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.

[Jehanne]

Thomas' goal is to eliminate the appeal of criminal convictions and/or death sentences at the federal level. It's just nuts, but, fortunately, the majority of state courts are not as nutty as the US Supreme Court. Even scheduled executions in Texas are sometimes halted at the last moment by state courts, rarely, if ever, by SCOTUS.

[The Grand Nudger]

When was innocence, incompetence, or corruption ever an issue for the us courts handing down sentences?

[Jehanne]

When one is convicted, the presumption of innocence is gone and the trial record is held to be perfect. The burden of proof shifts from the state to the defendant. Getting relief, at this point, depends largely on which state you live in and your access to legal resources, assuming, of course, that you are truly innocent.

The job of the federal courts is to diminish the differences between the States. Thomas & Friends wants a return to pre-Antebellum jurisprudence. It's a dangerous judicial philosophy, one that could result in the United States splitting into two or more countries.

[The Grand Nudger]

As god intended.

[Orbit]

We have our incentives all wrong. A Prosecutor's office measures its success by number of convictions, not by number of cases where justice is done. It's very sad.

[The Grand Nudger]

How else are they supposed to keep the for profit prisons over capacity as stipulated in their contracts?

[Pat Mustard]

Thomas' goal is to eliminate the appeal of criminal convictions and/or death sentences at the federal level.  It's just nuts, but, fortunately, the majority of state courts are not as nutty as the US Supreme Court.  Even scheduled executions in Texas are sometimes halted at the last moment by state courts, rarely, if ever, by SCOTUS.

Thomas' goal is the murder of justice in the US legal system and the re-establishment of the volksgerichtshof.