There were gasps and cries in the courtroom when Judge Kirstin Hamman said, “And the judgement and sentence is vacated and the defendant is ordered to be released from custody,” before a Zoom feed broadcasting the hearing suddenly turned off.
She ruled that new evidence, including DNA test results, would likely change the outcome of another trial against Gordon Cordeiro.
Maui County Prosecuting Attorney Andrew Martin said he was disappointed in the ruling and “None of the judge’s findings exonerate him in any way.”
His office intends to appeal and file a motion seeking to impose bail on Cordeiro’s release, Martin added, saying there is a flight risk because a murder charge is involved.
As a Canadian I can’t understand how prosecutors continue to bang their guilty drums when DNA evidence exonerates someone. And it happens almost every time.
Like do they just prefer lies over truth?
Honest answer: the legal theory is that if each side doesn’t argue their case as well as they can, justice can’t be complete. That’s why there are things like mistrials when the defense attorneys do a poor job, and appeals only work to the extent that certain things were brought up furing the original trial.
In practice it’s deeply flawed.
Honestly, I live in a timeline where we have openly corrupt Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas in our life. It is my opinion they will choose their own personal enrichment over the actual fairness of a situation. Dropping a case admits you were wrong and these folks don’t want to be seen as making any mistake in judgement, it hurts their careers and personal enrichment.
I highly doubt that it was the same judge and prosecutor after 30 years, so the present day judiciary personnel involved having personal stakes in the case seems unlikely. But I don’t disagree that certain bloodthirsty prosecutors and/or judges likely hate admitting the system is deeply flawed when it comes to convicting innocents they’ve already deemed criminals.
Your prosecutors are elected too I believe. Which means if they can “look hard on crime” for the next election cycle it can give them a better chance at winning.
In Canada we don’t have half the elections you do. Neither police chiefs, prosecutors or judges are elected … here they are appointed, which imo is a better system.
There’s pros and cons to both systems. With so many positions being elected, it is supposed to make it more difficult for unilateral, systemic corruption to take root. In theory, anyway. But, hardly anyone pays attention to local politics and local journalism is virtually dead in all but larger metro areas nowadays. As such, propaganda is much easier to spread and corruption goes unnoticed in all but the most egregious scenarios in many smaller areas.