publiusvarus wrote:
This may be the case during the trial but when a person is convicted the state is saying they're guilty of what they were accused of.
Although that may be your opinion of how the system should work, it is not the law. The law provides opportunities for review of error. They were presented with overwhelming evidence that the fire was not arson, that no liquid accelerant was used, and yet did nothing.
He was convicted of arson, involving the application of an accelerant (think gasoline) to deliberatly kill. They tested for accelerant and found none, except near the front door (the expert witness testamony was that the accelerant was placed all over, including under the children's bed, etc). Now they also had testamony from eyewitnesses that the front door was where the family kept a grill for outdoor cooking - and a bottle of lighter fluid - both of which actually burned in the fire.
At the time of trial, they had direct physical evidence to invalidate the ruling of arson. And everyone ignored it.
This is not uncommon.
People who are not brain dead need to serve on juries.