Idaho Death Row Inmate Wins Retrial

AP ^ | 11/7/6 | REBECCA BOONE

[SmithL]

A man sentenced to death for the slayings of a young Texas couple camped in the Idaho wilderness must be released or retried, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Mark Henry Lankford has been on Idaho's death row for more than two decades for the 1983 bludgeoning slayings of Marine Capt. Robert Bravence and his wife, Cheryl.

However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Lankford received ineffective assistance from his attorney

[SmithL]

The 9th Circus is still obstructing justice.

[SmithL]

How are you voting for the US Senate?

[Brilliant]

When you give a death row inmate a new trial after two decades, you might as well order that they be set free. The evidence and witnesses will be gone.

[Alberta's Child]

There may be legitimate grounds to order a retrial, but this "ineffective assistance" nonsense has to change.

Any time a court overturns a conviction based on "ineffective assistance" like this, the lawyer in question should be charged with a felony (violating his/her client's civil rights, for example) that could put them in prison for ten years.

Let's see how quickly this would clean up the legal profession.

[Domandred]

Problem isn't the 9th circuit. Problem is this guy should have been offed a long time ago, then we wouldn't have to worry about the 9th coming in 20 years later and letting the guy go.

[CottShop]

9 out of ten democrats are in love with death row inmates, a new Pewey poll suggest

Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...

[edcoil]

You could argue that any lawyer losing a case provided "ineffective assistance" from his attorney since you lost and the other attorney won. You therefore had ineffective assistance.

[John123]

Anyone familiar with this crime? Surprisingly, the Internet doesn't give much details. Apparently, there are two brothers who were convicted of kiling a Marine and his wife (from Texas) in the Idaho wilderness. One brother testified against the other for life imprisonment while the other got the death penalty. The one that testified, recanted and said he did the killing and the other brother wasn't involved. Sounds pretty convoluted to me but what the heck... Anyone?

[Condor51]

Mark Lankford's attorney, Gregory FitzMaurice, told the jury they could consider Bryan Lankford's testimony even though it was uncorroborated, the appellate court found. That prejudiced the jury against Mark Lankford and effectively denied him his right to effective counsel, the 9th Circuit found.

WTF!!!
Then the same would hold true of a confession, any testimony by a witness, or ANY evidence. DAMMIT, that's the whole freaking point in getting a freaking conviction - to get the jury prejudiced against the defendant so they find him guilty.

This HAS to be appealed to SCOTUS NOW!!!

*&^&%^ $%#@# {*&$!

[babygene]

"There may be legitimate grounds to order a retrial, but this "ineffective assistance" nonsense has to change"

The lawyer in this case is the counsel for IDAHO COUNTY LIGHT & POWER, an energy cooperative. The perp probably did get "ineffective assistance".

In this case, one brother testified against the other and got a deal. I never like it when the prosecution "buys" testimony.

[siunevada]

Mark Lankford's attorney, Gregory FitzMaurice, told the jury they could consider Bryan Lankford's testimony even though it was uncorroborated

Gee, I always thought the judge decided what evidence was admissable. This reads as if he's handing out jury instructions.

[Condor51]

****Gee, I always thought the judge decided what evidence was admissable. This reads as if he's handing out jury instructions.****

Right on the judge. If what this lawyer said was legally wrong, the judge should have stopped him PDQ and instructed the jury to disregard.

[Ramzi]

The opinion was written by Jay S. Bybee, appointed by George W. Bush. However, he was joined by two liberal judges. Nevertheless, I will withhold judgment until I read the opinion.