their
oral arguments, though not all of them are streamed live on the
internet, said Justice Robert Brown.

Video provides transparency for the public, Brown said, adding he hopes the U.S. Supreme Court develops a similar program.

The first state Supreme Court cases set to be live-streamed are
listed on the court website as Baptist Health v. Dr. Bruce Murphy and
Tim S. Parker vs. Circuit Judge Gerald Crow.

On Sept. 30, the court will live-stream oral arguments in an appeal
by Damien Echols, one of the three men convicted in the 1993 deaths of
three boys in West Memphis. That case has drawn widespread attention,
including a recent, sold-out concert in Little Rock staged by a group
who believes Echols and the other two men are innocent.

Live Streaming of the WM3 Hearing Thursday morning

As listed in Upcoming Events on the Judiciary site:

Damien Wayne Echols vs State of Arkansas, from Craighouse Circuit, Western District

September 30, 2010

8:58 AM

View streaming video here. 

http://arkansas-sc.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2

 

Affidavit and DNA Crucial in Appeal of ’93 Conviction

By JOE STUMPE

The New York Times

September 28, 2010

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Sixteen years ago, during a triple-murder trial that transfixed this region with accusations of Satanic rituals, the jury foreman had conversations with his private lawyer that suggest the jury’s guilty verdict was unjust, the lawyer now says in a sworn affidavit.

The reported conversations between the lawyer, Lloyd Warford, and the jury foreman, Kent Arnold, and DNA evidence are expected to be at the center of oral arguments before the Arkansas Supreme Court here this week in the case of Damien Echols, who was convicted with two other men of the slayings of three 8-year-old boys.

The three defendants, now in their 30s, have become widely known as the West Memphis 3, thanks to documentaries and books about the case, Web sites put together by volunteers, and actors, musicians and other celebrities who have lent their names to the cause.

“It’s not like we’re saying ‘exonerate them, they’re innocent,’ although many of us feel that way,” said Capi Peck, a Little Rock restaurateur who helped form Arkansas Take Action to support the three men. “All we want is a new trial. We’re convinced that no jury today would convict them.”

Mr. Echols’s appeal is based on a 2001 Arkansas law that allows DNA evidence not available at the time of the original trial to be considered on appeal in conjunction with other evidence in the case.

According to the Innocence Project, an organization in New York that assists prisoners nationwide, 259 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing since it was first used, including 17 who served time on death row.

The State of Arkansas, through Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, opposes the motion for a new trial.

“Our office knows there are concerns about this case, but rest assured that we take the utmost care in handling the appeals of death sentences handed down by Arkansas jurors,” Mr. McDaniel said in a statement. “Though some celebrities have brought more attention to this case than to the dozens of other pending death row appeals in this state, every one is an extremely serious matter. We are committed to fairness and justice not just for the inmates but also for the three little boys who didn’t live to see middle school.”

Last month the actor Johnny Depp, the Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder and the Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines held a concert to raise awareness for the case a few blocks from where the State Supreme Court will hear arguments, beginning Thursday. A vigil in this city’s historic Quapaw Quarter is scheduled for Wednesday night.

The case dates to May 5, 1993, when three 8-year-old boys from West Memphis, Ark. — Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore — were reported missing. Their naked, hogtied bodies were found submerged in a drainage ditch the next day.

Nearly a month later, the police arrested Mr. Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin after Mr. Misskelley confessed to police that he had watched the other men sexually abuse and then kill the boys. At the time of their arrests, Mr. Echols was 18, Mr. Misskelley, 17, and Mr. Baldwin, 16.

Mr. Echols, the alleged leader of the three, was sentenced to death, while Mr. Misskelley and Mr. Baldwin were sentenced to life in prison. Mr. Misskelley, who later recanted his confession, was tried separately because the law forbade his statement to be used against the other two defendants.

