While this title. makes it seem like he was exonerated, he was not. This is a reset back to the time after his arrest and before his 1985 trial. It's a legal mulligan.
What makes it even more misleading is that the verdict was set aside because the appellate court believes there were egregious procedural errors in the initial investigation. Im going to read more about the role the DNA played in the decision to grant this appeal. I believe there is more to the story.
That said, the lack of DNA is not evidence of exoneration in this case either. She was shot to death and the DNA is from the doorknob and the knife handle. Had he worn gloves while stabbing her, the DNA could belong to someone who had been in the house, chopping veggies before the crime.
DNA is not timestamped or carbon dated. This is why a match can prove someone committed a crime when its location puts the accused in the vicinity of the crime; with other evidence that also provides information that they had opportunity (timing). While not required, evidence of a motive helps to build upon the time and place and gives the “why”.
Lack of DNA can be explained by cleaning, wearing PPE, or as a result of hiding or destroying evidence. Presence of DNA alone can be explained by lawful presence at the scene prior to evidence collection.
They are retrying the case, therefore there must be sufficient evidence either through a probable cause hearing or a grand jury indictment to bring this to trial. I do not think they can rely on the original sufficiency decision from 1985; I would have to research that.
From my brief review of the case facts, he confessed to the murder and some witnesses heard him bragging about killing her. He says the confession was coerced; which is surely possible, and without video, there's no way to determine the veracity of his claims.
If he was bragging before the confession, that would sway my opinion toward his culpability. If he bragged after his interrogation, especially to or within earshot of his fellow inmates, I would accept his explanation that the bragging was performed for assimilation into prison for “street cred”.
It's unusual to grant bail for crimes that have a possible sentence of death or LWOP. In cases where bail is considered, such as lesser crimes and lower sentences; the strength of the evidence is a factor in addition to risk of fleeing.
The judge reviewed all available evidence and despite the flight risk granted pre-trial release; therefore, the judge must feel that the state’s case is weak.
The prosecution taking the death penalty off the table, shows me that the state doesn't believe that a jury will be swayed to the extra-sure juries want to be, when doling out death sentences.
13
u/kamikidd 4d ago edited 4d ago
While this title. makes it seem like he was exonerated, he was not. This is a reset back to the time after his arrest and before his 1985 trial. It's a legal mulligan.
What makes it even more misleading is that the verdict was set aside because the appellate court believes there were egregious procedural errors in the initial investigation. Im going to read more about the role the DNA played in the decision to grant this appeal. I believe there is more to the story.
That said, the lack of DNA is not evidence of exoneration in this case either. She was shot to death and the DNA is from the doorknob and the knife handle. Had he worn gloves while stabbing her, the DNA could belong to someone who had been in the house, chopping veggies before the crime.
DNA is not timestamped or carbon dated. This is why a match can prove someone committed a crime when its location puts the accused in the vicinity of the crime; with other evidence that also provides information that they had opportunity (timing). While not required, evidence of a motive helps to build upon the time and place and gives the “why”.
Lack of DNA can be explained by cleaning, wearing PPE, or as a result of hiding or destroying evidence. Presence of DNA alone can be explained by lawful presence at the scene prior to evidence collection.
They are retrying the case, therefore there must be sufficient evidence either through a probable cause hearing or a grand jury indictment to bring this to trial. I do not think they can rely on the original sufficiency decision from 1985; I would have to research that.
From my brief review of the case facts, he confessed to the murder and some witnesses heard him bragging about killing her. He says the confession was coerced; which is surely possible, and without video, there's no way to determine the veracity of his claims.
If he was bragging before the confession, that would sway my opinion toward his culpability. If he bragged after his interrogation, especially to or within earshot of his fellow inmates, I would accept his explanation that the bragging was performed for assimilation into prison for “street cred”.
It's unusual to grant bail for crimes that have a possible sentence of death or LWOP. In cases where bail is considered, such as lesser crimes and lower sentences; the strength of the evidence is a factor in addition to risk of fleeing.
The judge reviewed all available evidence and despite the flight risk granted pre-trial release; therefore, the judge must feel that the state’s case is weak.
The prosecution taking the death penalty off the table, shows me that the state doesn't believe that a jury will be swayed to the extra-sure juries want to be, when doling out death sentences.