The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) claims 12 death row "exonerations" in Texas (1). Their standard fraud.
By Texas law (2), Texas has only identified one former death row inmate , Anthony Graves, as actually innocent . . .
well, actually, no . . .
"Actual innocence" in the Graves case was decided by a "belief" standard, not an evidence standard (2), with this exception "no credible evidence exists that inculpates the defendant" (2), crossing the well known evidence line:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
By this amendment, any guilty criminal with "absence of evidence" POOF becomes "actually innocent", which we know cannot be the case, rationally or factually, but that is how the law is written.
It certainly is proof that the Graves case should not have gone to trial and that Graves should never have been convicted or imprisoned.
The belief "standard" had to be amended (2 at 2Cii), into the law, because there was no evidence to establish Grave's innocence, as the law, previously, required such evidence to prove innocence (2 at 2A,B & Ci), , thereby requiring the judge to find that the Graves case did not qualify for that finding, which is what occurred.
How better to declare Anthony Graves "actually innocent" than to avoid a standard of evidence establishing innocence, add an amendment to the law, with a "belief" standard, inclusive of absence of evidence, which does not and can not establish actual innocence, which is why "belief" is in the statute.
Since 1973, that is 1 out of Texas' 1100 death sentences, or 0.09% and . . . . Graves was released and compensated.
Not 100%, but a very high accuracy rate - I believe.
That 83% Texas error rate by DPIC matches DPIC's error rate in Florida, which had a government agency review all 23/24 DPIC claimed "innocent" and "exoneration" in Florida, finding that 4 MIGHT be confirmed as actually innocent, the same 83% error rate in"exoneration" claims as Texas and as reviewed within Section 4 of INNOCENT FRAUDS (3).
1) Exonerations By State, Death Penalty Information Center, viewed May 19, 2015, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty#inn-st
2) Sec. 103.001. CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AND HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE
Paragraph (2) (C) (ii) the district court's dismissal order is based on a motion to dismiss in which the state's attorney states that no credible evidence exists that inculpates the defendant and, either in the motion or in an affidavit, the state's attorney states that the state's attorney BELIEVES that the defendant is actually innocent of the crime for which the person was arrested.
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE, TITLE 5. GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY, CHAPTER 103. COMPENSATION TO PERSONS WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED, SUBCHAPTER A. ELIGIBILITY; NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY
Sec. 103.001. CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AND HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE.
(a) A person is entitled to compensation if: (1) the person has served in whole or in part a sentence in prison under the laws of this state; and
(2) the person:
(A) has received a full pardon on the basis of innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced;
(B) has been granted relief in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus that is based on a court finding or determination that the person is actually innocent of the crime for which the person was sentenced; or
(C) has been granted relief in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus and: (i) the state district court in which the charge against the person was pending has entered an order dismissing the charge; and (ii) the district court's dismissal order is based on a motion to dismiss in which the state's attorney states that no credible evidence exists that inculpates the defendant and, either in the motion or in an affidavit, the state's attorney states that the state's attorney believes that the defendant is actually innocent of the crime for which the person was arrested.
3) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES