tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961411431611631367.post1596591063015270059..comments2023-08-08T04:21:46.695-07:00Comments on JOSH MARQUIS: Karma Comes Around For TookieUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961411431611631367.post-49691722608058238792005-12-04T14:24:00.000-08:002005-12-04T14:24:00.000-08:00I must say, you title leaves much to the imaginat...I must say, you title leaves much to the imagination :)thisusernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961411431611631367.post-58841090652692784002010-03-12T17:30:39.099-08:002010-03-12T17:30:39.099-08:00Mr. Marquis:I'm confused. According to the Guz...Mr. Marquis:<br><br>I'm confused. <br><br>According to the Guzek briefs available online, the reason for the US Supreme Court argument was the attempt by defense lawyers to present TRANSCRIPTS of the testimony of TWO ALIBI WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL TRIAL, in addition to live testimony of one of those witnesses who PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED TO ALIBI in the original trial.<br><br>The various online articles about Oregon v. Guzek say the same thing.<br><br>If that is the case, why do you claim after all this time that Guzek never offered alibi evidence until is third trial?<br><br>Please correct this if I am missing something, and point me in the right direction in a brief or transcript. <br><br>Was there a second US Supreme Court argument?<br><br>Thanks for your informative blog.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>John Q. PubliqueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961411431611631367.post-79355172432947586852010-03-12T21:01:17.126-08:002010-03-12T21:01:17.126-08:00You misread the Oregon vs. Guzek case that was rul...You misread the Oregon vs. Guzek case that was ruled 8 to 0 in favor of the State at the US Supreme Court.<br><br>This case is pending and I'm trying it so I cannot discuss it but the published opinions of both the Oregon and United States Supreme Court answer your issues.Joshhttp://coastda.comnoreply@blogger.com