rubin+carter+hurricane


 * RUBIN "HURRICANE" CARTER **
 * **STORY CHAPTER LINKS ** chapter links ||


 * [|**1. STORY PREFACE**] ||


 * [|**2. LIFE IN PATERSON**] ||


 * [|**3. THE MURDERS**] ||


 * [|**4. CARTER IS QUESTIONED**] ||


 * [|**5. THE DEAL OF A LIFETIME**] ||


 * [|**6. A NEW TRIAL**] ||


 * [|**7. MORE LIES**] ||


 * [|**8.DO LIES MATTER?**] ||


 * [|**9. YES! THEY DO MATTER**] ||


 * [|**10. THE "GREAT WRIT" OF HABEAS CORPUS**] ||


 * [|**11. FREE AT LAST**] ||


 * [|**12. WE WANT JUSTICE, NOT COMPASSION**] ||


 * [|**13. DON'T DO IT**] ||


 * [|**14. NOW WHAT?**] ||


 * [|**15. USED AND RECOMMENDED SOURCES**] ||

**__/CHAPTER 1 __** It was a summer of racial tension - the year after **Watts** and the year before white police officers beat up a black cab driver, sparking the **Newark Rebellion** of 1967. Whites thought "Bobby" was the next President; blacks thought "Martin" was their champion. No one could have predicted in two years they would both be dead - killed by assassins' bullets. It was 1966. "Hippies" were flocking to California; "The Hurricane" was a contender for the World Middleweight Title. At the time, no one would have believed that a group of white hippies and a black boxing genius had anything in common. But 20 years of fighting a losing battle inside an unfamiliar ring makes even the strongest person ask for help. And when a man needs help, sometimes it comes from the most unlikely people and places. **Paterson, New Jersey** - America's first planned **industrial** city - was about to become known around the world. The city founded by Alexander Hamilton was in a state of decline. When the textile industries moved out, so did the jobs. But Rubin Carter, a 29-year-old African American, returned to his hometown after a stint in the Army - and a stint in reform school. Nicknamed "Hurricane" because of the gale-force way he threw punches - about 80 a minute - Carter had turned his life around. Although he had lost the title bout to **Joey Giardello** in 1964, Hurricane had a string of impressive **wins**. Some folks said he was the most feared fighter of his day. On June 17, 1966, he was the number one contender, preparing for another title fight - this time with **Dick Tiger**. The police in Carter's hometown were mostly white males, just like in most American cities in the mid-60s. Later, a prosecutor would discuss and would acknowledge At the time, and later, some folks thought a case could be made that a few of those non-law-abiding citizens were members of the law-enforcing community.
 * CHAPTER 2 - LIFE IN PATERSON **
 * //...the depth of racial antipathy that existed in Paterson in June, 1966... //**
 * //...we know that in 1966 there were many blacks with legitimate grievances and some blacks and some whites did not act as law-abiding citizens. //**

**<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 3 - THE MURDERS **

**James Oliver**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> was a white bartender who worked in Paterson at the **Lafayette Bar & Grill**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> during the summer of 1966. It was said by some that - on occasion - he refused to serve black patrons. Oliver was on duty during the early morning hours of June 17th. At about 2:30 a.m., two armed men came into the **Lafayette Bar**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> and opened fire. Oliver and one customer were killed instantly. Two other patrons - Hazel Tanis and William Marins - were seriously injured. Awakened by the shooting, a tenant who lived above the bar - Patty Valentine - ran to her window. She saw two men leave the scene in a white car. At about the same time <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Bello's exact location - and what he said about it - would become a huge point of contention for the next twenty years. Within minutes, police arrived at the Lafayette Bar. They took statements from Marins (who was also questioned at the hospital), Valentine and Bello. No one **said**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> they had seen Hurricane Carter, one of Paterson's most well-known citizens, at the scene. A police bulletin radioed officers to be on the lookout for a white car with two black men inside.
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Alfred Bello and Arthur Bradley were breaking into a nearby factory. Bello, who was standing lookout, was either in or outside the bar... //**


