Slog
News & ArtsFriday, August 19, 2011
News The West Memphis 3 Are Free!
Posted by Megan Seling on Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:01 AM
They get to maintain their innocence, but they had to acknowledge the state of Arkansas had enough evidence to convict them, so they can't sue the state.
They're being processed now. They will be released today.
CNN is live streaming the press conference.
HOLY SHIT.
3
Hopefully they will still make money on a book deal and a movie. I'm just glad I didn't live in a small town in Arkansas when my wardrobe consisted of a jean jacket and heavy metal t-shirts.
5
I'm a little peeved that they had to enter a no contest plea agreement to get out. I believe if they had been granted a new trial outright they would have been totally exonerated. I guess the state didn't want to have to pay them restitution for stealing 18+ years of their lives.
7
Holy shit indeed. How fucked up is that that they are being essentially blackmailed by the state, so they can't sue for being wrongly imprisoned for 20 years.
Fucking Arkansas.
Fucking Arkansas.
8
@ 7 & 5 are right. I also feel terrible for the poor kids who died. What a long, dark and drawn out thread of events.
9
It's a corrupt deal, but I'm so happy they're finally free. Now, hopefully, they'll get out of that fucking shithole of a state as fast as they can.
10
as damian said, they can still bring up new evidence and fight for exoneration OUTSIDE prison. i am almost in tears as i thought this day would never happen. let's celebrate tonight!
11
@9: I wonder if they are even allowed to leave the state...one of the terms of their release was 10 years of probation (or they go back to prison for 21 years).
13
They can still sue. For goodness sake, they can say the release of claims was filed under extreme DURESS! I would do it. The state should never be allowed to make a waiver of claims as a condition of release. Just should not be legal.
14
I hope they get tons of excellent therapy since they are not used to being around people. Especially Damien who will be living with a wife and kid after a decade of solitary confinement.
I remember the youngest one wanted to go to Disneyland during the first trial. He should go.
I remember the youngest one wanted to go to Disneyland during the first trial. He should go.
15
Jason Baldwin was apparently against the terms of the release initially because it meant they had to plead guilty, but he eventually agreed to it essentially so that his friend Damian Echols would be taken off death row. Amazing story. Wish all three of them the best and hope they can find some peace in this; hopefully one day they state will finally acknowledge their innocence as well.
16
Those guys are my age. I can't imagine spending my entire life since I graduated from high school in jail.
17
@11 Thanks! I can't watch the videos at work so I'm stuck relying on just the print articles. I need a new employer.
@14 I'm worried about how they'll adjust too...hopefully all of the celebrities who have been championing their cause all these years will step up with some money to get them that therapy.
@14 I'm worried about how they'll adjust too...hopefully all of the celebrities who have been championing their cause all these years will step up with some money to get them that therapy.
19
Can someone help me out here? I'm reading articles that are saying that the three get to maintain their innocence, but had to plead guilty, how exactly does that work?
21
@19 it is a no-contest (or "Alford") plea - They say they are innocent but they believe it is in their best interest to enster a guilty please because the prosecuter has enough evidence to convict them (bullshit)
25
given the new evidence / new trial, the state maybe decided to offer a deal they didn't previously. i'm curious about this, too, but the guilty plea probably got them time served. and the alford part is for their conscience. i don't know if the case was going to go to trial again if they did not accept the deal. myabe this gets them out earlier. maybe this does protect the state a bit. isn't this a 5280 topic?
27
Huh. I didn't know a single damn thing about this case, I must admit. Is there a particular way everyone's so familiar with it? Celebrity attention?
28
two documentaries, leek: Paradise Lost and Paradise Lost II. and, yes, celebrity attention and a small but devoted group of people dedicated to attaining their release.
29
@27: There were a few movies made about it, a benefit concert, a benefit CD, books, etc. It has been in the media here and there since before they were convicted. A lot of the media tends to report on it as if they are guilty but just won't shut up so I can see why you may have missed it.
30
@ 27, there were a couple of HBO documentaries that got a lot of public attention and caught the celebrity interest. I was young at the time and remember them being super heavy!
