Comment by Powell Gammill

Entered on: 3/3/2009 9:34:02 AM

Yes, that paragraph leaped out at me. It seemed the argument put forward was, sure we could allow you to test the contents of the condom, and it would prove you innocence, but first we want you to attest under oath that you did not do the crime.

One, in this nation you are not compelled -- except in a government torture chamber -- to give testimony that can later be used against you...which seems to be Judge Scalia's price tag.. Two, most of these people are in prison for crimes that are severe sentences...lying under oath is peanuts. Lastly, what it really boils down to is what is the government afraid of? A indisputable evidence that a huge number of innocent people are wrongly being sent to prison. Heck I already knew that. Not enough workers for your prison industrial complex?

Comment by Brock Lorber

Entered on: 3/2/2009 11:48:18 PM

" 'I have no doubt whatsoever that retesting of the condom will prove once and for all time,' -- and one expects to follow, 'my innocence,' " Scalia said. "That's not what it says. 'Will prove once and for all time either my guilt or innocence.' "

Scalia added, "I mean, you know, what is this?"

Either Scalia or the author cannot express thoughts in English. Therefore, I move that both be removed from office.