 * <span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 4 - CARTER IS QUESTIONED **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Four minutes after the shooting - and before he heard the all-points bulletin - a Paterson police officer was chasing a speeding white car which was leaving town. The car got away. As he returned to Paterson, the same officer heard the radio bulletin and stopped another white car, leased by Rubin Carter, about 14 blocks away from the Lafayette Bar. Carter was in the back; John Artis, a 19-year-old college-bound scholarship-student, was driving; John Royster was in the front. The officer recognized Carter who said he and his friends had been at a local club and were going to his home for some money. Artis (who had never been in trouble with the law) had not been speeding and the officer did not see any weapons. Since the bulletin had warned police to look for two - not three - black men in a white car, Carter and his friends were not detained. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">No one at the **crime scene**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> identified Carter and Artis as the killers. The police then took the pair to the hospital where Tanis (who died a month later) and Marins could also not identify them. There is some controversy about the lie detector test both men took. The results are now lost, but Carter's lawyer later asserted both men **passed it**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> while the prosecution seemed to say the results show the pair may not have committed the murders **themselves**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> but probably knew who did. Carter and Artis were released about 7 p.m. on June 17th. They were not charged at that time. **<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 5 - THE DEAL OF A LIFETIME ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Sometime between July and October of 1966, Bello and Bradley made a great deal with the government’s lawyers. In exchange for identifying Carter and Artis as the two men at the scene of the Lafayette killings, both were told they would get leniency for all their pending criminal charges. Bello was also told he would get help to claim the $10,000 reward that had been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the Lafayette Bar killers. Carter and Artis were arrested on October 14, 1966. They were charged with three counts of first-degree murder after Bello signed a statement, the same day, claiming he saw the pair outside the bar right after the shootings. At the trial, Bello testified that he had seen Carter and Artis at the scene. When he saw them, Bellow said, he was personally on the street, outside the bar. His testimony was key to the deliberations of an all-white jury. Both men were found **guilty**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> (scroll down 10%, to page 7 of this PDF link, to read the government's view of the facts) of murder in the first degree. Although the prosecutors had asked for the death penalty, the jury recommended mercy. Carter and Artis each received three lifetime sentences which were upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Less than two months after the trial, racial tensions erupted into massive riots in Newark. The governor called in State troopers and the New Jersey National Guard to restore order. Governor Hughes said: <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">The governor called in State troopers and the New Jersey National Guard to restore order. Most of the called-up men were white. Meanwhile, prosecutors made good on their promises to Bello and Bradley. As the federal court noted in a later opinion: <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Once he was no longer benefitting from government hand-outs, Bello told a different story - one more consistent with his first police discussions. One that would exonerate Carter and Artis. **<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 6 - A NEW TRIAL ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Carter was also telling a story - his story - in a new book published by Viking Press. //The 16th Round//, reciting the facts from Carter's perspective, attracted significant attention. Even Bob Dylan was intrigued by the story and agreed to meet with Carter. Dylan left the meeting convinced Carter was **innocent**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> (scroll down about 1/3 to read Dylan's comments) and told the world what he thought in his song, " **Hurricane**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">," which was released as a single in 1974 and on an album, //Desire//, in early 1975. One of the verses really castigated Bello and Bradley: **//<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Now all the criminals in their coats and 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. //** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Just before //The 16th Round// was published, "the criminals in their coats and ties" (as Dylan called them) recanted their trial testimony. They told a //NY Times// reporter that Paterson police had pressured them into lying. Based on this dramatic development, lawyers for Carter and Artis filed a motion for a new trial. The trial judge denied that request. It took the New Jersey Supreme Court to overturn the convictions and order a new trial. Their reasoning? <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">This time lawyers for Carter and Artis were ready to pounce on Bello. Except that, once again, Bello changed his story.
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Fifteen minutes later, Carter's car was observed outside the La Petite Bar about 10 blocks west of the Lafayette. About five minutes later, the car was sighted for a third time, with only Carter and Artis in the vehicle. This time the police escorted the car and its occupants to the crime scene. //**
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">This is a criminal insurrection by people who say they hate the white man but who really hate America. //**
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">His //**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> [Bello's] **//motivation was crystalized when, shortly after the trial, police officers and others tried to help him obtain a $10,000 reward offered to persons providing information that led to the arrest and conviction of the Lafayette Bar killers...Bello continued to rely upon police to intercede on his behalf with the courts until he was finally told, in 1974, that nothing more would be done for him.//**
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">The court determined that the prosecution had withheld certain evidence from the defense. Such evidence indicated that prosecutors had offered the key identification witnesses both protection of their persons and assistance with criminal charges that were then pending or contemplated against them. The case was remanded to the trial court where, after numerous motions and hearings, the retrial began on October 12, 1976. //**

