Posted on 02/18/2005 10:32:38 PM PST by ambrose
Man Declared 'Factually Innocent' After 10 Years In Prison
Ruling Makes Way For State Compensation
POSTED: 12:18 pm PST February 18, 2005 UPDATED: 12:30 pm PST February 18, 2005
STOCKTON, Calif. -- A man who went to prison 10 years ago for a rape he didn't commit is a free man after a Stockton court declared him innocent.
Peter Rose
Peter Rose was cleared by DNA evidence that was not available when he was convicted. The court overturned the conviction last October, and Rose, 37, was set free from prison. But that just meant he was unfairly convicted.
On Friday, the court set the record straight and declared Rose "factually innocent." A 13-year-old said she was pressured by Lodi police into identifying Rose even though she never saw the face of her attacker.
"One hundred fifty-six people have been exonerated by DNA testing across the country. Today, Mr. Rose becomes the 157th person to add to that list," said Innocence Project spokeswoman Susan Rutberg.
The Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal clinic and criminal justice resource center, took on the case and found the evidence to clear Rose.
"I will grant the order and find no reasonable cause exists to believe that Mr. Rose committed the offense for which he was tried and convicted," said San Joaquin Superior Court Judge Stephen Demetras.
Peter Rose
Rose said he is not angry over his years behind bars, but he is concerned about how the justice system works.
"I believe the system needs to make sure a person is guilty before they send him off to prison," Rose said.
When asked what he was going to do with the rest of his life, Rose responded: "Go fishing."
The finding of "factual innocence" also clears the way for Rose to collect compensation from the state, as much as $100 a day for the time spent in prison, which adds up to more than $300,000.
Not enough.
Unbelievable. Ten years of someone else telling you when and where to wipe one's ass. Showering with stinking criminals,etc. and all they offer is $100 a day. Please. I hope that he gets a really good lawyer.
BTW, what would these men have done without DNA testing!
Can he sue the girl and police in civil court?
"I hope that he gets a really good lawyer."
Probably could have used a better one ten years ago.
They would have stayed in jail.
Don't get me wrong: criminals should do HARD time for the crimes they have committed, but overzealous prosecutors and LEO's that manufacture convictions ought to be in the cell with those criminals.
When he was convicted I'll bet there were a lot of people saying, "fry him" and many "Christians" saying, "may he burn in hell" etc.
This instance is just one of the reasons I am against the death penality.
Death penalty with dna evidence...though I think these days the impossible lengths of appeals,etc. hardly anyone gets executed anymore.
I accept it as a unfortunate fact that a certain percentage of people sent to prison are innocent. That has been and will always be true.
On the other hand, when such an instance is found out, heads should roll. (Discourages the habit.)
I'm confused. When did she say this, and when did she turn 13? And is she the victim or an eyewitness? Sheesh!
There are probably more people on death row who will die of old age rather than from "Old Sparky"
The victim must have been 13 and either he wore a mask or he covered her face.
Oh, I'll call for frying someone who commits cold-blooded murder. But I want better evidence than is available in some of these cases. Some combination of eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and admissions of the perpetrator.
I am not convinced he's innocent.
So if she was 13 (not 3) when the crime occured 10 years ago, and she made the statement 10 years ago, when she was still 13, and not now, when she is 23, then why wasn't the statement made a part of the defense 10 years ago?
I know you don't have the answer, I just get exasperated by poor writing.
Excuse me but my IQ isn't that high and it's late. I'm offended.
In all fairness, who knows how many columns a day your avg AP reporter has to bang out...
Criminal charges should be brought against all those who manufactured the evidence to convict him in the first place.
Only then will people think twice about doing it.
I don't agree with the "HARD time" comment --for most people, such as anyone on this board, just being behind bars would be "hard time." I understand that there are hard cases that need hard time. For the second part of your statement, I agree, that would add a feedback loop that is missing in the current system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.