Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Short note Ed will unable to answer this until he comes back to the
list, if you would like to hold it for him and forward it to him when he
returns I'm sure he would have no problem with it :)
dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.] wrote:
>
> "dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Sue - I think we had better bring our expert in on this one. And he
> is a California lad also. Calling Ed, Calling Ed...! from a general
> perspective though, and not having read anything about the case except
> what's here:
>
> [1] Before the jury convenes to reach a verdict, at the end of all
> arguments, a 'side' can make a Motion for what's called usually "a
> Directed Verdict." This creates and preserves the right to make another
> Motion after the verdict, called a JNOV ("Judgement notwithstanding the
> verdict" (rejecting the Verdict), and if granted the Judge does do a
> JNOV.
>
> [2] After a verdict a judge can decide that in the "Interest of Justice"
> he must set aside the jury verdict because it does not in his Opinion
> reflect the evidence presented. Then he would issue his own ruling.
>
> [3] Other. <g>
>
> Ed and others, check me out above because I am spontaenously typing from
> memory and need the generalities checked; but as far as this case, I
> don't know how the procedures went or California Law on this point.
> Do we have a link to California Criminal Code, or Civil Code? :) LDMF.
> -------------------Sue Hartigan wrote:----------------------------
> >
> > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Hi Dr. L.:
> >
> > I posted that article for Bill. But now that I read it, it is very sad
> > and confusing to me.
> >
> > How can a judge give the DP in a case by himself. I don't think that is
> > allowed in California.
> >
> > And if the new antiterrorism law hasn't gone through all the channels,
> > how can they apply it.
> >
> > I really don't understand this. Can you please explain it to me?
> >
> > Sue
> > >
> > > Hi Sue - this seems a very touching situation; one hopes someone will
> > > review it while there is still time to do so. I know the arguments for
> > > proceeding are many because all the intertwining laws and sub-texts add
> > > up to execution, it seems, and not grandfathering in those with dealth
> > > penalties of a prior date; but if technicalities always prevail, we will
> > > have a total triumph of 'form over substance.' This post is not
> > > regarding the merits, but the system. :) LDMF.
> >
> > >
> > > Posted for Bill:
> > >
> > > St. Louis Post-Dispatch
> > >
> > > DEATH PENALTY
> > >
> > > About the time Missourians are drifting off the sleep tonight, the
> > > executioner
> > > is scheduled to administer a lethal injection to Milton Griffin-El. His
> > > death
> > > should trouble our sleep.
> > > Many will be satisfied by his execution. There's no doubt that
> > > Griffin-El and
> > > Antoine Owens killed Jerome Redden and his girlfriend, Loretta Trotter,
> > > on
> > > Aug. 15, 1986. There's no doubt it was a brutal attack in the apartment
> > > above the Redden family cleaning establishment on St. Louis Avenue.
> > > There's
> > > no doubt that the murder had tragic consequences quite beyond the
> > > victims
> > > who were stabbed and bludgeoned to death. Mr. Redden and Ms. Trotter's
> > > 4-month-old son, Germaine, was found crying near the bodies and
> > > eventually
> > > was put up for adoption.
> > > Rosie Redden, Mr. Redden's mother, sees the execution as simple justice:
> > > "He took two lives for a robbery. He deserves to die."
> > > So what is there to trouble us?
> > > The trouble lies in what the case says about the quality of justice as a
> > > new
> > > federal law begins to limit death row appeals. The case also illustrates
> > > other
> > > problems with the death penalty:
> > > * Griffin-El was sentenced to death while Owens got life sentences for
> > > stabbing both Ms. Trotter and Mr. Redden. Hence the arbitrariness of the
> > > death penalty.
> > > * Griffin-El was convicted by a jury from which the prosecutor had
> > > struck six
> > > African-Americans - a common prosecutorial practice in the 1980s and a
> > > reason the death penalty has been stacked against blacks.
> > > * The jury deadlocked on the death sentence at 10-2 in favor. Under a
> > > new
> > > state law, Griffin-El became the first Missourian to be sentenced to
> > > death by
> > > a judge acting alone - a lonely exercise of discretion for a public
> > > official who
> > > can pay for it in the next election.
> > > * Griffin-El will be the first of the 30 men put to death in Missouri
> > > who did
> > > not have a chance at a full hearing before the federal appeals court.
> > > The reason that Griffin-El hasn't received that last hearing is that
> > > Congress
> > > passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996 to cut
> > > back on the appeals of death-row inmates.
> > > Understandably, people are frustrated by the decades-long appeals
> > > process.
> > > But, when the ultimate judgment of death is involved, there can be no
> > > mistakes. A vivid example of the importance of careful appeals is
> > > Illinois
> > > where nine men who were sentenced to die in recent years have been found
> > > to be innocent.
> > > It is particularly unfair that the Antiterrorism law be applied to
> > > Griffin-El
> > > because there is every indication the Supreme Court won't apply the law
> > > retroactively to cases like his. The Supreme Court ruled last year that
> > > portions of the law are not retroactive and has another case on the
> > > issue
> > > before it now.
> > > What kind of justice would it be for the Supreme Court to turn down
> > > Griffin-El's plea for one last hearing and then to decide after
> > > Griffin-El's
> > > execution that the Antiterrorism law didn't apply to older cases like
> > > his?
> > > The Supreme Court and Gov. Mel Carnahan still have time to make a loud
> > > statement for justice.
> > --
> > Two rules in life:
> >
> > 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
> > 2.
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
