Rubin (Hurricane) Carter, dead, today, at age 76.
Dylan's song came out in 1976, and:
Based on the recantations and the new information, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned the guilty verdicts in 1976. Overnight, Mr. Carter was hailed as a civil rights champion, with a national defense committee working on his behalf and fund-raising concerts headlined by Mr. Dylan at Madison Square Garden and the Houston Astrodome; the Garden concert also included Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez and Roberta Flack. Muhammad Ali attended a pretrial hearing in Paterson in 1976 to show his support for Mr. Carter.
At a second trial, in December 1976, a new team of Passaic County prosecutors resuscitated an old theory, charging that the defendants had committed the Lafayette Grill murders to exact revenge for the earlier killing of the black tavern owner.There was a new trial, in December 1976, and Carter was convicted again.
Over the next nine years, numerous appeals in New Jersey courts failed. But when the issues were heard for the first time in a federal court, in 1985, Judge H. Lee Sarokin of United States District Court in Newark overturned the convictions on constitutional grounds. He ruled that prosecutors had “fatally infected the trial” by resorting, without evidence, to the racial revenge theory....There was no third trial, and Carter went free.
Posts
39 comments:
Imus says that even if you're not guilty, it sends a powerful message.
If we even think you did it, you're locked up.
So straighten out.
Rubin "Hurricane" Carter:
Liar, evader, murderer.
Beat the head of his defense committee unconscious.
Notice how he's never asked to explain how her injuries happened while he "tried to discuss and consider her claims fairly and equitably".
"How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool's hand ?"
In 2000, after the movie The Hurricane came out starring Denzel Washington about Rubin Carter, [Federal Dist Court Judge] Sarokin told the Newark Star-Ledger in an article that appeared on February 10, 2000, that "a]fter reviewing the record [in 1985], I had my doubts that Carter and [co-defendant John] Artis were guilty. That's been confirmed by my appearances with Carter. If he is guilty, he's the greatest actor in the world and should win an Academy Award, not Denzel Washington," Sarokin told the paper.
"Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise
While Rubin sits like Buddha in a ten-foot cell
An innocent man in a living hell."
A magnificent song.
Noble, Mr. Dylan, noble.
He was a jerk. Probably was guilty. Sickening how that movie made him into a saint.
Prosecutorial misconduct is bad enough. No need to lie to us about the defendant.
He was completely guilty. Burn in hell, loser.
Oh, while Carter probably had a comically low I.Q. score, Dylan surely doesn't. There's no excuse for him.
Peter
Hurricanes come and go
Justice is blind
Folk stars rock
The film's in the can
And the winner is…
Death
The issue is not capital punishment. The problem is enforcing uniform standards to justify its use.
Guilty as sin and free as a bird.
Great Dylan song, only slightly tainted by the fact that Bob's research skills failed him badly this time- Hurricane Carter was very likely guilty of the murders. http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/song.html
Not knowing or caring much, but I thought it was settled that he was guilty. Boy that's a lot of trials.
Prosecutors need to not be guilty too. The courts found prosecutorial misconduct, not innocence. Get it right. Those are the people you should be angry at for taking our money (tax money) and disserving us.
Dylan was wrong about William Zantzinger too. Probably wrong about everything: The Girl From North Country, John Wesley Harding, Isis, Hollis Brown... the lot. It's what they call folksinging. You're not supposed to believe it. Not factually anyway.
It was a great song and really showcased Dylan's ability to write punchy lyrics. It also appears that he was wrong on his facts and that Carter was, in fact guilty.
I didn't realize Dylan got Zimmerman wrong. I bought the story of Zimmerman as the virulent racist. It just goes to show you the power of propaganda. And it makes you wonder about any time the left brings forward a case that shows the inequity of the sytstem. It turns out the story that they are pushing is the bogus one.
From Zimmerman, to Carter, to the Rosenbergs to Trayvon martin. The story being pushed is not the truth, but "facts" to push an agenda.
Here's my version of Dylan doing Trayvon Martin:
The Lonesome Death of Trayvon Martin:
George Zimmerman killed poor Trayvon Martin
with a registered gun that he pulled from his holster
at a gated community he was neighborhood watchin'
And George called the cops called but he ignored their warnin'
and stalked poor Trayvon for wearin' his hoodie
and walkin while black and carryin' his skittles
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Take the rag away from your face
Now ain't the time for your tears.
"You're not supposed to believe it. Not factually anyway."
Dylan certainly wanted us to factually believe it. Else he wouldn't have headlined concerts to get him acquitted.
