Innocence

Wrongfully Convicted Man Who Spent 30 Years on Death Row Not Entitled to Compensation, Court Says

"An over-technical interpretation of the law" leaves the late Glenn Ford's family with no remuneration for the life he spent behind bars.

|

The family of the late Glenn Ford, the Louisiana man wrongfully convicted of murder who subsequently spent 30 years on death row only to die a year after his release from prison, is not entitled to any financial compensation from the state, per an appeals court ruling this past Wednesday.

Last year, the prosecutor who put Ford in prison, 

Glenn Ford
Youtube

A.M. "Marty" Stroud III, penned a soul-searching public letter of apology for being "not as interested in justice as I was in winning" and for relying on "junk science" to secure the conviction. Stroud also called on the state to pony up the $330,000 Ford was entitled to under state law for the decades he spent rotting in a cell.

But the state ruled to deny Ford any compensation, because he could not prove himself "factually innocent" of the crime. That ruling was upheld by judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, who wrote in their opinion, "We find no manifest error in the trial judge's conclusion that Ford failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit any crime based upon the facts used in his conviction."

KTBS reports:

The state opposed payment to Ford, saying that even though he was not guilty of murder, "he was up to his neck" in the events surrounding the death of Shreveport jeweler Isadore Rozeman, who was killed during a robbery at his Stoner Avenue store in 1983. While Ford did not shoot Rozeman, he had helped the killer get a gun and had pawned some of the items stolen from Rozeman.

Clearly, Ford was no angel, but he paid for his crimes and then some. According to his lawyer, he hoped to secure some compensation from the state to create an educational trust fund for his grandchildren.

Last week, I wrote about a bill introduced by state Rep. Cedric Glover, which would correct what he described as "an over-technical interpretation of the law" that denied Ford's family compensation for the life they lost.

In a statement, Glover wrote:

This bill changes the law to bring it in line with all of our original intentions: to compensate the wrongly convicted. Glenn Ford was wrongly convicted. He has not been compensated. The law needs changing. It's that simple.

NEXT: Homeland Security Versus Immigrant-Owned Massage Parlors

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The state really went with the “he was guilty of *something*, so it’s totally okay that we convicted him of this other thing he hadn’t actually done” defense? And it WORKED?

    something something woodchipper something something.

    1. Yeah it’s really weird how the state managed to convince itself that it hadn’t done anything wrong.

      1. Weren’t you paying attention?!? The nigger was “up to his neck.”

        1. Pawn like a thug and you’ll be treated like one.

            1. When am I going to learn to stop clicking on your YouTube links?

              1. LearNing is for losers.

    2. Louisiana values.

    3. Woodchippin’s too quick for some folks.

  2. I’m curious, did Stroud offer to pay any part of the remuneration himself, or did he just want the rest of Louisiana to sate his guilt?

    1. Why would he have to go through the state in order to repay the victim for what he’d done? I’m sure the family would be happy with anything he could give them…

      Not gonna happen, because people don’t actually think justice happens, but fun to tease them about it.

      1. No justice No rest in peace!

  3. Someone educate me here. Since when does a US citizen have to “prove” himself innocent of a crime?

    1. When he wants some free money for getting (partially) fucked over.

      1. It’s not free. He paid with his time, which is what we all exchange for money.

        1. Pshaw. Time spent at one of Louisiana’s premier all-inclusive state-funded resorts.

        2. Sorry but I don’t see refusing him compensation as an outrage here. He was wrongly convicted and his conviction should have been overturned earlier but collecting damages is a separate matter and the burden of proof is on him ( or his estate) as plaintiff in that case.

          I am not opposed to a standard requiring factual innocence before the wrongly convicted can get damages for time spent imprisoned. Technical flaws in a case should get you acquitted or your conviction overturned but to cash in you should have to show more.

          1. It’s okay with you that the state can wrongfully imprison someone for years or even decades and then not have to pay them a dime because they can’t satisfy some ridiculous standing and prove themselves “factually innocent”? How about the fact that it was acknowledged that he was wrongfully convicted? Why is that not enough?

            Do you think that getting back to your old life after spending decades in prison is trivial? What about all the money and opportunities they might have had had they not been wrongfully convicted?

    2. since fytw

  4. I say dig him up and throw him back in prison.

  5. Damn! If only the state had executed him faster this wouldn’t even be an issue. I mean, the criminal justice system is so perfect that nobody who is innocent ever ends up on death row, or is ever executed.

  6. I wonder how many times the “Stoner Avenue” signs have been stolen.

  7. I just constantly lol at the reason double standard in legal analysis

    When a sympathetic (eg this case) subject is thwarted by what anti liberty types would call a ‘technicality’ in the law, reason plays this game … It’s an ‘overly technical’ legal analysis that victimized him

    If it was an overturned search warrant, it would not be a ‘overly technical’ problem, it would be RULE OF LAW

    ‘Overly technical’ law is, to paraphrase PJ ORourke very necessary to process Justice

    It’s the distinction between a legal code … And your Mom (‘it’s wrong BECAUSE I SAY SO’)

    Sowell as well concentrates on justice as a process with rules NOT based on RESULTS (see: A Conflict of Visions’)

    ‘Clear and Convincing’ innocence standard is not ‘overly technical’ any more than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is

    Darn those ‘over technical’ requirements!!

    But BARDOUBT would never be called ‘over technical’ standard by reason (unless a cop was a defendant… In which case reasonoids abandon rule of law, right to jury etc and promote revolutionary Justice like frothing Marxists)

    Again, as PJ says, specificity, precision is a required essence of good law

    Does it sometimes , as in this case, lead to bad RESULTS?????

    Of Course!

    prosecutors should want Justice and fairness

    It’s the defense that should want to WIN.

    1. Justice is only a goal when it corresponds to their side winning, which is only sometimes the case

      If a subject fits reasons preferred metanarrative , they’d rather a ‘top man’ distribute Justice goodies so as to avoid a bad result, however process justified, due to that

      1. Possibility over technical rule of law could lead to a sympathetic victim not getting his reward

          1. Now I agree that where a policeman is being prosecuted, Reason tends to presume guilt, and is even willing to scapegoat grand juries if they don’t produce the “right” result.

            This is because Reason thinks prosecutors can only be induced to prosecute cops when guilt is indisputable, and hardly even then.

            As a rule, the prosecutors are in the cops’ corner, but that goes out the window when racial politics get stuck into the situation – then the very same political survival instincts which usually cause prosecutors to suck up to cops lets them throw an occasional cop to the wolves.

          2. Hey Dunphy? Long time no see How’s Morgan? I heard there were some good waves at Pipeline this year. Did you get any or were you too busy training for the Power Lifting Olympic Trials? Smooches.

  8. There’s a pretty big gulf between not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and factually innocent.

    It’s not an overly technical reading of the law. It’s what the law says. If you don’t like the outcome, change the law.

    1. This. I sort of think if your wrongly convicted and lose 30 years of life it should be worth some jangle. That being said rules are rules unless you Hillary Clinton or an illegal immigrant. Since he was neither … The rules for him!

  9. Once I saw the draft of 5210 bucks,,, I admit that my friend’s brother was like really generating cash in his free time with his COM. HH His aunt has done this for only 5 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new Car …B—–13

    ———— http://www.Buzzmax7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.