“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”Dershowitz has good point:
Let us be clear precisely what this means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”Dershowitz also wonders how this affects Scalia's Catholicism. I'm waiting for Bill Donahue to call for Scalia being denied communion, although I'm not putting any money on it.
I'm more worried that a Supreme Court Justice thinks it's perfectly OK to execute innocent people under our Constition. Maybe, just maybe, that might be unreasonable seizure.
Of course, if that guy's wife was not alive, but had in fact come back as a zombie, then all bets are off. Of course, that study just tells us the obvious. That zombies must be wiped out immediately. I wish they'd paid me a bunch of cash to say that.
Your Cat Missing leader.