At the trial, prosecutors presented testimony that Mr. Echols had been seen with his girlfriend near the scene of the crime on the night the boys disappeared, that he and Mr. Baldwin had admitted their guilt to several people, and that a serrated hunting knife that could have been used in the killings was found near Mr. Baldwin’s trailer.

An expert on cults gave his opinion that the defendants were members of a Satanic cult who murdered the victims as part of a ritual.

In 2007, testing by experts hired by the convicted men’s supporters showed that they could not be linked to any DNA recovered from the crime scene or the victims’ bodies, and that no sperm was present on swabs taken from the victims, as might be expected in cases of sexual assault. The testing, however, showed that hair found at the scene could have belonged to Steve Branch’s stepfather and a friend.

Mr. Echols has also presented statements from forensic pathologists who said that nearly all the victims’ wounds were caused by animals after their deaths, and that the victims did not appear to have been sexually assaulted.

Defense claims of juror misconduct are based on Mr. Warford’s account of his conversations with Mr. Arnold.

In a 2008 affidavit, Mr. Warford said Mr. Arnold had hired him to represent his brother in an unrelated case.

During “at least a dozen” conversations while the West Memphis trial was under way, Mr. Warford said, Mr. Arnold indicated that he was part of the majority of jurors who had been ready to convict the defendants, “from virtually the beginning” of the trial.

Later, Mr. Arnold said, “This prosecutor has not done his job, and if the prosecution didn’t come up with something powerful the next day there was probably going to be an acquittal,” according to Mr. Warford’s affidavit.

Mr. Arnold asked how he should go about being elected foreman of the jury and what he should say to convince other jurors of the defendants’ guilt, Mr. Warford said.

During the trial, a police officer mentioned Mr. Misskelley’s statement to the police, a comment that the judge ordered jurors to disregard.

According to Mr. Warford, Mr. Arnold “told me that if the confession had not been mentioned in court then he might not have been able to convince the swing jurors to convict.”

Mr. Warford said he did not reveal his conversations with Mr. Arnold earlier because he thought they were covered by attorney-client privilege.

The existence of the affidavit, originally filed under seal, was reported by Mara Leveritt, a freelance journalist who wrote “Devil’s Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three,” published by Atria in 2002.

The case became widely known mostly as a result of “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills,” a documentary shown on HBO in 1996. The film made something of a celebrity out of Mr. Echols, now 35, who since arriving on Arkansas’ death row has collaborated on a song with Mr. Vedder, written a book and married a former New York landscape architect, Lorri Davis.

Ms. Davis, who moved to Arkansas and married Mr. Echols in 1999, said she appreciated the work of the celebrities who had brought attention and money to the case.

West Memphis 3: New evidence questions if right person behind bars

I think she means "persons"? Nevertheless nice to see something objective on the case in the Commercial Appeal...

By Beth Warren

Monday, September 27, 2010

Not long before three 8-year-old boys were stripped, bound and murdered, Jamie Clark, then 13, saw them playing in her backyard.

What Jamie says she saw next is at the heart of a 17-year controversy
over who is to blame for the beating and drowning deaths of the West
Memphis second-graders.

Now married, Jamie Clark Ballard, 30, has emerged as a possible key witness.

Defense attorneys hope Ballard's testimony will help free a
death-row inmate. They say what she and her family saw years ago, along
with new DNA evidence, could point to another man who's free and working
in Memphis.

Ballard's account is backed up by her mother, Deborah Moyer, and her
sister, Brandy Clark Williams, 29, according to affidavits filed as part
of a federal appeal seeking a new trial for Damien Echols, one of the
notorious West Memphis Three.

A hearing in the case is set for Thursday before the Arkansas Supreme Court in Little Rock.

Echols and his friends, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr., were
teenagers when they were arrested a month after the killings. Police
called the murders a satanic ritual.

The three were convicted in 1994 of killing Michael Moore, Stevie Branch and Christopher Byers.

But Echols and his friends say they were wrongly convicted, and they
have found growing nationwide support, with rallies by celebrities
including actor Johnny Depp and musician Natalie Maines of the Dixie
Chicks.

