Not at all. We just need to make sure that any death penalty is backed up by DNA, or photographic evidence.

I am a believer in the death penalty, but only in cases such as the red-haired guy that shot all the people in the Colorado theater. There is NO DOUBT he did it so let's not waste our time prosecuting him!!!!! You can't always believe eye witnesses as they can get things screwed up, but in cases where there is NO DOUBT, give them the shot....................................................................................................................................

eyewitness like events...theater and school shooting...just a hanging in public right then...would be fine...a rope and a tree...old school style...

They are not saying that he did not do it. They are saying that some of the evidence is too questionable to keep him imprisoned. Believe me their is a difference. Some are freed because the presecutor has determined they are innocent. Those people generally get some form of compensation. I don't think this guy will see any compensation because they are not saying he is innocent. Also the death penalty must stay.

That means the irresponsible law enforcement and prosecutors allowed the real killer to go free.

So how many years will the prosecutor serve now? If I ruled the world, he would serve the same time this man did, and the cops who lied would also serve that time.

The statute on death penalty needs to read different then it does now. It should demand guilt "beyond any doubt", instead of reasonable doubt. But then people in texas would not be enjoying all them executions that they are so fond of. those "right to life people"

I stand by the penalty, and sentences but only if there is the smoking gun no smoke no sentence. it goes both ways if there is a doubt no sentence, there are many people paying for crimes that they never committed, but when its well known that's different. but this has nothing to do with that, why don't we make the prosecutor finish his sentence its only fair. after all he was convicted because the prosecutor fabricated his guilt, so isn't it fair that the person that created the story and bared false witness pay for his supposed crime? I think it is. lets lock up the legal team that locked him up.

Wow, there certainly are a lot of compassionate people posting here. The comment regarding the shooter in Aurora CO is so far off the mark. The man is mentally ill, and we don't execute the mentally ill in this country says the US Supreme Court. The death penalty is barbaric and brings closure to no one. I know. Many cases are won by the government because of a prosecutor's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, and it should never take 20 years to right a wrong. So many people have been released from prison over the last several years because they were convicted of crimes they did not commit. There is currently a case in Missouri where the young man was convicted of murder based on perjured testimony and where there was absolutely no forensic evidence found connecting this man to the crime. His name is Ryan Ferguson. Go to his FB page and you can read all about his case, and maybe, just maybe, you will see that there are innocents in prison.

SOOOOOOOO how many millions is this man and his family going to get after getting screwed over by this ridiculous attempt at JUSTICE?!?!?!? He should get at least a Million Dollars for every year spent rotting WRONGFULLY, however I didn't see this VERY PERTINENT information provided in this little story. Man, there is barely ANY screening/training/effort put into actually having competent law enforcement that they MUST be held accountable to raise the standards!!!!

Our Justice System Sucks! .... it's lack of integrity is so ingrained that you will never change it .... Without it lawyers, judges, clerks,correction officials, psychologist, bail bondsman,police and on and on ... would take a hit .. crime is big business for our judicial system ....

Wanta Raise? .. just make a few more laws ... lock a few more up ... start building more prisons ... it's a nasty gig ...

This is why I cringe every time a story of a murder is posted on newsvine, and the inevitable, "Fry him now!!...one appeal...execute within the week!! Not worth the taxpayer's dime!!" comments come fast and furiously...think people...there IS A REASON it can take decades to execute a convicted killer...just as we read more and more often of innocent people released from prison decades after a wrongful, or inept conviction...next time you scream for an immediate execution...or whine about the cost of housing and feeding a prisoner...put yourself in this poor bastards shoes...oh...also...thank your lucky stars that Nancy Grace is only the "Minister of Justice" in her own mind...real life isn't t.v. people...especially not "reality t.v."

Another good reason to listen to James Madison

The death penalty is needed but should be limited to truly horrific crimes that leave no doubt as to guilt. Serial killers, child killers, mass murders and similar crimes should end in execution.

I've been on the out-side the last 23 years - he didn't miss much. Going to prison, is my retirement plan, should my savings disappear from my Credit Union.

