I read, and understand, the article. I still think it is bullshit. It really boils down to them saying that if new evidence comes up that has a high probability to prove the person innocent, it should not be allowed if it doesn't fit the rules of another bullshit law. It's like saying "Yes, this DNA evidence proves prisoner X didn't do it, but because they filled out the wrong form, we can't stop their execution."

I understand the rules in the other direction. It makes sense (legally) to throw out evidence against a suspect if it was obtained illegally. It should never be the same in the opposite direction. If evidence comes to light that shows someone DID NOT do it, it should not matter how the evidence was obtained.