hazel
Inactive
Ti Amero Per Sempre
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by hazel on May 11, 2005 10:06:45 GMT -6
Court tosses conviction of man on Death Row Federal panel's ruling in '82 case from Madison County based on polygraph issue.
Associated Press
A man who has spent more than 20 years on Indiana's Death Row could be freed because of a polygraph test whose results were never admitted in court.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday overturned Mark Allen Wisehart's 1983 murder conviction, ruling that a trial judge should have tried to determine whether one juror's knowledge of the polygraph test had tainted the verdict.
Wisehart, 42, was sentenced to death in Madison Superior Court in the slaying of Marjorie R. Johnson, 65, in an October 1982 robbery. She was stabbed 26 times.
In an affidavit presented at a 1994 appeal hearing, a juror said she reported for jury duty and was told court would not be held that day because Wisehart was scheduled for a polygraph test.
The juror said she never learned the test's results. Polygraph results are not admissible as evidence in Indiana courts.
The Indiana Supreme Court denied Wisehart's appeal, citing a lack of evidence that one juror's knowledge of the polygraph had swayed the entire jury.
The federal court said Tuesday the trial judge should have questioned the juror to find out whether she or any other jurors had been influenced.
"From the fact that the trial resumed after the test, had she assumed that Wisehart had flunked it?" the three-judge panel wrote.
The appeals court vacated Wisehart's conviction and directed the state to release him, retry him or conduct a hearing to address the issue of jury bias.
The Indiana attorney general's office, which handled the appeal, plans to seek a rehearing in the 7th Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, a spokeswoman said.
|
|
|
Post by TexasLady on May 11, 2005 13:40:41 GMT -6
He confessed for heaven's sake. Now he says he didn't get a fair trial?
What a load of blather. I hope they retry him and affirm the conviction.
|
|
|
Post by Aquarius on May 11, 2005 13:48:47 GMT -6
He confessed for heaven's sake. Now he says he didn't get a fair trial? What a load of blather. I hope they retry him and affirm the conviction. How do you know he confessed? It doesn't say in this article that he did... do you have other articles concerning this case?
|
|
|
Post by dio on May 11, 2005 14:23:00 GMT -6
Yet another fine reason why we should Juice them quick.A mutt confesses to his crime and some pansy Judge decides he's a good guy afterall.
|
|
|
Post by Tozzie on May 11, 2005 14:32:41 GMT -6
Yet another fine reason why we should Juice them quick.A mutt confesses to his crime and some pansy Judge decides he's a good guy afterall. It is common knowledge that polygraph test results are not admissable as evidence in most states. The fact a juror knew the test had taken place is meaningless since the results would never have been admitted into evidence. I have to look at this case a little more but I think an appeal is in order. Sure this wasn't the 9th circut court of fools deciding this?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 11, 2005 14:51:44 GMT -6
More pinhead jurists making a mockery of the law.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on May 12, 2005 4:21:12 GMT -6
Well pro's, if you propose to extract the ultimate punishment there must be no doubt or no stone left unturned, that is unless you also think potentially innocent lives are worthless. This is entirely of your own making in my view!
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on May 14, 2005 22:16:40 GMT -6
Well pro's, if you propose to extract the ultimate punishment there must be no doubt or no stone left unturned, that is unless you also think potentially innocent lives are worthless. This is entirely of your own making in my view! I would have to agree with this statement. Sometimes people who have been wrongly convicted are telling the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2005 19:34:26 GMT -6
Well pro's, if you propose to extract the ultimate punishment there must be no doubt or no stone left unturned, that is unless you also think potentially innocent lives are worthless. This is entirely of your own making in my view! Weeeeeellll, not exactly. There must be no reasonable doubt or reasonable stone left unturned. In this case, it sounds like a reasonable stone. In many, many cases, however, the former human beings keep bringing up stone after stone ad nauseum for no purpose other than to delay their dance with the grim reaper.
|
|
|
Post by TexasLady on May 15, 2005 19:54:28 GMT -6
How do you know he confessed? It doesn't say in this article that he did... do you have other articles concerning this case? Right here: www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/row/wiseha~1.htmNote on his file: Upon his arrest, Wisehart gave a confession, admitting that he had stabbed Johnson several times with several weapons, punching her with his fist, and striking her in the head with a whiskey bottle. He stated he took $14 and admitted he was the one who tipped off police.Also here: www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/031901.fsj.htmlQuote: Prior to his trial, Wisehart confessed to the crimes and accepted sole responsibility for them. He specifically admitted stabbing the victim and did not give any indication but that he had acted alone.
