DNA proves innocent after 26 years in jail
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080103/...na_exoneration

I always wondered what the state would do after having something like this happen. How will this man get 26 years of his life back? How is he gonna start fresh and live the life of a 46 year old man. 26 years of no work, investments, family etc. and god knows what he went through in prison. He more than likely fit the profile, but did not do it. Talk about shit luck.

At least Dallas "Preserved" forensic evidence and has allowed those that were unjustly accused/prosecuted to have their day set straight!!!

Later
Martin

I believe that the "system" repays a person if they are wrongly convicted and incarcerated. I myself have never had any faith in the justice system. Juries, Judges, DA's, Lawyers, and Cops are all fallible. All in some since can have an agenda. Can and will lie to, in the end, get their way. I'm willing to bet someone in this case was over zealous to get ahead somehow in their career. This man paid the price for 26 years. I can remember a couple times this year that a person was released from prison here in the Dallas area due to DNA evidence. Thankfully modern science was able to come forth and provide the evidence to make right what was made wrong by the system.

Tragic story. I am sorry for his family, friends and the victim of the rape. There is still a rapist out there who has not been held accountable for the crime. Hopefully, since he was not a real degenerate scum, he took advantage of the meager education/vocational opportunites if available in prison and earned a degree or learned a trade. He lost nearly a life time.

Thank God this was not a capital case and he was not executed. Police, judges, prosecutors/defense lawyers are all imperfect. For this reason I am for capital punishment ONLY when there is concrete video or DNA evidence to support a conviction. Otherwise...life in prison should be the sentence. IMHO

Reasonable Doubt
 

I had read somewhere that a lot of the DNA cases so far did not prove innocence, but only produced reasonable doubt.

One that was discused was a murder rape trial. The convicted's finger prints were all over the weapon and location along with other evidence and he was convicted. But the new DNA test showed somebody else's DNA on the victim.

Reasonable Doubt and the verdict overturned. The state opted for no retrial based on time and lack/death, etc of witnesses.

So is it innocent or just reasonable doubt?

Thorny question to be sure.

Edited to add - In a rape case it's pretty much he said, she said. In that case DNA can say "No - He didn't".

I agree with Pete.

Many of those being released probably did the crime, or were deeply involved in it.

The DNA just casts reasonable doubt as to the absolute certainty of the verdict. It doesn't mean they didn't do it or were innocent.

TR

It's been my experience that the presence or lack thereof of DNA is often overstated, meaning the results prove innocence or guilt. In the vast majority of cases you will not find DNA of the person who committed the crime. In fact, in many cases I've worked, you'll often find DNA from other sources which were transferred to the scene or evidence by third parties: witnesses, emergency responders and medical staff. DNA should be treated like other evidence and viewed in its totality. However, I don't mean to understate the significance of a test, just to state its very convincing but not absolute evidence of guilt or innocence.

If this was to happen to me, knock on wood. I would be seeking financial restitution for 3 lifetimes and more. People can make mistakes or bad judgements, but that is a pretty friggen big one! Like said above I hope he took every opportunity given to him for education and such, but a 99 year sentance with no parole and on top of it being innocent is not to motivating.

No doubt about it. The justice system is fallible because it is made up of humans. However, I think you are a bit zealous in your stating all can and will lie to get their way. In fact our system is set up to insure individual agendas are at least minimized by the system. Consider the Duke Lacrosse case. Was that not a case in which an individuals' agenda was minimized by the system ? I would also like to point out that the Investigators in that case were at odds with the District Attorney and his assessment of the victim's veracity.

In the Duke case Micheal Nyphong(sp) the DA was the end all be all of that case. He was caught up in being in the "spotlight" of the media that was surrounded by that case. Mr. Nyphong(sp) knew that he had a very shaky case, but continued on with his prosecution of the guys never the less. He was continually lying to the media that he had enough evidence to prosecute. He had an agenda to better his reputation through prosecution to further his career. He was over zealous in his abuse of his power.

In my statement I think "can" is the operative word. Not all links in the chain are out to gain anything from what ever they contribute to the "system". Most are just doing their jobs. Although we are better served that humans are the cogs in the machine than computers.

He is not the only one . . .
 

He withheld exculpatory evidence. He can yap to the media all he wants, but he has to follow the law. Nifong should have gone to prison, for the same reason we send others to prison, to deter such conduct. Clinton was also disbarred, but who cares. Loss of liberty is different.

Our adversarial system can't work if prosecutors and cops play hide the sausage with evidence they know will result in a not guilty verdict. It is why MANY cases are not prosecuted by ethical States attorneys, to the ire of the public, because the evidence will not prove guilt "beyond a resonable doubt".

For attorneys, the only thing scarier than defending a guilty man is defending a truly innocent man.

I agree with Pete. There is often much more to a case than one piece of evidence. Also the probability of more than one perp.


As regards to trusting our judicial stem. I have more faith in our judicial system, as bad as it is, over our Media. I actually have no trust in our media.

[/QUOTE]

I misunderstood your original post. Thanks for clarifying it. The word "all" was confusing.

I misunderstood your original post. Thanks for clarifying it. The word "all" was confusing.[/QUOTE]


After re-reading it, it is confusing. It should read like this.

" They can and will lie to, in the end, get their way."