I’m taking a few days off but that doesn’t mean I’m not paying attention to what’s going on. Today’s Virginian-Pilot brought to light the continuing saga of Arthur Whitfield, who was wrongfully convicted of rape and served 22 years in prison before DNA evidence exonerated him and he was released. He was finally pardoned by the Governor last April, but, as the article points out, his life has yet to get back on track.
When the pardon came through, Fasanaro immediately asked the state Supreme Court to provide Whitfield a $15,000 “transition assistance grant.” The money would come from the state’s criminal fund and would be deducted from any other payments Whitfield receives. State law provides that people who are wrongfully incarcerated can receive compensation for the time they spent behind bars. The transition grant is intended to help the person until legislators approve other award money.Once again, the Supreme Court told Whitfield that his freedom would prevent the payment.
Because he was released from prison, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of actual innocence, which prompted the pursuit of a pardon which took nearly 5 years. (As the article points out, that part of the law has now been changed.) And now because he was released from prison, they are denying him the transitional grant.
That we would treat an innocent man this way is inexcusable.
Whitfield may be hold no anger. I certainly do.
It’s past time for Virginia to do the right thing by this man.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Whom do we right, call, email, petition, etc., to get this man what he deserves from the State?
Is there a fund set up for him to which we can contribute?
It’s past time for Virginia to do the right thing by this man.
I’d say that about $50k/year incarcerated sounds about right.
Plus interest.
The Court has denied him any kind of relief because of the way the rules are written. Thus, the people who need to pick up the task are the ones who write the rules. The General Assembly could pass a bill making this man eligible for the recompense he’d have been entitled to under law had the technical procedures of his release been different.