I was really tickled that Spike aired the complete story of this on their 9 am (central) episode today for I had never seen it. In the past Spike had aired the update of him and I'm sure there was some editing but this lasted a good 20 minutes. Very interesting to see the details of the story (if anyone wants more details on it I can elaborate) and I'm glad he was finally freed.

Bump. I've only seen the update...this is another one of those "Final Appeal" episodes...interesting.

Yes, I've only seen the "150th solve" update version on the DVD sets, but I'd be really curious to hear any other details about this case. From watching the update, it looked to me like the only reason Miller was convicted because of some mistaken eyewitness testimony and it seemed the case against him was very weak. Why would they think he was stupid enough to come back and rob the place only a minute after he bought food and interacted with the staff?

From what I saw, Tony Miller definitely seemed like a nice man and one of the more likable final appellants (let's face it, even if they were innocent, some of the other appellants were not exactly sympathetic people), so I'm glad it worked out well for him.

What a nice guy, I loved his little laugh he did and how he said he was going to scream but decided not to in case he was locked back up! :D

I've never seen this segment aired on any of the cable channels that show Unsolved Mysteries. Can anyone tell me when the last time was that this segment aired?

It just aired again on Monday, the 20th of December. I just watched it after recording it earlier.

Talk about being railroaded! This just goes to show you how reliable eye witness acounts are in a case. I think Tony should have been allowed to get one good punch in on the manager of the restaurant. The guy put an innocent man away for eight years because he was "certain" he was the man who robbed him. Even after this Clark guy confessed repeatedly, he couldn't get a new trial. That assistant prosecutor was kind of a douche in the segment too. He seemed so sure that because two people identified Tony, there was no room for doubt in this case. Even though Tony and Clark resembled each other in height, weight, and all around general appearance. I hope Tony got some sort of compensation for being in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Talk about being railroaded! This just goes to show you how reliable eye witness acounts are in a case. I think Tony should have been allowed to get one good punch in on the manager of the restaurant. The guy put an innocent man away for eight years because he was "certain" he was the man who robbed him. Even after this Clark guy confessed repeatedly, he couldn't get a new trial. That assistant prosecutor was kind of a douche in the segment too. He seemed so sure that because two people identified Tony, there was no room for doubt in this case. Even though Tony and Clark resembled each other in height, weight, and all around general appearance. I hope Tony got some sort of compensation for being in prison for a crime he did not commit.

This is one case (unlike some others shown in UM) that was a clear cut miscarriage of justice. The prosecutors screwed up and were unwilling to admit to that screw up even after evidence of reasonable doubt was presented to them.

Mr. Miller made the mistake of going to the police department BEFORE consulting w/ an attorney. I'm curious why he did this as an attorney could have helped him w/ his alibi and arranged a surrender in a safe manner. Going to the police department was not a very intelligent move on Mr Miller's part,

Hopefully, Mr. Miller filed a civil suit against the restaurant and was able to obtain compensation for his unjust conviction.

This is one case (unlike some others shown in UM) that was a clear cut miscarriage of justice. The prosecutors screwed up and were unwilling to admit to that screw up even after evidence of reasonable doubt was presented to them.

Mr. Miller made the mistake of going to the police department BEFORE consulting w/ an attorney. I'm curious why he did this as an attorney could have helped him w/ his alibi and arranged a surrender in a safe manner. Going to the police department was not a very intelligent move on Mr Miller's part,

Hopefully, Mr. Miller filed a civil suit against the restaurant and was able to obtain compensation for his unjust conviction.

Well there's the saying, "If you're innocent why do you feel the need to have an attorney?", so I think Tony just figured he would settle everything at the station because he knew he didn't do anything and had witnesses to support his alibi.

Well there's the saying, "If you're innocent why do you feel the need to have an attorney?", so I think Tony just figured he would settle everything at the station because he knew he didn't do anything and had witnesses to support his alibi.

That begs the questions (which aren't addressed in the segment): How did Mr. Miller find out that the place he had gotten food from was robbed? And why would he have assumed that he would have answer any questions concerning it?

If I heard that a place that I had visited was robbed, it would never occur to me to concern myself w/ going to the police department and giving any kind of statement. If the police thought I was involved, I'm sure that would come see me in a pretty short order.

If the other person had not claimed to have committed the crime, Mr. Miller's behavior alone would have made most police officers suspicious. And , in fact, could have negated any alibi he had for the incident.

I was tell anybody that's in legal trouble two things: 1) Don't talk to the police unless you have an attorney present 2) ALWAYS get an attorney.

That begs the questions (which aren't addressed in the segment): How did Mr. Miller find out that the place he had gotten food from was robbed? And why would he have assumed that he would have answer any questions concerning it?

If I heard that a place that I had visited was robbed, it would never occur to me to concern myself w/ going to the police department and giving any kind of statement. If the police thought I was involved, I'm sure that would come see me in a pretty short order.

If the other person had not claimed to have committed the crime, Mr. Miller's behavior alone would have made most police officers suspicious. And , in fact, could have negated any alibi he had for the incident.

I was tell anybody that's in legal trouble two things: 1) Don't talk to the police unless you have an attorney present 2) ALWAYS get an attorney.

