Re: EXECUTION

June 22, 2000

> (A column in today's paper said the election will be a choice

between " Bore " and " Gush. " I'm surprised nobody has come up with

that before, and ain't it the truth.)

> ---

> Kayleigh

>

> Zz

> zZ

> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

(didn't want to cut the kitty)

Actually Bill Maher said it in his live standup " Be More Cynical " on

HBO last week. Gotta love it.

Nic

June 22, 2000

Kaleigh,

This is a straight quote from the associated press. That's also where

I got the information although it is commonly known that there were 6

witnesses who were not called to the stand and one main witness who

testimony was used to convict Graham. See below. Also, Graham's

appeal

was just denied. And there is lots that people can do. The fact that

we are even talking about this case attests to what can be done.

People have gotten the word out -- let people know about a huge

injustice. Forced consideration of the case at the highest levels.

Otherwise, as you may well know, this would have just been another

routine execution. #222 for Texas. Let's hope not.

k

" Prosecutors based their case on the eye-witness testimony of

Bernadine Skillern. She testified that she saw Graham clearly and

watched him shoot Lambert. Supporters of Graham contend that

Skillem's

identification was flawed because police showed her only Graham's

picture after she described the gunman.

Graham also says his original attorney, Ron Mock, was ineffective and

failed to call six witnesses who either couldn't describe the killer

or said he did not match Graham's description. "

> > I thought some of you might be interested that the state of

Texas

> >is scheduled to execute it's 222nd person since the death penalty

was

> >reinstituted. That man is Graham, a black man, sentenced to

> >death

> >in what we can all see is a blantantly biased process. The gun

that

> >killed the victim was not Graham's gun, seven witnesses to the

event

> >described someone else as being the gunman or did not identify

Graham

> >as the gunmen yet were never called by Graham's publically

appointed

> >attorney. The only witness who indentifies Graham witnessed the

> >incident from inside her car..across the street; she indentified

> >Graham after she had described the shooter and then was shown only

> >Graham's picture. And of course, there is the police officer who

> >claims that Graham told him, " Next time I won't leave any

witnesses. "

> >(Apparently defendants are often making damning statements to

police

> >officers. And always out of ear shot of any witnesses. Hmmmm.)

> > Ladies and Gentlemen...your next president. Of course, Clinton

> >flew back to Arkansas during his presendential campaign to preside

> >over the state execution of a mentally retarded man, who after

eating

> >his last meal and forgoing the desert, said " I'll finish it when I

> >get

> >back. "

> > kiki

> >

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> >SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE

> >Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1 year!

> >http://click./1/2658/2/_/4324/_/961690600/

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> >

>

> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> Before you buy.

June 22, 2000

Amen.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: EXECUTION

>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:56:03 -0000

>

>Kaleigh,

>This is a straight quote from the associated press. That's also where

>I got the information although it is commonly known that there were 6

>witnesses who were not called to the stand and one main witness who

>testimony was used to convict Graham. See below. Also, Graham's

>appeal

>was just denied. And there is lots that people can do. The fact that

>we are even talking about this case attests to what can be done.

>People have gotten the word out -- let people know about a huge

>injustice. Forced consideration of the case at the highest levels.

>Otherwise, as you may well know, this would have just been another

>routine execution. #222 for Texas. Let's hope not.

>

>k

>

> " Prosecutors based their case on the eye-witness testimony of

>Bernadine Skillern. She testified that she saw Graham clearly and

>watched him shoot Lambert. Supporters of Graham contend that

>Skillem's

>identification was flawed because police showed her only Graham's

>picture after she described the gunman.

>

>Graham also says his original attorney, Ron Mock, was ineffective and

>failed to call six witnesses who either couldn't describe the killer

>or said he did not match Graham's description. "

>

> > > I thought some of you might be interested that the state of

>Texas

> > >is scheduled to execute it's 222nd person since the death penalty

>was

> > >reinstituted. That man is Graham, a black man, sentenced to

> > >death

> > >in what we can all see is a blantantly biased process. The gun

>that

> > >killed the victim was not Graham's gun, seven witnesses to the

>event

> > >described someone else as being the gunman or did not identify

>Graham

> > >as the gunmen yet were never called by Graham's publically

>appointed

> > >attorney. The only witness who indentifies Graham witnessed the

> > >incident from inside her car..across the street; she indentified

> > >Graham after she had described the shooter and then was shown only

> > >Graham's picture. And of course, there is the police officer who

> > >claims that Graham told him, " Next time I won't leave any

>witnesses. "

> > >(Apparently defendants are often making damning statements to

>police

> > >officers. And always out of ear shot of any witnesses. Hmmmm.)

