>The Nevada Supreme Court rejected all of those arguments, reasoning that Collman would likely have been convicted on other evidence. And they also again refuse

>The Nevada Supreme Court rejected all of those arguments, reasoning that Collman would likely have been convicted on other evidence. And they also again refused to specifically rule on the challenges to bite-mark identification, and to Rawson. This, to me, seems to be the hurdle to clear. These cases are complex and have lots of evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court essentially said that the bite mark evidence in his case is not needed to convict him. The author of the article is seemingly only knowledgeable of the use of teeth "evidence". I don't even know where to go from here. I'm from Arizona, not Nevada so I don't know their laws. I assume that the effort needed will involve going over this individual's court case, arguing the details in front of a court, traveling to the court, filing and responding to court documents... The whole 9 yards. The biggest hurdle is that freeing this man requires a lot of effort from another man. Who's going to go to bat for this man when maybe there's an easier way to free someone else? The alternative solution is to campaign for Nevada to change their laws. Or perhaps shame/punish the court for this hypocrisy. The judges are surely accountable to someone else.