News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Retired detective: We got it wrong in Robert Roberson's death penalty case. Parent comment

Re:Retired detective: We got it wrong in Robert Roberson's d... by abigail95 on Friday May 24, 2024 @07:38PM (#40471432)
> someone with the potential to legally demonstrate they did not commit the crime for which they were convicted

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retired detective: We got it wrong in Robert Roberson's d... by int_19h on Saturday May 25, 2024 @02:27AM (#40473032)
"Endless appeals" is such a blatant strawman here. If there is new evidence available (or old evidence that was wrongly excluded), then of course an appeal is justified, no matter how many appeals happened before. Anything else would be mockery of justice.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retired detective: We got it wrong in Robert Roberson's d... by abigail95 on Saturday May 25, 2024 @10:49AM (#40475379)
the system for evaluating whether new evidence is "new evidence" already exists and is not what is being claimed here. read more into the facts and proceedures of the legal system please.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retired detective: We got it wrong in Robert Roberson's d... by int_19h on Saturday May 25, 2024 @09:46PM (#40479211)
The Constitution is supposed to guarantee us due process of law.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]