"What Should a Court Do When Faced with a 40-Year-Old Conviction Resting on Science That Has Now Been Wholly Discredited?"

A longish and interesting opinion by Justice Sotomayor, regarding the Court's decision not to review the matter for now (McCrory v. Alabama). According to Justice Sotomayor:

Petitioner Charles M. McCrory was convicted of murder in 1985 based on forensic bitemark testimony that has now been roundly condemned by the scientific community and retracted by the expert who introduced it at his trial.

For more, read the whole opinion.

The post "What Should a Court Do When Faced with a 40-Year-Old Conviction Resting on Science That Has Now Been Wholly Discredited?" appeared first on Reason.com.