Speaker 1: In the early morning of April fifteenth, twenty eleven, Dwan
Speaker 1: Taylor stole an iPod for an Oakland drug dealer named
Speaker 1: c Two of his other customers, Patrick Smith and Robert Green,
Speaker 1: gave Sea a ride in search of the iPod thief.
Speaker 1: They spotted mister Taylor pulled up next to him, and
Speaker 1: See proceeded to shoot and kill him Over this trivial slight.
Speaker 1: Nearly a week would go by before Robert Green would
Speaker 1: offer cops information and an uncertain description of the shooter.
Speaker 1: A few weeks and several descriptions later, Green would claim
Speaker 1: to have seen s wearing a red hat. A few
Speaker 1: days after that, police would approach Pierre Rushing, a man
Speaker 1: who had never been known as Sea, but wearing a
Speaker 1: red hat. They'd bring Pierre's juvie photo and his name
Speaker 1: to Robert Green, who went on to identify him as
Speaker 1: the shooter, despite a solid alibi, no physical evidence whatsoever,
Speaker 1: or anything to corroborate Robert Green's highly questionable identification. Pierre
Speaker 1: Rushing's burgeoning rap career and promising future we're stolen by
Speaker 1: Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving fifty
Speaker 1: to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed by
Speaker 1: a drug dealer named C. Patrick. Smith has since signed
Speaker 1: Affi Davis and testified to Pierre's innocence, and another of
Speaker 1: C's customers that night has bravely set a legal name
Speaker 1: to the culprit, and even though mister Rushing did not
Speaker 1: name see, we have censored his name from this episode
Speaker 1: for mister Rushing's safety. Meanwhile, the state of California continues
Speaker 1: to ignore evidence of Pierre's actual innocence and to fight
Speaker 1: his honest attempts to regain his freedom. This is Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction with Jason Flamm. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with
Speaker 1: Jason Flamm. That's me and today we're going to tell
Speaker 1: you about the case of Pierre Rushing. We'll speak with
Speaker 1: one of his post conviction attorney's, Marvin Lou as well
Speaker 1: as taking a call from Kern Valley Correction in California
Speaker 1: to hear from Pierre himself. This is Globaltallenge. You have
Speaker 1: a free TOOD call from your MUSHA.
Speaker 2: This call and your telephone number will be monitored and recorded.
Speaker 3: To accept this call, sing.
Speaker 1: Or dial five now. Thank you for using globaltal Link Hello,
Speaker 1: good morning, Good morning. I'm glad you're here. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry you're here under these circumstances, but I'm definitely
Speaker 1: glad you're here. I know we have limited times, so
Speaker 1: let's get right into it. Today's episode, we're going to
Speaker 1: tell the story of the man we have on the
Speaker 1: phone now, Pierre Rushing, who's serving fifty years. The Nightmare
Speaker 1: starts on April fifteen, twenty eleven, at three forty five
Speaker 1: am when there's a murder. But let's go back to
Speaker 1: your childhood, because you had a difficult upbringing and you
Speaker 1: were coming out of that and building a career in
Speaker 1: music when it all went haywire in California.
Speaker 3: My father was a assentee and then out of prison,
Speaker 3: smart was addicted crack cocaine. So I don't want to
Speaker 3: say like any other Oakland kids, but I mean a
Speaker 3: lot of kids in the in the that grew up
Speaker 3: in the nineties were just products of our environment. We
Speaker 3: grew up looking at things that we believed to be right.
Speaker 3: So we actually mature, we get to see that they
Speaker 3: were really wrong.
Speaker 1: And how did you get into music.
Speaker 3: My auntie used to work for she Swet. Her name
Speaker 3: was Tracy Rush and she since passed in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 3: but just being around her, she took me un her wing,
Speaker 3: just taking me to the studio with her as I
Speaker 3: became addicted to you.
Speaker 1: Is it fair to say by twenty eleven things were
Speaker 1: starting to look up for you in terms of possibly
Speaker 1: building a career.
Speaker 3: And yeah, when I was arrested for this case, actually
Speaker 3: friends of mine has said that the police were looking
Speaker 3: for me for this time, and we all laughed about
Speaker 3: it because everybody knew that I couldn't have done it.
Speaker 3: I had been wrapping and going to the student sak
Speaker 3: assist Is shooting videos. And actually when I was arrest
Speaker 3: I was open up for Bay Area Ledge by the
Speaker 3: name of surname Queen, and we had a big four
Speaker 3: van with my patriots on and promoting my music and everything. So, yeah,
Speaker 3: it was coming up for me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you were on exactly, You're on your way up.
