May God bless this man and his grandkids.
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.
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.
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.