Not done reading the entire thing but this stood out to me.
From the Arkansas Supreme Court decision today regarding interpretation of the statute and the DNA results
In addition, the term inconclusive in section 208(b) is not ambiguous. When read with the rest of section 19-112-208, it is evident that it refers to DNA test results that are scientifically inconclusive, not results that are legally inconclusive.
So, the circuit courts reasoning was that the DNA results were inconclusive because they did not raise a reasonable probability that Damien did not commit the offenses and therefore inconclusive as to his actual innocence and that was the basis for their denials and the stone-walling. That should outrage the people of Arkansas. What if it were you? Would you like the court finding a way to interpret very plain meaning language in a convoluted way so as to keep your heiny in prison?
It reminds me of reading very complex Contract cases in our text books
seems like the judge pretty much figured out who was right and who was wrong and then just figured out how to apply the rule of law to, as Tim Gunn would say, make it work! My contracts professor who is a seated judge pretty much confirmed that is what sometimes happens. Here a mans life is at stake so this approach is repulsive.
The court interpreted this language the way that they could in order to deny Echols. Here The Supreme Court didnt have that much trouble figuring out what the language of the statute had to say and what it meant.
I find it quite odd that some would use that erroneous circuit court decision as back up to their theory as though it were somehow unmistakably correct, even after claiming they had read everything in the case without questioning that even just a little. I wish I had had a chance to seriously read everything, but Ive only just started following this in the last few months.