Speaker 1: And then everything went completely haywire. Now let's turn the
Speaker 1: conversation to Marvin Lou. Marvin is a criminal defense attorney
Speaker 1: of some repute, and he has been representing Pierre for
Speaker 1: some time. Now, let's just paint a picture of what happened.
Speaker 4: The date was April fifteenth, twenty eleven, and what happened
Speaker 4: was two individuals by the name of Patrick Smith and
Speaker 4: Robert Green. We're doing crack cocaine for the day and
Speaker 4: a half leading up to this young man's killing, and
Speaker 4: Patrick Smith and Robert Green went to an apartment in
Speaker 4: Oakland to purchase more crack Cocaineatrick Smith was driving, Robert
Speaker 4: Green stayed in the car while Patrick Smith went up
Speaker 4: to the apartment to purchase more drugs. So Patrick Smith
Speaker 4: meets up with his drug dealer. Patrick Smith knows him
Speaker 4: as s the letter C who is the actual person
Speaker 4: responsible for the murder of Dewane Taylor. While Patrick Smith
Speaker 4: was in the apartment, there were several other people present,
Speaker 4: and mister Taylor left the apartment Shortly after mister Taylor left.
Speaker 4: Then sees iPod turned up missing and someone in the
Speaker 4: apartment said that mister Taylor had taken sees iPod. What
Speaker 4: happened next was Patrick Smith, the shooter, se and another
Speaker 4: individual who was also charged as a co defendant named
Speaker 4: Andre Morris. They all left the apartment and went and
Speaker 4: got in Patrick Smith's car to go find mister Taylor,
Speaker 4: who had allegedly taken sees iPod. Robert Green was waiting
Speaker 4: in the carting in the front passenger seat. So pat
Speaker 4: Smith drives around the corner. They see mister Taylor walking
Speaker 4: down the street and see or Andre Morris. Pat Smith
Speaker 4: wasn't sure which told him to stop the car. S
Speaker 4: and Andre Morris got out of the car, confronted mister Taylor,
Speaker 4: and see shot and killed mister Taylor on the sidewalk
Speaker 4: in front of a fast food restaurant. They then got
Speaker 4: back into the car. Pat Smith drove a short distance.
Speaker 4: Both c and mister Morris got out of the car
Speaker 4: and ran away. So that's the factual backdrop for this thing.
Speaker 1: Follow along here because Pierre, who were on the phone
Speaker 1: with now had no connection to viction, no knowledge of
Speaker 1: the actual perpetrator, and he was at his grandmother's at
Speaker 1: the time with a young lady named Lauren Richardson on
Speaker 1: the time and date of the murder. Have you ever
Speaker 1: had a nickname of ce before it? Never?
Speaker 3: Never, I've always went by the name of stink Or.
Speaker 3: People from my neighborhood used to call me Peace thanked
Speaker 3: me for my first Mspierre have never never went by
Speaker 3: the nam Sea.
Speaker 1: So what happened. How did you end up getting wrong
Speaker 1: with convicted here?
Speaker 3: Well, one of the passes is Robert Green. He goes
Speaker 3: to the police n five days after he allegedly sees
Speaker 3: this crime, and he tells them that he's seen as
Speaker 3: murdering a guy named see commissed this murder. He gives
Speaker 3: the police multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description
Speaker 3: is five a light skin, one hundred and twenty pounds.
Speaker 3: I haven't been one hundred and twenty pounds since I
Speaker 3: was eighteen years old, let alone at nineteen years old,
Speaker 3: and I'm not light skin. The second time I sees
Speaker 3: the police, he switches it up again. So allegedly he
Speaker 3: says he sees seat on April thirties, which would have
Speaker 3: been fifteen days after the crime, and he went back
Speaker 3: to the police and said, you know what, I lied again.
Speaker 3: I believe he was six foot two, brown skin, and
Speaker 3: it had on red shirt and a red hat. I'm
Speaker 3: not sure what kind of lineup they were showing me,
Speaker 3: but he still couldn't identify who they believed to be seen.
Speaker 3: The police seen an area that he said that he
Speaker 3: had seen seeing. I believe it was May third, wearing
Speaker 3: a red hat, and they stopped me. And when they
Speaker 3: stopped me, they said, what is your name? I don't
Speaker 3: lie to the police. Year Russian is my name. I say, hey,
Speaker 3: we're looking for a guy and beat a guy up.
