Landmark documentary focuses on a handful of prisoners, whom after 10,15,20 or so years, have been eventually found innocent and set free, only to fall on deaf ears in society. In detailing the startlingly inept justice systems' process dealing with the exonerated, director Jessica Sanders and producer Marc H. Simon largely succeed in documenting the tragic flaws of our system and it's ultimate hypocrisies of presuming innocence. Not only do we get a scathing survey of our governments apathetic synapses when it comes to dispensing justice, but at the heart of this difficult film lies the wounded and warped psychologies these stunningly brave and fierce seven men have been left by society to sift through as they are literally thrown onto the street after decades of wrongful imprisonment with nary a dollar of compensation to their name, often having to fight and pay their own money just to have their false charges expunged.

This project illuminates the grim underbelly of our judicial system in a way I think even the most hardened cynic would appreciate, and matched with the emotional perspectives shown struggling and grasping for relevance in a world that could care less, urges viewers to wake up to the less comfortable aspects of our legal system. After Innocence packs even more sting from the tense and unpredicted outcome of these fates, highlighted in particular by inmate Wilton Dedge's ongoing fight for release, an outcome that became the brilliant and triumphant finale only through the goodwill of fate, as the documentary was already due at Sundance before any real resolution was filmed with his scenario. Dedge's Florida case was infamous for having proved his innocence, beyond any shadow of a scientific doubt whatsoever, yet still remained in jail for another 3 years, a testament to how corrupt and proud our monster of justice really is.

Anyone who takes a slightest interest in powerful, insightful documentary film-making, promotes social and just change, or wishes to examine the absolute pit of ignorance that remains our legal precedents, should remain riveted throughout the important piece. If the simple and profound legal ramifications dictating how justice is being perverted in our country do not rile you where you sit, behold these seven men and their haunted subtleties, and begin to never take your freedom for granted.

The problem with this movie is not the subject matter, which is compelling, or the way in which the movie is presented, which is straight forward. Rather, it fails to offer a suggestions for improving what is obviously a flawed judicial system. Miscarriages of justice occur. They occur throughout history. Books have been written on this subject; it has been dramatized and discussed, e.g., The Count of Monte Christo, Judge Dredd, indeed Jesus Christ himself was crucified although found by the chief magistrate to have done nothing wrong. The judicial system is imperfect and the machinery of justice has some loose nuts and bolts which effect its operation. Most of these wrongly convicted gentlemen whose cases are discussed were found guilty based upon the evidence presented at their trials. It was the admission of additional evidence years later, after the their trials were concluded, that caused their convictions to be later reversed. That this country has an appeal system that allows the admission of new evidence after a trial is adjourned and sentence pronounced is a sign that may be the system is in fact working properly, that even years later, a court is willing to give a case a second review.

A telling documentary about the failings of criminal investigative law in the U.S., AFTER INNOCENCE is a poignant, if somewhat stilted, telling of the lives of men who've been wrongfully imprisoned for years and years (sometimes decades and decades) only to be released after advances in DNA evidence free them.

The documentary follows only men through this process, most of them having been identified during their trial by a person who is wrong about them. Not really a surprise, as eyewitness identification is now being proved to be one of the least accurate ways in which to prosecute someone.

The film begins and ends with its focus on Wilton Dedge in Brevard County, Florida. Sentenced to life in prison for sexual battery and burglary, Dedge has steadfastly commented on his innocence since his imprisonment some 22 years earlier. Never having given up, Dedge has the physical evidence collected from his crime sent to a forensic lab for DNA study. By the end of the film, we learn that none of it matches Dedge and he is sure to be released. But the prosecutors from the District Attorney's office are reluctant to let him go. Why? That's the biggest stickler in the entire film. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of innocence, our supposed community service men and women are unwilling to admit their errors. That's very frustrating and shown quite well.

The problem with the documentary, though, is that it never really shows the "other side." In other words, the D.A.'s perspective. Perhaps the D.A.'s didn't want to be filmed. But we're never told either way. Only once do we ever see a prosecutor discussing DNA cases, and that is very short indeed. Thus, this gives the After Innocence a very lopsided/one-sided viewpoint. If the D.A.'s didn't want to be filmed, I would've liked to have seen the film-makers attempting to get in to see them only to be rebuked and booted out. Again, we don't know if this happened or if the film-makers ever tried to get the other side.

The other notable portion to the film is that prison affects these men very differently. Vincent Moto seems to have lost his willingness to better himself, while Herman Atkins now has a Ph.D in psychology. Dennis Maher and Nick Yarris seem to have mental health problems thanks to their long and wrongful imprisonment, each appearing either lackluster about life or having an inflated ego about their own importance rather than the importance of the situation itself.

Regardless, After Innocence is informative in its own, one-sided way. Just make sure you check out both sides before deciding on its entire significance.