The L.A. Times runs another story on Tom Goldstein, a man whose conviction for murder was overturned due to questions about the evidence. Although no other suspect has ever been identified, and Goldstein has not been proved innocent, the Times repeatedly insists that Goldstein didn’t commit the murder.

The story, by Times staffer Henry Weinstein, is titled Justice Triumphs — Finally. The sub-head reads: “His faith sustained Tom Goldstein as he served 24 years for a murder he didn’t commit. His own legal study helped free him.” And the story begins:

On his first morning of freedom after serving 24 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit, Tom Goldstein headed for the one place he felt comfortable � a law library.

The rest of the story proceeds with utter confidence that Goldstein did not commit the crime — just as if another suspect had been identified and subsequently convicted of the same crime.

The fact is that, earlier this year, the District Attorney’s office stood ready to re-prosecute Goldstein for murder. But the office had to dismiss the case when a ruling by a judge excluded critical evidence, cutting the heart out of the prosecution case.

Goldstein was freed due to a successful habeas petition. Like an acquittal in a criminal case, the granting of a habeas petition does not legally establish that the defendant didn’t commit the crime. It establishes only that his guilt could not be proved in court. A defendant who is acquitted (or freed through habeas) can seek a judicial declaration of factual innocence — but such requests are often denied, precisely because proving one’s innocence is much more difficult than beating the case in court.

To my knowledge, Goldstein has never obtained a declaration of factual innocence. Today’s story does not say otherwise.

Do I know whether Tom Goldstein committed murder? No, I don’t. But neither does Henry Weinstein or anyone else at the L.A. Times. They shouldn’t pretend they do.

By the way, this is nothing new. Earlier this year, the paper ran exactly the same story, with exactly the same conclusions, based on the exact same lack of evidence. (And I made the exact same observations I am making today.) There is really no reason to run this story again — other than, perhaps, to poison the jury pool for the civil case that Goldstein filed two weeks ago.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have a passing acquaintance with two of the deputy district attorneys whom Goldstein has sued. I have never spoken to either one about the case in any way, and I have absolutely no inside knowledge about the case.