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.”

  • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
    221·
    11 months ago

    Because death penalty supporters are okay with killing innocents if they get to feel retribution and kill someone, regardless of “justice”.

    • spider@lemmy.nz
      13·
      11 months ago

      And prosecutors who intentionally withhold evidence in cases like this and death penalty cases are also “taking someone’s life”, so to speak. They’re no better than cold-blooded killers.

      (Speaking of which, if only the State of Florida would stop f**king around with Tommy Zeigler.)

      • Xhieron@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        10 months ago

        Lawyer here: Lock’em up. Maybe this is a radical position, but these kinds of cases demonstrate the need to do away with absolute immunity for prosecutors and judges. Qualified immunity would be more appropriate, and unlike with police, there’s never a question whether judges and prosecutors know their obligations. If you withhold evidence in order to take another man’s freedom and it can be proved against you, you should go to the penitentiary, full stop. And if you sell kids to prisons in exchange for kickbacks, you should be hanged.

        This is part of the problem with having a self-regulated profession. As much as I appreciate that the ethical rules to which I’m beholden are created by people who are similarly educated and have experience with the practice of the profession, we’re well past the point that good lawyers and judges need to be holding bad ones genuinely accountable. 50 years of a man’s life isn’t worth a law license or a term on the bench. It’s not even fucking close. If you want prosecutors to stop fucking around with evidence and you want judges to stop taking bribes, their legal responsibilities need to have the same teeth as the ones they wield against others. You perpetrate a fraud on the court and it costs an innocent man 50 years–you go to jail for 50 years. Lex talionis.

        And if that kind of standard means people don’t want to be prosecutors? Well, people who want to be able to withhold evidence shouldn’t be prosecutors!

    • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
      810·
      11 months ago

      No it’s because it should only be used in the most cut and dry cases.

      Cases like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Putin, Stalin.

      Killing someone because they killed one person or did some heinous thing once is not a good solution.

      Killing someone who has shown they do not care about human life to the point of killing multiple people either directly or indirectly is completely morally sound.