Once again, it looks like it is more important to prosecutors to continue to punish what looks like the wrong man in order to protect investigators, the police and perhaps even their own office.

I've just finished reading David Stannard's Honor Killing, a superb account of the infamous Massie Affair in 1931-32, a tragic miscarriage of justice in my hometown of Honolulu that took its place in the pantheon of great American criminal cases and trials.

It's a chilling story that commenced with a false rape accusation by a Navy officer's wife (Thalia Massie) against 5 young Hawaiian men, took hold in public consciousness with the manufacture and planting of evidence by the police and U.S. Navy, escalated into the active suborning of perjury by the prosecutors, and culminated with the lynching of one of the falsely accused young Hawaiians by his accuser's mother and husband, New York socialite Grace Fortescue and Lt. Thomas Massie, after the jury failed to convict.

None of the people in authority who facilitated in facilitating one of the great race-driven travesties of 20th century American jurisprudence were ever held to account for their roles, the young man's killers never served a day in jail, and in fact were lauded and feted by high society and prominent Republican politicians such as President Hoover upon their return to the mainland.

One has to wonder just what it is that this prosecutor is trying to prove.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that he manages to re-convict this defendant.  If, as the defendant's fragile medical condition suggests, he dies before completing his appeals, then the conviction would abate and he'd die innocent.  Ask Ken Lay about that.  If the prosecutor should somehow convict him and have the conviction survive appeals - he goes down as having convicted an innocent man.  While that might say a lot about advocacy, it would also say a lot about the prosecutor's sophistry, facilitate comments about his ethics, and further smear Tennessee's reputation for a fair justice system.

And, if the defendant is acquitted on the re-trial, he would have a good case for malicious prosecution.

More importantly, why is the prosecutor trying to obtain a conviction when the evidence suggests that House is probably innocent?