> > > Ladies and Gentlemen...your next president. Of course, Clinton

> > >flew back to Arkansas during his presendential campaign to preside

> > >over the state execution of a mentally retarded man, who after

>eating

> > >his last meal and forgoing the desert, said " I'll finish it when I

> > >get

> > >back. "

> > > kiki

> > >

> >

> >---------------------------------------------------------------------

>---

> > >SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE

> > >Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1 year!

> > >http://click./1/2658/2/_/4324/_/961690600/

> >

> >---------------------------------------------------------------------

>---

> > >

> >

> > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> > Before you buy.

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

June 22, 2000

Gee whiz. I didn't read the actual column, but I know the columnist, so I

believe he probably credited Bill Maher. Yep, I love it.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

>> (A column in today's paper said the election will be a choice

>between " Bore " and " Gush. " I'm surprised nobody has come up with

>that before, and ain't it the truth.)

>

(I've cruelly cut the kitty because there's another above.)

>(didn't want to cut the kitty)

>Actually Bill Maher said it in his live standup " Be More Cynical " on

>HBO last week. Gotta love it.

>Nic

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Air purifiers, bedding, household cleaning & more! gazoontite.com!

>http://click./1/5492/2/_/4324/_/961700531/

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

June 22, 2000

I got my info from CNBC. Who knows who's right. I guess the main

point remains that the trial was a farce.

> > > I thought some of you might be interested that the state of

> Texas

> > >is scheduled to execute it's 222nd person since the death

penalty

> was

> > >reinstituted. That man is Graham, a black man, sentenced to

> > >death

> > >in what we can all see is a blantantly biased process. The gun

> that

> > >killed the victim was not Graham's gun, seven witnesses to the

> event

> > >described someone else as being the gunman or did not identify

> Graham

> > >as the gunmen yet were never called by Graham's publically

> appointed

> > >attorney. The only witness who indentifies Graham witnessed the

> > >incident from inside her car..across the street; she indentified

> > >Graham after she had described the shooter and then was shown

only

> > >Graham's picture. And of course, there is the police officer who

> > >claims that Graham told him, " Next time I won't leave any

> witnesses. "

> > >(Apparently defendants are often making damning statements to

> police

> > >officers. And always out of ear shot of any witnesses. Hmmmm.)

> > > Ladies and Gentlemen...your next president. Of course,

Clinton

> > >flew back to Arkansas during his presendential campaign to

preside

> > >over the state execution of a mentally retarded man, who after

> eating

> > >his last meal and forgoing the desert, said " I'll finish it when

I

> > >get

> > >back. "

> > > kiki

> > >

> >

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

> ---

> > >SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE

> > >Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1

year!

> > >http://click./1/2658/2/_/4324/_/961690600/

> >

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

> ---

> > >

> >

> > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> > Before you buy.

June 22, 2000

In 12-step-freeegroups, " Kayleigh S " <kayleighs@m...>

wrote:

> And it was a jailhouse snitch, not a cop, who

> said that Graham had

> made the statement about leaving no witnesses.

>

> Hearsay is only admissible if there are " indices of

> trustworthiness and reliability. "

> I'd say based on that that jailhouse snitches

> ought never to be allowed in court.

Hearsay is " an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter

asserted. " Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the statement above would be

classified as an admission and, therefore, not hearsay. (Under California

law, it would be hearsay, admissible under an exception which allows

admissions.)

It could also be offered to prove the defendant's state of mind, another

exception to the hearsay rule, or for non-hearsay purposes, such as proving

he had knowledge of facts, not to prove that witnesses were killed. A " catch

all " exception had been added to the Federal rules (and those of some

states) to allow admission of hearsay if there are " indices of

trustworthiness and reliability, " but it only comes into play to admit

statements which, unlike this one, don't fit within a recognized exception.

The fact that a snitch is trying to get something out of ratting on another

inmate goes to credibility, not admissibility.

In San Diego, some heads rolled at the DA's office last year after

investigators let a snitch have sex with his girlfriend and hookers in the

DA's office, along with other special treatment. Most snitches don't get

treated so royally. They usually wind up in prison, anyway, with marginally

shorter sentences, but branded with a " rat jacket " that earns them treatment

from other inmates that makes their stay seem far longer than if they had

just stood up and taken their time from the start.

The statements above are based on California law, and are for discussion

only. They should not be considered legal advice, and do not create an

attorney-client relationship. The laws in your jurisdiction may be

different.

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

June 23, 2000

I watched a Geraldo interview with Graham on CNBC and he said two. It's

not worth quibbling about. Probably two said it wasn't Graham, the others said

they couldn't identify the perpetrator. This is certainly malpractice.

The failure to show Skillern a lineup, if that's what happened, would be enough

to throw out the conviction in most states.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

>Kaleigh,

>This is a straight quote from the associated press. That's also where

>I got the information although it is commonly known that there were 6

>witnesses who were not called to the stand and one main witness who

>testimony was used to convict Graham. See below. Also, Graham's

>appeal

>was just denied. And there is lots that people can do. The fact that

>we are even talking about this case attests to what can be done.

>People have gotten the word out -- let people know about a huge

>injustice. Forced consideration of the case at the highest levels.

>Otherwise, as you may well know, this would have just been another

>routine execution. #222 for Texas. Let's hope not.

>

>k

>

> " Prosecutors based their case on the eye-witness testimony of

>Bernadine Skillern. She testified that she saw Graham clearly and

>watched him shoot Lambert. Supporters of Graham contend that

>Skillem's

>identification was flawed because police showed her only Graham's

>picture after she described the gunman.

>

>Graham also says his original attorney, Ron Mock, was ineffective and

>failed to call six witnesses who either couldn't describe the killer

>or said he did not match Graham's description. "

>

>> > I thought some of you might be interested that the state of

>Texas

>> >is scheduled to execute it's 222nd person since the death penalty

>was

>> >reinstituted. That man is Graham, a black man, sentenced to

>> >death

>> >in what we can all see is a blantantly biased process. The gun

>that

>> >killed the victim was not Graham's gun, seven witnesses to the

>event

>> >described someone else as being the gunman or did not identify

>Graham

>> >as the gunmen yet were never called by Graham's publically

>appointed

>> >attorney. The only witness who indentifies Graham witnessed the

>> >incident from inside her car..across the street; she indentified

>> >Graham after she had described the shooter and then was shown only

>> >Graham's picture. And of course, there is the police officer who

>> >claims that Graham told him, " Next time I won't leave any

>witnesses. "

>> >(Apparently defendants are often making damning statements to

>police

>> >officers. And always out of ear shot of any witnesses. Hmmmm.)

>> > Ladies and Gentlemen...your next president. Of course, Clinton

>> >flew back to Arkansas during his presendential campaign to preside

>> >over the state execution of a mentally retarded man, who after

>eating

>> >his last meal and forgoing the desert, said " I'll finish it when I

>> >get

>> >back. "

>> > kiki

>> >

>>

>>---------------------------------------------------------------------

>---

>> >SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE

>> >Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1 year!

>> >http://click./1/2658/2/_/4324/_/961690600/

>>

>>---------------------------------------------------------------------

>---

>> >

>>

>> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

>> Before you buy.

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Want to win airfare to Vegas for you and 20 friends, $15,000 and a

>suite at Bellagio for New Year's? Or 2 roundtrip tickets anywhere in

>the U.S. given away daily? Go to Expedia.com for your chance to win...

>http://click./1/5292/2/_/4324/_/961707368/

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

June 23, 2000

It's a done deal. Who gives a flying sh*t how many witnesses. The

case

was pure junk from start to finish. They murdered an innocent man.

F---ing murderers. Excuse me if I am angry. This is sick sh*t. sick.

