\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

SUPREME COURT FUCKS OVER DEFENDANT WHO GOT POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, REVERSES

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-848_pok0.pdf ...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
- there was other evidence his conviction was based on - t...
greedy faggot firefighter
  10/08/15
Yeah but the fact that now we know that ballistic evidence u...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
"defendant is guilty for cogent, independent reasons A,...
greedy faggot firefighter
  10/08/15
...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
DESCRIBE why you think his counsel was ineffective under the...
Chrome depressive foreskin
  10/08/15
Kulbicki’s counsel, according to the court, should have fou...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
so there was one fucking report that might have called the b...
greedy faggot firefighter
  10/08/15
Everyone now agrees that the ballistic evidence used in that...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
Why does that mean it was ineffective assistance of counsel?
Chrome depressive foreskin
  10/08/15
"defendant is guilty for cogent, independent reasons A,...
greedy faggot firefighter
  10/08/15
You'd have a problem if the jury thought A, B, and C were ne...
lascivious brilliant elastic band
  10/29/15
the reviewing court found that the lack of c did not change ...
Multi-colored Onyx Private Investor
  10/29/15
Right, but not then. Also, the fucking faggot DID IT.
Ebony roommate
  10/08/15
How the fuck is it fair to be convicted on faulty evidentiar...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
then why aren't his current lawyers arguing that he should g...
greedy faggot firefighter
  10/08/15
Thats what they are doing.
Misunderstood Native
  10/29/15
rate the case
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
Strickland seems like a bad vehicle for this argument. Seems...
Misunderstood Native
  10/29/15
Right but this whole thing about the attorney not being requ...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
In a perfect world and attorney would be expected to fight e...
Misunderstood Native
  10/29/15
Good point. Do you think the AEDPA deferential standard for ...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
Yes, I think it's bullshit and it goes against the core purp...
Misunderstood Native
  10/29/15
I totally agree. Another big issue I have is with the "...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
I dont think there is a reasonable alternative. Nearly every...
Misunderstood Native
  10/29/15
Good point. Can you give an example of a real case u might h...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
I can't provide specific examples but one category of cases ...
Misunderstood Native
  10/29/15
"Once a criminal, always a criminal." Right. I tot...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
You have to meet the harmless error standard head-on and por...
Misunderstood Native
  10/29/15
Good points. Rate this critique of the seminal SCOTUS opi...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
So basically what the lower court said? EXPLAIN why you thi...
Chrome depressive foreskin
  10/08/15
In the Court of Appeals’ view, any good attorney should hav...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
"unanimous per curiam" Bro, that's redundant.
Ebony roommate
  10/08/15
But see Bush v. Gore.
Chrome depressive foreskin
  10/08/15
no it isnt
greedy faggot firefighter
  10/08/15
Yes it is. Whole point is so reader can't tell who wrote the...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
"reader can't tell who wrote the opinion" - correc...
greedy faggot firefighter
  10/08/15
thanks bro. You are right. It was an oversight on my part.
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
(Perfect advocate)
Aphrodisiac Whorehouse Cuckoldry
  10/08/15
Great opinion. Even if this guy is due any relief stemming ...
Big travel guidebook
  10/08/15
so if he files a new motion on basis of new evidence should ...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/08/15
can't say. depends on how strong the rest of the evidence w...
Big travel guidebook
  10/08/15
how is this a great opinion, oh scholarly warlord?
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15
180
Submissive erotic double fault set
  10/29/15
First, and perhaps most obvious, is Gregg v Georgia's utter ...
House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House
  10/29/15


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:18 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-848_pok0.pdf

despite the fact that the ballistic evidence used to convict him was bullshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925480)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:25 AM
Author: greedy faggot firefighter

- there was other evidence his conviction was based on

- that's why he raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

- that claim was bullshit because no one at the time of the trial doubted the ballistics method used was cogent

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925520)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:27 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

Yeah but the fact that now we know that ballistic evidence used by that shady fbi agent wasn't fair should suggest that SCOTUS rectify this error by giving him some sort of relief...what kind of strickland standard is it to say we will judge the competence (or lack thereof) of an attorney by "contemporary norms"? Lol fuck this place

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925532)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:29 AM
Author: greedy faggot firefighter

"defendant is guilty for cogent, independent reasons A, B, and C"

*is convicted*

*reason C turns out to be not so cogent*

*is released even though A and B remain cogent*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925546)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 11:38 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067038)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:24 AM
Author: Chrome depressive foreskin

DESCRIBE why you think his counsel was ineffective under the Strickland standard, shitlib.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925512)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:25 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

Kulbicki’s counsel,

according to the court, should have found a report

coauthored by Agent Peele in 1991 that “presaged the

flaws in CBLA evidence.” 440 Md., at 40, 99 A. 3d, at 734.

