A sensible (but not winning) Proposition 66 provision mandates that original trial courts first consider state habeas petitions.
 Most recently, Ohio introduced direct automatic death penalty appeals to its supreme court. A claim that this provides unequal protection--i.e. less protection than usual, due to skipping over the court designed for direct appeal--has been rejected by an Ohio trial court. See Judge rules against defense in Seman death penalty motion, Vindy.com, Apr. 16, 2016.
 See the amicus brief of state legislators Loni Hancock, et al. (at 13 et seq.) in Jones, re failed bills and hopeless prospects for "reducing the burdens on the California Supreme Court by providing for [appeal] and habeas relief in lower courts."
 Note that the DPIC definition of exoneration is extremely strict, especially in its requirement that "all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row" be roundly purged. Being cleared of the charge of murder and released is not enough. Were it enough, the number of California exonerations would be doubled, from 3 to 6--as would the counts for other states.
 California is also an outlier with respect to other sorts of post-trial abandon. For example, the drug-related death rate in Californian prisons is seven times the rate in the rest of the nation. See San Quentin death row faces flow of illegal drugs despite security, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 25, 2016.