
Man gets $75 after being wrongly imprisoned for 31 years - SQL2219
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/us/tennessee-inmate-wrongly-imprisoned/index.html
======
finid
_DNA evidence cleared him of the charges in 2008, and when he was released in
2009... "

So he was freed because DNA evidence proved he wasn't the rapist. But Melissa
McDonald, spokesperson for the Tennessee Board of Parole, said that:

_After considering all of the evidence, the board did not find clear and
convincing evidence of innocence and declined to recommend clemency in this
matter.*

DNA evidence is not "clear and convincing evidence"??

~~~
droithomme
In 1977, the victim was raped and robbed by two men, both whom she knew from
her neighborhood. She identified them to the police as the children of women
in the neighborhood Polly and Ollie Mae, and gave their addresses. The men
were Lawrence McKinney and Michael Yancy. Police found both of them together
at Michael Yancy's house, Yancy was watching TV and McKinney was hiding in the
closet. They gave alibis for each other, claiming they had been there all day.
Both were convicted of rape and burglary. This was a very reasonable
conviction given the evidence against them.

In the years since, McKinney confessed to the rape and apologized for it
during his parole hearings, which were denied. He was also a very problematic
prisoner who was constantly getting into violent altercations with other
prisoners and guards.

32 years after the crime, the bed linen was tested for DNA. It had a positive
match for Yancy, and the victim's boyfriend, and a third man, still unknown.
McKinney's DNA was not on the bed linen.

Based on this evidence, since this evidence would no doubt be considered
relevant to the trial, the conviction was vacated. The parole board did not
exonerate him because the evidence did not support exoneration, it only
supported a new trial. Given that he had already served 31 years in prison,
rather than have a new trial, in addition to vacating the sentence, the
charges were dismissed and he was free to go.

Vacating and dismissal are not findings of innocence in the legal system.
Based on the DNA evidence, it is an absolute fact that his friend Yancy raped
and robbed the woman. He gave an alibi for this man, and vice versa. The woman
said two men raped her, two men she knew, and identified Lawrence as the other
one. Based on the victim's eyewitness testimony and her previous familiarity
with the perpetrators, her testimony is extremely credible and the jury's
verdict exceptionally reasonable. Not all rapists leave DNA on the bedsheets
that is recoverable after 30 years.

~~~
scott00
> Vacating and dismissal are not findings of innocence in the legal system.

Actual legal question not related to the specifics of this case: why not?
Doesn't the US justice system operate under the principle of "innocent until
proven guilty?" Doesn't vacating a conviction mean that the former convict has
not been proven guilty?

~~~
will_brown
>why not? Doesn't the US justice system operate under the principle of
"innocent until proven guilty?"

 _Innocent_ is not a finding or _disposition_ in the Court. You are likely to
find the following _dispositions_ in a given criminal case: guilty; not
guilty/acquittal; no info (the State drops the case prior to trial but after
filing charges, usually due to lack of evidence); nolle prosequi (State drops
charges, usually in exchange for a plea or diversion program); withholding of
adjudication (closing ones case without a formal conviction).

"Innocent until proven guilty" is very nice sounding, but the reality reads
more like this: "the State shall have the burden to prove all the elements of
the charges it brings against a criminal defendant beyond and to the exclusion
of every reasonable doubt". The difference, the Defense doesn't have to prove
its innocence, it doesn't have to do anything, the defense can just sit
quietly and watch the State fail to prove its case.

