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

[Celerity]

The same court that appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade in order to protect innocents before they are born seems to lose interest when it comes to innocents later in life.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-supreme-court-just-said-in-in-shinn-v-ramirez-that-evidence-of-innocence-is-not-enough



Last December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, a case that could mean life or death for Barry Jones, who sits on death row in Arizona for the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s 4-year-old daughter, Rachel.

In 2018, a federal court overturned Jones’ conviction, concluding that he had failed to receive effective counsel, a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Had that happened, a federal judge ruled, “there is a reasonable probability that his jury would not have convicted him of any of the crimes with which he was charged and previously convicted.”

After losing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Arizona’s attorney general appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. During those oral arguments, state prosecutors repeatedly argued that “innocence isn’t enough” of a reason to throw out Jones’ conviction.

On Monday morning, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court concurred: Barry Jones’ innocence is not enough to keep him off of death row. The state of Arizona can still kill Jones, even if there exists a preponderance of evidence that he committed no crime.

snip

[unblock]

1. Scalia said, (paraphrasing) that you're entitled to a fair trial, not a correct result

Thomas is now saying, "fair? Meh..."

[Irish_Dem]

13. Doesn't a fair trial imply that the outcome is correct?

Of course I don't have an incredibly brilliant legal mind like the GOP SC justices.

[unblock]

16. Don't be silly!

A jury of your peers only needs to find you guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not to metaphysical certitude.

And of course, what done is done, so if incontrovertible evidence emerges minutes after sentencing, we'll gosh, that's just too bad!

The judicial branch has a process to maintain. Can't be bothered with matters of actual justice when meting out cold, calculating justice!

[Irish_Dem]

17. My bad. I am a logical thinker with a righteous soul.

I don't fit in this world any more.

[RobinA]

22. Yes, And This

thinking predates the current mess. Disgusting.

[malaise]

2. Seriously frightening

That is all

[malaise]

3. Seriously frightening

That is all

[spanone]

4. WTF?

Barry Jones’ innocence is not enough to keep him off of death row....Please tell me this is the Onion.

[RockRaven]

7. IIRC, Scalia once said (or it might have been Thomas) that the Constitution guarantees the right to

a trial, NOT the right not to be wrongly convicted.

[unblock]

28. Scalia said, essentially, you're entitled to a fair trial, not a correct result.

In this latest case, Thomas is now saying, essentially, that the trial need not be fair.

Here's snopes' summary of the Scalia opinion:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scalia-death-penalty-quote/

[LiberatedUSA]

5. They really didn't need long to tear it all down did they?

And more to come.

[Irish_Dem]

14. I would never have predicted the utter collapse of the US.

Last edited Tue May 24, 2022, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

With so many Americans complicit.

[LiberatedUSA]

19. Hillary Clinton said in 2016 the next President will...

…determine the makeup of the next court. She said if a Republican wins the house, they could use the court to undo everything she and so many others have worked tirelessly for.

We are seeing her words in action. I’ll still cast my vote and hope for the best, but I think we have past the point of no return.

[Irish_Dem]

21. No matter what, the USA will never ever be the same.

The damage is immense.

And America has shown its dark soul.

[Caliman73]

25. I am curious as to why that is.

Seriously, I am not being facetious. I am probably in your same boat, but I have been wondering, especially with what I have been learning about actual US history, why it is that I had such a strong conviction that the US would be an exception to this idea of dramatic societal change.

The only conclusion that I could come to thus far is that I bought into the idea of "American Exceptionalism".

What do you think makes you say that you would never have predicted our current situation?

[RockRaven]

6. Everyone take note that in addition to SCOTUS cretins, this is the AZ AG's doing too.

Fuck those state prosecutors too.

[exboyfil]

8. Is it the potential liability that keeps states from admitting

they screwed up and at least have the governor issue a clemency.

Or is it that they just get off on executing innocent folks? Someone must pay are this guy is proximately close enough to be the one.

We will provide you an attorney just not a good one.

It is probably unfortunate for Jones that his case went up with Ramirez who appears to be clearly guilty just possibly not of capital murder (mitigation).

Governor commute Ramirez to life and release Jones.

[lindysalsagal]

9. Seriously, what is wrong with these cultists??????

They sure don't act like they'll meet St Peter in heaven for their reckoning with the truth.

[Thunderbeast]

10. Executing people is their preferred way

to polish their bonafides on "law and order". When all else fails, killing a "bad guy" (innocent or guilty) is REALLY GOOD for motivating your cretin base.

[In It to Win It]

11. I couldn't stay away from this yesterday. I had to stop myself from posting a million recaps

I would've posted like 10 of them. This Court is ridiculous.

[llashram]

12. no comment on this case

I was not there but this Court is going to take a lot of rights and freedoms from Americans. And it seems there is nothing we can do about the liars/deceivers packed on this Court. Nothing. Not a GD thing!!!

[DFW]

15. The "pro-life" court wants to kill. I mean kill. I mean...............

[dalton99a]

18. "How Much Justice Can You Afford?"

[Disaffected]

20. This is v troubling in several ways but,

IIRC it has been a principle even in English criminal law that the only justification for a new trial lies in errors made in the first trial involving trial procedures, prosecutor or defense lawyer malfeasance or, mistakes made by the judge. for example, in improperly charging the jury. IOWs, new evidence, even if it proves or gives strong indication of innocence is not sufficient.

There was even some rationalization to it but I don't recall exactly what it was - something to do with the possibility of endless appeals bogging down the judicial system if new evidence is allowed later.

[unblock]

24. That's essentially it.

The right wing argument boils down to "our process that purports to be fair and just is more important than actual fairness and justice, even when faced with compelling evidence that it is neither."

[Disaffected]

27. Yes, that's another rationalization of it.

If someone is found guilty in a "fair" trial, and new evidence of innocence is found later, it shows the first trial was in fact not "fair" and the situation thus holds the judicial system in ill repute and therefore must be avoided lest the public loose faith (or some such thing).

All of which must be of great comfort to the wrongly convicted...

Thankfully however this judicial "principle" is often not adhered to - I guess it just depends on how lucky the defendant is eg. the wrongly convicted exonerated by DNA evidence.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. This is not a new positions for SCOTUS.

[Xolodno]

26. I'll probably get alerted and this post hidden for the comment I'm about to make...

...but maybe Putin decided to de-nazify the wrong country. I know, I know, really bad comment that really doesn't apply. Just my my offshoot off the cuff bad remark.

My wife and I are children of refugee's, but when I see stuff like this, Flynn's statement calling for "one" religion, etc. our instincts tell us it might be time to go.