Just an observation. The article bemoans non-specific changes in the way justice is normally distributed in this case; but no where in the article is there any mention that the person is actually innocent.
The article boils down to "Yeah, my client murdered a cop; but we don't like the way you found him guilty".
no where in the article is there any mention that the person is actually innocent.
Good catch. That would be a difficult thing for them to do since Cook has never asserted his innocence. He can't even get his own half brother, who was on the scene, to serve as a witness for him. It's kind of difficult to explain how Cook could have one of Faulkner's slugs in his chest and Faulkner have five of Cook's slugs in him, fired from a gun with only Cook's prints on it, further a gun purchased registered to and found lying next to Cook.
I guess when there's that big a mountain of evidence against you, you've got to look for procedural loopholes.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”