Justice Scalia and Factual Innocence

I believe it was Justice Stevens who wrote that courts are particularly good at one thing, at making decisions. Still, decisions can go awry. Justice Scalia advocated not allowing claims of factual innocence, by themselves, from impeding executions, as the Troy Davis case illustrated. Particularly in these days of improving forensic science, and with long-standing problems regarding false testimony, I have a problem with that:

If you are a wrongfully convicted man or woman in this country, it is extremely difficult—if not outright impossible—to win your case by advancing the simple argument that you are innocent. Sounds crazy, right? But it’s true. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to hold that the federal Constitution allows for so-called freestanding claims of innocence, that is, the right to be let out of prison simply because you didn’t do it, without any other “technical” violation to back up your argument. In the United States, the inmate who raises a compelling case of innocence after a constitutionally proper trial may well be doomed.