In all three cases described, DNA analysis excluded the offenders as being the offender in crimes for which they had been convicted and imprisoned. These cases raise important policy questions that go to the heart of the adversarial system of justice. Texas law states that "It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done." The adversarial system, however, casts the prosecutor in the role as an advocate who represents the people in an adversarial proceeding. A prosecutor brings a case to court in the belief that justice can only be served by securing a conviction. In the three cases examined, it is clear that additional analysis of the evidence refuted the guilty verdicts, suggesting that the prosecutors did not fulfill their duty to "see that justice is done." Prosecutors are reluctant to engage in a re-examination of cases in which they have secured convictions, largely because they fear the public will view them as incompetent and at fault. In Texas, however, the prosecutor found the public was less interested in placing blame than in implementing prompt remedies for the mistaken convictions. Prosecutors must always base their actions on the search for truth and a comprehensive search for and analysis of as much evidence as can be found, whether that evidence comes before or after a conviction. Prosecutors are more likely to undermine their reputations if they resist or obstruct this search for truth.