Innocence Project = Stupid Project

[DontSayBanana]

You know, to those of you screaming about what this project is doing, the exclusionary rule has been upheld by the supreme court... whatever you think of "getting off on a technicality," there's a simple fact that you have to take for granted: police and prosecutors have to play by the rules, too, or the perp walks.

[The Minsky Moment]

2) "It's called the Innocence Project and not the Better Plea Deal Project."  Yes, and presumably that is why the Project presented evidence of actual innocence.

Did they actually preseent such evidence?  The article in the opening post states that they assert that the evidence against him was shaky, but gives no details

In the article they cite to a mistaken witness ID and a misattribution of gun ownership.  If two key pieces of evidence do not connect the accused to the crime, that is evidence of innocence.

[The Minsky Moment]

The more I read about this, the more I am convinced that The Innocence Project didn't have anything to do with this case.  I think that this is about an innocence project.  The Innocence Project works to get modern DNA testing done in cases where the guilt of the convicted person is unclear, according to it site, and so wouldn't apply here. 

There are a bunch of unaffiliated state and regional "Innocence Projects".  This looks like one of them.

As an aside, TIP notes that 25% of those exonerated by DNA testing confessed to the crime with which they were charged.  As JR notes, confession does not seem to be a very reliable measure of guilt.

When a lot of laypeople think about the kinds of evidence that is convincing in criminal cases, confessions and eyewitness IDs are often mention.  In fact, both have significant reliability problems.