WM3 Judge David Burnett breaks his silence after 18 years

Same sh!t...different diaper.

Cemetera wrote:

Same sh!t...different diaper.

He's still an ignorant ass!

if he was not going to be big enough to admit mistakes were made, he should have just kept his mouth shut

he should be asked direct questions, here's one for you senator: do you believe that someone convicted by a jury lead by a foreman with a predetermined agenda for conviction should have a new trial?

how can someone with so much experience and education be so in the dark......

do arkansas a favor and don't Run for Re election Senator

DB...STFU already? Sorryazz judge\person in the 80's with his mouthful of cud non evidence allowing azz. He taught me early in life that no matter what the facts were that it was the judges final call in his courtroom.

Better he juist keep silent another 18 yrs if that's the nonsense he has.

A judge is supposed to be fair and impartial and his job is to keep the attorneys on the straight and narrow. This judge failed just like the cops failed and the real killers of these kids walked. I can see why these young men took the plea deal, they wanted out of prison now, and a new trial would have took years. The people of Arkansas should be ashamed of the injustice given to these young man. The "cult expert" was a total joke and the Kent Arnold jury foreman should be in jail for jury misconduct.

The sad part is the Arkansas Supreme Court did affirm him so many times. But at least they finally saw the light.

Pardon the WM3!

No one overturned their convictions. What we saw a couple months ago was governmental corruption.

Who ever heard of someone convicted of a crime being given the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty 18 years and numerous appeals later?

The ONLY way the WM3 legally would have been able to enter a new plea is if a court had found good reason to order a new trial. That didn't happen in this case. Hell, the hearing to determine if a new trial was even required was still several months away.

We should all shudder at the idea that one judge in collusion with one prosecutor can set free 3 convicted murderers, 1 on death row, overturning the verdicts of 2 juries and several reviews by appellate courts all of which upheld the convictions every time.

guest wrote:

No one overturned their convictions. What we saw a couple months ago was governmental corruption.
Who ever heard of someone convicted of a crime being given the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty 18 years and numerous appeals later?
The ONLY way the WM3 legally would have been able to enter a new plea is if a court had found good reason to order a new trial. That didn't happen in this case. Hell, the hearing to determine if a new trial was even required was still several months away.
We should all shudder at the idea that one judge in collusion with one prosecutor can set free 3 convicted murderers, 1 on death row, overturning the verdicts of 2 juries and several reviews by appellate courts all of which upheld the convictions every time.

Hey psychopath ! They were granted new trials. That ruling is what made it possible for them to enter Alford pleas, not guilty pleas, idiot. You just keep your head up your ass to avoid all the facts. Typical.

Guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey psychopath ! They were granted new trials. That ruling is what made it possible for them to enter Alford pleas, not guilty pleas, idiot. You just keep your head up your ass to avoid all the facts. Typical.

Say it how you need to but an Alfred plea is a guilty plea. I get it that it is a legal way to work the system and it comes with the stipulation that on the record they maintain their innocence. They said yes we killed those boys but really we didn't. It's like false confessions. After hours and hours of mentally and emotionally exhausting interrogation you will admit to anything to get the
investigators to leave you alone. I don't know if they killed those boys or not. Neither do you. You believe they didn't and that's fine. I don't believe one way or another. I only hope to God they didn't bc if they did, we just disgraced the lives of those murdered boys.

Tremendous wrote:

<quoted text>
Say it how you need to but an Alfred plea is a guilty plea. I get it that it is a legal way to work the system and it comes with the stipulation that on the record they maintain their innocence. They said yes we killed those boys but really we didn't. It's like false confessions. After hours and hours of mentally and emotionally exhausting interrogation you will admit to anything to get the
investigators to leave you alone. I don't know if they killed those boys or not. Neither do you. You believe they didn't and that's fine. I don't believe one way or another. I only hope to God they didn't bc if they did, we just disgraced the lives of those murdered boys.

I have said since day one that the stepfather was the guilty party, and I still stand by that.

Tremendous wrote:

<quoted text>
Say it how you need to but an Alfred plea is a guilty plea. I get it that it is a legal way to work the system and it comes with the stipulation that on the record they maintain their innocence. They said yes we killed those boys but really we didn't. It's like false confessions. After hours and hours of mentally and emotionally exhausting interrogation you will admit to anything to get the
investigators to leave you alone. I don't know if they killed those boys or not. Neither do you. You believe they didn't and that's fine. I don't believe one way or another. I only hope to God they didn't bc if they did, we just disgraced the lives of those murdered boys.

An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Nothing you say can change that fact, pee wee. PERIOD. You can talk to the hand about them or anyone being guilty of something that no one has any evidence of. Try and snap out of it, if you can.

Them 3 boys was frame because they was not a rich Man son they was poor man kids money talks in the law

Guest wrote:

<quoted text>
An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Nothing you say can change that fact, pee wee. PERIOD. You can talk to the hand about them or anyone being guilty of something that no one has any evidence of. Try and snap out of it, if you can.

Umm. Yes it is..

They cant vote, they cant own a gun, they cant do anything else a convicted felon can do.. because they ARE convicted felons

Guest wrote:

<quoted text>
An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Nothing you say can change that fact, pee wee. PERIOD. You can talk to the hand about them or anyone being guilty of something that no one has any evidence of. Try and snap out of it, if you can.

It is a guilty plea. I didn't write the laws but I do understand them.

Guest wrote:

<quoted text>
An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Nothing you say can change that fact, pee wee. PERIOD. You can talk to the hand about them or anyone being guilty of something that no one has any evidence of. Try and snap out of it, if you can.

Damian why dont you shut the hell up. You are guility and you know. Rot in Hell

Tremendous wrote:

<quoted text>
It is a guilty plea. I didn't write the laws but I do understand them.

LOL. So when you go to court and enter a guilty plea, you've really entered an Alford plea; since according to your insanity, an Alford plea is a guilty plea ! LOL My advice......double up on your meds. Keep taking them until an Alford plea is an Alford plea. Good luck with your recovery, pee wee.

The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms defines the term Alford plea as: "A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court. The plea is commonly used in local and state courts in the United States."

According to University of Richmond Law Review, "When offering an Alford plea, a defendant asserts his innocence but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense."

A Guide to Military Criminal Law notes that under the Alford plea, "the defendant concedes that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still refuses to admit guilt."

The book Plea Bargaining's Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America published by Stanford University Press defines the plea as one in "which the defendant adheres to her claim of innocence even while allowing that the government has enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt".

According to the book Gender, Crime, and Punishment published by Yale University Press, "Under the Alford doctrine, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that the state has sufficient evidence to find him or her guilty, should the case go to trial."

Webster's New World Law Dictionary defines Alford plea as: "A guilty plea entered as part of a plea bargain by a criminal defendant who denies committing the crime or who does not actually admit his guilt. In federal courts, such plea may be accepted as long as there is evidence that the defendant is actually guilt

SOOO>. WHO needs their medication checked???

Anyone who claims an Alford plea is a guilty plea needs more than meds. Incoherent lunatics just can't accept the fact that an Alford plea is an Alford plea. There is no claim of innocence with a guilty plea. I am glad you took the time to finally read those facts and post them. Like your own post states "a defendant does not admit guilt" in an Alford plea.
If you get past these baby facts about what an Alford plea is, you realize it is just for disposition of a disputed criminal charge/case. I really don't see any real difference between an Alford plea and a no contest plea, nolo contendere.