Font Resize
The first person to ask the state to pay for wrongful imprisonment under a new Utah law has won what his attorney called a "tremendous victory" in the Utah Court of Appeals.
"It's also a tremendous victory for anyone who might find the themselves in the same situation," said Andrew McCullough, who represents 56-year-old Harry Miller.
Miller spent 4½ years in prison for a robbery before charges against him were dropped two years ago. Thursday, the appeals court ruled he should get a new hearing to prove his innocence, which would make him eligible for about $160,000 in compensation from the state.
The Utah Attorney General's Office has challenged Miller's claim, saying he has not shown there is new evidence to prove his innocence, and the office could still appeal Thursday's decision.
The money would make a big difference for Miller, who is on disability and living with his daughter in Fort Smith, Ark., as he looks for work. He takes medication for diabetes, high blood pressure and insomnia.
"It would help me live better, have a better life, get me somewhere where I could put a roof over my head," Miller said Thursday. "I would eat better and take care of myself better, with all the medicines I'm on."
Had he not been imprisoned, he said, he might have finished a hazardous waste cleanup training program he was enrolled in at Salt Lake Community College and have a good job now.
His time in prison "really
Miller's fight to prove his innocence began in 2003, when he was arrested as a suspect in the armed robbery of a restaurant after police stopped him a block away. About the same time, a woman whose husband was looking at police mug shots as part of an investigation of another crime caught sight of a photo of Miller.
She told police he looked like a man who had stolen her purse at knifepoint more than two years earlier. Within a week, Miller was charged with robbing the restaurant and the purse snatching. The restaurant robbery was later dismissed for insufficient evidence.
Miller said he was recovering from a stroke and living in Louisiana when the woman was robbed. Employment and hospital records place Miller in Louisiana two weeks before the robbery and a week afterward, but prosecutors argued he could have traveled back to Utah during those unaccounted-for three weeks and committed the crime.
Miller's sister was supposed to be in Utah to testify at his trial, but had problems with her son and could not. Miller was convicted and sentenced to five years to life in prison.
On appeal, Miller's attorneys found other witnesses who could testify he was sick and in Louisiana, including his niece and a home health care nurse, and brought them to Utah.
With their testimony, Miller appealed his conviction and won an order for a new trial from the appeals court. Salt Lake County district attorneys declined to prosecute again, and Miller was released from prison in July 2007.
After his release, Miller struggled to get back on his feet, bouncing between Louisiana and Utah.
In October, Miller crossed paths with Utah police again. Court records show he faces a felony charge of attempted possession of a controlled substance. Miller says police arrested him in Liberty Park, claiming he tried to buy heroin. He denies this.
Miller petitioned for compensation for his imprisonment in May 2008, five days after a law creating a path to restitution took effect. Under the law, innocent people are entitled to the state's average annual salary --about $36,000 in 2007 -- for each year they wrongly spend in prison.
But in order to avoid compensating those who are released on a technicality, the law requires people prove they are "factually innocent" in a court hearing, said Jensi Anderson, president of the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center, which helped draft the law.
The Utah Attorney General's office challenged Miller's petition for compensation, arguing he had to meet a higher standard laid out in the law in order to get the hearing, said Assistant Attorney General Erin Riley. Among other requirements, his lawyers would have to show there was new evidence, in addition to the evidence already presented in his trial and appeals, that would prove his innocence, Riley said.
The appeals court this week rejected that argument.
"Obviously, we're disappointed the court interpreted the statute differently from what we did," Riley said. The state attorneys haven't decided whether they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court or suggest changes to the law.
"We're going to take some time to review what the court has said," Riley said. "This is the first case to come up on appeal under this law."
McCullough said the ruling means it will be easier for people who are wrongfully convicted to win relief.
"The state took the position that there were a substantial number of hoops for us to jump through before we could get any kind of fair hearing on the innocence claim," he said. After Thursday's opinion, "not only is Mr. Miller in a much better situation than he used to be, the next guy that comes along is too."
