In the wake of two brutal murders in the small Oklahoma town of Ada, police decided to close the cases, rather than fully investigate them. In a shocking series of police and prosecutorial violations, Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz were convicted of killing Debbie Carter. Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot were convicted of killing Denice Haraway in the same town, by the same police and judicial system, and using even thinner evidence. Grisham returns to his legal roots, exploring the police incompetence and interference, the tampering and concealment of evidence by the prosecution, and the cavalier attitude of the judge who allowed these cases to proceed. He doesn’t spare the defense attorneys, who were paid tiny sums to protect the rights of men under the shadow of a death sentence, and who did little to stop the farce.
After years in the cruel Oklahoma prison system, Williamson (who was on Death Row) and Fritz succeeded in their appeals and were set free. After only five years of freedom, though, the toll on Williamson took his life. Ward and Fontenot are still in prison, but Denice Haraway’s killer still has not been found.
The Innocent Man is a detailed, well-written account of what happens when police and prosecutors decide that convictions are more important than justice. There are good prosecutors, committed police officers, dedicated public defenders. To Ada, Oklahoma’s shame and great cost, they had none of these.
Having just finished reading “The Innocent Man”, which I found compelling, I was left with a sense of disbelief at the seemingly incompetent and corrupt local law enforcement and legal system. I was surprised that nobody seemed to have lost their job and that District Attorney Bill Peterson still held that position today.
My interest piqued I sought out more information about the case and found a website set up by Mr Peterson addressing John Grishams book. His section on “Exposing The Truth” is a must read for those who wish to be able to take a balanced view of the investigation and prosecution of Ron Williams and Dennis Fritz. He is clearly bitter towards Grisham, and I don’t accept several of his ascertains and their significance, but I do think he makes some very valid points regarding “The Innocent Man” and how the facts are spun for dramatic effect. The bottom line is that 2 men were undoubtedly wrongly convicted so there had to be problems with the system, but while John Grisham would leave you with ideas of incompetence, corruption and a vendetta against the 2 defendants, I now believe this to be far from reality.
The Innocent Man puts the Ada law enforcement and legal system itself on trial and puts the case for the prosecution; it’s only fair that you should also hear the case for the defence before making up your mind.
http://www.billpetersondistrictattorney.com/
Hi John,
Thanks for reading Blogging for a Good Book. I took a look at Mr. Peterson’s website, and have to agree that he raises some questions about Mr. Grisham’s book. Not having read the book in about a year, I couldn’t remember some of the specifics Mr. Peterson raised. I will say that Mr. Peterson’s website seemed to point fingers in every direction but his own, and did it in a more disorganized and petulant manner than I would expect from a district attorney.
As I said, the website raises some questions about Mr. Grisham’s book – but The Innocent Man raised some far more disturbing questions about the investigative and judicial process in the US, particularly in states where the death penalty is sought most frequently. (Texas led the country with 26 executions in 2007; the next highest, Oklahoma and Alabama, had 3; however, on a per capita basis, Oklahoma leads the nation in executions.) When all the resources are dedicated to the prosecution, and media coverage is heavily slanted towards retribution, it isn’t hard to see that district attorneys choose to pursue the death penalty with a confidence approaching hubris.
Since Mr. Peterson has sued Mr. Grisham and several others who have written about the case for libel, we may see a harder examination of both sides. If any significant developments occur, I’ll try to post them on this discussion.
I just finished this incredible book and have a question. Roy’s mother taped (she thought she was) an account of where Ron was the night of the murder. She had contacted someone familiar with her bookeeping and meticulous record keeping such that she could prove his wehreabouts. She had rented a video the night of the muder which she watched with Ron. Why were those facts never brought to light in any of the trials? Although, the account was never recoreded by the police she still had someone that knew of her records and the statement she gave to the police.
Thanks
Please consider that it has now been two years since I read the book, and don’t have it at hand to refresh my memory, but: if I remember correctly, she videotaped the alibi before her death, but didn’t do it as a deposition so wasn’t available for cross-examination. (Again, I may be misremembering the case.) With an unfavorable judicial atmosphere, an attorney who was at best distracted, and a prosecutor willing to go to any lengths to exclude exculpatory evidence, there really wasn’t an advocate to hold up the recorded statement and fight for its validity. I think police and prosecutors (and juries) tend to discredit alibis by close family members unless there are multiple people in the room who can independently verify everything the defendant did and said.
It really solidifies Grisham’s case that we have two layers of justice – one for those wealthy enough to demand it, and one for the rest of us.
(An interesting side note – I’m posting this the same day the Supreme Court ruled that defendants can’t request DNA testing after their convictions. Fortunately, 47 states and the Federal government have passed legislature allowing such post-trial DNA evidence. Oklahoma is one of the states that does not allow such post-trial access.)
I followed up on this as part of a blog post I did several years ago, and found that the link to Peterson’s website is gone. You can find it via the Wayback Machine at http://web-beta.archive.org/web/20121016141053/http://www.billpetersondistrictattorney.com/
Peterson (and the investigators who worked with him) sued Grisham and a bunch of other people over their portrayal in the book. The judge who heard the case dismissed it as “not plausible” and wrote, “Where the justice system so manifestly failed and innocent people were imprisoned for 11 years (one almost put to death), it is necessary to analyze and criticize our judicial system (and the actors involved) so that past mistakes do not become future ones,” White wrote in his ruling. “The wrongful convictions of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz must be discussed openly and with great vigor.”
Chief Prosecutor Henry Wade of Dallas purportedly said, “Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man, but it takes a real pro to convict an innocent man.” After hearing the evidence, it looks like Judge Ronald White determine that Bill Peterson was a real pro in this case.
[…] know what it is about this setting, or the people who inhabit it, but it seems that I keep coming back to it, and with Tomato Red, I know I’m in good hands. The author of the terrific […]