Speaker 3: I haven't beaten the guy up. And then they leave
Speaker 3: when they take that name back to I believe Robert Green,
Speaker 3: who was at the police station and they shown my
Speaker 3: picture four days after he's seen a guy with a
Speaker 3: red hat. He said, you know what, he had asked Bessie,
Speaker 3: And that's how the whole way of his spawned them
Speaker 3: looking for a guy with a red had four days
Speaker 3: after the Robert gif he's seen this.
Speaker 1: Guy and a month after the crime. When they first
Speaker 1: questioned you, they wanted to know what you were doing
Speaker 1: on the day of the crime. But when they were
Speaker 1: asking you this question, it was already five weeks later, right,
Speaker 1: And this is a trick that they use. Sometimes you're like,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to remember exactly, Like I don't ask anybody
Speaker 1: in the audience right now, what were you doing. Let's
Speaker 1: go back thirty five days from whatever day you're listening
Speaker 1: to this. Tell me right now what you were doing
Speaker 1: at a particular time on that day. And I'll give
Speaker 1: you a dollar because that's impossible, but it is very
Speaker 1: effective because then they can say you lied, because there's
Speaker 1: no way anyone could possibly remember that unless it was
Speaker 1: their birthday or some other like really important day.
Speaker 3: Right April fifteenth, as he would have it is my
Speaker 3: father's birthday. So without me even thinking, you say April fifteen, Hey,
Speaker 3: there's nothing I was with my dad. I seen my
Speaker 3: dad on his birthday, not one time at any trial
Speaker 3: transcript police evidence toward these themery do they ever say
Speaker 3: where were you three forty five a m. So if
Speaker 3: they say no, you weren't with your dad. I also
Speaker 3: remember that I had a traffic shot that day and
Speaker 3: they went checked and it showed that I was on
Speaker 3: the truth, but they said Noah, not at that time.
Speaker 3: It took me, i believe my attorney, for about a
Speaker 3: week to jog in my memory to figure out where
Speaker 3: did I sleep at three forty five am that morning?
Speaker 3: And I remembered it was my grandma. So I was
Speaker 3: because my mom came to me that morning and said,
Speaker 3: where are you going to get your dad for his birthday?
Speaker 3: That's how I was able to put the piece of
Speaker 3: it a pleasure together, but by that time it was trial,
Speaker 3: so they looked at it as if, oh, this is
Speaker 3: a third alibi. Well, no, I've given you everywhere I
Speaker 3: went from April fifteenth, and so that's how they played it,
Speaker 3: which is very nefarious because they see that I was
Speaker 3: trying to tell them everything at.
Speaker 1: The time that this crime was committed at three forty
Speaker 1: five in the morning. Now we know what you were
Speaker 1: doing when you were supposedly out shooting somebody who you
Speaker 1: never knew and don't know and still don't know and
Speaker 1: never will know.
Speaker 3: Well, April fourteenth, I was shooting a video. If you
Speaker 3: go on YouTube right now, the song was called Young
Speaker 3: Stank Take a Trip. Lauren Richison was associate of the
Speaker 3: camera man helped shoot the video. She was also my
Speaker 3: girlfriend April fourteenth, going in table fifteen, she came to
Speaker 3: my grandma, talked roughly about nine forty five rounds ten o'clock,
Speaker 3: and we spend the night. We enjoy each other's company.
Speaker 3: We deal with any other boys for their girlfriend.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 2: My name is Lauren Richardson. I am an Oakland resident
Speaker 2: and current legal apprentice. I entered the field with a
Speaker 2: lot of motivation from the tragic situation that happened with
Speaker 2: Pierre Rushing. I originally was into video. On April fourteenth,
Speaker 2: Pierre went to shoot a video. It's called take a Trip.
Speaker 2: We were super excited because he has so much support
Speaker 2: from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was a great rapper,
Speaker 2: so when he finally shot the video, we were super excited.
Speaker 2: We went back to his grandmother's house afterwards just to
Speaker 2: kind of recap, and we stayed up all night watching movies, laughing,
Speaker 2: making plans for the future. We you know, did what
Speaker 2: couples do late night, and I left early in the
Speaker 2: morning because I had to take my son to school.
