The following story appeared today in the Dallas Morning News:


Inmate not likely to get Dallas County district attorney's backing in '87 murder
Prosecutor says office stands by eyewitness accounts in slaying

10:32 PM CDT on Tuesday, April 1, 2008

By JENNIFER EMILY
The Dallas Morning News

The Dallas County district attorney's office is likely to object to a judge's opinion that a man convicted in a fatal aggravated robbery is actually innocent, a high-ranking prosecutor said this week.

Judge Rick Magnis said Friday in a 42-page written opinion that new evidence shows Ben Spencer did not rob and murder Dallas businessman Jeffrey Young in 1987. Mr. Spencer was convicted based mainly on eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.

For the rest of the story, click here.

My criticism begins with the last two words in the second paragraph. The reporter, who has written some very good stuff in the past, inserts some very questionable editorializing by concluding (with little evidence) that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously" unreliable.

At best, she could say that there is an ongoing debate about the credibility of some eyewitness testimony under certain circumstances. But it is grossly inaccurate to group all eyewitness testimony into some negative category.

In this case, DA Watkins is defending the conviction's eyewitness testimony because it was based on three different witnesses, all of whom had some prior contact with the defendant and, therefore, were familiar with his appearance.

That is a far different case from circumstances in which a stranger identifies a stranger under difficult lighting.

But I thought if you say something with so much authority that it sounds indisputable that it must be true?

Not to get on a political slant, but so much is said in the media about the presidential candidates from all camps, or about the war, or the economy, or the housing market, or whatever, in similar terms to "notoriously unreliable" and with as little backup......as though the entire reading / listening population agrees with the reporters' slant....I can't even watch the news right now it drives me so crazy! Reporters are going to have to cite their authorities in footnotes or something to get me to buy in anymore.

It is remarkable to me that Dallas County, which has its own in-house innocence lawyer and has spent considerable money, attorney, and staff resources looking back at and correcting historical cases where they see actual innocence, could still be criticized when they look at a case and determine that it is not an 'actual innocence' case. 'Actual innocence' is not a term of art. A person is only 'actually innocent' if they are in fact 'actually innocent'. A person who is acquitted for lack of evidence may or may not be 'actually innocent'. Those who wish to criticize the strength of evidence and play Monday-morning quarterback to the convicting juries are of course free to do so. But claiming that someone with a rejected evidentiary sufficiency argument is necessarily 'actually innocent' because the second-guesser would not have found the same way on the strength of the evidence presented does not further the cause of those people who are 'actually innocent'. Let's save the term 'actually innocent' for those who truly are 'actually innocent'.