Innocence Project Statement From Executive Director Christina Swarns on Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones

“The United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones closed the federal courthouse doors to evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel that was not first presented to the state courts. This decision will leave thousands of people in the nightmarish position of having no court to hear their very real claims of innocence. As Justice Sotomayor observed, “The decision is perverse. It is illogical … It is hard to imagine a more ‘extreme malfunctio[n]’ … than the prejudicial deprivation of a right that constitutes the ‘foundation for our adversary system.’””

Supreme Court Rules ‘Innocence Isn’t Enough’ To Overturn Black Man’s Conviction Of Murder

“The ruling in Jones’ case adds to the concern of Black defendants, who continue to disproportionately face the death penalty. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, innocent Black people are seven times more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder than innocent white people.

“Racial disparities are present at every stage of a capital case and get magnified as a case moves through the legal process,” Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said in a statement on the center’s website. “If you don’t understand the history — that the modern death penalty is the direct descendant of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow-segregation — you won’t understand why.””

Laura Finley: Supreme Court decision devastating for death row inmates

“On May 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued yet another decision that does greater injustice to the US criminal (in)justice system. It ruled that state prisoners cannot submit claims of inadequate counsel to federal courts, thereby adding yet another barrier to those on death row who are seeking relief amidst serious concerns that justice was not served. In a 6-3 opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority and did not defend a constitutional right, purportedly the Court’s job, but rather expressed system concerns, asserting that the federal courts must “afford unwavering respect to the centrality of the trial of a criminal case in state court” and claiming that allowing relief regarding inadequate counsel in the federal court system would encourage inmates to “sandbag” state courts.”

Right-Wing Supreme Court Tacitly Approved the Execution of Innocent People

“In a shameful opinion that broke down along ideological lines, the right-wingers on the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 this month that people who receive ineffective assistance of counsel are not entitled to present new evidence to prove their innocence in federal court. After the decision in Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones — which flies in the face of the court’s recent precedents protecting the Sixth Amendment right to counsel — even people who can demonstrate their innocence could be subjected to the shameful practice of capital punishment.

“The court’s decision will leave many people who were convicted in violation of the Sixth Amendment to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel,” Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, adding that “the court hamstrings the federal courts’ authority to safeguard that right” and “reduces to rubble” many Sixth Amendment constitutional rights.”