In America, we are raised to believe that we are entitled to rights our forefathers established many years ago. These are the rights for freedom, equality, and more importantly, the right for due process from the law. Due process includes the right to counsel and the protection against self-incrimination. But what happens when you are wrongfully accused of a crime, you go through a "fair trial", and you are sent to prison? Scenarios such as these occur everyday is currently a hot topic of discussion. So, what happens when evidence that could exonerate you, comes to light? Should you be allowed to a completely new and "fairer" trial? In the film, "The Case for Innocence" four men were tried and convicted of crime's they insisted they did not commit. The only way they could ever be cleared of all charges, would be through the results of DNA testing. This paper will discuss three cases presented in the film, "The Case for Innocence", the debates and issues provoked by the cases and finally, it will offer suggestions on how to deal with cases such as these in the future. .
Cases in the Film.
Roy Criner.
The film, "The Case for Innocence" begins with the story about Roy Criner. In 1990, Roy Criner was sent to prison for 99 years for the rape and murder of 16-year-old Deanna Ogg. His conviction was largely based on the testimonies made by three of his friends and co-workers, which seemed to indicate that he had committed the crime. After years of unsuccessful appeal, Criner looked to DNA testing, which had been developing throughout the years. Criner submitted to a DNA test in July of 1997, in an attempt to prove his innocence. The test came back negative, indicating that Criner could not have contributed the genetic material found on the victim. Criner had hoped that these results would persuade the state to grant him a new trial however, based on a 6-3 decision, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the DNA evidence would not have changed jurors' minds.