Lots of people are convicted based on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence always turns up in movies and TV shows, but in the real world it's seldom available. For example, if you shoot someone from fifty feet away, none of his DNA will get on you, or vice versa. If you wear gloves, none of your DNA will get on the gun (assuming that the gun is ever found).
What's even worse is that lots of people have been convicted of serious crimes even though DNA evidence existed that could have proved them innocent (by proving someone else committed the crime). There's even an organization called The Innocence Project[1] that's devoted to exonerating wrongly convicted people. But even the handful of people who are lucky enough to be exonerated sometimes spend decades in jail before their convictions are overturned, and some people have been proven innocent after having been executed. And the worst thing is that some courts will refuse to reopen cases even when convincing evidence of innocence has been produced; they'd rather let innocent people rot in jail than suffer the embarrassment of having made a serious error.
Also, the story says the defendant was "broke", which means that he was probably represented by an overworked public defender rather than a hot-shot lawyer.
It's unbelievable to me that they could give someone 2 consecutive life sentences unless the evidence is a lot more incriminating than the article mentioned. I hope he's guilty, as it looks like he's going to be behind bars for life, but if he happens to be innocent I can't imagine how terrible his life is right now.
What's even worse is that lots of people have been convicted of serious crimes even though DNA evidence existed that could have proved them innocent (by proving someone else committed the crime). There's even an organization called The Innocence Project[1] that's devoted to exonerating wrongly convicted people. But even the handful of people who are lucky enough to be exonerated sometimes spend decades in jail before their convictions are overturned, and some people have been proven innocent after having been executed. And the worst thing is that some courts will refuse to reopen cases even when convincing evidence of innocence has been produced; they'd rather let innocent people rot in jail than suffer the embarrassment of having made a serious error.
Also, the story says the defendant was "broke", which means that he was probably represented by an overworked public defender rather than a hot-shot lawyer.
[1] http://www.innocenceproject.org