4 ms·

You're avoiding the point of this case altogether, and focusing on the salacious details of the crime to distract from the very technical matter before the cour

by klyrs 4y ago

You're avoiding the point of this case altogether, and focusing on the salacious details of the crime to distract from the very technical matter before the court. The accused had, through no fault of his own, unconstitutionally inept representation for his first case, and, through no fault of his own, unconstitutionally inept representation for the second case. The matter before the court is that the courts will not admit evidence of innocence. If the accused is innocent, and has evidence of such, it was never allowed into the court record. Do we have evidence that the accused is innocent? No, not in the public record, because the court won't allow it. The ruling, instead, focuses on the salacious details of the crime to distract from the technical matter at hand. Because, apparently, blind pursuit of justice is simply too expensive, and it's preferable to kill the innocent when the state provides incompetent representation and the accused cannot afford better.

credit_guy 4y ago
I’m not avoiding thay at all. I stated that the SCOTUS ruling is about procedure, the right for competent council, etc. But what the article implies is that the justices have seen the evidence that a man is innocent and is being put to death, and they just don’t care. And that is simply not true.
- klyrs 4y ago
  You're right, they didn't see any such evidence. But that's a moot point because the accused is procedurally blocked from presenting it.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    Who's "they"? The judges? Are you kidding? When someone appeals, they present the new evidence to the court. The judge then determines if a new trial is warranted or not, and if the evidence is to be presented to a jury or not. In any case, you can find the "evidence" described in [1], pages 31-37. And you can also find there pages and pages of gruesome details. The guy was guilty as sin. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1009/166813/20210120132018645_Ramirez%20Jones%20Appendix.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1009/166813/202...

by klyrs 4y ago

credit_guy 4y ago

I’m not avoiding thay at all. I stated that the SCOTUS ruling is about procedure, the right for competent council, etc. But what the article implies is that the justices have seen the evidence that a man is innocent and is being put to death, and they just don’t care. And that is simply not true.

klyrs 4y ago
You're right, they didn't see any such evidence. But that's a moot point because the accused is procedurally blocked from presenting it.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Who's "they"? The judges? Are you kidding? When someone appeals, they present the new evidence to the court. The judge then determines if a new trial is warranted or not, and if the evidence is to be presented to a jury or not. In any case, you can find the "evidence" described in [1], pages 31-37. And you can also find there pages and pages of gruesome details. The guy was guilty as sin. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1009/166813/20210120132018645_Ramirez%20Jones%20Appendix.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1009/166813/202...