Speaker 2: And it was some weeks after that he kind of disappeared,
Speaker 2: you know, when somebody else found me and was like,
Speaker 2: you know, he's in jail. I'm like what, because I
Speaker 2: was kind of mad, you know I was. I thought
Speaker 2: he ghosted me, to be honest, so it was no
Speaker 2: way that he could have committed the crime. I have
Speaker 2: never felt as powerless as I felt in this situation
Speaker 2: to express reality and be believed, and you know, this
Speaker 2: huge power structure for them to be able to create
Speaker 2: a false reality, like even with the witness, the witness
Speaker 2: is not a credible witness, nowhere near as credible as
Speaker 2: I am, because I'm not going to go perjure myself.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to risk my life to keep a
Speaker 2: killer out of jail. So for me to go up
Speaker 2: there in front of all of these people and for
Speaker 2: them to not take my word for it when they
Speaker 2: had no other evidence, it bothers me to this day.
Speaker 2: It's a big part of the motivation for me to
Speaker 2: go into this apprenticeship program because I want to learn
Speaker 2: how to speak up for other people who can't speak
Speaker 2: for themselves, because this has to stop. They ruined an
Speaker 2: entire family.
Speaker 1: The idea that we in this country can sent in
Speaker 1: somebody like you, a promising young man with his life
Speaker 1: ahead of him, to fifty years based on the testimony
Speaker 1: of an admitted crackhead. It was up for two days
Speaker 1: or changed the story four times, really should make everybody
Speaker 1: a little scared. Yeah, can you tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about the trial itself.
Speaker 3: The killing is on camera. When I heard they had
Speaker 3: it on camera, I'm starting to kick my feet up
Speaker 3: and just wait for the trial days because I'm like,
Speaker 3: it's on camera. I'm going on. I never in a
Speaker 3: million years imagined that the camera would be low quality
Speaker 3: or you really can't see anything on the camera. You
Speaker 3: see a vehicle pull up and it's just graining, so
Speaker 3: you can't really see anything. And I remember my heart
Speaker 3: just dropping because I knew that that was what was
Speaker 3: supposed to exonerate me. They had no evidence, no cor
Speaker 3: no no physical They have the murdered vehicle with twelve
Speaker 3: fingerprints inside the car and said I got in and
Speaker 3: out of that car four times. None of the fingerprints
Speaker 3: mats made. One of the prosecution's witness was a lady
Speaker 3: by the name of the Carli smith Orf. She witnessed
Speaker 3: the crime her and pass men for best friends. She
Speaker 3: had been in that car the week before when the
Speaker 3: police forensic pathologists became to call on every twenty second
Speaker 3: they found to call his fingerprints in that car. Therefore,
Speaker 3: when she testified she hadn't been in the car seven
Speaker 3: days prior to the killing, that means that the car
Speaker 3: couldn't have possibly been wiped down. And if the car
Speaker 3: wasn't wiped down, and you found twelve to fourteenth fingerprints
Speaker 3: in that car. Per Robert Green's testimony, I got in
Speaker 3: and out of that car four times, and I killed
Speaker 3: this guy with no glove. Why an't wear my fingerprints
Speaker 3: on the car? Second, if Robert Green is to believe,
Speaker 3: why would you ever call me five day lights skin
Speaker 3: one hundred and twenty pounds? Why would you ever change
Speaker 3: it to five ten one hundred and sixty pounds. In
Speaker 3: that preliminary hearing when the judge allowed me to leave
Speaker 3: the car room, they brought Robert Green in. They said,
Speaker 3: could you please describe to kill it? This guy switched
Speaker 3: it up to six to two hundred and twenty pounds.
Speaker 3: This guy's not to be believed. He was addicted to cracking.
Speaker 3: Heroon said he had been up for two days off
Speaker 3: cracking Airon. I had to be insially seven time failing. Third,
Speaker 3: you have to call the smith another prosecutions with us.
Speaker 3: I didn't see him. I don't know who that is.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean our standard in this country is
Speaker 1: supposed to be reasonable doubt and this goes way beyond
Speaker 1: that standard.
Speaker 3: I had hope that you know, I would be exaggerated.
Speaker 1: And did you have proper representation? Now?
Speaker 3: I went to a trial with a POS defender, and
Speaker 3: I went speedy trial. I was arrested in May. I
Speaker 3: was a convicted and all this, and the reason I
Speaker 3: went speedy truck because I felt like I had nothing odd.
Speaker 3: I didn't do it. So while when I wait where
Speaker 3: I see in my counting people wait four or five
Speaker 3: years to fight the case because they're trying to wait
Speaker 3: for the better deal. The first day of trial, I
Speaker 3: remember the judge saying something like, hey, I know the
Speaker 3: DA is going to give you a deal. She looked
Speaker 3: to your left, get a deal because I know that
Speaker 3: he's going to give you one. And I just remember
Speaker 3: shaking my head, no, no, no, because why would I
Speaker 3: take time for something if I didn't do it. They
Speaker 3: know I'm not seen, so they want to know if
Speaker 3: what we call in the urban community, if I'm going
Speaker 3: to snitch, I know a lot of seas. That's that's
Speaker 3: the one for two. It's not my job to do
Speaker 3: the police a job for them, you know. So if
Speaker 3: I wasn't there, what do you expect me to do?
