The strength of our convictions

It's about time true justice becomes a prosecutor's priority. I believe far too often defendants represented by over-worked public defenders are convicted with the proverbial "slam! dunk!"". Why is our system set up to evaluate a prosecutor based on his percentage of convictions, anyway? If the goal is to have the truly guilty pay for the crimes they commited, then a nation-wide campaign should be launched to utilize all old DNA evidence to either confirm that the correct person was convicted or to free all those innocent people who are serving time. Kudos to Dallas for leading the way!

If flawed DNA convicted them what makes you and me and all of us think DNA the second time around is without err?

The prosecuters have way to much power to decide how people are charged and how evidence is handled. They fight at every turn, not to protect the innocent but to protect their conviction record. These people that have turn over of convictions should be banned from practicing law.

Jami, now that they are trying to fix the legal system, I hope they will continue the fixing and tackle the government next.

Thank God!!!! I do not want to get into race but just this one comment. the majority of inmates are African/American in this country. I just can't imagine being incarserated for years knowing that you are innocent. I commend DA Watlons for the need to persue this to exonerate the innocent and to convice the guilty. I do not believe the rest of the Country will follow suit. I pray they do.

Jami you're great.

Margaret

Thanks for bringing attention to such a wonderful and courageous person. Let's hope Craig Watkins excellent job will continue to bring attention to the wrongly convicted and freedom to innocent people. Very nice tribute.

Jami,

I'm with you on this one. I think this is probably the best solution and absolution, we as the public can hope for. No one wants an innocent person to go to prison and no one wants the guilty to walk away scot free. Sounds like Watkins has it right.

I will like to know, how long have this show Dallas DNA been on air? Also, If you find the person is not guilty, do the State pays that person who been wrongfully imprisonated?

Could you e-mail me and let me know, it just question that I will like an answer. By the way I think it a very good ideal that you will wont to do this for the people. Maybe the other State will some day do the same. Good Job.

Pat-

Who said flawed DNA evidence convicted them?
Most of the exonerations have been on folks who either didn't have DNA tests done or where convicted prior to the advent of such testing.
But, you do make a good point.

Thanks to the Innocence Project, DNA evidence has become a fantastic defense tool. If the DNA proves your client innocent, then he walks, even if he has been involved in many more similar cases prior to this one. If the DNA evidence goes against your client, you can point out how inefficient the DNA testing is. As always, it works both ways for the defense.

Spider – If they were convicted before DNA then how were they convicted via the jury who is supposed to convict only "without a shadow of a doubt". I am pretty darn sure that Mr. Watkins has a really tough job deciphering through allllll the evidence or lack thereof.

I just always like to look at BOTH SIDES and say, sure if someone is wrongly convicted, absolutey free them, BUT what about all the people walking free that SHOULD have been convicted?!?! Let's take this step both ways! But then BEST DEFENSE Jami will remind us that we cannot because of the Double Jeopardy law.

Being wrongfully jailed is a huge fear among the poor.

Pat-

The idea of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt has been around as long as our legal system has been around. DNA testing is, what, 35 years old. It also has not been used in all cases that have occurred since the procedure was devised.

I may be wrong, but I hope you're the one that is wrong. I hope we're not freeing convicted criminals based on two tests that showed two different results. I don't think the juries are convicting solely on DNA tests. I just visualize a case with 15 eye witnesses, a confession and then a DNA test of a cigarette smoked on the scene. This project can come in and say the DNA test was faulty and the guy gets freed?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but double jeopardy only applys to murder cases, doesn't it?

If I am right, then I think there ought to be a Guilty Project that reexamines other cases. Check the evidence on the knife used to stab the convenience store clerk. If it's found to match up to the slimeball that some slick defense attorney let roam the streets, retry and convict him. New evidence. New trial.

Or, maybe better yet, if these tests are so often incorrect, then quit using them. But, Jami wouldn't agree with that. If she can get a DNA test to exonerate her low-life client, she will, regardless of it's reliability.

To Pat and Spider,
I have enjoyed your banter back and forth!
First off, any specimens taken after the crime was committed, i.e. rape kit, hair samples, etc., back in the 70's, 80's and early to mid 90's, could have only been tested for things like blood type, sex, and even, race. However, NONE could have been tested for DNA because DNA was still in it's infancy, not to mention, cost prohibitive.

Beginning in the very late 90's and from then on, we have many new types of testing available to us, including DNA. What Dallas DA Watkins is doing is, taking those old rape kits, hair samples, etc. and having them tested with the technology we have today. I applaud Mr. Watkins and his team. I have watched the show several times and the entire team, which includes Public Defenders, carry and present themselves with honor and dignity. It is quite refreshing to watch people who love what they do and do it well. Kudos to all!

Stacia-

Thank you, for clearing things up.

What do you thnk about testing the evidence, still out there, on cases that some bottom feeding defense attorney managed to get a jury to ignore?

I would not want any, completely, innocent individual to be incarcerated, but I'm just as aggravated about all the guilty folks roaming our streets. Would you find a group that revisited DNA evidence to convict people as "refreshing" as DA Watkin's group?