Secondly, when the prosecutor's office chooses not to reprosecute a case overturned on appeal, it is often because of exclusionary rule problems. The exclusionary rule exists for a number of reasons; but these reasons include the need to follow specific procedures in order to obtain reliable results. The scientific method works the same way. Most Western justice systems require some form of probable cause for searches, not only to prevent the police from breaking down the doors of innocent people, but also to preserve the logical chain from information to suspicion, or probable cause , to the evidence. But you don't have to care about incriminating evidence revealed (on examination) as police drop pieces , or white perjury , or any of the other things that can happen in a state where police powers go unchecked. A prosecutor doesn't have to drop a case against a guilty defendant because one piece of evidence went South; and prosecutors generally don't. The DPIC survey alone includes several cases where prosecutors tried several times for a conviction after a reversal. You can assume those prosecutors who dropped the cases didn't care about the ramifications of just letting a murderer walk (charges of malfeasance, and the wrath of the voters, to name two); and in some cases you might have that right. But all twenty or thirty? I find that assumption overstrains credibility. I prefer to believe that when your prosecutors concede innocence de jure, at least some of them must believe in it de facto.

overturned on appeal, it is often because of exclusionary rule problems. A prosecutor doesn't have to drop a case against a guilty defendant because onepiece of evidence went South; and prosecutors generally don't. The DPIC survey alone includes several cases where prosecutors tried several times for a conviction after a reversal. You can assume those prosecutors who dropped the cases didn't care about the ramifications of just letting a murderer walk (charges of malfeasance, and the wrath of the voters, to name two); and in some cases you might have that right. But all twenty or thirty? I find that assumption overstrains credibility. I prefer to believe that when your prosecutors concede innocence de jure, at least some of them must believe in it de facto. J. G. Spragge The DPIC does not claim and  establish a basis for factual innocence in a great many of their cases. Yet, you say they are innocent. You go way beyond what the DPIC says. You are a true abolitionist, don't let the facts get in the way of your assertions, even if the source for your assertions disagrees with you.

You go way beyond what the DPIC says. Let's see, now. The Death Penalty Information Center published several reports (one prepared for a committee of the US Congress) under a big, banner headline that says innocence . In these reports, they assert, among other things:     Earlier this year, the Subcommittee on Civil     andtitutional [sic] Rights heard testimony from     four men who were released from prison     after serving years on death row

factually innocent. They are saying that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - a legal standard - not a factually innocent finding. A jury finding of not guilty says that with all the resources of the government, and with considerable police powers, the power to compel witnesses, and the credibility enjoyed by the police and government among the public, the government still cannot make out a convincing case against the defendant. That indicates a definite probability of the defendant's innocence. More to the point, it provides the only _object_ive, official standard for innocence we have. In the context of capsule analyses of specific cases in a report, I will continue to treat a jury verdict of not guilty as evidence of factual innocence. If you have evidence that in one or more specific cases, the jury erred, or reached a narrowly technical decision, please post it. Until then I will continue to assert that, for the discussion of any particular judicial sanction to make any sense, we must act on the assumption that a verdict has some basis in the facts.

But since the DPIC is an anti-dp org and the report has not undergone critical review, one could assume lower actual numbers. Nonsense. You cannot assume a critical review would produce lower numbers , or any particular result whatsoever.