The other day I came across a relatively recent episode of 20/20 that featured the Darlie Routier case. Her two older sons were murdered in 1996 and the state of Texas tried her for murder later that year.

I have my own opinions about the case, but that's not really what this post is about. 

In the majority of criminal appeals cases I've come across, prosecutors try to block DNA testing and other tools that could be used to exonerate a defendant. 

For a really long time, I wondered why. If a prosecutor was truly convinced of a defendant's guilt, it would seem to make sense to want that additional evidence. Prosecutors have a unique role in what many people call the "justice" system. Technically at least, they work for the people in the judicial circuit where they work. They are supposed to get justice for crime victims, not manipulate the system to rack up wins. The Supreme Court even specifically said so in Berger v. United States! (295 US 78)...

Sorry about that...my sometimes naive idealism shows up at the damndest times. Moving along...

A prosecutor's job is trying to put criminals in prison. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a prosecutor should want to be as sure a possible a defendant actually is a criminal? In many cases, the answer is no. This isn't right. 

Any prosecutor who actively tries to suppress evidence of a defendant's innocence - at any point in the process - needs to be considered and enemy of the people and should be shunned accordingly.

Here's a few of the instances I found:

Adam Braseel argues new evidence shows wrongful conviction. Prosecutors say so what?

The district attorney's name is Mike Taylor. He can be reached at:

375 Church St.
Suite 300
Dayton, TN 37321

Phone: (423) 775-4468
Fax: (423) 775-2805




Kym Worthy defends waiting years to release innocent Davontae Sanford

She can be reached at:

1441 St. Antoine St.

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 224-5777

....more to come....