DOCUMENTARY REVIEW: 'Until proven innocent' is a fascinating, gut-wrenching true crime documentary: Dallas International Film Festival movie review,' reviewed by Ryan Ferguson for Screen Invasion, published on April 19, 2016.
GIST: "Imagine you’re a mother of four with one on the way. You and your husband have also committed to adopting a four year old boy with special needs. Out of the blue one day he becomes incredibly ill. You try to get him to the hospital, but ultimately he doesn’t make it. Suddenly every move you’ve made is questioned and almost without warning, the detectives investigating the case declare that you’ve killed your son intentionally. They charge you with capital murder. Your life is turned upside down, but that’s nothing compared to what you will have to endure after you’ve been convicted and sentenced to life in prison. No parole. If you’re Hannah Overton your fight is just beginning. Following close on the heels of other recent true crime documentaries like Making a Murderer and The Jinx, Until Proven Innocent had its world premiere this weekend at the Dallas International Film Festival where it was greeted with a packed house and a standing ovation. The documentary recounts the story of Hannah Overton, a Corpus Christi woman who was sentenced to life in prison without parole after her 2006 conviction for capital murder. She was accused of intentionally killing her four year old son Andrew. This documentary is an incredibly sober, clear eyed take on Hannah’s case. This is not to say that the film doesn’t have a point of view, it certainly does, but it is none the less fascinating, gut-wrenching, and ultimately a very rewarding experience. To use a word like simple to describe the film might sound like a dig, and, to be honest, for the first ten minutes or so, it might have been a world I would have used negatively. But after seeing the whole film the simple, no frills style of the filmmaking is absolutely a strength of this documentary. There are no (or very few) drone shots of Corpus Christi or stylized recreations of key moments in the narrative. Instead what you get is a very honest, straightforward account of the facts of the case. Using interviews with the key players (Hannah Overton, her lawyers, medical experts, etc…) as well as Texas Monthly reporter Pamela Colloff who has written extensively about wrongful convictions, the film pieces the story together for you step by painful step. There’s also some skillful use of courtroom footage and news broadcasts from the time. These pieces of footage are crucial, because this film does a really phenomenal job of investigating not only what happened in the courtroom, but also the media’s role in the story. There’s a very clear connection between law enforcement, the prosecution, and the signal boosting the media did of the official story of what happened. As in many cases, these connections played a huge role in shaping the narrative that emerged about Hannah Overton in Corpus Christi. Also central to this film are interviews with Hannah’s husband Larry as well as Hannah’s mother and children. Beyond being a compelling true crime documentary, this is also a heartbreaking family drama. After Hannah is convicted and sent away, Larry has to raise their five children as a single parent and also find a way to maintain his relationship with his wife. This family, and the way they have stuck together during this ordeal, is truly inspirational and is one of the strengths of the film. Another strength of the film is just how thorough it is in taking the audience through the case. This is the first of this recent wave of true crime stories I’ve seen that actually includes an interview with one of the prosecutors! The film also includes interviews with the original defense team AND the appeals team. The only major players not interviewed in the film are the original detective on the case and the District Attorney at the time. This kind of access is pretty amazing and goes a long way to granting credibility to what the characters in the film, and ultimately the filmmakers, are trying to say with this documentary."
The entire review can be found at:
http://screeninvasion.com/2016/04/proven-innocent-fascinating-gut-wrenching-true-crime-documentary-diff-2016-movie-review/
See Boomstick Comics review at the link below; akout film should be Until Proven Innocent, the true story of Hannah Overton.
It highlights how unjust the criminal justice system can be when it’s
abused, but the beauty of this film is that it demonstrates the glory of
the system when it works..........While the events leading up to the
conviction are interesting and at times hard to watch, it’s the
aftermath that continuously stretches the boundaries of your emotions.
Film makers, Jenna and Anthony Jackson use interviews with Hannah’s
family to highlight how a prison sentence isn’t just handed down to a
party of one- it effects the entire family. Her children grow up as the
documentary progresses and it’s gut wrenching to sit back and watch how
innocently they yearn to have their mom back. Throughout the appellate
process you see how many people step up for Hannah. As bothersome as it
is to watch the wrong thing happen over and over again it’s redeeming to
take in the huge amount of righteousness at work. This is an easily ignored film- it’s one
you might glance at and think, that’s too much, or it’s too real, or
worst of all, not another wrongful conviction. Don’t ignore this film.
If you’re involved in law enforcement or the justice system in any
capacity- run to see this film. It has moments you will identify with
spun throughout- whether it’s interrogation tactics, child protective
services investigations, trial strategy, zealous prosecutions, standing
up for the right things, owning your mistakes when someone’s freedom is
at stake, and those magical courtroom moments that are oh so satisfying.
