I just heard about it on the radio and Im having a hard time figuring out why he is still in jail? If DNA has cleared him shouldn't he be released? Anyone know what the laws are about this...Im sure there is some sort of due process about it but please explain the specifics?
2007-10-09 01:15:58 · 7 answers · asked by teezy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Quick side note--wouldn't it be along the lines of Double Jeopardy if he was to have another trial for the SAME crime to present the new evidence?
2007-10-09 06:51:35 · update #1
It appears that Texas isn't the only place growing idiots, huh Fred. Where are you from again? I'd hate to raise my kid there! The innocence Project is the best place for seeing how this BS works. There are20,000+ innocent people in the system as we speak. And I tend to think that this number falls way short of truth. If I were a betting man I would say that the prosecutor is looking for a way to cover his butt for this. If he can CON this man into a plea deal for immediate release then the state cannot be held liable.
2007-10-09 07:20:20 · answer #1 · answered by pappyld04 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saying that DNA evidence has come to light is one thing. But if it hasn't been heard by a court and used in that forum to prove the man's innocence, he's going to stay in jail until that happens. You can't just claim that the evidence of your innocence is out there and hope the courts are going to let you go; there are procedures for this sort of thing.
In general, the defendant's lawyer will file a motion for a hearing at which he can present new evidence to the court. The court has some degree of discretion as to whether to admit the evidence: if it isn't going to make a difference, they can probably take a pass.
A lot is going to depend on the role that DNA evidence played in the conviction. In a rape trial, we're probably talking about DNA recovered from the victim's body. If the only physical evidence linking the defendant to the victim is the presence of his DNA, and that DNA is found to be someone else's, yeah, he's probably going to walk. But if you've got witnesses and other physical evidence, the fact that the DNA doesn't implicate him is far from conclusive. DNA isn't some magic indicator of whodunnit. It's a useful forensic tool, no more.
Once a jury has handed down a guilty verdict, it's going to take some pretty powerful evidence to convince a judge to overturn that verdict. DNA evidence, contrary to popular belief, is not automatically this kind of evidence. The determination is highly context-specific, and if the prosecution didn't rely on DNA evidence in establishing their case, a judge can probably find that a reasonable jury could have convicted the defendant anyways and refuse to overturn the verdict.
2007-10-09 08:26:25 · answer #2 · answered by Ryan D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It never works like on TV. It takes a long time to process a convicted person into the system, and a lot to do before they can be released. He has to either have a new trial based on the new evidence (basically a petition by the Innocence project or pardoned by the governor. It will happen, even though it is unfair to keep him a moment longer than necessary.
2007-10-09 08:21:42 · answer #3 · answered by Serena 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It may be that he has other charges as well. there is a certain amount of paper work to be done in a case like this and that takes time, but there is also the chance that they are trying to find something else to charge him with because, depending upon how he was convicted, he could possibly sue the authorities and get a very large amount of money from them which they do not want to pay out.
2007-10-09 08:23:31 · answer #4 · answered by Al B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he was convicted for a previous offence and let out who cares if he did not commit the next? Once and he should be castrated!
2007-10-09 08:20:02 · answer #5 · answered by disco 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You must know by now, that the colour of his skin has a lot to do with his incarceration, whether he is guilty or not.
Bush is from Texas, isn't he? That state raises some stupid people.
2007-10-09 08:26:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The authorities hate to admit that they got it wrong and stuffed up big time.
2007-10-09 08:20:57 · answer #7 · answered by brian777999 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