Just watched the newest DALLAS DNA episode - someone please talk me down

[derby378]

Back in 1992, there was this guy in Dallas who was convicted of rape. He has protested his innocence ever since, and has been denied parole for refusing to admit to the deed.

The Innocence Project works with the office of the Dallas County DA (Craig Watkins, a family man and a damn good Democrat) to give him a DNA test. The test reveals that this guy could not possibly be the rapist.

But the victim herself still insists that this man was indeed the rapist, so he has to stay behind bars because "it's her word against his," and if she says he raped her, evidence be damned.

Can someone help me out here? Is there some wacky legal concept I missed on the program that someone could enlighten me on that would keep an innocent man in prison despite being cleared by DNA evidence?

[dysfunctional press]

1. "Is there some wacky legal concept ...?"

yes.
it's called 'texas'.

avoid it at all costs.

[derby378]

2. Not an option, I'm afraid

There is something about this case that has tied the hands of the DA himself, and I'd like to know what it is.

Besides, Texas is my home state, and someone has got to clean up the mess that the Repukes made.

[anonymous171]

3. Depends on the alleged rapist's skin color. nt

[sandnsea]

4. In all seriousness

I don't know about this case - but I can imagine a situation where DNA is present that doesn't match the perpetrator. And if the perpetrator used a condom, his might not be present. I don't think her word against his is adequate to keep someone in jail, but if there were other truly damning circumstantial evidence, I'm not sure DNA should be the ONLY criteria to base guilt.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Evidence of innocence doesn't mean anyone gets cut loose..

automatically. If everyone-- cops, DA, victim... agrees, sometimes a judge can overturn a conviction, but that depends on local law and an experienced local criminal attorney would know more about how it works. In this case, even though they might have found someone else's DNA, the prosecution could argue that she had consensual sex (which she may have forgotten about!) and he used a condom. Such things, and crazier, have been argued successfully.

One thing we have to understand when reading about these cases is that everyone involved-- cops, victims, families, lawyers on all sides-- have a tremendous amount of personal emotional involvement in them, and after years of investigation and trials, they have a hard time accepting that what they thought was a closed issue was now a gaping open wound again. None of us likes to admit we were wrong, and the stress of the crime and the trial just adds to the angst.

Usually, you go the appeals route and a new trial is ordered. In Texas, that may mean the Court of Criminal Appeals is the last resort unless something can be done in Federal court. And, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is not known to be particularly friendly toward anyone convicted.

Now, this gets tricky, and although I'm not a lawyer myself, I've had enough discussions with criminal lawyers to know that a jury conviction is considered pretty much immutable-- the jury is presumed to have heard everything and arrived at a proper judgment. New evidence is not automatically a reason for a new trial, and never a reason for an appeal. Appeals are based not on jury error or misunderstanding, but on some legal or procedural error made during trial. Lawyers twist every which way to figure out how to strategically word an appeal to get it to work, since the system is designed to help it fail.

If all this isn't depressing enough, there was a death penalty case 20 years or so ago where (DAMN! I can't remember the name) where our BFF Scalia wrote for the majority that an appeal was filed a day late, so it was null and void even though new evidence proving innocence was found-- possible innocence is no reason to cancel an execution if the paperwork isn't in on time.

[derby378]

6. Thanks for the extensive reply

And yeah, that majority opinion from Scalia really galls me. Why let the facts get in the way of an execution - or a Presidential election?