Quote:
Originally posted by chodadog
He was prosecuted 20 years ago. Obviously, the evidence available at the time was compelling enough for a jury to convict him. It doesn't make me sick. It makes me happy that advances have been made in DNA technology and that mistakes such as this one are dramatically less likely to happen now.
I mean, sure, i feel bad for the guy, but if the jurors had no reasonable doubt that he was guilty, they did what they had to do.
|
I'm sorry but you have a very naive view of the US jury/justice system. You have a DA that needs to get voted back in. A jury who is expecting to see Perry Mason who will get the guilty yo confess in 45 minutes. Then a State defender who probably does not have the skills the prosecutor does.
This is not a innocent versus guilty thing, this is two sides trying to win an argument. The
BEST side wins. Ask OJ