It was not an open and shut case though. As I mentioned earlier, there was no blood evidence (though he had brutally beat these folks), no DNA and no fingerprints linking him. The other evidence provided by top notch detectives, police work, and a good state prosecutor was what did him in though.
Did the defendant have a good defense attorney or a public defender.
Public defenders rarely win cases, even though about a third of all defendants are (according to the last statistics I reviewed) not guilty.
So, unless the defendant confessed, there exists a very real possibility you helped put an innocent man away for the rest of his life.
Did the evidence include a confession?
Someone brutally beats a group of people. They will get splattered with blood. How then did the searches not turn up any blood evidence?
Presumably the prosecution found a way around this issue, but the defense should have trampled all over the case. If there is any reasonable chance a person did not commit the crime they must be found innocent.
Unfortunately jurists seldom have the training or experience to spot holes in the prosecutions case. Unless a good defense attorney points them out.
Recall that Jefferson preferred releasing the guilty to punishing the innocent and you may decide later that you regret your decision.