Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
The main reason is that no court, other than the trial court, can try an issue of fact.
One the facts are in and decided upon, the only things appealable are questions of procedural error--and only if 'preserved' (objected to on the record).
|
If that's true, thank you for enlightening me.
Quote:
|
I guess I should also point out that, as much as it pains me to admit this, by the time someone comes to trial he or she is pretty much guilty.
|
You cannot be serious! Innocent until proven guilty is one of the lauded standards for which the US stands, isn't it?
I'm astounded at that statement.
Quote:
You just plucked one person out of 2 million incarcerated individuals.
I'm of the persuasion that 1 person is too many even if it means X amount (haven't determined it yet, maybe to be hashed out in philo board) of guilty go free.
|
I didn't pluck one person. There have been plenty of examples of this happening. The issue at here is not this one person, but the fact that many states do not allow someone to refer to DNA analysis after their conviction. I could also point out that, in many cases, DNA evidence was simply not available at the time of their conviction, but I should assume this is obvious.
Mr Mephisto