They ruled that even if a prisoner has proved their innocence, they may have to stay behind bars anyway

I'm confused. Obviously this is Slate, so I don't assume much in the way of intelligence from the author, so I'm not sure if my confusion is due to my poor knowledge or the simple fact that this is a Slate article.

1. What case is this referring to?
2. What was the actual decision?
3. Does anyone in the US "prove innocence?" I'm of the understanding that the prosecution proves guilt, instead. Given that they didn't actually link anything here, and giving Slate more leeway than I'm comfortable doing, maybe I'm just ignorant of how appeals work or of how the process works where new technology comes into play (e.g. DNA sequencing that has cleared convicted felons of past crimes).

They ruled that even if a prisoner has proved their innocence, they may have to stay behind bars anyway

I'm confused. Obviously this is Slate, so I don't assume much in the way of intelligence from the author, so I'm not sure if my confusion is due to my poor knowledge or the simple fact that this is a Slate article.

1. What case is this referring to?
2. What was the actual decision?
3. Does anyone in the US "prove innocence?" I'm of the understanding that the prosecution proves guilt, instead. Given that they didn't actually link anything here, and giving Slate more leeway than I'm comfortable doing, maybe I'm just ignorant of how appeals work or of how the process works where new technology comes into play (e.g. DNA sequencing that has cleared comvicted felons of past crimes).