One of the many findings of the report was that the composition

of lead in some bullets was the same as that of

lead in other bullets packaged many months later in a

separate box. Rather than conduct “further research to

explain the existence of overlapping compositions,” the

authors “speculated” that coincidence (or, in one case, the

likelihood that separately packaged bullets originated

from the same source of lead) caused the overlap. Id., at

49, 99 A. 3d, at 739. The Court of Appeals opined that this

lone finding should have caused the report’s authors to

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925519)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:28 AM
Author: greedy faggot firefighter

so there was one fucking report that might have called the ballistics method in question buried somewhere and its ultimate conclusion the ballistics test was valid anyway

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925537)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:29 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

Everyone now agrees that the ballistic evidence used in that time was absolute bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925542)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:29 AM
Author: Chrome depressive foreskin

Why does that mean it was ineffective assistance of counsel?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925547)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:29 AM
Author: greedy faggot firefighter

"defendant is guilty for cogent, independent reasons A, B, and C"

*is convicted*

*reason C turns out to be not so cogent*

*is released even though A and B remain cogent*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925549)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:04 PM
Author: lascivious brilliant elastic band

You'd have a problem if the jury thought A, B, and C were necessary to surmount the reasonable doubt threshold. A and B alone might not have been enough to the jury, regardless of what appellate courts think.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067160)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:29 PM
Author: Multi-colored Onyx Private Investor

the reviewing court found that the lack of c did not change the reasonableness of the verdict. that's the only conclusion that results in no relief. it's not an unusual conclusion, either.

yes, poor guy, you are correct on this point. too bad it doesn't change anything for you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067311)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:30 AM
Author: Ebony roommate

Right, but not then. Also, the fucking faggot DID IT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925551)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:31 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

How the fuck is it fair to be convicted on faulty evidentiary grounds? Im sure the jury largely convicted on the basis of the ballistic evidence

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925559)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:05 PM
Author: greedy faggot firefighter

then why aren't his current lawyers arguing that he should get a new trial?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925774)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 11:40 AM
Author: Misunderstood Native

Thats what they are doing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067049)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 11:58 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

rate the case

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067143)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:07 PM
Author: Misunderstood Native

Strickland seems like a bad vehicle for this argument. Seems reasonable for an attorney to trust broadly accepted scientific processes. Too bad there isnt some sort of after-discovered evidence claim that would be cognizable at this stage.

3/10

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067176)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:09 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

Right but this whole thing about the attorney not being required to critique existing scientific "truths" seems ridiculous--

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067187)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:13 PM
Author: Misunderstood Native

In a perfect world and attorney would be expected to fight every asserted fact (scientific or otherwise) tooth and nail, but that's not the reality of are justice system. An attorney with limited time and resources needs to make judgement calls about where to expend his effort, he can't be expected to fight scientific consensus without having good reason to believe it would be fruitful.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067215)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:17 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

Good point. Do you think the AEDPA deferential standard for "unreasonable application" of law should be reformed? I mean, it basically prevents so many potentially meritorious cases from getting post-conviction relief

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067232)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:24 PM
Author: Misunderstood Native

Yes, I think it's bullshit and it goes against the core purpose for allowing federal collateral attack - which is to fix fuckups made by sTTTate supreme courts. It escapes me why we should only be interested in fixing manifestly ridiculous fuckups, while ignoring run of the mill fuckups.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067280)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:28 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

I totally agree. Another big issue I have is with the "harmless error" standard for appellate review-- it basically constitutes an unconstitutional "jurisdictional stripping" provision by rendering a likely set of errors as a no biggie because in the estimation of the court it didn't alter the lower court jury/judge determination. What do u think of the harmless error standard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067303)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:35 PM
Author: Misunderstood Native

I dont think there is a reasonable alternative. Nearly every trial will have some kind of error in there, a judge will typically make dozens or even hundreds of legal conclusions, evidentiary rulings, etc. If appellate courts were bound to reverse over any articulable legal error, 90% of convictions would be reversed. In truth, there is no reason to reverse a conviction if some harmless hearsay statement comes in. So someone has to make the call whether a proposed error requires reversal. Might as well be the appellate court.

Having said that, I think harmless error is often abused by appellate courts. That is the real problem, not the notion of harmless error itself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067341)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:36 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

Good point. Can you give an example of a real case u might have read where an appellate court "abused" the harmless error standard? Was it a situation where the "error" was in fact a central blunder that caused a travesty of justice?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067353)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:45 PM
Author: Misunderstood Native

I can't provide specific examples but one category of cases that springs to mind is where 404(b) evidence is erroneously admitted. So the jury will erroneously hear, for example, that a defendant was convicted of a crime that bears very little resemblance to the crime alleged. I have often seen appellate courts brush this aside if the other evidence against the defenant is strong. It seems to me that this completely ignores the impact that this type of evidence has on a jury.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067414)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:47 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

"Once a criminal, always a criminal." Right. I totally agree. Well, let's say you are a criminal appellate defense attorney. How would you craft your brief? Would you try to argue fairness considerations or go heavy on caselaw citations? It seems like appellate judges often decide cases on the basis of what THEY THEMSELVES consider fair, and then try to justify their pre-conceived notion of how the case should be decided by masquerading it with a slew of caselaw research they order from their Law Clerks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067434)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:53 PM
Author: Misunderstood Native

You have to meet the harmless error standard head-on and portray the case as very boderline/weak, one in which the erroneous evidence pushed it over the line. If you can point to ways in which the erroneously admitted evidence plugged in holes in the Govt's case, all the better. If you can find caselaw on point, great. But more than likely youre going to be slogging through the facts of your particular case in your brief.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067472)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:59 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

Good points.

