If you’d like to read the background on why Daniel deserves a new trial you can read that here. What you should gather from it is simply this:
Daniel’s court appointed lawyer, Paul Gruner, didn’t represent his client’s interest. There are several instances provided where that is apparent from persons perjuring themselves to the lack of investigations.
In the Discovery ID program the DA (I believe it was the DA though I could be wrong..I’ll go back and look) even admits that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict Daniel without a corroborating witness, which they found in Chris Cain. Did Cain receive anything in return for his testimony? Why didn’t he come forward with this information earlier?
Didn’t anyone think it was odd that the police records from 1996 say one thing but, after Barsky confesses the stories from the State Trooper and others who were interviewed on the record in 1996 changed to match what was said by Alexander Barsky?
These are just a few instances of inconsistencies that are actually relevant in Daniel’s conviction.