Dear FRONTLINE,

As much as I support the seemingly obvious need for retrials in the cases of guilty verdicts, even upheld on appeals, in the face of new [DNA] evidence, the issue is not "guilt or innocence" but "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In other words, our system is not the British system. Here defendents are found either guilty or not guilty. They cannot be found innocent -- that is an example of the principle that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
The Criner jury foreman's remark is what should apply: any appeals judge does not have the responsibility to infer what a new trial's jury will find. The appeals judge should simply conclude that DNA evidence may provide "reasonable doubt". Unfortunately, as the statements of interviewed prosecution attorneys so clearly showed, the state's employees are interested in saving face -- not serving justice.

George Weber
Fort Washington, MD

Dear FRONTLINE,

Is it any wonder that people are becoming more and more cinical. Refering to the Roy Criner case, it is sickening to think that the egos and pride of the District Attorney and Judges, like Judge Keller, are more important than an innocent man's freedom. And for her to call the viewers of frontline stupid totally outrages me. It is a good thing she is not in this state, because I would do everything in my power to get her out of office. Disgusting. To call the viewers stupid.
If she really wants to here something stupid, she should listen to herself in her interview. I am so totally against hate groups and militant groups, but is it any wonder that they are flourishing when you observe such injustices.

Curt Smith
West Plains, MO