4 ms·
So, in a timeline this: * "We have an eyewitness! File the charges." * "Our eyewitness recanted, dismiss." * "We now have DNA evidence, refile the charges."
by jemfinch 10y ago
So, in a timeline this:
* "We have an eyewitness! File the charges."
* "Our eyewitness recanted, dismiss."
* "We now have DNA evidence, refile the charges."
You actually think the trial should not be allowed to go forward?
- kuschku 10y agoMany countries solve that: You can't present the exact same case again after you filed to dismiss... ...unless a major change has happened, such as a massive amount of new incriminating evidence.
- bsder 10y ago> You actually think the trial should not be allowed to go forward? Actually, yes. If you filed a case on something so flimsy and it collapses, the case should get dismissed. It would sure make prosecutors go the extra mile to make sure that there is concrete evidence before filing charges. Simply filing charges can destroy someone's life. The prosecution should have to put something at risk when they do so.
- BearGoesChirp 10y agoShould've waited for the DNA evidence. The idea we convict with just eyewitness testimony alone is enough of a nightmare. Also, this is how it happens already if they go through the entire trial. * "We have an eyewitness. File the charges!" * "Jury finds the defendant not guilty because they didn't think the eyewitness' testimony was proof beyond a reasonable doubt." * "We found DNA evidence and even a video that someone recorded but didn't admit to just now." Double jeopardy means they can't go ahead, no matter what evidence they find. This is just extending that a little further, which I see as a good thing.