Here's the thing though. At least from what I could tell, he was 100% fact wrongfully convicted the first time, right? With a bunch of murky evidence regarding who framed him and why? Isn't that alone enough evidence to at the VERY LEAST, look at everything presented in the 2nd trial with a sideways eye? And presumably something like this has never happened before, but shouldn't the poor dumb fuck at LEAST get 18 years of credit on his sentence? I was falling asleep towards the end of the series, so maybe he some crazy life + life squared sentence, so it doesn't matter anyway?