Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
For people who want to learn more about the story, I believe The New Yorker published an extensive article on the subject. It goes into a lot of detail on how the expert came to his opinion, and why the process may have been flawed.
But that's the point - if the reliability of the evidence creates a greater doubt as to the defendant's guilt, that's a big deal. Remember too, it's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's the prosecution's burden to prove that (not the defendant's burden to refute it). If the scientific evidence was faulty, then that's a big problem....big enough to throw the whole result into question.
.
|
Sure if we knew that the jury relied heavily on the forensic evidence in reaching their decision, it would be a big deal. I've only read the linked article, and it doesn't say much. ETA: and, assuming that we just going on the original article here: wouldn't you say that the burden of proof shifts quite a bit post conviction? At that point, a jury has decided guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the convicted person has to establish that the new evidence would have yielded a different outcome, right?
Sometimes the forensic evidence is just one component of a much larger case. Problems with it alone doesn't really "prove innocence" unless that was all there was to the case or if what was faulty about it actually makes it impossible for the crime to have been committed as prosecuted.
The linked article in this thread doesn't really get it there.
ETA: the New Yorker article outlines a whole lot more wrong with this case and points to the validity of the title of the tread, but it says a whole lot more than just the original forensics being wrong: incompetent original defense, lying jailhouse snitches, indifferent/incompetent/negligent appeals and clemency board, etc.
Threaded Mode
