More Appeals Information: From Alibis to Public Reaction

The ABC affiliate in Memphis reports that Jason Baldwin's original attorney, Paul Ford, thinks Baldwin's mother and uncle could prove the young man's alibi, but that they would not have made good witnesses at the original 1994 trial. The credibility and perception of witnesses played a key part in the original trials: Jessie Miskelley's alibi witnesses were thoroughly discredited on the stand - for example, see the testimony of Josh Darby - and Damien's testimony in his trial is generally thought to have hurt, rather than help, his case.

KATV in Arkansas also ran a piece about the public's reaction to the request for more DNA testing (Click to read article and see video - which for some reason won't embed). The piece doesn't contain a ton of great information, but it does shoe how contentious the debate about the case still is, as one of the comenters wanted to remain anonymous.

New Hearing Updates

New information about the upcoming new evidentiary hearing and possible new trial for the WM3 is coming out. Looks like all briefs must be filed by Feb. 18 - scheduling of an actual hearing will come sometime soon, hopefully.




Here's an article from KAIT, out of Jonesboro:
Lawyers for WM3, Arkansas meet with new judge

What is most interesting about this article is that it mentions a gag order on trial participants from the judge, who is apparently anticipating high media coverage (for obvious reasons) and possible problems with a biased jury pool (or at least he's trying to offset any problems).
It's an interesting question: Can a case of this magnitude get an unbiased jury? I'd like to look into that more.