> >> > I thought some of you might be interested that the state of

> >Texas

> >> >is scheduled to execute it's 222nd person since the death

penalty

> >was

> >> >reinstituted. That man is Graham, a black man, sentenced to

> >> >death

> >> >in what we can all see is a blantantly biased process. The gun

> >that

> >> >killed the victim was not Graham's gun, seven witnesses to the

> >event

> >> >described someone else as being the gunman or did not identify

> >Graham

> >> >as the gunmen yet were never called by Graham's publically

> >appointed

> >> >attorney. The only witness who indentifies Graham witnessed the

> >> >incident from inside her car..across the street; she

indentified

> >> >Graham after she had described the shooter and then was shown

only

> >> >Graham's picture. And of course, there is the police officer

who

> >> >claims that Graham told him, " Next time I won't leave any

> >witnesses. "

> >> >(Apparently defendants are often making damning statements to

> >police

> >> >officers. And always out of ear shot of any witnesses. Hmmmm.)

> >> > Ladies and Gentlemen...your next president. Of course,

Clinton

> >> >flew back to Arkansas during his presendential campaign to

preside

> >> >over the state execution of a mentally retarded man, who after

> >eating

> >> >his last meal and forgoing the desert, said " I'll finish it

when

I

> >> >get

> >> >back. "

> >> > kiki

> >> >

> >>

>

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------

-

> >---

> >> >SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE

> >> >Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1

year!

> >> >http://click./1/2658/2/_/4324/_/961690600/

> >>

>

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------

-

> >---

> >> >

> >>

> >> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> >> Before you buy.

> >

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> >Want to win airfare to Vegas for you and 20 friends, $15,000 and a

> >suite at Bellagio for New Year's? Or 2 roundtrip tickets anywhere

in

> >the U.S. given away daily? Go to Expedia.com for your chance to

win...

> >http://click./1/5292/2/_/4324/_/961707368/

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> >

>

> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> Before you buy.

June 23, 2000

I heard a firsthand account of one of his many victims as he went on that

crime spree, and anyone who blows a man's leg off and drives 100mph with his

victim bleeding almost to death doesn't deserve to live anyway.

CH

Re: EXECUTION

It's a done deal. Who gives a flying sh*t how many witnesses. The

case

was pure junk from start to finish. They murdered an innocent man.

F---ing murderers. Excuse me if I am angry. This is sick sh*t. sick.

> >> > I thought some of you might be interested that the state of

> >Texas

> >> >is scheduled to execute it's 222nd person since the death

penalty

> >was

> >> >reinstituted. That man is Graham, a black man, sentenced to

> >> >death

> >> >in what we can all see is a blantantly biased process. The gun

> >that

> >> >killed the victim was not Graham's gun, seven witnesses to the

> >event

> >> >described someone else as being the gunman or did not identify

> >Graham

> >> >as the gunmen yet were never called by Graham's publically

> >appointed

> >> >attorney. The only witness who indentifies Graham witnessed the

> >> >incident from inside her car..across the street; she

indentified

> >> >Graham after she had described the shooter and then was shown

only

> >> >Graham's picture. And of course, there is the police officer

who

> >> >claims that Graham told him, " Next time I won't leave any

> >witnesses. "

> >> >(Apparently defendants are often making damning statements to

> >police

> >> >officers. And always out of ear shot of any witnesses. Hmmmm.)

> >> > Ladies and Gentlemen...your next president. Of course,

Clinton

> >> >flew back to Arkansas during his presendential campaign to

preside

> >> >over the state execution of a mentally retarded man, who after

> >eating

> >> >his last meal and forgoing the desert, said " I'll finish it

when

I

> >> >get

> >> >back. "

> >> > kiki

> >> >

> >>

>

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------

-

> >---

> >> >SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE

> >> >Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1

year!

> >> >http://click./1/2658/2/_/4324/_/961690600/

> >>

>

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------

-

> >---

> >> >

> >>

> >> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> >> Before you buy.

> >

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> >Want to win airfare to Vegas for you and 20 friends, $15,000 and a

> >suite at Bellagio for New Year's? Or 2 roundtrip tickets anywhere

in

> >the U.S. given away daily? Go to Expedia.com for your chance to

win...

