I do not believe the state owes the wrongly accused compensation, as a general rule, if it is later determined that the person was innocent, but convicted. It depends. If it can be proven that the state suppressed evidence, or there was some deliberate wrongdoing by the prosecution or the judge or application of the law, then the state should owe and pay compensation.
But if the state followed proper procedures, and it is later determined that the convicted person was innocent, in my opinion the state does not owe. An example would be if someone is convicted of ******* based on strong circumstantial evidence, but no DNA, etc. Then later another person not only confesses to the *******, but can prove he or she did it. Folks confess to things they did not do, for a variety of reasons.
I know prosecutors. A close friend of mine was a D.A. for several years. I know a two others that are presently Assistant D.As. Most of these folks are passing up big bucks in other legal areas because being a prosecutor is a calling. My friend could not rest when he prosecuted someone for a ******* or sex crime. My friend said he wanted to win, but wanted justice to prevail. Prosecutors often have to go on a preponderance of the evidence, and would not bet their welfare on whether someone is truly guilty or innocent.
There are renegades and/or incompetents. A good read is The Innocent Man, by John Grisham. This writer is known for his novels. But, this one is non-fiction.
But back to compensation not being owed when there is no proven wrongdoing by the prosecution. Society is not perfect, and never will be. We cannot make everything equitable. In a nation of laws, we must have courts, trials, and prosecutions. Life screws you sometimes. What if a truly guilty person of ******* is acquitted, then is found later to have murdered someone? No double jeopardy, no re-trial, no justice for the dead person or the murdered person's family.