Liliana Segura on Supreme Court v. Innocence

  Barry Lee Jones (left) and David Martinez Ramirez had appeals rejected by the Supreme Court. This week on CounterSpin: AP‘s May 23 headline told readers: “Supreme Court Rules Against Inmates in Right to Counsel Case.” Those who got past the idea of being interested in “inmates” were favored with a lead that explained that “the Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines Monday against two Arizona death row inmates who had argued that their lawyers did a poor job representing them in state court.” For which many readers might be excused for saying, essentially, “Boo hoo, people courts have said are guilty are upset with that fact, next story please.” Had AP headlined its story, “Supreme Court Rules Evidence of Innocence Is Not Enough to Avoid Execution by the State,” perhaps more readers might’ve read past the big letters. The truth is, while alternative and legal and human rights-oriented media are up in arms about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, corporate news media don’t seem to think there’s much to see there—which has everything to do with their relative disinterest in the human rights of humans at the wrong end of the criminal justice system—and how willing they are to allow any degree of complexity to obscure important truths and to blur outrage. We’ll talk about the new Supreme Court ruling about the so-called sanctity of life with Liliana Segura, reporter for the Intercept. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin220603Segura.mp3 Transcript: ‘But for the Failures of His Attorneys, He Would Not Have Been Convicted’ Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at coverage of Republican congressional primaries. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin220603Banter.mp3