And here: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=031901.fsj&invol=2Quote: The crimes of which Wisehart was convicted involved the beating and stabbing of an elderly woman, Marjorie Johnson, in her apartment and the taking of a small amount of money. Wisehart was convicted largely on the strength of a detailed confession which we ruled on direct appeal was properly admitted at trial.
|
|
|
Post by Dea on May 17, 2005 12:03:20 GMT -6
Right here: www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/row/wiseha~1.htmNote on his file: Upon his arrest, Wisehart gave a confession, admitting that he had stabbed Johnson several times with several weapons, punching her with his fist, and striking her in the head with a whiskey bottle. He stated he took $14 and admitted he was the one who tipped off police.Also here: www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/031901.fsj.htmlQuote: Prior to his trial, Wisehart confessed to the crimes and accepted sole responsibility for them. He specifically admitted stabbing the victim and did not give any indication but that he had acted alone.
And here: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=031901.fsj&invol=2Quote: The crimes of which Wisehart was convicted involved the beating and stabbing of an elderly woman, Marjorie Johnson, in her apartment and the taking of a small amount of money. Wisehart was convicted largely on the strength of a detailed confession which we ruled on direct appeal was properly admitted at trial.
You go girl! We're not talking about a valuable piece of evidence here that wasn't allowed in court. A presumption over what a juror may have thought during the trial? Christ, every juror in the country has thoughts which direct them to make a decision one way over another.
|
|
|
Post by TexasLady on May 21, 2005 19:57:50 GMT -6
You go girl! We're not talking about a valuable piece of evidence here that wasn't allowed in court. A presumption over what a juror may have thought during the trial? Christ, every juror in the country has thoughts which direct them to make a decision one way over another. It's another one of those "He's innocent! Look, here's the article" but no one goes beyond that article for the facts. He confessed. I'm willing to bet that confession held more weight with the juror than the polygraph
|
|
|
Post by Rebel Yell on May 24, 2005 4:52:44 GMT -6
Let me get this straight. Murderer admitted killing. Murderer took polyagraph to prove he did it. Polyagraph showed he wasn't lying, he did do it. Polyagraph not admissable in court. Murderer might go free.
|
|
Tim S
Old Hand
Posts: 567
|
Post by Tim S on May 24, 2005 6:38:16 GMT -6
Let me get this straight. Murderer admitted killing. Murderer took polyagraph to prove he did it. Polyagraph showed he wasn't lying, he did do it. Polyagraph not admissable in court. Murderer might go free. Good post ! Just goes to show that you might as well get rid of the dp NOW...because when it's this complicated you can be sure that you are going to execute an innocent..which presumably has happened.
|
|
hazel
Inactive
Ti Amero Per Sempre
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by hazel on May 24, 2005 7:22:26 GMT -6
Good post ! Just goes to show that you might as well get rid of the dp NOW...because when it's this complicated you can be sure that you are going to execute an innocent..which presumably has happened. Presumably has happened?? It has happened there are more than just the one innocent victim they have executed though im sure these Pro's will say there are never innocent people executed.
|
|
|
Post by TexasLady on May 24, 2005 8:04:58 GMT -6
Let me get this straight. Murderer admitted killing. Murderer took polyagraph to prove he did it. Polyagraph showed he wasn't lying, he did do it. Polyagraph not admissable in court. Murderer might go free. That's about the extent of it, yes. I'm not sure how the polygraph came out but one person on the jury "heard about it" and when it didn't come up in court, she "might have assumed" he failed it.
|
|