Speaker 3: Or maybe it could have been this guy, Maybe it
Speaker 3: could beat this guy. If I do that, I'm worse
Speaker 3: than Robert Green because you were not there and they
Speaker 3: know that and they feed off that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, jailhouse snitches has just sort of become like standard
Speaker 1: operating procedure.
Speaker 3: Correct. It's a nightmare. It is a living nightmare. But
Speaker 3: that was that was the summ of the trail.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is a nightmare scenario. So the jury goes
Speaker 1: out when they came back in, what was that moment
Speaker 1: like when they actually found guilty of a crime you
Speaker 1: didn't commit.
Speaker 3: When they came back with it, it was It was
Speaker 3: weird because the whole trial, I had twenty to thirty
Speaker 3: people every single day of my trial, friends from the neighborhood, family, girlfriend, associates.
Speaker 3: But on that day, nobody was in the courtroom, not
Speaker 3: even the victim's family, nobody from my family. That was
Speaker 3: just like a sense of loneliness, assensan like me against
Speaker 3: the world because you're sitting here convicted me for a
Speaker 3: crime that I didn't commit, and I know that you
Speaker 3: know I didn't commit this crime. And I couldn't even
Speaker 3: look back to look in the eyes of my mother,
Speaker 3: my father, and my grandmother, and I felt like that
Speaker 3: was already said. I'm like, why wasn't even the victims
Speaker 3: family like where was It was just it's a feeling
Speaker 3: that I never want to feel again.
Speaker 1: Marvin, take it back to how you first met Pierre,
Speaker 1: or how you first became aware of his case and
Speaker 1: why you chose to get involved in this case. You
Speaker 1: must get hit with cases all the time.
Speaker 4: I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney,
Speaker 4: Stephen Bedrick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court,
Speaker 4: also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State
Speaker 4: Court of Appeal.
Speaker 1: What is a literal interpretation of habeas corpus?
Speaker 4: Habeas corpus means to produce the body in Latin, and
Speaker 4: what that means is that it's an allegation by us
Speaker 4: that Pierre is being unlawfully incarcerated. And once I dug
Speaker 4: into the case and reviewed the evidence in Pierre's case
Speaker 4: and did some investigation of my own, that very much turned.
Speaker 1: Out to be true. What went wrong here?
Speaker 4: I think a number of things went wrong, but most critically,
Speaker 4: there was evidence which could have exonerated Pierre which was
Speaker 4: not introduced. The only witness in the case, Robert Green,
Speaker 4: testified that Pierre was supposedly the person who committed this crime.
Speaker 4: That is the only evidence in the case and in
Speaker 4: the trial against Pierre. That witness testified that the person
Speaker 4: who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone
Speaker 4: mirror minutes before shooting the victim. In this case, Pierre's
Speaker 4: phone records were available and that was part of the
Speaker 4: habeas petition and got him a hearing subsequently, and those
Speaker 4: phone records established conclusively that Pierre was not talking on
Speaker 4: his cell phone at the time when the perpetrator was.
Speaker 4: And if those records were introduced, I think that it
Speaker 4: would be a pretty compelling piece of evidence to establish that,
Speaker 4: in fact, Pierre is not the person responsible for this murder.
Speaker 4: 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?
Speaker 4: The fingerprint evidence was introduced by way of a stipulation
Speaker 4: or the evidence technician who actually gathered the latent fingerprints
Speaker 4: from the car that was used in the homicide. That
Speaker 4: witness did not testify. Rather, Pierre's trial attorney chose to
Speaker 4: have that evidence admitted by way of an agreement with
Speaker 4: the prosecutor simply the conclusion that Pierre's fingerprints were not
Speaker 4: in fact recovered from that car and had that witness
Speaker 4: been called, it would have led to another important piece
Speaker 4: which was not introduced and not known to the jury.
Speaker 4: That evidence technician also collected DNA from that car swabbed
Speaker 4: all of the areas of that car where the killer
Speaker 4: sat just before the murder occurred. In addition, there was
Speaker 4: a cigarette but that was recovered from the floorboard of
Speaker 4: that car, which was also swabbed for DNA. That DNA
Speaker 4: evidence was not tested in time for Pierre's trial, and
Speaker 4: that was also the subject of his subsequent Avias petition.
