A hypothetical for death penalty supporters

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's imagine you're a judge. A case is before you of a man facing execution and who has been on death row for two years for a double homicide. The man actually was set to be executed already, but the execution failed because as a long time drug addict his veins had collapsed and it was not able at the time to find a suitable vein for lethal injection. As a result a very temporary stay was granted as part of a class action suit against the state's lethal injection statute. Another court has already ruled the state must make changes to its lethal injection procedure, but the state has managed to do so.

However in the meantime the man's defense team was able to come up with evidence pointing toward that some of the evidence used against him in his conviction was falsified and also some circumstantial evidence that the murders were actually committed by an associate of his who was killed in an unrelated incident five years ago. It is not concrete evidence of his innocence and if he was facing a life sentence would not be guarantee of instant release. However because of the time he has already spent on death row and since the issues surrounding the initial delaying of his execution have been resolved, you are under no obligation to grant a stay, nor would one under a strict interpretation of the law, which basically holds the issue of his guilt/innocence became moot on the date of his first attempted execution. Do you grant the stay?

Yes, this comes from a TV show. In it the judge basically said that while the evidence was there as it wasn't proof of his innocence you can't just bring it up 10 years later and the whole "the law is the law!" deal and refused the stay. However the defense team was able to obtain a stay after the prison's injection drugs were seized by the DEA following a tipoff from one that the prison wasn't properly transporting the drugs in accordance with federal law.