Thus far Joycelyn's appeals have been denied, and on Oct. 6, Rick's appeal was denied by the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi. In the end, the court declared the corroboration sufficient. "We are aware of the absence of guiding case precedent in this area of the law, but we are confident that the legislature would have combined the informant and accomplice corroboration provisions if it had intended to prohibit an informant from corroborating the testimony of an accomplice and vice versa."
The leftists that wrote this hit piece did their best to make Bell look like a fool and Edna look like an evil little town. But the fact is that THEY WERE CONVICTED BY A JURY OF A CRIME. Are we to overturn juries which know all the facts of the case, on the basis of slanted MSM articles like this? Or is the objective to let the legal system, which we generally agree is tilted FOR defendants, do its job, and let the press do its job of reporting the facts instead of smearing people with faux investigative reporting like this?
I don't know Bell, I don't know Edna, but I do know this kind of article and this kind of paper. And I am not about to kneejerk to the side of the dealers simply because the newspaper thinks it's possible some OTHER "big Rick" did it. If you don't like the law, work to change it. I do. If you don't like Bell, change Edna and get them to elect someone else, or move. But I'm not about to deny the validity of the jury system from afar. The convicts had their chance to convince a jury and failed to do so. I doubt they were railroaded, no matter how this article makes it sound, or the court of appeals would have ruled differently.
Who said anything about overturning juries?