The Trials of Darryl Hunt (2007)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Powerful

hyped garbage

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

In 1984, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, young white newspaper editor Deborah Sykes is brutally raped and murdered. A man with a history of violence and crime, claiming to be somebody else, phones the police to report that he has seen a young woman killed. A name given during the phone call leads the police to question young black male Darryl Hunt and his friend, and later take them in for further questioning. With a media s**t-storm generated by the slaying of a white woman in a black neighbourhood in a Southern state, what transpired next was one of the most shockingly vindictive miscarriages of justice in recent American history.Documentaries surrounding wrongful imprisonments and the many failings of the American judicial system are extremely common, but The Trial of Darryl Hunt is particularly infuriating due to the involvement of Hunt himself; a humble, intelligent man who maintains his innocence and dignity throughout his many trials without a hint of hatefulness towards his accusers. He spent 19 years in prison for his imagined crime, his release only being granted after the exhaustive efforts of his legal team and dedicated community following. Ten years into his term, DNA evidence is presented that clears Hunt, but the judge rules that this only proves he didn't do the deed, not that he wasn't present.The film never tries to be anything other than informative, and directors Ricki Stern and Anne Sundberg detail every movement in the case rather than getting over-stuffed with style. It's often an incredibly frustrating watch, made slightly more bearable by the sight of Hunt,older and heavier, being granted his freedom in the opening moments. It shows us a city divided by skin colour, where tension is still high in a country that believes it has moved on from its dark history, and where a black man can be proved guilty by an all-white jury for a crime he didn't do, the only evidence being broken testimony from a known liar, an ex-convict and a man who looks like he's stepped out of the Jim Crow South.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

This is a very special trial movie, focussing on racial prejudice in the North Carolina "Justice" System in the 1980's. Darryl Hunt was accused of a crime that he did not commit. The black community rallied behind Darryl, supplying money for his defence and giving moral support. The NorthCarolina "Justice" System is shown as incompetent, uncaring and corrupt.Darryl Hunt is a very honourable man. He accepted that police can make mistakes, because he is a forgiving person. He made an honourable decision, which made it more difficult for him, because he believed that it was the right thing to do. I could see no bitterness in Darryl, although there must have been times when he was very tempted.Eventually the truth started to become more widely known and Darryl had broader support, including the white community. Against all odds, he finally gained his freedom. I was very inspired by those who supported Darry and by Darryl himself. He is a man I would like to know personally.

While this documentary overlooks the fact that Darryl Hunt was no choirboy before his original murder conviction, it does a stellar job in showing how he was framed and the dogged determination of the "justice" system to see that that wrongful conviction was upheld. Much of his persecution was simply due to poor police work and overzealous prosecution, than deliberate malfeasance, but it cost this man a third of his life. The most poignant part is the literal trials as well as the tribulations he underwent before he was ultimately exonerated. An extraordinary documentary that anyone who holds the belief that the American system of jurisprudence is fair, impartial and unbiased should be urged to watch.

At the North Carolina Public Defender's conference, I had the pleasure of watching this film and meeting Mr. Hunt and his attorneys in person. The film is a well articulated synopsis of the various legal and personal challenges faced by Mr. Hunt during his 19 and a half years in a North Carolina prison for a rape and murder which he never committed. As a film watcher, I really enjoyed the linearity and breadth of the narrative as well as the compelling players involved. The movie is able to explore all of the complexities of the legal procedures without getting bogged down or tedious. The filmmakers followed the case for well over a decade, and at many times in the movie the audience sees events as they unfold in real time. Every lost appeal, every new piece of evidence, and key hearings are well documented and the immediacy of the emotions involved really hits home. Mr. Hunt's case attracted dedicated attorneys and colorful and interesting supporters like Larry Little, who invested their heart and soul into his struggles. The movie refuses to over-sentimentalize Mr. Hunt, instead focusing more upon the systematic forces at work in his case. In fact, no over-sentimentalizing has to be done in this movie. Very few people would have accepted their situation with as much grace or courage as Mr. Hunt did and it shows from the few parts of contemporaneous and recorded dialogue we hear from him.As a lawyer, it's a case like this that makes me realize why I sit at the defendant's table. It's idealistic to think that everybody has rights, that at any time a vindictive prosecutor backed by unsympathetic individuals can rob someone of their freedom even in the United States. But it's those very ideals, that conception of rights, that makes criminal defendants worthy of our care and protection.