Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
West Memphis Three Freed: Alford Plea- Public Hearing Live Stream
Share:
by NowPublic Staff | August 19, 2011 at 08:40 am
2376 views | 2 Recommendations | 6 comments
West Memphis Three Freed from Prison on Alford Plea
Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr. and Jason Baldwin, collectively known as the West Memphis Three, have been in prison since 1993 for the murders of 8-year-old boys Christopher Byers, Steve Branch and James Michael Moore. On August 19, 2011, they have been freed. A live stream of the WM3 public hearing in Jonesboro, AK is below.
The West Memphis Three's sentences have been converted to 18 years with credit for time served, as well as 10 years SIS (suspended imposition of sentence), which is like parole without the restrictions. The WM3 just have to stay out of legal trouble for the next ten years to avoid returning to prison.
Photos
As you read this, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr. and Jason Baldwin are being freed. The convictions of the West Memphis Three were not overturned. Instead, they agreed to what is called an Alford plea.
Originally it was reported that two of the WM3 would be freed, but all three will leave prison.
- Previously: 2 of West Memphis Three to Go Free on August 19
- West Memphis Three Timeline: Murder, Police Mistakes &Moral Panic
Videos
Longtime supporters Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks and Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam were also at the courthouse.
In the case of the West Memphis Three, though, the prosecution was so heavily compromised since Day One, there was never a widespread belief that Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin were guilty.
One of the loudest critics of the deal was Steve Byers, adoptive father of one of the victims, who said, "To me, this is just a cop-out from the state for not wanting to admit that they made a mistake."
What is an Alford Plea?
An Alford plea is one in which the defendant accepts that the prosecution has enough evidence to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, while still being able to assert innocence. Technically it is a guilty plea, but one in which the defendant is not admitting actual guilt.
Most importantly, the state is shielded from false-imprisonment or -conviction lawsuits from the defendants.
This is a coup for the State of Arkansas, whose prosecution would never have survived a retrial: the case against the West Memphis Three was beyond weak. Meanwhile, Arkansas must acknowledge that the real killer or killers got away with the murder of three young boys.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
NowPublic Staff
Vancouver, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 09:56 on August 19th, 2011
I can't understand how you can be guilty and innocent.
at 22:47 on September 17th, 2011
It's not that complicated. Everyone knows you didn't commit the crime. EVERYONE. In order to keep consistent with the law, the courts have got to have a conviction on paper. These guys could have fought and won on the appeal. They may have sat in prison for another 10 years by doing so. They all have to agree to take a guilty plea. The courts are pleased, these guys are free to get back to living their lives. They could have denied the plea. I mean we all have that right. They could have sued and made millions. They're going to make millions for their story no matter what. I'm sure they could get Fortune 500 jobs if they wanted them. What's a conviction anyway if you know you didn't do something.
at 19:28 on August 19th, 2011
This Alford plea amounts to coercion by the State, tantamount to a forced confession -- I guess that passes as Arkansas justice. Now these three, convicted without any physical evidence, are "free" to face vigilante justice from those who refuse to believe that the State could convict and jail for many years innocent people -- and the Alford plea only increases the chances that these men will never really be free.
Some nationally reknowned civil liberties attorney should now challenge the Alford plea on their behalf and get these men exonerated for real.
at 06:18 on August 20th, 2011
Actually the DNA evidence does NOT prove they weren't there, just that is doesn't show that they were.
at 19:29 on August 21st, 2011
So convict them because they can't prove a negative, that they weren't there? That may be a warped vigilante inJustice, but it's not American justice. Are you an apologist for conviction for murder with no physical evidence? Sounds like it.
at 15:06 on September 20th, 2011
How could these innocient boys at the time be convicted of MURDER!? What they seem on the outside is completly different on the inside. How could people have the right of assuming that these three boys murderd little boys because of how the appeared. They have rights too!, well they did and convicting these boys was a shame, maybe the person who first assumed that they were the Murdurers actually was the one that murders the poor little boys..