Today's Paper Latest stories Most commented Obits Traffic Weather Newsletters Puzzles + Games
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
story.lead_photo.caption Pam Hicks talks to media outside the Crittenden County Courthouse on Friday, June 22, 2012 in Marion, Ark. Hicks is suing the city of West Memphis and the West Memphis police department, demanding to see the belongings her son, Steve Branch, had with him the day he was killed 19 years ago. Branch is one of three Arkansas Cub Scouts brutally murdered 19 years ago. Also pictured is law student Danny Owens. (AP Photo/Adrian Sainz)

— A judge says he plans to rule next week on whether to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the mother of one of three Cub Scouts killed in northeast Arkansas in 1993.

Pam Hicks filed a civil lawsuit in June in hopes of viewing evidence in the slaying of her son, 8-year-old Stevie Branch, and his friends, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers.

Hicks argues that police and prosecutors are violating Arkansas’ Freedom of Information Act by not allowing her to examine items from the case that include her son’s bicycle and clothes.

David Peeples, attorney for the city of West Memphis, argued that the physical evidence Hicks wants to see is not covered by the state’s FOIA law and asked Circuit Court Judge Victor Hill on Wednesday to dismiss the lawsuit.

Sponsor Content

Comments

You must be signed in to post comments
  • German
    October 24, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.

    Nothing surprises me anymore about that case. What else are they trying to cover up? That was a terrible crime. They needed to proscecute someone real quick. The WM3 were the scapgoats.

  • Redlab
    October 24, 2012 at 9:29 a.m.

    The evidence was shown during the trials in court and she probably chose not to view it but now she wants to see it. There is no coverup and they had the three correct males for this crime who are now free. Homicide cases with the autopsies and evidence is/was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act unless it has changed. Also any homicide autopsies had to be approved to be released to the family by a prosecuting attorney and again unless this has changed.

  • GixxerRyder
    October 24, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.

    To Redlab - Wow, what a response; You may wanna hope you never find yourself falsely convicted of anything. But if you are, I hope the justice system fails you, lol.

  • HawgFan
    October 24, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.

    Redlab is correct. The WM3 are guilty and now they are free.

  • NoUserName
    October 24, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.

    And what specifically do you base your determination of guilty on? I've only been here a few years so wasn't caught up in all the hype. I've read plenty of articles and such and it sure looks to me that these guys were railroaded. At least, I don't think I, unlike you, can definitively declare guilt.

  • RBBrittain
    October 24, 2012 at 12:05 p.m.

    Redlab is wrong on FOIA; once the investigation is over the evidence is public record, even in a murder case. What makes you think he's right about the WM3? I admit I haven't gone over the case in detail, but IMO what's out there suggests they were railroaded -- and that includes reading the ADG's anti-WM3 slant (and NOT watching any of the pro-WM3 documentaries).

  • Jfish
    October 24, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.

    All theories aside, what is the problem with letting her see it? I don't think she is asking for possession is she?

  • HawgFan
    October 24, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.

    All 3 confessed to different people, at different times, that they did the crime. Necklace taken off of Echols had Stevie Branch's blood on it, as well as Baldwin's. Candle wax on one of the victim's shirt matched a candle in Echol's bedroom. No physical evidence linking anyone other than the WM3 to the crime, etc..... In my opinion, they are guilty. Believe what you want, but I do not believe they were railroaded.

  • HawgFan
    October 24, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.

    Agree with JFish... Let her see it.

  • NoUserName
    October 24, 2012 at 1:53 p.m.

    Well look, my understanding of the blood after a few minutes of looking it up is that the 'match' is blood type only. That's pretty worthless evidence. There seem to be questions about everything else you've cited too. But I expect a debate on this won't get us anywhere.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT