Texas inmate freed after 19 YEARS in prison

[donnay]

Texas inmate freed after 19 YEARS in prison when a witness finally admits to lying and a bloody palm print at the crime scene is linked to another person

By Valerie Edwards For Dailymail.com and Associated Press

Published: 18:01 EST, 17 May 2016

A Texas man who spent 19 years in prison for the killing of a friend has been freed after a witness said he lied and a bloody palm print at the crime scene was linked to another person.

John Earl Nolley, 42, walked out of the Fort Worth courtroom on a personal recognizance bond Tuesday while his innocence claims are being considered.

Nolley was sentenced to life in prison in 1998 after being convicted in the stabbing death of Sharon McLane in Bedford.

His conviction was based largely on testimony from a 'jailhouse snitch' who later said he was lying. New test results show the palm print does not belong to Nolley or the victim.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...its-lying.html

[phill4paul]

Another example for why there should not be a death penalty in a flawed criminal "just-us" system.

[luctor-et-emergo]

They took away a long time of his life. I hope they didn't kill his spirit.

[pcosmar]

prosecutors should be violated.

[donnay]

Jury Nullification will help stop these injustices, IMHO.

[fisharmor]

Jury Nullification will help stop these injustices, IMHO.

I'm sorry... that word doesn't mean what you're saying it means.
Nullification means that the jury has found that in the case they're reviewing, no law was actually broken.
Nullification is not determining guilt or innocence. Nullification is saying the law does not apply to this scenario.

In this case, it's clear someone was murdered. Murder is against the law. (It's against all law, not just the state's law.)
If it wasn't a murder - if it was just a killing - then yes, the jury could nullify and say that in this case someone did die and someone else killed him but still no law was broken.
Murder, though, is by definition against the law.

If there is a reasonable doubt that the person did the murder, then that's the PRIMARY - and fully acknowledged by the state - role of the jury. To determine guilt or innocence under the law.

They made an obvious error in their primary duty. Nullification wouldn't fix that.

[donnay]

I'm sorry... that word doesn't mean what you're saying it means.
Nullification means that the jury has found that in the case they're reviewing, no law was actually broken.
Nullification is not determining guilt or innocence. Nullification is saying the law does not apply to this scenario.

In this case, it's clear someone was murdered. Murder is against the law. (It's against all law, not just the state's law.)
If it wasn't a murder - if it was just a killing - then yes, the jury could nullify and say that in this case someone did die and someone else killed him but still no law was broken.
Murder, though, is by definition against the law.

If there is a reasonable doubt that the person did the murder, then that's the PRIMARY - and fully acknowledged by the state - role of the jury. To determine guilt or innocence under the law.

They made an obvious error in their primary duty. Nullification wouldn't fix that.

A fully informed jury in my understanding is the bases of Jury Nullification. The prosecutors and judges have a tendency to not inform the juries. Circumstantial evidence would be challenged with a fully informed jury.

Murder has no statue of limitations. The person on trial can be acquitted if the jury feels there is a shadow of a doubt.

[Spikender]

I'm sorry... that word doesn't mean what you're saying it means.

I took it as nullifying the jury's existence with a disintegration ray like Marvin the Martian.