Now the State will want him to reimburse all the money it spent on him in prison...how dare you let us put you in prison.

The guy gets out of prison only to find that a washed up pole dancer (Kim Karwhatsherface) is a top celebrity - he is going to ask to be put back in prison, it's more sane there.

Dead is dead, so what is the difference between man killing man and state killing man?

Intent? Both scenarios offer the same "intent"; to kill. They are both wrong.

So where is the actual perpetrator of the crime??? Scary thought. Some person running around guilty while this guy languished in prison.

Never been a supporter of the DP. To me facing a lifetime in prison w/o possibility of parole is the worst possible thing that could happen to a person. Death in most jurisdictions is painless and pretty swift.

Perhaps we should, in cases like this, start to imprison prosecutors and law enforcement for not getting the facts right in the first place and putting an innocent person in prison. I hope he gets a huge settlement for the 23 years he lost.

I guess can not have the death penalty. If you wait long enough. All the witnesses will be dead or change their stories, all evidence will disappear, get lost. Lets get rid of the courts. There is no evidence that he did not do it. He was convicted of the crime. He should of been executed 23 years ago.

So what you're saying is, "Execute 'em quick before they can appeal. Then we can say our prosecuters never make a mistake."

So what part of "innocent until proven guilty" are you unclear on?

Or maybe you're just a troll.

smitty03281964

They are not saying that he did not do it.

Actually, the man who they say he tried to rob DID say he didn't do it. They also have a woman who says her HUSBAND did the crime (although he is deceased). And the "eyewitness" who picked him out a line-up states that the detectives directed him WHO TO PICK so the identification is faulty. So ... this man DID NOT DO IT.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51281108#.UUxYBhflYQo

Investigators soon found that a key witness, a teenager named Menachem Lieberman who picked Ranta out of a lineup, had since recanted. He said he did not recognize Ranta but selected him after a detective told him to "pick the guy with the big nose."

A jail house snitch and his girlfriend, both of whom fingered Ranta as the shooter, also admitted to prosecutors that they made up their story to secure a favorable plea deal.

... Chaim Weinberger, the courier who was the target of the failed robbery, had testified at Ranta's trial that Ranta was not the man who tried to steal his gemstones. In 1995, at a hearing to consider one of Ranta's appeals, Theresa Astin testified that her husband, Joseph Astin, had committed the murder.

Georgepauljohn, you may find it useful to review Texas Law before you quote it.

The burden of proof for capital punishment here is more than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The biggest problem with our justice system is that prosecutors have lost sight of their responsibility. Unlike a defense attorney whose job it is to whatever he can to get his client off, the prosecutors job is not to get a conviction at any cost. Prosecutors jobs are supposed to be about getting the truth and making sure the guilty are punished. Unfortunately, since prosecutor these days are judged based on their conviction rates, they have adopted at win at any cost attitude. Once a decision is made to charge a person and put them on trial the prosecutors will do whatever they have to to win, even if they themselves have doubts about the person's guilt. It has become about the conviction statistics instead of justice for many prosecutors. They will pressure witnesses, attempt to suppress evidence that damages their case, and make questionable deals with other criminals for their testimony just to secure the conviction. In order to correct this problem there needs to be some kind of penalty for these prosecutors when it comes out that they used questionable tactics. The way it is now, unless someone can prove intentional wrongdoing by the prosecutor there is absolutely no consequences for them for wrongfully convicting someone. I know that people will say it is the jury, not the prosecutor, that decides guilt. This is true to a point, but when the prosecutor deliberately does thing to keep the jury from getting all the facts you can not fault the jury for reaching the wrong conclusion.

Another problem is with the police. Once the police settle on a suspect they will do whatever they can to make sure the person is convicted. Even when they start uncovering additional information that may bring up some doubt, they rarely back off that suspect. The police are not above intentionally ignoring conflicting evidence or statements from witnesses that might call their theory of the case into doubt. Sometimes the prosecutor will know about this additional information and sometimes the police will not even turn it over to them. The system has become about getting the conviction once they have settled on a suspect, not about uncovering the truth.

