Le Juge de la Cour Suprême Antonin Scalia (via) n'a aucun problème de conscience puisque la Constitution n'a jamais stipulé explicitement un droit à un appel si de nouvelles informations apparaissent. Le simple fait de parler d'un tel droit serait installer un subjectivisme émotif contre la Lettre de la Constitution :
There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.
In saying that such a right exists, the dissenters apply nothing but their personal opinions to invalidate the rules of more than two thirds of the States, and a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for which this Court itself is responsible. If the system that has been in place for 200 years (and remains widely approved) "shocks" the dissenters' consciences, post, at 1, perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences, or, better still, the usefulness of "conscience shocking" as a legal test.