If you aren’t involved with the above- run to see this movie. You’ll be
captivated that this could happen to an everyday woman- a church going
mother of five- who at the end of the day traded “mom” for an inmate
number for over eight years.
http://boomstickcomics.com/2016/04/film-review-until-proven-innocent/comment-page-1/
See the Exonerations Registry entry on Hannah Overton written by Maurice Possley at the link below: "On October 2, 2006, 29-year-old Hannah Overton and her husband, Larry brought Andrew Burd, their four-year-old foster son whom they were in the process of adopting, to a hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas after the boy stopped breathing. The boy was diagnosed with a toxic salt overdose and died the following day. Ten days later, the Overtons were arrested on charges of capital murder. Prosecutors said Hannah forced the boy to drink water laced with Cajun spices as punishment for misbehaving. The prosecution claimed the boy vomited and was in and out of consciousness, but the couple waited nearly three hours before seeking medical help. Police said that one of Overton’s five biological children told investigators that Hannah watched Andrew on a security camera in a bedroom and used food and pepper as a form of punishment. A neighbor told police that Hannah called her about 3 p.m. that day and asked her to watch one of her children because Andrew was intentionally vomiting and defecating and “smearing it everywhere.” The neighbor said Hannah claimed Andrew was vomiting and defecating not because he was sick, but “to get to me.” The Overtons were granted separate trials. Hannah went to trial in Nueces County Criminal District Court in August 2007. The neighbor, Kathryn Haller, testified that “Hannah said, ‘He's not sick. He’s doing it to try to get to me.’” Haller also said that Overton told her that Andrew had thrown his feces at her earlier, that he threatened to smear it as he had the night before, and that he had vomited. Haller said Overton was afraid her younger child, Sebastian, would get into the mess Andrew had created, so she asked Haller to watch Sebastian. The county medical examiner testified that the boy died of salt poisoning and appeared to have blunt head trauma. Dr. Alexandre Rotta, who treated the boy when he was brought to the hospital, testified that Hannah told him Andrew had eaten a bowl of chili, and that when he asked for more and threw a fit she gave him a glass of water with chili powder in it. Rotta testified that tests of Andrew’s blood showed a sodium level higher than he had ever seen before. Rotta also testified that he believed the child would have survived if he had been treated before suffering cardiac arrest, although Rotta did not see the boy until many hours after he was first brought to the hospital. Overton, a former private-duty nurse, testified in her own defense and said that Andrew was “obsessed with eating” and ate more than her other children at every meal. She told the jury that his obsession was getting worse—that he was eating off of the floor, getting into the garbage, and even eating the cat’s food. Overton testified that Andrew would become upset whenever she prevented him from eating what he wanted, and that she had reported his excessive and inappropriate eating activity to the adoption supervisor, who suggested that he might have an eating disorder. She said that on the day of the incident, after feeding the children their breakfast, she fell asleep while they were watching cartoons. When she awoke, Andrew was in the pantry eating something, but she couldn’t recall what it was. She said she put him in a timeout for three minutes and Andrew threw a tantrum, defecated in his pants, and threw his feces at her—behavior that had occurred in the past. Overton said she cleaned him up and changed his clothes, but he defecated again and smeared it on the floor. Overton said she relented and reheated some leftover soup and chili mixture. She said her husband came home and they left for an appointment with her chiropractor for a treatment for a back injury. When they returned home, her husband went back to work and Andrew complained he was hungry. Overton said that after the boy began crying, she gave him more chili with Cajun seasoning added to it. When she refused his demand for a second serving, he threatened to defecate on her. Overton testified that she decided to give him a cup of water with “a couple of sprinkles” of the Cajun seasoning so that he would get the flavor she thought he wanted and would settle down. Overton said she filled a cup full of water and then poured some out because she thought it was too much. She said she put the mixture in a cup and Andrew drank it, but then demanded more chili and began to throw a fit. She told the jury that after about a 20-minute tantrum, Andrew stumbled to the floor, said he was cold, and vomited. Overton testified she thought “that he had gotten himself so worked up that he threw up.” She telephoned her husband and told him to come home, but before he arrived, Andrew began to shake, so she wrapped him in a blanket and put him into his bed with a heating pad. After consulting her intermediate EMT course book, Overton said she thought might have been “in some sort of shock,” but she was not overly concerned because this overwrought behavior had happened on prior occasions. She and her husband put Andrew into a warm bath and she used a nebulizer on him because his breathing sounded congested. They took him out of the bath and dressed him. Although his vital signs were normal, he was moaning. When his breathing became abnormal and Andrew became less responsive, the couple drove Andrew to an urgent care center. On the way, he stopped breathing and Overton began CPR. The boy vomited into her mouth and began breathing again. When they were getting out of the car in the parking lot of the urgent care center, he stopped breathing again, she said. Several family friends testified and confirmed that Andrew seem to have an insatiable