Post by SoulTrainOz on Jul 4, 2006 23:46:00 GMT -5
A judge's order last year granting longtime death-row inmate Michael Pinch of Greensboro a new trial will likely stand for good after the state Supreme Court declined last week to review it, his lawyer said Monday.
Prosecutors with the state Attorney General's Office had petitioned the court to overturn the order, saying that numerous errors in the judge's ruling could lead to a flood of challenges to state death sentences.
The state is now considering whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, something requested by Guilford County prosecutors. The nation's highest court doesn't have to hear the case, however. Pinch's lawyer, Jim Cooney of Charlotte, believes they likely won't because there are no issues of national significance in the case.
"I think (the state Supreme Court's decision) effectively guarantees there will be a new trial," said Cooney, who has represented Pinch for 14 years.
In the meantime, Pinch, 46, remains on death row, where he has stayed longer than all but 1 inmate currently in the state.
He was 20 when he received 2 death sentences for fatally shooting Freddie Pacheco, 19, and Tommy Ausley, 18, at a bikers clubhouse in Greensboro in 1979.
Though several appeals failed, a 2nd round of post-conviction appeals eventually landed in front of now-retired Superior Court Judge Melzer A. Morgan Jr. of Rockingham County. Morgan determined in March 2005 that Pinch probably didn't receive a fair trial.
Morgan found that prosecutors had withheld information from Pinch's defense lawyers, including that the state's primary witness had told varying versions of the events of that night. The judge determined that these and other details might have swayed the jury to a different verdict.
In its appeal of the ruling, state prosecutors asked the justices to
resolve 14 issues, including that the judge erred in his belief that
prosecutors withheld evidence.
By choosing Thursday not to review the case, the state Supreme Court sidestepped a legal controversy over whether a defendant has a constitutional right to effective counsel after conviction. Contrary to other judges in the state, Morgan ruled that defendants are entitled to this right. Under this logic, prosecutors believe that defendants could file never-ending rounds of appeals, arguing that new issues weren't raised earlier because of ineffective post-conviction counsel.
State law normally gives defendants only one shot at that stage;
successive appeals are said to be "procedurally barred" by statute.
"You've got to draw the line somewhere," said Howard Neumann, Guildford's chief assistant district attorney.
Though Morgan's ruling on the issue is not precedent-setting, Neumann said prosecutors would like the issue resolved.
(source: News-Record)
Prosecutors with the state Attorney General's Office had petitioned the court to overturn the order, saying that numerous errors in the judge's ruling could lead to a flood of challenges to state death sentences.
The state is now considering whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, something requested by Guilford County prosecutors. The nation's highest court doesn't have to hear the case, however. Pinch's lawyer, Jim Cooney of Charlotte, believes they likely won't because there are no issues of national significance in the case.
"I think (the state Supreme Court's decision) effectively guarantees there will be a new trial," said Cooney, who has represented Pinch for 14 years.
In the meantime, Pinch, 46, remains on death row, where he has stayed longer than all but 1 inmate currently in the state.
He was 20 when he received 2 death sentences for fatally shooting Freddie Pacheco, 19, and Tommy Ausley, 18, at a bikers clubhouse in Greensboro in 1979.
Though several appeals failed, a 2nd round of post-conviction appeals eventually landed in front of now-retired Superior Court Judge Melzer A. Morgan Jr. of Rockingham County. Morgan determined in March 2005 that Pinch probably didn't receive a fair trial.
Morgan found that prosecutors had withheld information from Pinch's defense lawyers, including that the state's primary witness had told varying versions of the events of that night. The judge determined that these and other details might have swayed the jury to a different verdict.
In its appeal of the ruling, state prosecutors asked the justices to
resolve 14 issues, including that the judge erred in his belief that
prosecutors withheld evidence.
By choosing Thursday not to review the case, the state Supreme Court sidestepped a legal controversy over whether a defendant has a constitutional right to effective counsel after conviction. Contrary to other judges in the state, Morgan ruled that defendants are entitled to this right. Under this logic, prosecutors believe that defendants could file never-ending rounds of appeals, arguing that new issues weren't raised earlier because of ineffective post-conviction counsel.
State law normally gives defendants only one shot at that stage;
successive appeals are said to be "procedurally barred" by statute.
"You've got to draw the line somewhere," said Howard Neumann, Guildford's chief assistant district attorney.
Though Morgan's ruling on the issue is not precedent-setting, Neumann said prosecutors would like the issue resolved.
(source: News-Record)