Harry Potter Lingers More people are reading these days, and You Know Who gets much of the credit.
Witness Spots Murderer on TV Crime Show Ron Tyler was watching a new episode of 48 Hours when Clarence Bailey came on the screen. Tyler is certain that he recognized the man who, sixteen years ago, shot and killed his mother. The Dallas Morning News has details on a case that suddenly isn't so cold. I am reminded of Joseph Foy, who recognized Coral Watts on TV years after seeing him commit a murder.
A Shocking Ruling An appellate judge in Texas issued a ruling so extreme and extraordinary that it may cost her that seat she holds on the bench. And I hope she does get fired as an example to the rest of our judiciary.
As the Times is reporting today, in a rape/murder case, Judge Sharon Keller of Texas refused to grant postconviction relief to a man even after DNA testing revealed that he was not the source of semen on the victim. As the judge has remarked, finality is more important than claims of actual innocence. No matter how credible the claim of actual innocence is.
What nonsense. It's shocking! It's utterly appalling! Where does public confidence in our criminal jusice system factor into her curious algebra?? Even President Bush - President George W. Bush! - pardoned the man whose semen didn't match.
I say GOOD RIDDANCE to any judge who opines that "finality" is more important than demonstrable innocence. Unfortunately, I am noticing more and more of these "DNA non-match" cases, and it makes me furious.
Of course, we can count on the Times to write an article 1/10 of the length it deserves and to give the piece an idiotic headline: Mixed Opinions of a Judge Accused of Misconduct.
I too tend to think that actual innocence should trump all consideration of finality issues, however, I can atleast understand the concept of preventing renewed attacks on a verdict at every scientific advance or indication of less than stellar legal representation at trial.
We may want to "undo history" with all these apologies for slavery and adoption of politically correct modes of expression but such things should not go on in a courtroom. There may be an advantage in a jury knowing that their deliberations should be with the utmost seriousness as it is something that will not easily be cast aside later.
Prosecutors and appellate judges often resist releasing rape defendants upon a mere determination of "not the defendant's dna" since that doesn't exclude the defendant from having committed a rape but not having ejaculated. The fact that the complainant and the prosecutor each viewed the crime at trial as being that of a sole perpetrator is often not persuasive. Judges and prosecutors send people to prison. Its often simply not in their nature to release them.
Posted by: FoolsGold | March 10, 2009 at 06:09 AM