What bothers me about the “new rule” (and I may have more on this later) is this: if there is clear and convincing evidence that a convicted person is innocent, what is the court’s responsibility? Does it have any?
The assumption appears to be that if there is clear and convincing evidence that a convicted person is innocent the court to which such evidence is presented will do justice as a matter of course. But this isn’t true.
And that’s not something that can be fixed by a “new rule” for prosecutors.
(h/t Greenfield, Gamso)