Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterS  Yeah, his lawyer's fucked him at his initial trial because they thought the evidence would prove evidence enough to the jury that he "could've" done it. Now they want access to test the evidence to prove he probably couldn't have done it.
Seems like everyone is getting in line to rape this fool in return. His buddy implicated him as well and that guy is out already. |
"Fucked" him?
Sounds like he probably told his attorney that he did it and she, wisely, decided not to pursue evidence that would make his guilt seem even more certain.
Most convictions are a direct result of the defendant actually doing the crime charged... not a lawyer "fucking" their client... go figure.
Besides, what the article suggested wasn't that he had no right to have his DNA tested but that he had no right to demand that the state pay for it and grant him a new trial on the basis of that testing.