3 ms·

Isn't it a bit more subtle than that? The guy was convicted of multiple offenses related to firearms possession while a felon, under laws and interpretation th

Isn't it a bit more subtle than that? The guy was convicted of multiple offenses related to firearms possession while a felon, under laws and interpretation that were not in dispute at the time. He is not "innocent" of possessing firearms, not that it matters, but let's make that clear. The part in dispute (I believe) is that one of the counts was duplicative, and then, that SCOTUS subsequently ruled that you have to "knowingly" possess the firearm. (which might set him free) His current appeal is that under the laws at the time of his conviction, he exhausted the opportunities for appeal (back then), but then the interpretation changed after that time. So ordinarily now, he would have had the opportunity to make a claim for being not guilty under the new standard. I liken it to (if we had to make a tech analogy), changing the version of something while a system was still in operation with a long process pipeline, and some users were stranded in limbo between 2 versions of a policy. Reading the cert brief, I can understand why SCOTUS might want to make clear what to do in cases like this. But I imagine that the ruling might be short and clear, befitting a "correction" to a legal process that let something slip through the cracks. If it is/does resolve it, the defendant still may be in prison, not "innocent" because this just resolves the one duplication of charges or knowing possession standard. It's not like "an innocent man is in prison for something he didn't do". Again, not that that matters to the principle.

Retric 4y ago
It’s important to understand what is and isn’t being considered here. He is considered legally innocent, that doesn’t mean he is actually innocent only that the courts are treating him as if he where innocent of this crime. It’s the same situation as someone getting convicted of breaking a law that came into effect after they had done it. They bring a Habeas corpus appeal that says based on the facts accepted at trial and the date of the law went into effect I committed no crime rather than saying I didn’t do it.

Retric 4y ago

It’s important to understand what is and isn’t being considered here. He is considered legally innocent, that doesn’t mean he is actually innocent only that the courts are treating him as if he where innocent of this crime. It’s the same situation as someone getting convicted of breaking a law that came into effect after they had done it. They bring a Habeas corpus appeal that says based on the facts accepted at trial and the date of the law went into effect I committed no crime rather than saying I didn’t do it.