Correcting the record Re: This just in: George W. Bush is not a lawyer

[Frank Cross]

Well, the Court of Criminal Appeals decision seems pretty egregious.
The DNA evidence is explained away by (a) defendant might have
worn a condom and (b) victim was promiscuous and so might have
recently had sex with somebody else.  But there was no evidence of
either!  This is a Kafkaesque world of making the defendant prove his
innocence.  Admittedly, it was in the context of attacking a settled
conviction, but that shouldn't mean that the state can speculate away
such powerful evidence of innocence.









Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712