**<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 7 - MORE LIES **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Before the second trial started, even the government's lawyers were concerned about Bello's testimony. They asked him to take a lie-detector test administered by a noted professor. Bello agreed, but the results were not what the prosecutors wanted to hear. At the first trial, Bello told the jury he had been on the street, outside the bar, at the time of the shooting. Without knowing about that testimony, the professor administered the polygraph and concluded that Bello was telling the truth when he said he was inside the bar at the time of the shooting. Whoops! That's not what the prosecutors wanted to hear! Such a major inconsistency, regarding his claimed eyewitness location, would help the defense lawyers crush the government's star witness. The government's lead investigator told the professor the results of the polygraph were impossible. During several oral conversations, the professor refused to back down. He insisted Bello was telling the truth when he said he was inside the bar. Finally, giving in to pressure from the government (and failing to provide all crucial details), the professor wrote a report merely summarizing what he believed were the polygraph results: <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">In short, the **professor**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> believed Bello was telling the truth because he didn't know about Bello's testimony at the first trial. If Bello had, in fact, testified as the professor assumed - that Bello was //inside// the bar and not //on the street// at the time of the shooting - the professor would have been right. As they prepared Bello to testify at the second trial, the prosecutors were able to get Bello to "recant his recantation" by using the professor's report. Instead of giving defense lawyers //all// of the information about Bello's polygraph, which the law required them to do, the prosecutors only provided the summary report. During the new trial, Bello testified he saw the defendants while he was on the street - just like he did seven years before during the first trial. Cross examination by the defense lawyers - pointing out multiple and conflicting versions of his story - could not shake him. Bello thought his lie detector results supported him. He was wrong, but only the prosecutors knew that. The jury found Carter and Artis guilty of murder in the first degree. Their life sentences were reinstated.
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">After careful analysis of //**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> [Bello's] **//polygrams, it is the opinion of the examiner that [Bello's] 196[7] testimony at the trial was true, and the statement recanting his original statement is not true.//**

**<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 8 - DO LIES MATTER? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">When the defense lawyers found out about the polygraph issues, they filed motions for a new trial. The trial judge denied the motion, but the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the lower court to conduct a hearing on the polygraph issues. After a fifteen-day hearing, the judge ruled against Carter and Artis on all issues. When the defense lawyers appealed the judge's rulings on the polygraph issue, for the first time it seemed as though things might work out for the defendants. In 1981, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously decided the government had committed a **Brady** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">violation. (Scroll down about 40% for a brief discussion on the Brady Rule.) By withholding crucial evidence about the polygraph results - in the face of an absolute requirement to disclose all details - prosecutors faced the possibility that both murder convictions could be overturned. Instead, in a 4-3 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court said Carter and Artis had failed to show the polygraph evidence would "have been material to the outcome" of the case. The high court did not order a new trial, and Rubin Carter was destined to spend the rest of his life in prison. John Artis, meanwhile, had been released on parole. Rubin Hurricane Carter had exhausted all his appeals - or so he thought. He believed he would never get out. Depressed, he told his wife never to see him again. Since all avenues of relief were exhausted, he would spend the rest of his life in prison. But Rubin's life was about to take an unexpected turn. A group of nine former Toronto hippies, and a young man from a Brooklyn ghetto, were reading //The 16th Round//. They discussed Rubin Carter's plea for help: <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Like many others, they were convinced Carter and Artis were innocent. Unlike all others, three of the Canadians were willing to move to Paterson. They wanted to do something about exposing the lies on which they believed Carter's conviction rested.
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">I come to you in the only manner left open to me. I've tried the courts, exhausted my life's earnings, and tortured my two loved ones with little grains and tidbits of hope that may never materialize. Now the only chance I have is in appealing directly to you, the people, and showing you the wrongs that have yet to be righted...the injustice that has been done to me. For the first time in my entire existence I'm saying that I need some help. //**
 * <span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 9 - YES! THEY DO MATTER **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">In September 1980, about six years after Viking had published //The 16th Round//, Lesra (" **Lazarus**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">") Martin was enjoying his new life in Toronto. The year before, the young man from the Bushwick section of Brooklyn had met a group of former Canadian hippies, now Toronto entrepreneurs, who happened to be testing a new product in the Environmental Protection Lab where Lesra had a summer job. Believing that Lesra had tremendous promise, and concerned he would not fulfill his potential in Brooklyn, the Canadians convinced Lesra's father to let the boy live with them in Toronto. Life was going well for Lesra. He was actualizing his potential, and his appetite for reading was increasing. At a Toronto book fair, Lesra spotted **//The 16th Round//**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> which he bought for $1. As he read the book, Lesra was mesmerized. He identified with Rubin Carter. He began to read passages of //The 16th Round// out loud. His Canadian "family" became immersed in the book as well. By its end, all believed Carter was innocent. Checking out what had happened to Carter during the ensuing years, the Canadians learned all about Bello, the alleged lies and the new trial. Lesra wrote to Rubin and was surprised when the once-famous boxer responded. Sam Chaiton, the son of Holocaust survivors from Bergen-Belsen; Terry Swinton and his sister Kathy, children of a wealthy Toronto businessman; and Lisa Peters, a student and the divorced mother of a young son, believed they and their friends could do something to make a difference in Carter's life. Still embracing the ideals they had as young adults, Chaiton, Terry Swinton and Peters met with Rubin Carter in 1981. The blocked road to Carter's freedom opened a little that day. Lesra had already met with Carter during the 1980 Christmas holidays. But meeting Rubin Carter was no easy matter for a young boy from Brooklyn. Carter was at Trenton Prison, the place where Richard Bruno Hauptmann had been executed for allegedly kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Visitors at Trenton met with inmates in the abandoned cells of death row, next to the execution chamber.

