Reply #8: Iirc, Scalia and Thomas believe that "actual innocence" isn't sufficient reason to stop an execution

[HamdenRice]

Death penalty appeals cases are kind of confusing for most laymen, because they are rarely based on whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.

Facts are determined by the trial court. All appeals are based solely on the law -- usually on criminal procedure, and whether the defendant had a fair trial and sentencing, whether evidence was excluded, and so on.

Whether the defendant actually did the crime is rarely an issue. The way actual innocence gets affected by the Supreme Court is usually because the original trial was flawed and a new trial is ordered on the facts.

So there is a big conflict in the legal experts about whether a defendant should be able to re-open the factual issues simply because he can now prove his innocence. Most normal, rational, and certainly progressives lawyers think he should.

Iirc, Scalia and Thomas are on record believing that factual actual innocence of a defendant is not a good reason to stop an execution if there have been no problems with criminal procedure and other purely legal issues. They've said innocent people need to die in order to ensure that the appeals process has an ultimate cut off.