Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/5/2012 8:47:05 AM EDT
I searched, if this is a dupe, please lock.

Another person freed from prison because of crooked DA's and Dallas county. What would you do if you got out after 30 years of hell.

Link for local Fox station

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:48:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chris1836:

What would you do if you got out after 30 years of hell.

You don't wanna know.


Hell, I don't even wanna know.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:49:14 AM EDT
He has been in for so long he will probably want to rape some women right away.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:49:39 AM EDT
Was he one of the guys that should have been "taken out behind the court house and shot"?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:51:11 AM EDT
This is the real reason we should not have the death penalty.

Too many mistakes are made in the legal system.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:51:14 AM EDT
iirc, the state of TX will pay him $50,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned...
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:51:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:51:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mcantu:
iirc, the state of TX will pay him $50,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned...


Before taxes, I'm sure.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:51:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
Dallas County should pay through the nose.

Fact
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:52:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mcantu:
iirc, the state of TX will pay him $50,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned...


Not to mention sue the man who was DA at the time
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:54:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:55:57 AM EDT
I'll be that guy.

DALLAS - A man who spent the last three decades behind bars for a crime he says he didn't commit will have his conviction vacated Wednesday afternoon by a Dallas judge.

The Innocence Project discovered that prosecutors suppressed evidence in the 1981 rape trial of Rickey Dale Wyatt.

He was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in a string of South Dallas rapes and sentenced to 99 years in prison. Was evidence in only one of those cases questionable? What about the rest of them?
Wyatt has been behind bars for 30 years. He is now 56 years old.

Researchers with the Innocence Project and the current Dallas County District Attorney's Office discovered at least one witness's claim that Wyatt weighed far less than her attacker, and had facial hair, unlike her clean-shaven attacker. Was that witness actually a victim, or just someone near by? Again, what about the other rapes? What was the evidence used to convict? Did they disprove any evidence provided or simply found contradictory evidence. Was the witnesses testimony original excluded because it wasn't a valid witness?[/red

]That information was never presented at trial or disclosed to defense attorneys.

Wyatt went to prison protesting his innocence, and even refused to take a plea bargain for a crime he did not commit. [red]Well, if he says he was innocent, I guess we are good here.


Criminal District Judge John Creuzot will have a ceremony in his courtroom at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday announcing Wyatt's vacated conviction.


Making the guilty seem innocent is a high paying gig these days.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:56:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mcantu:
iirc, the state of TX will pay him $50,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned...


Nope this is a NEW case. I hope he gets paid. I think this is close to 100 from Dallas county set free so far. I might be off on that number, but I am close.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:57:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 8:59:11 AM EDT by Bartholomew_Roberts]
Originally Posted By Chris1836:
I searched, if this is a dupe, please lock.

Another person freed from prison because of crooked DA's and Dallas county. What would you do if you got out after 30 years of hell.

Link for local Fox station



1. Not technically an innocent person. What happened was that the Dallas County DA at the time discovered evidence that could have helped his case; but did not share it as required by law. The evidence was basically a failure of a witness to ID him in a police lineup and another witness's testimony that the attacker was 20lbs heavier and was clean shaven. Failing to share such evidence was a serious ethical violation by the DA; but it doesn't necessarily mean they got the wrong guy. Specifically, there is no DNA evidence that would exonerate Wyatt.

2. The only reason any of this was discovered to begin with is because the current Dallas County DA has an open records policy that allowed the Innocence Project access to their records. The specific crookedness you are referring to took place some 31 years ago.

3. Wyatt will not get paid by the State of Texas since he is not exonerated. His convinction was just vacated based on the prosecutorial wrongdoing.

Dallas Observer has a much more in detail series of stories on this (as usual) if you want to get into the nuts and bolts.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:58:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
He should be allowed to rape the DA.

Dry, with some emory-cloth wrapped around it.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:59:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
I'll be that guy.

DALLAS - A man who spent the last three decades behind bars for a crime he says he didn't commit will have his conviction vacated Wednesday afternoon by a Dallas judge.

The Innocence Project discovered that prosecutors suppressed evidence in the 1981 rape trial of Rickey Dale Wyatt.

