West Memphis 3 Freed

[OttoVonBismarck]

Thoughts? Reactions? I think we've had discussions on this trio in the past. I'm not sure I get this whole Alford plea business. It's like the State is accepting a plea that they are essentially guilty, but they're still letting 3 child killers free? I think there is no credible evidence these guys committed the crime, but it looks like the State essentially offered them a deal of "get out of prison but make a plea so you can't sue us for malfeasance."

[Ideologue]

Thoughts? Reactions? I think we've had discussions on this trio in the past. I'm not sure I get this whole Alford plea business. It's like the State is accepting a plea that they are essentially guilty, but they're still letting 3 child killers free? I think there is no credible evidence these guys committed the crime, but it looks like the State essentially offered them a deal of "get out of prison but make a plea so you can't sue us for malfeasance."

My (cursory) understanding is that this is entirely correct.

After fifteen years in prison, if I were the death penalty guy, I think I might've refused and demanded they finish the job of killing me, if they weren't going to vacate the conviction.  But maybe not.  Hell, I'm pretty sure I'd have attempted suicide dozens of times by that point, and probably succeeded in one of them.

I can't imagine how messed up these guys are.  It's very sad.

I hope the high-profile nature of the case at least means they won't be terribly prejudiced when trying to find work.  "Hey, you're that guy.  This first degree murder thing is bullshit, isn't it?" "Entirely."

Also bogus is that if they "reoffend," they'll be in huge, huge trouble.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To me it is almost like Arkansas said, "We know you're innocent or at least that we can't convict you in a new trial, but we want to deny you the ability to sue us, insuring you will be super impoverished and have no ability to live a normal life." The truth is celebrity prisoners like this have 0% chance of getting a normal job on the outside, without a big settlement from the state or some way of making money they are screwed. Since they had to plead guilty it's very likely they won't even be able to sell their story or anything, because most places you aren't allowed to profit from your crimes.

Even $1m per person honestly isn't a huge sum...if they put it in an annuity they might get around $3500 a month for 50 years. Not horrible but works out to about $42,000 a year gross. But these guys apparently won't get a dime from anyone.

[DontSayBanana]

To me it is almost like Arkansas said, "We know you're innocent or at least that we can't convict you in a new trial, but we want to deny you the ability to sue us, insuring you will be super impoverished and have no ability to live a normal life." The truth is celebrity prisoners like this have 0% chance of getting a normal job on the outside, without a big settlement from the state or some way of making money they are screwed. Since they had to plead guilty it's very likely they won't even be able to sell their story or anything, because most places you aren't allowed to profit from your crimes.

Even $1m per person honestly isn't a huge sum...if they put it in an annuity they might get around $3500 a month for 50 years. Not horrible but works out to about $42,000 a year gross. But these guys apparently won't get a dime from anyone.

Well, the vox pops seem to indicate the populace thinks they're getting shafted, so there may be at least moderate donations incoming for these guys.

Also, where do the Alford pleas stand with respect to appeals?  A coerced plea should be kaput, so, malfeasance aside, couldn't the state still be sued for coercing a guilty plea?

[grumbler]

To me it is almost like Arkansas said, "We know you're innocent or at least that we can't convict you in a new trial, but we want to deny you the ability to sue us, insuring you will be super impoverished and have no ability to live a normal life." The truth is celebrity prisoners like this have 0% chance of getting a normal job on the outside, without a big settlement from the state or some way of making money they are screwed. Since they had to plead guilty it's very likely they won't even be able to sell their story or anything, because most places you aren't allowed to profit from your crimes.

Even $1m per person honestly isn't a huge sum...if they put it in an annuity they might get around $3500 a month for 50 years. Not horrible but works out to about $42,000 a year gross. But these guys apparently won't get a dime from anyone.

They can assert their innocence, so I think they can sell book rights, etc.

But you are correct that this plea is a disaster for them.  I am betting it gets overturned on the basis that it was coerced.

[Ideologue]

To me it is almost like Arkansas said, "We know you're innocent or at least that we can't convict you in a new trial, but we want to deny you the ability to sue us, insuring you will be super impoverished and have no ability to live a normal life." The truth is celebrity prisoners like this have 0% chance of getting a normal job on the outside, without a big settlement from the state or some way of making money they are screwed. Since they had to plead guilty it's very likely they won't even be able to sell their story or anything, because most places you aren't allowed to profit from your crimes.

Even $1m per person honestly isn't a huge sum...if they put it in an annuity they might get around $3500 a month for 50 years. Not horrible but works out to about $42,000 a year gross. But these guys apparently won't get a dime from anyone.