31
So much ignorance of the law from these people here. They CANNOT sue because they have plead guilty. It is an "Alford" plea but still functions as the equivalent of a regular old guilty plea. Therefore, there can be no claim for malicious prosecution because their guilty pleas legally mean that they have committed the crimes they are accused of, even though they maintain their innocence. This is plea bargaining, 101, you dumbfucks!
34
@31 I don't think you read all of the comments. Most are saying what a tragedy it is that they can't sue because of this plea deal. We get that they can't sue while under the present deal. The posts saying they hope they will be able to are referring to if they are able to keep fighting and eventually clear their names completely while out of prison.
35
Sorry, not in a coma. I just don't like to comment on things when I don't know all the details, and I haven't read enough details yet to form any sort of an opinion. It's a queer deal all the way around, that's for sure.
37
So... Here we have another guy on death row exonerated. We also have a crime that is now able to be investigated again after the actual murderer has been free for 20 years.
These coerced confessions are a real problem beyond just the imprisoning of the innocent (which duh, is a really big problem) in that they don't make the rest of us any safer at all. This is why the police and prosecutors have to be held to tougher standards. Yeah, I hate it when someone gets away with a crime because the police couldn't get a TV style confession, but it's worse when they bend the rules and we wind up with another West Memphis Three.
These coerced confessions are a real problem beyond just the imprisoning of the innocent (which duh, is a really big problem) in that they don't make the rest of us any safer at all. This is why the police and prosecutors have to be held to tougher standards. Yeah, I hate it when someone gets away with a crime because the police couldn't get a TV style confession, but it's worse when they bend the rules and we wind up with another West Memphis Three.
38
I am really getting the feeling that they are NOT exonerated.
It seems like the State still thinks they are guilty, but both sides are weary about a retrial, so they came up with this agreement. The new evidence was enough to warrant a new trial, instead, both parties are splitting the difference.
Right now, the WM3 can't sue not because they plead guilty, but rather because they have not proven the State did anything wrong. The DNA evidence isn't wrongdoing, for instance.
It seems like the State still thinks they are guilty, but both sides are weary about a retrial, so they came up with this agreement. The new evidence was enough to warrant a new trial, instead, both parties are splitting the difference.
Right now, the WM3 can't sue not because they plead guilty, but rather because they have not proven the State did anything wrong. The DNA evidence isn't wrongdoing, for instance.
39
@38 Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Leave the law talk to folks who know. Defendants who plead guilty are per se prohibited from suing for malicious prosecution. Not to mention the fact that they will have to get over the governmental immunity somehow. Just shut the fuck up, dude.
40
I will gladly leave it to folks who know, if they would be willing to explain it to us who don't. You have not aided in that, as of yet.
We want to know why both sides agreed to this, and what additional action, if any, may occur. So, what do you have to offer?
What cite do you have that shows defendant's who offer an Alford plea cannot sue for malicious prosecution? Even so, then, are there things other than malicious prosecution they could sue for? Did the State agree to the Alford plea to protect the State from a suit, or was that just a by-product of the deal?
As I said in my post, the defendants still need a reason to sue, and I didn't see one yet. I'm not sure why this makes you so upset, as it doesn't seem to contradict anything you've said. I guess I see why you are unregistered, now, though, and why most people ignore the, um, trolls.
We want to know why both sides agreed to this, and what additional action, if any, may occur. So, what do you have to offer?
What cite do you have that shows defendant's who offer an Alford plea cannot sue for malicious prosecution? Even so, then, are there things other than malicious prosecution they could sue for? Did the State agree to the Alford plea to protect the State from a suit, or was that just a by-product of the deal?
As I said in my post, the defendants still need a reason to sue, and I didn't see one yet. I'm not sure why this makes you so upset, as it doesn't seem to contradict anything you've said. I guess I see why you are unregistered, now, though, and why most people ignore the, um, trolls.
41
I found this article, which explains things well. It includes the possible law suit tracks the three may be able to pursue.
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/0…
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/0…
42
@40, Not speaking about the specifics of this case, but more about the dynamics of this situation as they so often play out... The state has the power. The accused/incarcerated do not. In order to be released, the state still has to grant that and it is not always in the state's interest to do so. The state can leverage its power to protect itself.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
Barack Obama Smoked a Lot of Pot as a Young Man by Paul Constant
-
The Limits of Keynesianism by Charles Mudede
-
Rural America by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS