I recall your case, but lost track when his hearing was coming up.
So they let him out. My sincere sympathy.
Don’t think I could wait on him coming to me.......
They never let me know the day or the place, and he was housed in the furthest prison in TN. Near Johnson City, a long way from Memphis.
Ashley Nichole 'Nikki' Read, age 8, RAPED and KILLED by david keen. 24 yrs ago. He has been on TN Death Row for 20 yrs. ALL State and Federal Appeals are run out. DNA proved he raped her, he confessed he both raped and strangled her to death with her own shoe laces. Yet TN Gov Bill Halsam (RINO) refuses to set an execution date or sign the execution warrant.
Nikki was raped, strangled with her own Shoelaces, and thrown in the river barely still alive, where she finally drown to death. 24 Yrs of waiting for Justice, is obscene.
Tell TN Governor to do his Constitutional Duty, that 2 juries decided was the right course of action. Death Penalty.
615) 741-2001, bill.haslam@tn.gov
david keen http://murderpedia.org/male.K/k/keen-david.htm
The appellant next argues that by permitting the jurors to find either “torture” or “serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death,” the trial court denied him his constitutional right to a unanimous jury for the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance. More specifically, the appellant notes that when the jury returned its verdict form, it indicated that it found that “the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.” (emphasis added). The appellant argues that because the jury returned its verdict in the disjunctive, “there is no way to determine whether the twelve jurors unanimously agreed on either basis for finding the aggravating circumstances or the facts in support thereof.” In essence, the appellant argues that unless a jury unanimously agrees as to a particular set of facts constituting guilt-or in this case, the particular set of facts constituting the presence of the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance-a defendant is denied his or her right to a unanimous jury. After reviewing the applicable case law, we hold that the appellant was not denied his constitutional right to a unanimous jury or that a special unanimity instruction was required.