> >http://click./1/5292/2/_/4324/_/961707368/

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> >

>

> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> Before you buy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get 6 months of FREE* MSN Internet access!

http://click./1/5725/2/_/4324/_/961786772/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 23, 2000

You are right, it is an admission against interest. If I were a judge, however,

I would do my darndest to keep it out. I don't have a clue how juries weigh

credibility. Naturally they will have gone through the ceremony where the

prosecutor asks if his statement is voluntary and whether or not he's been

offered any inducement or rewards, and naturally the snitch will say no.

I don't know whether this statement was allegedly made in a jail or a prison,

but in a jail people are being held for trial or are accused of misdemeanors,

not felonies, so the possibility of ending up in prison with the reputation of a

rat is not inevitable. Don't forget how much discretion prosecutors have.

I like your disclaimer and probably should use it myself.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>In 12-step-freeegroups, " Kayleigh S " <kayleighs@m...>

>wrote:

>> And it was a jailhouse snitch, not a cop, who

>> said that Graham had

>> made the statement about leaving no witnesses.

>>

>> Hearsay is only admissible if there are " indices of

>> trustworthiness and reliability. "

>> I'd say based on that that jailhouse snitches

>> ought never to be allowed in court.

>

>Hearsay is " an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter

>asserted. " Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the statement above would be

>classified as an admission and, therefore, not hearsay. (Under California

>law, it would be hearsay, admissible under an exception which allows

>admissions.)

>

>It could also be offered to prove the defendant's state of mind, another

>exception to the hearsay rule, or for non-hearsay purposes, such as proving

>he had knowledge of facts, not to prove that witnesses were killed. A " catch

>all " exception had been added to the Federal rules (and those of some

>states) to allow admission of hearsay if there are " indices of

>trustworthiness and reliability, " but it only comes into play to admit

>statements which, unlike this one, don't fit within a recognized exception.

>

>The fact that a snitch is trying to get something out of ratting on another

>inmate goes to credibility, not admissibility.

>

>In San Diego, some heads rolled at the DA's office last year after

>investigators let a snitch have sex with his girlfriend and hookers in the

>DA's office, along with other special treatment. Most snitches don't get

>treated so royally. They usually wind up in prison, anyway, with marginally

>shorter sentences, but branded with a " rat jacket " that earns them treatment

>from other inmates that makes their stay seem far longer than if they had

>just stood up and taken their time from the start.

>

>The statements above are based on California law, and are for discussion

>only. They should not be considered legal advice, and do not create an

>attorney-client relationship. The laws in your jurisdiction may be

>different.

>

>______________________________________________

>FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

>Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Gain peace of mind, and take control of the accuracy of your credit report.

>Sign up for a FREE online credit report from ConsumerInfo.Com!

>http://click./1/5785/2/_/4324/_/961738338/

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

June 23, 2000

Forgot to mention that the exceptions to hearsay admissibility exist because

they are considered to have " indicia of reliability and trustworthiness. "

Clearly that is true in the case of admissions against interest. However, this

is not his next door neighbor Graham was talking to, nor is it a shopkeeper who

says, " Damn! I knew I should have replaced that ladder, " as he looks down at an

injured customer.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>In 12-step-freeegroups, " Kayleigh S " <kayleighs@m...>

>wrote:

>> And it was a jailhouse snitch, not a cop, who

>> said that Graham had

>> made the statement about leaving no witnesses.

>>

>> Hearsay is only admissible if there are " indices of

>> trustworthiness and reliability. "

>> I'd say based on that that jailhouse snitches

>> ought never to be allowed in court.

>

>Hearsay is " an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter

>asserted. " Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the statement above would be

>classified as an admission and, therefore, not hearsay. (Under California

>law, it would be hearsay, admissible under an exception which allows

>admissions.)

>

>It could also be offered to prove the defendant's state of mind, another

>exception to the hearsay rule, or for non-hearsay purposes, such as proving

>he had knowledge of facts, not to prove that witnesses were killed. A " catch

>all " exception had been added to the Federal rules (and those of some

>states) to allow admission of hearsay if there are " indices of

>trustworthiness and reliability, " but it only comes into play to admit

>statements which, unlike this one, don't fit within a recognized exception.