Ballard said she doesn't have definitive answers.

She does have troubling questions.

Ballard remembers May 5, 1993, as a sunny and sultry Wednesday just a
few weeks before summer vacation. She walked home from school on South
McAuley Street with Christopher's older brother, Ryan, 13.

As they approached Ryan's house, she heard the boys' stepfather telling Ryan to go find Christopher and bring him home.

Three hours later, when Jamie headed out her front door to catch a ride to church she spotted Christopher and his pals at play.

She said Stevie Branch, who had blond-spiked hair and blue eyes, tore
through the grass on a red Renegade dirt bike his grandfather had just
given him. Michael and Christopher ran behind him, laughing.

"As Stevie, Michael and Christopher came zooming by, I yelled to
Christopher, 'Christopher, Ryan says for you to get home!'" Ballard
recalled in court records. "Christopher smarted off to me and said, 'I
don't have to do what you say.' I shrugged and said: 'Okay, don't go
home.'"

Ballard said she wasn't surprised an 8-year-old would ignore the urgings of a 13-year-old.

Ballard said she then heard Stevie's stepfather, Terry Hobbs, shouting for Stevie and the others to come home.

She watched as the boys walked to Stevie's home -- just three doors
down. She said all three boys were standing on the sidewalk with Hobbs
while Hobbs' 4-year-old daughter played in the driveway.

Ballard then hopped in a car with her sister and headed off to church with friends. She never saw the boys again.

The next afternoon, their bodies would be found nude and mutilated,
dumped in a water-filled drainage ditch in Robin Hill Woods, which abuts
the neighborhood.

What Ballard, her mother and sister report is key because it would
make Hobbs the last known person to have seen the boys alive, Echols'
lead attorney, Dennis Riordan of San Francisco, is arguing in briefs
filed in the federal appeal.

Also, Riordan said he has DNA evidence from the site where the boys
were found that is consistent with Hobbs, but excludes the West Memphis
Three. Due to the scientific advancements in DNA testing since the
initial trial, two hairs have been identified. Riordan alleges in court
filings that a hair found in a shoelace that was used to bind Michael's
wrists to his ankles is consistent with Hobbs' DNA.

Hobbs, reached Friday at his job at a Memphis building supply
company, declined comment. He has always insisted he is innocent and
that the victims could have picked the hair up from his house since they
often played there.

The other hair is consistent with the DNA of David Jacoby, whom Hobbs visited about an hour before the boys' disappearance.

Defense attorneys said Hobbs could have picked up one of Jacoby's
hairs when he sat with him and played guitars inside Jacoby's home. That
hair was found on a tree stump near where one of the boy's bodies was
found.

Police never found blood, saliva, skin cells, fingerprints,
shoeprints, hairs or any type of DNA from Echols, Misskelley or Baldwin
at the crime scene.

After the hairs were initially identified, police interviewed Hobbs in 2007, but he was never classified as a suspect.

However, his wife, Pamela Hobbs, had growing questions and the couple divorced.

"His wife and other family members have voiced their belief that
Hobbs was responsible for the killings," Riordan said in his legal
brief.

Hobbs, who had never been interviewed before, gave a statement under
oath in 2007 in a civil case, claiming he hadn't seen the victims the
day they disappeared, Echols' attorneys allege in court records.

That case brought the old crime back into the news.

Jamie Clark Ballard said her grandmother saw the news in 2007 and
urged her to report her story. The family realized for the first time
that it contradicted Hobbs' claim that he hadn't seen the boys that
afternoon.

"I didn't know it was important," Ballard said last week, explaining why she didn't come forward sooner.

"Terry was with them," she said, referring to the three victims.
"He's not telling the truth. I wouldn't accuse him of anything else. All
I can say is what I saw, and I saw Terry with them last. He needs to
answer to that."

Arkansas Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. David R. Raupp insists that the true killers are behind bars.

