>http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=270085
>
>Read to the bottom. Most here saw the miniseries and thought he may be innocent (since there wasn't ample proof to point otherwise). Now after a book deal and a miniseries, DNA proves guilty.

I'm really torn about this.

As a believer in the "double-jeopardy" clause in the constitution I believe that once the military cedes jurisdiction to the state it should abide by that decision. Despite the new evidence this looks like exactly the kind of double-shot the fifth amendment was designed to guard against.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

While the armed forces seem to be exempt from this amendment it seems to me that a strong case could be made that this is only for purposes of requiring a Grand Jury indictment for a capital crime.

There are also no qualifying statements about multiple jurisdictions concerning the restriction about "twice put in jeopardy of life..."

On the other hand I certainly want to see justice properly done. It certainly seems proper that, if a convicted person can receive a new trial on the basis of new evidence the "state" should have the same rights. Especially if the evidence is of a type not available at the time of the original trial (like DNA as in this case).

As I said, I'm conflicted. I'll be intereted in reading other opinions.