Actually the article had this and I missed it:
"I have very, very strong feelings about this. By golly I lost this thing. But I am going to tell you every son of a gun that kills a baby in (my district), I am going to ask for the death penalty in every one of them."
The former District Attorney claimed the case had been influenced by 'myths and fables since it was tried'.
He added: "It has gotten all garbed all the way down the line. It has been one of those situations where nobody wants to pay attention to the facts."
It's not much arguing of the evidence there. The article also says:
Sabrina was finally exonerated in her retrial - and she had to fend for herself in county jail during this time.
This is misleading. Not guilty verdict doesn't establish innocence. In the Sabrina case there was a separate, later proceeding where she actually proved that she did not do it. The later proceeding is far more significant in establishing innocence. It is not mentioned in the article. I infer that it happened on account of the restitution paid by the state because to get that compensation you have to prove innocence under the statute.
Relating this to your original claim about BLM - This defendant was acquitted on December 17th, 1995. I don't think BLM was even around back then. So, they don't deserve any credit for this.