Innocence is not enough for the Supreme Court...

[Rev. Rye]

The Supreme Court Just Said That Evidence of Innocence Is Not Enough

[...]
In a 2012 case, Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court ruled that a convicted defendant “is not at fault for any failure to bring a trial-ineffectiveness claim in state court”—and thus opened the door to appeals like the one brought by Jones.
On Monday the court gutted the precedent established by Martinez.
In its decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that a federal court, “may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.” In short, a convicted defendant, like Jones, can be held responsible and kept in prison if his state-appointed lawyer provided ineffective counsel for his appeal.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/s...nn-ramirez

For the record, the case in question was one where a man was convicted of a murder under a theory that makes zero sense. They got away with it because the defendant's Public Defender was incompetent. And the Supreme Court basically decided that the fact that not only did he not get a fair trial due to shitty legal representation didn't matter, they also decided the fact that the fact that the prosecution's scenario didn't matter either.

This might actually be worse than the court's apparent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. At least that makes sense if you don't understand all the reasons why a woman would need to seek out an abortion and/or all you care about is that this means there's more babies being born. This is just horrific under any circumstances.