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.”

  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year 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.