> A proper remedy for claim of actual innocence based on new evidence, which is discovered too late to file a new trial motion, would be not federal habeas relief, but rather to file for executive clemency with the state.
https://www.pullanyoung.com/blog/dont-panic-over-shinn-v-ram...
> Shinn does not affect “new factual predicate” claims. If a witness changes their story 5 years after trial, you can still validly raise that claim both as a subsequent state writ and as a 2254 federal petition. Same goes for new scientific evidence, Brady violations, etc. None of those things can be characterized as the defendant's fault for not raising them earlier.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/01/arizona-d...
> federal courts should show enormous deference to the states, even when federal judges believe a state court is wrong.
These decisions seems more about federalism? I mean, if you want to blame someone, blame the involved state for not considering the exculpatory evidence. For example Barry Lee Jones is out now - but it is because of an Arizona judge, not a federal one.
Of course Ianal, but come on. States rights is really just wrangling about accounting and tons of grandstanding between opposing sides of our two party system.
I do. But I also wonder about the role of the "highest court in the land", when other courts, state or federal, "decline" to hear appeals with factual evidence of innocence.
I don't think "Too bad, that's the law, just lobby to have it changed" is an acceptable response to someone facing capital punishment.
If the Supreme Court routinely interferes in matters purely inside of a US state where it has no jurisdiction because no national-level question exists, it could well provoke a constitutional crisis.
I think it's reasonable to argue that "due process of law" should not, broadly speaking, involve executing people who are known to be innocent.
They are in part about federalism and in part about the absence of a right to have a verdict reviewed if it was arrived at properly, irrespective of new evidence discovered later.
Were such a right to exist under the Constitutiom, federalism would no longer require the federal courts to stay out of state cases involving such claims, since there would br a justiciable question of federal law.
Also in subject of death row, recently watched rather good movie based on true events: Trial by Fire. Interesting how that case was based on pseudo-science and even thought the governor knew he still let Cameron to be executed.
The executive system can grant clemency, etc.
that includes everyone convicted of a crime, all of the time.
unless you think due process requires endless appeals, you probably agree with Scalia
Shinn v. Ramirez overturns Martinez v. Ryan, use the state court instead. where in the constitution does it say there is federal jurisdiction for that kind of claim?
As a citizen, I firmly believe that a legal system that would condemn a man who is likely innocent to die is not "due process of law" in any meaningful sense. Even if you're correct and the precedent is that this is how it is, well then, too bad for the precedent.
> The Constitution, Scalia wrote, does not prevent the government from executing a person who new evidence indicates might be “actually innocent” — that is, someone with the potential to legally demonstrate they did not commit the crime for which they were convicted.
And have locked in on this:
> In Shinn v. Ramirez, the court voted 6 to 3 to overrule two lower courts and disregard the innocence claims of Barry Lee Jones, a prisoner on Arizona’s death row. Importantly, the majority did not rule that it found Jones’s innocence claims unpersuasive. Instead, it ruled that the federal courts are barred from even considering them. Thomas wrote the opinion.