Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory Page #13

was presented at the trial

Or everything that's occurred

over the last 17 years?

I don't think that it can

be rationally read

Other than to say

the court must consider-

That is,

place in the scale-

Not only

the evidence of guilt

But also all other

evidence,

Whether or not admitted

at the first trial.

The court will recognize

the counselor.

Good morning.

May it please the court,

Mr. Echols has been

to this court

Several times

in the last decade

Challenging his

conviction

Directly and

collaterally,

And this statute does not

call for a retrial.

It's not about

trying somebody again

For the state

to prove guilt twice.

Counselor, what harm

is there in allowing him

To present the evidence

from the last 17 years?

I'm sorry?

What harm is there

in allowing him

To present

all evidence?

Well, the harm is in the

finality of a criminal judgment

That is not

demonstrated to have

Any constitutional

or procedural defect

And just

to try it again.

I mean, you're suggesting,

it sounds to me, justice,

As though every

15 or 17 years or so,

We really ought to try cases

again to re-Establish guilt.

I think it's-

I think it's clear

That the animating purpose

here is not to retry.

So the harm is-

Is to the criminal justice

system's interest in finality

And the work

that gets done

In evaluating

Whether or not

justice has been served

In each of the forums that Mr.

Echols has been through already.

It sounds as if

your argument is

That all evidence of

guilt will be considered,

But it's going to be

extremely difficult

To admit

all other evidence

That may have been

exculpatory.

I think that's-

That is the argument.

It's the second

alternative reason

The circuit court concluded

that relief should be denied.

And to me, that's-

That's a reasonable statute.

But where does it say, "all

other evidence of guilt"?

I understand that it

doesn't expressly say that.

But you have to

interpret the statute

In light of its

animating purpose.

And you have to interpret it

in light of rules of grammar.

I mean, I think that's

a very fair construction.

I'm having trouble

following.

If the testing has to prove you're

innocent, why would you even need a hearing?

Well, again, I think you have to

go back to context, your honor.

We have to deal with the

clear meaning of the statute.

I understand your

context argument,

But we still have to deal with

the clear language of the statute.

Riordan:
it comes out

of a mind set that says,

"Our job as prosecutors

is just to make sure

That everybody we prosecute

is convicted,

Everybody who's sentenced

to death is killed.

This is a wrestling match

to the death,

And we've got to

make sure

That we come out on top

in each instance. "

The legislature,

in its wisdom, recognized

That the criminal

justice system,

Like all human endeavors,

sometimes is flawed.

But the attorney general

has taken the position

That the criminal justice

system is free of error

And therefore is

effectively divine.

I quote from their brief

in the circuit court:

"The state does not shrink

from Echols' charge

That relief may

never be granted

Under this view of

the statute"- Its view-

"But embraces it

out of confidence

That the Arkansas

criminal justice system

Does not convict

the innocent. "

The state

has taken a position

That's directed not only

about denying relief

To Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin,

Mr. Miskelly,

But ensuring that no one will

ever be able to get relief

Under the Arkansas

DNA. Statutes.

Riordan, your time has

expired. Thank you very much.

Riordan:
I thank the

court for its attention

And recognize the court may

feel that the appropriate remedy

Is a remand to the trial court

for an evidentiary hearing.

- Thank you, your honor.

- Thank you very much.

The clock on my head

- It ain't got no hands on it for a reason.

To me, it means

time is standing still.

My time is

standing still.

Everybody else's time

is moving forward.

But here it is, what,

almost 18 years later?

Whatever time it is

When, you know, the

police finally let me out,

That's what time

Im gonna put up there.

I've spent nearly 60% of

my life incarcerated now.

And Ive learned

along the way

That no matter

where you're at,

You've got to make the

most of it, enjoy it.

No matter how bad

you may perceive it to be

Or how good you may

perceive it to be,

You've got to make

the most of it,

Because this is

where you're at right now.

You know, I just try

to do my best every day,

You know, regardless of

the situation.

We take the hands we're dealt.

We make the most of it.

That's the way

we make it through life.

Damien:
you never, ever get sunlight.

I haven't been

exposed to sunlight

In almost

seven years now.

You're in a cell

Pretty much,

For all intents

and purposes,

24 hours a day,

seven days a week.

If I focused on the

things I can't change,

The things that have hurt me,

what people have done to me,

Then they would've

already broken me.

They would've have

killed me inside and out.

I get up

in the morning

And I don't feel sorry

for myself.

I don't hate my life.

You have a lot

of people in here that

All they can think about

is what they don't have

And how much

they want out

And how much they want

something else.

But for some reason

this situation has helped me

To see more

of what I do have

And to be thankful

for that.

You know, I have-

In a lot of ways

I have a truly

incredible life.

Darrell Greene:
in less than 17

hours, the fates of Damien Echols

Jason Baldwin, and Jessie

Miskelly could be decided.

A special hearing

in Jonesboro

Will bring together

families of the victims

And the three

convicted murderers

Known as

the west Memphis three

For what could be an explosive

resolution in this infamous case.

( Police siren whooping )

( Police radio chatter )

Male reporter:
now judge David Burnett

- He was the judge

Who rejected that the new DNA.

Testing should get them a new trial-

He was elected to the

state senate last year,

So a new judge, judge

David laser, was appointed.

That's a major change

in the case.

Also the supreme court disagreed

with former judge Burnett

And said the DNA. Testing

did warrant at least a hearing

To consider the

possibility of a new trial.

Now that hearing

was set for December,

But yesterday judge laser

and the attorneys involved

Surprised everybody by

calling this hearing today.

Male reporter #2:

it could all come to an end

Or just mark the beginning

for even more of the same.

Male reporter:
so what's gonna

happen? Are they just literal-

I mean, they've been convicted

of killing these kids.

Are they just going to

walk out of jail?

Female reporter:
well, what we

have heard, what could happen today

Is that they could enter something that's

very unusual called "Alford Pleas. "

And the three men will say,

"look, we are innocent,

But in order to get out of

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes