They should definitely do that. At the same time though they will also need to say that the glaciers in the Himalayas are not melting, the Rain Forests are not disappearing, the Polar Bear population is not declining and the Earth hasn't warmed in 20 years. That damn science stuff- it just has a funny way of cutting both ways.
Part 3: As for the DNA evidence having to do with TV, I think the truth is actually the opposite. The so-called "CSI effect" is something that is only recently getting some study, and it postulates that because criminal procedurals on TV (of which there are about 50) neatly wrap up nearly every case by finding irrefutable forensic evidence implicating the bad guys in 44 minutes plus commercials, the real world effect is that juries want to see that kind of infinitely enhanceable closed circuit footage or DNA evidence before they are willing to convict, which often makes the prosecution's job harder, not easier. The corrollary to that, though, is that in cases like this one where there seems to be that kind of evidence, the jury's mind will be made up very easily. It sucks for Eric, but I think there's not a whole lot of question as to his conviction being affirmed. I would be shocked if the Supreme Court of California even hear the case, to be honest.
Part 2: As I said in my comment to your article, you are no doubt correct to point out that what the prosecutor said in his closing argument was not in the spirit of the 5th Amendment. The problem is that he (or she) left enough wiggle room to make it seem inocuous enough for the judge not to jeopordize the entire process on a throwaway "jazzy" line by the prosecutor in his closing statement. The defense can complain about it as much as they want, but the appellate court has ample wiggle room to rationalize and explain it, which they did.
I'm sorry, but my response was too long, so I've split it up into a couple of parts. Part 1: The bottom line is that the best chance Frimmer had was in getting a not guilty verdict at trial. Appellate courts are very wary of overturning convictions, especially in states where the electorate are involved in their selection. California is such a state, since the Governor of California appoints candidates, the California Commission on Judicial Appointments (whatever that is) confirms them, and the electorate ratifies their appointment in the next statewide election. Any sense that a judge is "soft on crime" will make their ratification unlikely, so unless there is serious, unmistakable mischief on the part of law enforcement, the court is unlikely to put the state (especially one as broke as California) through the expense of reprosecuting the crime.
Thanks for the lucid explanation. In your opinion, is the sacrosanct-ness (boy, can I grind out the words, eh?) of DNA evidence to a jury entirely justified or is it the result of the television? Isn't it true that it's not easy to get a conviction like this overturned? Does there not have to be some overwhelming evidence of major error, rather than a relatively minor one or even a whole series of relatively minor ones? I guess what I'm asking is was there ever really that much chance, based on what they had, that this bench or any bench was going to order a retrial? Is there anything there that in your opinion would justify taking the appeal further, or should younf Mr Frimpong order some curtains?