Ray Lewis drove away from two dead bodies. These men, as worthy in their way as Trayvon Martin, died unmourned and unavenged. What are the odds that some folk singer will write a sad ballad about these two needless deaths, and the millionaire who drove away in his limo after heir murder.......Zantzinger got manslaughter. Jayson Williams only got criminally negligent homicide.......The world is full of injustice but some injustices are more unjust than others.
jr565:
Writing 'Zimmerman' for 'Zantziger': hilarious.
Sorry I got my virulent racists wrong. "I didn't realize Dylan got Zimmerman wrong. I bought the story of Zimmerman as the virulent racist" should have been "I didn't realize Dylan got Zanzinger wrong. I bought the story of Zanzinger as the virulent racist.
When it comes to virulent racists though, does it matter? Just replace one name with another.
EDH and Ironrails (above) both link to the same website that purports to prove that Carter was indeed guilty.
The info on that website is thin, almost all of it dealing with issues unrelated to guilty or innocence, and none of the info at that website would be sufficient to send a man to prison.
Maybe Carter did do it, but, EDH and iron rails, you've got to put forward far more than you have to be convincing.
The NYT headline online says "Hurricane Carter, Exonerated Boxer, Is Dead." Query, if someone has his conviction overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct, has he been exonerated? I think that word is more properly limited to those who have been proven not to be guilty of a crime, as for example by DNA evidence.
Similarly, at the time Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hillary Clinton had known she was making false statements about Travelgate, Clinton surrogates said she'd been exonerated. Not by a longshot, I thought then.
Funny, how that word keeps creeping in, when people want so badly to believe it.
Interesting.I thought jr565 wrote 'Zimmerman' for 'Zantziger' because Bob Dylan's real name is Zimmerman, and found that hilarious.
It appears that he is now calling Robert Zimmerman-Dylan or (more likely) George Zimmerman a 'virulent racist'. If so, he's either a liar or a damned fool. Not hilarious, just pathetic.
His written opinion aside, the Feb 2000 quote of Judge Sarokin, who sprung Carter, sure sounds like he had concluded that Carter was not guilty.
"...[a]fter reviewing the record [in 1985], I had my doubts that Carter and [co-defendant John] Artis were guilty. That's been confirmed by my appearances with Carter. If he is guilty, he's the greatest actor in the world and should win an Academy Award, not Denzel Washington," Sarokin told the paper."
And Judge Sarokin's allegations of misconduct seem far from ironclad.
In November 1985 Judge H. Lee Sarokin ruled that the second murder trial convictions were unconstitutional because the prosecution had been allowed to imply that guilt could be inferred by the defendants' race and because the prosecution withheld Polygraph evidence that could have been used to impeach the credibility of their "star witness" (Carter v. Rafferty, 621 F. Supp. 533 [D.N.J. 1985]). Judge Sarokin therefore granted habeas corpus, overturned the convictions, and ordered "Immediate release from custody with prejudice."
NYT, 1987:
Judge Sarokin ruled that the prosecution at a 1976 trial had violated the constitutional rights of Mr. Carter and Mr. Artis through a racially biased summation in which he said that the defendants, who are black, fatally shot three whites for racial revenge in the bar. Judge Sarokin also found that the prosecution had misrepresented evidence about the results of a lie-detector test that could have impeached the sole witness who had placed Mr. Carter and Mr. Artis at the murder scene.
The prosecution, in its appeal to restore the murder convictions, made these contentions:
* Prosecutors had legal grounds to cite a motive of racial revenge for the slayings of white people in a bar, because of a slaying earlier that evening of a black bar owner who was the stepfather of a friend of Mr. Carter.
* Mr. Carter and Mr. Artis were stopped shortly after the murders in a car that, two witnesses said, was identical to the getaway car used by the killers. Moreover, a shotgun shell and bullet found in the car were similar to ammunition used in the slayings.
* No evidence favorable to the defense was withheld about the lie-detector test, given to Alfred P. Bello, the sole witness who placed Mr. Carter and Mr. Artis at the crime scene.
* Three witnesses who provided alibis for Mr. Carter in 1967 testified at the second trial that they had lied at the first trial to help Mr. Carter.
The brief by the Acting Prosecutor, John P. Goceljak, and his chief assistant, Ronald G. Marmo, emphasized that the State Supreme Court had upheld the convictions, 4 to 3.
In rebuttal, the defense brief made these contentions:
* The prosecution withheld the results of the lie-detector test that would have proved Mr. Bello was lying when he identified Mr. Carter and Mr. Artis.
