Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conviction reversed in microwaved baby case

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
InkAddict Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 03:16 AM
Original message
Conviction reversed in microwaved baby case
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/conviction-reversed-in-microwaved-baby-case--996252.html

Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals on Friday reversed China Arnold’s conviction in the 2005 microwave oven death of her 4-week-old daughter, Paris Talley.

Arnold, 30, is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville. The ruling means she could get a new trial and could be brought back to the Montgomery County Jail within days, her attorney, Jon Paul Rion, said.

The appeals court based its decision partially on “numerous acts of prosecutorial misconduct,” according to the ruling.

County Prosecutor Mathias H. Heck Jr. said in a statement that his office plans to ask the court to reconsider its decision. (more...)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reward for a dandy distraction???????

It's upsetting when a jury is satisfactorily seated and upon deliberation come to a conclusion and the law is meted out only to be overturned. How could there possibly be a lesser crime than being so drunk that....well, whatever happened that caused this baby's return to a twinkle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. numerous acts of prosecutorial misconduct. Elect better prosecutors
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. A witness from the first trial recanted
That testimony was used in the second trial after the witness could not be "found".

I don't know, but I think I would want a new trial under those conditions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC