Senator Chris Murphy

But without a link to Lacey Peterson, it is it is literally meaningless. And look, we see that all the time in a lot of cases. Like I said, there are cases where DNA has legitimately freed people that didn't do it. And thank goodness for that. And that's what we want the system to work. And forensic technology is unbiased. And it thank goodness. Right.

Like but there's also a lot of these cases, Megan, that and this is something that drives me crazy, where you'll have, you know, something that happened, maybe say a rape murder and in the 19 1980s. OK, and somebody will have been convicted of rape murder. The jury who, in my experience, I've done a lot of capital case litigation.

Like but there's also a lot of these cases, Megan, that and this is something that drives me crazy, where you'll have, you know, something that happened, maybe say a rape murder and in the 19 1980s. OK, and somebody will have been convicted of rape murder. The jury who, in my experience, I've done a lot of capital case litigation.

Like but there's also a lot of these cases, Megan, that and this is something that drives me crazy, where you'll have, you know, something that happened, maybe say a rape murder and in the 19 1980s. OK, and somebody will have been convicted of rape murder. The jury who, in my experience, I've done a lot of capital case litigation.

I've done a lot of cases like this, which are bifurcated murder trials. The juries take their task very seriously. The judges tend to be the most experienced and the best. The detectives tend to be the most experienced and the best. And it's imperfect. But everybody really wants to do their job. So then a couple of decades later and say it's a homeless drifter.

I've done a lot of cases like this, which are bifurcated murder trials. The juries take their task very seriously. The judges tend to be the most experienced and the best. The detectives tend to be the most experienced and the best. And it's imperfect. But everybody really wants to do their job. So then a couple of decades later and say it's a homeless drifter.

I've done a lot of cases like this, which are bifurcated murder trials. The juries take their task very seriously. The judges tend to be the most experienced and the best. The detectives tend to be the most experienced and the best. And it's imperfect. But everybody really wants to do their job. So then a couple of decades later and say it's a homeless drifter.

OK, and that guy is convicted and maybe he's got some some sex offenses in his past. And the way it works over and over again is he'll say, hey, it was consensual sex. I understand that she's a stockbroker and I was living in a tent. But trust me, we really had a spark. And boy, did we hit it off. And so that's why my sperm was found all over the place.

OK, and that guy is convicted and maybe he's got some some sex offenses in his past. And the way it works over and over again is he'll say, hey, it was consensual sex. I understand that she's a stockbroker and I was living in a tent. But trust me, we really had a spark. And boy, did we hit it off. And so that's why my sperm was found all over the place.

OK, and that guy is convicted and maybe he's got some some sex offenses in his past. And the way it works over and over again is he'll say, hey, it was consensual sex. I understand that she's a stockbroker and I was living in a tent. But trust me, we really had a spark. And boy, did we hit it off. And so that's why my sperm was found all over the place.

But somebody else came along later and killed her. And that will be the absurd, ridiculous defense that they will run and the jury will reject it properly and he'll get convicted. And then what happens is that, you know, that the DNA comes back like 20 years later or 30 years later, and they'll test the scrapings under her fingernails or they'll test some object that's found at the crime scene.

But somebody else came along later and killed her. And that will be the absurd, ridiculous defense that they will run and the jury will reject it properly and he'll get convicted. And then what happens is that, you know, that the DNA comes back like 20 years later or 30 years later, and they'll test the scrapings under her fingernails or they'll test some object that's found at the crime scene.

But somebody else came along later and killed her. And that will be the absurd, ridiculous defense that they will run and the jury will reject it properly and he'll get convicted. And then what happens is that, you know, that the DNA comes back like 20 years later or 30 years later, and they'll test the scrapings under her fingernails or they'll test some object that's found at the crime scene.

And, you know, if she pat, if she patted a little boy on the head, that day, or if she shook hands with her mailman or something, you can discover unknown male DNA that has no link whatsoever to the actual murder. But the standard on appeal is could a jury, could a reasonable jury have found differently? Essentially, could they have

And, you know, if she pat, if she patted a little boy on the head, that day, or if she shook hands with her mailman or something, you can discover unknown male DNA that has no link whatsoever to the actual murder. But the standard on appeal is could a jury, could a reasonable jury have found differently? Essentially, could they have

And, you know, if she pat, if she patted a little boy on the head, that day, or if she shook hands with her mailman or something, you can discover unknown male DNA that has no link whatsoever to the actual murder. But the standard on appeal is could a jury, could a reasonable jury have found differently? Essentially, could they have

could they have come to a different result based on that new evidence? And the answer under those circumstances is, yeah, if they didn't consider that, maybe so. So that's the standard for reversal on appeal. So the case comes back for a retrial and

could they have come to a different result based on that new evidence? And the answer under those circumstances is, yeah, if they didn't consider that, maybe so. So that's the standard for reversal on appeal. So the case comes back for a retrial and

could they have come to a different result based on that new evidence? And the answer under those circumstances is, yeah, if they didn't consider that, maybe so. So that's the standard for reversal on appeal. So the case comes back for a retrial and

Aunt Millie, who worked in the evidence room, put it in the wrong box or the evidence got washed away in the great flood of 82 or and they can't redo it or the critical witnesses have died. The investigator necessary to lay the foundation for that evidence has has passed away. Like you can have this entire host of problems that can afflict a case like that 30 years later. So they they can't.