| Re: no more DNA tests to prove innocence
The article indicates the test was to be at the expense of the convicted party. It goes on to say it was a defense strategic decision not to use advanced accurate tests prior to trial, though they did a test with 95% accuracy. The lawyer surely thought a really accurate test would drive the nail in the coffin and without an accurate test, she still had something to argue at 5% (instead of a 0.000000000001% chance of innocence).
Since it was a strategic decision in this circumstance, it would not be ineffective assistance of counsel
|