Rubin Carter, Wrongfully Convicted?

Taft2016

Verified User
The headlines are screaming about the late Rubin Carter being "wrongfully convicted."

Is that so? He was convicted twice, and although overturned he could have been tried a 3rd time. But 22 years had passed and witnesses were in the wind.

Is "wrongfully convicted" the correct term to use? He certainly was never declared "innocent."
 
The headlines are screaming about the late Rubin Carter being "wrongfully convicted."

Is that so? He was convicted twice, and although overturned he could have been tried a 3rd time. But 22 years had passed and witnesses were in the wind.

Is "wrongfully convicted" the correct term to use? He certainly was never declared "innocent."

can you stipulate why there was a 2nd trial and why the conviction was overturned?
 
The 2nd trial was called for due to alleged witness recantations, which the second trial proved to be unfounded.

Ultimately, a federal judge said that the prosecution had been "predicated upon an appeal to racism rather than reason."

Which is just the same kind of libspeak that allowed O.J. Simpson to walk.
 
Last edited:
Bob Dylan said he was wrongly tried. Isn't that enough proof that he was as pure as snow?

And basically every argument in that song was exploded in the second trial.

I read an essay several years back when the movie came out. It was written, IIRC, by his sister-in-law. She went on and on about how Rubin went through his whole life projecting guilt for his own actions onto others.

It started in his youth, when he was arrested for assault, and bent the story into one about how his victim was a pedophile.

When he lost a decision in his middleweight title fight against Joey Giardello, it was due to racism. Forget the fact that in his career Giardello had lost numerous decisions to black fighters. Supposedly, the boxing judges only became swayed by racism when Rubin was involved. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The 2nd trial was called for due to alleged witness recantations, which the second trial proved to be unfounded.

Ultimately, a federal judge said that the prosecution had been "predicated upon an appeal to racism rather than reason."


Which is just the same kind of libspeak that allowed O.J. Simpson to walk.
maybe I missed an article out there that explains this further because this doesn't make much sense, especially considering that the difference between this case and the simpson case is that a jury acquitted simpson and a judge overturned a conviction in the carter case.
 
Any doubts about Carter's guilt can be cleared up here:

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/

What you may not realize is that Rubin Carter has NEVER been declared innocent or otherwise exonerated by the courts. Carter was set free because of two alleged procedural errors, NOT because of new evidence. Those alleged errors were cited by a single judge who heard no witnesses and issued an error-filled opinion that demonstrated his very poor grasp of the facts. The judge claimed the prosecution had appealed to "racism over reason" -- which makes no sense because the 1976 jury that convicted Carter included two blacks! That lone judge threw out the work of scores of police and prosecutors who, to this day, believe Rubin Carter is a triple murderer. So do I. -- Cal Deal
 
Three years later, Carter's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. In 1985, Judge Haddon 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.

so it sounds to me that the prosecution initially concealed some relevant portions of evidence, but they could have tried him a third time and declined to do so, apparently because they would not be able to get a conviction this time around.
 
Back
Top