When DNA became a recognized forensic tool in court it prompted the re-examination of murder cases on death row nation wide. This revealed a very interesting fact. In almost 50% of all the cases tried the jury got it wrong and convicted the wrong man. Now imagine a trial based on innuendo and lies with no direct evidence like most sex offense cases are. How much easier it is to get that conviction when that’s all the evidence there is. What do you think the percentage of false convictions would be under circumstances like that? It has to be more than 50% because no argument can be made for less when it’s easier for a prosecutor to get a conviction. When we write things here we seldom consider those folks. Never ever consider a person is guilty just because a court said so because murder trials in this country are only as accurate as a coin toss. Personally I’d rather have a coin toss. At least I am guaranteed of impartiality with a coin toss. I can’t say the same about a trial.