appetite. A member of the Overton’s church told the jury they had to hide trashcans from the boy. On September 7, 2007, the jury convicted Overton of capital murder. The jury was polled and the jurors said their conviction as based on the failure of the couple to seek prompt medical attention—not because she had force-fed the boy the water and spice mixture. Overton was sentenced to life in prison without parole. In 2008, her husband pled no contest to a reduced charge of criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to deferred adjudication for five years, which allowed him to care for their children. His conviction was vacated and dismissed in 2013, after he successfully completed the probationary period. Overton’s conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal. In 2011, Overton’s appellate attorney, Cynthia Orr, filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a new trial. The petition claimed that the prosecution had failed to disclose to Overton’s trial lawyers evidence that the salt level of Andrew’s stomach contents when he arrived at the urgent care center was 48 milliequivalents per liter. This was inconsistent with the state’s accusation that she had just force fed him sodium raising his blood sodium level to 245 milliequivalents per liter. The higher level recorded later, the defense contended, was the result of fluids and sodium medicines that were given to Andrew as part of the efforts to save his life. The defense said that when the boy was first taken to Driscoll Urgent Care Center, he was given a saline IV. Andrew was then transported to Spohn Hospital. There, Andrew went into cardiac arrest. He also was given another saline IV as well as sodium bicarbonate. Andrew was then transferred to Driscoll Children’s hospital where he was again given a saline IV and sodium bicarbonate and where Rotta saw the boy for the first time. Andrew went into cardiac arrest again and was placed on a ventilator. By the time Rotta saw Andrew, the boy had been subjected to considerable life-saving measures that included the continuous use of saline IVs, epinephrine and sodium bicarbonate. The high level of sodium detected at Spohn Hospital was not immediately reported to doctors at Driscoll Children’s Hospital, so that the Andrew was given more sodium. Moreover, the petition claimed that Overton’s trial lawyers had provided a constitutionally inadequate legal defense by failing to call an expert witness, Dr. Michael Moritz, who could have testified that the boy was not poisoned by Overton and likely had died because of accidental self-initiated consumption earlier. The witness had been interviewed under oath by the defense and prosecution during the trial, but was not called to testify and the recording of his deposition was not presented to the jury. The petition also included a letter from Anna Jimenez, who had been one of the two prosecutors at Overton’s trial. She said that she believed the lead prosecutor on the case, Sandra Eastwood, had withheld evidence favorable to Overton’s defense. In 2010, before the petition was filed, Jimenez as appointed District Attorney and had fired Eastwood for unrelated reasons. She ran for election in November 2010 and left the office after she was defeated by Mark Skurka. “I am writing this letter because I do believe that an injustice has been done. I do not believe there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Hannah Overton intentionally killed Andrew Burd,” Jimenez wrote. “It is because I witnessed Sandra Eastwood's behavior before, during and after trial that I fear she may have purposely withheld evidence that may have been favorable to Hannah Overton's defense.” The petition said evidence suggested that Andrew's death was linked to a genetic disorder called Prader-Willi syndrome, which can cause children to eat bizarre objects. District Judge Jose Longoria, who presided over Overton’s trial, dismissed the petition the same day it was filed. Orr appealed and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered Longoria to hold an evidentiary hearing. During several days of testimony, Overton’s lawyers conceded they had failed to provide an adequate legal defense by failing to call Moritz, an expert on hypernatremia—a medical condition related to an elevated salt level. Moritz testified that Andrew exhibited symptoms of emotional deprivation syndrome, which is often associated with extreme eating habits. Moritz also said that the amount of Cajun spices needed to generate a sodium level of more than 250 would be enormously higher than the amount Rotta testified to. Moritz said that Rotta’s failure to evaluate the cause Andrew’s hypernatremia was a significant oversight. And Moritz also testified that Overton would have had extreme difficulty in forcing an amount of salt or Cajun spices into Andrew that would have resulted in such a high sodium level, but that if Andrew had a psychological problem, such as emotional deprivation syndrome, he could have consumed that amount voluntarily. Despite the testimony, the judge denied the writ again. In September 2014, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial judge’s finding, granted the writ and ordered a new trial. The appeals court found that Overton’s lawyers had failed to provide an adequate legal defense. The appeals court did not address the claim that the prosecution had concealed evidence of the boy’s comparatively low sodium level when he first arrived at the clinic. On December 16, 2014, Overton was released on bond pending a retrial. On April 8, 2015, Nueces County District Attorney Mark Skurka dismissed the charge. He said the decision was “a result of a myriad of factors which came about after a careful review of the previous trial, re-interviewing some of the key witnesses, consulting with some of the medical experts involved in the case, (and) reviewing evidence adduced at recent hearings.”
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4674
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
