Final answer:
A death row inmate may be able to rely on outdated law if subsequent legal developments or Supreme Court decisions retroactively affect their case. This is seen in cases where the Supreme Court rulings have led to changes in legal interpretations or standards, potentially affecting those on death row.
Step-by-step explanation:
Can a death row inmate rely on outdated law that was binding during his trial? It's a nuanced question, but the answer is that it does depend on specific circumstances. Typically, the law at the time of the trial is what is considered when undergoing legal proceedings. However, the law evolves, and sometimes legal developments might affect cases retroactively.
In the United States, the Supreme Court has outlined specific limits on the imposition of the death penalty. For instance, it has ruled against the execution of individuals with cognitive disabilities (Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)), those who were minors at the time of the crime (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)), and in non-homicide cases involving child (Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)). If laws become outdated or are ruled unconstitutional, as was the case in Atkins v. Virginia, courts may provide relief to those who would be affected by these changes, sometimes long after the original trial.
As legal standards shift and as new precedents are set, established rulings can be revisited. For example, the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia reflected a change in the national consensus on the execution of people with intellectual disabilities and led to the re-evaluation of specific death row cases. This example shows how evolving legal standards can potentially offer recourse to death row inmates based on outdated laws or shifting societal views.