This may be a much bigger deal than the RvW overturning (albeit less headline grabbing), this decision is an absolute nuclear bomb in the justice system

essentially with this decision, evidence expires on a similar timeline to the stature of limitations. courts will be barred from hearing new evidence which was not present at the time of original representation or is outside the stature of limitations which would have been prevented at the time of original indictment.

full ruling: twitter.com/MTLegalAF/status/1528856857418539008

note: this was not a random decision to repeal a prior decision such as RvW, but rather the ruling decision in relation to a case escalated to the SC from arizona

edit: just for clarification adding this here - state level appeals are still allowed apparently but they cannot make retroactive usage of evidence. so rulings can only be changed at the level of state court. expecting a state court level appeal though

horrid decision. lawyer brains going crazy defending this moronic s*** too lol

this is legit one of the worst court decisions ive seen in my lifetime. it's essentially declaring any initial court decision is permanently correct and can never be reversed except by pardon regardless of if outside evidence proves (would have proven) it contrary.

edit: i misread part of the ruling. state level appeals are still allowed apparently but they cannot make retroactive usage of evidence

Don't even know where to start. Ridiculous

lol. it's the prisoners fault his counsel was dog s***! I can understand some concerns of a loophole of sorts, where a lot of prisoners, if this case went the other way, would be seeking similar, saying counsel is dog s***, and it would "create a burden on the courts" but i hate that excuse, it feels like such a cop out for the lazy judicial system. Furthermore, to think burden on the courts holds more weight than someone's life in this instance, is so moronic and so bad.

my question is now, how will ppl on death row fight what they believe were unfair sentences/trials for one reason or another? this seems to put the kibosh on a lot of death row inmates seeking a retrial if new evidence comes out in favor of them. i ask this question from a truly uninformed standpoint. like i am not entirely sure if this puts a kibosh on it or now, i'm just curious,

well firstly and i think most notably this is basically a blatant attack on the working class. we all know what level of quality counsel someone who can barely afford a lawyer is getting vs a billionaire (not that a billionaire's ever gonna be charged with anything to begin with).

the question you have about death row - the supreme court case that decided this was ABOUT PEOPLE IN DEATH ROW. That's what's so scary about it. I don't usually like Slate but they havea good writeup on this: slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/scotus-constitutional-right-habeas-corpus-prison-death-row.html

summarized below:

Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez involves a pair of consolidated cases in which two people who were convicted in Arizona state courts argued that they had received ineffective assistance at their trials. The two defendants in Martinez Ramirez argued that the process of obtaining their convictions or sentences violated the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the effective assistance of counsel. One of the defendants, Barry Jones, maintained that his lawyers were so ineffective they failed to uncover evidence that he was innocent of the crimes. Jones was convicted at trial and sentenced to death. The other defendant argued that his lawyers failed to uncover mitigating evidence that would have persuaded the jury to sentence him to a term of years in prison rather than the death penalty.

That two Arizona defendants would have received constitutionally ineffective assistance at their trials is no accident. Indigent defense—defense for people who lack the resources to hire their own lawyer—is in crisis in this country. Indigent defense is woefully underfunded, and public defenders handle hundreds of cases per year, many more than they have the time or resources to manage effectively. States also heavily restrict the procedures and resources that would allow public defenders to develop their cases in greater depth.

The court recognized that Martinez Ramirez nullified the prior decisions that offered defendants a shot at relief, writing that “any such hearing” permitted under those decisions “would serve no purpose,” since a federal court could not consider the evidence in deciding whether the defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent for the three Democratic appointees, the court’s decision “makes illusory the protections of the 6th Amendment.”

What does this mean for DNA evidence after the fact, and the organizations that utilize it, that has overturned many convictions years later and set innocent people free?

like who benefits from this other than private prison "work force" numbers? now once youre in, youre pretty much in there for the whole bid

makes them essentially deprecated. doesn't retroactively make people freed from those decisions guilty again but means going forward others falsely convicted won't have the same hopes of overturning such. Technically they can still appeal to a state court - the appeal process is not completely gone, but they can't really appeal in the same manner anymore as they would have been able to prior

the argument made in the court opinion alludes to an idea that appeals interventions "impose significant costs" on states & criminal justice systems and "interferes with state procedures". It argues federal courts shouldn't have the ability to define what constitutes factual basis for a claim as they were not involved with the initial decision and can only redefine outside the scope of the original claim; the argument is thus that other courts contradict original decisions rather than appeal or overrule them, which leads to criminals being free who should have been convicted for meaningful reason originally.

in reality no one benefits from this but there's the argument above

Nah OP I think this plus RvW are being done with the same intentions in mind. This is race related.

So is it harder to get a state repeal vs a federal repeal?

Pack the courts

simple answer is yes

So prison funnel system working even more now?

Worst american institution

for higher sentence carrying convictions definitely

F*** these ghouls

Wow what is going on in this country

Death to this country

Everything is going to plan for them

Would do nothing. All it takes is an agenda and money

its amazing how much of the law, common law really, is compounding absurdity and idiocy

for instance:

Anders v. California (1967) basically said that a state appointed attorney (or any counsel) had to do a thorough job in an appeal, essentially establishing right to competent counsel in an appeal

good s*** right?

but then Ross v. Moffitt (1974) said, sure, but even if the state furnishes counsel for that first appeal, the Constitution doesn't require them to appoint counsel for subsequent discretionary state appeals "postconviction review" and for any applications for Supreme Court review

ERGO, petitioner cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in such proceedings, see Wainwright v. Torna (1982), because if you weren't entitled to counsel in the first place how can inefficient counsel be a legitimate grievance?

Murray v. Carrier (1986) indeed says "if there's no Constitutional right, it's not cause to upset federalism"

In Coleman v. Thompson (1991), thus, a lawyerly f***-up at the state postconviction review level is not cause for the federal appeals to let the f***-up slide

Martinez v. Ryan (2012) was a good bit of softening because they said that ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel is “cause” to forgive procedural default of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim, but only if the State required the prisoner to raise that claim for the first time during state postconviction proceedings (basically, if that was your first bite at the apple to say "my trial lawyer was s***")

HOWEVAH, what if lawyer number one and the lawyer who's supposed to call out lawyer number one are BOTH doodoo?

Indeed, in Davila v. Davis (2017), it wasn't until like three or four levels in, at the federal appeals level, that one of this poor guy's attorneys finally smartened up like Nas and said "hey, lawyer number three (i think)" should have called out lawyer number two"

but if the level of f***-up that you're calling out is at a level where you're not entitled to an attorney, that f***-up is not a Constitutional grievance, so sorry, you can't bring it up for the first time at a postconviction level "in proceedings for which
the Constitution does not guarantee the assistance of counsel at all, attorney error cannot provide cause to excuse a
default.” (Davila)

And so they hold here that "a federal habeas 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 "

and a large part of it rests on the fact that you weren't Constitutionally entitled to a lawyer, a good one or a s***e one, after your first bite at the appeal apple, which was basically decided fifty years ago and just waiting to be unleashed in this particularly stupid way a couple weeks ago

checks and balances dont exist lol