WM3 Judge David Burnett breaks his si...

WM3 Judge David Burnett breaks his silence after 18 years

There are 103 comments on the KAIT-TV story from Feb 10, 2012, titled WM3 Judge David Burnett breaks his silence after 18 years. In it, KAIT-TV reports that:

The parents and step-parent of two of three Arkansas boys who were brutally murdered nearly two decades ago say they're disappointed that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has nominated a documentary about the killings for an Oscar.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KAIT-TV.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“Hot, Sweet, & Sticky”

Since: Nov 08

Lake City

#1 Feb 10, 2012
Same sh!t...different diaper.

Since: Nov 07

United States

#2 Feb 10, 2012
Cemetera wrote:
Same sh!t...different diaper.
He's still an ignorant ass!
and he makes laws now

Jonesboro, AR

#3 Feb 10, 2012
if he was not going to be big enough to admit mistakes were made, he should have just kept his mouth shut

he should be asked direct questions, here's one for you senator: do you believe that someone convicted by a jury lead by a foreman with a predetermined agenda for conviction should have a new trial?
amazed by ignorance

Jonesboro, AR

#4 Feb 10, 2012
how can someone with so much experience and education be so in the dark......

do arkansas a favor and don't Run for Re election Senator
turbodog62

United States

#5 Feb 10, 2012
DB...STFU already? Sorryazz judge\person in the 80's with his mouthful of cud non evidence allowing azz. He taught me early in life that no matter what the facts were that it was the judges final call in his courtroom.
shelby

United States

#8 Feb 10, 2012
Better he juist keep silent another 18 yrs if that's the nonsense he has.
Ray

Ash Flat, AR

#9 Feb 10, 2012
A judge is supposed to be fair and impartial and his job is to keep the attorneys on the straight and narrow. This judge failed just like the cops failed and the real killers of these kids walked. I can see why these young men took the plea deal, they wanted out of prison now, and a new trial would have took years. The people of Arkansas should be ashamed of the injustice given to these young man. The "cult expert" was a total joke and the Kent Arnold jury foreman should be in jail for jury misconduct.
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#10 Feb 10, 2012
The sad part is the Arkansas Supreme Court did affirm him so many times. But at least they finally saw the light.

Pardon the WM3!
guest

United States

#11 Feb 11, 2012
No one overturned their convictions. What we saw a couple months ago was governmental corruption.

Who ever heard of someone convicted of a crime being given the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty 18 years and numerous appeals later?

The ONLY way the WM3 legally would have been able to enter a new plea is if a court had found good reason to order a new trial. That didn't happen in this case. Hell, the hearing to determine if a new trial was even required was still several months away.

We should all shudder at the idea that one judge in collusion with one prosecutor can set free 3 convicted murderers, 1 on death row, overturning the verdicts of 2 juries and several reviews by appellate courts all of which upheld the convictions every time.
Guest

Jonesboro, AR

#12 Feb 11, 2012
guest wrote:
No one overturned their convictions. What we saw a couple months ago was governmental corruption.
Who ever heard of someone convicted of a crime being given the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty 18 years and numerous appeals later?
The ONLY way the WM3 legally would have been able to enter a new plea is if a court had found good reason to order a new trial. That didn't happen in this case. Hell, the hearing to determine if a new trial was even required was still several months away.
We should all shudder at the idea that one judge in collusion with one prosecutor can set free 3 convicted murderers, 1 on death row, overturning the verdicts of 2 juries and several reviews by appellate courts all of which upheld the convictions every time.
Hey psychopath ! They were granted new trials. That ruling is what made it possible for them to enter Alford pleas, not guilty pleas, idiot. You just keep your head up your ass to avoid all the facts. Typical.
Tremendous

Jonesboro, AR

#13 Feb 11, 2012
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey psychopath ! They were granted new trials. That ruling is what made it possible for them to enter Alford pleas, not guilty pleas, idiot. You just keep your head up your ass to avoid all the facts. Typical.
Say it how you need to but an Alfred plea is a guilty plea. I get it that it is a legal way to work the system and it comes with the stipulation that on the record they maintain their innocence. They said yes we killed those boys but really we didn't. It's like false confessions. After hours and hours of mentally and emotionally exhausting interrogation you will admit to anything to get the
investigators to leave you alone. I don't know if they killed those boys or not. Neither do you. You believe they didn't and that's fine. I don't believe one way or another. I only hope to God they didn't bc if they did, we just disgraced the lives of those murdered boys.
Guest2