He was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in a string of South Dallas rapes and sentenced to 99 years in prison. Was evidence in only one of those cases questionable? What about the rest of them?
Wyatt has been behind bars for 30 years. He is now 56 years old.

Researchers with the Innocence Project and the current Dallas County District Attorney's Office discovered at least one witness's claim that Wyatt weighed far less than her attacker, and had facial hair, unlike her clean-shaven attacker. Was that witness actually a victim, or just someone near by? Again, what about the other rapes? What was the evidence used to convict? Did they disprove any evidence provided or simply found contradictory evidence. Was the witnesses testimony original excluded because it wasn't a valid witness?[/red

]That information was never presented at trial or disclosed to defense attorneys.

Wyatt went to prison protesting his innocence, and even refused to take a plea bargain for a crime he did not commit. [red]Well, if he says he was innocent, I guess we are good here.


Criminal District Judge John Creuzot will have a ceremony in his courtroom at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday announcing Wyatt's vacated conviction.


Making the guilty seem innocent is a high paying gig these days.


All excellent points. I was just about to post something similar.

There are a lot of unanswered questions.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:02:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wesmerc:
He has been in for so long he will probably want to rape some women right away.



This happend in Wisconsin a few years back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:02:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
I'll be that guy.


Me too, I guess.

It seemed as if the reason he was released was the original trial was muffed up. That is certainly a good reason to release a person, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Anyways, good for him regardless. 30 years is a long time.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:03:08 AM EDT
Your title is misleading. Who knows if he was innocent? Looks like there were either technicalities or some impropriety by the DA's office.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:03:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 9:05:00 AM EDT by swingset]

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Chris1836:
I searched, if this is a dupe, please lock.

Another person freed from prison because of crooked DA's and Dallas county. What would you do if you got out after 30 years of hell.

Link for local Fox station



1. Not technically an innocent person. What happened was that the Dallas County DA at the time discovered evidence that could have helped his case; but did not share it as required by law. The evidence was basically a failure of a witness to ID him in a police lineup and another witness's testimony that the attacker was 20lbs heavier and was clean shaven. Failing to share such evidence was a serious ethical violation by the DA; but it doesn't necessarily mean they got the wrong guy. Specifically, there is no DNA evidence that would exonerate Wyatt.

2. The only reason any of this was discovered to begin with is because the current Dallas County DA has an open records policy that allowed the Innocence Project access to their records. The specific crookedness you are referring to took place some 31 years ago.

3. Wyatt will not get paid by the State of Texas since he is not exonerated. His convinction was just vacated based on the prosecutorial wrongdoing.

Dallas Observer has a much more in detail series of stories on this (as usual) if you want to get into the nuts and bolts.

If the state can't prove it, using the facts (which in this case it withheld), then I hate to inform you of a Civics 101 "no shit" factoid, but he is technically an innocent person. That's the very definition, legally as we have a presumed innocence.

Did he actually rape someone? Who knows...but then...we shouldn't imprison people on "gut feelings".

And, the part in blue as you pointed out sure seems to mean that there is some strong doubt as to his guilt.

It's good that the current DA is allowing some of these old cases to be examined, btw, if that kind of openness was more common we'd have a much better legal system.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:03:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
Originally Posted By mcantu:
iirc, the state of TX will pay him $50,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned...


Before taxes, I'm sure.


It depends on how the settlement is worded. If it's compensatory monies for lost wages or income it is excluded from you tax liabilities, in most cases. If it is puninitive or for mental stress not related to an injury it is not, in most cases.

IANATA, this is simply my understanding.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:03:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Chris1836:
I searched, if this is a dupe, please lock.

Another person freed from prison because of crooked DA's and Dallas county. What would you do if you got out after 30 years of hell.

Link for local Fox station



1. Not technically an innocent person. What happened was that the Dallas County DA at the time discovered evidence that could have helped his case; but did not share it as required by law. The evidence was basically a failure of a witness to ID him in a police lineup and another witness's testimony that the attacker was 20lbs heavier and was clean shaven. Failing to share such evidence was a serious ethical violation by the DA; but it doesn't necessarily mean they got the wrong guy. Specifically, there is no DNA evidence that would exonerate Wyatt.

