Speaker 1: On the night of May ninth, nineteen eighty six, a
Speaker 1: young mother was showering when a masked, knife wielding man
Speaker 1: snuck into her Garden District apartment in New Orleans. When
Speaker 1: he attacked her in the bathroom, he threatened that he'd
Speaker 1: hurt her eight year old son if she didn't cooperate.
Speaker 1: Moving to a bedroom, he put a t shirt over
Speaker 1: her head, forced her to perform oral sex, and raped
Speaker 1: her twice. Plenty of seminal fluid was collected in a rapekit,
Speaker 1: as well as her undergarments, but this was before the
Speaker 1: era of DNA testing. Additionally, the assailant's blood type could
Speaker 1: not be detected, so the investigation hinged on her limited
Speaker 1: description and a composite sketch. Six weeks later, seventeen year
Speaker 1: old Sullivan Walter was arrested for an unrelated burglary. While
Speaker 1: he was in custody, one officer felt that Sullivan was
Speaker 1: a match for the composite sketch of the rapist. Upon
Speaker 1: viewing his photo, the victim agreed, but this is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to wronful conviction. Today we're speaking to a
Speaker 1: man who is a child when he was wrongfully convicted,
Speaker 1: and his case is a perfect example of how solid
Speaker 1: proof of innocence can fail at setting an innocent person free.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what happened two years after Sulown Walter's conviction,
Speaker 1: but yet he spent over thirty four more years in
Speaker 1: Louisiana corrections. Sullivan, I'm honored to have you here with us,
Speaker 1: even though I hate the reason why you're here. But
Speaker 1: welcome to the show, yes, sir, and joining him is
Speaker 1: the legal director of Innocence Project New Orleans, otherwise known
Speaker 1: as IPNO, a great organization that deserves your support. Richard Davis,
Speaker 1: thank you for being here and welcome back to Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: So all of this took place in New Orleans, which,
Speaker 1: under the DA that oversaw this caseous DA Harry Connock Senior,
Speaker 1: New Orleans became the most incarcerated city and the most
Speaker 1: incarcerated state in the most incarcerated country in the world,
Speaker 1: probably in the history of the world. And so, knowing
Speaker 1: that the story you're about to hear, unfortunately will come
Speaker 1: as no surprise. And Sullivan, you grew up in New Orleans, right.
Speaker 3: Yes, I grew up in the city of New Orleans.
Speaker 3: My mother was the mother of eleven the tenth of
Speaker 3: eleven children. My mother had kids in a previous marriage,
Speaker 3: and some of the kids were being raised by their father,
Speaker 3: and my mother and my father separated when I was
Speaker 3: very young. My mother raised me and my younger sister
Speaker 3: and my brother right over me as a single parent.
Speaker 3: I didn't do well in school. I would find ways
Speaker 3: to get out of school and just hang around in
Speaker 3: the neighborhood. I grew up in a high crime area.
Speaker 3: You know, I just found myself having more of a
Speaker 3: family in the streets than what I actually had at home.
Speaker 3: My family didn't have much, so you know, I found
Speaker 3: myself resulting to you know, criminal activities. You know, I
Speaker 3: mean nothing major, but just in order to you know,
Speaker 3: have some money in my pocket or pair of shoes,
Speaker 3: pear of pants or something, just to try and make
Speaker 3: up where you know, my mother wasn't able to.
Speaker 1: And so you had at least been processed for that
Speaker 1: behavior and your fingerprints were on file, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: so that brings us to the summer of nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 1: when you had just turned seventeen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was arrested for burglary and it occurred on
Speaker 3: Laurel Street, laure and or Millia. I mean it's uptown
Speaker 3: New Orleans. And it was basically just household items, stereo equipment,
Speaker 3: small stuff, you know, cameras, something like that. The burglary
Speaker 3: occurred on a Saturday. I was arrested Monday morning.
Speaker 1: Do you know how they honed in on you?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I was picked up because there were a window
Speaker 3: pane that my fingerprint was actually found on. And while
Speaker 3: in police custody, you know, that's what led to me
Speaker 3: being I was with a cram that I had nothing
Speaker 3: to do.