"There are wholly and obvious innocent explanations for the recovery
of biological material of a victim's stepfather and that of his friend,"
says his response filed with the Supreme Court.

He argued that the new DNA evidence and witness statements can't
conclusively prove Echols is innocent and don't merit a new trial.

Atty. Gen. Dustin McDaniel declined to talk, but issued a statement
Friday, saying, in part: "We are committed to fairness and justice not
just for the three inmates, but also for the three little boys who
didn't live to see middle school."

Damien Echols Hearing at ASSC on Sept. 30

Damien Echols' legal team will present oral arguments before the Arkansas State Supreme Court in Little Rock at 9am on Thursday, September 30. Please join Grove, me and WM3 supporters from here and abroad as we fill the courthouse and respectfully listen to the proceedings. (Please arrive by 8am to make sure you get a seat, you won't be admitted after 9am.) Damien will not be present in the court, only his attorneys.

Upon the hearing's conclusion, supporters will carry a massive banner of "Free the WM3" postcards from all over the world from the ASSC to the steps of the Capitol building. For more information on the Arkansas State Supreme Court, click here. For specific rules about seating, dress code and recording devices, please read this Download Notice re Echols Arguments. You may not wear visible messages of support for the WM3! No recording devices or cameras in the main courtroom!

For those that arrive on 9/29, the night before the hearing:

There will be a vigil at 7:00 p.m. at the Quapaw Quarter United Methodist Church in Little Rock featuring:
 
Reverend Thompson Murray
Capi Peck, ATA
Lorri Davis
Brian Frazier, music
Choir
 
"Voices for Justice" new video interviews with Damien and Jason, and a reading of Damien Echols' letters from prison.

Robert Smith of The Cure Donates Autographed Vinyl to Aid WM3

TheCure.com

September 15, 2010: San Francisco, Calif. — Robert Smith of The Cure will be auctioning a new re-mastered double vinyl set of “Disintegration” autographed to raise money for the defense fund of Damien Echols (who is on death row), Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley, Jr.—also known as the West Memphis Three http://www.wm3.org/ —who were convicted for murdering three elementary school children in 1994. Since the horrific crimes, DNA from the crime scene and victims has been tested by the country's most trusted crime lab, and none of it matches these three unjustly imprisoned men. Damien Echols' appeal for a new trial will be held on September 30 before the Arkansas State Supreme Court, and Jason and Jessie's attorneys will soon file motions for new trials with the ASSC.  

The auction will last for 17 days—from September 20th to October 7th—one day for each year the West Memphis Three have spent behind bars. June 3, 2010 marked the 17th year anniversary that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley Jr. have been behind bars for a crime they did not commit.

The starting bid for the vinyl has been set at $100.

“Please bid generously and help free the West Memphis Three - this grotesque miscarriage of justice has dragged on for 17 years too long.” Robert Smith, The Cure.

For further information about the signed vinyl and to place a bid, log on to http://www.skeletonkeyauctions.com/.

