On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
>
> Specifically:
>
> A petitioner asserting his actual innocence of the underlying crime must
> show "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted
> him in light of the new evidence" presented in his habeas petition.
>
> A capital petitioner challenging his death sentence, in particular, must
> show "by clear and convincing evidence" that no reasonable juror would have
> found him eligible for the death penalty in light of the new evidence.
And just exactly how is one supposed to do that? How do you 'prove' what
somebody else will do hypotheticaly? Clear and convincing to who? The
juror or the court?
Clearly unconstitutional.
--
____________________________________________________________________
"...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;"
Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
