Which is why it should be required that there be two or more eye witnesses to any crime! If that's good enough for God, it should be good enough for the people.

Here's some info:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&ref=us

and some more:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/05/dallas-da-proposes-penalties-for-brady.html

and some more:

http://www.shirleymckie.com/index.htm

http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/local_london/features/ed05050901.html

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/21.html

AND no more District Attorneys. Eliminate the current system. Replace it with a randomized, computerized selection process wherein attorneys licensed by the state in which the crime occurred are chosen to be prosecutor or defense in every case. If attorneys don't want to participate, they can leave. All too many DAs take cases personal and will do ANYTHING for a conviction (notches on their gun).

Dominus providebit!

Off topic:

Is ?

"Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens."

Just wondering, since you are in Arizona, and you are a lawyer...

Sorry, I must have screwed my link up. The first sentence was supposed to say

Is This you?

Then I posted anonymously by accident...sigh. I'm going to try the whole thing over again.

Is This you?

"Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens."

Just wondering, since you are in Arizona, and you are a lawyer...

I'm sure there are many murders he could have taken responsibility for, I mean, didn't he slip into the theater just before intermission, slip past the guard and shoot the president in the back of the head?
Certainly no more ridiculous than "taking responsibility" for something he did not do.

I'd have said professional courtesy to the guilty, from the guilty. But that explains things too.