On Jun 22, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Stephen Russell wrote:
> I thought that it was a move to STOP every blasted incarcerated
> person from
> filing a motion that demands a retrial.
No, not at all. DNA evidence that was not available at his trial is
now available, and he has offered to pick up the tab for the test. If
it matches, things stay the same. If not, there is proof that he was
incorrectly incarcerated, and the state has a vital interest in
maintaining the liberty of its innocent citizens.
> The cost to taxpayers for repeat performances would cripple just
> about any
> county, or city court system.
That's a silly red herring. The cost to society for refusing to free
innocent people is much higher.
> Second part is there enough evidence remaining that both sides can
> make
> their own tests? Or is there just enough for one side?
???
Are you reaching for straws here? He has offered to pay for the
*state* to do the test.
> Do I think it is wrong? Possibly. Why? Because for every 100
> imprisoned
> persons who yells that they are innocent, is there one or maybe five
> of them
> that are correct. So we have to go through everyone to find the one?
Again, it would really help if you read the actual article before
making ridiculous statements such as this. There are very few cases
where conclusive evidence that was not available at trial is later
made available. Performing the test will cost the state *nothing*.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
