Go learn about the harmless error rule. You are incredibly naive. DAs and cops break the rules ALL THE TIME because once there's a conviction the burden of proof shifts and a defendant, now convicted, in prison has the burden of proving (somehow, while behind bars) that in a theoretical other version of reality they wouldn't have been convicted had the error not been made.

It's a nearly impossible standard to meet, especially difficult after conviction, and the remedy is not even necessarily release, merely a new trial.

Not only that, even if a judge and DA and cops violate a defendant's rights OVER AND OVER they still almost always apply the harmless error rule. Even if the trial is essentially infected with bias and procedural corruption (what could be deemed structural error), courts do not care.

Many decisions the court makes are just denials without opinions also, so it's not like the court always even justifies why they ignore a convicted person's request. In other words, the appellate cases you're reading as a law student showing one defendant got released over an error is a cherry picked case chosen by the court either to create the illusion of a fair functioning system or chosen because the situation is so egregious (that means terrible) that courts will look bad if they don't overturn it.

But no, there's nothing functional here.You're privy to nothing if you don't understand that things haven't really been functioning for a long time, primarily because the harmless error rule allows corrupt DAs cops and judges to do almost anything.