Oklahoma judge rules a man who wrongfully spent nearly 50 years in prison for murder is innocent
Oklahoma judge rules a man who wrongfully spent nearly 50 years in prison for murder is innocent
An Oklahoma judge has exonerated a man who spent nearly 50 years in prison for murder, the longest serving inmate to be declared innocent of the crime.
Glynn Simmons, 71, who was released in July after prosecutors agreed that key evidence in his case was not turned over to his defense lawyers, was ruled innocent Tuesday.
“This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the offense for which Mr. Simmons was convicted, sentenced and imprisoned... was not committed by Mr. Simmons,” according to the ruling by Oklahoma County District Judge Amy Palumbo.
The ruling makes Simmons eligible for up to $175,000 in compensation from the state for wrongful conviction and opens the door for a federal lawsuit against Oklahoma City and law enforcement involved in Simmons’ arrest and conviction, defense attorney Joe Norwood said Wednesday.
Compensation, though, is likely years away, Norwood said and Simmons is currently living on donations while undergoing treatment for cancer that was detected after his release from prison.
“Glynn is having to live off of GoFundMe, that’s literally how the man is surviving right now, paying rent, buying food,” Norwood said. “Getting him compensation, and getting compensation is not for sure, is in the future and he has to sustain himself now.”
You're viewing a single thread.
[The district attorney] in September said there is no longer physical evidence in the case against Simmons and announced she would not retry him, though she opposed declaring him actually innocent.
Was he found innocent based on the new evidence or was he found innocent by default after the D.A. declined to retry him?
Glynn Simmons, 71, who was released in July after prosecutors agreed that key evidence in his case was not turned over to his defense lawyers, was ruled innocent Tuesday.
I saw that, but I don't think it answers my question.
I'm wondering if the evidence that was not turned over was something that proved it couldn't have been him. If it's something that exonerated him, then I could see him being declared innocent. Usually the ruling is "not guilty" which I would take as "unable to prove it was him," but still leaves room that he could have done it.
To me this sounds like someone intentionally fucked the wrong man, hiding what would prove his innocence just to get the conviction.
Not at all. And the term would technically be "not guilty," as there is no such thing as "innocence" in our judgey-McJudgerson judicial system.