This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
"failed to prove his innocence"? What does this mean? Let's try to have a neutral stance here hey? The report said 8 or 9 other males in the country may have the same DNA profile. It's extremely unlikely that he's innocent, therefore. It'd be better to say "was consistent with the guilty verdict". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.183.242 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the argument could be made that the DNA raises a doubt that he was improperly convicted. Most DNA results come back with a probability of match on the order of 1 in several billion so it is conceivable to argue that the DNA suggests that one of the other 8 or 9 people could have commuted the murder instead. 74.131.104.227 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the Ohio Parole Board report he was identified by two eyewitnesses at the scene of Middleton's kidnapping, at least four eyewitnesses at the scene of two other kidnapping attempts within a few miles of Middleton's and he attempted to plead guilty before trial in exchange for a lesser sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.45.109 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
however, the test results failed to prove his innocence (again)
Surely a DNA test is used to prove someone's guilt not innocence. The government failed to do that (1 in 2 million is not 'reasonable doubt'). The US is the laughing stock of the developed world.--85.94.113.121 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Although I oppose the death penalty and am very concerned with unjust convictions in general, you have misunderstood the text. Broom was found guilty years before he took the DNA test. The DNA test's purpose was to ensure that the conviction wasn't unjust. Since the test didn't conflict with the original conviction, the sentence wasn't repealed. 88.112.51.212 (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of saying SCOTUS as in "On December 12, 2016, SCOTUS declined to give Broom a hearing on his appeal.", why not say "the Supreme Court of the United States declined..."? It seems much more professional and SCOTUS makes it look as though an Internet Generation Milennial edited the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.255.240 (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
