Scott Peterson DP over turned.

[Ampulla of Vater]

For me the take-home message from the Avery cases is that if the police and prosecution think you did it, it does not matter whether you are actually guilty; they can make it seem as if you are.

To state the obvious...

That is their job. They investigate and, if the investigation causes them to believe you did it, they are tasked with proving it. It is the job of the defense to counter the prosecution’s theory/evidence and it is the job of the jury to seek the truth between the two positions.

Since all involved are humans, there is the possibility of error, in any of the steps of the process. It is, however, the process we have adopted and for the most part, it is a fairly good one.

In the Peterson case, if the expert testimony was subsequently determined to be flawed, then he deserves a retrial. That is the purpose of the multiple processes of appeals. I’m sure the result will be the same, even without the tidal, canine, and fetal growth testimonies. That is because Scott himself is his own worst enemy.

 

[angrysoba]

To state the obvious...

That is their job. They investigate and, if the investigation causes them to believe you did it, they are tasked with proving it. It is the job of the defense to counter the prosecution’s theory/evidence and it is the job of the jury to seek the truth between the two positions.

Since all involved are humans, there is the possibility of error, in any of the steps of the process. It is, however, the process we have adopted and for the most part, it is a fairly good one.

It depends how they do their job. US police investigators supposedly make a lot of use of the Reid Technique, which has a high level of built-in confirmation bias.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Berger v. United States

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." link

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The problem there is that the evidence does not in any way match the prosecution theory. In Peterson it does seem to,

If anything the evidence matches too well. All this proves is that cops in the Peterson case did a good job of framing him. They know exactly what evidence they need, so not making the evidence match their theory would be an indication that they didn't manufacture it.