Saturday, May 7, 2011

What will be different in a third Corey Lyons murder trial. The past Juror's havespoken!

 . I am stuck here wondering what else I can write about today. Oh I know how about the Correspondence dinner last week in Washington, and the way President Obama dealt with the non issue of his birth certificate. Now I am not sure what is required in Hawaii to obtain a copy but really how hard did anyone want to see this document? So we all should put the real unresolved issues of say Terrorism or Wall Street to the side. While those who are considering to run for President do so on a Birth Certificate agenda.  Thank God that President Obama is able to multi task and as we all know by now had much bigger issues being dealt with simultaneously. Speaking of the President is it me or has the President started to come into his own? Call me crazy but I think maybe the rest of the country is finally getting what he has been about from the beginning. I really look forward to seeing what great things are still to come from his Presidency.

How hard did anyone really want to solve the birth certificate issue? Humm that’s like saying how hard did the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office really work at trying to convict Corey Lyons. Well based on what this juror had to say from the first trial I have a real issue with the effort and expectations of the D.A.’s office. How can one expect to convict on circumstantial evidence when in all honestly there was no real effort to gather any. I say that based on the testimony of the man whose responsibility it was to search for this evidence in the first place.

 Criminalist “Ullemeyer then shifted to describing to the jury how and why he processed the home’s downstairs back door for fingerprints. All of the other doors and windows were locked from the inside, he explained, meaning the downstairs patio door was most likely the entrance used by the suspect or suspects. There was no indication fingerprints would have been found elsewhere, Ullemeyer said, so he didn’t process any areas other than the door, its handle, and the rod — then removed — used to keep it from sliding open all the way. To fingerprint the entire house would have been “time prohibitive,”

Based on that testimony you can see why the juror here made the comment that they did. 
COMMENT 170522 2011-05-05 02:52 PM
“I was on the original jury for this trial and there is virtually no hard evidence to prove Corey Lyons did it. There is a Mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to him but almost no hard evidence. The thing that you have to remember in any case is that the jury is not there to say "we think so and so did it" The jury is there to decide whether the prosecution has PROVEN that so-and-so did it, and its an almost impossible job in this case”
What blew me away  was the 29 comments on this web site had even though there daily email had virtually no coverage of any part of the second trial except for the verdict.

Than District Attorney Joyce Dudley was quoted as saying “justice demands that there is a retrial” .  With so many county workers faced with losing there jobs is she telling there families’ saving face is more important than there survival?  There are equal parts to a prosecutor’s responsibility and none is greater than the other. "A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign, has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant is accorded procedural justice." (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th35, 48.)

  I must emphasize here that you all consider what a huge advantages the prosecution has had in both trials up to this point. The prosecution already knew after the first mistrial and the 30 days they spent presenting there case, the jury would not have convicted Corey Lyons. However based on there most recent 46 days I am hard pressed to see how there second effort was any kind of improvement. In fact in the Santa Barbara news press story yesterday juror after juror stated point blank that the prosecution did not prove their case. Prosecution 76 days Defense 0, and had Mr. Sanger used all that was available to him. I and others feel an acquittal would have been the likely out come.

 So I ask District Attorney Joyce Dudley what has changed in two days after your office was defeated by the No Defense Defense, to make you feel that next time you will get a conviction (Magic Maybe)? You see people, that is why the absence of any accurate coverage of either trial is harmful to us all. It opens the door for a week minded person to think they can use a third try and manipulate an unjust verdict.

"Physical evidence cannot be intimidated.  It does not forget.  It sets there and waits to be detected, preserved, evaluated and explained." Words to live by in the future Mr. Ullemeyer. Oh that’s right I found the quote on your web page @ than you can visit my blog @

No comments: