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, ..."

>>lumino+Wq
He was already on parole for a previous violent felony. The police literally arrested him at the scene of the murder where he was half naked and covered in the blood of the victims. He also admitted to having committed statutory rape on the 15 year old that he murdered.

Just about every single person on death row will suddenly claim to have found yet another round of evidence proving innocence when their previous appeal doesn’t work out. It’s a classic delaying tactic, and in this case I agree with the Supreme Court.

>>vGPU+bu
The Supreme Court decides what types of arguments can be made, they remand the specifics of individual cases to lower courts. It would have been perfectly fine to say your guilty as hell, but feel free to argue your case indefinitely as there aren’t enough death row inmates to matter.

>>Retric+SA
Except a state judge had already given them the option to a retrial (based on ineffective counsel, not "evidence of innocence") before the appeal was made to the federal courts.

They apparently didn't like their chances at retrial, even with "effective counsel".

>>beeran+DB
That’s irrelevant, I expect the both the guilty and innocent to try any argument to get free. Saying you don’t get to make an argument is problematic independent of any specifics because making the argument isn’t winning the argument.

>>Retric+7C
Of course it's relevant.

"We couldn't simultaneously argue two conflicting theories of defense"...

Isn't quite the same argument when your revealed preference shows you not to believe either theory to stand on its own (or together).

"Your honor, we'd like this conviction thrown out because we couldve/shouldve claimed 'defense option B'." Retrial granted. "No! We don't actually want to retry with 'defense option B'! We just needed a reason to throw out conviction based on 'defense option A'!"

>>beeran+7F
It’s perfectly reasonable to argue you don’t want to waste time in prison waiting for a trial if you think the evidence is clear enough.

An appeals judge should be able to make that call the same way a trial judge can dismiss charges before trial. That appeals judge can easily say, it’s relevant but not clear enough for me to dismiss the case.

PS: Thus various standards of evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” vs “clear and convincing” vs “preponderance” etc.