I would imagine that Tony heard rumors or second hand information that he was involved. He did greet stop and talk to his friend who worked there before she left and before he entered, and since the clerk and the manager were certain it was Tony they may have told his friend, "Hey that guy you talked to last night robbed us and shot a cop". I'm wondering about Tony's friend's boyfriend who was an armed off duty security guard who was waiting to pick her up. Tony said that he greeted her in the parking lot before he entered, but her boyfriend made no mention of this. In addition he was waiting in the lot AFTER his girlfriend left, and he also said that two men entered the restaurant and shortly left where five separate people all said that three entered the store and stayed for several minutes because one of the men got into an argument with the manager. And why was this guard out waiting in his car armed anyway? Makes me kind of wonder whether or not he was involved somehow.

I would imagine that Tony heard rumors or second hand information that he was involved. He did greet stop and talk to his friend who worked there before she left and before he entered, and since the clerk and the manager were certain it was Tony they may have told his friend, "Hey that guy you talked to last night robbed us and shot a cop". I'm wondering about Tony's friend's boyfriend who was an armed off duty security guard who was waiting to pick her up. Tony said that he greeted her in the parking lot before he entered, but her boyfriend made no mention of this. In addition he was waiting in the lot AFTER his girlfriend left, and he also said that two men entered the restaurant and shortly left where five separate people all said that three entered the store and stayed for several minutes because one of the men got into an argument with the manager. And why was this guard out waiting in his car armed anyway? Makes me kind of wonder whether or not he was involved somehow.

You may want to re-watch the segment (it was on yesterday on Lifetime) Miller went to the police station at/around 4am the following morning after the night before. He certainly may have been "tipped off", but going to the station BEFORE they came to talk w/ him was a very poor idea.

Again, I just don't see going to the police w/o talking with an attorney first. Mr. Miller could have had a traffic warrant and they could have held him on that while they made a case against him.

I think Tony should have been allowed to get one good punch in on the manager of the restaurant. The guy put an innocent man away for eight years because he was "certain" he was the man who robbed him.

I think his exact words were 'probably certain', which is an oxymoron. Once he said that, I knew Tony Miller was innocent. "Probably certain" doesn't make any sense as a phrase. I can't believe Tony Miller was behind bars so long when the other guy confessed a month after the crimes. I wonder what that jury was thinking. Happy musician vs. career criminal, not a tough one to figure out.

I know that eyewitnesses are mistaken a lot of the time, but didn't that restaurant manager suggest that Tony was the one that robbed them on 2 prior occasions? So he saw the guy three times and still got it wrong? I thought the manager was due for a punch in the face and be forced to eat some of that nasty food they served.

Happy musician vs. career criminal, not a tough one to figure out.

I've seen this segment in it's entirety one time, and from what I remember there was absolutely nothing about the guy that said criminal. I think the manager must have remembered seeing Tony earlier in the evening when he was visiting his friend and just confused the two into thinking he was the robber. But to be certain that it was Miller is pretty stupid, considering Clark wore a stocking mask during the robbery.

I remember the actual robber and Mr. Miller looking somewhat similar. It's possible that the restaurant manager honestly was mistaken.

In any case you can really see the "Is this real?" in his eyes during the segment.

FWIW, the entire segment is available on Amazon Prime, season 7, episode 4 with Dennis Farina.

This segment has some spot-on, look-alike re-enactors as well.

This segment has some spot-on, look-alike re-enactors as well.

Except the blatantly obvious white dude in blackface portraying the actual robber in the segment.

Except the blatantly obvious white dude in blackface portraying the actual robber in the segment.

Wow, glad I'm not the only one who noticed that! WTF? Did they just not have any black actors available on the day they filmed that scene?

Anyway, this segment is definitely a case study on how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. There was one HUGE flaw in the restaurant manager's testimony which should have completely nullified his credibility and I wonder if Tony's defense team ever raised it at trial. About thirty seconds after Tony and his friends leave the place, Joseph Clark runs in to commit the robbery, but the manager identifies the robber as Tony wearing a stocking over his head. But wouldn't Clark have been dressed in different clothing? I don't know how accurate the re-enactment was, but it shows Miller and Clark wearing completely different outfits. Did the manager honestly think Tony went outside and changed his entire wardrobe in a matter of seconds?!

LOL, I know, I was joking.

They must not have, Robin. I guess we caught a UM production in a moment where they must have been short on time or else I'm sure they wouldn't have done that.

I agree with you on the short-sighted eyewitness testimony.

Wow, glad I'm not the only one who noticed that! WTF? Did they just not have any black actors available on the day they filmed that scene?

Anyway, this segment is definitely a case study on how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. There was one HUGE flaw in the restaurant manager's testimony which should have completely nullified his credibility and I wonder if Tony's defense team ever raised it at trial. About thirty seconds after Tony and his friends leave the place, Joseph Clark runs in to commit the robbery, but the manager identifies the robber as Tony wearing a stocking over his head. But wouldn't Clark have been dressed in different clothing? I don't know how accurate the re-enactment was, but it shows Miller and Clark wearing completely different outfits. Did the manager honestly think Tony went outside and changed his entire wardrobe in a matter of seconds?!

I wonder if Tony's other friend (the one who was in the navy) had actually been at the trial to testify if the outcome would've turned out differently. Because you'd have 2 witnesses for Tony, and the 2 witnesses against him that worked at the restaurant.

I wonder if Tony's other friend (the one who was in the navy) had actually been at the trial to testify if the outcome would've turned out differently. Because you'd have 2 witnesses for Tony, and the 2 witnesses against him that worked at the restaurant.

Yeah, it was such a bad break that Tony's friend was at sea and didn't receive his subpoena. I know the jury didn't believe Tony's other friend because he had committed an armed robbery years earlier, but if a member of the Navy testified on Tony's behalf, they might have found his story more credibility.