[richlevy]

"Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case," laments Oregon District Attorney Josh Marquis. "They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television."

Of course, considering how many people the Innocence Project has freed with DNA evidence years or decades after conviction, holding out for DNA evidence before you sentence someone to death or life in prison might no be a bad minimum standard.

If I had a crystal ball and 50 million dollars, I could hire Robert Blake's lawyer for every innocent defendent. Barring that, I think that jurors wanting more evidence before convicting someone is not a bad thing, considering how little 'reasonable doubt' was applied to some of the convictions the Innocence Project overturned.

Yes, you are probably not going to have blood spatter and gun residue on a suspect two days later. This might mean that the suspect has had time to shower and dispose of the clothes worn during the crime, or it might mean that the person is innocent.

I want law and order as much as anyone, even Maggie. I also want justice, which can sometime be different. The fact is, unless the defendents are rich, they rely on public defenders, and the prosecutors, for all of their claims about funding, usually are better staffed and funded than the public defenders. So if they have to work at it a little harder to make sure that the cops picked the right guy, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

See preponderance of the evidence.

preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial.

We have a weaker test in civil cases than in criminal cases for a reason. If a civil case is later found to be wrong, it's easier to give someone their money back than their life back.

While the ease with which the CSI television people are able to collect their evidence is probably not true to life, the methods of collection and types of evidence available are real. So if a jury wants to know why a defendent picked up 30 minutes after a gun crime doesn't have any gun residue, I am very happy for that, because probably many public defenders might not bring up the point, even though they should have.