Here you go, 99SE, since you're an analyst, do you think Scalia is here saying that even when NEW DNA evidence could prove after a conviction that a guy on death row is really innocent, he still has NO right to have his death sentance reconsidered? From Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390 (1993):
Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
"We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person
who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later
alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent."
I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the
Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: There is
no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were
enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial
consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward
after conviction."
Do you think this is what Kremit's prof is thinking about?
