to us how the judge came to this ruling all of the years later? well, they have had a number of appeals these three, and finally last fall the arkansas supreme court said there should be a new hearing because of some problems with the original trial. dna evidence was offered that provided no match whatsoever between the crime scene and these three defendants, and there were allegations that the supreme court in arkansas found troubling about juror misconduct and police misconduct and what the defense attorney said here is that the i case had no case, and no physical con ynection between these three men and the crime, and they came up with a theory of a satanic killing, and the evidence of that was also very weak. so what you had tamron was a problem for both sides. the defense wanted out, and they wanted the three men released, and all this state would agree to was a new trial in which the defendants would then have to take another gamble at whether they would get convicted
between these three men and the crime, and they came up with a theory of a satanic killing, and the evidence of that was also very weak. so what you had tamron was a problem for both sides. the defense wanted out, and they wanted the three men released, and all this state would agree to was a new trial in which the defendants would then have to take another gamble at whether they would get convicted or not, but at the same time the state realized that the case was very weak, so what they came up with was this compromise the three men maintain their innocence, and nonetheless pleaded guilty, and that is a technique that the supreme court has upheld before so based on that then the state basically said, okay, you have served enough time, you are free, so it is face-saving for both sides. the lawyers for these three men say there is no way that the state would let them walk free if they thought they really were the killers and so, basically, what you have here is both sides gett