Quote:
Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee
in the light most favorable to the state was an error by the appeal justices.
If applied in the light most favorable to the defendant a reasonable juror could conclude otherwise.
Appeal justice also incorrecly applied State v. Gilbert, 473 A.2d 1273, 1275-76 (Me. 1984) (upholding the trial court’s denial of a motion to acquit in a criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon case where evidence demonstrated that the victim was invited and expected at the defendant’s home and, thus, was “neither a trespasser nor reasonably perceived as such by” the defendant). since there is no evidence that the so called victim was invited and in fact the so called victim was warned not to tresspass.
|
An appellate court only reviews for errors of law, not findings of fact. Mr. Bird was convicted by a jury made up of average citizens. The jury found that the facts sustained the State's claims beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge applied the law in fashioning its sentence. When the case reached the Supreme Court Mr. Bird was already convicted. Therefore the presumption of innocence no longer applied. It is no error that the court applied its review in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction. The State was the prevailing party. Likewise, from the recited facts of the instant case the court properly applied [U]State v. Gilbert[U].
That said Mr. Bird does have a legal avenue to pursue. He can petition for a writ of habeas corpus. I would suggest that his supporters look into finding an attorney experienced in post conviction pleadings. Not any old criminal attorney is competent in this area.