Innocence is not enough (Shinn v. Ramirez)

[Anonymous]

Are people following Shinn v Ramirez. Arizona is hell bent on putting a man to death. State prosecutors argue "innocence is not enough" to overturn the conviction. I'm not a lawyer but this doesn't seem right to me. If I'm reading this right the supreme court doesn't care if you had ineffective counsel for a murder trial. This is nuts! Justice Thomas claims that making habeas relief too widely available encourages prisoners to “sandba[g]” state courts by presenting a few claims on state post-conviction review while saving others for federal habeas review if the first ones don’t work out. I mean shouldn't we exhaust all possible options before we put someone to death?
Also do death row inmates sit on evidence of their innocence and wait until the 11th hour to produce this evidence? As part of the opinion Justice Thomas writes" (1) Federal habeas review overrides the States' core power to enforce criminal law--an intrusion that "imposes special costs" on the federal system....Second, federal intervention imposes significant costs on state criminal justice systems."
Wow, What is happening to this country.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I've known for few years now that things that are the bedrock of this country are being worn away. There are other things in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights besides the 2nd A.

[Anonymous]

I get that this is not a sexy topic and most people on DCUM probably think "this won't happen to me". But this is truly frightening. This essentially ensures that if you get a public defender that botches your case you have no recourse and you will be put to death. I don't understand how this makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that this is not a sexy topic and most people on DCUM probably think "this won't happen to me". But this is truly frightening. This essentially ensures that if you get a public defender that botches your case you have no recourse and you will be put to death. I don't understand how this makes sense.

Again. You’re looking at this from the sense of one who believes in the rule of law and in jurisprudence and all that.

The GOP is fascist. They want to be able to charge, try and kill those with whom they disagree and the GOP high court is giving them the legal veneer.

[Anonymous]

Ruling is spot on. Based on a law congress passed. They could undue this right away and Biden would sign.

But the issue here is when you present the evidence. You need to do it in your state appeal. If you don’t it is waived in federal court which is literally what the law says that congress passed. Do you do get to raise it. But it needs to be done at state level or waived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ruling is spot on. Based on a law congress passed. They could undue this right away and Biden would sign.

But the issue here is when you present the evidence. You need to do it in your state appeal. If you don’t it is waived in federal court which is literally what the law says that congress passed. Do you do get to raise it. But it needs to be done at state level or waived.

The problem is that this defendant had incompetent counsel. His lawyer did file the proper paperwork. There is credible evidence that he's innocent. The court is basically saying if the state screws up. They are allowed to carry on business as usual.
This is leading us down a road where the federal courts are irrelevant and there is just a patchwork of state laws. This is incredibly damaging in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ruling is spot on. Based on a law congress passed. They could undue this right away and Biden would sign.

But the issue here is when you present the evidence. You need to do it in your state appeal. If you don’t it is waived in federal court which is literally what the law says that congress passed. Do you do get to raise it. But it needs to be done at state level or waived.

The problem is that this defendant had incompetent counsel. His lawyer did file the proper paperwork. There is credible evidence that he's innocent. The court is basically saying if the state screws up. They are allowed to carry on business as usual.
This is leading us down a road where the federal courts are irrelevant and there is just a patchwork of state laws. This is incredibly damaging in the long run.

Right but Congress passed a law that said this. There is no exception. Courts cannot make one up. This is a Congress issue not a court issue.