McDaniel Plays with Fire

Blue Arkansas
September 12th, 2010
By ARDem


The West Memphis Three case has long been a festering, ugly
blister on our state. The trial itself made the people of Arkansas look
exactly like the negative stereotype we’re so often branded with by the
rest of the country-an ignorant, supersticious, bunch of country
bumpkins less concerned about justice than about scape goating those who
were different. The corruption of the police and the judicial system
through the entire witch trial made stomachs churn, and the stonewalling
and arrogance exhibited within the system since then has only worked to
further damage the states reputation. Courtney Henry’s campaign
against Fogleman showed though that the issue has festered so long that
it now has political legs. Credit where credit is due-Henry worked her
ass off in that election, but while the talking heads got left wondering
if she somehow won because of her sex a lot of us who might have been
concerned about Henry otherwise knew that we had put our concerns on
hold because of Fogleman’s role in the WM3 case.
Now though, hearings are being held to determine if Damien Echols is eligible for a new trial based
on the fact that new DNA evidence could be found to tie him to the
crime. There’s one significant roadblock-Dustin McDaniel, who’s playing
with fire and could very well end up burning a lot of innocent people
in the process-
According to Dennis Riordan, an attorney for Echols, the
attorney general’s interpretation of the state’s DNA statute, if
accepted by the court, will not only keep Echols and co-defendants Jason
Baldwin and Jesse Misskelley behind bars, but it also could prevent
anyone from ever being granted a new trial based on DNA evidence.
“This case has significance far beyond [the West Memphis Three], in
terms of Arkansas society and protection of the act, passed this decade
in line with all of the wrongful convictions in the country, to have a
mechanism by which those convictions can be rectified. That’s what will
be at stake at the court proceeding at the end of [this] month,” Riordan
said at the press conference.
In a brief filed in the case, Riordan argues the attorney general is
urging the court to “interpret the state’s DNA statutory scheme so as to
make it functionally impossible for the wrongly convicted to gain
relief.”
In 2001, the Arkansas legislature passed a law granting
post-conviction access to DNA testing for those potentially wrongfully
convicted of their crimes. Since then,
DNA testing in the West Memphis Three case (the three were convicted
in 1994 for 1993 crimes) turned up no trace of the defendants on
evidence taken from the crime scene. The DNA evidence did suggest that a
hair found in the rope used to tie up the victims belonged to Terry
Hobbs, stepfather of one of the victims. Neither absence nor presence of
DNA alone is proof of guilt or innocence.
Attorney General McDaniel has argued that using DNA evidence to
overturn a conviction could be an unconstitutional conflict with the
governor’s clemency power.
“Such a request for relief from a criminal judgment without a claim
of error in the underlying proceedings,” the attorney general wrote in a
circuit court brief, “is a request for clemency, vested in the
Governor… The General Assembly cannot delegate this power to the courts
without infringing on the governor’s powers.”
Aaron Sadler, a spokesman for McDaniel, later said in an e-mail that
“the statute can be interpreted consistently with that power when
interpreted only to provide a new trial.” Which is all Echols’s
attorneys are asking for.
“The attorney general’s interpretation of the statute ensures a
convicted defendant the ability to establish his innocence. Such proof
must be a very high bar, and is not likely to often, if ever, be met in
cases like this in which DNA evidence offers little proof either way,”
Sadler wrote.
Long story short, McDaniel is stretching in his interpretation of the
DNA statute. In doing so, he’s falling into the same trap as
Fogleman. Fogleman’s supporters always retorted to criticisms of the
case that he was just doing his job. Wrong. He and the office he
worked in went beyond that when they cherry picked circumstantial
evidence to bring the witch trials against Echols, Owens, and
Misskelley. Our courts and legal system only work when all sides are
doing there jobs, that is working to establish justice under the law. 
It tends to fall apart when it becomes less about determining guilt and
innocence and more about adding knotches to belts and furthering
careers, and that’s exactly what McDaniels is doing here.
As Attorney General, you have to defend the state, even when you
disagree with a statute or it’s unpopular. As such, I’ve defended
McDaniel on like his defense of the bigoted Act 1,
which, as AG, he had to do. But this, like a lot of other things
McDaniel has done in his four year tenure, is stretching things. And he’s been fighting this for some time now. One thing though…
 The real question is if the state is so sure of the
guilt of these three men, then why not grant them a new trial? The
attorney general’s office had no response.
Uh huh…McDaniel owes his rise, in large part, to two things. First
is the good ol’ boy system which he is definitely a part of. The second
is to progressive leaning Democrats who chose him over the anti-choice
Paul Suskie in the ‘06 primary. In working to keep the WM3 from going
to trial, he’s standing up for a lot of cops, lawyers, judges, and party
officials, or at least that’s how it seems. By stretching the statute
so far and going out of his way to keep a new trial from happening,
McDaniel is certainly creating that appearance. He should be careful
though-this issue has already turned one statewide election, fueled a
soled out concert, and seems to have turned public sentiment towards the
WM3. McDaniel has already made two things clear-he wants to be the
next governor and he’s scared to death of Bill Halter. That’s why he
stirred up the autogate issue that backfired so tremendously. He’s
playing with fire again and he’s already shown a tendency to burn
himself. If he’s not careful, he runs the risk of finding himself in
the same boat with Fogleman.