For those against the death penalty, I would direct you to John Couey. He is why I break with my liberal brethren and am firmly in favor of the death penalty.

This piece of @!$%# abducted a 9 year old girl and raped her over a 3 day period. After he was done with her, he placed this innocent angel in a @!$%#ing garbage bag and buried her alive in shallow grave.

I don't care how mentally insane you are or aren't someone that does that type of thing does not deserve to live. Luckily, he died slowly of anal cancer within a few years of incarceration, but even that death was too good for someone who did such a horrible act.

Quite the contrary; the death penalty should be used daily to eliminate the thug, gang, drug trash that are killing citizens by the thousands. If convicted with ABSOLUTE proof they should be killed within a month; and painfully.

In this case the court is quoted: "case against him was fatally flawed"

Nothing proved he did not kill this person; just says the case was flawed. They did not say he didn't pull the trigger. I'm very happy for him IF he is innocent, but I have a feeling he is guilty and the DA just screwed up the case.

How did this man become a suspect in the first place?

He looks guilty to me.

You can talk all you want about "law & order." But, at the end of the day, THIS is the reason we have to be "careful" with the death penalty.

We are in the 21st century. The number of cases like these where a person is convicted without dna evidence will be fewer and fewer. We have the scientology to be absolutely certain of people being present at a crime scene. Does not mean that they actually did it but they were at the scene, maybe prior to the event, during, or after. But they would need to explain why they were there.

After reading your post I can see that your profile picture is an apt description of you.

Not at all. We just need to make sure that any death penalty is backed up by DNA, or photographic evidence.

There's two problems with that. First, DNA is spatial evidence, not temporal. That is, it can prove that someone was there, but not when.

Second, there have been a couple of scandals recently where labs deliberately, or through negligence, produced faulty DNA results.

There is very little PERFECT evidence. Until there is, there should be no death penalty.

bibol, is that your standard? "There is no evidence he didn't do it, so he must have done it?" Are you Stupid?

I agree that it is time to get rid of the death penalty. I understand muted voice's concept of the death penalty for certain crimes where there is no doubt who done it. The problem is that the people who sit on the juries in these cases don't have any real doubts about who done it. The problem is that an awful lot of things can cast doubt where there is no doubt, but juries just aren't made aware of them. As has been pointed out, there have been a lot of cases overturned over the years. Once the execution has occurred, it is too late for the wrongfully convicted.

There are a number of other factors to consider too. One is it takes more taxpayer money to take a case from start to execution than it does for someone to spend the rest of their life in jail. And, the winners in the whole thing are the attorneys on both sides who get paid pretty well for their efforts.

Another reason is that for a lot of these murderers execution is too good for them. Let them rot in the pen with years to think about what they'd done and whether it was really worth it so they can sit in a 6 x 8 cell for the rest of their lives.

Another thing to consider is that if we did away with the death penalty then there are a number of people that other countries who have refused to extradite to the US because we have the death penalty, would now permit extradition.

Also, jurors who are uncomfortable with the death penalty may be more likely to actually render a verdict based on the evidence and not on what might happen to the person after they are convicted.

So, just a few thoughts. There's more, but....

"The evidence no longer establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,"

If a weasel could speak, it would sound like...

Quite the contrary; the death penalty should be used daily to eliminate the thug, gang, drug trash that are killing citizens by the thousands.

Shouldn't that include those making executive decisions to kill innocent citizens in other countries? Just because they may wear a suit a tie and sit behind desks in fancy offices doesn't change them from being murderers. Killing is killing, or is "justified" killing somehow acceptable?

Sometimes prosecutors are under pressure to solve crimes so they find someone to prosecute. Jurors, trusting the integrity of the police and the prosecutors, sometimes just ASSUME that the police wouldn't just arrest and try the wrong person.... I mean, don't you have to have a lot of evidence just to put someone on trial for a crime?! There was obviously serious negligence in this case. (one would have thought that the testimony of the jewelry owner testifying that this was NOT the man who tried to rob him would have created reasonable doubt.)

