[Politicalmom]

So you believe that a person should just be tried until the prosecution can manage to get the evidence to fit? How many times would you allow this? And there would be no penalty for bringing an early trial without enough evidence?

That doesn't sound like a place I would want to live.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

I agree Politicalmom...when would it end? The prosecution can just keep trying and trying until they get a jury that believes them? If that's the case, then all you'd need is a crooked DA, or LEA, or Lawyer, that just wants a win at any cost. You'd have planted or fudged evidence, appeal after appeal...it would never end.

[MizSterious]

You said a mouthful there, Politicalmom. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers had more wisdom than some Freepers when they wrote the Constitution. I think some people would prefer the old Communist Russia, but count me out.

[UCANSEE2]

Just added vollmond to my killfile

[vollmond]

I said that a retrial would have to be based on "conclusive" new evidence. It doesn't allow for unlimited do-overs. There would have to be a greater burden of proof on new evidence in a future pre-trial hearing in order to permit the new trial to even occur. It would also permit a retrial based on examination of the original evidence with new technology, as long as the findings are conclusive.

A number of innocent people have been freed from jail because of this, shouldn't the opposite be permitted?

Now that I reflect further on it, though, most juries would cop out and return a Not Proven verdict rather than be brave enough to take the extra step to Not Guilty, leaving the defendant forever tarnished. So, while I think the idea has some merit, the end result is not worthwhile.

[Greg Weston]

>>And there would be no penalty for bringing an early trial without enough evidence?<<

You don't have to worry about that in this case. The blood, DNA, fingerprints, fibers all fit

That's why DW will be found guilty. I'm confident the jurors are much smarter than some who post here.