Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: William Eugene Hall, Jr. - Tennessee Death Row

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534

    William Eugene Hall, Jr. - Tennessee Death Row




    Facts of the Crime:

    Derrick Quintero and William Hall were sentenced to death on December 4, 1991 for the June 22, 1988 murders of Myrtle and Buford Vester in their Stewart County home. Quintero and Hall, escapees from Kentucky State Penitentiary at Eddyville, entered the Vesters’ home through a window, shot and stabbed the couple and stole their car.

    For more on Quintero, see: http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/...ssee-Death-Row

  2. #2
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    On September 21, 1998, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Hall's death sentence on direct appeal.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tn-suprem...t/1130389.html

  3. #3
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    State v. Hall

    Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

    Opinion Date: March 20, 2015

    Defendant was convicted of two counts of felony murder in the perpetration of a first degree burglary and other crimes. The jury sentenced Defendant to death for the murder of one victim and to life imprisonment for the murder of the second victim. The Court of Criminal Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently field a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. On review, the Supreme Court granted Defendant a delayed appeal based upon the lack of meaningful representation during the original direct appeal. Upon remand, Defendant moved for a new trial and an accompanying petition for writ of error coram nobis. The circuit court denied relief as to all claims. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that witness credibility was such an overriding issue that the trial judge was unable to consider the motions for new trial; (2) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial based upon “newly discovered evidence”; (3) the use of shackles in this instance was appropriate; and (4) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  4. #4
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    In today's orders, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Hall's petition for certiorari.

    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Division
    Case Nos.: (M2012-00336-SC-DDTDD)
    Decision Date: March 20, 2015

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.a...s/14-10311.htm

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •