The July 20 editorial, “Trial, revisited,” supporting Michael Peterson’s new trial was welcome with one glaring exception. You wrote that “If Michael Peterson is innocent, then he must have a chance to prove it.”
On the contrary, Michael Peterson is presumed innocent. In a new trial – as in any trial – the burden of proof is on the state to prove that he is guilty. To imply otherwise is unfair and misleading.
Further, at a new trial the state will have to play by the rules and do so without the false testimony of its alleged blood “expert,” Duane Deaver. When the state focuses its resources on a citizen for prosecution, it is a frightening prospect for the guilty and innocent alike.
When it cheats to win – and then defends this conduct in the trial court and the appellate courts – it is terrifying and ought to scare the residents of this state to their very cores.
If it could happen to Michael Peterson – a person of prominence and resources – it could happen to any of us.