“They weren’t exonerated by DNA evidence, they were exonerated by someone’s interpretation of such...and there is a far less than perfect history there.
“To answer your question, I’d like to know what evidence was used to convict them. If it were circumstantial, I’d likely agree with them getting cleared - if 20 witnesses, I might think differently.
“In any case, I’ve been played by the media enough times to NOT immediately believe what they say.”
__________
^^This^^.
Unfortunately.
Just as there are freakshow prosecutors perfectly willing to frame and jail clearly innocent men, there are freakshow exonerators perfectly willing to canonize and spring **from** jail clearly guilty men.
Hence the need for more and more specific information IN EVERY SINGLE CASE.
The corruption and virtue signaling industries are displacing seemingly every worthwhile line of work. It’s really becoming suffocating.
Well, I think the question to ask is what were their prior criminal records? Prosecutors seem to often go hard after a shaky case because of criminal history, vowing to "put this guy away once and for all" even if the evidence for the case in question is marginal. A lot of the falsely convicted richly deserve long sentences, they just got them for a crime they didn't happen to commit - a subtlety that gets completely lost in these discussions.
Of course, if these two are genuine victims of prosecutorial malice they deserve whatever compensation their attorneys can get for them.