|
|
|
|||
Woland Special user 680 Posts 
|
Those with an interest may wish to read Federal Judge William T. Moore's ruling in its entirety, here.
|
|
HerbLarry Special user Poof! 731 Posts
|
...as opposed to the 170 page ruling by Judge Moore.
You know why don't act naive.
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-23 13:40, HerbLarry wrote: ???
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
"Mr. Davis has failed to prove his innocence."
Um, you are required to prove your innocence?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|
HerbLarry Special user Poof! 731 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-23 14:11, gdw wrote: actual
You know why don't act naive.
|
GlenD Inner circle LosAngeles, Ca 1293 Posts
|
If you've been "proven" guilty, I guess so.
"A miracle is something that seems impossible but happens anyway" - Griffin
"Any future where you succeed, is one where you tell the truth." - Griffin (Griffin rocks!) |
|
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-23 14:13, gdw wrote: Are you serious? |
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-23 15:10, Marlin1894 wrote: Considering the onus is usually on proving the person guilty, yeah. As for seeking clemency, you would think one would only need prove reasonable doubt, or enough to be declared not guilty, rather than totally innocent.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts
|
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. To succeed on such a petition, you neither have to prove your innocence, nor demonstrate a reasonable doubt. (In fact, those are the same burden at trial -- if you establish reasonable doubt, you're innocent.)
Instead, to succeed on a "habe," you must establish that your conviction either: 1. was obtained contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 2. based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. To be sure, those are pretty high standards to meet. |
Chance Inner circle 1385 Posts
|
No murder weapon found. Check.
No DNA tying anyone to the crime. Check. Seven of the 9 witnesses recant their testimony, all complaining of illegal police coercement. Check. #8 was too far away to see anything in the dark. Check. Witness #9 has actually bragged about committing the crime, and can actually be tied to it better than the 1st guy. Check. Nah, nothing to see here. Look, Britney Spears! |
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2889 Posts
|
Where?
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The actual 170-page text of the ruling (0 Likes) | |
Posted: Sep 23, 2011 05:29 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.01 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|