Introduction
Freddie Pitts was a man that is the perfect example of how a person can plead guilty and be sentenced to prison for a crime that they did not commit. In 1963 two people were murdered while working at a gas station. Police suspected Freddie and his friend of the murder and stopped at nothing to get a confession. There was no evidence left behind when the gas station employees were murdered but the police officers investigating the case set their sights on two suspects and found there confession at the end of brutal tactics. The prosecution that continued with the charges allowed tainted evidence to be used against Pitts. The evidence was confessions that were gained through forceful physical treatment and one eyewitness statement that was not exactly something that could be trusted. Freddie and the other man that were accused were given the death sentence as a result of their conviction for a crime that they were innocent of. Only a few weeks passed since the sentencing when another man on death row admitted to the crime and still Freddie and his friend remained incarcerated until 1975 when he was finally released and pardoned. The case is said to have been handled poorly because it was two white people who were murdered and the two black men the police suspected were just a form of racial profiling (Innocence, 2016).
When Freddie and the other man pled guilty to this crime they still tried to prove their innocence and stated that they were not guilty. The guilty plea was only due to many mistreatments that the police officers used as a weapon to force a guilty plea. When the other man later confessed to the crime the one eye witness took back the statement against Freddie and the other man then the attorney general ruled that evidence was withheld during the case which was against the laws. The two men as a result were given another trial yet this time they were again convicted for the crime and given the death sentence. It was not until 1975 that justice was finally served. The court that took this case was inappropriate in its actions because it was aware that the two men were not the guilty party and that they did not have enough evidence. They forced a confession and later refused to accept the evidence that another man did the crime leaving these two innocent men to pay for it (Center, 2016).
How Cases Move through the Courts
When a person is accused of committing a crime they will face the accusation in the court that is in the jurisdiction of the crime. This is known as a “court of limited jurisdiction (Court, 2016).” At this court they will face a judge and learn of the charges that are being filed against them. The person being charged is offered a chance to obtain an attorney or have a public defender assigned to them by the courts. They will then later in the same court decide to plead that they are responsible or that they are not responsible for the crime and go to trial. After this they are given a sentence for the crime according to the evidence that is given during the trial. If the person who is convicted wishes to claim innocence later they would have to do so by appealing to a higher court known as the Superior court. In superior court they would follow the same steps if there appeal is accepted. In the end they will be resentenced or proven innocent (Court, 2016). In Freddie’s case the state mishandled the evidence therefore obtaining a wrongful conviction through forced confessions. Once this was appealed and acknowledged the defendants got another chance without this corrupt evidence and forced confessions and then they received another trial. Freddie and the other defendant were again found guilty however, in 1975 after appealing the sentencing and guilty conviction a second time in an appellate court the two defendants finally seen justice and were found innocent for the crime that they were convicted of which they were not responsible for. In this case the state court handled this very poorly but the appellate court also handled the case with extreme prejudice. (Florida, 2016).
What happened to turn this around?
This case was mishandled from the beginning. The Supreme Court did realize the mistakes of the state court and gave Freddie and the other man that was charged a second chance at trial. However, the events leading up to this were not handled in a fair manner to the two innocent men that were facing death if found convicted. While Freddie and the other man were serving time for a crime they did not commit another man made a lengthy confession to the police about the murder which gave the court evidence that Freddie was innocent. The man even went as far as to say he would testify the confession but only if the prosecutors gave him immunity. When this was denied the confessor would not testify. The Supreme Court could have used this as evidence during the appeal however, the judge that was in charge of the trial said that he would not listen to this new evidence. The result was Freddie and the other innocent man being convicted a second time for murder and once again sentenced to death. The men probably would have served out this sentence if it wasn’t for the son of one of the men that was murdered. When he heard about the confession by the other man he refused to let it be ignored. The young man fought for the freedom of Freddie and the other defendant and eventually both men were pardoned of the crime (Incorporation, 2016).
Having a dual court system is supposed to present an opportunity for a fair trial. In the first part of the sentencing process the state or general court can go by its own laws to determine sentencing and in some cases this is not very fair. In Freddie’s case the general court system abused their powers and ultimately failed him. Having the chance to appeal is meant to present the defendant with an opportunity to have what was mishandled looked at again and perhaps prove their innocence. In the case of Freddie Pitts the Supreme Court appeared to recognize how things were mishandled when they gave him and the other defendant a chance for a new trial. Even with this opportunity the case was still mishandled the first time because new evidence was ignored (learning, 2016).
Conclusion
Police officers, attorneys and others in the criminal justice profession constantly face ethical concerns. When police officers handle cases ethically they are more likely to get a conviction that sticks. A case like the one involving Freddie would put a lot of mistrust between the community and the police because the police involved were completely unethical. They did not care whether they convicted the person that was actually guilty and they went above and beyond the law to force out a confession from the two men. Attorneys, Police officers and other criminal justice personnel are expected to handle everything professionally and fairly. In some cases this does not happen and that it why we need dual court systems. If a case is mishandled these court systems are able to give people an opportunity to appeal decisions that are made in lower courts in hopes that their innocence will prevail and the freedom they deserve will be granted (Staff, 2016). Not all cases are handled ethically because it is not a perfect world but having a court system that allows defendants the opportunity to have the facts heard again does give some hope that in the end there will be justice. In a case like the one Freddie had and so many others defendants spend years in prison charged with a crime that they did not commit. Having a chance to appeal it not only allows another court to decide to hear evidence that was suppressed but it also allows for advances in science to prove a person’s innocence. In some cases DNA is the reason that a person is found innocent. In other cases it is simply ethical dilemmas that caused certain facts to be overlooked. In any case the point is to find present evidence and convict the person that is responsible for the crime so that there is real justice. The son of one of the people that was murdered that day realized this and his ethics freed Freddie.
References
Center, D. (2016). Innocence Cases | Death Penalty Information Center. Deathpenaltyinfo.org. Retrieved 25 February 2016, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-cases
Court, A. (2016). How a Case Moves Through the Court System. Azcourts.gov. Retrieved 25 February 2016, from https://www.azcourts.gov/guidetoazcourts/How-a-Case-Moves-Through-the-Court-System
Florida, S. (2016). Casetext.com. Retrieved 25 February 2016, from https://casetext.com/case/pitts-v-state-140
Incorporation, T. (2016). A Son Helps Free Two Black Men Wrongly Convicted of Killing His Father : People.com. People.com. Retrieved 25 February 2016, from http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20065791,00.html
Innocence, W. (2016). Witness to Innocence | Exoneree – Freddie Lee Pitts. Witnesstoinnocence.org. Retrieved 25 February 2016, from http://www.witnesstoinnocence.org/exonerees/freddie-lee-pitts.html
learning, J. (2016). What Is the Difference Between State and Federal Courts? | The Judicial Learning Center. Judiciallearningcenter.org. Retrieved 25 February 2016, from http://judiciallearningcenter.org/state-courts-vs-federal-courts/
Staff, U. (2016). 3 Ways Ethics Influences Criminal Justice. Cps.neu.edu. Retrieved 25 February 2016, from http://www.cps.neu.edu/prospective-students/tips-for-success/ways-ethics-influence-criminal-justice.php
