Innocent after 24 years in prison, then the Ex shows up.

• Devils Advocate

  

  Steven Phillips was named a suspect in a string of sex crimes. In two trials in 1982 and 1983, he was convicted based largely on eyewitness identifications, despite his wife’s vehement protestations from the witness stand that he could not have committed the crimes.

  Phillips spent 24 years in prison before DNA tests connected another man to the rapes and prompted the courts to declare Phillips innocent. In 2009, the state awarded him lump sum payments totaling more than $2 million, and a monthly annuity of more than $11,000.

  His ex-wife, now Traci Tucker, is arguing that she is entitled to a portion of that money. The two are locked in a legal battle that her lawyers say is the first of its kind in the nation. Tucker sued Phillips, and last year a Dallas County state district judge awarded her about $150,000.

  http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/16/exoneree-faces-his-ex-wife-compensation-lawsuit/
• TedSheckler

  

  Women are bitches.
• gut

  I don't think $150k is unreasonable.
  
  Looks like the trial and this was going on for at least two years. He got a benefit of just under $100k a year for the 24 years. So she's in the ballpark of "half".
  
  But, yes, still a bitch.
• Fly4Fun

  

  There is a legitimate argument to compensate the spouse of those who are wrongfully convicted as there is compensation for spouses for loss of companionship, wages, etc. if the husband is killed by say a negligent action of a corporation.
  
  But it is a tad callous to sue a man who was released from 24 years of jail for the money he received as compensation for "time spent."
  
  If, however, it is ruled that the compensation is for "lost wages" while incarcerated, then the argument has more merit as depending on the state law she would have normally had a right to some of it up until their divorce.
  
  Bu on the same token, if that line of reasoning is accepted. Could ex-spouses sue the incarcerated for money they would have earned if they were not rightfully/legally incarcerated?
• TedSheckler

  

  tl;dr
• gut

  Fly4Fun;1459383 wrote: But it is a tad callous to sue a man who was released from 24 years of jail for the money he received as compensation for "time spent."

  Agreed with everything you wrote. But I'd point out that $150k was a fraction of what he got/will get. Between the legal expenses and lost income during the trial years she might have otherwise been entitled to in a divorce, I think that is a reasonable amount.
  
  But there should also be some sort of statute of limitations. 5 years is a lot different than 24 years later. That's what gives me pause. Otherwise I think it's likely they drained their savings and probably sold their house or took out a second mortgage to pay his legal defenses, money she COULD have gotten if she had filed for divorce.
  
  Also, while $2M plus an annuity might be the correct "calculation" for lost wages, that award seems light given the 24 years of false imprisonment (i.e. no punitive damages). And what absolute crap to be convicted primarily on eye witness testimony (he must not have had a very good or high-priced legal team).
• Fly4Fun

  

  gut;1459390 wrote:Agreed with everything you wrote. But I'd point out that $150k was a fraction of what he got/will get. Between the legal expenses and lost income during the trial years she might have otherwise been entitled to in a divorce, I think that is a reasonable amount.
  
  But there should also be some sort of statute of limitations. 5 years is a lot different than 24 years later. That's what gives me pause. Otherwise I think it's likely they drained their savings and probably sold their house or took out a second mortgage to pay his legal defenses, money she COULD have gotten if she had filed for divorce.
  
  Also, while $2M plus an annuity might be the correct "calculation" for lost wages, that award seems light given the 24 years of false imprisonment (i.e. no punitive damages). And what absolute crap to be convicted primarily on eye witness testimony (he must not have had a very good or high-priced legal team).

  $150k is what she was awarded, I'm curious how much she actually sued for.
  
  And I don't think being the spouse of someone in jail is nearly as taxing on a person as opposed to actually being in jail, so I'm not sure if "half" is the correct benchmark. But then again, that time period would have been during the marriage so half of his is hers. Still doesn't seem right though under that theory.
  
  I think it depends on what the rationale for the compensation is. If the compensation is for lost wages, then yes, she has a legitimate argument for some compensation. But if the rationale is for time served, then she didn't serve any, so she shouldn't receive it. That is unless the divorce law would consider compensation that comes after the divorce for something that happened during the marriage (extremely late back pay or settlement of a suit) as part of the marital property. It does bring to light that maybe the lawmakers should add a provision for some kind of award for spouses of wrongly incarcerated as well.
  
  As far as his conviction, before DNA and even still with all that we know, eye witness testimony was/is very powerful in a court room. Unfortunately it's believability in the mind of jurors is disproportionate to it's accuracy.
• gut

  Fly4Fun;1459405 wrote:$150k is what she was awarded, I'm curious how much she actually sued for.

  Good point about what she sued for.
  
