[–] djsumdog 2 points (+3|-1)

Pretty honorifically shitty article, as I've come to expect from The Daily Beast. I'd read the actual opinion:


Reading through it, you quickly learn this is a super complex case. It's notable that in the Federal appellate context, you often can't introduce new evidence. Also claiming two cases of ineffective council, one in the appellate case, seems pretty unlikely. You'll throw a low ranking public defender at the initial case, but an appellate case?

The claim that "evidence of innocence" is not presence anywhere in the ruling. The descent specially talks about evidence of trial ineffectiveness, something very different.

The crux of this case is: Can a federal court consider new evidence, including evidence of trail ineffectiveness, in appellate rulings? I think Sotomayor and the other descenders are clearly wrong here. Introducing new evidence at the federal appellate level, after the initial trials and appeal(s), has rarely even been the procedure in the federal system. It may seem shitty, but it prevents these cases exploding out. You can't redo the entire trial in appeal; that's not the purpose of appeal.

Further more with The Beast article, they state:

The state of Arizona can still kill Jones, even if there exists a preponderance of evidence that he committed no crime

Since when the fuck does preponderance of evidence have anything to do with a criminal case? Criminal cases with capital offences are beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than preponderance of evidence, for which the jury sought to convict this man who raped a fucking child.

[–] smallpond [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

In 2018, a federal court overturned Jones’ conviction, concluding that he had failed to receive effective counsel, a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Had that happened, a federal judge ruled, “there is a reasonable probability that his jury would not have convicted him of any of the crimes with which he was charged and previously convicted.”

It seems pretty clear that beyond reasonable doubt wasn't applied in this case.

[–] Dii_Casses 0 points (+0|-0) Edited

Since when the fuck does preponderance of evidence have anything to do with a criminal case?

Yes for a conviction we demand "beyond a reasonable doubt". But the writer is saying there is a preponderance of evidence in the opposite direction, which would logically mean more-than-reasonable doubt.

You are right though that it is sloppy thinking. Anyone remotely close to court matters should be just about incapable of thinking outside of the "Innocent until proven guilty" mold.

[–] asg101 0 points (+1|-1)

Also remember that the Supines have previously ruled that the pigs have no obligation to actually HELP anyone.... makes you realize that there will be no consequences for the cowards that let all those kids get slaughtered in Texas while they sat with their heads up their asses.

Fuck the US "justice" system, it is 100% corrupt..