2. The only reason any of this was discovered to begin with is because the current Dallas County DA has an open records policy that allowed the Innocence Project access to their records. The specific crookedness you are referring to took place some 31 years ago.

3. Wyatt will not get paid by the State of Texas since he is not exonerated. His convinction was just vacated based on the prosecutorial wrongdoing.

Dallas Observer has a much more in detail series of stories on this (as usual) if you want to get into the nuts and bolts.


Very important information, thank you for sharing!
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:03:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Making the guilty seem innocent is a high paying gig these days.

You know what pays as well? Fixing the criminal justice system's fuck ups.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:04:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
He should be allowed to rape the DA.

Dry, with some emory-cloth wrapped around it.





Every day for the next 30 yrs.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:04:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 9:04:43 AM EDT by surveyor3]
Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
He should be allowed to rape the DA.

Dry, with some emory-cloth wrapped around it.




Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:07:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
I'll be that guy.

DALLAS - A man who spent the last three decades behind bars for a crime he says he didn't commit will have his conviction vacated Wednesday afternoon by a Dallas judge.

The Innocence Project discovered that prosecutors suppressed evidence in the 1981 rape trial of Rickey Dale Wyatt.

He was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in a string of South Dallas rapes and sentenced to 99 years in prison. Was evidence in only one of those cases questionable? What about the rest of them?
Wyatt has been behind bars for 30 years. He is now 56 years old.

Researchers with the Innocence Project and the current Dallas County District Attorney's Office discovered at least one witness's claim that Wyatt weighed far less than her attacker, and had facial hair, unlike her clean-shaven attacker. Was that witness actually a victim, or just someone near by? Again, what about the other rapes? What was the evidence used to convict? Did they disprove any evidence provided or simply found contradictory evidence. Was the witnesses testimony original excluded because it wasn't a valid witness?[/red

]That information was never presented at trial or disclosed to defense attorneys.

Wyatt went to prison protesting his innocence, and even refused to take a plea bargain for a crime he did not commit. [red]Well, if he says he was innocent, I guess we are good here.


Criminal District Judge John Creuzot will have a ceremony in his courtroom at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday announcing Wyatt's vacated conviction.


Making the guilty seem innocent is a high paying gig these days.


Read a little closer next time...

You said:

Was that witness actually a victim, or just someone near by?


From the article

one witness's claim that Wyatt weighed far less than her attacker, and had facial hair, unlike her clean-shaven attacker.


Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:09:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chris1836:
What would you do if you got out after 30 years of hell.





It would be so heinous, 30 years later it would still be fresh in peoples minds... The ones who survived.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:09:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Making the guilty seem innocent is a high paying gig these days.

You know what pays as well? Fixing the criminal justice system's fuck ups.


How many trials a year?
Shit happens. This is a case of prosecuter misconduct. I'll get angry when it really is an innocent man who is put away. Not when somebody who probably did it but could have gotten away with it is freed.

No saying that is what happened here. But somehow this guy got convicted. and this new information does nothing to counter the evidence that was presented to convict.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:10:00 AM EDT
Go John Rambo
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:12:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chris1836:
Originally Posted By mcantu:
iirc, the state of TX will pay him $50,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned...


Nope this is a NEW case. I hope he gets paid. I think this is close to 100 from Dallas county set free so far. I might be off on that number, but I am close.


no, i mean TX law says they will pay in cases of wrongful imprisonment. there is no need to sue the state or get a settlement...
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:12:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Making the guilty seem innocent is a high paying gig these days.

You know what pays as well? Fixing the criminal justice system's fuck ups.


How many trials a year?
Shit happens. This is a case of prosecuter misconduct. I'll get angry when it really is an innocent man who is put away. Not when somebody who probably did it but could have gotten away with it is freed.

No saying that is what happened here. But somehow this guy got convicted. and this new information does nothing to counter the evidence that was presented to convict.



Are you serious? Of course it counters it, it counters the physical description of the attacker, completely.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:14:45 AM EDT
Doesn't say he was innocent just says they suppressed evidence.
Not the same.

