An Ingham County prosecutor and a detective knew before trial that video evidence showed Claude McCollum was in another building when a Lansing Community College professor was killed, according to a state police report obtained by the Lansing State Journal.
Still, prosecutors went ahead with the case, and McCollum was tried and convicted of murder.
McCollum, whose conviction was thrown out last year, is suing multiple agencies for damages. County prosecutors have always maintained they did not know of a 2005 report that described exonerating video evidence until after the trial began.
Even if true, how is this a defense of the prosecutors' behavior? Evidence surfaces showing that prosecutors got the wrong guy, but because they've already started the trial, they go ahead and convict him anyway?