Gene Blues

Avedon Carol points, with considerable pique, to a New York Times story about Florida prosecuting attorneys who are attempting to block prisoners from having potentially exculpatory DNA evidence considered by appeals courts. The Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law has already exonerated 136 convicts on the basis of such evidence.

Comments

[Mo]

This is ridiculous. Innocence has no statute of limitations. If physical evidence that was used as evidence for conviction is later shown to not belong to the convicted person, then there should be a re-trial. An innocent man should not be behind bars simply because it is in the interest of the state to have some finality. If the guy can be proven guilty without the physical evidence (or the physical evidence is part of a pattern of other, overwhelming evidence of guilt) then fine, case closed. However, if physical evidence is a key part of the case, then by all means, the case should be retried.

[Jason Ligon]

'While prosecutors concede that DNA can prove whether someone is associated with a given piece of biological evidence, they insist that is not the same thing as proving whether a defendant committed a crime.'

Er, assumption of innocence is supposed to be pretty important to the system, isn't it? The removal of key evidence that amounts to the removal of certainty beyond a reasonable doubt means that, leagally speaking, these guys were innocent, whether they were factually or not.

[joe]

The conflict of interest here is impossible to overcome. We cannot have the decision to test or not to test being made by DAs who have a professional interest in not being proved wrong. Yes, you can say that DAs should do the right thing, but conflict of interest laws don't say, "When you have a conflict, do your job fairly." They say, "When you have a conflict, someone else should do the job instead of you."

This needs to be fixed.

[Kevin Carson]

Prosecutors have a vested interest in maintaining their win-loss record. They have no vested interest in the truth whatsoever, except (just maybe, barely) BEFORE they make the decision to prosecute. Once their prestige is on the line, they want the "bad guy" to stay behind bars, even if they KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's innocent.

I always go into an angry rant when I hear the voiceover at the beginning of "Law and Order" about police and prosecutors being the two important parts of our criminal justice system. Oh yeah? How about the defense attorneys and juries, who challenge evidence, and make the State PROVE its accusations beyond a reasonable doubt, so we don't have to just say "Oh, well, he must be guilty, or the police wouldn't have arrested him...." (which latter we're reduced to in the case of "obviously guilty" people like Jose Padilla).

[joe]

'I always go into an angry rant when I hear the voiceover at the beginning of "Law and Order"...'

You can't make this shit up.

Peace, Kevin. 😀

[s.m. koppelman]

But if they go and start exonerating people who are wrongfully imprisoned, they'll have to let them vote.

[tongue firmly in cheek]

Innonence is no excuse!

[cheeks now glowing red]

Innocence, I meant innocence, Damn