Speaker 4: So what happened was after we obtained an evidentiary hearing
Speaker 4: in state court to attempt to prove years innocence. As
Speaker 4: I started reviewing the case materials, I realized that this
Speaker 4: DNA evidence existed which would completely exonerate him, and no
Speaker 4: one had tested it. So there's a procedure under California
Speaker 4: law that allows the convicted individual to ask the court
Speaker 4: to now have that evidence tested because it would prove
Speaker 4: that he's innocent. The government opposed our efforts to have
Speaker 4: that evidence tested, and ultimately the judge in this case
Speaker 4: refused to allow us to test that evidence. I then
Speaker 4: appealed that refusal and the Court of Appeal refused to
Speaker 4: allow us to test that evidence. Why is it that
Speaker 4: they wouldn't want to have the DNA evidence in the
Speaker 4: case tested if they're so confident that, in fact he's
Speaker 4: the perpetrator.
Speaker 1: I never can understand in any case, especially in a
Speaker 1: case as serious as this one, a murray case, why
Speaker 1: they wouldn't want to have every stone turned over and
Speaker 1: have every piece of evidence tested so that they can
Speaker 1: find out not only that in this case, Pierre didn't
Speaker 1: do it, but they could find out who actually did.
Speaker 1: Marvin Yolanda Washington and Patrick Smith are pivotal players in
Speaker 1: this whole wrongful conviction. Can you explain their role in
Speaker 1: what went wrong here? Sure?
Speaker 4: Of course Pat Smith was a charged co defendant in
Speaker 4: the case at the time of Pierre's trial, so he
Speaker 4: did not testify at the trial. He had his fifth
Speaker 4: Amendment right. But after Pierre's trial was long over and
Speaker 4: after Patrick Smith resolved his part of the case for
Speaker 4: accessory after the fact, he then signed an affidavid which
Speaker 4: helped Pierre get an evidentiary hearing. He indicated both in
Speaker 4: his affidavit as well as in his testimony at the
Speaker 4: evidentiary hearing that his drug dealer is a man who
Speaker 4: goes by the name of C. And that individual was
Speaker 4: not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing refused to
Speaker 4: name that individual because he was afraid for his life.
Speaker 4: One of the people who was in that apartment was
Speaker 4: a woman by the name of Yolanda Washington, and she
Speaker 4: also did not testify a trial, but after Pierre was convicted,
Speaker 4: she signed an affidavid under penalty of perjury indicating that she,
Speaker 4: of course, having been in that apartment, knew who C was.
Speaker 4: She obviously knew who Andre Morris was, and what she
Speaker 4: said in her affid David was that Pierre Rushing is
Speaker 4: not the drug dealer who shot and killed mister Taylor.
Speaker 4: Pierre Rushing is not C. But that's not all. Indeed,
Speaker 4: Yolanda Washington went so far as to identify who that
Speaker 4: person was. Now, before we get into this, let me
Speaker 4: make one thing clear, which is that Pierre does not
Speaker 4: know the identity of the perpetrator of this homicide. Yolanda Washington,
Speaker 4: in her Affidavid, did name that individual who goes by
Speaker 4: the nickname C. In fact, his first name is his
Speaker 4: name is and of course it would make perfect sense
Speaker 4: that he would go by the nickname Se because his
Speaker 4: name is Pierre Rushing does not have a Sea in
Speaker 4: his name, and she has never been Pierre's nickname. Because
Speaker 4: Pierre is not the person responsible for this killing. That
Speaker 4: affidavit was part of what enabled Pierre to get a
Speaker 4: hearing in superior court. Unfortunately, Miss Washington was a homeless
Speaker 4: individual at that time, and my investigator was essentially unable
Speaker 4: to locate her to get her to testify in court.
Speaker 4: So I filed a motion essentially asking that her affidavit
Speaker 4: be considered because she was unavailable, and that request was denied.
Speaker 1: Wow, it's pretty courageous, even after the fact that these
Speaker 1: two people both were willing to put their own lives
Speaker 1: at risk to identify someone who they know is a killer.
Speaker 1: And I think that speaks volumes to the veracity of
Speaker 1: their statements.
Speaker 3: For me growing up. And I don't mean to say
Speaker 3: it like this because of the social climate that we
Speaker 3: have one on in the United States right now, but
Speaker 3: growing up, I voice so like it's been Dominus. So
Speaker 3: not because I grow up in Hayden the police, but
Speaker 3: I just watch how they need those that look likely.
Speaker 3: Here it is we're talking about a guy gives a
Speaker 3: description on April thirties of a red hat and you
Speaker 3: see me on the dirt and say, well, hey, that's
Speaker 3: a guy wearing a red hat. Let me stop him.
Speaker 3: And now my whole life is his spending in a
Speaker 3: Sparta with not a shread of physical evidence links me
Speaker 3: to this crime. And if it could happen to me,
Speaker 3: it can't happen to anybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up. I mean,
Speaker 1: we you know, every day there's more information coming out,
Speaker 1: and I'm grateful that the public is starting to have
Speaker 1: really heightened awareness to the fact that black people, it's
Speaker 1: just put it right out there, are so much more
Speaker 1: are likely to be victimized by not just police brutality,
Speaker 1: but by wrongful convictions, by wrongful prosecutions, being forced into
Speaker 1: taking plea bargains to things they didn't do. The whole
Speaker 1: system is stacked wrongful convictions, though, do happen to people
Speaker 1: from all races, all nationalities, all different creeds, all different religions.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've had people on the show from every
Speaker 1: walk of life.
Speaker 3: I mean, you can take the case of Mayan Ferguson
Speaker 3: in a two thousand and one Columbus, Missouri killing. He
Speaker 3: was wrongfully convicted, and he's a white man, you know
Speaker 3: what I mean. Like, wrathful convictions don't have a skin color.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's usually what I'm going through. I witness misidentification,
Speaker 3: i'm valid, forensic science, false confessions, police or prosecutor misconduct.
Speaker 3: This is a slew of things on why wrongful convictions happened.
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? Yeah, But the idea that the justice
Speaker 1: system at every level, now we see it on video
Speaker 1: of how the system treats people like yourself, like George Floyd,
Speaker 1: like so many others, as expendable, disposable, and yet I mean,
Speaker 1: there are very very real consequences. That's why we're on
Speaker 1: the phone with you from prison now, or you and
Speaker 1: I might be working together on a record instead of Pierre.
Speaker 1: What would you want people to know about you and
Speaker 1: what would you want them to do if you could
Speaker 1: give them an action step.
Speaker 3: I would want them to know that I could be
Speaker 3: your son, I could be your brother, I could be
Speaker 3: your nephew, I could be your cousin. I could be
Speaker 3: your friend. I'm innocent. If you have any doubt in
Speaker 3: my innocence, I would actually just think on these key points.
Speaker 3: If I wasn't innocent, guilty person would push for DNA
Speaker 3: testing up the materials that we saw out the vehicle.
Speaker 3: If I wasn't innocent, what guilty man would push for
Speaker 3: the enhancement of the of the video if I wasn't innocent,
Speaker 3: or man, I'm going to push for the phone records.
Speaker 3: I'm innocent. I didn't commit this crime. I have nothing
Speaker 3: to do with this crime. I would ask that you
Speaker 3: just look inside of art and find the empathy and
Speaker 3: the compassion to sign a petition that my family is
Speaker 3: an organized justice for peer Russian that change dot org,
Speaker 3: and I would ask that you stand up, that you
Speaker 3: would reach out to their local authorities, their local police department,
Speaker 3: concrist legislation is trying to try to make change.
Speaker 1: So again, that's justice for Pierre rushing on Change dot org.
Speaker 1: Is the petition. We'll also have a link in this
Speaker 1: episode description so you can sign the 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 well,
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.
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 and a difference in your case as well.
Speaker 1: So thank you again, Pierre for being here. And now
Speaker 1: I'm going to kick back in my chair, turn my
Speaker 1: microphone off and just basically shut up and listen. So
Speaker 1: closing arguments, we're going to go first to Marvin lou
Speaker 1: and then we're going to hear from Pierre.
Speaker 4: What has happened to Pierre is a systemic failure. These
Speaker 4: are problems which are built into the legal system that
Speaker 4: need to be fixed on the systemic level, you know,
Speaker 4: in terms of next steps, you know. Fortunately, Pierre continues
Speaker 4: to be represented by Bob Bellis in his ongoing federal
Speaker 4: habeas matter, and I wish them the best and I
Speaker 4: hope that ultimately, through the legal system, they're able to
Speaker 4: generate some relief and review for Pierre. But what I
Speaker 4: will say is that in light of the failures of
Speaker 4: the system relating to Pierre over and over again. What
Speaker 4: I would say is that this venue is an opportunity
Speaker 4: to go outside of and beyond the legal system to
Speaker 4: attempt to find a way to free Pierre from this
Speaker 4: wrongful conviction. And one of the things that can be
Speaker 4: done outside of the legal system is to put pressure
Speaker 4: on the government to either test that DNA evidence or
Speaker 4: provide it to Pierre's attorneys so that they can test
Speaker 4: it for him. Even though they have resisted that and
Speaker 4: actively opposed that throughout these proceedings, nonetheless they retain the
Speaker 4: power to change their minds and agree, and they are
Speaker 4: the Alameda County District Attorney's Office and the California Attorney
Speaker 4: General's office. So whether they're forced to do that through
Speaker 4: some legal proceeding or whether they agree to do that
Speaker 4: by virtue of public and political pressure, that is something
Speaker 4: that can be done and that they continue to have
Speaker 4: the power to do.
