reparations?


Will have to do take a few minutes to research & conduct my own due diligence on this case. For now, I am rather curious what became of this man once out. We are told a bit of information (he united with son & grandchild & so forth).
Since it's chronicled he pursued a Masters in psychology while locked up, I can't help but wonder if that is the line of work he professionally pursued thereafter? And yeah, we are told he travels to advise/lecture on the court system but doubt that's full time or frankly, much pays the bills.
But speaking as to (bills!) MONEY....
Given the documentary outlines what happened to some of the involved prosecutors & such (at the end, in script), one can't help but wonder if Michael got settlement.

There are plenty of documented cases of reparations due to miscarriage of justice on behalf of the innocent. No, it's not like one can "make up" for time lost, damage of relationships & human suffering, but fact is, often settlements ARE made in lieu of being able to alter the past.

Wish they had included (if not a figure necessarily!) some information of that sort here. There's NO way it failed to qualify. Or better put, that a lawyer (of all ppl.) would miss opportunity to recommend such maneuver (and also undoubtedly, collect SOME of it).
While also worth mentioning, even with ALL that is presented, one can't help but feel his atty. failed him MISERABLY during his trial.
Regardless WHAT was shown later to be criminal, still pretty hard case to LOSE in my estimation! NO evidence, not ONE shred. The defendant, at minimum, should've been instructed HOW to present himself to a jury...didn't even appear THAT much was done. Coaching is BIG part of the process.

But oh....I suppose I should retract SOME of that sentiment due to when watching this, stunningly one hears the (sorry.. but ignorant!) female juror actually SAY on film "well certainly the defense did NOTHING to prove him innocent!"
HOW SCARY to realize there exist this "jury of our PEERS" who do NOT even understand the simple precept of our legal system that clearly states the burden of PROOF lies with the prosecution.
I guess she never heard "innocent until proven guilty!"
Yeah, frightening to listen to! She, by NO measure, qualifies as MY peer.
But worse, she's-- by NO means-- alone. There are many persons just like HER sitting in jury rooms across our vast country every day.

Totally makes a case...well, more than proves a case-- for implementation of "professional juries" and NOT continue with random selection from a pool of our society (this jury of our peers!)
People CAN be dangerously terrifying & undeserving of such ridiculous level of power! THIS very documentary proves how much SO!!

reply

[deleted]

Not sure about the question of reparations, but I was similarly struck by the female juror's ignorance of the most basic principle of our justice system. Her whole attitude of, "well, he didn't prove he was innocent", and "if he didn't do it, then who did?" was maddening. Of course, this was hardly the only problem in the Morton trial, but I found it shocking nonetheless.




reply

yep, you & me both. Probably many others.

reply

[deleted]

I must first applaud the jurors' gumption to even appear in the movie because it takes guts. But yeah, what absolute morons! I truly did want to murder that female juror specifically and if some justice-minded soul should see this movie and spot her (or any of those cops or prosecutors) in a parking lot and end her/them on the spot, I would have to laugh if I heard about it.

And there should be no doubt that all the jurors and cops and prosecutors and judges were horrible people, and here's why: any decent person would kill themselves when it was made clear to them that they not only sent an innocent man to prison and destroyed several grieving families and aided and abetted a serial killer, but that they facilitated the killer's subsequent murders. Not feeling overwhelming and suicidal guilt over such a thing is the mark of a bona fide sociopath, just as not being able to grasp the enormity of their wrongdoing marks them as cretins.


"Ass to ass. Ha ha ha ha. ASS TO ASS!"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5z77EI8y0

reply

Your whole argument is so over the top, contradictory and ignorant that it would be laughable were it not so incredibly violent. You wanted to "murder that female juror"? WTH? This makes you no better then the average criminal except you're most likely acting like a tough guy/woman from a safe distance. The idea that you can label the jurors sociopaths and horrible people who should commit suicide is truly bizarre. Had you truly watched the film, you'd realize this would be the last thing Michael would want.

Unfortunately, the men and women on the jury were guilty of being woefully unprepared and ignorant as to the, "Presumption of innocence" but to compare their behavior to the prosecution is apples and oranges. The prosecution deliberately lied and withheld information from the jury and the defense. Then after the trial, knowing they had an innocent man in jail, the prosecution continued to stall and withhold valuable evidence from being examined, knowing there was a good chance a re-examination of the evidence would exonerate Michael.

Based on what you've written, I doubt you know any more then the average person sitting on a jury today-it's easy for you to get up on your high horse and judge these people when you haven't been placed in this situation. Additionally, it's quite clear you have no idea what a sociopath is-why don't you take ten minutes, look up and analyze the definition in the DSM-5 -without trying to fit it into your schema.

You have taken this film very personally and seem to have huge amounts of misplaced anger. I don't know what to make of a person who encourages other people to commit suicide and wishes they could murder someone they've never met-based on a five minute interview in a film.

One would think, after watching the story of this amazing man, you'd realize, the absolute last thing he would want is for members of the jury to kill themselves over guilt. He is free of the anger you hold so tightly to your chest.
Certainly the prosecution deserved to be roundly punished but the jury is a completely different story.


Cheers

reply

According to Wikipedia, under Texas Law, Morton is eligible for a lump sum based on the number of years he spent in jail, plus an $80,000 annuity for life. Plus, he recieves job related and educational aide. From some other things I've read about other cases, the lump sum is probably more than a million dollars. Certainly, this doesn't give back the years that this man has lost, but you do feel like it's some sort of justice for him. Furthermore, I'd imagine that he'll pursue a civil case against the prosecutor.

reply

Exactly right about juries of intelligent and well-informed people needing to be sequestered instead of random morons from the general public. The oinkers and "prosecutards" didn't just frame and railroad an innocent man and destroy his and his family's lives, they also allowed a maniac serial killer to roam free. And all because Michael Morton "seemed guilty" by not acting the way TV and movies said he should. When people talk about movies and TV being irresponsible with what they show, I would say this specific thing - the depiction of grief - is much more damaging to our society than sex and violence; after all, because of the abundance of stupid suggestible morons and an American general public with zero critical thinking skills, this very thing sends real, innocent people to prison or death row. This is real life and people react in all sorts of ways to a loved one being brutally murdered by a random psycho out of the blue. The only thing that could possibly be worse than you, an innocent person, coming home to find a crime scene and learning that your pretty wife's head had been smashed in by some whacko in front of your small child would be some dumbass cracker sheriff deciding on the spot that you did it in the face of mountains of exculpatory evidence and then a hillbilly prosecutor railroading you and then a jury of grinning cocksure moron rednecks eating it up and convicting you of the crime. I get why Michael Morton became a loony Christian; if he hadn't, rage would have driven him insane.


"Ass to ass. Ha ha ha ha. ASS TO ASS!"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5z77EI8y0

reply

Just read that he received $2 million in compensation from the state: https://www.texastribune.org/2012/03/27/michael-morton-talks-about-ord eal-plans-future/

reply

Not. Nearly. Enough. Another thing that occurred to me: his high-fallutin' Yankee trial attorney seemed like a nice enough and intelligent enough guy, but he was way out of his depth dealing with police and prosecutorial misconduct of that sort. Michael Morton should seriously consider suing his trial lawyer for incompetence which sent him to prison for 25 years. Think about it: an alibi grants absolute immunity from prosecution, so why was Michael Morton's alibi never once mentioned to the jury? Contrary to what the law says, merely saying "I didn't do it" is never enough. Especially with dimwitted judgmental Texass crackers. Most especially with dimwitted judgmental Texass crackers "in law enforcement." The neighbor woman who found the body heard Christine Morton screaming, i.e. she was still alive when the neighbor heard her and investigated (while Michael Morton was at work). Why didn't the lawyer beat the cops over their dumbass heads with this stuff before Michael was even arrested? When dealing with stupid people, presenting the facts and allowing them to connect the dots themselves is a naive and cocky and stupid strategy because they won't connect the dots because they aren't smart enough to do so. If Michael Morton doesn't sue that clown, it is only out of sentimentality, because he has one hell of a legal malpractice case.


"Ass to ass. Ha ha ha ha. ASS TO ASS!"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5z77EI8y0

reply

that stupid juror got me mad too. scary!

reply

I think it is worth noting that an "expert" witness testified that according to the stomach contents, Chris would of had to die within a timeframe that Michael was at home by a wide margin. Whether the science of that evidence was refuted at the trial or only after the fact wasn't made clear in the movie.

reply

The defense called Vincent DiMaio and another well respected medical examiner to refute the junk science stomach contents evidence.

reply