THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: E who wrote (3859)	3/20/2002 10:35:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 21057

Someone, maybe karen, mentioned earlier in this discussion the resistance in her (?) state to releasing DNA that might prove innocence. I couldn't find anything about what's going on in the state but I did find this clip. It's incomplete. It's from the Post archives and I can't get at the rest. U.S. Appeals Court Reverses Ruling on DNA Testing Article 32 of 102 found Brooke A. MastersWashington Post Staff Writer January 24, 2002; Page B1 Section: Metro Word Count: 547 A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that convicted felons do not have a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing, reversing a groundbreaking opinion issued last year in the case of a Fairfax County man serving 25 years for a rape he claims he did not commit. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found unanimously that inmate James Harvey had failed to prove that Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. violated his civil rights by

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next