3 ms·
Except it can't be resolved in the judicial arm because the law of Oklahoma explicitly prohibits that from happening.
by mulmen 4y ago
Except it can't be resolved in the judicial arm because the law of Oklahoma explicitly prohibits that from happening.
- biomcgary 4y agoThe explicit prohibition that you are referring to: is it explicit in the law written by the legislature or made explicit by prior case law (i.e., judicial interpretation)? I'm curious because I've heard arguments for and against common law that this seems relevant to, if the latter.
- mulmen 4y agoFrom GavinMcG's (currently top) comment [1] in this thread: > The statute in question ([0] – see (D)(8)) says the court may not consider the merits or grant relief unless there are facts or legal rationales that could not have been raised earlier. The court isn't empowered to do something just because two parties agree. [0] https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-criminal-procedure/uniform-post-conviction-procedure-act/section-1089-capital-cases-post-conviction-relief-grounds-for-appeal https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-crim... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35780147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35780147
- biomcgary 4y agoThank you, I missed that.