Bob Dylan "Rolling Thunder Revue: The 1975 Tour Recordings" (14CD box set; 7th June 2019)

His conviction was lawfully overturned and he was freed, so he was judicially determined to be not guilty of the murders.

"Three years later, Carter's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. In 1985, JudgeHaddon Lee Sarokin of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the writ, noting that the prosecution had been "predicated upon an appeal to racism rather than reason, and concealment rather than disclosure," and set aside the convictions.Carter, 48 years old, was freed without bail in November 1985.

Prosecutors appealed Sarokin's ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and filed a motion with the court to return Carter to prison pending the outcome of the appeal. The court denied this motion and eventually upheld Sarokin's opinion, affirming his Brady analysis without commenting on his other rationale.

The prosecutors appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case."

Dylan's song was not only hugely influential on shedding light on the case and the injustices of the case, but the very key element of bias and racism by the state was cited by the courts as a key reason in the conviction being set aside, confirming the validity of Dylan's iconic song.

The prosecutors could have tried him again but chose not to primarily based on the unreliability of the key witness and other evidentiary problems. The state bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, and there was plenty of reasonable doubt, plenty of unreliable and questionable evidence, and they determined they could not get another conviction.
Dylan was right.

 

he was not judicially determined to be not guilty of the crimes since the state could have tried him again.
the state convicted him twice.
i suspect they didnt try him again because he had already served 20 years. Artis was already paroled.

 

Jacques Levy noted that he (co-)wrote Hurricane from the point of view of a lawyer putting across a case to win over a jury.

And what most strongly connects Hurricane to Joey is that in both cases we only ever hear from the defense lawyer (the narrator of the songs); never from the prosecution.

The results of this approach are gripping, powerful, beautifully told and exquisitely performed story songs that portray a completely unbalanced presentation of "the truth".

Jacques Levy was a theatre man, with a background in psychology: he understood that onstage there is no truth, there is just a story to be told.

 

What? Are you an attorney? I am, and I'm puzzled by your conclusion here.

 

Im not blaming Dylan nor do I think he was complicit. He has a right that Hurricane was innocent.
Besides, Hurricane was convicted in 76 for a second time.

 

what are you puzzled about? its right in the article the guy just posted. I didnt make it up.
Had he been 'abjudicted to have been not guilty' then the state could not have retried him a third time, which they could have done if they wanted. whats so hard to understand about that?

 

His convictions were thrown out. Once they are thrown out they can't be cited as proof of his guilt. He was thus judicially determined to be "not guilty". The state failed in their burden of proof. In the US, the failure of the State/govt to meet the burden of proof means you are legally "not guilty". We live in America not Russia or some country where guilt is presumed.

 

Re-litigating the Hurricane Carter case yet again on SHF? Jesus, I’d rather be arguing about Joan Baez again!

 

they could have re tried him again, thus was 'not judicially determined to be not guilty', he was just granted a new trial.
if he had been "judicially determined to be not guilty' then obviously he could not have been tried again.

he was convicted twice by a jury. an appeal gave him a new trial, he was not 'exonerated'
had a jury found him not guilty he would have been exonerated but he was convicted twice.
read here

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter: The Other Side of the Story

 

You keep citing convictions that were judicially overturned. Once they are overturned they don't exist. You don't get to keep counting them. I don't think you fully understand the US criminal justice system (which I have worked in for over 35 years).

 

Upon a successful habeas petition, you are exonerated. The main difference between a habeas petition and a routine appeal of a judgment is that in a habeas petition, you are bringing to light new evidence the trial ct. never saw.

If a Brady analysis was involved, the prosecution was failing in its duty to disclose evidence that tended to exonerate, or would exonerate, the accused.

 

I think in the end everyone was just tired of the whole case. Yes, he was eventually proven innocent by virtue of the fact that his conviction was thrown out--by a judge widely considered to be an activist judge-- but as has been pointed out, he'd served around 20 years anyway.
"Hurricane" is a great song, even if the lyrics play fast and loose with the truth--as does "Joey" another exercise in "creative writing."

 

Is there a new RTR box set coming out soon?

 

could he have been tried again? if yes he was not exonerated. simple logic indicates that if you are 'exonerated' of a crime you cant be tried for the same crime again.
the appeals court nowhere said he was not guilty.

ex·on·er·a·tion
/iɡˌzänəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the action of officially absolving someone from blame; vindication.

 

I think I've heard rumors to that effect.....

 

Good thing Dylan didn't play "George Jackson" on this tour.

 

Oh sh#t. I had no idea.
Who'd she kill?

 

NOT SOON ENOUGH

 

No Sara in the new film? I guess we'll never get a blu-ray of Renaldo and Clara as long as Dylan has the ultimate veto power. Feels bad.

On the other hand, Dylan has loosened up on his stance against bootlegs with the massive BLS.

 

Roger McGuinn, I think.

 

Suzie Rotolo?

 

I don't know if he could have been tried again as I don't know all the facts here. Upon a mistrial, an accused can be re-tried, because a mistrial involves a hung jury (a jury that couldn't come to a decision) or bad conduct on the part of someone in the proceedings that interferes with a decision on the merits. But, generally speaking, if you are tried for a crime and are found not guilty somewhere in the process, including the appeals process, you can't be tried again for the same crime, i.e. there is no double jeopardy.

If the appeals court granted his habeas petition based on Brady error, he's exonerated. Nothing really stops a zealous prosecutor from coming after you again until you get in front of a judge and he tells the prosecution they are legally barred from prosecuting again. It usually doesn't get that far, because the prosecution generally knows when the gig is up.

BTW, I'm not picking on you, I just read what you wrote and was like, "hold on." The law can be fairly confusing.

 

1. All his convictions were overturned and thrown out. Repeating over and over that he was convicted and ignoring the "thrown out" part is ludicrous and simple minded.

2. In the US, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It's NOT presumed guilty until proven innocent. We don't live (quite yet) in a fascist police state dictatorship.

3. The state chose NOT to retry him. They realized they had evidentiary issues and an unreliable (and tainted and biased) primary witness. Thus, the state never proved his guilt and never legally convicted him (his convictions had been thrown out). A person who has not been convicted is legally determined to be "not guilty" ie innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. If you don't like our criminal justice system, you should consider a move to a country like Russia, I understand the winters are gorgeous in Siberia.

4. May I suggest going to law school and then getting a few decades of criminal justice legal experience before weighing in again on this topic...

 

You know your stuff, but there's really no reason to crush a butterfly on a wheel at this point in the discussion.
Lawyers (usually) make the big bucks for a reason.
And being that this is an open forum devoted to the discussion of music, should we all go to music school or study an instrument for 40 years before we dare criticize a musician?

We get it. The law is the law.

 

read the article by KFarbman who is on your side.

"The prosecutors could have tried him again but chose not to"