Michael Leonard

And maybe, maybe he'll get a pittance of money recovery from the state, although that's not certain.

But, you know, one thing that's changed a lot in our system, a lot of these older cases –

Kind of the standards that were applied years and years ago are quite different now.

And we'll get into this when you break down all the different areas and dissect them.

But, you know...

Things have really changed in terms of the view of eyewitness testimony, the view of forensic evidence, the trustworthiness of informants.

That's all changed a lot.

So when you get in a federal appellate court looking at that, they're going to have such a different viewpoint than the trial court did 20 years ago or the state court did when they allegedly reviewed this case.

Absolutely incredible.

When I was listening to your show...

And you kind of teased us as listeners because you didn't disclose the fact right away.

That was just absolutely remarkable.

Number one.

You know, there's a huge problem in our system, which has been recognized, that eyewitness testimony is very oftentimes unreliable.

So people have this idea in their heads that, oh, it's an eyewitness, so it must be true.

And studies have shown, court cases have held, that oftentimes eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable.

And there's a lot of reasons for it that make sense.

You know, it's the fact that you have such a brief period of time

that you're in a heightened emotional state, that you're not really looking at the person.

And then the problem is exacerbated by the fact when you're shown pictures or given information, then you may fill in the gaps with what you're fed by others, even if it's unintentional, right?