The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the case of an Alabama man who has spent decades in prison for a murder conviction supported by recanted and discredited bite mark testimony.
  • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
    30·
    3 days ago

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a statement that the case raises “difficult questions about the adequacy of current postconviction remedies to correct a conviction secured by what we now know was faulty science.”

    At least Sotomayor had the decency to comment with a denial, but the rationale is confusing

    the constitutional question raised by McCrory has not “percolated sufficiently in the lower courts.” But she urged state and federal lawmakers to establish paths for inmates to challenge “wrongful convictions that rest on repudiated forensic testimony.”

    It’s a judicial issue, dealing with evidentiary criteria within courtrooms. How much more ‘in your lane’ does it have to be? If it was challenged to SCotUS on appeal, surely that has “percolated sufficiently in the lower courts.” no?

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      5·
      3 days ago

      This is just a bullshit ruling. Direct the lower courts to fix it and claim it is a 14th Amendment issue. It is not as if this court gives a fuck what the Amendments actually say, anyway. My suggestion would be a more accurate interpretation of the Constitution than most of the shit they have been legislating from the bench.