Hurricane in a split decision (movie based on book about boxer accused of murder).

• Author: Normey, Rob

The Hurricane claims to be based on a true story, that of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, a middleweight contender imprisoned for 20 years as a result of murder convictions that were ultimately overturned. From the day of its release, it has been involved in an intense sparring match with an impressive array of critics. The storm over the film almost certainly cost Denzel Washington, who played Hurricane, an Oscar. His superlative, electrifying performance was discounted by Academy voters who were surely influenced by the controversy over the veracity of the film. More importantly, the body blows of the critics threaten to obscure the most remarkable part of the story: the freeing of an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted and yet somehow, against all the odds, has survived intact. Indeed, Carter has emerged from prison as a well-adjusted, contented man who has refused to yield to bitterness and despair. He has for some years headed the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted.

What happened to Hurricane Carter, how did he deal with it, and what's got the critics of the film so riled up? A short recounting of the criminal process he was embroiled in is in order. In 1966, in the midst of an era of racial and civil unrest, a bartender and two patrons, all white, were gunned down in a hail of bullets in a Paterson, New Jersey bar. Two black gunmen were said to have perpetrated the murders before vanishing in a white car. Within half an hour, Carter, a famous boxer, contender for the middleweight crown, and his acquaintance John Artis, were stopped. They were brought to the scene of the crime and considered, on the basis of a good deal of conjecture, to be suspects. They were then convicted at trial on questionable evidence. The pair had their convictions overturned when two witnesses, petty career criminals who had been pressured by the police during the investigation, recanted their testimony. As one of the witnesses told the New York Times: "There's no doubt Carter was framed.... I lied to save myself."

Despite this significant development, Carter and Artis were retried in 1976 and their convictions were reinstated. In this trial, the prosecutors resurrected an inflammatory appeal to the jury, alleging that the accused had gunned down their victims as revenge for the earlier murder of a black tavern owner. The fact that their theory was unsubstantiated by any evidence mattered not a whit. As well, one of the witnesses who had...