* Mr. Carter and Mr. Artis did not fit witnesses' descriptions of the gunmen.
* Witnesses disagreed as to whether Mr. Carter's car resembled the one used by the gunmen. And the ammunition found in the car may have been planted by the police, because the rounds were not logged with the property clerk until five days after the murders.
Maybe Carter did do it, but, EDH and iron rails, you've got to put forward far more than you have to be convincing.
They were convicted by a jury. Twice. And let go by one judge. Once.
Keep in mind that the judge who granted the writ was Lee Sarokin
"Willie Hortonize"?
In 1985, Sarokin famously overturned the 1967 triple murder conviction of middleweight boxer Rubin Carter. Sarokin had ruled that Carter had not received a fair trial.
In 1988, Sarokin presided over a landmark cigarette liability lawsuit that resulted in a $400,000 payment to the estate of Rose Cipollone, who died in 1984 after smoking for 40 years. Although the case was reversed on appeal, it was the first cash award ever in a case involving a death from smoking.
In 1991, Sarokin ruled that a homeless man could not be barred from a public library in Morristown, New Jersey because of his odor. That order eventually was overturned.
On May 5, 1994, President Clinton nominated Sarokin to a newly created seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On October 4, 1994, the U.S. Senate voted 63-35 to confirm Sarokin to the seat on the Third Circuit.
In early 1996, Sarokin sought to retire and assume senior status, which means a reduced caseload. As part of shifting to senior status, Sarokin asked to move his chambers from New Jersey to California to be closer to his children. On April 24, 1996, an 11-member council of the Third Circuit denied Sarokin's request, citing federal guidelines relating to judicial office space.
In a speech in April 1996, presidential candidate Bob Dole cited Sarokin as one of six federal appellate and district judges that Clinton had appointed to the federal courts that Dole had deemed to be liberal activist judges. The others were Harold Baer, Jr., Rosemary Barkett, M. Blane Michael, Leonie Brinkema and Raymond A. Jackson.[9]
On June 5, 1996, Sarokin announced that he would resign outright from the Third Circuit, effective July 31, 1996. Sarokin cited his fear that his opinions from the bench might be used politically. "It is apparent that there are those who have decided to 'Willie Hortonize' the Federal judiciary, and that I am to be one of their prime targets," he wrote in a letter to President Clinton. "In the current political campaign, enforcement of constitutional rights is equated with being soft on crime and indeed, even causing it."
In a separate letter to colleagues, Sarokin denied that his decision to retire had had anything to do with the court's decision not to allow him to move his chambers to California.
"Prosecutors need to not be guilty too. The courts found prosecutorial misconduct, not innocence. Get it right. Those are the people you should be angry at for taking our money (tax money) and disserving us."
Of course. But Dylan and Hollywood would have us believe Hurricane was an innocent man railroaded by a racist system. A victim. A noble, peaceful man shoes only crime was being a successful black man in America.
In truth, Hurricane was a violent criminal who was probably guilty of the triple murder. We should be angry at the prosecutors for screwing up the case, but Dylan and Hollywood have done an even greater disservice by perpetuating myths and lying to make a buck.
Three men that were tied to events in the 60s died the other day.
Naturally, the liberal and progressive jewish run media featured the guilty black thug, Carter, in coverage...
The other two were John Doubolt and Hobie Alter.
Doubolt was the engineer that "solved" the moon landing. When the Eagle landed, Werner von Braun turned at that moment and said "thanks, John."
Hobie Alter invented the modern surfboard, invented to Hobie Cat, and helped popularize skateboarding in it's 1st fad period in the mid-60s.
It's what they call folksinging.
Cool! Let me try one:
Here comes the story of Tricky Dick,
The man the Democrats tried to kick
Around for what he never done.
Hounded out of office, but one time,
He was the leader of the Free World.
Dr Weevil,
I'd take credit for the joke,but I honestly didnt even think consciously about Dylan being a Zimmerman himself. But maybe did so subconsciously. I was thinking of George Zimmerman and not Robert Zimmerman.
Dr Weevil wrote;:
It appears that he is now calling Robert Zimmerman-Dylan or (more likely) George Zimmerman a 'virulent racist'. If so, he's either a liar or a damned fool. Not hilarious, just pathetic.
I never said that it was my characterization that George Zimmerman was a virulent racist. That was the call of those trying to lynch him by trumping up bogus facts about him.
The link posted by Althouse about Zanziger that suggested he wasn't in fact like the guy in the song got me thinking about the Trayvon Martin case and how George Zimmerman himself was deemed a virulent racist.
