Posted on 11/18/2006 2:41:05 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
MADISON, WI (AP) -- The man serving life prison sentences for killing six deer hunters in northern Wisconsin in 2004 disagrees with his attorney that there are no grounds to appeal his convictions, according to court documents filed Friday.
Chai Soua Vang, 37, mailed eight pages of handwritten documents from a prison in Iowa to the state Court of Appeals responding to his attorney's conclusion about the case, deputy clerk Sheelah Guild said.
"There is no prove (sic) beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vang intentionally killed those victims with the intent to kill," Vang wrote, repeating his trial testimony that one of the wounded hunters fired at him first and he acted in self-defense.
"Mr. Vang believe that the state and law enforcement racially charge him with the intentional," wrote Vang, a Hmong immigrant from St. Paul, Minn.
Vang asked the appeals court to appoint a "minority counsel" to represent him, contending "clearly this case is a matter of racial issue."
His appellate attorney, assistant state public defender Patrick Donnelly, has 30 days to respond to Vang's document before the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Wausau considers the case, Guild said.
Earlier, Vang had requested an extension of time to file his response, telling the court he was attempting to retain another attorney to appeal the convictions, Guild said. Vang had until Tuesday to file his response with the new deadline, Guild said.
The fatal shootings occurred during the deer hunt in November 2004 after a group of white hunters in Sawyer County confronted Vang over trespassing in a tree stand.
The 2006 hunting season begins Saturday - three days shy of the second anniversary of the slayings.
Vang testified during his trial that he shot the six hunters and wounded two more in self-defense, claiming one of them fired a shot in his direction after they shouted racial epithets and cursed at him.
The two survivors testified that Vang had begun walking away from the confrontation when he turned and opened fire.
Prosecutors convinced a jury that Vang reacted in an angry outburst, feeling disrespected by the hunters, and then tried to kill everyone so there would be no eyewitnesses.
Vang was sentenced to six consecutive life terms plus 165 years in prison.
Before his trial, Vang's attorney argued that admissions Vang made to police after he was arrested within hours of the shootings could not be used as evidence. A judge disagreed, ruling Vang made them voluntarily after waiving his rights to an attorney.
In his letter to the appeals court, Vang said he requested an attorney "prior to and during" questioning by two investigators on Nov. 22, 2004. Jail officials also knew that a public defender had asked several times to speak to Vang but the requests were denied, Vang said.
"The law enforcement did not respect Mr. Vang the right to counsel," Vang wrote.
And the two he "wounded?" A woman and a young boy.
"Cry Me A River" Ping!
Shame in a way that Wi cannot just strap him to a gurney.
Ted found that out the hard way down here in Florida.
I remember that Dianna, Vang was poaching, trespassing, wasn't he?
I don't know what the drill is in Wisconsin, but generally the bar rules allow a defense lawyer to opt out of an appeal if he certifies that there are no grounds for appeal. Otherwise, he would be knowingly filing a pleading without any merit and violating his oath (yeah, I know, I know, but there are quite a number of lawyers who take that oath seriously. You just don't read about them in the news because they do their jobs well and go home without talking to the media, and that doesn't sell papers).
The fact that the guy thinks his own version of the truth should have prevailed goes exactly nowhere with an appellate court. It's axiomatic that the jury and only the jury finds the facts. When two opposite stories are told before a jury, it is the jury's job to discern which story is true. And so long as SOME evidence supports the jury's decision, there is absolutely nothing that an appellate court can do to overturn that decision.
There was plenty of evidence presented to the jury that this was cold-blooded murder and not self-defense. The racial issue was fully explored before the jury as well. Again, purely a matter for the jury to determine.
That's why the defense lawyer opted out. And that's why this pro-se appeal is going nowhere. The appellate court will hear it and reject it, and he'll get started on serving that sentence.
Too bad Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty, this would have been an ideal case to impose it.
Actual, the woman and young MAN were both murdered. It was two older men who survived. Not that it matters much, this worthless POS still should have met "Gladys".
Yes, he was. And this guy was also in trouble before for other felonies, and was also a wife-beater. (But, that's just "cultural" don't 'cha know.) Of course, it was yet another example of society letting a psycho run wild until the worst of the worst happens. A very sad situation.
"Too bad Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty, this would have been an ideal case to impose it."
This case and the Steven Avery case. Do a search if you're not familiar with it, but do so on an empty stomach.
We are in the grip of stupid socialism up here. Everyone can turn their lives around if only the taxpayers would fork over an endless stream of money for social services! It's really the FAULT of law-abiding citizens that these psycho-freaks feel "dis-enfranchised" don't you know? /Sarcasm
Our non-binding referendum on the Death Penalty passed with a large majority. However, since Republicans lost seats in the WI Assembly, the DP will not come up for discussion for another four years at the very earliest. Neither will Concealed Carry. And if our 'Rat Governor gets his way, we'll all have our weapons confiscated. (But the Bad Guys get to keep their illegal weaponry.) *Rolleyes*
We are sitting ducks if we need to defend ourselves while off of our own property in this state. It's maddening!
Thanks. I get blind-sided by my rage over this case.
And the consequences of screwing up are almost as severe.
I'm not an attorney, but occasionally know enough to enable me to really irritate some who are. LOL
Just don't represent yourself! Hock the dog if you have to, but don't go pro-se. It's a losing proposition.
When facing an opposing attorney, I totally agree.
Yeah, you're probably safe in small claims, or traffic court (so long as the other driver isn't claiming whiplash).
This Vang critter needs to meet death and be reincarnated in accord with his wacko shamanic practices. Among other things he was a Hmong "voodoo" man
So far, so good this hunting season. Our family has taken out one nice buck (12 points) and six doe so far, with many more days to hunt.
The only two fatalities here so far were two guys that had a malfunctioning heater in their deer shack and they subcombed to fumes in their sleep. But then, they nearly killed themselves this way LAST year, too! *Shakes Head*
My guess is the deer population needs a severe thinning out where you are and your family is doing it's part. Darwin award for the dopes who don't know how to heat their hunting shack. Demon rum was likely involved
The only two fatalities here so far were two guys that had a malfunctioning heater in their deer shack ....
The grim reaper hunted them down before they got to hunt down deer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.