As somebody said, when a man’s livelihood depends on his not understanding something, you can pretty well count on his not understanding it.

Too bad he’s been run off after revelations of his email love affair with one of his underlings.

Brad - Watkins instituted a Conviction Integrity Unit (something like that) within the DA’s office. I think he meant that “innoncence project,” not the Innocence Project. After 15 exhonerations, it seems like almost any amount of funding would be justified though.

Volney, it’s ironic that you choose to make this gross generalization in response to a post that includes a link to an interview with a prosecutor who manifestly does not see exonerating information as an irritant. I

I recently accepted a field placement internship with the Georgia Innocence Project for this fall semester. Innocence Projects are not one unified national organization. Each one is independent (although they do collaborate via the Innocence Network), and makes its own decisions regarding a number of things, including which cases to take.

I wouldn’t say that the cases would always be a slam-dunk, but they are VERY specific about which cases they take on.

Doesn’t the Innocence Project (and other similar organizations) get its funding from private sources?

If so, why should Mr. Prosecutor care whether it’s a waste of money?

The better question is whether Avery’s misspent time in jail was a factor in the later actions which landed him back in prison.

There are a LOT of people that are wrongly accused, far more than wrongly convicted. The latter is worse, and is likely bigger than we know, especially for crimes where there is no DNA.

All jurors should find people innocent if there is not tangible evidence. If it’s all statements, then all it takes is getting multiple people to tell the same lie to say “look there are 5 people saying this happened, so it must have, even though there is no proof!”

On a completely unrelated note, this story is just awesome. Especially for someone who hates everything New York. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2008/04/runoff-to-determine-mets-new-8.html

They of course have limited resources, and so have to choose their cases carefully.

Yeah, they tend to only take slam-dunk cases–a small percentage of the applications they receive, and generally cases for which some sort of definitive test can prove innocence — like DNA.

What is the rejection rate? That is, how many cases does the average Innocence Project receive every year that it concludes isn’t worth pursuing?

I seem to remember reading that it is substantial. Which would blow a major hole in this guy’s theory, since it means resources aren’t being wasted on the “genuinely guilty,” and focuses them on cases where there is at least some doubt.

What’s troubling is the guy’s phrase “genuinely innocent.” There is a school of thought in America that if an individual is falsely accused of a crime, but does have a criminal past, or had a certain plant in his pocket or was committing another crime at the time of his arrest, then the nature of the evidence isn’t important. He’s a criminal and must go to jail, even if he’s innocent of the charge he’s prosecuted on.

What the “law-and-order” types really want is “character prisons,” where they can toss unsavory individuals without having to produce a victim or any other evidence. My mom, clueless has she is, thinks that people, mainly drug addicts, should be pro-actively imprisoned to protect the public. The phrase “rule of law” is now cliché, an homage to the moral pretense of older generation.