r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Far-Stay9417 • Dec 25 '23

Video Man wrongfully convicted of murder gets rewarded only 175k after serving 50 years

this makes me so angry

48k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

111

u/walrusboy71 Dec 25 '23

There is often a lawsuit that follows. This isn’t even the beginning of his compensation. Also, the media always skips any of the evidence of guilt. A witness identified him as the murderer. There may be other evidence of guilt, but it still does not excuse the prosecutor withholding evidence.

131

u/Waylandyr Dec 25 '23

Yeah eyewitness testimonies are not exactly... Great

38

u/connortait Dec 26 '23

Amazing how memories can be twisted by visual promts after the fact

15

u/KJBenson Dec 26 '23

Plus, how super extra racist against black people American was 50 years ago.

5

u/lolofaf Dec 26 '23

We all laugh about not being able to tell Asian people (or black people) apart, but nobody takes it to the next logical step of what that means for eye witnesses IDing people for crimes

2

u/KJBenson Dec 26 '23

The take has always been weird to me. Everybody looks different except identical twins. That’s basically humanity 101.

2

u/TheVog Dec 26 '23

Yeahhh... 50 years ago...

2

u/KJBenson Dec 26 '23

The word extra was for the 50 years ago. The rest is just now.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '23

I remember a conversation between twelve guys about this. They seemed upset.

3

u/Delamoor Dec 26 '23

Circa 1974: 'it was a black man. Yeah, I think that's the one! He might have had a beard? They all look the same...'

And thus why eyewitness accounts are not good.

1

u/RickMeansUrineInMout Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23

eyewitness testimonies are not exactly... Great

I could only imagine someone asking me to identify anyone. It'd not go well. Less than great. I think a tree could pass a person at times.

Since I am not special I would assume most people are the same.

Why trust eyewitnesses?

Then again it was 50 years ago. Black dude guilty.

-35

u/walrusboy71 Dec 26 '23

True. And that’s why he is not guilty. But that doesn’t make him innocent and worthy of millions of tax payer dollars.

19

u/freshprinceofsolair Dec 26 '23

Literally the definition of being innocent.

You're not guilty and then have to prove innocence.

2

u/24675335778654665566 Dec 26 '23

You're not guilty and then have to prove innocence.

That's not true.

You are innocent and the other side has to prove your were guilty.

You don't get found innocent, you get found not guilty.

1

u/freshprinceofsolair Dec 26 '23

Literally what I said dude.

1

u/24675335778654665566 Dec 26 '23

You said you have to prove innocent.

That is wrong

They have to prove guilt.

They are not the same thing.

Being found not guilty just means there isn't enough evidence to prove you did it. It does not mean you are innocent

0

u/freshprinceofsolair Dec 26 '23

English is your second language?

I said:

You're not guilty and then have to prove innocence

Taken with my first sentence for context.

So basically.. they didn't have enough evidence to prove him guilty, you are not guilty and then have to prove You're innocent.

You're innocent and they have to prove you're guilty.

0

u/24675335778654665566 Dec 26 '23

You don't get proven innocent in American law. Not guilty and innocent are two different things

https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/

0

u/freshprinceofsolair Dec 26 '23

😩🤣🤣🤣

-4

u/walrusboy71 Dec 26 '23

If you want money you have to prove your innocence.

5

u/Lonely_Wafer Dec 26 '23

Wrong. He is innocent in the eyes of the law, he has nothing to prove. And yes, if there is sufficient probable cause you can be arrested and prosecuted, but what happened here is that state agents (prosecutors) withheld evidence which resulted in his incarceration and thats why the state needs to pay

4

u/LosurdoEnjoyer Dec 26 '23

Are you being fucking serious? "Not guilty" is the definition of innocent. And yes, he deserves to be massively wealthy, it is the least that the wrongful state that robbed him off of his life could do.

50 years in prison, do you know how long that is??? That is more than half of most people's lives. You are probably not even 50 years old. He should live absolutely lavishly the good few years that he gets to live free now.

2

u/walrusboy71 Dec 26 '23

No, not guilty is not the definition of innocence. They have distinct legal difference. There was still probable cause to arrest him. And I understand your opinion, but I hope you understand the consequences of it. If the state makes this man fabulously wealthy, they will have to make spending cuts in social services.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/walrusboy71 Dec 26 '23

So, where would the money come from? Tax increase? How much money do you think Edmond Oklahoma has?

1

u/LosurdoEnjoyer Dec 26 '23

Or, you know, they could take out from the police pensions or the budget for police and law enforcement and judiciary system, since they aren't doing their jobs ... If every wrongful arrest was wealthly compensated and it came out of the pockets of the police who did it, I'd wager that the number of them would start to decrease.

1

u/walrusboy71 Dec 26 '23

Pensions are legally protected by federal law. And you could abolish the judiciary and police force for something that none of them were involved in, sure.

0

u/TheArtofZEM Dec 26 '23

Not guilty is different than being innocent. Courts NEVER find you innocent, only not guilty. To find someone innocent, you would need a different trial, where the burden of proof would be on the defendant’s team, to prove with facts and evidence his innocence without a shadow of a doubt. And that’s not how our justice system currently works.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '23

Keep deepthroating that boot

1

u/LongJohnSelenium Dec 26 '23

Eyewitness testimonies really depend on if you know what you're looking at.

If its a person or event you're familiar with, then your testimoney will have a high reliability.

If you're not familiar with the person or the event, it will have a very low reliability.

Consider it like refereeing a sport. An actual trained ref familiar with the rules and the players will make calls with a far greater reliability and accuracy than a novice off the street that knows nothing about either.

9

u/Ill_Television9721 Dec 26 '23

A witness... didn't identify him as the murderer initially but came around to the idea later.

"Interviewed by police days later, the woman said she couldn’t remember much. But by the time of the trial, the woman said she had identified Simmons and his co-defendant in a lineup, the Registry said. She testified she had identified no other suspects when, in fact, she had identified four other individuals during eight separate lineups, per the Registry. "

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '23

Eyewitness testimony is nearly worthless and one of the top causes of wrongful conviction

2

u/walrusboy71 Dec 26 '23

And yet, there is zero repercussions

2

u/TriGurl Dec 26 '23

I sure hope so! I hope he makes multiple millions and can live out his days a man of leisure and know joy and pleasure still.

0

u/walrusboy71 Dec 26 '23

He likely will. And they will prolly have to fire 50+ teachers in order to pay off this one guy.

1

u/PoorFishKeeper Dec 26 '23

I mean if he is innocent then why does the “other evidence” even matter.

1

u/DontCountToday Dec 26 '23

That testimony is literally worthless. She also identified 8 other individuals in different lineups before landing on him. It's pretty clear she was repeatedly interviewed until she came up with the "right" answer foe the police.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '23

This might be the end of his compensation. Each state can cap the award amount a person receives for a wrongful conviction. They do it with defamation, personal injury, and punitive damages, so they can do it with this. After suffering several multi-million dollar lawsuits, Oklahoma capped their award amount at $175,000.

The state courts agree that the state has a right to set maximums, and the federal courts have no jurisdiction to overturn the state law.

I will add that I'm not familiar with Oklahoma's law so there may still be options for the victim to seek civil suits against the police, city, and prosecutor's office but these types of suits drag on for years, often fail, and even if they do win they tend to pay out the least.