Both scenarios offer the same "intent"; to kill. They are both wrong.

Not entirely - the first guy didn't have a choice in the matter.

A number of comments about this story from persons who did not read the article, or did not get the whole story is one reason why we should be very careful about imposing a death penalty, except in the most heinous of crimes where physical evidence is clearly incontrovertible. Witness testimony is almost always flawed. People lie, jump to conclusions, and are coerced to say things that aren't true for any number of reasons. Corrupt law enforcement practitioners count on this to obtain convictions.

While Prosecutors twist and turn the evidence in their favor, and defense attorneys pressure their clients to accept plea deals, the real perpetrators are allowed to freely commit more crimes, while innocent persons get swept into prison.

Just as the persons who comment that he is probably guilty, but the evidence is insufficient, clearly have formed an opinion based on weak comprehension of the facts, juries will come to faulty conclusions based on distorted or suppressed evidence. Our system of justice is only as good as the people who are involved can make it. If they are corrupt, inattentive, lazy, and lack motivation to find the truth, then we are all at risk.

With all the talk about the founding fathers, I think they would be ashamed by how long it takes us to prosecute the most obvious cases.. Such as James Holmes. We have provided many protections and safeguards against tyranny and miscarriage of justice, but honestly.. we waste too much money and time on these very obvious cases...(As in caught at scene of crime, wearing body armor, with guns, with car, with apartment full of @!$%#)

the case involved a lone eyewitness, who originally said she could not ID the suspect; after being coached by the police, she was told to concentrate on the one with the large nose; no other evidence; the jury convicted him on that evidence alone; if you ever sit on a jury, if there is no other evidence except one lone witness, than be very suspicious of quilt.

You people assume too much.

How do you know he is innocent?

"I DID NOT DO IT!!!" .. "Oh ok, our mistake, you are free to go!"

Murderers freely walk the streets everyday.

The only way to avoid executing innocent people is to abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is not justifiable in civilized society.

don, since when do we live in a civilized society? The fact that there is a significant violent crime rate in our society proves that we don't. Therefore, quit apologizing for the criminals and making them the victims. Murderers should get the death penalty, period. When the legal criteria is reached, execute. Not perfect, but as effective as it can be. The ideal is an armed victim who refuses to be; saves us all time and money. Besides, the idea of someone killing a scumbag before he can kill them is my idea of poetic; it just has a neat simplicity and a straightforward, logical form of justice. Saves a jury from making a mistake ;)

the justice system of America...pffff....it's not that the right person goes to jail, but that someone, anyone, goes to jail.

Mike

You are incapable of rational conversation. What did I say that possibly could be construed as "apologizing for the criminals"? The countries I consider civilized, Europe and South American countries, do not have the death penalty. Countries that do execute prisoners include Yemen, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia .... oh yeah, and the United States.

Bryan, and others who are not murderers are locked up. It is never okay to take away the freedom of an innocent person. Too many people are too quick to condemn another person. But everyone like that changes their tune as soon as a situation like this happens to hit close to their home. That should tell you something.

debi: I hate to think you were dropped on your head when an infant. But I do agree if one of those dreaded people wearing a suit and tie shoot an innocent person to death they should hang as well.

"bibol Comment collapsed by the community

I guess can not have the death penalty. If you wait long enough. All the witnesses will be dead or change their stories, all evidence will disappear, get lost. Lets get rid of the courts. There is no evidence that he did not do it. He was convicted of the crime. He should of been executed 23 years ago."

What you just said is so stupid its unbelievable. There is no evidence you did not do it either why have you not been executed?

"Bryan-2475629

You people assume too much.

How do you know he is innocent?"

Because you are innocent until proven guilty. His conviction was thrown out therefore he is innocent in the eyes of the law. But to people like you that just want to believe our justice system doesn't make mistakes or doesn't down right make up evidence to convict people you will no doubt see it differently.

jack:

But I do agree if one of those dreaded people wearing a suit and tie shoot an innocent person to death they should hang as well.

It's obvious you either missed my point, or are suffering from your own head injuries. Get well.

