Johnny Briscoe was not proved innocent, only that he didnt leave the DNA that they found.
Aren't people considered innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to proving someone's innocence?
Seems like this evidence may not rise to the reasonable doubt level.
Two of the cigarette butts had only the victim's DNA. Those are irrelevant.The third had both the victim's and that of a third person. Given the victim's testimony that the perpetrator of the rape was the man who smoked that cigarette, that implies that if your DNA ain't on that cigarette you weren't there.
I hope you aren't ever on a jury if you would convict someone who you know wasn't in the room at the time.
"Johnny Briscoe was not proved innocent, only that he didnt leave the DNA that they found."
Since only the rapist and the victim smoked at the scene, that's a pretty big clue.