Justice Thomas writes an IllAdvised Opinion
I am confused. Was the man complaining that Texas wouldn't let him take a DNA test, even though he had refused it earlier?
The issue was that he wasn’t asking it to prove his innocence, but was claiming that if people had known he wasn’t in the house, they wouldn’t have given him the death penalty.
Three questions:
1) Did he kill someone?
2) Was he in the house?
3) Was there evidence that put him in the house?
If the answer is three yeses, then he's guilty.
If there's reasonable doubt, then the jury should have said so.
You miss the point… which is a rather technical legal one:
-If you agree to participate in a felony (and they proved this)
-And go along with the felony (and they proved this)
-And in the process of the felony anyone is killed by anyone…
you are guilty of murder by law.
Then he's guilty and the penalty for murder is death.
I am confused. Was the man complaining that Texas wouldn't let him take a DNA test, even though he had refused it earlier?
The issue was that he wasn’t asking it to prove his innocence, but was claiming that if people had known he wasn’t in the house, they wouldn’t have given him the death penalty.
Three questions:
1) Did he kill someone?
2) Was he in the house?
3) Was there evidence that put him in the house?
If the answer is three yeses, then he's guilty.
If there's reasonable doubt, then the jury should have said so.
You miss the point… which is a rather technical legal one:
-If you agree to participate in a felony (and they proved this)
-And go along with the felony (and they proved this)
-And in the process of the felony anyone is killed by anyone…
you are guilty of murder by law.
Then he's guilty and the penalty for murder is death.