After being imprisoned for 3 1/2 years, man exonerated in 2003 robbery

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Carrie Is Buzy Sandy, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 7:30 p.m.

    May God bless this man and his grandkids.

  • DR Hall Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 5:11 p.m.

    If he truely is innocent, then there is a responsible part of the law that should allow all of the evidence to be heard. To me there should be no reason not to hear that he had a stroke and its limits on this person. Why would not the prosecution want to know and understand this information on this person? They should be looking for the truth and not just a quick person and verdict that is going to be wrong. That is not what justice is supposed to be about.

  • templarreborn Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 2:53 p.m.

    If the story is accurate about him suffering a stroke a little while before the crime was committed, it would be interesting to know why that wasn't part of the original trial. Too many times the courts are hand tied by procedure and truth seldom has any thing to do with guilt or innocence. I'm glad the system is in place to correct wrongful convictions even if it takes time to function.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the most conservative estimate has the conviction rate of innocent people at 1 percent. Some experts put the number closer to 10 percent."

    Defense bar blather.

    I'm sure this defense attorney just "forgot" to mention that most studies in this area, particularly those resulting in numbers above negligible, are undertaken by the defense bar and use some pretty shaky models and metrics.

    And, she probably just "forgot" to mention that a finding of "factually innocent" amounts to nothing more than a judge substituting his/her judgment for that of a jury.

    And, I'm sure she just "forgot" to mention that a belated overturning of a finding of guilty -- often equated in "innocence project" parlance to exoneration -- is not really exoneration. Most of the time it just means there must be a new trial.

    Often, evidence, witnesses, even the original law may be unavailable, or so affected by the passage of time, it makes holding a new trial impossible. But that most often means a guilty person -- not an innocent person -- goes free.

    I'm sure she just forgot.