SUPREME COURT FUCKS OVER DEFENDANT WHO GOT POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, REVERSES
| wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | fear-inspiring dilemma | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | fear-inspiring dilemma | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | claret fiercely-loyal nibblets | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | fear-inspiring dilemma | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | claret fiercely-loyal nibblets | 10/08/15 | | fear-inspiring dilemma | 10/08/15 | | Irradiated indigo private investor newt | 10/29/15 | | Violet Costumed Volcanic Crater Immigrant | 10/29/15 | | Bistre hairraiser locale deer antler | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | fear-inspiring dilemma | 10/08/15 | | vibrant national trust fund | 10/29/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | vibrant national trust fund | 10/29/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | vibrant national trust fund | 10/29/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | vibrant national trust fund | 10/29/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | vibrant national trust fund | 10/29/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | vibrant national trust fund | 10/29/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | vibrant national trust fund | 10/29/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | claret fiercely-loyal nibblets | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | Bistre hairraiser locale deer antler | 10/08/15 | | claret fiercely-loyal nibblets | 10/08/15 | | fear-inspiring dilemma | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | fear-inspiring dilemma | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | Aphrodisiac mad-dog skullcap | 10/08/15 | | Rebellious flushed masturbator | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/08/15 | | Rebellious flushed masturbator | 10/08/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 | | Big hairy legs organic girlfriend | 10/29/15 | | wonderful erotic incel | 10/29/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: October 8th, 2015 11:29 AM Author: fear-inspiring dilemma
"defendant is guilty for cogent, independent reasons A, B, and C"
*is convicted*
*reason C turns out to be not so cogent*
*is released even though A and B remain cogent*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925546) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2015 11:25 AM Author: wonderful erotic incel
Kulbicki’s counsel,
according to the court, should have found a report
coauthored by Agent Peele in 1991 that “presaged the
flaws in CBLA evidence.” 440 Md., at 40, 99 A. 3d, at 734.
One of the many findings of the report was that the composition
of lead in some bullets was the same as that of
lead in other bullets packaged many months later in a
separate box. Rather than conduct “further research to
explain the existence of overlapping compositions,” the
authors “speculated” that coincidence (or, in one case, the
likelihood that separately packaged bullets originated
from the same source of lead) caused the overlap. Id., at
49, 99 A. 3d, at 739. The Court of Appeals opined that this
lone finding should have caused the report’s authors to
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925519) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2015 11:29 AM Author: fear-inspiring dilemma
"defendant is guilty for cogent, independent reasons A, B, and C"
*is convicted*
*reason C turns out to be not so cogent*
*is released even though A and B remain cogent*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925549) |
|
Date: October 29th, 2015 12:59 PM Author: wonderful erotic incel
Good points.
Rate this critique of the seminal SCOTUS opinion finding the death penalty constitutional:
"First, and perhaps most obvious, is Gregg’s utter failure to truly ameliorate the central concerns raised in Furman. The Georgia statute alone demonstrates the
impossibility of avoiding (or perhaps even reducing) arbitrariness. For example, juries are instructed to impose death if one of ten “aggravating circumstances” is met. These circumstances are inherently ambiguous, however, and ultimately require considerable jury discretion to determine both whether they are present and what each means. For example, the Gregg statute asks jurors to decide whether murder involving “depravity of
mind” or “aggravated battery to the victim” was present. Yet nearly all murders will involve these two factors, and no larger explanation is provided.
Perhaps just as disingenuously, Furman and Gregg reversed McGautha without explicitly saying so. Although prima facie reasonable, the Court’s attempt to separate process and outcome was an incoherent exercise The two concepts are intimately connected; the ideas of process and outcome only make sense in relation to one another. As one scholar asserts, Stewart and White had simply “changed their minds” without saying so from the time between McGautha and Gregg."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067495) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2015 11:30 AM Author: wonderful erotic incel
In the Court of Appeals’ view, any good attorney should
have spotted this methodological flaw. The court held that
counsel’s failure to unearth the report, to identify one of
its findings as “at odds with the scientific method,” and to
use this methodological flaw to cast doubt on CBLA during
counsel’s cross-examination of Peele, “fell short of prevailing
professional norms.” Id., at 50–53, 99 A. 3d, at 740–
742. Concluding that counsel’s supposed deficiency was
prejudicial, the court set aside the conviction and ordered
a new trial. Id., at 56, 99 A. 3d, at 743–744.
We reverse. The Court of Appeals offered no support for
its conclusion that Kulbicki’s defense attorneys were
constitutionally required to predict the demise of CBLA.
Instead, the court indulged in the “natural tendency to
speculate as to whether a different trial strategy might
have been more successful.” Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506
U. S. 364, 372 (1993). To combat this tendency, we have
“adopted the rule of contemporary assessment of counsel’s
conduct.” Ibid. Had the Court of Appeals heeded this
rule, it would have “judge[d] the reasonableness of counsel’s
challenged conduct . . . viewed as of the time of counsel’s
conduct.” Strickland, supra, at 690
I BEG TO DIFFER WITH SCOTUS...ANY GOOD ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST CHALLENGING THE VERACITY OF BALLISTIC EVIDENCE LIKE WTF
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925554) |
|
|