Good thing they didn't execute him, eh?

[Bruno@MT]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/n..._17_years_in_prison/srvc=home&position=recent
Man declared innocent by 3 judges, 17 years into a life sentence for murder.

District Attorney Colon Willoughby fought to keep Taylor in prison. Wednesday morning, Willoughby told judges Taylor failed to prove his innocence and urged them to not base their decision on how his office prosecuted the case in 1993.

I read the article, and basically the DA witheld exonerating evidence during the trial, lied to the jury several times that blood was found on his car, and used the testimony of 2 other criminals for which said witnesses got a deal.

Now I am not naive enough to think that we can now be absolutely sure that he is innocent. We don't even know enough to have an informed opinion. But I do know that a murder conviction should be upheld by more than the DA's desire to quickly railroad a convenient suspect to prison or death row.

Juries can only make an educated judgement beyond reasonable doubt if they are not lied to or misled.

 

[Blade96]

wow. he spent almost as many years in prison as David Milgaard (22 years)

 

[Flying Crane]

The weight is not on the shoulders of the accused to prove his innocence. Rather, the weight is on the shoulders of the prosecution to prove his guilt.

 

[shesulsa]

Good thing this didn't happen in Texas ... he'd have been dead twelve years now.

 

[Carol]

I thought a convict had to be sentenced to the death penalty in order to be executed? :idunno:

 

[Deaf Smith]

The weight is not on the shoulders of the accused to prove his innocence. Rather, the weight is on the shoulders of the prosecution to prove his guilt.

That's just what I was thinking. When the DA said, "Taylor failed to prove his innocence" I did a double take. That's not our way. I know in some countries that is how it works but not here!

Deaf

 

[Bruno@MT]

That's just what I was thinking. When the DA said, "Taylor failed to prove his innocence" I did a double take. That's not our way. I know in some countries that is how it works but not here!

Deaf

My first reaction was the same as yours, but in overturning a guilty verdict, it is not unreasonable that you have to prove your innocence, since you got convicted with a supposed certainty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I thought a convict had to be sentenced to the death penalty in order to be executed? :idunno:

That was my point. If he had been convicted in another state, say Texas, he'd be dead already. This, and this only is the major reason I am against the death penalty.

Alternatively, the DA, executioner, the person(s) deciding on the penalty and any party in the trial who lied or misled to get the guilty conviction should be executed as well for conspiring to murder an innocent person, should it come to light.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

A friend of mine used to work for the Innocence Project in Tallahassee, FL. He could go on all night with similar stories of railroaded defendants and deceitful prosecutors. I'm glad to hear this man's wrongful conviction was reversed. Makes you wonder where the real killer's been, doesn't it?

 

[Carol]

That was my point. If he had been convicted in another state, say Texas, he'd be dead already.

Not necessarily. The story is from the Boston Herald, and yes -- Mass. does not have the death penalty. However, the events were from North Carolina, where Google says there are 150-200 convicts on death row.

NC can, and does, sentence convicts to death.

 

[Deaf Smith]

My first reaction was the same as yours, but in overturning a guilty verdict, it is not unreasonable that you have to prove your innocence, since you got convicted with a supposed certainty beyond reasonable doubt.

Only if you can't get grounds for a new trial instead of vacating the conviction. I think he is trying to vacate it and not just a new trial. It's much easier to show the bad faith of the prosecutor should force a new trail.

Deaf

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Actually, I'm curious about the wording used in this and the one other article I could find on this issue. They said that the judges declared him "innocent" and "convicted of a crime he didn't commit". That is not what appellate courts do.

Unfortunately I could not find a direct quote of the judges, or the court record. Appellate courts don't rule on guilty or not guilty. They rule on points of legal issues, such as discovery, technical violations of the law / rules of order, etc. They do not typically judge the innocence or guilt of people.