Speaker 1: Maybe. The early morning of April fifteenth, two thousand and eleven,
Speaker 1: Duwan Taylor stole an iPod for an Oakland drug dealer
Speaker 1: named C. Two of his other customers, Patrick Smith and
Speaker 1: Robert Greene, gave Ce a ride in search of the
Speaker 1: iPod thief. They spotted Mr Taylor pulled up next to him,
Speaker 1: and C proceeded to shoot and kill him Over this
Speaker 1: trivial slight. Nearly a week would go by before Robert
Speaker 1: Green would offer cops information and an uncertain description of
Speaker 1: the shooter. A few weeks and several descriptions later, Green
Speaker 1: would claim to have seen C wearing a red hat.
Speaker 1: A few days after that, police would approach Pierre Rushing,
Speaker 1: a man who had never been known as C, but
Speaker 1: wearing a red hat. They'd bring Pierre's juvie photo and
Speaker 1: his name to Robert Green, who went on to identify
Speaker 1: him as the shooter, despite a solid alibi, no physical
Speaker 1: evidence whatsoever or anything to corroborate Robert Green's highly questionable identification.
Speaker 1: Pierre Rushing's burgeoning rap career and promising future were stolen
Speaker 1: by Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving
Speaker 1: fifty to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed
Speaker 1: by a drug dealer needs See. Patrick Smith has since
Speaker 1: signed half a davits and testified to Pierre's innocence, and
Speaker 1: another of C's customers that night has bravely said a
Speaker 1: legal name to the culprit, and even though Mr Rushing
Speaker 1: did not name See, we have censored his name from
Speaker 1: this episode from Mr Rushing Safety. Meanwhile, the state of
Speaker 1: California continues to ignore evidence of Pierre's actual innocence and
Speaker 1: to fight his honest attempts to regain his freedom. This
Speaker 1: is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flam. Welcome back to Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction with Jason Flam. That's me and today we're going
Speaker 1: to tell you about the case of Pierre Rushing. We'll
Speaker 1: speak with one of his post conviction attorneys, Marvin Lou
Speaker 1: as well as taking a call from Kern Valley Correction
Speaker 1: in California to hear from Pierre himself. This is Global
Speaker 1: telling you have a Fred call. From this call and
Speaker 1: your telephone number will be monitored and recorded. To accept
Speaker 1: this call, say or dial five now, thank you for
Speaker 1: you thing Global Hill Link. Hello, good morning, good morning.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you're here. I mean, I'm sorry you're here
Speaker 1: under these circus stances, but I'm definitely glad you're here.
Speaker 1: And I know we have limited time, so let's get
Speaker 1: right into it. Today's episode, we're gonna tell the story
Speaker 1: of the man we have on the phone now, Pierre Rushing,
Speaker 1: who's serving fifty years. The Nightmare starts on April fifteen,
Speaker 1: two thousand eleven. A three five am. Um, when there's
Speaker 1: a murder. But let's go back to your childhood, because
Speaker 1: you had a difficult upbringing and you were coming out
Speaker 1: of that and building a career in music when it
Speaker 1: all went haywire in California. My father was ass and
Speaker 1: tea in and out of prison, um smuggle with addictives,
Speaker 1: crack cocaine. So I don't want to say like any
Speaker 1: other Oakland kid, but as I mean, a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of kids in the grew up in the
Speaker 1: nineties where just products of our environment. We grew up
Speaker 1: looking at things that we believe to be right. So
Speaker 1: we as we mature, we get to see that they
Speaker 1: were really wrong. And how did you get into music?
Speaker 1: My auntie used to work for Keith Swift. Her name
Speaker 1: was Tracy Russie. She sins passed its two dosan thirteen.
Speaker 1: But just being around her, she put me in her wing,
Speaker 1: just taking me to the studio with her as I
Speaker 1: became addictive music. Is it fair to say by two
Speaker 1: thousand and eleven things we're starting to look up for
Speaker 1: you in terms of possibly building a career. And yeah,
Speaker 1: when I was arrested for this case, actually friends of
Speaker 1: mine has said that the police were looking for me
Speaker 1: for this time and we all laughed about it because
Speaker 1: everybody knew that I couldn't have done and I have
Speaker 1: been wrapped in and going to the student you're staying
Speaker 1: assist in shooting videos. Um. And actually when I was
Speaker 1: arrest and I was over up for Bayery Live by
Speaker 1: the Name of Queen, and uh, we had a big
Speaker 1: like like like four with my patures on and promoting
Speaker 1: my music and everything. So you know it was coming
Speaker 1: up for me. Yeah, you were on exactly, You're on
Speaker 1: your way up. And then everything went completely haywire. Now
Speaker 1: let's turn the conversation to Marvin Lou. Marvin is a
Speaker 1: criminal defense attorney of some repute, and he has been
Speaker 1: representing Pierre for some time. Now, let's just paint a
Speaker 1: picture of what happened. The date was April fiven, and
Speaker 1: what happened was two individuals by the name of Patrick
Speaker 1: Smith and Robert Green. We're doing crack cocaine for the
Speaker 1: day and a half leading up to this young man's killing,
Speaker 1: and Patrick Smith and Robert Green went to an apartment
Speaker 1: in Oakland to purchase more crack cocaine. How Chrick Smith
Speaker 1: was driving, Robert Green stayed in the car while Patrick
Speaker 1: Smith went up to the apartment to purchase more drugs.
Speaker 1: So Patrick Smith meets up with his drug dealer. Patrick
Speaker 1: Smith knows him as C the letter C, who is
Speaker 1: the actual person responsible for the murder of Dawan Taylor.
Speaker 1: While Patrick Smith was in the apartment, there were several
Speaker 1: other people present, and Mr Taylor left the apartment shortly
Speaker 1: after Mr Taylor left. Then sees iPod turned up missing
Speaker 1: and someone in the apartment said that Mr Taylor had
Speaker 1: taken sees iPod. What happened next was Patrick Smith, the
Speaker 1: shooter SEE, and another individual who was also charged as
Speaker 1: a co defendant named Andre Morris. They all left the
Speaker 1: apartment and went and got in Patrick Smith's car to
Speaker 1: go find Mr Taylor, who had allegedly taken sees iPod.
Speaker 1: Robert Green was waiting in the car, sitting in the
Speaker 1: front passenger seat. So pat Smith drives around the corner.
Speaker 1: They see Mr Taylor walking down the street and See
Speaker 1: or Andre Morris. Pat Smith wasn't sure which told him
Speaker 1: to stop the car. See and Andre Morris got out
Speaker 1: of the car, confronted Mr Taylor, and See shot and
Speaker 1: killed Mr Taylor on the sidewalk in front of a
Speaker 1: fast food restaurant. They then got back into the car.
Speaker 1: Pat Smith drove a short distance. Both See and Mr
Speaker 1: Morris got out of the car and ran away. So
Speaker 1: that that's the factual backdrop for this thing. Follow along
Speaker 1: here because Pierre, who were on the phone with now
Speaker 1: had no connection to viction, no knowledge of the actual perpetrator,
Speaker 1: and he was at his grandmother's at the time with
Speaker 1: a young lady named Lauren Richardson on the time and
Speaker 1: date of the murder. Have you ever had a nickname
Speaker 1: of Sea before? Never? Never. I've always went by the
Speaker 1: name of Stank or people from my neighbodies to call
Speaker 1: me peace, thank me here for my first Ms Pierre,
Speaker 1: I've never never went by the name See. So what happened?
Speaker 1: How did you end up getting wrongfully convicted here. Well,
Speaker 1: one of the pastors, Robert Green, he goes to the
Speaker 1: police like five days after he allegedly see at this time,
Speaker 1: and he failed them that he's seen his murder and
Speaker 1: a guy named Seen committed this murder. He gives the
Speaker 1: police multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description is five,
Speaker 1: a light skin, a hundred and twenty pounds. I haven't
Speaker 1: been a hundred tweet pounds if I was seen years old,
Speaker 1: let alone at nineteen years old, and I'm not light skinned.
Speaker 1: The second time, I believe you, see the police, he
Speaker 1: switches it up again. So allegedly he says he sees
Speaker 1: Seed on April thirties, which would have been fifteen days
Speaker 1: after the crime, and he went back to the police say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I lied again. I believe he was
Speaker 1: six foot to brown skinned, and they had on red
Speaker 1: shirt and a red hat. I'm not sure what kind
Speaker 1: of line up they were showing it, but he still
Speaker 1: couldn't identify who they believed to be seen. The police
Speaker 1: seen in an area that he said that he had
Speaker 1: seen seeing. I believe it was made Bird wearing a
Speaker 1: red hat. And they stopped me. And when they stopped me.
Speaker 1: They said, what is your name? I don't lie to
Speaker 1: the police year Russian is my name? I said, hey,
Speaker 1: we're looking for a guy to beat a guy up.
Speaker 1: I haven't been the guy up. And then they leave
Speaker 1: when they take that name back to I believe Robert Green,
Speaker 1: who was at the police station and they showing the
Speaker 1: picture four days after he's seen a guy with a
Speaker 1: red head. He said, you know what you had asked
Speaker 1: how Bessie? And that's how the whole way of his spun.
