>you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence,
No. This isn't a case of OJ finding the Real Killers(tm). It wasn't even "new" evidence.
>Ramirez appealed to federal court where his federal public defenders uncovered evidence of intellectual disability and extensive childhood abuse that hadn't been presented at his initial trial.
The ruling only overturned (the 9th circuit precedent) whether the 'default' position of the appeals court should be to accept/consider new arguments not made at trial.
It was not suddenly discovered that the convicted might be intellectually disabled.
Which is itself is still quite the leap from suddenly discovering 'exonerating evidence'.
No. This isn't a case of OJ finding the Real Killers(tm). It wasn't even "new" evidence.
>Ramirez appealed to federal court where his federal public defenders uncovered evidence of intellectual disability and extensive childhood abuse that hadn't been presented at his initial trial.
The ruling only overturned (the 9th circuit precedent) whether the 'default' position of the appeals court should be to accept/consider new arguments not made at trial.
It was not suddenly discovered that the convicted might be intellectually disabled.
Which is itself is still quite the leap from suddenly discovering 'exonerating evidence'.