Should those involved go to jail, hell yes.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:15:40 AM EDT
I said it before & I say it again, don't trust the government.

This guy's life is gone. He is now 56 years old.

If he has kids, he'll be dead before they are in college, never see grandchildren, etc.

You figure it up. Minimum wage is about $8. $8 an hour X 24 hours incarceration is $192 a day. $192 X 365 days in a year = 70080 a year. $70080 a year X 30 years = $2,102,400.

I think that isn't enough either. I'd round it up to at least 7 million.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:19:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Making the guilty seem innocent is a high paying gig these days.

You know what pays as well? Fixing the criminal justice system's fuck ups.


How many trials a year?

Impossible to answer when the prosecution hides evidence. How many of these do we not know about? And that's with just trials. When I was working on my CJ degree I seem to recall that only 3% of cases actually go to court. Most end in plea bargains. How many plea bargains are coerced because the defendant doesn't have all the facts?

The fact of the matter is lawyers get rich off of this type of things because the system, or more correctly the people in charge of making the system work, fuck up.

Shit happens. This is a case of prosecuter misconduct. I'll get angry when it really is an innocent man who is put away. Not when somebody who probably did it but could have gotten away with it is freed.

No saying that is what happened here. But somehow this guy got convicted. and this new information does nothing to counter the evidence that was presented to convict.

That's where I'm afraid you're wrong. By depriving him of the information the prosecution found, he couldn't mount an effective defense. He may be guitly. He may not be. I certainly don't know. What I do know is that the person in charge of getting at the truth, failed to do so.

We have case law like "the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine" to prevent abuses of the system so the innocent don't get the shaft. We have conciously created a system that will let an occasional guilty man go free in order to preserve the liberties of the innocent. The system failed in this case because a man was negligent in his duties. Because he was negligent, another man made money off of it.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:23:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 9:25:51 AM EDT by HKUSP45C]
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Making the guilty seem innocent is a high paying gig these days.

You know what pays as well? Fixing the criminal justice system's fuck ups.


How many trials a year?
Shit happens. This is a case of prosecuter misconduct. I'll get angry when it really is an innocent man who is put away. Not when somebody who probably did it but could have gotten away with it is freed.

No saying that is what happened here. But somehow this guy got convicted. and this new information does nothing to counter the evidence that was presented to convict.


Our criminal system does not recognize "innocent" men. There are those who are guilty of a specific crime and those who are not guilty. This man has been exonerated because of pretty damning conduct on the part of the DA and some pretty damned relevant information being witheld. He is now "not guilty." Regardless of your opinion. Just because someone is convicted, doesn't mean they're guilty.

Texas (and the Houston Crime Lab, specifically) put dozens of people in prison for crimes they did not commit, those people (and by extension this guy) should not have to walk around being judged by the court of public opinion. If the prosecutor had a good case, why do you think he witheld very, very pertinent information?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:26:17 AM EDT
I am not arguing he shouldn't have been freed.

My point was I will save outrage for a case where an innocent man was incarcerated.

We have so many trials a year because we have a system that lets the guilty go free too quickly and too often, thus multiplying the problem. You can commit a crime in the united states with a fair amount of certainty that you will probably not be arrested. if arrested, a strong chance at not being convicted and if convicted, quickly freed.

this case involved multiple rapes. this is a single witness statement (again, not sure if the witness was a victim) hanging off of the definition of clean shaven and facial hair (5 o'clock shadow? where does that stand) and the estimated weight of an individual based upon what? what he was wearing?

A non-murder case of 99 years would fall apart on a single witness statement?

no, not buying that.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:30:35 AM EDT
he should be allowed to commit a crime punishable up to 30 years in jail. murder, armed robbery, kick a cop in the balls, etc.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:31:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By swingset:

If the state can't prove it, using the facts (which in this case it withheld), then I hate to inform you of a Civics 101 "no shit" factoid, but he is technically an innocent person. That's the very definition, legally as we have a presumed innocence.


Technically, he is not an innocent person. He just had his conviction vacated. I won't pretend to know whether that is an important distinction in YOUR mind; but in terms of Texas law, it means he doesn't get paid for his 30 years behind bars.

