Replies

There are more than 400 people that have been exonerated over the last 5 years from death row because they were convicted because of circumstantial evidence--what do you say about that? hmmm...
Later the real criminal was found guilty. I guess all of you all will say the Judge, the Prosecution and law enforcement had nothing at all to do with those fellows serving time in jail for something they didnt do?
When they were found guilty---people were saying exactly what yall are saying now--too much circumstantial evidence points to guilt.
So, why then--were they exonerated if circumstantial evidence proves guilt?

I would be very surprised if 400 people have been exonerated in the past 5 years. I would not be surprised on the other hand if convictions were reversed for 400 people and they were not reprosecuted. But that has more to do with the long appeal period resulting in the disappearance of witnesses and evidence than it does the innocence of the accused.

Moreover, the convictions were not reversed "because they were convicted because of circumstantial evidence." You have your concepts mixed up here. Circumstantial evidence is not grounds for reversal.

Many convictions are reversed for evidentiary errors, but most have to do with the hearsay rule or similar transaction evidence wrongly admitted. Many are reversed for errors in the charge to the jury. There was a wholesale commutation in Illinois because of fraud in the state crime lab. In fact it seems that eyewitness identification of a stranger is far less reliable than solid physical (albeit circumstantial) evidence.