A “full and fair trial” is not a trial where 7 of the 9 witnesses later recant their testimony. Isn’t the effect of these recanted testimonies, perhaps, the same as finding that DNA evidence that shows that the convicted person did not commit the crime? Do we pretend that because all of the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed during the trial that the trial was therefore “fair”? Apparently that is what Scalia advocates.

I am not saying that this man is innocent or guilty. But when the case against him is built on the perjury of over 77% of the witnesses I think that a new trial would be the only fair course. Or am I missing something here?