Speaker 1: Pierre. The mic is yours for closing arguments.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I would like to first off saying thank
Speaker 3: you on behalf of me in behalf of my family
Speaker 3: to a few people, first, starting with you, Jason Flamfer,
Speaker 3: You creating this platform that is reaching millions and millions
Speaker 3: of people right now. We're living in an a climate
Speaker 3: where a lot of people are making it a black
Speaker 3: and a white issue right now. Yes, black lives do matter,
Speaker 3: but it's not a black and a white issue because
Speaker 3: they have a lot of people that are of Caucasian
Speaker 3: race that are standing up, and you are are one
Speaker 3: of us. So I thank you. I thank Marvin Loewell
Speaker 3: for fighting and championing my innocence. I like to thank
Speaker 3: glri An Saudi. I like to thank Josh Wendle for
Speaker 3: helping my family out. And I'd also like to thank
Speaker 3: Okay and what she's doing for justice reform. And I'd
Speaker 3: like to thank the Innocence Project and those that are
Speaker 3: are standing enough for these carvers. And finally, I like
Speaker 3: to just also thank my father. They tried to make
Speaker 3: my father and try to transfer to look like a
Speaker 3: guy who was trying to persuade witnesses. You know, in
Speaker 3: twenty fifteen, the driver of this case, Patrick Smith, came
Speaker 3: and he said, you know, I took them guys to
Speaker 3: do that stuff, and I was a part of that.
Speaker 3: And I can't live with myself knowing that a man
Speaker 3: is doing life for something that I did, he's not
Speaker 3: the guy. And when they asked him, why are you
Speaker 3: coming forward now, he said because his father reached out
Speaker 3: to me. And they tried to make my father look
Speaker 3: like like like he was persuading, when all he was
Speaker 3: doing was fighting for his son. What was you done
Speaker 3: if your son was arrested to some mean and do
Speaker 3: you would fight for him? So you know they're gonna
Speaker 3: throw smoking mirrors and try to make it seem like
Speaker 3: this and try to make it seem like that. I
Speaker 3: don't care about the smoking mirror. I care about the facts,
Speaker 3: and the fact is I didn't commit to come. With
Speaker 3: that being said, you know, it's a lot going on
Speaker 3: right now, So I just ask for people to just
Speaker 3: educate yourselves on these type of situations. They could happen
Speaker 3: to anybody here. I was rapping, so I was attending
Speaker 3: the landing in Marry College. I didn't do too good.
Speaker 3: I ended up dropping out, but I tried. You know,
Speaker 3: I don't know a lot of people that come from
Speaker 3: where I come from not even try to go to college,
Speaker 3: let alone do it while they're doing music. I was
Speaker 3: trying to make a change in my life. I didn't
Speaker 3: grow up squeaky clean I'd be the first one to
Speaker 3: tell you, like I told anybody, I've had a check pass.
Speaker 3: That doesn't define me, that doesn't make me a killer,
Speaker 3: that doesn't make me anything but a man that grew
Speaker 3: up looking at something that's wrong believing that it was right.
Speaker 3: There is no physical, forensic evidence that links me to
Speaker 3: this crime. So if you need any reason to fight
Speaker 3: for this cause, just look inside the case. Pull the
Speaker 3: case up. You're going to see listen is an atrocity
Speaker 3: and it could happen to anybody, anybody. They say in
Speaker 3: the Wikipedia two point three million prisoners, like one hundred
Speaker 3: twenty Thollan wrowfully convicted people in prison. Something is wrong
Speaker 3: with that. Likely there's something farribly wrong with that.
Speaker 1: Don't forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud
Speaker 1: donor to the Innocence Project, and I really hope you'll
Speaker 1: join me in supporting this very important cause and helping
Speaker 1: to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocenceproject 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 Wartis
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 Flamm is a production of Lava
Speaker 1: for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 2: The Woman That Was Made