despite the fact that the ballistic evidence used to convict him was bullshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925480)

- that's why he raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

- that claim was bullshit because no one at the time of the trial doubted the ballistics method used was cogent

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925520)

*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)

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)

*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)

yes, poor guy, you are correct on this point. too bad it doesn't change anything for you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067311)

3/10

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067176)

Having said that, I think harmless error is often abused by appellate courts. That is the real problem, not the notion of harmless error itself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067341)

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)

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)

Bro, that's redundant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925555)

"its unanimous" - incorrect

scotus has issued per curiam opinions that have dissents many times. why dont u know this since u spend half ur time reading their opinions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925794)

Even if this guy is due any relief stemming from the fact that this kind of evidence is no longer seen as valid, the relief would not be on the basis of his trial counsel's failure to read some obscure report that began to call that kind of evidence into question. There are post-conviction motions that you can file on the basis of new and material evidence that was not available at trial.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925805)

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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067460)