Readers have pointed out that the blog’s post on the Supreme Court’s order in the Troy Davis case on Monday omitted a word, with the result changing the meaning of the Court’s instruction to a federal District Court. The Court order told the District Court to consider and rule upon “whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly established petitioner’s innocence.” The blog post inadvertently omitted the word “not.”
 In seeking relief in the case, Davis’ lawyers had told the Supreme Court that the new evidence, which they claim shows his innocence, was obtained only after the trial was over, as part of the preparation for a federal habeas case. The Supreme Court’s order does not determine whether the evidence was new, appearing to leave it to the District Court to make the initial judgment about that, as well as about whether any evidence the District Court determines is new shows, upon analysis, that he was innocent of the murder for which he faces the death penalty.
Â
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY