[qingcharles]

And sadly the US justice system isn't designed for post-conviction changes. Typically whatever happened at trial is set in stone, even if it's inherently absurd. Errors of law are easier to get fixed than errors of fact which are normally not touched by appellate courts.

[gregw2]

It’s not the US justice system, but Texas has a 2013 law to allow for review when science has changed, and shaken baby syndrome was one of the reason for that law.

Still, when this case was reviewed under that law, the apellate court didn’t reverse the judgement. Having read many additional facts of the case, I am not wise enough in 30 minutes to judge and am happy others have taken time to do so (on both sides).

[qingcharles]

You make a good point -- my answer actually lacked nuance. States are slowly allowing for post-conviction review of factual matters. Sadly, these steps usually only start once the regular chain (primarily law-based challenges) of appellate review is complete, so it can be five or ten years before you get to make your case.

A lot of this stems from the swathe of exonerations that happened once DNA was introduced and freed a large number of provably innocent people previously found guilty.