Yeah, right. That's a doctoral dissertation.
You have to sort of draw the line somewhere, I guess. It's funny, because there's a presumption of innocence at trial and in the adversarial system, but then once you've been convicted, that's gone. I think then it begins almost sort of an inquisitorial type of practice. With the presumption of innocence, you're trying to find the factors that will indicate maybe what really went on. Hopefully, if you have a client who's claiming innocence, it is that—but I think that's a very difficult thing to ascertain.
There are many other cases as well. I was just thinking, when Mr. Moore was talking, about all of the Dr. Charles Smith cases. He was the pediatric forensic pathologist who was disgraced. A lot of those were wrongful guilty plea cases. They couldn't have been examined unless we had an open door for that type of re-examination. I think it's better to err on the side of caution with these cases, because they're so devastating. The result is so devastating.