**<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 10 - THE "//GREAT WRIT" OF HABEAS CORPUS// ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">By the fall of 1983, the Canadians decided to sell their large home in Toronto. Three of them - Chaiton, Peters and Terry Swinton - would move to New Jersey to assist Carter's lawyers. The others would move into a smaller home with Lesra who, by this time, was a straight-A high school graduate headed for the University of Toronto. If Carter had exhausted all his appeals, what was left for so many people and lawyers to do? Leon Friedman, a renowned constitutional scholar, was assisting Myron Beldock and Lewis Steel, lawyers for Carter and Artis, in their efforts to file a //Petition for Writ of// **//Habeas Corpus//**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">. The case would be a civil suit filed against the person having custody over Rubin Carter - John Rafferty, Superintendent of **Rahway State Prison** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">- where Carter had been transferred. It was a last-ditch effort to get the Federal District Court to order Rafferty to release Rubin Carter. Why? Because //habeas corpus// allows the federal court to determine whether a prisoner is being wrongfully detained. The //"Great Writ" of Habeas Corpus// is the only instrument with which the federal judiciary can correct perceived abuses of the Bill of Rights at the state-court level. Such petitions require enormous work. It is often the last protection an innocent prisoner has against wrongful imprisonment. A petition is filed in a different court - a federal court if there is a violation of the U.S. Constitution - and the evidence of violation must be significant. It is not just another way to appeal a lost case. The object is to get an order which requires the official who "has the body" (//habeas corpus//) to release the prisoner. If //habeas corpus// fails, the prisoner usually has no other alternatives. The three Canadians spent nearly two years looking for evidence and witnesses. Their efforts were invaluable. By 1985, the //Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus// was ready. Carter would have one last chance to see whether Bello's alleged perjured testimony and the suppressed polygraph evidence made a material difference to the outcome of his second trial