>

>The fact that a snitch is trying to get something out of ratting on another

>inmate goes to credibility, not admissibility.

>

>In San Diego, some heads rolled at the DA's office last year after

>investigators let a snitch have sex with his girlfriend and hookers in the

>DA's office, along with other special treatment. Most snitches don't get

>treated so royally. They usually wind up in prison, anyway, with marginally

>shorter sentences, but branded with a " rat jacket " that earns them treatment

>from other inmates that makes their stay seem far longer than if they had

>just stood up and taken their time from the start.

>

>The statements above are based on California law, and are for discussion

>only. They should not be considered legal advice, and do not create an

>attorney-client relationship. The laws in your jurisdiction may be

>different.

>

>______________________________________________

>FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

>Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Gain peace of mind, and take control of the accuracy of your credit report.

>Sign up for a FREE online credit report from ConsumerInfo.Com!

>http://click./1/5785/2/_/4324/_/961738338/

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

June 23, 2000

Correction: have been CONVICTED of misdemeanors, not felonies

> >> And it was a jailhouse snitch, not a cop, who

> >> said that Graham had

> >> made the statement about leaving no witnesses.

> >>

> >> Hearsay is only admissible if there are " indices of

> >> trustworthiness and reliability. "

> >> I'd say based on that that jailhouse snitches

> >> ought never to be allowed in court.

> >

> >Hearsay is " an out of court statement offered for the truth of the

matter

> >asserted. " Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the statement

above

would be

> >classified as an admission and, therefore, not hearsay. (Under

California

> >law, it would be hearsay, admissible under an exception which

allows

> >admissions.)

> >

> >It could also be offered to prove the defendant's state of mind,

another

> >exception to the hearsay rule, or for non-hearsay purposes, such

as

proving

> >he had knowledge of facts, not to prove that witnesses were

killed.

A " catch

> >all " exception had been added to the Federal rules (and those of

some

> >states) to allow admission of hearsay if there are " indices of

> >trustworthiness and reliability, " but it only comes into play to

admit

> >statements which, unlike this one, don't fit within a recognized

exception.

> >

> >The fact that a snitch is trying to get something out of ratting

on

another

> >inmate goes to credibility, not admissibility.

> >

> >In San Diego, some heads rolled at the DA's office last year after

> >investigators let a snitch have sex with his girlfriend and

hookers

in the

> >DA's office, along with other special treatment. Most snitches

don't get

> >treated so royally. They usually wind up in prison, anyway, with

marginally

> >shorter sentences, but branded with a " rat jacket " that earns them

treatment

> >from other inmates that makes their stay seem far longer than if

they had

> >just stood up and taken their time from the start.

> >

> >The statements above are based on California law, and are for

discussion

> >only. They should not be considered legal advice, and do not

create

an

> >attorney-client relationship. The laws in your jurisdiction may be

> >different.

> >

> >______________________________________________

> >FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

> >Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

> >

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> >Gain peace of mind, and take control of the accuracy of your

credit

report.

> >Sign up for a FREE online credit report from ConsumerInfo.Com!

> >http://click./1/5785/2/_/4324/_/961738338/

>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> >

>

> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> Before you buy.

June 28, 2000

Hi all.

I've just read in a Danish paper, that Americans don't know they're the only

country in the Western world where death penalty is still in use.

Even China is considering abolishing it.

And further, years ago about 80% of the American people supported it, and

now it's about 60%.

Soon you might be able to join the civilized part of the world. ;-)

But please get rid of step philosophy before you do!

Bjørn

" k. m. " wrote:

> I thought some of you might be interested that the state of Texas

> is scheduled to execute it's 222nd person since the death penalty was

> reinstituted. That man is Graham, a black man, sentenced to

> death

> in what we can all see is a blantantly biased process. The gun that

> killed the victim was not Graham's gun, seven witnesses to the event

> described someone else as being the gunman or did not identify Graham

> as the gunmen yet were never called by Graham's publically appointed

> attorney. The only witness who indentifies Graham witnessed the

> incident from inside her car..across the street; she indentified

> Graham after she had described the shooter and then was shown only

> Graham's picture. And of course, there is the police officer who

> claims that Graham told him, " Next time I won't leave any witnesses. "

> (Apparently defendants are often making damning statements to police

> officers. And always out of ear shot of any witnesses. Hmmmm.)

