I got to thinking about this after reading about Troy Davis and how the people that testified against him took back their statements that helped convicted him of killing a cop.
I couldn’t find much in my old law books, but what stand do the courts take on this? On one hand if someone lied under oath, it seems unfair if that lie helped convict someone. On the other hand if the liar isn’t prosecuted for perjury it seems unfair as well.
I looked online and most of the references seem to indicate courts have discounted recanted testimony as grounds for opening a new trial as a “Waste of time.”
So anyone know some of the rulings WHY the courts refused to accept recanted testimony versus some of the ruling WHY they have accepted recanted testimony