The evidence was not “sketchy”. Twelve jurors and multiple appellate judges agreed with the conviction and the sentence. The defendant’s family and lawyers have been lying about “new evidence” for years and finally got some liberal celebrities to support them. The governor decided votes over justice. I’ll probably decide to vote for a Republican opponent over Stitt.Here is what I don't get though...
If the evidence is sketchy and we're not certain he's guilty, why commute his sentence to life without parole and eliminate any future ability to file appeals, request pardons, etc.?
And if we so sure he's guilty that we won't allow the possibility for any of those things, why not allow the decision of the trial jury and judge be carried out?
I don't know anything about the case, but the explanation of the decision seems contradictory to me.