So, echoing the left I figured that if I got the names wrong it didn't ultimately matter since both are virulent racists to de demagogued based on a lie.
In that case, I withdraw my objection, though you could have been a lot clearer.
@ St. George:
Here is a much more detailed outline of the case against Carter.
Peter
"In truth, Hurricane was a violent criminal who was probably guilty of the triple murder."
Who do you think he was, Aaron Hernandez? Who is, of course, another white hispanic.
The fairness of Carter's trial was tainted by the actions of the state. The representatives of the state were prosecutors subject to legal and ethical obligations which they failed to meet.
This kind of activity by government prosecutors is far too common. Prosecutors who engage in it are rarely punished. Instead the public is punished by having the result of the trial voided. But voiding the result is completely appropriate. There should be no exception for "harmless error" where the integrity of the government has been compromised.
I do not see how one can claim to be a pro liberty conservative or a principled opponent of government excess while making exceptions for lawless prosecutions of defendants they find unsavory. That's a contradiction of every principle a conservative professes to believe in.
Carter was never convicted in a lawful trial. That is the bottom line. That does not make him my hero, but it does make me feel better about our legal system.
I disagree with David when he writes: "But voiding the result is completely appropriate". The exclusionary rule has always bothered me, because it seems to say that two wrongs make a right. No, they don't. As David notes: "Prosecutors who engage in [misconduct] are rarely punished. Instead the public is punished by having the result of the trial voided." And that is precisely what is wrong with the exclusionary rule.
It seems to me that when a criminal is clearly guilty and the prosecution misbehaves, the crime should be punished, and so should the misbehavior (which may of course be a crime or just a mistake). Letting a killer go free is, to put it bluntly, shameful and wrong. And a crooked or incompetent policeman or prosecutor should be actually punished, not just embarrassed by having his case thrown out. Whether the LEO should have his pay docked, be demoted, be fired, be jailed, or be executed depends on the level of misconduct in each case. But even having to work for free for a week or two would provide far more incentive for future good behavior (his own and his colleagues') than mere embarrassment.
The only case where police or prosecutor misconduct should cancel the punishment is when the misconduct is worse than the punishment for the crime would have been. For example, if the police beat someone whose crime was driving 65 in a 55 zone, yes, of course, set the driver free, prosecute the policemen, and make them pay the driver X% of their gross pay for the next Y years, since beating is far out of line with any reasonable punishment for speeding.
I still recall a case in Baltimore around 30 years ago where a man killed his girlfriend's infant by dropping it in the trash chute on the 14th floor of a high rise. He went free because the police interrogated him for 24.5 hours, and the legal limit was 24. It seems to me that he and the policemen should both have been punished: he by a lengthy jail term and they by substantial fines. Instead neither was punished. Where is the justice in that?
From what I've read here there seems to be a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. But also from what I've read here there seems to be reasonable grounds, other than rabid racism, to charge Carter with the crime........I've read about the Hiss case. A NY Times reporter wrote a book about it. In her book she claimed that not only were the Pumpkin Papers forged but that the FBI also forged the typewriter on which they were typed......In the Sacco Vanzetti case, a ballistics test became available some years after the men were executed. The evidence showed that the gun in Sacco's possession was the gun used in the murder. Sacco's defenders claimed that the DA had simply switched the evidentiary bullets.....The left postulates not just a saintly level of innocence in their heroes but a diabolical level of evil in their opponents.
"Dylan was wrong about William Zantzinger too. Probably wrong about everything: The Girl From North Country, John Wesley Harding, Isis, Hollis Brown... the lot. It's what they call folksinging. You're not supposed to believe it. Not factually anyway. "
May as well mention that poor soul George Jackson, gunned down in his prime by " the man".
I have no idea about this case beyond the song, but I always just assumed there was a lot more to it than the song included, and have always figured he was probably guilty, not that I would vote that way on a jury without a lot more evidence than that liberals are usually wrong.
Look at this line:
"Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise"
So, 'come the revolution', we are going to retroactively declare business practices seen as normal and acceptable 'criminal' and try these people for crimes? Or is he talking about actual criminals violating, you know, the law, not liberal morality, in which case there are all kinds of criminal enjoying freedom and the fruit of their crimes and it makes you wonder what the point is.
There's an article at the lefty-leaning Daily Beast by Michael Moynihan titled ‘Hurricane’ Carter Was Wrongly Convicted, But He Wasn’t Innocent. It goes into pretty deep detail about the facts of the case, as well as noting that Dylan hasn't performed the song live since a 1976 benefit concert for Carter.
Post a Comment