Dear Mr. Sharp:
Thank you for your comments. Unlike you, I am a novice to these shows and must say that I’m not used to the back and forth format of having to try to deal with a complex topic in a 3-6 minute window. Most of my trial work involves several hours and/or days of testimony, cross examination, arguments and the like so I hope you’ll give me some latitude in this new arena.
Having said that, I appreciate your comments and you should know that I am not an opponent of the death penalty and I represent criminal defendants in my criminal law practice and often represent victims of crime in my family law practice.
One of my great disappointments about recent developments in the Forensic Science Commission is the vitriolic arguments in the case about guilt or innocence as well as the death penalty. The Commission was committed to findings relating only to the forensic science in the case. Unfortunately, that good work has been interrupted and/or stopped by recent actions taken by the Governor.
We had only begun our work and had solicited input from the State Fire Marshall’s Office as well as other law enforcement entities who certainly would have held different perspectives than Dr. Beyler. It was only after a full consideration of same that we were going to render our final report, if I had been permitted to continue.
I was fullyaware that the criminal case involved evidence having nothing to do with forensic science and that was one of many reasons I stood for the proposition that the commission would not comment on guilt/innocence issues.
Again, thank you for your input and good luck.