Forensic opine by Patholgist at 1995 conviction appears to have been mere theory. Does that sound familiar? Unlike California Supreme Court’s recent pathetic statement that opinions on forensic evidence is “not true or false.” What a dumb legal basis to resist litigaton arguing “factual innocence” should exonerate. Follow CA_Innocence about the “California 12” as examples of this sophistry.
New Australian law on “new” forensic evidence releases man after 20rs in prison
This entry was posted in criminal justice, Forensic Science, forensic science reform, William Richards Exoneration Case and tagged forensic miscarriages of justice. Bookmark the permalink.
