Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

Sycophant

Subscribe to Sycophant's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

Obviously none of you know ANYTHING about this case, nor did you read the 47 page opinion. First of all, the decision relates to these specific circumstances. It does not change the law. That is the legislatures job. Secondly, this is not an innocent man by any stretch of the imagination. He stabbed his girlfriend and her 15 month old baby daughter to death. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether his attorneys did a good enough job introducing evidence that he was developmentally disabled. THAT is what this case is about.

#11 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Literally none of this is accurate.

"First of all, the decision relates to these specific circumstances."

No. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction council, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court. It applies to ALL cases where ineffective assistance of post-conviction council is raised.

"It does not change the law."

No. It literally just changed the law. Previously courts relied on Martinez v. Ryan that allowed evidentiary hearings in these settings. That common law is not gone.

"Secondly, this is not an innocent man by any stretch of the imagination. He stabbed his girlfriend and her 15 month old baby daughter to death."

No. It's TWO men. Ramirez is being held for stabbing. But Barry Jones, the other case, has literally presented evidence that its physically impossible for him to have committed the crime. It was missed by his previous attorneys who dropped the ball. And the Supreme Court has said its somehow Jones' fault his lawyer didn't do the job. Apparently Jones should be qualified to defend himself even though lawyers go to three years of law school and have to pass the bar.

"What is in dispute is whether his attorneys did a good enough job introducing evidence that he was developmentally disabled. THAT is what this case is about."

No. They are saying they completely missed evidence during sentencing of intellectual disability and a history of abuse and neglect that would have warranted less than the death penalty. It's not that they didn't do a good enough job. It's that they didn't do it AT ALL.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable