the audience applauded

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Pretty Good

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

The problem with this movie is not the subject matter, which is compelling, or the way in which the movie is presented, which is straight forward. Rather, it fails to offer a suggestions for improving what is obviously a flawed judicial system. Miscarriages of justice occur. They occur throughout history. Books have been written on this subject; it has been dramatized and discussed, e.g., The Count of Monte Christo, Judge Dredd, indeed Jesus Christ himself was crucified although found by the chief magistrate to have done nothing wrong. The judicial system is imperfect and the machinery of justice has some loose nuts and bolts which effect its operation. Most of these wrongly convicted gentlemen whose cases are discussed were found guilty based upon the evidence presented at their trials. It was the admission of additional evidence years later, after the their trials were concluded, that caused their convictions to be later reversed. That this country has an appeal system that allows the admission of new evidence after a trial is adjourned and sentence pronounced is a sign that may be the system is in fact working properly, that even years later, a court is willing to give a case a second review.

A telling documentary about the failings of criminal investigative law in the U.S., AFTER INNOCENCE is a poignant, if somewhat stilted, telling of the lives of men who've been wrongfully imprisoned for years and years (sometimes decades and decades) only to be released after advances in DNA evidence free them.The documentary follows only men through this process, most of them having been identified during their trial by a person who is wrong about them. Not really a surprise, as eyewitness identification is now being proved to be one of the least accurate ways in which to prosecute someone.The film begins and ends with its focus on Wilton Dedge in Brevard County, Florida. Sentenced to life in prison for sexual battery and burglary, Dedge has steadfastly commented on his innocence since his imprisonment some 22 years earlier. Never having given up, Dedge has the physical evidence collected from his crime sent to a forensic lab for DNA study. By the end of the film, we learn that none of it matches Dedge and he is sure to be released. But the prosecutors from the District Attorney's office are reluctant to let him go. Why? That's the biggest stickler in the entire film. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of innocence, our supposed community service men and women are unwilling to admit their errors. That's very frustrating and shown quite well.The problem with the documentary, though, is that it never really shows the "other side." In other words, the D.A.'s perspective. Perhaps the D.A.'s didn't want to be filmed. But we're never told either way. Only once do we ever see a prosecutor discussing DNA cases, and that is very short indeed. Thus, this gives the After Innocence a very lopsided/one-sided viewpoint. If the D.A.'s didn't want to be filmed, I would've liked to have seen the film-makers attempting to get in to see them only to be rebuked and booted out. Again, we don't know if this happened or if the film-makers ever tried to get the other side.The other notable portion to the film is that prison affects these men very differently. Vincent Moto seems to have lost his willingness to better himself, while Herman Atkins now has a Ph.D in psychology. Dennis Maher and Nick Yarris seem to have mental health problems thanks to their long and wrongful imprisonment, each appearing either lackluster about life or having an inflated ego about their own importance rather than the importance of the situation itself.Regardless, After Innocence is informative in its own, one-sided way. Just make sure you check out both sides before deciding on its entire significance.

This movie introduces you to a handful of men who have been freed from long prison terms after being exonerated. As shocking and heartbreaking as this movie is, it gives no hint of the scale of the problem. While it is a powerful experience to get to know these men, I found myself urgently wondering what percentage of the prisoners who get DNA tests turn out to be innocent. A little web surfing led me to this quote from William Sessions (former director of the FBI):"In early 1988, the FBI Laboratory Division created a DNA testing lab; by year's end, testing was completed in 100 active cases. I was fully expecting the results to confirm the careful investigative and evaluative work that had gone into the decisions to prosecute these suspects. Instead, I was stunned by the results. In about 30 percent of the cases, the DNA gathered in the investigation did not match the DNA of the suspect. Fifteen years later, this rate remains virtually the same. Approximately 25 percent of DNA tests do not produce a match."Now, it would certainly be reasonable to suppose that this rate of failure of our justice system's "careful investigative and evaluative work" is a similar 25% to 30% in the rest of the cases where it hasn't been scientifically checked by DNA testing. With two million Americans in the prison system, if 25% of them are innocent, then we have 500,000 innocent Americans in jail.After Innocence is a very good film but I think its impact could be much greater if it gave some context to these seven individuals by talking, even briefly, about how many other wrongfully incarcerated Americans may be moldering away in prison. The only hint of this in the film is a shot of a bank of filing cabinets at the Innocence Project that contains thousands of requests for help – all unopened.

Bringing to light recent exoneration's made possible through newly admissible DNA evidence, Jessica Sander's "After Innocence" is a very compelling and important documentary.The film focuses on the Project Innocence group, a team of lawyers dedicated to freeing those imprisoned unjustly. This film focused on several Project Innocence cases, where individuals were sentenced, largely based on eyewitness identification, and without physical evidence. Through the use of DNA, the lawyers are able to have their subjects released.As the film relates, being released from prison is not the end of the inmates' struggles. They return to society with nary an apology (much less restitution for unjust imprisonment) from the state's where they were incarcerated. The exonerees then deal with a whole host of complications (such as getting their records expunged of their crimes) after they are released, partly due to the lack of provision for such releases on behalf of the judicial system, and partly due to the uncertain status they are accorded by society.This film was well received at the 2005 Sundance festival. At the end of each showing, the exonerees stood for question and answer sessions, which were highly memorable for all involved.I highly recommend this film, and hope to see it picked up by a film distributor for general release in 2005.