**<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 11 - FREE AT LAST! ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">U.S. District Court **Judge H. Lee Sarokin**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> was assigned Carter's //Habeas Corpus// case. His lengthy **decision**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> on November 7, 1985 was in favor of Carter and Artis. Judge Sarokin quoted extensively from the New Jersey Supreme Court dissenting opinion wherein three of seven judges found the suppressed polygraph evidence //would// have made a material difference in the outcome of Carter's second trial. Sarokin also made the point that <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Judge Sarokin knew the respected Third Circuit Court of Appeals - and possibly the United States Supreme Court - would review his actions. He also knew it was possible the higher courts would find he abused his discretion, but he did what he believed was right. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Prosecutors filed an Appeal with the Third Circuit. The government also asked the court for an order directing the prison superintendent to keep Carter in prison until the appeal was decided. The reason? Carter was a dangerous man. The court disagreed, and Carter remained free while the judges decided the state's appeal. The unanimous result could not have been more favorable for Carter. Here is part of what the Third Circuit judges **said**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> in their Opinion: <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">The Third Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the overturned conviction, and Carter remained a free man. Although the State of New Jersey appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, the high court did not change the outcome. The final fight ended when prosecutors did not seek a third trial. A most astonishing event occurred on February 19, 1988. The prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss the original indictments brought against Carter and Artis in 1966. After a 22-year process, all charges were dropped despite the compelling **evidence**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> prosecutors had against Carter and despite the fact no appellate court had found him innocent! The //Great Writ of Habeas Corpus// had helped Carter and Artis - as it has helped so many **people**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> for centuries. As Carter later **said**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">: <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">But if that same petition were filed today, Rubin Carter would still be in prison.
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">In fact, //****//Bello//****//<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> never identified Carter and Artis as the murderers. //**
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Immediate release from custody [he set Carter free] with prejudice //**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> [meaning the case is over forever] **//is rarely awarded, and when it is, the appellate courts may find abuse of discretion//**
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">...[U]nder any reasonable characterization of the 1976 trial, the critical importance of Bello's testimony to the prosecution's case clearly looms large and commanding. Bello's eyewitness identification testimony was the only direct evidence placing Carter and Artis at the Lafayette Bar & Grill. Bello's credibility, as well as his opportunity and ability to observe the gunmen at the crime scene, has to be considered an issue that is crucial to the guilt-finding process. We are not confronted by a situation in which the suppressed evidence - here, information impeaching Bello's credibility and challenging his professed vantage point - was of only 'minor importance.' Justice Clifford noted in dissent, and we agree, that a complete account of Harrelson's //**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> [the professor's] **//polygraph examinations and the prosecution's use of his conflicting oral and written conclusions had the real capacity...to bring about the utter destruction of by far the most important witness in the State's arsenal, with the fallout levelling the vaunted polygraphists and casting doubt on the tactics of the prosecution. Never before//** [this information was uncovered] **//could defendants argue so persuasively that Bello was in all respects a complete, unvarnished liar, utterly incapable of speaking the truth.//**
 * //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Habeas corpus isn't just a quaint Latin phrase, it was the key to my freedom. //**

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">During the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, and after Judge Sarokin had himself been **appointed** to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Congress passed a law that was tough on terrorists. No one would disagree with the wisdom of such a law. But the new law also contained a provision which greatly diminished an American's right to //habeas corpus//. Previously, Congress had defeated the provision every time it had been attempted by death-penalty proponents. This time - with this Bill - lawmakers who wanted to greatly restrict the constitutional right of people to challenge their convictions knew they were looking at a political coup. If they included the oft-defeated //habeas corpus// restriction in this Bill, it would surely pass. Who in Congress would vote against a bill which is tough on terrorists? Recognizing the need to pass a law dealing harshly with terrorists, but wanting to protect the constitutional right of //habeas corpus//, the Senate considered an amendment to the proposed terrorist Bill which would accomplish both objectives. Senators wishing to seriously erode this basic, fundamental constitutional right had this to say: **// In hearing after hearing, and debate after debate, we have challenged opponents of reform to tell us of even one case in which Federal habeas corpus review resulted in an innocent man being set free. No case has been brought forward. Cases such as the Rubin Carter case, which our colleagues have mentioned, hardly make the case for allowing Federal review. In that case, this man who had been twice convicted of three murders and whose convictions had been repeatedly upheld on appeal was released by one of the most liberal judges on the Federal bench, Lee Sarokin, on a procedural question due to the composition of his jury...Frankly, we want courts that are concerned with justice, not compassion. In our opinion, to put it bluntly, States have been adept at applying the death penalty constitutionally and in full compliance with all Federal laws. And Federal judges have been just as adept at improperly applying the Constitution and Federal laws to overturn those decisions. //** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">It would have been helpful if Senators, wishing to diminish the right of //habeas corpus//, had their facts straight about Rubin Carter's release. But even when they heard the facts, their minds remained unchanged.
 * <span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 12 - "WE WANT JUSTICE NOT COMPASSION" **


 * <span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 13 - DON'T DO IT **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Senators who wanted to pass the terrorist bill - but also protect the rights of wrongly convicted, innocent people - tried to convince their colleagues to retain the power of Federal courts to insure that justice is done: **// In one real-life case, a man named Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was convicted after the police failed to tell the court that one witness who testified against Carter had first said that Carter was innocent. He changed his testimony after police falsely told him that a polygraph he had taken during his first statement showed that he had been lying. The State of New Jersey, which tried to stop Federal habeas review, argued that this fact would not have changed the outcome of the case. The Federal court disagreed, and wound up ruling that Carter had been improperly convicted. The State then decided that it would not seek a retrial, and Carter was released after 20 years in prison. If the "reasonable" test that is in this bill had been in effect, __THE FEDERAL COURT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER HURRICANE CARTER'S APPEAL, AND HE WOULD BE IN PRISON STILL__, as would numerous other prisoners who have been unjustly imprisoned. We are not arguing that police and prosecutorial misconduct is common; we are instead arguing that it does occur, and sometimes States refuse to provide proper redress. //** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">These arguments fell on deaf ears. Discussion on the amendment to protect the American right of //habeas corpus// was tabled. The Bill passed both houses of Congress and President Clinton signed it into law. If Hurricane Carter were to file his **appeal** today, he would lose. His case would never be heard by the court. It would be dismissed because he was too late. Follow this link to the **actual law** - the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 - and look at Title I. The United States Constitution had been amended without following proper procedures. Did anyone challenge the law? Was a Bill to amend the Antiterrorist Act filed?