Jonesboro, AR

#14 Feb 11, 2012
Tremendous wrote:
<quoted text>
Say it how you need to but an Alfred plea is a guilty plea. I get it that it is a legal way to work the system and it comes with the stipulation that on the record they maintain their innocence. They said yes we killed those boys but really we didn't. It's like false confessions. After hours and hours of mentally and emotionally exhausting interrogation you will admit to anything to get the
investigators to leave you alone. I don't know if they killed those boys or not. Neither do you. You believe they didn't and that's fine. I don't believe one way or another. I only hope to God they didn't bc if they did, we just disgraced the lives of those murdered boys.
I have said since day one that the stepfather was the guilty party, and I still stand by that.
Guest

Jonesboro, AR

#15 Feb 11, 2012
Tremendous wrote:
<quoted text>
Say it how you need to but an Alfred plea is a guilty plea. I get it that it is a legal way to work the system and it comes with the stipulation that on the record they maintain their innocence. They said yes we killed those boys but really we didn't. It's like false confessions. After hours and hours of mentally and emotionally exhausting interrogation you will admit to anything to get the
investigators to leave you alone. I don't know if they killed those boys or not. Neither do you. You believe they didn't and that's fine. I don't believe one way or another. I only hope to God they didn't bc if they did, we just disgraced the lives of those murdered boys.
An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Nothing you say can change that fact, pee wee. PERIOD. You can talk to the hand about them or anyone being guilty of something that no one has any evidence of. Try and snap out of it, if you can.
Joe brown

United States

#16 Feb 11, 2012
Them 3 boys was frame because they was not a rich Man son they was poor man kids money talks in the law
guest

Marion, AR

#17 Feb 11, 2012
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Nothing you say can change that fact, pee wee. PERIOD. You can talk to the hand about them or anyone being guilty of something that no one has any evidence of. Try and snap out of it, if you can.
Umm. Yes it is..

They cant vote, they cant own a gun, they cant do anything else a convicted felon can do.. because they ARE convicted felons
Tremendous

Jonesboro, AR

#18 Feb 11, 2012
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Nothing you say can change that fact, pee wee. PERIOD. You can talk to the hand about them or anyone being guilty of something that no one has any evidence of. Try and snap out of it, if you can.
It is a guilty plea. I didn't write the laws but I do understand them.
Guest

Little Rock, AR

#19 Feb 11, 2012
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Nothing you say can change that fact, pee wee. PERIOD. You can talk to the hand about them or anyone being guilty of something that no one has any evidence of. Try and snap out of it, if you can.
Damian why dont you shut the hell up. You are guility and you know. Rot in Hell
Guest

Jonesboro, AR

#20 Feb 11, 2012
Tremendous wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a guilty plea. I didn't write the laws but I do understand them.
LOL. So when you go to court and enter a guilty plea, you've really entered an Alford plea; since according to your insanity, an Alford plea is a guilty plea ! LOL My advice......double up on your meds. Keep taking them until an Alford plea is an Alford plea. Good luck with your recovery, pee wee.
guest

Marion, AR

#21 Feb 11, 2012
The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms defines the term Alford plea as: "A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court. The plea is commonly used in local and state courts in the United States."

According to University of Richmond Law Review, "When offering an Alford plea, a defendant asserts his innocence but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense."

A Guide to Military Criminal Law notes that under the Alford plea, "the defendant concedes that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still refuses to admit guilt."

The book Plea Bargaining's Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America published by Stanford University Press defines the plea as one in "which the defendant adheres to her claim of innocence even while allowing that the government has enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt".

According to the book Gender, Crime, and Punishment published by Yale University Press, "Under the Alford doctrine, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that the state has sufficient evidence to find him or her guilty, should the case go to trial."

Webster's New World Law Dictionary defines Alford plea as: "A guilty plea entered as part of a plea bargain by a criminal defendant who denies committing the crime or who does not actually admit his guilt. In federal courts, such plea may be accepted as long as there is evidence that the defendant is actually guilt

SOOO>. WHO needs their medication checked???
Guest

Jonesboro, AR

#22 Feb 11, 2012
Anyone who claims an Alford plea is a guilty plea needs more than meds. Incoherent lunatics just can't accept the fact that an Alford plea is an Alford plea. There is no claim of innocence with a guilty plea. I am glad you took the time to finally read those facts and post them. Like your own post states "a defendant does not admit guilt" in an Alford plea.
If you get past these baby facts about what an Alford plea is, you realize it is just for disposition of a disputed criminal charge/case. I really don't see any real difference between an Alford plea and a no contest plea, nolo contendere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Proctor Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Paula Foster 5 hr Wtf 1
Ashley Morgan 6 hr bbhhu 7
Ashley-Flash Market 9 hr yinga yanga 7
Swinga Swappa 11 hr Guest 4
Bar hopping 16 hr Seen them 1
Theresa Harris/Brian Harris (May '10) 18 hr Lost soul 2
Hottest girls in WM! (Nov '10) Sun Curiosity 109

Proctor Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Proctor Mortgages