Wow
johnson86 said:
I have just looked at wikipedia, but it doesn't really allege prosecutorial misconduct.
1st trial: the prosecutor introduced evidence to prove crimes beyond the tardy murders. (pushing the limits of teh ruels of evidence is not misconduct; even if in error, the trial judge apparently thought it was close enough to let go)
WIKI- The court stated that "what may be harmless error in a case with less at stake becomes reversible error when the penalty is death." They (MS Supreme Court) said Flowers' Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights had been violated by "the prosecutor repeatedly mentioning the other killings".
Maybe the trial judge needs to brush up on constitutional rights afforded to us all, even the presumed innocent defendant.
The DA used 3 jailhouse snitches that later recanted. He did this repeatedly through the trials and it ultimately cost 3 more people their lives. The snitch had a get out of jail free card with the DA. He went crazy and killed 3 people. He lied about receiving benefits for his testimony. Doug Evans has the blood of those 3 people on his hands. He (snitch) recanted on the podcast.
The DA knew either knew exactly what he was doing (had a weak case and tried to exploit the jurors, and maybe the judge’s, lack of legal knowledge about what is admissible) OR he is a product of the shoddy law school in Oxford.
There is a reason we have an appeals process. If a judge is corrupt, or believes the defendant is guilty, he/she may allow improper evidence, questions, etc that unfairly sways the opinion of the jury. The appeals process gives the convicted an avenue to show that
johnson86 said:
2nd trial: the court again allowed evidence regarding other crimes (this one in Harrison county; one of if not the best county in Mississippi to have a trial untainted by racial issues)
WIKI - This verdict was overturned on appeal by the Mississippi Supreme Court, which held that the court had improperly allowed evidence regarding crimes not on trial to be admitted, and that other errors were made.
Same argument. A DA with a motive and unscrupulous behavior could have pinned the murders on me and got me convicted. And I had never been to Winona until 1999 or 2000.
johnson86 said:
3rd trial: overturned b/c the prosecution struck a lot of potential black jurors and ended up with a 10-2 white-black split on the jury. That may be a good reason to declare a mistrial, but if that's the grounds for mistrial, that has no relevance to the actual verdict. There's no reason to assume the ten whites and the two blacks on the jury are racist against black people.
WIKI - The state Supreme Court stated that there was disparate treatment by the prosecutor in evaluation of black compared with white jurors on issues such as the jurors' connections with the defendants and the jurors' willingness to use the death penalty; he struck blacks from the jury on grounds for which he did not strike whites. In addition, although the court held that in many cases the state presented race-neutral reasons to strike, it used the challenge process as "an exercise in finding race neutral reasons to justify racially motivated strikes."
Have you ever been through jury selection? I believe the defense made a motion before the trial started to declare a mistrial or whatever the proper terminology would be. It was obvious what they were doing but the strikes normally happens without reasoning after the “strikes for reason” are used.
The trial judge should have paused and evaluate the strikes.
johnson86 said:
4th trial: a hung jury, 7-5 to convict
Same untruthful DA, bad evidence, and lying snitch.
johnson86 said:
5th trial: a hung jury 11-1 to convict
Same untruthful DA, bad evidence, and lying snitch.
johnson86 said:
6th trial: another unanimous vote to convict.
Same untruthful DA, bad evidence, and lying snitch.
This doesn’t mean he did it or didn’t do it. If the evidence is faulty, the verdict is trash. That’s the problem. Saying, well we must not know something the jurors heard is the same as believing he did it because he is sitting in the defendant chair.
johnson86 said:
Maybe there are all sorts of things the prosecutor did that he should be punished for, but that doesn't mean the guy isn't guilty.
WOW! It also doesn’t mean he isn’t innocent. Someone sentenced to death should be tried fairly. Really, anyone tried for any crime should not be prosecuted by an attorney who believes the ends justified the means. Do us all a favor any tell the judge exactly what you just said if you ever get jury duty.
