Ooh, this is one of those iffy cases because this woman was actually a victim of rape and she actually believed This is the man that raped her and we don't know if it isn't she could be telling the truth What the court is saying is not that he's innocent They're not saying they exonerated him because they found DNA evidence linking someone else or they found the other rapist What they're saying is that he didn't get a fair trial and that the state didn't produce enough evidence Where they shouldn't have gotten a conviction to begin with it was ineffective assistance of counsel so he could actually be guilty