Correcting the record Re: This just in: George W. Bush is
not a lawyer
crossf at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU
Tue Aug 15 17:46:52 PDT 2000
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.
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
More information about the Conlawprof