3 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoYou'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 agoWho'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...