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'.
>"Jones also appealed to federal court, where federal investigators found evidence suggesting he was innocent. In both cases, ..."
No, deciding to (not) call an expert witness to present a different theory (that conflicts with the rest of your defense claims) isn't "found evidence". It's strategy.
It's the same buyers remorse, no-true-scotsman argument. Case lost, therefore ineffective assistance.
The lawyer could have presented a different argument, but didn't. Convicted now wants to make a different argument on appeal.
'That injury shouldn't have killed her that quickly.' isn't new medical evidence. Just an argument not made.
'Also I forgot I saw a boy hit her with a pipe. It must have been that injury. Even though I just claimed the same time frame was impossible if I had hit her.' Isn't new evidence, just a new argument.
This is on top of him not allowing the mom to bring her to the hospital until the next day, after she was already dead. Eta: Oh yea, also on top of the admitted statutory rape stuff.
>where federal investigators found evidence suggesting he was innocent
No, they just decided (with the benefit of hindsight) that they would have used a different defense strategy.
That's not "found evidence suggesting he was innocent."