As far as I could find reading about this case, the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy. But it’s a reasonable moral stand by the family to want to stay the execution if they think there is even a slim chance of innocence.
“Evidence of innocence” is a very problematic concept. Have you thought through what is your evidence of your innocence? (Not just regarding to this case, but regarding all cases involving dead or missing people.) Should we execute you if you ever come up short?
Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt — all the onus is on the prosecution to prove that you indisputably committed that crime. In this case unreliable evidence was used without which this standard likely would not have been met.
Once you’ve been convicted (in this case on shoddy evidence) the onus is on you to offer evidence that you’re actually innocent - a reasonable doubt is no longer sufficient, you need to offer strong, new evidence that disproves the already decided “fact” that you committed the crime.
The standard before your convicted is that the jury must find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard after you've been convicted is that you must have found substantial new evidence that warrants reconsidering the verdict, or you must show that the original trial was mishandled somehow. "I think the jury was stupid" is not a valid appeal.
I think this re-raises the "trap door" question.
In this case, up until conviction you are presumed innocent and guilt must be proven. Post conviction most of the appeals process is bared if not filed within 14 days of conviction (it used to be forever but then the US Justice system decided woohhh there that's too long and burdensome on the Justice system so 14 days was deemed a reasonable change to the previous 'forever'. A totally reasonable happy middle). After 14 days from conviction really the only relief available is to prove actual innocence, a much higher and more difficult standard to meet.
With the caveat that this is coming from someone with zero training in law: what a load of horseshit.
"evidence of innocence"...
I was once accused of a financial crime, around taking money from an account. I was, admittedly, guilty, however, the amount claimed was nearly triple the amount that I had taken (there were multiple shenanigans happening).
When my attorney and I said "Actually, we think the amount is $X, not $3X, because x y and z", we had an extraordinarily difficult time with the Prosecutor, who wanted US to justify why we thought the amount was only $X.
Apropos of any plea or deal or whatever, no... the onus is on the Prosecution to verifiably demonstrate the loss. Not for me to justify why I think the amount is different. Ironically, the justification we did provide came from the Prosecution. "You said the loss was $Z, including $Y in checks which were diverted. Witness statements and other testimony showed that these checks were NOT diverted, by their own words. Ergo, the loss is $Z-$Y."
Prosecutor was still "you need to show me the math for what that equates to". "No, that amounts to incriminating self, and is, bluntly, not my responsibility. You need to assert how you came to the number you are claiming in the charge."