Innocent man freed after 17 years in a first-of-its-kind hearing

All fine and good. But when new evidence DOES come to light, it seems that the judicial system is stacked against the defendant.

 

Yeah, I don't know every nook and cranny of criminal procedure. I do know that there is a constant attempt to balance efficiency and fairness in the courts. And I know that the system is set up to incentivize attorneys to put their best foot forward the first time around. I'm not familiar with the procedures for new evidence. Whatever they are, I know they didn't save the guy in Texas who didn't kill his kids.

 

That was in Durham County, one over.

For those suggesting he should sue: He is entitled to $750,000 from the state of North Carolina by statute. It's $50,000 a year for every year spent in prison after a wrongful conviction, capped at $750,000. If he accepts that money he is barred from bringing a civil suit. Winning a civil suit in most of these cases is extremely difficult, although not impossible, because of the way government immunity works.

He might have a decent case because of the gross misconduct of one State Bureau of Investigation agent who testified at his original trial that blood was found on Taylor's truck, even though the SBI agent had run a test that showed no blood was present and did not disclose that test to the prosecutor.

 

When new evidence comes to light you can file for a "motion for appropriate relief" in the original court -- or in rare circumstances at the appellate level -- and ask for a judge to hold a hearing to evaluate the new evidence. If the judge decides the new evidence is likely to have changed the outcome of the original trial, a new trial can be ordered.

If you don’t have new evidence, once your appeals run their course and you’ve filed your federal habeas corpus petition, you’re out of luck.

The problem is that it is rare to have new evidence come to light. For example: if there was blood evidence at the original trial and it was tested -- and DNA testing was available but inconclusive or not run at all -- then you don't have "new" evidence when all you want to do is retest the same sample that was tested years ago. In those circumstances, you need the cooperation of the prosecutor to have the sample re-tested.

The problem in cases like this one is that there was no "new" evidence until the Innocence Inquiry Commission was given the authority to order the police and prosecutors to hand over files that they did not have to and had not turned over in 1993. Without that authority, no new evidence would have ever been found and even what was found it is arguable that it is new. The prosecutor today is the same one who was in office 17 years ago. He was unwilling to cooperate and allow the old samples to be retested, and up until yesterday afternoon continued to assert that they had convicted the right man in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

Great explanation. Innocence projects all over the country are fighting these battles, and they area at the mercy of DA's who aren't thrilled at the prospects of having their convictions overturned and them looking bad.

 

I'd go civil. He can get more loot and more importantly, the hell out of North Carolina.

 

The civilian jury system is a fucking unmitigated joke and thats 20+ years of 1st hand practical experience talking.

Unfortunately, this country needs a Constitutional Convention to rememdy a number of problems, the jury system being one. More unfortunate is that a convention would do much more harm than good

 

I eagerly await the Waylon Jennings brigade showing up to say that since one man was wrongly convicted, no one should ever be convicted of anything.

 

I know how sensitive you are about this subject since it brings up the imaginary memories of your imaginary friends.

 

Let us know when you ever feel like posting something truthful.

 

That's rich coming from you.

Look, OT, if you don't like me just contact my employer and try to get me fired.

Don't worry, afterward you can lie about it and not suffer any consequences.

 

We're basically the only democracy that uses a civil trial jury, right? I think Japan is doing it experimentally right now.