Final answer:
A second trial for Ronald Cotton was sought due to concerns of unfairness and inadequate legal representation at his first trial. His case highlights systemic issues such as the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and institutional biases. DNA evidence eventually exonerated him after serving 11 years in prison.
Step-by-step explanation:
A second trial or an appeal was filed for Ronald Cotton's attorney because the initial convictions raised questions about the fairness of the trial and the adequacy of legal representation. With the evolution of legal standards, as seen in cases like Gideon's Trumpet, defendants are entitled to effective legal representation provided by the state if they cannot afford one. This principle stems from a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court expanded the right to a public defender to all defendants facing possible jail time, acknowledging that poor, overworked public defenders can lead to miscarriages of justice. However, only when a defendant on appeal can show that their public defender made serious errors leading to an unfair trial, can the conviction be challenged successfully.
In Ronald Cotton's case, the second trial resulted in harsher penalties with two life sentences, despite the same witness testimony. It wasn't until 11 years into his sentence that DNA evidence exonerated him, highlighting the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and the inconsistencies frequently present within the justice system. Additionally, cases like Scottsboro illustrated the systemic biases, including all-White juries, which the Supreme Court ruled as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, ultimately influencing the modern civil rights movement.