Rate this critique of the seminal SCOTUS opinion finding the death penalty constitutional:

"First, and perhaps most obvious, is Gregg’s utter failure to truly ameliorate the central concerns raised in Furman. The Georgia statute alone demonstrates the

impossibility of avoiding (or perhaps even reducing) arbitrariness. For example, juries are instructed to impose death if one of ten “aggravating circumstances” is met. These circumstances are inherently ambiguous, however, and ultimately require considerable jury discretion to determine both whether they are present and what each means. For example, the Gregg statute asks jurors to decide whether murder involving “depravity of

mind” or “aggravated battery to the victim” was present. Yet nearly all murders will involve these two factors, and no larger explanation is provided.

Perhaps just as disingenuously, Furman and Gregg reversed McGautha without explicitly saying so. Although prima facie reasonable, the Court’s attempt to separate process and outcome was an incoherent exercise The two concepts are intimately connected; the ideas of process and outcome only make sense in relation to one another. As one scholar asserts, Stewart and White had simply “changed their minds” without saying so from the time between McGautha and Gregg."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067495)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:28 AM
Author: Chrome depressive foreskin

So basically what the lower court said? EXPLAIN why you think the unanimous per curiam SCOTUS got it wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925539)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:30 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

In the Court of Appeals’ view, any good attorney should

have spotted this methodological flaw. The court held that

counsel’s failure to unearth the report, to identify one of

its findings as “at odds with the scientific method,” and to

use this methodological flaw to cast doubt on CBLA during

counsel’s cross-examination of Peele, “fell short of prevailing

professional norms.” Id., at 50–53, 99 A. 3d, at 740–

742. Concluding that counsel’s supposed deficiency was

prejudicial, the court set aside the conviction and ordered

a new trial. Id., at 56, 99 A. 3d, at 743–744.

We reverse. The Court of Appeals offered no support for

its conclusion that Kulbicki’s defense attorneys were

constitutionally required to predict the demise of CBLA.

Instead, the court indulged in the “natural tendency to

speculate as to whether a different trial strategy might

have been more successful.” Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506

U. S. 364, 372 (1993). To combat this tendency, we have

“adopted the rule of contemporary assessment of counsel’s

conduct.” Ibid. Had the Court of Appeals heeded this

rule, it would have “judge[d] the reasonableness of counsel’s

challenged conduct . . . viewed as of the time of counsel’s

conduct.” Strickland, supra, at 690

I BEG TO DIFFER WITH SCOTUS...ANY GOOD ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST CHALLENGING THE VERACITY OF BALLISTIC EVIDENCE LIKE WTF

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925554)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:30 AM
Author: Ebony roommate

"unanimous per curiam"

Bro, that's redundant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925555)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:03 PM
Author: Chrome depressive foreskin

But see Bush v. Gore.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925763)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:05 PM
Author: greedy faggot firefighter

no it isnt

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925779)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:07 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

Yes it is. Whole point is so reader can't tell who wrote the opinion and its unanimous

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925787)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:08 PM
Author: greedy faggot firefighter

"reader can't tell who wrote the opinion" - correct

"its unanimous" - incorrect

scotus has issued per curiam opinions that have dissents many times. why dont u know this since u spend half ur time reading their opinions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925794)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:23 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

thanks bro. You are right. It was an oversight on my part.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925884)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 11:27 AM
Author: Aphrodisiac Whorehouse Cuckoldry

(Perfect advocate)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925531)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:11 PM
Author: Big travel guidebook

Great opinion.

Even if this guy is due any relief stemming from the fact that this kind of evidence is no longer seen as valid, the relief would not be on the basis of his trial counsel's failure to read some obscure report that began to call that kind of evidence into question. There are post-conviction motions that you can file on the basis of new and material evidence that was not available at trial.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925805)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:23 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

so if he files a new motion on basis of new evidence should he be granted relief?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925895)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 8th, 2015 12:25 PM
Author: Big travel guidebook

can't say. depends on how strong the rest of the evidence was.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#28925908)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 11:39 AM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

how is this a great opinion, oh scholarly warlord?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067040)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:47 PM
Author: Submissive erotic double fault set

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067432)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 29th, 2015 12:51 PM
Author: House-broken Scarlet Coldplay Fan House

First, and perhaps most obvious, is Gregg v Georgia's utter failure to truly ameliorate the central concerns raised in Furman. The Georgia statute alone demonstrates the

impossibility of avoiding (or perhaps even reducing) arbitrariness. For example, juries are instructed to impose death if one of ten “aggravating circumstances” is met. These circumstances are inherently ambiguous, however, and ultimately require considerable jury discretion to determine both whether they are present and what each means. For example, the Gregg statute asks jurors to decide whether murder involving “depravity of

mind” or “aggravated battery to the victim” was present. Yet nearly all murders will involve these two factors, and no larger explanation is provided

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3011750&forum_id=2#29067460)