What is the consensus in the legal community about Hurricane Carter's innocence?

Question

I didn't see the movie, but I've read some articles since the movie from people close to the case that claim the preponderance of evidence was that he was guilty of at least some felony in the incident for which he went to jail for. Is there any general view among the legal community about this, as opposed to the general public that is swayed by just about any sort of hearsay or obfuscation?

Answer 1

preponderance of evidence is not the standard for criminal trials in the US, especially murder cases. Ask OJ :)

Here is the story in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Carter

I was living in the town next to Paterson NJ in 1967 at the time of the crime but I was way to young to remember any of it - I do recall some of the appeals during high school though elsewhere in NJ.

Answer 2

I agree, preponderance of the evidence means little in criminal cases (unless you are being held in Guantanamo. There, a preponderance of the evidence is major overkill.)
But, Bob Dylan said he is innocent, so he must be innocent.