Innocence and O.J. Simpson, But Not What You Think
April 23, 2007 1:37 PM Subscribe
"At the trial, Miller testified he was home watching a championship boxing match at the time of the crime. Still, the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to 45 years." Sounds like another good deed from the Innocence Project, experts in DNA evidence that free wrongly convicted people from prison. But how do you feel when the bad guys also do good things? Irony of ironies, the guys that founded the group also made themselves infamous for working really hard to free the wrong man -- O.J. Simpson.
This post was deleted for the following reason: We've covered The Innocence Project before, and without the OJ op-ed bait. -- cortex
Well, regardless of your thoughts on OJ, the man is entitled to a defence, no?
posted by R. Mutt at 1:42 PM on April 23, 2007
posted by R. Mutt at 1:42 PM on April 23, 2007
Or rather, how do you feel when the good guys do bad things?
Is there a quiz? I thought I was just reading Metafilter. You shouldnt phrase posts like this. Its bad form.
Anyways, we've covered the Innocence Project before so this is sort of a dupe.
Its a great great thing they do. The fact that Scheck represented Simpson does nothing at all to undermine that.
posted by vacapinta at 1:46 PM on April 23, 2007
Is there a quiz? I thought I was just reading Metafilter. You shouldnt phrase posts like this. Its bad form.
Anyways, we've covered the Innocence Project before so this is sort of a dupe.
Its a great great thing they do. The fact that Scheck represented Simpson does nothing at all to undermine that.
posted by vacapinta at 1:46 PM on April 23, 2007
You shouldnt phrase posts like this. Its bad form.
Yet, he seems like a nice enough fella even though he doesn't believe in trials.
posted by srboisvert at 1:51 PM on April 23, 2007
Yet, he seems like a nice enough fella even though he doesn't believe in trials.
posted by srboisvert at 1:51 PM on April 23, 2007
Yeah I don't get what the deal with mentioning OJ is. Are you saying it's better then 200 innocent men rot in jail to prevent one guilty man from going free?
I see that Texas has had 11 exonerations. I like the fact that they (Texas) refuse to allow DNA testing in cases where the convicted person has already been executed.
posted by delmoi at 1:51 PM on April 23, 2007
I see that Texas has had 11 exonerations. I like the fact that they (Texas) refuse to allow DNA testing in cases where the convicted person has already been executed.
posted by delmoi at 1:51 PM on April 23, 2007
OJ went free because the LAPD tried to frame a guilty man. If the cops had actually looked for the real evidence instead of inventing their own, there would have been no question. The prosecution didn't drop the ball; they kicked it into their own goal.
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:00 PM on April 23, 2007
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:00 PM on April 23, 2007
Just find it ironic that these two experts do great things ... but spent a year of their lives bending the rules to extreme degrees to free a person that they clearly knew was guilty. I mean, c'mon, they're smart people. They couldn't possibly have really believed O.J. was innocent.
Guess they took the money to fund the Innocence Project. Which is kinda like U2 playing Van Halen cover tunes at somebody's birthday party.
And as for the "everyone deserves a defense" argument, they do, but it doesn't mean a defense attorney gets to lie in order to do it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:02 PM on April 23, 2007
Guess they took the money to fund the Innocence Project. Which is kinda like U2 playing Van Halen cover tunes at somebody's birthday party.
And as for the "everyone deserves a defense" argument, they do, but it doesn't mean a defense attorney gets to lie in order to do it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:02 PM on April 23, 2007
I wish people wouldn't focus on OJ when talking about Scheck. He's done so much more since then (the freedom of 200 innocent individuals attest to that). The Innocence Project at Cardozo Law has done a great deal to inform about the importance of DNA evidence. They also has compiled a great deal of evidence about the horrible conditions DNA evidence is stored (or, quite often, destroyed). There's also now a great network of loosely affiliated Innocence Projects across the country at this point, because of that first Innocence Project.
Considering all this, I think Scheck and Neufeld have redeemed themselves more than your average attorney with celebrity clients. Even if you don't agree with that and think Scheck and Neufeld are opportuniists or whatever, it's the other lawyers on staff (I believe there are three or four), as well as the intake department, and (unpaid) law students, that do a majority of the case work. The Innocence Project should by no means be looked at in any different way because of how the individuals that founded it got their money initially, the work and intentions are still just.
Full disclosure: I was an intern at the Innocence Project. I think what they do is noble. It's just disappointing that the range of cases they take on is so limited, since they can only work with evidence that is still held onto sometime decades after the fact, and only work with cases where DNA evidence can provide a full exoneration. There, that chip should be off my shoulder now.
posted by piratebowling at 2:02 PM on April 23, 2007
Considering all this, I think Scheck and Neufeld have redeemed themselves more than your average attorney with celebrity clients. Even if you don't agree with that and think Scheck and Neufeld are opportuniists or whatever, it's the other lawyers on staff (I believe there are three or four), as well as the intake department, and (unpaid) law students, that do a majority of the case work. The Innocence Project should by no means be looked at in any different way because of how the individuals that founded it got their money initially, the work and intentions are still just.
Full disclosure: I was an intern at the Innocence Project. I think what they do is noble. It's just disappointing that the range of cases they take on is so limited, since they can only work with evidence that is still held onto sometime decades after the fact, and only work with cases where DNA evidence can provide a full exoneration. There, that chip should be off my shoulder now.
posted by piratebowling at 2:02 PM on April 23, 2007
A while back I met an attorney who works for The Innocence Project ... serious, smart, driven.
posted by R. Mutt at 2:04 PM on April 23, 2007
posted by R. Mutt at 2:04 PM on April 23, 2007
PS, Cool Papa Bell, you're timeline is way off. The Innoncence project started in 1992, before the OJ case.
posted by piratebowling at 2:06 PM on April 23, 2007
posted by piratebowling at 2:06 PM on April 23, 2007
Its a great great thing they do. The fact that Scheck represented Simpson does nothing at all to undermine that.
I always found it funny that Barry Scheck worked so hard to discredit DNA evidence in the Simpson case and then turned right around to do this project. You know what they say - "Every man has a price."
posted by MikeMc at 2:07 PM on April 23, 2007
I always found it funny that Barry Scheck worked so hard to discredit DNA evidence in the Simpson case and then turned right around to do this project. You know what they say - "Every man has a price."
posted by MikeMc at 2:07 PM on April 23, 2007
« Older Horror from the Tubes | The Chambers-Patterson-Bigfoot Conspiracy Revealed... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:39 PM on April 23, 2007