3 ms·

Literally the Missouri Supreme Court decision and US Supreme Court decision that supports it.

• kergonath 2y ago
  I get your point and I am not arguing for his innocence, but both courts are highly suspect these days.
  • nemo44x 2y ago
    Everything is fallable, sure. But consider this: the guy had millions of dollars of pro bono legal machinery behind him and even still could not produce an argument or counter evidence to support his claim. Our system is amazingly transparent and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be clearly apparent. And it’s not there. The system works almost always but does get it wrong sometimes. I doubt that this was that time. Justice was served.
    • sophacles 2y ago
      > and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be clearly apparent Not really - the legal discovery rules require full disclosure of all evidence, yet you regularly hear about how prosecutors don't disclose evidence. Sometimes the appeals process will grant a new trial, sometimes they overturn, but often the judges will just say "we're not going to bother worrying about the lack of a fair trial". It happens often enough that prosecutors are willing to take the gamble on it, otherwise it wouldn't continue to be a common news story.
      • nemo44x 2y ago
        In this case though the defense never even challenged the evidence or if it was sufficient. You “regularly” hear about it because it’s so rare that it’s news if it happens. It’s a very rare event. Read the background here and tell me you really support this man who stabbed that woman - mother and wife - 43 times. https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-...
• tiahura 2y ago
  The same justices that put a pro-abortion amendment on the ballot.