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

[Bob Juch]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-supre ... not-enough

Last December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, 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.

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.”

After losing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Arizona’s attorney general appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. During those oral arguments, state prosecutors repeatedly argued that “innocence isn’t enough” of a reason to throw out Jones’ conviction.

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.

More in the full story.

[Bob78164]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-supre ... not-enough]

Last December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, 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.

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.”

After losing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Arizona’s attorney general appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. During those oral arguments, state prosecutors repeatedly argued that “innocence isn’t enough” of a reason to throw out Jones’ conviction.

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.

More in the full story.

Would you please link to the actual opinion so we can judge for ourselves without needing to rely on a secondhand report? Thanks. --Bob

[Beebs52]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-supre ... not-enough]

Last December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, 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.

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.”

After losing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Arizona’s attorney general appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. During those oral arguments, state prosecutors repeatedly argued that “innocence isn’t enough” of a reason to throw out Jones’ conviction.

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.

More in the full story.

Would you please link to the actual opinion so we can judge for ourselves without needing to rely on a secondhand report? Thanks. --Bob

It's in the link Bob provided. You need to read things. There's a pdf

Excerpt

In its decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that a federal court, “may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.” In short, a convicted defendant, like Jones, can be held

[Bob78164]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-supre ... not-enough]More in the full story.

Would you please link to the actual opinion so we can judge for ourselves without needing to rely on a secondhand report? Thanks. --Bob

It's in the link Bob provided. You need to read things. There's a pdf

Excerpt

In its decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that a federal court, “may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.” In short, a convicted defendant, like Jones, can be held

It's behind a paywall (apparently I've used up my free allotment). And with three depositions this week, I really don't need to read secondary sources to learn whether they contain a link to a primary source. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Would you please link to the actual opinion so we can judge for ourselves without needing to rely on a secondhand report? Thanks. --Bob

It's in the link Bob provided. You need to read things. There's a pdf

Excerpt

In its decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that a federal court, “may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.” In short, a convicted defendant, like Jones, can be held

It's behind a paywall (apparently I've used up my free allotment). And with three depositions this week, I really don't need to read secondary sources to learn whether they contain a link to a primary source. --Bob

I know it's tough to be busier than everyone else.
Wait. If you're doing depositions why are you wasting time here?

[Bob Juch]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-supre ... not-enough]

Last December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, 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.

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.”

After losing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Arizona’s attorney general appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. During those oral arguments, state prosecutors repeatedly argued that “innocence isn’t enough” of a reason to throw out Jones’ conviction.

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.

More in the full story.

Would you please link to the actual opinion so we can judge for ourselves without needing to rely on a secondhand report? Thanks. --Bob

This isn't behind a paywall: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

[Bob78164]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-supre ... not-enough]More in the full story.

Would you please link to the actual opinion so we can judge for ourselves without needing to rely on a secondhand report? Thanks. --Bob

This isn't behind a paywall: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

Thanks. This is what I was looking for. —Bob