Home  >  Community  >  The Vendio Round Table  >  Got 19 Years to Spare?


<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>
 julesy
 
posted on August 24, 2001 02:05:52 PM new
This guy was incarcerated for 19 years, 17 of which were spent on Idaho's death row...

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/24/deathrow.dna.ap/index.html

"Much of the case was based on an FBI forensics expert's testimony that pubic hairs found in Daralyn's socks and underwear may have been Fain's.

But breakthroughs in DNA identification led a forensic laboratory to conclude in June that the hairs were not Fain's. The lab said the hairs came from the same unidentified person."

17 Years on death row.

Good thing he utilized that lengthy appeals process that many pro-death penalty folks would like to do away with.



 
 Microbes
 
posted on August 24, 2001 02:10:51 PM new
With any hedious crime, there is a lot of pressure on the "state" to make someone pay. I'll bet some DA made a lot of "points" for getting this conviction.

 
 toke
 
posted on August 24, 2001 02:15:13 PM new
God. The poor guy. DNA testing is a wonderful thing...at least for the innocent...

 
 gravid
 
posted on August 24, 2001 07:19:17 PM new
The problem is there is no provision for punishing the prosecutor when they are over zelous except in the most unusual rare cases.
If they had to answer personally for false convictions they would be more careful.

The same for parole boards.

 
 yeager
 
posted on August 24, 2001 10:21:53 PM new
Gravid,

I agree 100 percent with what you have said. In most cases, the prosocuter is an elected official. The prosocuter that produces "results" is the one who is more favored with the public that the one who doesn't.

It could have been a case of someone, the most accountable person being charged. At the next election, the rival seeking the position often protrays the incumbent as a person to be lax in his duties and not deserving of the position.

 
 bunnicula
 
posted on August 24, 2001 10:30:47 PM new
The problem is there is no provision for punishing the prosecutor when they are over zelous except in the most unusual rare cases.


No, that's not the problem in this case. The prosecuter relied--had to rely--on the evidence at hand. It's not his/her fault that DNA techniques have since advanced. Trying to punish the prosecutor in a case like this would be absurd.


 
 Microbes
 
posted on August 24, 2001 10:43:07 PM new
Much of the case was based on an FBI forensics expert's testimony that pubic hairs found in Daralyn's socks and underwear may have been Fain's

Well, it looks to me that a prosecuter turned "may have been" into a death sentence.

 
 sadie999
 
posted on August 24, 2001 11:01:38 PM new
Pubic hairs in socks? ewww
 
 bunnicula
 
posted on August 24, 2001 11:08:03 PM new
Read the article: the pubic hair evidence hinged on the newly developed DNA techniques--which have since been improved upon.

 
 mybiddness
 
posted on August 25, 2001 09:45:14 AM new
Amazing - It only took this one 62,000 letters to finally get someone's attention.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA0DOOLTQC.html

edited to clarify
Not paranoid anywhere else but here! [ edited by mybiddness on Aug 25, 2001 09:47 AM ]
 
 
<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>

Jump to

All content © 1998-2024  Vendio all rights reserved. Vendio Services, Inc.™, Simply Powerful eCommerce, Smart Services for Smart Sellers, Buy Anywhere. Sell Anywhere. Start Here.™ and The Complete Auction Management Solution™ are trademarks of Vendio. Auction slogans and artwork are copyrights © of their respective owners. Vendio accepts no liability for the views or information presented here.

The Vendio free online store builder is easy to use and includes a free shopping cart to help you can get started in minutes!