New trial may hinge on DNA statute

McDaniel 'dodging and weaving' on law, attorney says.
by Gerard Matthews
Arkansas Times

On Sept. 30, the Arkansas Supreme Court will hold a hearing to
determine whether Damien Echols, one of the men now known as the West
Memphis Three, will get a new trial. Nearly two weeks ago, some of the
West Memphis Three's most famous supporters gathered in Little Rock for
"Voices for Justice," an event to raise awareness about the case and
Echols' hearing. The event was considered a huge success by organizers,
but the concert and star-studded press conference that preceded it
perhaps overshadowed a key impediment to the three's efforts to get a
new trial.

According to Dennis Riordan, an attorney for Echols, the attorney
general's interpretation of the state's DNA statute, if accepted by the
court, will not only keep Echols and co-defendants Jason Baldwin and
Jesse Misskelley behind bars, but it also could prevent anyone from
ever being granted a new trial based on DNA evidence.

"This case has significance far beyond [the West Memphis Three], in
terms of Arkansas society and protection of the act, passed this decade
in line with all of the wrongful convictions in the country, to have a
mechanism by which those convictions can be rectified. That's what will
be at stake at the court proceeding at the end of [this] month," Riordan
said at the press conference.

In a brief filed in the case, Riordan argues the attorney general is
urging the court to "interpret the state's DNA statutory scheme so as to
make it functionally impossible for the wrongly convicted to gain
relief."

In 2001, the Arkansas legislature passed a law granting post-conviction
access to DNA testing for those potentially wrongfully convicted of
their crimes. Since then,

DNA testing in the West Memphis Three case (the three were convicted in
1994 for 1993 crimes) turned up no trace of the defendants on evidence
taken from the crime scene. The DNA evidence did suggest that a hair
found in the rope used to tie up the victims belonged to Terry Hobbs,
stepfather of one of the victims. Neither absence nor presence of DNA
alone is proof of guilt or innocence.

Attorney General McDaniel has argued that using DNA evidence to overturn
a conviction could be an unconstitutional conflict with the governor's
clemency power.

"Such a request for relief from a criminal judgment without a claim of
error in the underlying proceedings," the attorney general wrote in a
circuit court brief, "is a request for clemency, vested in the
Governor... The General Assembly cannot delegate this power to the
courts without infringing on the governor's powers."

Aaron Sadler, a spokesman for McDaniel, later said in an e-mail that
"the statute can be interpreted consistently with that power when
interpreted only to provide a new trial." Which is all Echols's
attorneys are asking for.

"The attorney general's interpretation of the statute ensures a
convicted defendant the ability to establish his innocence. Such proof
must be a very high bar, and is not likely to often, if ever, be met in
cases like this in which DNA evidence offers little proof either way,"
Sadler wrote.

But that's exactly the problem, Riordan says.

"If they're saying they're not proposing a demise of the DNA statute
then they're dodging and weaving," he says. "What they say is if you
think about it, DNA alone can never ever prove somebody innocent. They
say that doesn't prove someone's innocence because maybe he was standing
next to the guy that actually did it and maybe he's an accomplice. So,
all DNA testing can prove is that it wasn't your DNA, it doesn't mean
you weren't in on the crime. So alone it can never be enough."

The attorney general essentially agreed with this position in a court filing.

"The forum the statute provides may well never yield relief due to
confidence that the Arkansas criminal-justice system does not convict
the innocent..." McDaniel wrote.

So who's right? That will be decided at the hearing. University of
Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law professor Felecia Epps says
it comes down to two views that are polar opposites.

