![]() ![]() 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. The District Court reasoned that "even if were required to bring their action under the habeas corpus statutes, it is not an inflexible determination that they must bring their action in the district of confinement. In this case, the District Court construed the prisoners' complaint as either an application for a writ of habeas corpus or an application for a writ of mandamus. This classification obviated any possibility of parole.Ī district court may not entertain a habeas corpus action unless it has personal jurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner. The Parole Commission thus classified the appellees' crimes as severity level six, among the most serious offenses. In this case, the Commission also determined that the crime that appellants were accessories to was the most serious crime investigated by the grand jury-murder. Notes and Procedures to 618(a), United States Parole Commission, Rules and Procedures Manual (1984) (providing for analogy to accessory after the fact). The guidelines do not explicitly treat the crime of criminal contempt, but the Commission has likened it to the crime of accessory after the fact. The guidelines also provide for a "salient factor score," which predicts the potential risk of parole violation by each prisoner. The guidelines rate the severity of crimes from severity level one, for minor crimes, to severity level eight for very serious crimes. Alabama.The Parole Commission generally follows a set of guidelines in determining prisoners' presumptive parole eligibility dates. Read Edwin Meese III’s amicus brief in William Ernest Kuenzel v. Bravin, “ Law-Enforcement Legends Team Up in Death-Penalty Fight,” Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2016.) See New Voices and Innocence. In an amicus brief, Meese calls the withholding of that evidence “the very worst kind of Brady violation, which resulted in condemning to death a defendant whose conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution and who is very likely actually innocent.” Morgenthau said of Kuenzel, “here’s no possible way he could have committed the murder.” Meese and Morgenthau also share a concern about the quality of representation in capital cases, and are calling for automatic appellate review of the competence of defense counsel. Since the trial, previously-withheld evidence has emerged that supports Kuenzel’s innocence claim, including police notes of an initial interview with Venn in which he said another man was in the car with him, and the grand jury testimony of the passerby in which the girl said that she “couldn’t really see” the faces of the men in the store. Venn agreed and spent only ten years in prison, but Kuenzel maintained his innocence and rejected the deal. Alabama prosecutors offered both men a deal for leniency if they agreed to plead guilty and testify against one another. He was convicted after Venn admitted to having driven the car, but claimed that Kuenzel had actually shot the clerk, and a 16-year-old passenger in a car that was passing by the store testified that she had seen Venn and Kuenzel inside the store. Kuenzel was implicated in the murder after a car belonging to Harvey Venn, a boarder in Kuenzel’s home, was seen near the crime scene. Meese and Morgenthau belong to different political parties and take opposing views on capital punishment, but both believe that Kuenzel was wrongfully convicted and condemned for the 1987 murder of a convenience store clerk and deserves a chance to present new evidence. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, believe that Alabama death row prisoner William Kuenzel is innocent and are urging the U.S. Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, and Robert Morgenthau, the long-time district attorney of Manhattan who served as a U.S. Edwin Meese III (pictured), who served as U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |