Why 'Exonerated' Needs to Be Used Sparingly

The Dallas Morning News ^ | Fri, Apr 09, 2010 | Michael Landauer

[nickcarraway]

This press release was shared with me by Dudley Sharp:

"EXONERATED" FORMER DEATH ROW INMATE RECONVICTED So-called "Innocence List" Conclusively Debunked Former death row inmate Timothy Hennis, listed as "exonerated" on the "innocence list" maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center, was found guilty of three counts of premeditated murder by a military jury today.

"This is the smoking gun that proves what we have been saying for years," said Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "The so-called innocence list is nothing of the sort."

For years, the "innocence list" has been cited by opponents of the death penalty as a list of people once sentenced to death who were actually innocent of the crimes. Death penalty supporters have long maintained that this claim is false. Proof of actual innocence is not required to get on the list. In 2006, Justice Antonin Scalia challenged the list in an opinion in Kansas v. Marsh.

In Hennis's case, his first conviction was reversed on appeal, and on retrial in 1989 the jury decided that the evidence available at that time was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there is a wide difference between doubt of guilt and proof of innocence.

In most cases, an acquittal prevents a second trial. However, because Hennis was in the military at the time and the first trial had been held in North Carolina state court, the double jeopardy rule did not preclude a military trial. In 2006, more advanced DNA technology tied Hennis to the rape and murder of Kathryn Eastburn and the murder of her two daughters, 5-year-old Kara and 3-year-old Erin.

"We have known all along that the 'innocence list' claim was a lie," said Scheidegger. "Now we have official proof, beyond a reasonable doubt."\

[Shanda]

Despite it’s misuse by some of Clinton’s friends, I actually like the Scottish system. Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven Guilty.

In other words, we think he did it but there is not enough proof to convict, or we not only don’t find him guilty, we don’t think he did it.

[SeeSharp]

"Now we have official proof, beyond a reasonable doubt."\

Actually, a guilty verdict, like a not guilty verdict, is not proof of anything except the opinion of the jury.

[nickcarraway]

In our system, that’s the most important thing.

[Grut]

It's worth pointing out that this guy was convicted of an old crime with DNA evidence. Those who criticize 'endless' appeals may want to consider that what proves guilt at a much later date can also, much later, prove innocence. The oft-reported opposition of prosecutors to defense-requested DNA testing strikes me as despicable.

[TexasFreeper2009]

freeing people from death row just because DNA taken and tested years later doesn't match the one found guilty is scary silly.

What if the person killed had a secret affair and the DNA was that of a unknown lover?

What if the guilty person didn't act alone, and the DNA is that of an unknown 2nd accomplice?

[yarddog]

I recall a case on TV several years ago where a North Carolina guy was cleared because another guy confessed. The guy who confessed had absolutely nothing to lose by confessing as he was serving life without parole.

They even had the victim on saying she was sure she had been right but must have been wrong. Even from the facts presented on TV it was clear that the exoneration was full of holes but it was PC to release him as he was a minority. The evidence which convicted him was really strong too.

[ArmstedFragg]

We had an “innocence” case in California a few years back that fits the model. It was a rape case where the suspect was a dead ringer for the victim’s description, same clothing, height, weight, etc. When the victim was questioned, she said she wasn’t sure whether her assailant had ‘completed the act’. She also mentioned that she’d had sex with her husband the prior night.

The DNA testing came back with no match to the suspect, and he was released. He promptly proclaimed he’d been exonerated, and the local media front-paged the story for a couple of days. Later in the week, the DNA lab announced it had found a match... to the victim’s husband.

Mr. “exonerated” wasn’t actually.

[Balding_Eagle]

Actually, a guilty verdict, like a not guilty verdict, is not proof of anything except the opinion of the jury.

Here is my challenge to you: Name just who it would be that would provide sufficient evidence of guilt?

DOn't worry, I'm not holding my breath for any type of reply.

[Balding_Eagle]

The oft-reported opposition of prosecutors to defense-requested DNA testing strikes me as despicable.

I agree.

[SeeSharp]

What’s your point? I was simply refuting an absurd exaggeration by the prosecutor.

[Balding_Eagle]

My point is that the ultimate judge we have here on earth (the jury) declared him guilty.

You, on the other hand, inferred that that wasn’t enough evidence to for the prosecutor to have his victory dance.

So, I’ll ask again, how much evidence and who has to declare guilt before you think the prosecuter has the right to dance his jig in public?

[SeeSharp]

You, on the other hand, inferred that that wasn’t enough evidence to for the prosecutor to have his victory dance.

I didn't imply anything. I said directly that the prosecutor's statement wasn't true, which it wasn't.

[Balding_Eagle]

So, I’ll ask again, how much evidence and who has to declare guilt before you think the prosecuter has the right to dance his jig in public?

[SeeSharp]

No prosecutor should ever dance a jig in public.

[Balding_Eagle]

LOL!

You Liberals are so predictable, of course these serial killers should be allowed to roam amoung us.

[SeeSharp]

You Liberals are so predictable, of course these serial killers should be allowed to roam amoung us.

Buddy what is wrong with you? Are you drinking?

[Balding_Eagle]

So, I’ll ask again, how much evidence and who has to declare guilt before you think the prosecuter has the right to declare victory?

[SeeSharp]

You are still completely missing the point. A jury decides how much evidence is enough. But a guilty verdict is not "proof" of guilt. The very fact that people get exonerated after being found guilty is proof that it isn't.

How much evidence does a prosecutor need to lack before you will think the defendant has the right to be declared not guilty?

[Balding_Eagle]

I can do something you have demonstrated you are incapable of doing, answer a direct question easily and quickly. That's what sets conservatives apart from Liberals.

However, I will wait until you've answered mine.