Court upholds decision that freed Debra Brown after 17 years in prison

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 13, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    Only she knows for certain what the actual truth is. I would have been disappointed if she were sent back to prison. there's just too much doubt either way.

    I get the impression the Attorney Generals office wants her to spend the rest of her life in prison regardless of her guilt or innocence in order that what they consider a bad president isn't set.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    July 13, 2013 4:34 a.m.

    More and more often its becoming apparent why the constitution is written the way it is and where the burden of proof is focused. The accused don't have to prove anything and creative evidence contradicting fact are the responsibility of the judges to dismiss at trial and this kind of injustice can be prevented.

    For too many years the prosecutors have been given too much creative latitude by judges in presenting evidence that is circumstantial. Circumstantial means the evidence is not evidence but possibilities that cannot be proven or disproved.

    An alibi is an alibi no matter how simple or confirmable it is. People in courts and testifying are sworn to the truth, but prosecutors are all lowed to lie and deceive and make up stories as evidence, this is where we have to draw the line and put a stop to this circumstantial evidence that is not fact.

    I don't think the judgement was enough compensation compared to the millions the prosecutors have profited by for the insolence and impune defiance of the justice system. In case like this there should be some kind of punishment to prosecutors and their immoral and unjustified conduct in criminal cases.

  • dlw7 LOGAN, UT
    July 12, 2013 4:54 p.m.

    Hope the Attorney Generals Office will not pursue this any case any further. She has spent 17 years in jail already for a poorly investigated crime. She might have not been convicted if the police had been diligent in their investigation. Perhaps the Attorney Generals Office might look to what is going on in their own office.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    July 12, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    VariedHue: Here here!

  • VariedHue Logan, UT
    July 12, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    So according to the prosecutor, a person who is wrongly convicted, i.e. the old evidence got it wrong, can only be exonerated if new evidence is found. I would think that if it can be shown that a conviction was wrong,it should not matter if the evidence was new or old.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    Great to have courageous judges that follow the law.