By USA Today Staff WriterThe case of an elderly New Yorker who walked free from prison after 30 decades after being convicted of stealing from a cable company has made national headlines, and some people wonder why the federal government is spending so much time and money trying to convict and convict again.
On Tuesday, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia struck down a conviction that had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
That case dealt with a theft of a television channel from a local cable company.
The judge wrote that the court had “no doubt that the television channel was taken from the premises of the cable company.”
The case arose from a $10 million lawsuit filed in 1994 by the family of William Hensley, who was arrested for the theft.
The family of Hensleys, who died in 1994, had argued that the company had “unreasonably withheld” payment on the cable that had helped secure their son’s release.
In addition, the family argued that Hensys was not entitled to compensation because his release was due to the fact that his sentence had been commuted by President Bill Clinton.
The appeals court rejected that argument and upheld the conviction.
The court said that the evidence against Henskins was weak and that it was “not possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.”
In addition, it said, “the district court did not find sufficient evidence that defendant had any connection to the theft.”
The court also ruled that there was “no evidence to support the jury’s finding that Hansley was the victim of a conspiracy to commit the crime, or that he intended to commit it.”
“While the facts of this case, like those of many others, may be familiar to many, there is a wide difference between the facts and the law,” the appeals court wrote.
“The law does not require us to prove, beyond a fair doubt, that defendant committed the burglary, or even that the crime was committed by a conspiracy.”
The Henskys are not the only defendants in the case.
The family of another victim of the theft, Walter Pernell, sued the company and the cable companies’ attorney general, saying the case had been wrongly thrown out because the government did not prove that Pernells’ death was caused by a cable theft.
In January, a three-judge panel in a Virginia appellate court ruled that the case should be tried by the state Supreme Court, and that the judge’s ruling “did not alter the facts that the jury could have found in favor of defendant.”
The appeals decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court comes as the U,S.
Justice Department is seeking to convict a man of killing a woman and her 4-year-old daughter in 1997.
The Justice Department says the man was convicted in 1997 for his role in the crimes.
In the first trial, prosecutors used a false confession to convict him.
Prosecutors were unable to get a confession from a suspect they wanted to bring to trial.
The judge had earlier ruled that they did not have enough evidence to convict.