Did he actually rape someone? Who knows...but then...we shouldn't imprison people on "gut feelings".


Wyatt wasn't imprisoned on anyone's "gut feelings." He had a trial and a jury and was convicted. The conviction was set aside because there was evidence that the jury was entitled to hear that they did not hear, due to prosecutorial misconduct. As to what might have happened, the current DA has apparently decided that having the conviction vacated is a better use of taxpayer resources than attempting to have a new trial with witnesses from 30 years ago and the suppressed evidence. I would probably agree with that assessment. I'm not familiar enough with the specific facts of Wyatt's case to hazard a guess on whether the suppressed evidence would have been a "game-changer" for him. Apparently the DA at the time was concerned about it enough to commit a very serious ethical violation. However, I'm guessing the DA didn't grab random guy off the streets either.

quote]It's good that the current DA is allowing some of these old cases to be examined, btw, if that kind of openness was more common we'd have a much better legal system. [/quote]

Yes, I'd agree that lack of openess is a serious problem with our government at pretty much every level.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:41:47 AM EDT
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/04/rape-victim-outraged-after-trial-error-gets-convicted-attacker-released/

The victim whom was raped, stabbed, and had her throat slashed is 100% certain that he guilty and is furious that he is being released. The State is also NOT dismissing any charges against him, or labeling this an exoneration. He will most likely face a retrial, with an outside chance of the charges being dismissed.

The thread title is false. This another example of liberal lawyers nitpicking a decades old case. Should he win a re-trial, this guy will be back in prison for another violent crime within 5 years.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:47:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
I am not arguing he shouldn't have been freed.

My point was I will save outrage for a case where an innocent man was incarcerated.

My point was the CJ system fucks up and people make money off of it.

We have so many trials a year because we have a system that lets the guilty go free too quickly and too often, thus multiplying the problem. You can commit a crime in the united states with a fair amount of certainty that you will probably not be arrested. if arrested, a strong chance at not being convicted and if convicted, quickly freed.

Actually, I have seen studies that suggest, far too often innocent people are "encouraged" to take a plea bargain vice go to trial either because they cannot afford a lawyer or the state's defense attorney is overworked.

In fact, I have seen the case made that the advantages are stacked too much in the prosecution's favor.

As for why we have so many trials a year, that is about capacity. We have so many plea bargains and we have so many people who get out on parole or go on probation, because we can't afford to do otherwise.

Likewise, length of punishment isn't necessarily indicative of recitivism rates. Other countries have less recitivism and shorter sentences. There are a myriad of reasons why.

this case involved multiple rapes. this is a single witness statement (again, not sure if the witness was a victim) hanging off of the definition of clean shaven and facial hair (5 o'clock shadow? where does that stand) and the estimated weight of an individual based upon what? what he was wearing?

A non-murder case of 99 years would fall apart on a single witness statement?

no, not buying that.


You can't know. That's the point. If the once incident's credibility is successfully attacked the whole prosecution's case may fall apart. If the evidence wasn't that big of a deal, why didn't the prosecutor provide it at discovery?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:47:46 AM EDT
Did he really "not do it"...or are they just trying to apply new tech to evidence collected decades before that tech was envisioned?

Some of the cases that claim to have been exonerated by uber science are not actually doing what they are claiming. Citing a lack of DNA evidence from an era when DNA wasn't even being collected and crime scene processing wasn't done to today's standards, is a bit disingenuous.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:50:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:51:31 AM EDT
Completely off topic, but "Holy Headlines!" From the bottom of the page "Dead Teen Sued by Victim Hit By His Flying Body Parts"
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:54:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
I am not arguing he shouldn't have been freed.

My point was I will save outrage for a case where an innocent man was incarcerated.

My point was the CJ system fucks up and people make money off of it.

We have so many trials a year because we have a system that lets the guilty go free too quickly and too often, thus multiplying the problem. You can commit a crime in the united states with a fair amount of certainty that you will probably not be arrested. if arrested, a strong chance at not being convicted and if convicted, quickly freed.

