DNA Testing...

[Mark Ingram]

I just heard on the radio this morning (on my drive to work) that a man convicted of rape 17 years ago was exonerated by dna evidence and released this week.

The story got me wondering:

How is it that DNA evidence collected less than 1 week after Nicole Simpson was killed was too degraded to convict O.J. but DNA collected from a crime commited 17 years ago was used to prove that a man didn't commit the crime close to 2 decades ago?

Aside from politics, celebrity, and bribery, what am I missing here? And why isn't some prosecutor looking to make a name for him/her self investigating this?

[Earl Norton]

OJ was deemed not guilty by a jury. the jury did not buy the DNA evidence and instead bought the "if it does not fit" defense. Double jeopardy keeps the prosecutor away. OJ cannot be tried for that crime again.

[spiffpeters]

I think the jury was not overtly objective. I think the prosecutor's were out of the eliment. The justice system is for everyone. The legal system is for those with deep pockets. OJ had a bank of lawyers with resources available to him that blew the wheels off any prosecutor.

When your life and freedom are in the balance, are you going to trust a government employee or a private sector, free enterprise lawyer?

As for the DNA, if I recall, there was a question about the evidence being contaminated or collected incorrectly, or the crime scene wasn't secured properly. Doubtless something that a public defender wouldn't have had to resources to research and argue in court.

Rank has its privileges.

[Mark Ingram]

...the jury was not overtly objective.
Well (under-)stated.

The justice system is for everyone. The legal system is for those with deep pockets.
The most cogent, honest statement I've read on this forum in a loooooong time.