"The defense, based on the absence of DNA and the presence of the DNA
from other people, want to use the statute to be able to go back and get
all the evidence at the trial questioned again, bring in all the things
that we've heard since this trial went down," Epps says. "They want to
say that under the statute you can do all that. The attorney general
wants it the other way and really wants to say, look, you're limited to
what you presented at trial and the only way this DNA evidence would be
helpful is if it actually showed that you were not guilty. The language
does support the defense when you look at that."

McDaniel says Arkansas still provides meaningful opportunities for
defendants to overturn their convictions and that Riordan's fears are
unfounded.

The real question is if the state is so sure of the guilt of these three
men, then why not grant them a new trial? The attorney general's office
had no response.

"That's a good question," says Epps. "Sometimes we're interested in
finality and we make these slippery slope arguments like, if you do this
here that's going to open the door for all kinds of other cases to be
re-litigated. And that might be what the legislature intended. In some
instances, if a situation isn't crystal clear, or there's any ambiguity
there, the defense gets the benefit of that. So maybe the defense should
get the benefit here and if the legislature thinks that's not correct,
they'll come back and change it."

WM3 Rally: Sirius XM Broadcast

At 7pm EST/4pm PST on Saturday September 4, Sirius XM's The Spectrum will air the entire "Voices for Justice" rally from August 28 in its entirety. You will need to sign up with Sirius to hear it but they are offering a 30 day free trial.

Get the 30-day free trial here.

An Urgent Letter from Lorri Davis re: Defense Fund

Dear Friends & WM3 Supporters:

Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin have spent their entire adult lives in prison for a crime they did not commit. They were tragically convicted based on innuendo, fear, hysteria and a false confession.

In October 2007 a 500-page motion was filed in federal court on behalf of Damien Echols. The federal court agreed to hear the case but asked that the state of Arkansas review it first. This motion includes DNA testing on dozens of pieces of evidence, analysis from the nation's leading forensic science experts, other solid scientific evidence and compelling witness affidavits—all evidence indicating that all three, now men, are innocent of the murders for which they were wrongfully convicted in 1993. 

Now even more new evidence of their innocence has been brought to light, including a sworn affidavit by a prominent former Arkansas prosecutor that the jury foreman in Damien and Jason's original trial lied to get on the jury and illegally introduced Jessie's coerced false confession into deliberations. Three witnesses have stepped forward claiming they saw Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of Stevie Branch, with the children at 6:30pm on the night the children disappeared. His DNA and the DNA of a friend he was with that very evening have been identified by the recent DNA test results as being at the crime scene.   

With new crime scene DNA evidence that clears Damien, Jason and Jessie, and points to others, as well as the outrageous allegations of juror misconduct, Damien's case is now being considered on appeal by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Jason and Jessie's cases were reviewed, and rejected, recently by Judge David Burnett, they are now filing new motions with Arkansas' Appellate Division.

Thanks to so many of you for getting us to this point. Without your help, we would not be on the verge of finally securing justice for Damien, Jessie and Jason.

We urgently need more of you. We need your help to make sure this evidence is fully considered. With your help we can right a terrible, terrible wrong.

Please makes checks out to:

Damien Echols Defense Fund

PO Box 1216

Little Rock, AR 72203

Or make your tax-deductible donation through Arkansas Take Action (our 501c3 sponsor) via Google. 

Please spread the word of this injustice.

 Thank you so very much, 

 Lorri Davis and the defense teams for Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley

Larry King Revisits the WM3 Case

WEDNESDAY: CASE OF THE "WEST MEMPHIS THREE"

The case of the “West Memphis 3” – three young men convicted of brutally murdering three little boys in 1993.

But now, 16 years later, celebrities are speaking out, saying they deserve a new trial.

Tonight, Larry speaks to Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder and Dixie Chicks’ Natalie Maines about why they say there’s new evidence that needs to be examined.

Find out what happened, why some say there needs to be a new trial and why others say justice has already been served.

9pm EST; 6pm PST