This story is written implying that the case was overturned primarily thanks to the witness coming forward and admitting she lied. But frankly it was probably the evidence of probable arson which...
This story is written implying that the case was overturned primarily thanks to the witness coming forward and admitting she lied. But frankly it was probably the evidence of probable arson which was the primary factor in this guy's release.
In some states (many? most? all?), an eyewitness recanting their testimony years/decades later, even if their testimony was the primary evidence for conviction, is often not considered by the judicial system to be significant enough to warrant a new trial, let alone exonerate a person. The police, prosecutors, and courts all tend to give more weight to a person's testimony closer to the event ... recanting years later can itself be a lie, or confused memory, or caused by any number of questionable motivations.
In the US, eyewitnesses recant their testimony years later, all the time. Without other new evidence corroborating the new testimony, the courts often ignore it and let the conviction stand.
This is why exonerations in the US are almost always driven by exculpatory DNA evidence.
This is the part that's so infuriating to me: I've been through jury duty. They go to great lengths to explain that just because someone's on trial doesn't mean "they did it," it merely means they...
This is the part that's so infuriating to me:
“Merely being arrested and charged suggests to the jury that something happened even though they should be scrutinizing the evidence and presuming innocence,” Forbes’ attorney, Imran Syed of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, told the Free Press. "No jury wants to believe that a prosecutor went through the trouble of bringing someone to trial if they’re truly innocent.”
I've been through jury duty. They go to great lengths to explain that just because someone's on trial doesn't mean "they did it," it merely means they are suspected and it's your job to decide based on the evidence. And they also explain it to you in the required civics class that every student in the US has to take in order to graduate high school.
I graduated from high school a couple years ago. I never took civics. My parents took civics in the same school district in the 80s. They no longer even offer the course much less require it. At...
I graduated from high school a couple years ago. I never took civics. My parents took civics in the same school district in the 80s. They no longer even offer the course much less require it. At least in my town. (Northeast United States)
I grew up in Michigan as well and recall taking a class, but it was generally called a government class and not civics in particular. I remember it being a favorite class of mine that year, but it...
I grew up in Michigan as well and recall taking a class, but it was generally called a government class and not civics in particular. I remember it being a favorite class of mine that year, but it was a short class and basically an easy-A for everybody, it was more or less treated like PE, haha. I'm sure this varies from school to school, but I'm relatively certain that knowledge retention in my particular instance was low. What's more worrisome though was interest was even lower... Nice to see another Michigander around here though!
Mildly relevant posts on what this guy is likely gonna go through: What it's like to experience new technology after 25 years 3 shorts from AlJazeera talking to a guy called Otis Johnson My life...
Eyewitness testimony at the very least needs some serious reform. I personally think it should be inadmissible in court - people too often can be mistaken or outright lie and there is no way to...
Eyewitness testimony at the very least needs some serious reform. I personally think it should be inadmissible in court - people too often can be mistaken or outright lie and there is no way to tell definitively whether what they say is true or whether their perceived truth is factually true.
This story is written implying that the case was overturned primarily thanks to the witness coming forward and admitting she lied. But frankly it was probably the evidence of probable arson which was the primary factor in this guy's release.
In some states (many? most? all?), an eyewitness recanting their testimony years/decades later, even if their testimony was the primary evidence for conviction, is often not considered by the judicial system to be significant enough to warrant a new trial, let alone exonerate a person. The police, prosecutors, and courts all tend to give more weight to a person's testimony closer to the event ... recanting years later can itself be a lie, or confused memory, or caused by any number of questionable motivations.
In the US, eyewitnesses recant their testimony years later, all the time. Without other new evidence corroborating the new testimony, the courts often ignore it and let the conviction stand.
This is why exonerations in the US are almost always driven by exculpatory DNA evidence.
This is the part that's so infuriating to me:
I've been through jury duty. They go to great lengths to explain that just because someone's on trial doesn't mean "they did it," it merely means they are suspected and it's your job to decide based on the evidence. And they also explain it to you in the required civics class that every student in the US has to take in order to graduate high school.
I graduated from high school a couple years ago. I never took civics. My parents took civics in the same school district in the 80s. They no longer even offer the course much less require it. At least in my town. (Northeast United States)
Interesting. I grew up in Michigan, and we were required to take it back then. I guess it's changed. That certainly doesn't bode well for the future.
I grew up in Michigan as well and recall taking a class, but it was generally called a government class and not civics in particular. I remember it being a favorite class of mine that year, but it was a short class and basically an easy-A for everybody, it was more or less treated like PE, haha. I'm sure this varies from school to school, but I'm relatively certain that knowledge retention in my particular instance was low. What's more worrisome though was interest was even lower... Nice to see another Michigander around here though!
Mildly relevant posts on what this guy is likely gonna go through: What it's like to experience new technology after 25 years
3 shorts from AlJazeera talking to a guy called Otis Johnson
My life after 44 years in prison
Finding my family after 44 years in prison
Reentering society after 44 years in prison
Eyewitness testimony at the very least needs some serious reform. I personally think it should be inadmissible in court - people too often can be mistaken or outright lie and there is no way to tell definitively whether what they say is true or whether their perceived truth is factually true.