Ernest Willis seeking new trial, wants verdict set aside

[BASSENCO]

Ernest Willis, convicted on four counts of sexual assault against Tina Anderson, is now seeking to have his guilty verdict set aside and is asking for a new trial. Willis’ defense attorneys have filed several motions arguing that evidence was not sufficient to convict Willis of forcible rape. (Willis pleaded guilty to one count of statutory rape, but has been found guilty of both statutory rape and forcible rape.) They further assert that a taped interview with Conciord police, which was played for the jury, was prejudicial beacuse it included remarks from detectives expressing skepticism about Willis’s version of events.

Judge Larry Smukler, who heard the case, must rule on the motions to set aside the verdict. If he dismisses the motions, then Willis will appeal, according to public defender Donna Brown.

Prosecutor Wayne Coull has promised to review the motions and file file objections against them.

The full story can be found here:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/26...SGroupId=1

[grace2live]

Seems like a pretty standard move in lots of defense cases, asking to have the verdict set aside or else asking for an appeal. I hope they don't throw out the taped interview.

[leaving]

Now this does not surprise me in the slightest. He's suffering persecution you know. *rolleyes*

[pastor's wife]

Sure, it's a common tactic of defense lawyers. However, and here's the rub, is it appropriate for a believer?

If someone has repented of their sin and supposedly been restored to fellowship in the church, should they not accept the punishment meted out by the state? If they are truly repentant, they shouldn't, IMO, try to wiggle their way out of the consequences. A truly repentant heart to me is one that says, "I sinned so egregiously; I sinned against God and against you; nothing I do could ever make up for the evil way I behaved toward you," instead of "Yeah, what I did was bad, but not too bad, and I really don't deserve jail time." (Not that that's what he's saying; just using that as an example.)

When God tells us to not be like the world, I really don't think it's means to only listen to hymns and to never get tattoos or wear culottes instead of pants. I think it's stuff like this: when you do wrong, you repent with sincerity and humility.

[boymom]

(06-07-2011 08:32 AM)pastors wife Wrote:  Sure, it's a common tactic of defense lawyers. However, and here's the rub, is it appropriate for a believer?

If someone has repented of their sin and supposedly been restored to fellowship in the church, should they not accept the punishment meted out by the state? If they are truly repentant, they shouldn't, IMO, try to wiggle their way out of the consequences. A truly repentant heart to me is one that says, "I sinned so egregiously; I sinned against God and against you; nothing I do could ever make up for the evil way I behaved toward you," instead of "Yeah, what I did was bad, but not too bad, and I really don't deserve jail time." (Not that that's what he's saying; just using that as an example.)

When God tells us to not be like the world, I really don't think it's means to only listen to hymns and to never get tattoos or wear culottes instead of pants. I think it's stuff like this: when you do wrong, you repent with sincerity and humility.

PW, how dare you assume his RESPONSIBILITIES as a believer are more important than his RIGHTS as an American. (Where's the sarcasm smiley?)

[FormerFundy]

<* puke * >