3 ms·
He was not "almost put to death row". There was no trial for that to even be a possibility. Instead, a man without truthful evidence against him had the charges
by 1659447091 2y ago
He was not "almost put to death row". There was no trial for that to even be a possibility. Instead, a man without truthful evidence against him had the charges dismissed.
- atoav 2y agoAren't there cases whose innocence has been discovered after they have been on death row?
- 7bit 2y agoAnd that's relevant how?
- atoav 2y agoI wonder how the fact that many innocent people do land in death row is relevant in the discussion about one case where someone didn't. Seriously tho, of course this is relevant. Either your authorities have extremely high confidence, beyond even unreasonable doubt proof or they don't. These are cases where people who didn't do it came close to the danger of being wrongfully executed by the state. If anything, this is a damning data point on how bad the executive and the judicial system are at only prosecuting when they have the proof. In fact it looks a lot like they will just take anybody who is remotely likely to have done it.
- 1659447091 2y agoYes, but that is not this case.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pmarreck 2y agoYes. And full disclosure, I have donated to The Innocence Project
- mixdup 2y agoYes, but, the case was only dismissed when he had a positive alibi against the charges, when the charges should only happen when there is positive evidence against him
- pmarreck 2y agoThis is exactly my point.
- 1659447091 2y agoHe didn't even have an alibi until later. At first he could not remember where he was that night, his girlfriend had to remind him later. So when he was charged there was an eyewitness describing someone like him, he had no alibi at the time, a previous record, and he had strong motive having attended a hearing in which the victim had just testified against his brother in a gang murder that the brother is serving time for as an accomplice. That is more than enough for reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Then during the discovery period his now remembered alibi checked out and he was released. That is due process working.
- ktallett 2y agoAn eyewitness report describing someone like him, not him, was the only evidence placing him at the scene. That should never be enough evidence to charge. That isn't due process, that is finding someone to fit the crime whether they may have done it or not. There is far too much needing to prosecute, than only prosecuting when certain.
- 1659447091 2y agoI said like him because it turned out to not be him but the eye witness identified it as him. That plus motive and him not having an alibi is probable cause where one is charged. Any more than that is what a trial is for but he was cleared with his alibi checking out before it ever got that far.