> Ladies and Gentlemen...your next president. Of course, Clinton

> flew back to Arkansas during his presendential campaign to preside

> over the state execution of a mentally retarded man, who after eating

> his last meal and forgoing the desert, said " I'll finish it when I

> get

> back. "

> kiki

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE

> Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1 year!

> http://click./1/2658/2/_/4324/_/961690600/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 28, 2000

Why are people suddenly against the death penalty so fiercely???

This guy was a vicious felon who blew off some guys leg, admittedly so...so

why should he live and suck up our tax dollars???

CH

Re: EXECUTION

> Hi all.

>

> I've just read in a Danish paper, that Americans don't know they're

the only country in the Western world where death penalty is still in

use. Even China is considering abolishing it. And further, years ago

about 80% of the American people supported it, and now it's about

60%.

I'm in defensive mode today, pardner, and all I got to say is:

Minnesota don't have no stinkin' death penalty (hawk, spit).

> Soon you might be able to join the civilized part of the world. ;-)

> But please get rid of step philosophy before you do!

I'm-a workin' on it, pilgrim.

Judith Holliday, with her six shooters a-blazin'

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savings + service + convenience = beMANY!

http://click./1/4116/2/_/4324/_/962215829/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 28, 2000

> Hi all.

>

> I've just read in a Danish paper, that Americans don't know they're

the only country in the Western world where death penalty is still in

use. Even China is considering abolishing it. And further, years ago

about 80% of the American people supported it, and now it's about

60%.

I'm in defensive mode today, pardner, and all I got to say is:

Minnesota don't have no stinkin' death penalty (hawk, spit).

> Soon you might be able to join the civilized part of the world. ;-)

> But please get rid of step philosophy before you do!

I'm-a workin' on it, pilgrim.

Judith Holliday, with her six shooters a-blazin'

June 28, 2000

> Why are people suddenly against the death penalty so fiercely???

>

> This guy was a vicious felon who blew off some guys leg, admittedly

so...so why should he live and suck up our tax dollars???

Not sudden for me. I've been a bleeding heart liberal for years

Judith

June 28, 2000

ok... got me...it's the media. Like the whole damn Elian thing....once he's

back in Cuba nobody will give a damn about immigration for a while. Good

riddance!

CH

Re: EXECUTION

> Why are people suddenly against the death penalty so fiercely???

>

> This guy was a vicious felon who blew off some guys leg, admittedly

so...so why should he live and suck up our tax dollars???

Not sudden for me. I've been a bleeding heart liberal for years

Judith

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application

2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds

3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR

http://click./1/5197/2/_/4324/_/962216371/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 28, 2000

Yes, but the coverage " it " got was serious and considered. The detail of the

condemned man's last hours and the real tension outswide the prison and

throughout society probably managed to connect with people's impoverished

sense of reality more than the customary " guy gets executed " report. It was

heavily covered in UK. I grew up with the black cloud of judicial killing

hanging periodically over my childhood in 1950s Britain. I'm very glad it's

not around now. I'm afraid I just can't get round " Thou shalt not kill "

when considering the whole issue, with compassion, hatred of injustice, and

sheer distaste following up as good reasons.

Yours,

.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: " '12-step-freeegroups' " <12-step-freeegroups>

>Subject: RE: Re: EXECUTION

>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:20:54 -0400

>

>ok... got me...it's the media. Like the whole damn Elian thing....once

>he's

>back in Cuba nobody will give a damn about immigration for a while. Good

>riddance!

>

>CH

>

> Re: EXECUTION

>

> > Why are people suddenly against the death penalty so fiercely???

> >

> > This guy was a vicious felon who blew off some guys leg, admittedly

>so...so why should he live and suck up our tax dollars???

>

>Not sudden for me. I've been a bleeding heart liberal for years

>

>Judith

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

>1. Fill in the brief application

>2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds

>3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR

>http://click./1/5197/2/_/4324/_/962216371/

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

June 28, 2000

At 02:10 PM 6/28/00 -0400, Carey Hartman wrote:

> Why are people suddenly against the death penalty so fiercely???

