zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
The way death row inmates are treated is arguably a reason to be against death row. There was also a case where a person on death row couldn’t present exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence because his last appeals lawyer didn’t do it. The Supreme Court literally decided you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, that you were done dirty by an incompetent lawyer, it doesn’t matter, you should still be killed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinn_v._Ramirez

>>Samoye+Eg
>you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence,

No. This isn't a case of OJ finding the Real Killers(tm). It wasn't even "new" evidence.

>Ramirez appealed to federal court where his federal public defenders uncovered evidence of intellectual disability and extensive childhood abuse that hadn't been presented at his initial trial.

The ruling only overturned (the 9th circuit precedent) whether the 'default' position of the appeals court should be to accept/consider new arguments not made at trial.

It was not suddenly discovered that the convicted might be intellectually disabled.

Which is itself is still quite the leap from suddenly discovering 'exonerating evidence'.

>>beeran+Dp
You missed the second part:

>"Jones also appealed to federal court, where federal investigators found evidence suggesting he was innocent. In both cases, ..."