"That isn’t to say all evidence of guilt has disappeared. As the prosecutor’s office notes, Prade stalked his wife. He threatened her. At the same time, prosecutors depended heavily in the 1998 trial on bite-mark evidence that has been discredited, most notably, due to advanced DNA testing that has excluded Prade. More than two years ago, Judge Judy Hunter, now retired, examined all of this evidence, and freed Prade from prison. She also ruled that if her decision eventually was reversed by a higher court, Prade should receive a new trial. Such an outcome runs counter to what many believe happened 18 years ago. Prosecutors insist the lab coat with the bite mark is contaminated, though that argument hardly has been proved. What matters is the thinking behind the law. What would have happened during the trial if jurors knew about this new evidence, that DNA testing excluded Prade? Might one have arrived at reasonable doubt? Judge Hunter essentially answered yes, and thus, she served as that juror. She found the new evidence substantial enough that it carried the potential to alter the outcome of the trial. That doesn’t mean Douglas Prade would be found not guilty. It does make a persuasive case for a new trial."
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/logic-of-a-new-trial-for-douglas-prade-1.616627
