A Texas man was released from jail after new DNA evidence is presented in court on Thursday. Charles Chatman spent nearly 27 years in jail after being convicted of rape in 1981. The now 47 year old Chatman had been picked out of a lineup by a woman who lived down the street from him and was given a 99 year sentence for aggravated sexual assault. He was the 15th inmate in Dallas freed using DNA testing since 2001, more than any other county in the United States. He is also the longest-serving wrongly convicted man in the state, serving almost 27 years before being released.

What actions, if any, should state and county governments take to “right” the wrong of sending someone to prison for a crime they did not commit? What rights should these people now have against the government? Is there any possible way to make up for more than half a life wasted serving time for a crime Charles Chatman did not commit?

In a move virtually unheard of until recently, prosecutors in Wisconsin will be able to use evidence given by a murder victim in court. Julie Jensen was allegedly poisoned by her husband Mark using antifreeze in December of 1998, but she suspected he was up to something and told others that if she died, her husband was most likely responsible. In a letter she gave to a neighbor, she said that she feared for her death and that she was suspicious of her husband. Up until this point, evidence given by the dead was not used in court because the defendant did not have a chance to confront his accuser. Wisconsin, however, has changed their laws, making this sort of evidence usable in court. A judge ruled that Mark Jensen’s actions prevented his wife from being able to testify in the case, so her voicemails and the letter that she wrote to her neighbor, overturning the original ruling that only testimony given by the neighbor who received the letter as well as a teacher whom Julie Jensen confided in would be allowed.

Do you think it is fair to allow this evidence? Will it give the prosecution an unfair advantage to use a dead woman’s words since the defense cannot cross-examine her?

On December 18, 2007, a former beauty pageant contestant was indicted in
Arizona for kidnapping and threatening an ex-boyfriend. Kumari Fulbright is now facing charges of armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. If convicted, Fulbright, a law school student, faces a lengthy prison sentence. She, along with three other men, are accused of tying up her ex-boyfriend, accusing him of stealing some of Fulbright’s jewelry, and threatening to kill him. Fulbright herself allegedly bit the man and threatened him with a butcher knife. They then moved the man to another home where he was guarded by a gun-wielding Fulbright until he was able to free one of his arms and make his escape. Police are still searching for two of the men involved (they are believed to have fled the country) while the third is in custody. Fulbright was able to post bond and was released.

What do you think could make someone who is a beauty pageant participant and second year law school student take part in such a crime, allegedly to get back some stolen jewelry? What should her sentence be if convicted?