This is a VERY contradictory statement to make in a legal decision.
By saying 'additional' it suggests that there were doubts surrounding his conviction. Minimal or not, considering the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard as well as the fact that it was a capital case - the judicial diligence in this case was appalling. The response from all of the appeals were, the recantations weren't under oath or the evidence has been ruled inadmissible by **** court.
It's also interesting how the prosecutor spoke of the recantations, they were 'suspect' - so given that he clearly brought the 'character' of his witnesses into disrepute ... hmmmm?
I don't think it was an open and shut 'clearly innocent' case - and for me, that's not the point. If there is even a scrap of evidence to suggest that the conviction was based on flawed evidence, let alone coercion ... then a re-trial was warranted.