Justice has been served. A few decades late, but justice is justice.

Now compensate him appropriately. No one should spend over 2 decades of a life behind bars without compensation when they didn't deserve to be behind bars in the first place.

Debi, Jack didn't miss your point at all. You missed his.

I hope that poor man gets financialy compensated for his time wrongfuly spent in prison.

People against the death penalty can give reasons you think it should not happen but they are never GOOD reasons and never make sense! It does not matter how many people are wrongly acused and put in jail that is WAYYYY different than people sentenced to death!!! They are never based on eye wittness these days so thats out, they are usually DNA evidence, they admit to it, many people in a group saw them or they had the dead bodies in their house or in the back yard or something that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

People who are for the death penalty have one very important characteristic in common with the convicted murderers ...... they both believe they should be able to decide who dies.

niece

You are wrong ..... people are frequently convicted and sentenced to death when they are in fact innocent. Fortunately, the Innocence Project has proven that many of those people were wrongly convicted, but some wrongly convicted people are in fact put to death.

Debi, Jack didn't miss your point at all. You missed his.

Another example of why we should abolish the death penalty; people jumping to conclusions and they're wrong.

I got his point and disagreed.

Debi--not jumping to any conclusions. The fact that you think he missed your point means that you did not get his. He is telling you that your point is wrong and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And he is right.

leroy brown

This is why the death penalty should be abolished across the country.

Leroy,

Exactly! Through DNA evidence and because of wrongful convictions, there have been more than 200 people freed from Death Row. How does the system apologize to the wrongfully deceased and their families for errant executions?

Kevin C-752389

Not at all. We just need to make sure that any death penalty is backed up by DNA, or photographic evidence.

Kevin,

Absurd! The system can never "make sure" that all capital convictions are 100% free of error.

Patrick:

I didn't jump to a conclusion. I actually gave him options as to the possible reasons for his response; either he missed my point or he had a head injury.

Now you've just confirmed; it is a head injury. I'm sure he appreciates your knowledgeable assistance.

With friends like you, who needs enemies? Lol

So glad this man has finally gotten his freedom. Now who is going to pay him for the last 23 years salary he has missed out on? I'm sure his family could use it right about now.

Debora:

Now who is going to pay him for the last 23 years salary he has missed out on?

We the taxpayers will pay him. The government (law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, etc) are immune when they lie or wrongly withhold information. They get off Scott free.

Doesn't seem quite right, does it?

Debi,

No doubt, Mr. Ranta will file a civil lawsuit. He will be substantially compensated for his wrongful conviction.

The taxpayers will pay...which is not an incentive to correct egregious errors that the system keeps making.

Agreed 25Walker. We know the system is imperfect, yet many are willing to execute.

Their logic and justification appears no different than the criminals. Killing is killing and dead is dead.

Debi,

If Mr. Ranta had had a substantial amount of money for his defense, he would have never seen a day in prison. That wealth can buy freedom only adds to this awful case of a miscarriage of justice.

...only the poor go to prison.

Debi-1314897

We know the system is imperfect, yet many are willing to execute.

Debi,

You are right. Worse is that if there is an nearing election. For political expediency, the system will throw the innocent in prison and send some of them to the gurney.

Word! After all those who were executed and found innocent. I believe it's the RIGHT to remove the death penalty from the table.

Congradulations, David Ranta! Hope you win a big fortune and lifetime supply of airline tickets to Hawaii. The court system is wrong once again! How many more are going to be released?

I believe it was ben franklin that said it is better that 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be found guilty. In our system circumstantial evidence is given far to much weight. this type of evidence is great for a "who done it mystery", but should be very rare in a "justice system" . if the penalty for a wrongful conviction were as stiff as for the crime allegedly committed, for the police ,prosecutors and judges involved with the wrongful conviction, much of this would stop. I firmly believe in the death penalty because whether it is cruel or unusual can only be determined by the offender, who if found guilty, "WITHOUT A DOUBT", through their own actions, said it is not. I also believe it is impossible to prove a negative, which is done hundreds of times a day, because of circumstantial evidence.

I firmly believe in the death penalty because whether it is cruel or unusual can only be determined by the offender, who if found guilty, "WITHOUT A DOUBT", through their own actions, said it is not.

Can you explain "said it is not".

I also firmly believe in the death penalty and with today's technology to check and double check blood samples, as well as any other thing that dwells on the body there is no reason today for false imprisonment. NONE.

Patrick:

I didn't jump to a conclusion. I actually gave him options as to the possible reasons for his response; either he missed my point or he had a head injury.

Now you've just confirmed; it is a head injury. I'm sure he appreciates your knowledgeable assistance.

With friends like you, who needs enemies? Lol

No you didn't. You made assumptions that make you appear to be an idiot because you can't understand that this was a serious conversation about the death penalty and your lame attempt to hijack it into a lame discussion about politics and how you can find someone somewhere who thinks every single politician everywhere should be on trial for something. He was trying to point out to you that you were being absurd. And still, you don't get it. If you feel the need to hijack a conversation for your own purposes then you are probably the one who needs help. Not Jack.

Don't think you are going to get that big gulp either. oh and we have more to inform you of, you don't smoke by chance, worse then porn. hope you don't like donuts they are next on the illegal substance list but you can have all the drugs you want because the cops are busy raiding soda pop parties. and locking people up for allowing their cigarette pack to be seen in public. the jails are full. that's a good thing. making money! cops are going to go crazy without their sugar fix. but they will be easy to blackmail.

As long as he doesn't go to 7/11 and ask for a 64oz double gulp. Can no longer get them because of Nannie Bloomberg.

concerned veteran

As long as he doesn't go to 7/11 and ask for a 64oz double gulp. Can no longer get them because of Nannie Bloomberg.

Since you most likely only watch bull@!$%# mountain (fox news). Let me be the 1st to tell you. That was overturned.

flnobody; But the intent was there.

In Canada we dropped the death penalty many years ago and that was because too many people had been wrongly put to death. Even before that happened I was against the death penalty. Somehow "beyond a reasonable doubt" just doesnt cut it for me. What on earth is "reasonable doubt" especially from 12 human beings like you or me and anyone out there walking the streets. That is putting a real heavy load on these jurors and often times the person is acquitted because of that - eg. Casey Anthony. My way of thinking is that if indeed these people are guilty the needle is too good for them - too easy. I believe living out their lives in prison is far more punishment than being put to death. And believe it or not it is cheaper to do it that way as with the death penalty they spend at least 16 years on death row having appeal after appeal after appeal before they are actually put to death. And if you read up on this that is actually more costly for the taxpayers.

Can you imagine how hard it is going to be to adjust to this world 23 years after he was once in it? What is he going to do for a job at 53? Somehow a sincere apology from the judge isnt adequate for losing 23 years of your life - not being able to watch your kids grow up and so very many other things. I wish him all the best in the life he has left. And another point people are saying here. You say it doesnt mean he is innocent and that he didnt do it. Well take Casey Anthony for instance. She was found "not guilty" but not "innocent" so that is in keeping with this fellow. There seems to be plenty of "reasonable doubt" in this case and that is all it takes to be deemed "not guilty".

If ever there was a case to abolish the death penalty - this case is!!!

Funny how people who read extreme left wing biased libtard media make fun of Fox news LOL that just cracks me up ... so much hypocrisy in the world!

Bryan

"so much hypocrisy in the world!"

Yep! And it can all be found on Fox Snooze.

Fox news has stated it was overturned. flnobody was just making a satire of Bloomburg. Why blame fox news for his satire is beyond me.

20 plus years in a cage surrounded by societies elite. Lawsuit might not be enough, if it were me.

somebody's lawyer just struck the jackpot...

That's a real problem in this also... some money grubbing lawyer. They did not do their job in the first place by keeping an innocent man from prison and now they will collect again on it!

No amount of money is worth 23 years of your life.

That's a real problem in this also... some money grubbing lawyer. They did not do their job in the first place by keeping an innocent man from prison and now they will collect again on it!

The attorneys that did their job will be rewarded as it is doubtful the original defense attorneys had anything to do with his release.

