Advertisement

I sent an innocent man to death row

 
Glenn Ford
Glenn Ford
Published March 22, 2015

Editor's note: On Dec. 5, 1984, a black man from Louisiana named Glenn Ford was convicted of murder by an all-white jury in the shooting death of a jeweler, and sentenced to death. A year ago, after 30 years on death row, Ford was exonerated after the state uncovered new evidence. Now, Louisiana is trying to deny Ford $330,000 in compensation, on the basis that he can't prove he was "factually innocent." The state's position has moved the prosecutor in Ford's original case, Marty Stroud, to write a letter to the Shreveport Times about his role in sending an innocent man to death row. He makes an extraordinary admission: "I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning." The following is excerpted from Stroud's letter:

Glenn Ford should be completely compensated to every extent possible because of the flaws of a system that effectively destroyed his life. The audacity of the state's effort to deny Mr. Ford any compensation for the horrors he suffered in the name of Louisiana justice is appalling.

I know of what I speak. I was at the trial of Glenn Ford from beginning to end. I witnessed the imposition of the death sentence upon him. I believed that justice was done. I had done my job.

However, due to the hard work and dedication of lawyers working with the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, along with the efforts of the Caddo Parish district attorney's and sheriff's offices, the truth was uncovered. There was no technicality here. Crafty lawyering did not secure the release of a criminal. Investigators uncovered evidence that exonerated Mr. Ford.

And yet, the state does not accept any responsibility for the damage suffered by one of its citizens. The bureaucratic response appears to be that nobody did anything intentionally wrong, thus the state has no responsibility. This is nonsensical.

At the time this case was tried there was evidence that would have cleared Glenn Ford. The easy and convenient argument is that the prosecutors did not know of such evidence, thus they were absolved of any responsibility for the wrongful conviction.

I can take no comfort in such an argument. My fault was that I was too passive. I did not consider the rumors about the involvement of parties other than Mr. Ford to be credible, especially since the three others who were indicted for the crime were ultimately released for lack of sufficient evidence.

Had I been more inquisitive, perhaps the evidence would have come to light years ago. But I wasn't. I was confident that the right man was being prosecuted and I was not going to commit resources to investigate what I considered to be bogus claims that we had the wrong man.

I did not question the unfairness of Mr. Ford having appointed counsel who had never tried a criminal jury case, much less a capital one. It never concerned me that the defense had insufficient funds to hire experts.

Keep up with Tampa Bay’s top headlines

Keep up with Tampa Bay’s top headlines

Subscribe to our free DayStarter newsletter

We’ll deliver the latest news and information you need to know every morning.

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

I also participated in placing before the jury dubious testimony from a forensic pathologist that the shooter had to be left handed, even though there was no eye witness to the murder. And yes, Glenn Ford was left handed. All too late, I learned that the testimony was pure junk science.

In 1984, I was 33. I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning. To borrow a phrase from Al Pacino in the movie And Justice for All, "Winning became everything."

In my rebuttal argument during the penalty phase of the trial, I mocked Mr. Ford, stating that this man wanted to stay alive so he could be given the opportunity to prove his innocence. I continued by saying this should be an affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt for your verdict.

How totally wrong was I.

I apologize to Glenn Ford for all the misery I have caused him and his family. I apologize to the family of Mr. Rozeman [the murdered jeweler] for giving them the false hope of some closure. I apologize to the members of the jury for not having all of the story that should have been disclosed to them. I apologize to the court in not having been more diligent in my duty to ensure that proper disclosures of any exculpatory evidence had been provided to the defense.

This case is another example of the arbitrariness of the death penalty. We are simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death because we are all fallible human beings. The clear reality is that the death penalty is an anathema to any society that purports to call itself civilized.

I end with the hope that providence will have more mercy for me than I showed Glenn Ford. But, I am also sobered by the realization that I certainly am not deserving of it.