[rogue yam]

Am I the only one here who thinks it odd that that the article does not describe the evidence allegedly withheld by prosecutors from this man's murder trial? The blood business was evidence that he didn't commit the separate armed robbery, and it does seem he deserved a new trial on the murder charge if one assumes that he didn't testify in his first murder trial because of the tainted robbery conviction. But this article does not state what evidence convicted the man of murder the first time, nor does it state what evidence led to his acquittal in the second trial. For FReepers to be pontificating broadly about wrongful conviction without this information is a disappointment. This may be a leftist scam here folks.

[Eagles6]

Yep, I noticed that too and can find little on the net. It appears he and another were arrested for the murder before being identified as perps in 3 robberies. The blood only disqualifies him in 1 robbery.

All of these "exonerations" are not necessarily of "innocent" men.