**<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 14 - NOW WHAT? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Who has challenged this law? Who has said it is unconstitutional? Four former United States Attorneys General (two Republicans and two Democrats) sent a letter to President Clinton on December 8, 1995 - before the Bill became law - telling him that the Act violates the United States Constitution. The Bill became law anyway. Senator Moynihan introduced a bill (on January 19, 1999) to repeal the offending portions of the Act. Nothing happened, and the Bill "died in committee." In introducing his Bill, Senator Moynihan told the Senate: **// In 1996 we enacted a statute which holds that constitutional protections do not exist unless they have been unreasonably violated, an idea that would have confounded the framers. Thus, we have introduced a virus that will surely spread throughout our system of laws. //** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Has the Senate ignored this Bill for a reason? Do Moynihan's arguments make sense? Have innocent people really been harmed by this law? The following are more of Moynihan's concerns: **// Here we are trivializing this treasure //** [the right of //habeas corpus//], **//putting in jeopardy a tradition of protection of individual rights by Federal courts that goes back to our earliest foundation. And the virus will spread. Why are we in such a rush to amend our Constitution? Why do we tamper with provisions as profound to our traditions and liberty as habeas corpus?//** **// This is new. It is profoundly disturbing. It is terribly dangerous. If I may have the presumption to join in the judgment of four Attorneys General, Mr. Civiletti, Mr. Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, and Mr. Richardson...this matter is unconstitutional and should be repealed from law. //** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">It is sometimes easy to disregard things like //habeas corpus// because most Americans are law-abiding citizens who will never find themselves in trouble with the law. It's easy to think the "criminals" have it coming. But as the great Russian novelist Fydor Dostoevsky (reprieved, at the last possible moment, from **execution** by firing squad) once said: **// A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals. //** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Newspaper **articles** criticizing the law, like those attached to Moynihan's Bill, have had little effect on anyone in Washington. Perhaps the release of "**The Hurricane**" (despite its //many// factual flaws) will remind us that if one wrongly convicted person spends years in prison for a crime not commited, that is one person too many.
 * // The Federal courts do not complain. It may be that because we have enacted this, there will be some prisoners who are executed sooner than they otherwise would have been. You may take satisfaction in that or not, as you choose, but we have begun to weaken a tenet of justice at the very base of our liberties. The virus will spread.  //**

**<span style="color: #660000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">CHAPTER 15 - USED AND RECOMMENDED SOURCES ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">A "primary source" is the best place to get first-hand information. A person who experiences an event, and gives an account of it, is a source of primary information. Maps, photographs, drawings, videotapes, diaries, letters, manuscripts and other similar items can be primary sources. Someone who interprets primary sources - like a scholar, for example - is creating a secondary source. (See Yale University's web site for a good **understanding** of the differences between primary and secondary sources.) It is our policy to link to primary source material whenever possible. That is the reason most of our links are to worldwide national archives, museums, universities, military and government sites as well as other institutions like historical societies and libraries. It is our aim to provide a virtual trip to reliable places where primary sources are maintained. We frequently link to scholarly sources as well. All links serve as footnotes to our stories. Where helpful, we link to scholarly narratives that explain the subject, or issue, in more detail. Scholarly-narrative links - when we use them - usually appear near the end of our stories, when the reader is more prepared to explore them. Each recommended link, embedded in the story, takes you directly to the source of the footnoted information. If you would like to visit the main page of the linked site, or to further explore its content, eliminate everything in the URL after the ".edu, .gov, .org," etc., and then press "enter." That will take you to the main site where you can then search for whatever additional information you may need. We have thoroughly researched appropriate links. Wherever possible, people who really know the subject matter have reviewed the stories for accuracy. Our main objective is to help our visitors find their way to some of the best on-line information regarding the profiled subjects - and to have fun at the same time. We hope you have enjoyed your visit.