Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2017
- 46,062
- 29,788
It certainly is rare, but not for the reasons you think.Flynns case is rare, because the time between conviction and sentencing in state court is separated by days and not months. So the window is smaller.
What about when the DA moves to dismiss and there has been on trial yet?In the case you mentioned, the DA would have to explain why the evidence was not available prior to conviction. The evidence itself if exculpatory would be grounds for the judge to declare a mistrial.
Without the motion to dismiss, could a court grant a new trial or order that the matter be set on the trial docket? Wouldn't that be the most efficient use of judicial resources? Particularly when an appeal is almost certain and nothing has been decided on the merits.
What about cases where the DA moves to dismiss the case before sentencing?If the evidence merely raises a question, such as the lab having made a mistake in a similar case would not be sufficient to delay justice. Proof of his DNA being exculpatory would be grounds for appeal.
There wouldn't be grounds for the Court to grant a new trial or set the matter on the trial docket when the case has not even gone forward on the merits???
.