16-05-2014, 04:23 AM
From what I understand, the majority of the "actual innocence" reversals (in Dallas and elsewhere) come from mistaken identification of the suspect by civilian witnesses, and when new scientific techniques are brought to bear, such as DNA, they can exclude a person as a suspect. Contrast that to the Michael Morton case, where the conviction was overturned because of a failure of the Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson to provide to the defense evidence that tended to exonerate him (his son's statement to the police saying, "daddy wasn't there," and a record of the deceased's credit card being used after her death). Later, Morton was exonerated and the real killer prosecuted.
Prosecutors aren't required to exclude favorable identification witnesses even if they privately entertain doubts. You cannot blame the prosecutors for playing the hand they are dealt to the best of thier ability, so long as they play by the rules.
Prosecutors aren't required to exclude favorable identification witnesses even if they privately entertain doubts. You cannot blame the prosecutors for playing the hand they are dealt to the best of thier ability, so long as they play by the rules.