They did not do their job in the first place by keeping an innocent man from prison and now they will collect again on it!

That isn't necessarily true. There aren't enough facts in the article. If the prosecution introduced faulty evidence or withheld evidence pointing to this man's innocence, then the best lawyer in the world might have failed to win an acquital.

"Spare Rib

Now comes the lawsuit!"

As there should be.

@Barry-NJ

If you clicked the link to "Continue Reading", you will find out the following things;

- The case revolves around a rabbi who was killed by a lone suspect fleeing a botched diamond robbery. Yet the courier stated, IN COURT, that the man on trial, 'is NOT the man who tried to rob me." Somehow, someway, the courier's testimony was never part of the original conviction.

- The witness who picked him out of a lineup, later admitted he was coerced by the police to pick that particular suspect

- The jail snitch who testified against him in court, later admitted to that he lied on the stand in exchange for a plea deal on an unrelated charge.

In short, all the witnesses who placed him at the scene of the crime, later recanted their testimony. In the case of the diamond courier, because his testimony was in favor of the defendant, prosecutors had his testimony thrown out.

It's a clear case of witness tampering on the part of police and the prosecutors, in order to secure a conviction. That man was wrongly imprisoned for a crime he most certainly did not commit.

AND the likely murderer (identified by the killer's wife) died in prison shortly after the crime.

When things like this happen, why aren't the Prosecuting Attorney's Disbarred and forced to pay HEFTY fines as well?

Let's hope so. And, if the cops really told a witness which person to ID in a lineup, let's hope that POS is fired, pension revoked, criminally charged, and sued beyond bankruptcy into abject poverty and lifelong shame. If the Prosecutor was aware of it, same thing.

@ dv727

Let's hope so. And, if the cops really told a witness which person to ID in a lineup, let's hope that POS is fired, pension revoked, criminally charged, and sued beyond bankruptcy into abject poverty and lifelong shame. If the Prosecutor was aware of it, same thing.

I agree with you 100% but, how many times this happened and no repercussions ever stated .

That only can happen in real world .....we aren't there yet

Anybody can and has been falsely accused when the prosecution team is only interested in maintaining stats, and not seeking justice, and the defense is incompetent and could care less about the accused!!

Sarcasm...but he's not far off.

@ BooGotSHo!... You beat me to it! Good one.

Still, after the Dornan shootings of cops last month, I'm surprise so many whites were actually cheering Dornan for wanting to kill even white cops.

I guess, like blacks and browns-- they (whites) get screwed by (crooked) "law" enforcement, prosecutors, and judges, too.

You sound like an idiot, an apparent troll.

"Dornan"...... Come on C_D_J55.

Bloomberg wasn't the mayor 23 years ago nimrod.

And 23 years from now, you can say the same thing about the stupid things bloomberg does today. It goes on & on.

prosecutor just wants to win his case innocent or not

Then what should happen is we the taxpayers pursue a lawsuit against the DA, police, "witnesses" etc. In order to recoup the cost of the taxes payed out on this crap, their negligence, deriliction, dishonesty, cheating etc. Put them in the poor house and in prison for the same amount of years their victims had to serve.

You dis-like blacks and jews... I think we all get it. And I suppose that, in your mind, this one case proves that white ppl suffer a greater number of wrongfull convictions than minorities....

I'm just glad that bigots like you are relagated mainly to internet comments these day.

Although this not a popular opinion..there is much truth to what you have written. To satisfy a call for "swift justice" from a community (any community) an innocent man was sacrificed to appease and we dare to call this justice.

regardless of race, this happens too often to allow the death penalty to remain.

Blacks accused. Whites accused. Asians accused. Jews accused. Italians, Russians, Vietnamese, you name it, they can sterotype and profile you into the pen or worse, death by hanging, injection, or firing squad.

Yes, it's justice. But is it moral?

