Comments about ‘Appeal filed in Debra Brown's 'factual innocence' case’
What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Utah
- Bottom 30 elementary schools in Utah by test...
- Top 30 elementary schools in Utah by test scores
- Growing pains: Rate of young men struggling...
- BYU student killed after falling 70 feet in...
- New president to lead Mormon Tabernacle Choir
- Glenn Beck unleashes his dogs of war
- Gail Miller gets engaged to Salt Lake attorney
- Charges: Runaway teen caused accident that...
Most Commented
Across Site
In Utah
- Make it a small: N.Y.'s ban on large...
37 - Glenn Beck unleashes his dogs of war
34 - Cottonwood High School football coach...
25 - Rep. Jim Matheson favors getting rid of...
15 - Idaho awaits No Child Left Behind waiver
14 - Poll shows Utahns think Legislature's...
14 - Man shot brother while showing him...
13 - Jon Huntsman Jr. is done pulling punches
12






i swear the state AG office has nothing better to do than mess with people's lives. especially the lives of innocent people. it seems arrogant and presumptuous to me that they would assume that the judge who exonerated her would not have done his due diligence in affirming the validity of the material presented, nor would her lawyers. is every agency OTHER than the AG office flawed? i highly doubt it. what i *do* think if flawed is the way the state AG office is allowed such sweeping power to ruin people's lives even though they've been exonerated in a "lesser" court.
This is a shameful and cruel thing to do. In May, Mark Shurtleff said he would not appeal the exoneration:
"In the interest of justice and mercy the time has come to bring closure to Debra Brown and everyone involved in this case," said Shurtleff in a news release. "She has served 17 years in prison and a judge has found her factually innocent. This was Utah's first case like this and I am convinced these types of challenges will be rare. Our office will vigilantly fight to make sure the justice system punishes the guilty and protects the innocent."
So, is his recent reversal an action against the "interest of justice and mercy"? I think so.
Shouldn't a JURY get to hear the new evidence and decide? That's the way the Constitution says we do it.
This is a MURDER, not a traffic ticket. The rights of the murdered man need to be as important as the rights of the person convicted of the murder. I think the murder victim is the one that gets forgotten in this case. The defense should be required to present evidence that would convince a jury of her peers... not just one man. If the evidence is that clear cut... it should be no problem to present it and convince a group of every day citizens (not just a judge who may see things differently than his peers). You should at least have two or more judges agree. That's just too much power to put in the hands of one person.
2 bits, the murdered man has no rights, he's dead. We do no need prosecutorial overkill. It is time to move on.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments