DNA test frees California man after 10 years

[Almighty Colin]

That guy must be be pretty bitter.

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- A man who spent 10 years behind bars has been freed after a judge acknowledged new DNA evidence and overturned his conviction for raping a 13-year-old girl.

The San Joaquin County judge on Friday released Peter J. Rose, citing DNA tests that showed evidence used to convict Peter J. Rose did not match his genetic makeup.

Rose, 36, of Lodi, left Mule Creek State Prison amid tears and hugs from his children, relatives, friends and law students from San Francisco's Golden Gate University who pursued his case years after evidence had been stored away and forgotten.

"I've been doing this for 25 years, and I feel like this is the best use of my legal skills my entire career," said Oakland attorney Janice Brickley, a law professor who supervised the students on the case. "It was an incredibly emotional experience."

Brickley and students affiliated with the university's branch of the Northern California Innocence Project discovered evidence thought to have been lost or destroyed and won permission for new DNA tests that triggered the judge's decision Friday.

Brickley said she was nervous about letting Rose comment on the case because the district attorney could refile charges against him. He was believed to have gone to his mother's house in Mendocino County, but a phone number for her could not be found.

The girl was raped in 1994 while she was walking to school. Rose was arrested after she told police three weeks later that she believed he was responsible. But she had not identified him during a police lineup and initially told police her attacker was a stranger. Rose's attorneys a decade ago said he was an acquaintance of her family.

Rose was convicted in 1996 of rape, kidnapping and other charges based on blood evidence that prosecutors said linked Rose to the crime. A sobbing Rose, who had no previous history of violence, proclaimed his innocence as a judge sentenced him to 27 years in prison.

The district attorney's office has until January to decide if it will refile charges. Officials there said the office had lost contact with the victim.

Rose said Friday he probably will file a claim against the state.

[Winetalk.com]

very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Oct 31 2004, 10:52 AM
very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.

Why? They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted. No, it's not "fair" that he spent 10 years in jail for something he didn't do, but not everything in life is "fair".

[SykkBoy]

he should be allowed a gimme crime...
since he was falsely convicted, now he gets like a freebie, gets to knck over a liquor store or steal and old lday's pension check...

Peaches, I would disagree
maybe if this guy was a football player a rich pop singer or owned a powerful hi-tech Internet company, his lawyers could have gotten him off

Also, consider the crime he is accused of...in the case of molestation/juvenile rape, we tend to get so blind with fury, we assume guilt and often "ignore" evidence...what if the jury had found him innocent, yet members of this girl's family decided he was guilty anyways? How do we know the initial judge didn't have inherent prejudice because of the nature of the rime? Maybe the jury was the same way?

What if it was your son that went to jail for 10 years for a crime he didn't commit? That lost his entire livelihood due to this "unfair" mistake. Also, considering the nature of this crime, this man could basically lose the rest of his life. How many people will read that artiocle and know he was truly innocent. Now, he'll still hear whispers when he's around, people will still assume guilt. What's he going to do? Carry around a news paper clipping with the story to explain to people why he was accused of this crime? You can bet this was a high profile case where he lives.

Remember the McMartin trial?

I'm sure because he wasn't a celebrity or powerful person that he didn't have the best lawyers at his disposal either.

Yeah, life is unfair, but this man's entire life was ruined because of this error.

I wonder how many other women might have been raped by the real rapist?

[Peaches]

So explain to me where the government did something so in error that they now need to pay the millions he will be suing for?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 11:47 AM
They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted .... So explain to me where the government did something so in error that they now need to pay the millions he will be suing for?

But the don't present the information neutrally. They PROSECUTE the case. The members of the prosecution were in error and "the government" is responsible for their actions in the same way as a company is responsible for the actions of its employees when they are following company policies (like dumping toxic waste in a river).

[Buff]

No wonder he never got in the Hall of Fame.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 11:47 AM
So explain to me where the government did something so in error that they now need to pay the millions he will be suing for?

I guess it's just fine to totally ruin a man's life as well as the life of his family?

If I make a "mistake" on my taxes, the IRS doesn't like that and they'll fine me they might even put me in jail...

Why should they not have to pay for their mistake?

[pushpills]

There's been cases like this in England where, after being cleared and released, they got a 50 grand bill for the undeserved free food and housing.

[Peaches]

They worked with the evidence they had. He was guilty according to what they had. They were doing their job. Should they have told the parents of the girl "Well, the evidence we have points to this guy and a jury found him guilty, but there might be some technology in the future that is a better test of evidence that would PROVE him innocent or guilty so we're going to let him go."?

[Rolo]

10 Years is alot of missed birthdays, xmas, parties, familiy, friends... I say pay up.

Hopefully with todays DNA tests we will see less of these cases in the future...

It should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "oh, it might be him".

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 04:39 PM
They worked with the evidence they had. He was guilty according to what they had. They were doing their job. Should they have told the parents of the girl "Well, the evidence we have points to this guy and a jury found him guilty, but there might be some technology in the future that is a better test of evidence that would PROVE him innocent or guilty so we're going to let him go."?

This is why beyond a reasonable doubt is just that. Our system is supposed to be set up on the premise it's better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongfully prosecuted.

What if it were your son? Would you feel differently? After he was prosecuted, would you have cut off all contact from him or said "don't worry son, I know you're innocent, that's all that matters"

Also, why did this man's children have to live without a father and caregiver for 10 years? Did this wrongful prosecution cause her to have to get a job other than being a mother or maybe even result to something else to make ends meet?

Do you know this for a fact?
I know how these kinds of cases are prosecuted. They will do everything they can to prosecute a suspected child molester, evidence be damned.

What would you tell the kids of the man who went to jail for such a horrible crime? "We're sorry we made your dad out to be a monster and attach a stigma to him that will stick with him for the rest of his life and probably yours too". "We're sorry you had to live with 10 YEARS of people calling your dad a monster and maybe you thought he was a monster too"

[PornoDoggy]

You know, some people probably miss the good old days when the good menfolks of the community would get together and take care of the miscreant themselves. It used to happen for dastardly deeds like murder, rape, brother (or sister or mother or father) of murderer, and that most despicable crime - frightening or insulting white women.

Peaches, I probably know as much about this specific case as you do - which is to say, nothing. Just out of idle curiousity, do you give the IRS or state revenue service the same blind faith that you do the justice system?

Before I say he's entitled to some form of compensation (or say he isn't), I've got to know more than what I've seen here. The little that Colin posted suggested the guy had a record for some violent crimes - but the witness identification seems more than a little suspect. Did they pull an Oklahoma, and hire an $800 lawyer for a capital case? Did they pull a Texas, and have an expert testi-lie? Did the cops and prosecutor "help" the witness identify him as the perp?

Of course, none of those things EVER really happen ... at least, not in Peaches' world.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Peaches+Oct 31 2004, 09:32 AM-->