>

> This guy was a vicious felon who blew off some guys leg, admittedly so...so

> why should he live and suck up our tax dollars???

>

> CH

A better question: Why should the prosecution suck up our tax dollars -- far

more than it would take to imprison the defendant for the rest of his life -- to

kill him?

The idea that the death penalty saves money is common fallacy. From the expense

of a two-phase trial, to the appellate process, to the higher cost of holding

someone on death row as compared to general prison population, to the final

media shindig at the prison when the switch is pulled, a death penalty case is

far more costly than a normal murder trial.

Don't waste more money on these scoundrels, cut their appeals and give them the

hot shot as soon as the jury says " guilty, " you say? Sorry, our constitution,

as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does not allow a blanket death penalty.

The penalty phase of a DP trial is required to determine whether there are

aggravating factors that justify imposition of the ultimate punishment.

It is far cheaper to give somebody thirty lashes than thirty days. Fortunately,

we have evolved to a level where beating people or lynching them in the town

square are generally considered impolite behavior.

Here in California, there have been few executions because the state wasn't

willing to pay enough to attract competent appellate counsel for condemned

prisoners, so the wheels of death ground to a slow creep.

There is now a state DP defender's office to provide counsel to the walking

dead, and the logjam at the appellate level will probably start to clear up. My

wife pointed out a help wanted ad and suggested that I apply. I told her I

couldn't, in good conscience, do work that would speed up the process of killing

my clients.

-----

Every man thinks God is on his side.

The rich and powerful know He is.

-Anouilh

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

June 28, 2000

the US is great at being a major power out standing in the field - often all

alone - on many issues like the Internation Crime Commission to name one,

but re the death penalty, how bout this.

Leave the death penalty in place but have each state guarantee by law to

first harvest the cells necessary to clone the about-to-be-killed maybe

after toning down the aggression genes. Then (by law) clone and put the

infant into a no-background-check orphanage. How sweet, the first morally

justifiable cloning.

Hmmm, I wonder, movie rights, NAAAhhh.

RE: Re: EXECUTION

> At 02:10 PM 6/28/00 -0400, Carey Hartman wrote:

> > Why are people suddenly against the death penalty so fiercely???

> >

> > This guy was a vicious felon who blew off some guys leg, admittedly

so...so

> > why should he live and suck up our tax dollars???

> >

> > CH

>

> A better question: Why should the prosecution suck up our tax dollars --

far more than it would take to imprison the defendant for the rest of his

life -- to kill him?

>

> The idea that the death penalty saves money is common fallacy. From the

expense of a two-phase trial, to the appellate process, to the higher cost

of holding someone on death row as compared to general prison population, to

the final media shindig at the prison when the switch is pulled, a death

penalty case is far more costly than a normal murder trial.

>

> Don't waste more money on these scoundrels, cut their appeals and give

them the hot shot as soon as the jury says " guilty, " you say? Sorry, our

constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does not allow a

blanket death penalty. The penalty phase of a DP trial is required to

determine whether there are aggravating factors that justify imposition of

the ultimate punishment.

>

> It is far cheaper to give somebody thirty lashes than thirty days.

Fortunately, we have evolved to a level where beating people or lynching

them in the town square are generally considered impolite behavior.

>

> Here in California, there have been few executions because the state

wasn't willing to pay enough to attract competent appellate counsel for

condemned prisoners, so the wheels of death ground to a slow creep.

>

> There is now a state DP defender's office to provide counsel to the

walking dead, and the logjam at the appellate level will probably start to

clear up. My wife pointed out a help wanted ad and suggested that I apply. I

told her I couldn't, in good conscience, do work that would speed up the

process of killing my clients.

> -----

> Every man thinks God is on his side.

> The rich and powerful know He is.

> -Anouilh

> ______________________________________________

> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

> Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Lonely? Get Firetalk!

> Free, unlimited calls anywhere in the world.

> Free voice chat on hundreds of topics.

> http://click./1/5477/2/_/4324/_/962223304/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

June 28, 2000

Every time this issue comes up I can't shake the conversation where Gandalf

the wiziard, explains to one of the hobbits I think, that you can't give

life so why are you so quick to try and take it away. Or words to that

effect.