These “innocence projects” are a colossal waste of money, if you actually examine some of these supposed “exonerations” they turn out to be nothing of the kind. I agree that if convincing evidence of the accused’s innocense [sic] falls into a DA’s lap, he has obligations to do something about it. Where I would likely disagree with this Watkins guy is what constitutes evidence of innocence that is sufficiently substantive to merit looking into it. We all know that genuinely innocent defendants, let alone genuinely innocent *convicts*, are rare birds. For every “one-armed man” who really exists there are a million cock-n-bull stories pitched by guilty-as-hell defendants to their attorneys, jailors, and anybody who will listen to them.
Good at least to know that kind of attitude is out there, regrettable as it may be.