There is EVIDENCE against Inman. Why is this not holding any weight?? Let the man go or give him a new trial... doesn't new evidence mean a new trial? I may not know the ins and outs, but I do not agree with an innocent man being held guilty for crimes not committed.
Devonia Inman is innocent of this charge. First, DNA evidence has come to life that is not his DNA. Additionally, every witness in the case that testified at his trial years ago have all recanted their stories and have admitted to lying. That in and of itself should be enough to retry the case.
In a case where there is controversial evidence incriminating a potentially innocent person, the case should be redone. While I like to believe the justice system has the best interest of everyone in mind, it appears that there are a lot of holes and room for errors. Devonia Inman is not the first person to deal with such a situation, where they are serving time for a crime they did not commit, because controversial evidence was used. Devonia deserves another chance at a trial to prove innocence.
Devonia Inman should be allowed another trial based on the DNA evidence. The man is serving a life sentence for murder, but DNA proves he is not the killer. In fact, it shows another man committed the crime. Technology has advanced, and he should have his day in court. Otherwise, it is a travesty to both the victim and Devonia Inman.