Defendant convicted of murder in "Boys Don't Cry" case loses appeal from post-conviction proceedings in which he requested new trial based on co-defendant's perjury at trial. State v. Lotter, S-08-449 through S-08-451, 278 Neb. 466. Defendant was too late in brining to motion for new trial based on Nissen's perjury; fear of the death sentence is not enough to show prosecutorial coercion. Unlike postconviction relief, relief under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2103 (Reissue 2008) {motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence} is not strictly limited to constitutional claims. A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to obtain, outside of the 3-year time limitation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2103 (Reissue 2008), what is essentially a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Once a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which the defendant was charged, the presumption of innocence disappears. Even if a defendant has not actually killed a victim, substantial participation in the felony Constitutional Law: Criminal Law: Witnesses: Death Penalty. A witness’ testimony is not the result of unconstitutional coercion simply because it is motivated by a legitimate fear of a death sentence

Nebraska Supreme Court overrules claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel for allegedly not pointing out errors to pro se defendant previous trial counsel had committed. Further no ineffectiveness of appellate counsel for raising trial counsel ineffectiveness on appeal because appellate counsel if different from trial counsel must raise it on direct appeal if issues are apparent on record. State v. Dunster, S-08-227, 278 Neb. 268 Dunster argues that direct appeal counsel was ineffective in raising, on direct appeal, the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. But direct appeal counsel’s performance was not deficient in that regard.

Justice Connolly and his Gang of Six thought they had abolished the death penalty through the back door by banning Nebraska's electrocution method (State v. Mata, S05-1268). The Unicameral is unlikely to authorize lethal injection during Ernie Chambers' farewell session. So the Nebraska Supreme Court left Mata's death sentence in place without a means to carry it out. But does this mean the Supreme Court could or even should prescribe how to carry out the death penalty in a manner that complies with Nebraska Constitution Article I Section 9 (Nebraska version of the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution). See Can Nebraska Restore Its Death Penalty Without Legislation?, Crime and Consequences Blog. The Supreme Court left 29-2528 in place, which requires the Supreme Court to reverse a death penalty case, grant a new trial, or set an execution date. The last iteration of STATE v. REEVES, S-99-064, 258 NEB. 51199-064 January 7, 2000 HTML] plainly shows the Supreme Court's unwillingness to re-sentence defendants. That leaves a death penalty without a method the legislature approved, but the law's requirement that the State of Nebraska can only prescribe the method of execution was part of the law the Supreme Court invalidated (25-2532 RRS Neb.). What is next if the Nebraska Supreme Court is serious about carrying out its proper function but immediate hearings to institute rules of executing death row inmates. Now that would be interesting, and if it refused would a writ of mandamus against the Supreme Court be far off?