The Trials of Darryl Hunt (2006)

Directed by: Ricky Stern, Anne Sundberg | 106 minutes | documentary

In 1984, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, white woman Deborah Sykes was raped and murdered. A call from someone to 911 quickly identified black Darryl Hunt as a suspect. Although there was no physical evidence, he was convicted of murder. Hunt always claimed that he was innocent and did not want to make a ‘deal’. Instead, he continued to struggle to prove his innocence.

The documentary ‘The Trials of Darryl Hunt’ takes you through these events and the various lawsuits. Interviews with people involved in the case are interspersed with images from the period of the trial. It soon becomes clear that a number of things in the procedure are not right. The case is mainly based on a number of testimonies, as there was no physical evidence. However, one testimony from a young prostitute is almost forced, because she continues to deny in the trial itself. Another witness points to Hunt as the perpetrator, but months after the crime was committed. Normally, this collection of evidence would be too little to convict anyone, but the almost all-white jury convicts Hunt anyway. He gets a life sentence. In 1994 – ten years after Hunt’s conviction – a DNA test is possible, which shows that Hunt is not the one who raped Sykes. But this also does not lead to a release: the fact that no traces of him were found in the victim does not mean that he did not abuse or kill her. Only years later – and after much pain and effort – he is acquitted. The DNA test is now enough evidence and another man, who has been in prison for years, confesses to having committed the murder.

The tone of the documentary is quite melodramatic at times. The word racism is easily thrown around and one person interviewed even cries crocodile tears. It also lacks a certain amount of nuance and objectivity. The information shown is limited in some areas, so that you as a viewer are quickly sent in a direction. It is clear that the racist ideas of the residents of Winston-Salem have a major influence on their judgment, but it is interesting precisely what steps have been taken by the police and the judiciary because of these prejudices. It is only casually reported that some witnesses have made a false statement and that witnesses of the defense have been blackmailed into not appearing in court. Other mistakes and choices are barely even highlighted. On the other hand, the selection of images also adds color to the story.

It is special to see the lawyers who handled Hunt’s case in the beginning, stand by his side and fight for him for 20 years. The moment when one of them silently in a corner wipes his tears when they fail to get Hunt acquitted again is touching. The others involved stare blankly ahead and Hunt himself can only give a tame response over the phone: he seems to have already given up hope. Then you realize that this really happened and that twenty years of Darryl Hunt’s life has been ruined. And that only because of the negligence and discriminatory ideas of the residents of Winston-Salem. It’s a wonder Darryl Hunt has remained so positive.