Okay this is the kind of **** that pisses me off. You can get a million dollars for a hot cup of coffee spilt in your lap but you're innocent of a crime and you spend over 20 years in prison, you get nothing? He should be a rich man for the rest of his life. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/25/innocence.project/index.html Now I know that Mc Donalds is a privately owned company but he still should be able to sue the state and collect. And it should be an additional crime for the perp to allow someone else doing their time.
That would be a good issue to look up. Can a person convicted of a crime sue the person who actually committed the crime. That would be an interesting case. I'll have to think about that. What cause of action could he use?
Even so, the chances they'd have anything to sue for is slim most likely.. And collecting it is another story.. O.J.'s a rich man owing a lot of dough and has yet to pay a dime.. Cept the few things they took.. Sad. I've thought about that.. what a nightmare.. Think of the poor people that never made it out, or were put to death, all the while totally innocent.
They say there's no law on this issue so he should be able to sue the state I would think or hope. Then he should be able to win a civil suit with the felon. You probably wouldn't get anything but who knows. And it would set precedence for future cases.
I did see that Snaf.. the court even ordered they return it to him.. I can't imagine how bad he ****ed up his two kids.. Unbelievable.. How does he look them in the eye?
Nope. The problem is DNA is still a relatively new technology and so this issue is not going to have any precedent. It will be interestig to see how the law developes with respect to this issue over the next ten years.
Just to let you know, the award was appealed by McDonalds and they won. I believe they paid about 100 grand in the end. It does suck that an innocent man was in prison but most suits depend on negligence to get much of an award. There was no DNA science for the State to use back when the case was first done so they can only go on the information they do have. There is no negligence and no reason or evidence for malice. He should get something but I don't see anyone being truly guilty of wrong doing in most of these cases.
Not to mention it's not really the truly guilty parties problem that an innocent man is thrown in jail for a crime they committed.. unless they framed them of course.
Well yes there is. The system is wrong. So the eye wittiness testimony is flawed. This is not new. We have known this for decades but they continue to use it because it's pretty much all they had to go on until forensic science became more prevalent and came into play.
Actually it is. The guilty party is responible for two reasons: 1. Had they not committed the crime in the first place then no one would have been put in jail. 2. Had they turned themselves in when the innocent person was charged with the crime then the innocent man would not have been convicted. I do not think the police/DA's can or should be held liable. Their job is to locate the person most likely to be guilty and put it to the jury to determind the person's innocence. You can not hold them liable for doing their job.
for me..... the knee-jerk reaction is "he's entitled to compensation" but from whom? "the state"? if so..it then comes out of taxes. Which means it comes out of my pocket and your pocket. It seems like someone should be throwin the guy lollipops and fritos but ..GREAT question - WHO pays?
