I cannot find the link, but iirc, in Harper's or The Nation about 10 years ago, I read a report on a survey of Murkins which found that around 70% of "USers" support the death penalty, even if it means that the some innocents will inevitably be killed by the state.

Miranda was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982.  His direct appeal was denied in 1987 and three state habeas petitions were denied in 1987, 1989 and 1993.  When he got to federal court the federal judge ordered discovery and lo and behold in the DAs file all these years is a letter.  The letter is from an inmate who testified against Miranda in the penalty phase of his trial, where the jury is deciding on a death or life sentence.  The DA's only argument for death was that Miranda had committed another murder.  But in this letter the DA's witness says he committed the murder.

Now lot's of people complain that the death penalty process is too slow.  Had it been a bit faster Miranda could have been executed based on this lie.

One other thing.  While the NYT article focuses on bad defense lawyers, of which there is no shortage, those cases also almost all involved prosecutorial or police misconduct, as was present in Miranda.  This sort of thing is almost never punished.

He then put her bloodied body in the trunk of his car and drove around looking for a good spot to bury her.

When he heard noises coming from the trunk he stopped and put a third bullet in her, finally killing her.

After he buried her, he drove to Ohio where he shot and killed another woman while robbing her home on Christmas day.

Then he drove to TX apparently with the intent to kill another woman from his past, but was talked out of it by his brother there.