| Thanks for the link. Just to make a grand summary for everyone: * writ of innocence does not mean the court of appeals deems someone innocent. It means it finds that in light of the new evidence a retrial is warranted, and the accused enjoys the benefit of doubt once again (therefore he's "innocent until proven guilty"). It is certainly not an exoneration * both David Faulkner and Jonathan Smith were granted the writ of innocence * the prosecutors decided to not pursue David Faulkner anymore (either they think he's innocent, or they think he served enough time, or they think they don't have enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt) * the prosecutors decided to try Jonathan Smith in July [1]. A judge decided to deny him bond until that time and to be under house arrest. The judge was obviously aware of the writ of innocence, and found the weight of evidence sufficient to not grant him bail. * Finally, Jonathan Smith entered an Alford Plea [2], which is a type of no-contest plea. With this plea, the state let him go free. This type of plea does not imply the defendant is guilty, but does not imply that he's innocent either. *crucially, the Alford plea does not imply prosecutorial misconduct. Now, if I was "sleazyfing" the work of the Innocence Project, what did they do in regards to the work of the prosecutors? Is there any way to read their article without inferring massive prosecutorial misconduct? [1] https://www.stardem.com/emergency_notice/jonathan-smith-deni... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea |
Folks, ignore him, and just read the appeals court decision. They lay it out pretty clear and isn't hard to understand.