tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post8290831699893976165..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Innocence Man: Gallego propels raft of innocence bills to front of Criminal Jurisprudence lineGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-71824603764315922812011-02-21T04:57:11.272-06:002011-02-21T04:57:11.272-06:00"What do eyewitnesses see?"
As is often..."What do eyewitnesses see?"<br /><br />As is often the case, the answer is "it depends." It's trace evidence that can be contaminated, but trace evidence can also be valuable. If the witness knew the person they're identifying before the event, the value goes way up. When identifying strangers, there are more frequently mistakes - read some of the related links at the end of the post for specifics.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-75045250248750572862011-02-20T21:59:43.316-06:002011-02-20T21:59:43.316-06:00What do eyewitnesses see? Really nothing.What do eyewitnesses see? Really nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-5154286625581613202011-02-20T06:55:24.089-06:002011-02-20T06:55:24.089-06:009:10, It's true that a plain reading of curren...9:10, It's true that a plain reading of current law would seem to support allowing a subsequent writ when new scientific standards undermine the validity of a conviction. However, Texas CCA rulings have been called many things, but seldom "plain." ;) In the actual case law, or so I'm told by the attorneys who're working on some of these cases, the sitting CCA makes them thread a pretty thin needle in non-DNA cases. Keep in mind, Texas' Chapter 64 DNA testing statute exists because they wouldn't allow Roy Criner's innocence claims based on new scientific evidence. This keeps them (hopefully) from having to do a Ch. 65 for dog scent lineups, Ch.66 for debunked arson investigations, etc.. Or at least, that's the idea.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-49560471371909767802011-02-19T08:27:19.391-06:002011-02-19T08:27:19.391-06:00"If the authorities have enough pressure on t..."If the authorities have enough pressure on them to solve a case then they'll manufacture the necessary evidence to do so."<br />Or destroy it. Ask Clarence Brandley.DEWEYhttp://theprisonshow.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-62765000926907047022011-02-19T06:47:14.186-06:002011-02-19T06:47:14.186-06:00This new legislation will only go so far. If the a...This new legislation will only go so far. If the authorities have enough pressure on them to solve a case then they'll manufacture the necessary evidence to do so. <br /><br />Everyone is aware of the high numbers of police misconduct, but few believe that crime scene investigators would be dishonest, and that is simply untrue as the conviction last year of Omaha, Nebraska's CSI chief David Kofoed proves. http://www.ketv.com/r/22918114/detail.html<br /><br />Everyone always assumes that the finding of DNA evidence is irrefutable, but anyone who follows the Twitter Newsfeed http://twitter.com/#!/InjusticeNews understands that lying is second nature to all law enforcement officers.<br /><br />Common sense dictates that there are hundreds of David Kofoeds out there framing innocents...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-78375398742582443372011-02-18T21:10:22.098-06:002011-02-18T21:10:22.098-06:00I wonder why the habeas bill is necessary. Inmates...I wonder why the habeas bill is necessary. Inmates can file subsequent writs if they are based on a factual or legal basis that wasn't previously available. Have the courts held that a new scientific or forensic breakthrough would not satisfy that requirement?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com