  I'm not arguing she's entitled to half of everything while he was incarcerated, but merely half of the legal expenses and the "comp" for those few years of the trial.
  
  Although it is very problematic going back after-the-fact. They divorced in '92, so she presumably got half of whatever was left (probably nearly all of it), which was probably 0.
  
  But seems like this would be similar to a guy receiving a large inheritance years after the fact. It's not like this was income or assets that were hidden or sheltered at the time.
  
  I guess where I stand is she should have sued the state, and like you said maybe there should be damages awarded a spouse/family.
• Fly4Fun

  

  gut;1459408 wrote:Good point about what she sued for.
  
  I'm not arguing she's entitled to half of everything while he was incarcerated, but merely half of the legal expenses and the "comp" for those few years of the trial.
  
  Although it is very problematic going back after-the-fact. They divorced in '92, so she presumably got half of whatever was left (probably nearly all of it), which was probably 0.
  
  But seems like this would be similar to a guy receiving a large inheritance years after the fact. It's not like this was income or assets that were hidden or sheltered at the time.
  
  I guess where I stand is she should have sued the state, and like you said maybe there should be damages awarded a spouse/family.

  Well I'm pretty sure she's suing him because there is no legal argument for a suit against the state. The only reason he could sue the state was because of a specific law that was created for this kind of situation. It seems like lawmakers should possibly consider a change in the law to potentially allow for spouses or children of those wrongfully incarcerated as under other theories of law like wrongful death or survival actions they can recover.
• sportchampps

  Personally, I think she is entitled to a small portion of the money. The money was awarded because of the mistake the state made. That mistake effected both of their lives. She did the best she could trying to convince everyone that he was innocent like she knew. Now his life was altered way more then hers so maybe give her 5-10% and he gets the rest. I agree the law needs to be changed to address this. I know if my fiancé went to jail for 24 years my life would be effected in a bad way.
• Tiernan

  Cruel and Unusual should be his defense against this beeatch. Hasn't he suffered enough!?
• Mulva

  

  ccrunner609;1459453 wrote:She should be entitled to sue the state for her own money but there is no way that she should be entitled to "his" money.

  I agree with this.
• dlazz

  The case should get tossed. It's a "what if..." scenario, and a lofty one at that.
  
  She shouldn't see a dime of the mistakes the legal system put him through.
  
  If she wants to try and sue the state, fine... But the guy who spent most of his life in jail shouldn't get punished.
• steubbigred

  If she went to bat for him like she did then he should be good enough to give her some money . Keep the filthy lawyers out of it . Give her 200,000 G and thats it . Maybe she can come over and clean house and fix meals for him .
• Cat Food Flambe'

  

  Fly4Fun;1459405 wrote:.
  
  And I don't think being the spouse of someone in jail is nearly as taxing on a person as opposed to actually being in jail,.

  If anything, being the spouse of a prison immate might be worse that being in prison, particularly if children are involved. I work with a woman whose husband is doing time with a five-year minimum-time sentencing requirement. She has to keep the home and family going with the loss of his income, handled certain related legal affairs (some their joint assets are being sought in a civil lawsuit associated with his crime), and still try keep things as normal as possible for their kids. Meanwhile, he's sitting on his butt in a minimum security facility all day without a care in the world.
  
  Regarding the settlement - If all the statement made in the article are true, I think that the $150,000 is a very fair settlement
• gut

  steubbigred;1460081 wrote:If she went to bat for him like she did then he should be good enough to give her some money . Keep the filthy lawyers out of it . Give her 200,000 G and thats it . Maybe she can come over and clean house and fix meals for him .

  And that's an argument NOT to have recourse for family. Although his settlement could hardly be described as generous, theoretically he can and would compensate family members as necessary.
  
  He got $2M lump sum, but then he has to pay his lawyer and taxes, so he's got maybe $1M left. But he does have $11k/mo(?) annuity for life which is pretty generous and reasonable. He probably couldn't find a decent job at this point, but he doesn't have to work either.
  
  So what is she entitled to out of his $1M? I don't know, but $150k doesn't sound unreasonable. He may be bitter that she left him, but what else could you expect serving a life sentence or whatever?
• steubbigred

  gut;1460133 wrote:And that's an argument NOT to have recourse for family. Although his settlement could hardly be described as generous, theoretically he can and would compensate family members as necessary.
  
  He got $2M lump sum, but then he has to pay his lawyer and taxes, so he's got maybe $1M left. But he does have $11k/mo(?) annuity for life which is pretty generous and reasonable. He probably couldn't find a decent job at this point, but he doesn't have to work either.
  
  So what is she entitled to out of his $1M? I don't know, but $150k doesn't sound unreasonable. He may be bitter that she left him, but what else could you expect serving a life sentence or whatever?

  You are right