>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).

The whole point of the double jeopardy clause is to prevent people from vendettas of the state. The state shouldn't proceed against someone until they have good enough evidence to convict. If they choose to charge and try sooner, and fail to convince, too bad.

I, too, hate the idea that a murderer walks free, but I like that a lot better than an innocent person being convicted and than a prosecutor going after someone over and over until they finally get a conviction.

Tamar