Actually, I have seen studies that suggest, far too often innocent people are "encouraged" to take a plea bargain vice go to trial either because they cannot afford a lawyer or the state's defense attorney is overworked.

In fact, I have seen the case made that the advantages are stacked too much in the prosecution's favor.

As for why we have so many trials a year, that is about capacity. We have so many plea bargains and we have so many people who get out on parole or go on probation, because we can't afford to do otherwise.

Likewise, length of punishment isn't necessarily indicative of recitivism rates. Other countries have less recitivism and shorter sentences. There are a myriad of reasons why.

this case involved multiple rapes. this is a single witness statement (again, not sure if the witness was a victim) hanging off of the definition of clean shaven and facial hair (5 o'clock shadow? where does that stand) and the estimated weight of an individual based upon what? what he was wearing?

A non-murder case of 99 years would fall apart on a single witness statement?

no, not buying that.


You can't know. That's the point. If the once incident's credibility is successfully attacked the whole prosecution's case may fall apart. If the evidence wasn't that big of a deal, why didn't the prosecutor provide it at discovery?


You are right, I don't know that.
I guess the cynic in me has a gaullic presumption of guilt. I am just not outraged at what happened to the man because this isn't a clear case of an innocent man jailed. rather its a clear case of a man not given the full defense we afford people in the US. which, in my opinion, is at times too much. and our crime rates I believe reflect that overly liberal criminal justice system.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:54:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 10:15:13 AM EDT by Alien]
Originally Posted By Chris1836:
I searched, if this is a dupe, please lock.

Another person freed from prison because of crooked DA's and Dallas county. What would you do if you got out after 30 years of hell.

Link for local Fox station



Well the first thing I'd do is seek damages on the order of $30 million minimum. Sounds like this guy may have simply gotten out early on a technicality though.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:56:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Chris1836:
I searched, if this is a dupe, please lock.

Another person freed from prison because of crooked DA's and Dallas county. What would you do if you got out after 30 years of hell.

Link for local Fox station



1. Not technically an innocent person. What happened was that the Dallas County DA at the time discovered evidence that could have helped his case; but did not share it as required by law. The evidence was basically a failure of a witness to ID him in a police lineup and another witness's testimony that the attacker was 20lbs heavier and was clean shaven. Failing to share such evidence was a serious ethical violation by the DA; but it doesn't necessarily mean they got the wrong guy. Specifically, there is no DNA evidence that would exonerate Wyatt.

2. The only reason any of this was discovered to begin with is because the current Dallas County DA has an open records policy that allowed the Innocence Project access to their records. The specific crookedness you are referring to took place some 31 years ago.

3. Wyatt will not get paid by the State of Texas since he is not exonerated. His convinction was just vacated based on the prosecutorial wrongdoing.

Dallas Observer has a much more in detail series of stories on this (as usual) if you want to get into the nuts and bolts.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you prove someone guilty by cheating and lying, then you didn't really prove them guilty.

What the fuck is going on in people's heads these days?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:59:52 AM EDT
Interesting that CBS spoke with the original prosecutor and he denies wrongdoing. He claims that they shared all the evidence they had. No word on how they managed to not share the misidentification by a witness in a police line-up and the different description given by another witness. Based on the reporting, it sounds like the "angry victim" in the CBS link is the same person who described her attacker as 20lbs heavier and clean-shaven; but that could be crap reporting too.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:59:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mcantu:
iirc, the state of TX will pay him $50,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned...


not enough.
nowhere even close.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 10:00:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By South_Side_Shooter:
Originally Posted By mcantu:
iirc, the state of TX will pay him $50,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned...


Not to mention sue the man who was DA at the time


i would settle for nothing short of that DA being in prison for 20 years
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 10:03:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Innocent until proven guilty


He was convicted in court by a jury. See my earlier comment to swingset that covers the exact same territory. If you have a different definition of "innocence" that makes you feel all righteous and proud, then good for you. I was pointing out the technical, legal aspects; because that is the part that interests me and the part I get paid to focus on.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 10:05:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By runcible:

Was he one of the guys that should have been "taken out behind the court house and shot"?

Yup.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top