Speaker 1: Then looking I would have read had four days after
Speaker 1: the private rickass, he's seen this guy and a month
Speaker 1: after the crime. When they first questioned you, they wanted
Speaker 1: to know what you were doing on the day of
Speaker 1: the crime. But when they were asking you this question,
Speaker 1: it was already five weeks later, right, And this is
Speaker 1: a trick that they used. Sometimes you're like that you're
Speaker 1: supposed to remember exactly. Like I ask anybody in the
Speaker 1: audience right now, what were you doing. Let's go back
Speaker 1: thirty five days from whatever day you're listening to this.
Speaker 1: Tell me now what you were doing at a particular
Speaker 1: time on that day. And I give you a dollar
Speaker 1: because that's impossible. But it is very effective because then
Speaker 1: they can say you lied, because there's no way anyone
Speaker 1: could possibly remember that unless it was their birthday or
Speaker 1: some other like really important day. Right April fifteenth, as
Speaker 1: you would have it is my father's birthday. So without
Speaker 1: me even thinking, you say April fifth, saying hey, there's
Speaker 1: nothing I was with my dad, I say my day
Speaker 1: on his birthday. Not one time I did any trial
Speaker 1: transprit police ever been tourt these famy Do they ever
Speaker 1: say where were you three a m? So once they
Speaker 1: said no, you weren't what your dad? I also remember
Speaker 1: that I had a traffic stop that day and they
Speaker 1: win check and it showed that I was something truth.
Speaker 1: But if like now not at that time it took me,
Speaker 1: I believe my attorney, for about a week of job
Speaker 1: of my memory to figure out where did I sleep
Speaker 1: at three five him that morning? And I remember it
Speaker 1: was my grandma's was because my mom changed me that
Speaker 1: morning and said where are you going to get your
Speaker 1: dad for his birthday? That's how I was able to
Speaker 1: put the pieces of a pleasant together. But by that
Speaker 1: time it was trial, so they looked at it as if, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a third alibi? Were no I've given you
Speaker 1: everywhere I went from April fifteen, So that's how he
Speaker 1: played it, which is very nefarious because they see that
Speaker 1: I was trying to tell him everything at the time
Speaker 1: that this crime was committed at three forty five in
Speaker 1: the morning. Now we know what you were doing when
Speaker 1: you were supposedly out shooting somebody who you never knew
Speaker 1: and don't know and still don't know and never will know. Well,
Speaker 1: right before I was shooting a video. If you go
Speaker 1: on YouTube right now, the song was called Youngerstake, Take
Speaker 1: a Trip. Lauren Richardson was an associate of the cameraman
Speaker 1: helped shoot the video. She was also my girlfriend April fourteen,
Speaker 1: going to table fifteen. She's came to my h grandma
Speaker 1: talk roughly about nine forty five round ten mclock and
Speaker 1: we spend the night. We enjoy each other's company. We
Speaker 1: uh deal with any other boys for the girlfriend. Hello.
Speaker 1: My name is Lauren Richardson. I am an Oakland resident
Speaker 1: and current legal apprentice. Um I entered the field with
Speaker 1: a lot of motivation from the tragic situation that happened
Speaker 1: with Pierre Rushing. Um I originally was into video on
Speaker 1: April fourteen, Pierre went to shoot a video. It's called
Speaker 1: take a Trip. We were super excited because he had
Speaker 1: so much support from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was
Speaker 1: a great rapper, so when he finally shot the video,
Speaker 1: we were super excited. We went back to his grandmother's
Speaker 1: house afterwards just to kind of recap, and we stayed
Speaker 1: up all night watching movies, laugh and making plans for
Speaker 1: the future. We you know, did what couples do late night,
Speaker 1: and I left early in the morning because I had
Speaker 1: to take my son to school. And it was weeks
Speaker 1: after that he kind of disappeared, you know, when somebody
Speaker 1: else found me and was like, um, you know he's
Speaker 1: in jail, Like what because I was kind of mad,
Speaker 1: you know I was. I thought he ghoes to me,
Speaker 1: to be honest, so it was no way that he
Speaker 1: could have committed the crime. I have never felt as
Speaker 1: powerless as I felt in this situation to express reality
Speaker 1: and be believed in. You know that this huge power
Speaker 1: structure for them to be able to create a false reality,
Speaker 1: Like even with the witness, the witness is not a
Speaker 1: credible witness, nowhere near as credible as I am. Because
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna go perjure myself. I'm not gonna risk
Speaker 1: my life to keep a killer out of jail. So
Speaker 1: for me to go up there in front of all
Speaker 1: of these people and for them to not take my
Speaker 1: word for it when they had no other evidence, it
Speaker 1: bothers me to this day. It's a It's a big
Speaker 1: part of the motivation for me to go into this
Speaker 1: apprenticeship program because I want to learn how to speak
Speaker 1: up for other people who can't speak for themselves, because
Speaker 1: this has to stop. They ruined an entire family. The
Speaker 1: idea that we in this country can sendence somebody like you,
Speaker 1: promising young man with his life ahead of him to
Speaker 1: fifty years based on the testimony of an admitted crackhead
Speaker 1: who was up for two days to change his story
Speaker 1: four times, really should make everybody a little scared. Pierre,
Speaker 1: can you tell us a little bit about the trial
Speaker 1: itself and killing his own camera? When I heard they
Speaker 1: added on camera, started to kick my feet up and
Speaker 1: just wait for the trial days and I'm like, even
Speaker 1: his own camera, I'm I'm going on. I never in
Speaker 1: a million years imagine that the camera was being low
Speaker 1: quality or you really can't see anything on the camera.
Speaker 1: You see a vehicle pull up and it's just it's
Speaker 1: just grainy, so you can't really see anything. And I
Speaker 1: remember my heart just dropping because I knew that that
Speaker 1: was what was supposed to exonerate me. They had no evidence,
Speaker 1: no corrob no no physicalness. They have the murder vehicle
Speaker 1: with twelve fingerprints inside the car and said I got
Speaker 1: in and out of that car four time, none of
Speaker 1: the fingerprints mass made. One of the prosecution's witness was
Speaker 1: a lady by the name of the Carlo Smith, who
Speaker 1: says she witnessed the her and past Smith for best friends.
Speaker 1: She had been in that car a week before when
Speaker 1: the police forrensic Cathologists became the car in every they
Speaker 1: found to call this fingerprints in that car. Therefore, when
Speaker 1: she testified she hadn't been in the car seven days
Speaker 1: prior to the killing, that means that the car couldn't
Speaker 1: have possibly been wiped down. And if the car wasn't
Speaker 1: wipe down, you fund twelve the fourteen fingerprints in that car,
Speaker 1: And per Robert Green testimony, I got in and out
Speaker 1: of that car four times, and I killed this guy
Speaker 1: with no gloves. Why I wear my fingerprints on the car? Second,
Speaker 1: if Robert Green is too believe. Why would you ever
Speaker 1: call me five day light stand a hundred and twenty pounds?
Speaker 1: Why would you ever change it to five ten hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty pounds? And that preliminary hearing when the judge
Speaker 1: allowed me to lead the cour room, they brought Robert
Speaker 1: Green and they said could completely describe the killer. This
Speaker 1: guy switched it up to six to two hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty pounds. This guy is not to be believed. He
Speaker 1: was addicted to crack and heron said he had been
Speaker 1: up for two days off crack and iron had to
Speaker 1: pensively seven time failings. Third, do you have to call
Speaker 1: a smith? Another prosecution is with us. I didn't see him.
Speaker 1: I don't know who that is. Well, yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: our standard in this country is supposed to be reasonable doubt,
Speaker 1: and this goes way beyond that standard. I had hoped that,
Speaker 1: you know, I would I would be exagerated and did
Speaker 1: you have proper representation? Now? I went to trial with
Speaker 1: a public defender, and I went speedy trial. I was
Speaker 1: arrested in May, I was convicted in August. And the
Speaker 1: reason I went to speedy trial because I feel like
Speaker 1: I had nothing odd. I didn't do it. So while
Speaker 1: when I wait where I see my counting people wait
Speaker 1: four or five years to fight the case because they're
Speaker 1: trying to wait for the bead deal. The thurs Day
Speaker 1: of trial, I remember the judge saying something like, hey,
Speaker 1: I know the d is going to give you a deal.
Speaker 1: She looked to your left. Get a deal because I
Speaker 1: know that he's going to give you one. And I
Speaker 1: just remember shaking my head, no, no, no, because why
Speaker 1: would I take time for something if I didn't do it.
Speaker 1: They know I'm not seen, so they want to know
Speaker 1: if a we call in the urban community, if I'm
Speaker 1: going to snitch, I know a lot of seas. That's
Speaker 1: that's the one for two. It's not my job to
Speaker 1: do the police a job for them, you know. So
Speaker 1: if I wasn't there, what do you expect me to do?
Speaker 1: Or maybe it could have been this guy, Maybe could
Speaker 1: be this guy. If I do that, I'm worse than
Speaker 1: Robert Green because you were not there and they know
Speaker 1: that and they feed off that. Yeah, jail house snitches
Speaker 1: is just sort of become like standard operating procedure. Correct.
Speaker 1: It's a nightmare to live a nightmare. But that was
Speaker 1: that was the sum of the trail. Yeah, that is
Speaker 1: a nightmare scenario. So the jury goes out. When they
Speaker 1: came back in, what was that moment like when they
Speaker 1: actually found guilty of a crime you didn't commit. When
Speaker 1: they came back with it, it was It was weird
Speaker 1: because the whole trial, I had twenty to thirty people
Speaker 1: every single day of my of my trial, friends from
Speaker 1: the neighborhood, family, girlfriend, associates. But on that day nobody
Speaker 1: was in the color room, not even the victim's family,
Speaker 1: nobody from my frind that dad was just like a
Speaker 1: sense of loneliness, of sense and like me against the
Speaker 1: world because you're sitting here convictedmy for a crime that
Speaker 1: I didn't commit, and I know that you're going to
Speaker 1: commit this time. And I couldn't even look back to
Speaker 1: look in the eyes of my father, my father and
Speaker 1: my grandmother, and I felt like that was already fat
Speaker 1: Like why wasn't even the victims family, like where was
Speaker 1: It was just it's a feeling that I never want
Speaker 1: to feel again. Marvin, take it back to how you
Speaker 1: first met Pierre or how you first became aware of
Speaker 1: his case, and why you chose to get involved in
Speaker 1: this case. You must get hit with cases all the time.
Speaker 1: I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney,
Speaker 1: Stephen Bedrick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court,
Speaker 1: also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State
Speaker 1: Court of Appeal. What is the literal interpretation of habeas corpus.
Speaker 1: Habeas corpus means to produce the body in Latin, and
Speaker 1: what that means is that it's an allegation by us
Speaker 1: that Pierre is being unlawfully incarcerated. And once I dug
Speaker 1: into the case and reviewed the evidence in Pierre's case
Speaker 1: and did some investigation of my own, that very much
Speaker 1: turned out to be true. Well went wrong here? I
Speaker 1: think a number of things went wrong, but most critically,
Speaker 1: there was evidence which could have exonerated Pierre which was
Speaker 1: not introduced. The only witness in the case, Robert Greene,
Speaker 1: testified that Pierre was supposedly the person who committed this crime.
Speaker 1: That is the only evidence in the case, and in
Speaker 1: the trial against Pierre, that witness testified that the person
Speaker 1: who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone
Speaker 1: mirror minutes before shooting the victim. In this case, Pierre's
Speaker 1: phone records were available, and that was part of the
Speaker 1: habeas petition and got him a hearing subsequently, and those
Speaker 1: phone records established conclusively that Pierre was not talking on
Speaker 1: his cell phone at the time when the perpetrator was.
Speaker 1: And if those records were introduced, I think that it
Speaker 1: would be a pretty compelling piece of evidence to establish that,
Speaker 1: in fact, Pierre is not the person responsible for this murder.
Speaker 1: But they weren't introduced, The jury never heard of them.
Speaker 1: What about the fingerprint stuff? How did they manage to
Speaker 1: get around that? That seems like that could have been
Speaker 1: enough on its own. How did he not leave his fingerprints?
Speaker 1: Is he a ghost? Well? The fingerprint evidence was introduced
Speaker 1: by way of a stipulation for the evidence technician who
Speaker 1: actually gathered the latent fingerprints from the car that was
Speaker 1: used in the homicide. That witness did not testify. Rather,
Speaker 1: Pierre's trial attorney chose to have that evidence admitted by
Speaker 1: way of an agreement with the prosecutor simply the conclusion
Speaker 1: that Pierre's fingerprints were not in fact recovered from that car,
Speaker 1: And had that witness been called, it would have led
Speaker 1: to another important piece which was not introduced and not
Speaker 1: known to the jury. That evidence technician also collected DNA
Speaker 1: from that car swabbed all of the areas of that
Speaker 1: car where the killer sat just before the murder occurred.
Speaker 1: In addition, there was a cigarette but that was recovered
Speaker 1: from the floorboard of that car, which was also swabbed
Speaker 1: for DNA. That DNA evidence was not tested in time
Speaker 1: for Pierre's trial, and that was also the subject of
Speaker 1: his subsequent Abeas petition. So what happened was after we
Speaker 1: obtained an evidentiary hearing in state court to attempt to
Speaker 1: prove years innocence. As I started reviewing the case materials,
Speaker 1: I realized that this DNA evidence existed which would completely
Speaker 1: exonerate him, and no one had tested it. So there's
Speaker 1: a procedure under California law that allows the convicted individual
Speaker 1: to ask the court to now have that evidence tested
Speaker 1: because it would prove that he's innocent. The government opposed
Speaker 1: our efforts to have that evidence tested, and ultimately the
Speaker 1: judge in this case refused to allow us to test
Speaker 1: that evidence. I then appealed that refusal, and the Court
Speaker 1: of Appeal refused to allow us to test that evidence.
Speaker 1: Why is it that they wouldn't want to have the
Speaker 1: DNA evidence in the case tested if they're so confident that,
Speaker 1: in fact, he's the perpetrator. Because I never can understand
Speaker 1: in any case, especially in the case as serious as
Speaker 1: this one, a murder case, why they wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: have every you know, stone turned over and have every
Speaker 1: piece of evidence tested so that they can find out
Speaker 1: not only that in this case Pierre didn't do it,
Speaker 1: but they could find out who actually did. Marvin Yolanda
Speaker 1: Washington and Patrick Smith are pivotal players in this whole
Speaker 1: wrangful conviction. Can you explain their role in what went
Speaker 1: wrong here? Sure? Of course Pat Smith was a charged
Speaker 1: codefendant in the case at the time of Pierre's trial,
Speaker 1: so he did not testify at the trial. He had
Speaker 1: his fifth Amendment right. But after Pierre's trial was long
Speaker 1: over and after Patrick Smith resolved his part of the
Speaker 1: case for accessory affter the fact, he then signed in
Speaker 1: affidavit which helped Pierre get an evidentiary hearing. He indicated
Speaker 1: both in his affidavit as well as in his testimony
Speaker 1: at the evidentiary hearing that his drug dealer is a
Speaker 1: man who goes by the name of c and that
Speaker 1: individual was not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing
Speaker 1: refused to name that individual because he was afraid for
Speaker 1: his life. One of the people who was in that
Speaker 1: apartment was a woman by the name of Yolande Washington,
Speaker 1: and she also did not testify a trial, but after
Speaker 1: Pierre was convicted, she signed an affid David under penalty
Speaker 1: of perjury, indicating that she, of course, having been in
Speaker 1: that apartment, knew who she was. She obviously knew who
Speaker 1: Andre Morris was, and what she said in her affid
Speaker 1: David was that Pierre Rushing is not the drug dealer
Speaker 1: who shot and killed Mr. Taylor. Pierre Rushing is not C.
Speaker 1: But that's not all. Indeed, Yolande Washington went so far
Speaker 1: as to identify who that person was. Now, before we
Speaker 1: get into this, let me make one thing clear, which
Speaker 1: is that Pierre does not know the identity of the
Speaker 1: perpetrator of this homicide. Yolanda Washington, in her affid David
Speaker 1: did name that individual who goes by the nickname C.
Speaker 1: In fact, his first name is his name is and
Speaker 1: of course it would make perfect sense that he would
Speaker 1: go by the nickname C because his name is Pierre Rushing.
Speaker 1: Does not have a C in his name, and she
Speaker 1: has never been Pierre's nickname because Pierre is not the
Speaker 1: person responsible for this killing. That affidavit was part of
Speaker 1: what enabled Pierre to get a hearing in superior court. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: Miss Washington was a homeless individual at that time, and
Speaker 1: my investigator was essentially unable to locate her to get
Speaker 1: her to testifying court. So I filed a motion essentially
Speaker 1: asking that her affidavit be considered because she was unavailable,
Speaker 1: and that request was denied. Wow, it's pretty courageous, even
Speaker 1: after the fact that these two people both were willing
Speaker 1: to put their own lives at risk to identify someone
Speaker 1: who they know is a killer. And I think that
Speaker 1: speaks volumes to the veracity of their statements to me.
Speaker 1: And I don't mean to say it like it's because
Speaker 1: of the social climate that we have going on in
Speaker 1: your klinded station right now, but growing up, our voice
Speaker 1: felt I could spend them against us, not because I
Speaker 1: grow up in an age and the police, but I
Speaker 1: just watch how they need those that look like me. Here,
Speaker 1: as we're talking about a guy give a description on
Speaker 1: April thirties of a red hat, and you see me
Speaker 1: on the dark saying, well, hey, that's a guy wearing
Speaker 1: a red hat. Let me stop him. And now my
Speaker 1: whole life is his spending in a sparter. Why not
Speaker 1: a tread of physical evidence links me to this crime,
Speaker 1: and if it could happen to me, it can't happen
Speaker 1: to anybody. Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up.
Speaker 1: I mean, we you know, every day there's more information
Speaker 1: coming out, and I'm grateful that the public is starting
Speaker 1: to have a really heightened awareness to the fact that
Speaker 1: black people, It's just put it right out there, are
Speaker 1: so much more are likely to be victimized by not
Speaker 1: just police brutality, but by rawful convictions, by rawful prosecutions,
Speaker 1: being forced into taking plea bargains two things they didn't do.
Speaker 1: The whole system is stacked rawful convictions, though, do happen
Speaker 1: to people from all races, all nationalities, all different creeds,
Speaker 1: all different religions. I mean, we've had people on the
Speaker 1: show from every walk of life. I mean, you can
Speaker 1: take the case of Bryan Ferguson in a two thousand
Speaker 1: one Columbus, Missouri killing. He was wrongfully convicted, and he's
Speaker 1: a white man, you know, what I mean, like wrawerful
Speaker 1: convictions don't have a skin color. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: usually what I'm going through. I witness misidentifications on valid
Speaker 1: forensic science, false confessions, police or prosecutor misconduct. This is
Speaker 1: a slew of things on why rawful convictions happened. And
Speaker 1: then there's just laziness too. It's like, oh, we got
Speaker 1: a guy with a red hat, good enough, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. But the idea that the justice system
Speaker 1: at every level, now we see it on video of
Speaker 1: how the system treats people like yourself, like George Floyd,
Speaker 1: like so many others, as expendable, disposable, and yet I
Speaker 1: mean there are very very real consequences. That's why we're
Speaker 1: on the phone with you from prison now, or you
Speaker 1: and I might be working together on a record instead
Speaker 1: of Pierre. What would you want people to know about
Speaker 1: you and what would you want them to do if
Speaker 1: you could give them an action? Stem Um, I would
Speaker 1: want them to know that could be your son, I
Speaker 1: could be your brother, I could be your nephew, I
Speaker 1: could be your cousin. I could be your friend. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm innocent. If you have any doubt in my innocence,
Speaker 1: I would actually just think on these key points. If
Speaker 1: I wasn't innocent, with ulty, person would push for DNA
Speaker 1: testing up the materials that were saw out of the vehicle.
Speaker 1: If I wasn't innocent, what guilty man would plash for
Speaker 1: the enhancement of the of the video if I wasn't innocent,
Speaker 1: or man, I'm going to push for the phone records.
Speaker 1: I'm innocent, I didn't commit this crime. I have nothing
Speaker 1: to do with this crime. I would ask that you
Speaker 1: just look inside your art and find the empathy and
Speaker 1: the compassion to sign a petition that my family is
Speaker 1: organized the Justice for Peer Rushing to Change dot org.
Speaker 1: And I would ask that you stand up, that you
Speaker 1: would reach out to the local authorities, your local police department,
Speaker 1: const legislation, and just trying to try to make change.
Speaker 1: So again, that's Justice for Pierre Rushing un change dot org.
Speaker 1: As the petition will also have a link in this
Speaker 1: episode description, so you can sign a petition there. Please,
Speaker 1: everyone go and sign it. I already did. I hope
Speaker 1: you'll join me and let's bring him home. And now
Speaker 1: I want to introduce what our listeners have come to
Speaker 1: know is my favorite part of the show and I
Speaker 1: think a lot for a lot of them. It's true too. Um.
Speaker 1: This is a part of the show where first of all,
Speaker 1: I thank you for being on the show and sharing
Speaker 1: your experience. Hopefully it will make a difference in the
Speaker 1: lives of others, Um, and the difference in your case
Speaker 1: as well. So thank you again, Pierre for being here.
Speaker 1: And now I'm gonna kick back in my chair, turn
Speaker 1: my microphone off and just basically shut up and listen.
Speaker 1: So closing arguments, we're going to go first to Marvin
Speaker 1: Lieu and then we're gonna hear from Pierre. What has
Speaker 1: happened to Pierre is a systemic failure. These are problems
Speaker 1: which are built into the legal system that need to
Speaker 1: be fixed on the systemic level, you know, in terms
Speaker 1: of next steps, you know. Fortunately, uh, Pierre continues to
Speaker 1: be represented by Bob Bellis in his ongoing federal habeas matter,
Speaker 1: and I wish them the best and I hope that
Speaker 1: ultimately through the legal system they're they're able to generate
Speaker 1: some relief and review for Pierre. But what I will
Speaker 1: say is that in light of the failures of the
Speaker 1: system relating to Pierre over and over again, what I
Speaker 1: would say is that this venue is an opportunity to
Speaker 1: go outside of and beyond the legal system to attempt
Speaker 1: to find a way to free Pierre from from this
Speaker 1: wrongful conviction. And one of the things that can be
Speaker 1: done outside of the legal system is to put pressure
Speaker 1: on the government to either test at DNA evidence or
Speaker 1: provide it to Pierre's attorneys so that they can test
Speaker 1: it for him. Even though they have resisted that and
Speaker 1: actively opposed that throughout these proceedings, nonetheless they retain the
Speaker 1: power to change their minds and agree, and they are
Speaker 1: the Alameda County District Attorney's office and the californ On
Speaker 1: Your Attorney General's office. So whether they're forced to do
Speaker 1: that through some legal proceeding or whether they agree to
Speaker 1: do that by virtue of public and political pressure, that
Speaker 1: is something that that can be done and that they
Speaker 1: continue to have the power to do. Pierre. The mic
Speaker 1: is yours for closing arguments. Thank you. I would like
Speaker 1: to uh first off saying thank you on behalf of
Speaker 1: me in behalf of my family to a few people first,
Speaker 1: starting with you, Jason Flaner. You creating this platform that
Speaker 1: is reaching millions and millions of people. Um, right, now
Speaker 1: we're living in a climate where a lot of people
Speaker 1: are making it a black and a white issue right now. Yes,
Speaker 1: black lives do matter, but it's not a black and
Speaker 1: a white issue because they have a lot of people
Speaker 1: that are Caucasian race that are standing up and you
Speaker 1: are are one of us. All. Thank you. I thank
Speaker 1: Marvin lou for fighting and champion in my innocence. I
Speaker 1: like to thank Gloria Saudi. I'd like to thank Josh
Speaker 1: Swindle for helping my family out. And I'd also like
Speaker 1: to thank you came when she's doing for justice reform.
Speaker 1: And I'd like to thank the Innocence Project and those
Speaker 1: that are are are standing up for these carss. And
Speaker 1: finally I'd like to just also thank my father. They
Speaker 1: tried to make my father and try to transfers look
Speaker 1: like a guy who was trying to persuade witnesses, you know.
Speaker 1: And to the other fifteen, the driver of this case,
Speaker 1: Patrick Smith, came in. He said, you know, I took
Speaker 1: them guys to do that stuff, and I was a
Speaker 1: part of that. And I can't live with myself knowing
Speaker 1: that a man is doing life for something that I did.
Speaker 1: He's not the guy. And when They asked him, why
Speaker 1: are you coming forward now? He said, because his father
Speaker 1: reached out to me, and they tried to make my
Speaker 1: father look like like like he was persuaded, when all
Speaker 1: he was doing it was fighting for his son. What
Speaker 1: have you done if your son was arrested to some
Speaker 1: men and do you would fight for him? So you
Speaker 1: know they're gonna throw smoking mirrors and try to make
Speaker 1: it seem like this and try to make it seem
Speaker 1: like that. I don't care about the smoking mirror. I
Speaker 1: don't care about the facts. And the fact is I
Speaker 1: didn't commit this time. With that being said, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a lot going on right now. So I just
Speaker 1: asked for people to just educate yourselves on these type
Speaker 1: of situations. They could happen to anybody here. I was wrapping,
Speaker 1: so I was attending the Laney in Marrion College. I
Speaker 1: didn't do too good. I ended up dropping out, but
Speaker 1: I tried. You know, I don't know a lot of
Speaker 1: people that come where I come from not even try
Speaker 1: to go to college, let alone do it while they're
Speaker 1: doing music. I was trying to make a change in
Speaker 1: my life. I didn't grow up squeaky clean. I would
Speaker 1: be the first one to tell you, like I told anybody,
Speaker 1: I've had a check pass. That doesn't define me, that
Speaker 1: doesn't make me a killer, that doesn't make me anything
Speaker 1: but a man that grew up looking at something that's wrong,
Speaker 1: believing that it was right. There is no physical for
Speaker 1: friends and to give it is that links me to
Speaker 1: this crime. So if you need any reason to to
Speaker 1: fight for this cause, just look inside the case. Pull
Speaker 1: the case up. You're gonna see listen. Is an atrocity
Speaker 1: and it could happen to anybody, anybody. They say in
Speaker 1: the Wikipedia at two point three million prisoners, like a
Speaker 1: hundred twenty prowfully convicted people in prison. Something is wrong
Speaker 1: with that. Likely there's something terribly wrong with that. Don't
Speaker 1: forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud donor
Speaker 1: to the Innocence Project and I really hope you'll join
Speaker 1: me in supporting this very important cause and helping to
Speaker 1: prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocence Project dot org
Speaker 1: to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like
Speaker 1: to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin wardis
Speaker 1: the music in the show is by three time OSCAR
Speaker 1: nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Speaker 1: Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flam is a production of Lava
Speaker 1: for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 1: The Woman was Worth