Well, the vox pops seem to indicate the populace thinks they're getting shafted, so there may be at least moderate donations incoming for these guys.

Also, where do the Alford pleas stand with respect to appeals?  A coerced plea should be kaput, so, malfeasance aside, couldn't the state still be sued for coercing a guilty plea?

The principal effect of an Alford plea is that the defendant is not estopped from relitigating the issue in a civil matter.  I.e., if the victims' families attempted suit against the West Memphis 3, the West Memphis 3 could defend themselves without conceding their alleged role in the homicides.

What would be their basis for appeal?  If the threat of punishment reached coercion, every plea would be coercive.  That has certainly never been the standard.  Perhaps lack of factual basis by which the trial court accepted the Alford plea could justify an appeal--but a court may accept a plea of guilty (or a plea that accepts the state has enough evidence to convict, either nolo contendere or Alford) even when a viable defense may otherwise have been presented.

Going into the issue of whether the WM3 may profit...

I'm not sure how it would interact with the Ark. Son of Sam law (Sec. 16-90-308) prohibiting profiting from a crime.  An Alford plea has the same legal effect, in regard to criminal matters, as a regular guilty plea.  Presumably this would trigger any such law.  There is no Ark. law on point.  After reading a bit, however, there's a split of opinion about how seriously this is taken; Carroll v. Commonwealth, a Virginia case involving a sex offender who Alford pled and who, as part of his probation, attended sex offender therapy where he was required to admit responsibility, has a good discussion, and winds up considering a lot of persuasive authority from other states.  The Virginia C.o.A., while recognizing the tension between the state's assignment of guilt and the defendant's protestation of innocence, nevertheless found against the appellant on the grounds that he accepted the consequences of a conviction, regardless of the particular form of his plea.

So, given that there's money in it, I would expect some litigation on this.

[DontSayBanana]

I hear what you say about motivation for pleading, but this sounds like the guys were handed a real fait accompli: say we're guilty and stay in prison or contend we're innocent, but still say we're guilty and stay in prison.  I'm wondering about the court's motivation in offering the Alford pleas in the first place- it sounds (and admittedly, I'm working on one side of the story here) like the court's using it for face-saving to avoid having to vacate a conviction.

[Martinus]

There was a guy on Jon Stuart's show last week who spent 5 years in prison for hacking NSA in 1990s and now wrote a book about it and was promoting it. So not sure about the "not profiting from one's crime" thing. 

[Fireblade]

Sadly, state politics played a large role in why Arkansas was so reluctant to free them. Our (Democratic) attorney general will be running for governor in 2014, and he had invested a lot of capital in preventing a new trial from taking place. DontSayBanana had it exactly right - everyone here knows they're innocent, but to save face, the court basically said "well, admit guilt even though we know you didn't do it, so we're all "happy".

Since Governor Beebe has pretty much picked AG McDaniel to be his successor, the chances for a pardon in the next several years are, unfortunately, very low.

[Ed Anger]

Jon Stuart

Ok, Tim.

[Ideologue]

Bonnie Prince Hymie.

[Martinus]

Sadly, state politics played a large role in why Arkansas was so reluctant to free them. Our (Democratic) attorney general will be running for governor in 2014, and he had invested a lot of capital in preventing a new trial from taking place. DontSayBanana had it exactly right - everyone here knows they're innocent, but to save face, the court basically said "well, admit guilt even though we know you didn't do it, so we're all "happy".

Since Governor Beebe has pretty much picked AG McDaniel to be his successor, the chances for a pardon in the next several years are, unfortunately, very low.

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

[citizen k]

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

Doesn't exist.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not sure how it would interact with the Ark. Son of Sam law (Sec. 16-90-308) prohibiting profiting from a crime. 

As a statute limiting speech, I would imagine it would be narrowly interpreted to avoid burdening legitimate speech rights.

Statute says: "Any person  . . . convicted of or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to any crime who contracts to reenact the crime by use of any book, motion picture . . .[etc.] or from the expression of his or her thoughts, opinions, or emotions regarding the crime, l pay to the circuit court wherein the charges were filed any money or thing of value contracted to be paid to the defendant or his or her spouse, heirs, assigns, and transferees."

presumably they aren't going to "reenact" the crime since they claim they didn't do it.  The second clause about "expression of thoughts" is pretty vague -- maybe could be sidestepped by focusing their thoughts and opinions on their experiences in the justice system as opposed to the crime itself.

[The Minsky Moment]

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

Good question.  Why don't all the European countries do the same thing?
Hola, Baltasar Garzon?