3 ms·

Judging by the article she wasn't fabricating evidence, but rather she was "strengthening" what she was given. All her cases clealry need to be re-evaluated, bu

• Crito 13y ago
  There is no way of knowing of that "strengthened" evidence was the difference between any given person walking or going to jail. They all need to be retried, and imprisoning them until that can happen is an injustice. Give them all the opportunity to make bail again until new trials can be arranged. If the circumstances of their crime make it such that they cannot be retried (for example, all the substantial evidence was bloodwork that was corrupted and cannot be taken again, many months or years later) then they should be released. Guessing that they actually are bad guys isn't good enough.
• sejje 13y ago
  I think it's far more sensible than imprisoning innocents. I think all these cases should be worked within a very brief period or the convictions should be suspended until they are.
• gizmo 13y ago
  > “[Dookhan] was mis-testing evidence, dry-labbing evidence, saying she had ‘conducted tests’ when she had not, deliberately tainting drugs,” I have absolutely no idea how you can interpret that as "not fabricating evidence"!
• aestra 13y ago
  Article One of the United States Constitution guarantees the writ of habeas corpus. If their conviction was based on the "strengthened" evidence, I believe not releasing them would be unlawful detention and be unconstitutional. I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus