Angola 3 Appeal Denied

You wrote:
"What sort of superpower police state would be terrified of frail, elderly men like Wallace and Woodfox?"
The chemistry behind wrongful incarceration is explained as follows: Often (not always) the prosecution begins sincerely. Perhaps on the fallacious word(s) of collogues. Soon the DA realizes that he (or she) is in too deep and even (at times) feels 'framed' themselves, or at least feels 'played' by others (in the law enforcement community). Just exactly as a criminal would do, the power abuser 'doubles-down'. By this time, the prosecutor well knows of the innocence of the accused. But the hook is in their mouth. As Shakespeare might say, they 'complain too loudly'.
The danger posed by Wallace and Woodfox is a psychological threat--and it is very real. The way our court system is now configured (by the Supreme Court's own actions and admissions) they would rather protect the illusion of their integrity, even if that requires the courts to lack integrity in this process.

You are right in the sense that there were insufficient details to warrant the conclusion that the convicts had been wrongly incarcerated. On the other hand, a quick Google of the words "Angola 3" provides a waterfall of information. Including (possibly most compelling) http://www.angola3.org/uploads/Morgans-Report.pdf , which is especially cogent because it was scribed by the Louisiana commissioner of the 19th Judicial Court. I frankly don't know who these guys are or what they exactly did or did not do. Hey, they may have been very bad guys, exclusive of the exact charges they were convicted of (???). But here is the far more important issue, that most Americans live in abject denial of:
Our judicial system is a first class train wreck. About the only lawyers who still deny that it has become profusely corrupt are the high-ticket one's who do the bulk of the fixing--for their powerful clients. Thus, while most people's inclination is to believe that the outcome of the legal process is highly credible, the Troll knows way too much. Thus, once you see a political movement sprouting out of a specific legal case, my policy becomes: "Innocent even AFTER proven guilty"--given certain telltale circumstances--which are certainly present herein.
People wrongly believe that their closest connection with God comes courtesy of their church. That is still another phantasm. Their closest connection with God (in the material world) comes courtesy of the Courts.
Because the courts have the authority to revise people's lives. The Churches do not. The Churches speak for the next world (if any). The Courts speak for this world, which is not a question mark. Thus, the courts (as a practical matter) function as God's surrogate on earth (even, ironically--if there is no God). When the courts become corrupted, as they are now, our souls have been sold for us and we neither knew about or approved the transaction or benefited from the proceeds.