The background to this case seems a little one-sided, is there anything that explains how he was convicted?
It's supposed to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Supposedly the only evidence was another person's testimony, who was going to get the death penalty if they didn't (i.e., they were compelled). Even without being compelled, it's still reasonable to believe that the person may be lying. There must be more to this....
It's supposed to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Supposedly the only evidence was another person's testimony, who was going to get the death penalty if they didn't (i.e., they were compelled). Even without being compelled, it's still reasonable to believe that the person may be lying. There must be more to this....