Wait, that's not in the script!

Actually, most if not almost all of the DNA tests done on death row inmates confirms their guilt.

Yes, but that's not in the script either.

Although I support capital punishment, I would be interested in testing all available DNA evidence involved in capital offenses whether the defendant has been snuffed or not. Let the games begin!

Indeed, wouldn't most conservatives support a standard requiring some forensic evidence for death penalty cases?

Ed: Why "although"? I say test everything we can and then we can hopefully dispense with the 20+ year wait for justice. You'll see a lot fewer requests for DNA testing from murderers if it means they'll be executed the day after their guilt is conclusively demonstrated.

I'm all for a higher standard of proof for death penalty cases, but am I right in thinking that's been deemed unconstitutional? Or is my memory playing tricks on me again?

In death penalty cases, the standard for guilt or innocence is the same as any other criminal case--"beyond reasonable doubt," the highest burden of proof in the common law system. However, once there's a finding of guilt, we get to have another "penalty phase" trial to determine if the defendant gets the chair. If the court cannot find that the "aggrivating circumstances" of the crime (a narrow statutory list of elements) outweigh the "mitigating circumstances" (which can be anything the defendant thinks mitigates his guilt), the defendant cannot be given the death penalty. This makes it harder to get a conviction and the death penalty than to get a normal criminal conviction.

Terrible. He went to judgement with a lie on his lips.

Now when we get to post-conviction DNA cases, we should remember that the standard is something other than reasonable doubt.

A bit of evidence which might have given rise to a reasonable doubt at trial, such as extraneous DNA or a winess claiming to have seen another person leaving the scene usually is not enough to upset a verdict in a post-conviction posture.

Sure would have been interesting if DNA testing had been available in August 1969, eh, Senator Kennedy?

Jim: It wouldn't have changed anything. He still would have skated.