The GAPS 
Member since Sep 18, 2009


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Compromised Conviction?

I read this article during last month's trial and just now finished reading all of the comments on the article.
I sat through 90% of the original trial. The eyewitness at the Moon Smoke Shop was very credible. She mentioned the killer's unforgettable eyes which Scott Nordstrom has and never mentioned Bozo orange hair and face which David Nordstrom has. I agree that David Nordstrom is a con man. He is also an idiot. He really doesn't "get" why people think he's not an overall good guy. I spoke with the Nordstrom's grandfather, a very nice man, during the original trial. He had no doubt that Scott was the actual killer in the two cases. He said David was always a lousy liar, even though he optimistically kept trying. He said he did not see David's "tells" during his testimony. Many years ago, Cindy Wasserburger, had to make a "Sophie's Choice" decision: of her 3 sons, she could only take one of them. She chose Scott. Admirably, she continues to choose Scott.
I have wracked my brain as to who Donna Boykin is--the article said she was an in-law of one of the victims. People I spoke to after this article didn't know her. I'm surprised that others who have known that "electronic monitoring could be beaten" haven't also come forward.
The purpose of this trial was to re-sentence Mr. Nordstrom--that was all. It took 5 long years for this to be re-tried. Mr. Nordstrom and Mr. Darby repeatedly asked for continuances based on the necessity of gathering important evidence to present at what was going to be a 3 to 4 week resentencing trial (the original trial was 3 weeks). Many trips were made to the Court of Appeals to get permission to present new evidence, all of which were refused. The purpose of the resentencing trial was to resentence--that's all. Although I am not an attorney, I believe there is a different way, under the law, to present the basis of new evidence and that is as a Rule 32, Post Conviction Relief. At that time, after his compelling evidence is presented, a judge may order a new trial.
Scott Nordstrom alleges that his attorneys at his first trial were "court-appointed defense attorneys were limited in what they could spend. Nordstrom said he was often told that there were no resources to investigate his innocence claims." Ineffective assistance of counsel is grounds for overturning a trial. Our Court of Appeals did not see any evidence of this. The defense counsel he refers to were two highly competent defense attorneys in our community. Mr Nordstrom can argue ineffective counsel in his next appeal. It was quite a surprise to me and all the other lay people in the courtroom when Mr. Darby chose not to have an opening statement, put on a mitigating case or do a closing argument, causing the trial to become a barely 4 day trial rather than the 4 week trial originally set on the Judge's calendar.
This has been a pretty long "comment," and I could easily write much more. But I will stop here and wait for all of the next notices to come in the mail, for more appeals, more hearings, more continuances.
One more comment: I am not in favor of the death penalty. It helps defense attorneys be able to make the payments on their status houses and status cars, but the appeals process that, by law, accompanies such a penalty keeps ripping the scabs off the survivors' wounds that just can't seem to heal.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by The GAPS on 09/18/2009 at 4:54 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation