The Supreme Court Just Said That Evidence of Innocence Is Not Enough

, a case that could mean life or death for Barry Jones, who sits on death row in Arizona for the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s 4-year-old daughter, Rachel.

On Monday morning, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court concurred: Barry Jones’ innocence is not enough to keep him off of death row. The state of Arizona can still kill Jones, even if there exists a preponderance of evidence that he committed no crime. At the time of his trial, Jones was appointed a lawyer by the state—a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed to all criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment. If a defendant argues, after conviction, that they failed to receive adequate counsel they are appointed new legal representation. If the new lawyer also provides ineffective counsel, a federal habeas appeal allows them to argue that their post-conviction lawyer was ineffective.

Thomas justifies the court’s decision by arguing that a federal review imposes “significant costs” on state criminal justice systems that includes potentially overriding “the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law.’” What societal objective is furthered by such an outcome? Why would any prosecutor risk killing an innocent man? How does that benefit the cause of justice?As Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, said to me, part of the problem is that “the court’s conservative majority does not fully accept the idea that there is a right to effective assistance of counsel.”

Time for a change

The republican politicians on the Supreme Court..are about to tell us that states rights inexplicably should carry more weight ..which is only going to exacerbate divisions. We need to give Biden a senate that will prevent the GOP from continuing its divide and conquer scheme

SCOTUSStench

Do you believe this? We are lost.

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Google Urged to Stop Tracking Location Data Ahead of Roe ReversalLawmakers argue Android phone data could be “weaponized against women” if the US Supreme Court officially overturns abortion protections. there is a lot of valid motives for people to want privacy. to kill babies is not a valid one.
Source: WIREDBusiness - 🏆 68. / 68 Read more »

On remote US territories, abortion hurdles mount without RoeHONOLULU (AP) — Women from the remote U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands will likely have to travel farther than other Americans to terminate a pregnancy if the Supreme Court overturns a precedent that established a national right to abortion in the United States. Wouldn’t that spur a massive program on preventing pregnancies? It is not that difficult, I’m not sure why people give up on it so easily. Preventing is better than remediating. Yeah. They'll likely have to. 'Cause of geography and shit. *eye roll* I would be a little surprised if they actually passed a law outlawing abortion in the NMI. It's already unconstitutional here, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't stop anyone.
Source: AP - 🏆 728. / 51 Read more »