4.9 Avg of 80 reviews
Richard was wrongfully convicted of a crime he did not commit. He was convicted of a 1999 robbery. He would spend almost seventeen years in custody. Throughout his ordeal he vehemently maintained his innocence.
Richard was recently able to prove his innocence in a bizarre and miraculous serious of events. During his time in custody he was told repeatedly that there was another prisoner with whom he shared a striking resemblance, furthermore they even shared the same name. Recently, it stuck Richard that perhaps this doppelgänger was in fact the man responsible for the crime Richard had been wrongfully convicted of. He passed along the information of this striking resemblance to his criminal defence lawyer. His defence lawyer would further investigate, and would come to the conclusion that Richard had been mistakenly identified as this man and that this man was likely the one responsible for the 1999 robbery.
On June 8 2017 Richard's defence lawyers presented this compelling argument. The very next day, Richard was finally vindicated and freed from custody. Richard's defence lawyers successfully argued that in light of this new evidence Richard's conviction should be overturned. The look-alike lived in the area of where the robbery had occurred, where as Richard lived quite far away. In light of this evidence, witnesses testified that looking at pictures of the two men together, they could no longer say if Richard was the perpetrator. The presiding judge ruled that no reasonable juror would have convicted Richard with this new evidence.
On June 8 2017 Richard's defence lawyers presented this compelling argument. The very next day, Richard was finally vindicated and freed from custody. Richard's defence lawyers successfully argued that in light of this new evidence Richard's conviction should be overturned. The look-alike lived in the area of where the robbery had occurred, where as Richard lived quite far away. In light of this evidence, witnesses testified that looking at pictures of the two men together, they could no longer say if Richard was the perpetrator. The presiding judge ruled that no reasonable juror would have convicted Richard with this new evidence.