Quote: (12-17-2013 11:18 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:
Merenguero, the daughter has already recanted her story 15 years ago, 6 months after the conviction, and the mother recanted as well. The appeals have been going on for that long. There was a re-investigation but I did not see any mention in the article that there was ever a Motion for a New Trial. Does this make any legal sense to you?
Quote: (12-17-2013 01:21 AM)Merenguero Wrote:
Procedurally, it is clear that what this guy needs to do is file a Motion for a New Trial based on after-discovered evidence. Attaching an Affidavit from the alleged victim would strengthen his argument. Such a Motion may or may not be untimely, based on the rules of that particular state. Often, situations where there is after-discovered evidence are treated differently than other situations. The mere fact that she is now changing her story in no way guarantees that he would be found not guilty. I saw a trial not too long ago where I was on deck waiting for my case to be called for trial. In this case, the victim who was the lone eye witness to the alleged incident completely changed her story and denied that the Defendant did anything to her. The judge still found the guy guilty. I have had two trials where the alleged victims unexpectedly decided to testify in my clients' favor and deny that they committed any wrongdoing. I think that in both cases the prosecutors were ill prepared and monolingual and therefore unable to effectively communicate with tbe alleged victims prior to trial. Both trials resulted in not guilty verdicts.
They most likely never filed a Motion for New Trial and they may very well be out of the box as far as filing such a Motion due to timing issues. If there is an exception to the deadline when there is after-discovered evidence, they may have a chance. Both Appeals and Motions for New Trials generally seek the same remedy, which is a new trial. The goal in an appeal is to prove that the trial judge committed reversible error which would justify the Defendant being granted a new trial. A Motion for New Trial can allege a number of other things, one of them being after-discovered evidence. Here, it doesn't seem as though it is being alleged that the trial judge ered. It is more of a claim that the alleged victim changed her story after the trial. The appellate courts' hands may therefore be tied unless reversible error is alleged and proven. If the Defendant has exhausted all his appeal rights and is not permitted to file a Motion for a New Trial, his only option may be to seek a gubernatorial pardon. Good luck with that. Even an extremely liberal governor wouldn't want the heat that setting free a so-called convicted rapist would bring with it.