Why don't the courts exonerate Steven Truscott?

[dinaarice]

Since there is no evidence to convict Steven Truscott,why don't the courts exonerate him?

I have been reading about travesties of justice in the US and Canada, regarding innocent men who are convicted, but I lost the link. I will post it if I find it, but it left me thinking.

Why don't the courts exonerate StephenTruscott,since there is no evidence that can be used to prove his guilt?

 

[dinaarice]

Read everything I could find and...

This is evidently the general consensus:

Legal expert Steven Skurka told CTV Newsnet Wednesday that for him, it seems that the Truscott team managed to unravel the Crown's case.

"Truscott's team of lawyers has been able to discredit every single piece of circumstantial evidence that convicted Truscott at his trial," Skurka opined.

Truscott has said he's hopeful the court will acquit him and declare his innocence.

Crown prosecutors have asked the court to uphold Truscott's guilty verdict, or at the least, order a new trial so a jury can weigh the fresh evidence.

But they have also said that if the court recommends a new trial, they would likely not be able to move ahead with one, given the passage of time and the fact that many witnesses are now deceased.
____________________________

Sounds like the prosecution wants it both ways, they contradict themselves.

 

[cacruden]

Re: Read everything I could find and...

Why don't the courts exonerate StephenTruscott,since there is no evidence that can be used to prove his guilt?

If they use that criteria to exonerate people, then lots of people in jail will be freed (especially those serving long sentences). Memories are faded, witnesses are dead, and DNA was not collected because no one knew about that at the time.