Gander I hear that States are looking at laws to cap it to 50K per year if someone has been on death row--less for those that haven't--shouldn't that tell you something about how many people are in prison that shouldn't be and are expected to be released? I think the government should have worried about justice to start with--I also think the prosecutors in each case should hold some liability--maybe then we wouldn't have such gung-ho imprisonment of innocent people--they would have to get their facts right~

$$$$$ yes at what age?

Onlyme--if that's the case, we're in a sad state. Leave it to government and insurance conglomerates to put a dollar value on one's freedom. Those that were responsible--the lying, scheming cops, the jailhouse scum who testified for their own skin, and even the Prosecutors (if they knew what was going on) need to be punished, and made examples of. Put a value on 23 years of someone's life. While this guy was wrongfully locked away, the dirtballs-with-a-badge were living with families, enjoying freedoms they STOLE from this man. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, and any criminal prosecution they can and should face should be supplemented by civil judgments and any remaining life as total pariahs.

Maybe they should start by transfering the cops pension to this man, then start legal proceedings against the cop.

Yupp...leaves a lot of room on the vine for speculation...i spec he'll say forgive and forget...oh well whats 20 years...

Nothing like getting a murderer off on a technicality. Look at his face; he's guilty as heck. And the picture of his smiling attorney having an orgasm in court is sickening.

I would like a little more history on his past, as most completely innocent people aren't arrested for murder. I have a feeling he did this crime, was part of the crime and has a shady past.

Jack - You admit you don't know his past, but assume he is guilty? You should be a prosecutor. You don't believe collusion and corruption exist in our legal system at all?

If only we had more people like Jack that could determine someone's guilt or innocence - just based on how they look. Think of all the money we could save with the "justice" system!

Problem solved boys. Just let me look into their eyes and see their soul. Gives them away every time.

LOL - from the sounds of it, you actually would probably do about as well as the existing system seem to!

Jack knows Jack .......What is your soul say about you in that picture ? Hope you never serve on the jury .

Big brother is out to get something on everyone. I promise they do have access to everything you do, buy, sell, and with cell phones can track whomever they want at anytime via GPS.

News flash Jack: no one gives a flying crap about you. You are about as unimportant as they come, and yet people like you always seem to think that the government is coming for them. Get over yourself clown.

See 1.24. Some people need to click on the "read more" link and actually read the full report. This guy was INNOCENT. Not just "not enough evidence". The diamond courier testified that this man was not the one who tried to rob him. The witness who picked him out of a lineup was DIRECTED who to pick by a detective. The Jailhouse snitch was lying (surprise, surprise) to get a better deal and a woman has stated her husband actually committed the murder - though that man is now dead so he can't be tried.

From what I'm reading is there was a lot of contradictory evidence, most of which leaned towards innocence of this crime.

And some need to learn "innocent until proven guilty."

Three of the eye witnesses recanted their testimony; one teen said he was told to lie by a detective and the other two witnesses were jailbirds; they said they lied to get better plea deals. The courier of the diamonds testified that Ranta was not the man who tried to rob him. During one of his appeals, a lady testified that her husband was the actual robber was the one who killed the rabbi; and that her husband died 2 months after the attempted heist.... yet the overzealous prosecutor got the testimony thrown out.

Not enough evidence? Please. He's absolutely not guilty.

Actually there is a law in this country about false imprisonment and abduction. But I guess it does not apply when it's done "LEGALLY"

The compensation should come right out of the prosecutor hide. the tax payers get raped because of the prosecutors trampling of this mans right to a fair trial.

@bipol

There is no evidence that you did not do it either...SOMEBODY killed the rabbi...let's execute YOU...you can't prove you didn't do it...I don't know if you're aware of this...but the burden of proof is on the prosecution...you have to prove somebody DID it...you don't have to PROVE somebody didn't do it...you need to get your eyes checked...you are by far the most short sighted person I've seen on the vine in quite some time...and that is saying something!!!

Please see 1.24. There is a woman who claims her husband was the actual murderer, the courier they claim he tried to rob TESTIFIED that he was NOT the one who tried to rob him, the person who picked him out of a lineup has stated that a detective told him who to pick and the jailhouse informant has stated that he and his girlfriend lied in order to get a better deal (big surprise there).