Having a LACK OF EVIDENCE is often a reason to overturn a verdict. There have been several cases in judicial history when new evidence (particularly DNA) has gotten a convict released and verdict overturned.

In this case the information the JURORS DID NOT HAVE, should(IMHO) have been enough to err on the side of not KILLING a man. Namely the statements from these 'witnesses' regarding having been coerced by police to say what they said.

But I suspect, with a policemans death in question, further questioning of the police would be political suicide and the case erred on the side of making someone pay for his death.


I believe he was there and I believe he was not an 'innocent' person, but I Do believe someone else took that police officers life and the death penalty bestowed on this man was unjust and left the real offender free from receiving their proper 'justice'.

12 people consider all testimony and all evidence, all have to agree. have you ever tried getting 12 people to agree on what to have for lunch, it ain't easy to get 2 people to agree, much less 12

i guess you forget about the OJ simpson trail... 12 jurors said he was not guilty...when everyone knows he was

big difference between LACK of evidence (reasonable doubt there) and NEW evidence (something never considered)

yes, they consider ALL evidence permitted into the courtroom AT THE TIME

that is why there are APPEALS, where NEW evidence comes in and CONFLICTING evidence comes in that can get the ruling overturned


it happens, it has for dozens of death row inmates with those CERTAIN jurors of 12, who had DNA evidence exhonerate them anyhow.

So I guess, even 12 jurors can agree to the WRONG VERDICT.

yes, they consider ALL evidence permitted into the courtroom AT THE TIME

that is why there are APPEALS, where NEW evidence comes in and CONFLICTING evidence comes in that can get the ruling overturned


it happens, it has for dozens of death row inmates with those CERTAIN jurors of 12, who had DNA evidence exhonerate them anyhow.

So I guess, even 12 jurors can agree to the WRONG VERDICT.

if I may....the jury heard more in this case than the public did. They heard the testimonies, saw evidence, etc. The public is only going on what the media says.

Sometimes people (after a long period to think) MIGHT recant their testimony because they had a change of heart or the fact that someone is on death row because of their testimony.

Who is to say that the witnesses were lying on the stand and telling the truth now or they told the truth on the stand and feel guilty now?

I wonder though...if the same outrage well be given for the men convicted in the James Byrd Jr murder.

No system is perfect. But I think that every means are used to try to prevent wrongful convictions. Some slip through the cracks both ways.

generally speaking the appellate court examines the record of evidence presented in the trial court and the law that the lower court applied and decides whether that decision was legally sound or not. The appellate court will typically be deferential to the lower court's findings of fact (such as whether a defendant committed a particular act), unless clearly erroneous, and so will focus on the court's application of the law to those facts (such as whether the act found by the court to have occurred fits a legal definition at issue).

and yes, even 12 jurors can agree to the wrong verdict. that's what good lawyers do

I'll repeat my question as it is the essential question here. If we have a death penalty, it is inevitable that innocent people will be executed. The question is:

How many innocent people is it acceptable to execute to ensure that we also execute the guilty ones?

Mightymoe says, "as many as it takes". What do you say?

ALL of the evidence physical and otherwise was enough for a conviction and for several courts and judes and boards to hold theconviction up.

Even Obama didn't think he was innocent, we all know how he would have love to toss himsef into this case if he thought he was.

AND after several years your mind starts to fade on the subject and you second guess yourself and that is what happened here along with these witneses having a grudge with the police and DA's because of their own dirty pasts.

wow, even Obama in this discussion,,,

dont even want to know how anyone can know what OBAMA believes (was there some public statement that I missed)?

or is it just that SICK sense that looks at 'some' folks and can size up their thoughts, feelings, and intentions....?


I will re iterate the problem. The problem is that JURIES get it wrong sometimes (they are human)and in the case where there is a reason to DOUBT they had enough evidence or CREDIBLE evidence to come to their verdict, the law should err on the side of LIFE and not kill a potentially innocent suspect.

that is ONE possibility, because after all those who commit crimes are pretty likely to want 'revenge' on cops

but then again, the other possibility, is those with 'criminal' history are likely to feel INTIMIDATED by cops enough to tell them what they want to hear


so again I ask, how do we decide which was more LIKELY in this case, and if there is no extremely reliable way to tell which way it went, we shouldnt be killing the accused.

that is ONE possibility, because after all those who commit crimes are pretty likely to want 'revenge' on cops

but then again, the other possibility, is those with 'criminal' history are likely to feel INTIMIDATED by cops enough to tell them what they want to hear


so again I ask, how do we decide which was more LIKELY in this case, and if there is no extremely reliable way to tell which way it went, we shouldnt be killing the accused.

Honestly, I haven't heard outrage on the other two executions so far this week, maybe because the other two were white men and not black?

its a free forum, outrage away....

Obama's Spin Doctor even said that he has looked over the file BUT he doesn't get involved in state cases(which we ALL know that isn't true, he did so within the last 45 days or so and tried to order the Supreme Sourt to block the execution of someone.)

oh, so not getting involved means belief that someone is guilty? interesting

names? perhaps some research will unveil why there wasnt an 'outrage'

two caucasian males executed in the same week seems odd...

but without names, its hard to tell