Speaker 1: With, right, And this burglary happened on June twenty first,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty six. When the police got you the rape
Speaker 1: person on Monday morning, June twenty third, But then somehow
Speaker 1: signals got crossed, lanes were switched, and you ended up
Speaker 1: spending thirty six years in prison, now for the burglary,
Speaker 1: but for a rape that occurred about six weeks earlier,
Speaker 1: on May ninth, nineteen eighty six, in the Garden District
Speaker 1: neighborhood of New Orleans. Richard, can you fill us in
Speaker 1: on what happened that night?
Speaker 2: So on the night of May the ninth, May tenth,
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty six, a woman was cleaning her home. The
Speaker 2: only other person in her home was her young zan,
Speaker 2: who was sleep. She was showering after doing some cleaning
Speaker 2: and was disturbed by someone breaking in, and that person
Speaker 2: attacked and raped her. At all times during the rape,
Speaker 2: the person either was covering their face, or the lights
Speaker 2: were off, or they were threatening the victim of knife
Speaker 2: point not to look at him. And so while it
Speaker 2: was a fairly traumatic experience for her, it was one
Speaker 2: in which I was actually a limited opportunity to observe
Speaker 2: the person who attacked her.
Speaker 1: Right, And as I've read, not only did the assailant
Speaker 1: have half of his face covered by a washcloth, but
Speaker 1: then after dragging her out of the shower, it's like
Speaker 1: a horror scene, he put a t shirt over her
Speaker 1: head and he threatened her at knife point to collaborate
Speaker 1: or he would hurt her eight year old son. Then
Speaker 1: he took her into a bedroom where he forced her
Speaker 1: to perform oral sex and then vaginally raped her twice.
Speaker 1: It's just it's awful. But despite both of their base coverings,
Speaker 1: she was able to tell the police some detailed right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the victim described it as a young assailant.
Speaker 2: She fo eighteen to twenty years old, five to eleven,
Speaker 2: slender with thick eyebrows and a Jerry curl, the reports
Speaker 2: of a night of crimes which she said the attacker
Speaker 2: had stubble, But there are two different police documents showing
Speaker 2: she told two different offices on the night of crime
Speaker 2: that it was an assailant with like two to three
Speaker 2: days beard growth. And then there was a composite sketch
Speaker 2: he did a few days after for crime with police
Speaker 2: sketch artist.
Speaker 1: Okay, so either some stubble or two to three days growth,
Speaker 1: but facial hair growth varies, so these descriptions could mean
Speaker 1: the same thing depending on who you're talking to. And
Speaker 1: then the victim said that the assailant was wearing a
Speaker 1: baseball cap.
Speaker 2: Yes, and she described it as a blue baseball cat,
Speaker 2: but nothing else distinctive about it.
Speaker 1: So, Sulliban, how did you compare to this description?
Speaker 3: I am, in fact five to eleven. I was very then.
Speaker 3: I didn't have a Jerry curl. As far as facial hairs,
Speaker 3: prior to my arrest, I had never grown facial hairs.
Speaker 1: Right for a seventeen year old, that's not surprising.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I had just turned seventeen.
Speaker 1: So even though your age heights get into an end
Speaker 1: build were similar, your lack of facial hero at the
Speaker 1: very least not having a Jerry Curl should have ruled
Speaker 1: you out or cast at least serious doubt on this,
Speaker 1: but clearly it did not. Now, six weeks passed after
Speaker 1: the rape, before you became a suspect. Did the investigators
Speaker 1: have any other leads during that time?
Speaker 2: There are some indications in the officer's notes they may
Speaker 2: have had other suspects, but we are never able to
Speaker 2: figure out what those notes meant for sure. From his
Speaker 2: interviews with the victim, he come to believe it was
Speaker 2: an experienced perpetrator. There was also some indication that someone
Speaker 2: who seemed to match for description or for complete sketch
Speaker 2: had been loitering around the area of the crime beforehand.
Speaker 1: But the composite wasn't all they had to go on, right,
Speaker 1: this was a rape, So what about the physical evidence?
Speaker 1: There was a lot of it.
Speaker 2: The perpetrator was ejaculated twice during the rape, and so
Speaker 2: this was, you know, a good scene for forensic evidence.
Speaker 2: They did for normal sexual assault exam and also collected
Speaker 2: the undergarments for the victim had worn after the crime,
Speaker 2: and based on the victim's sexual history, any product detected
Speaker 2: was coming from the perpetrator, and so the items were
Speaker 2: quickly tested by the police department.
Speaker 1: Grant that this was nineteen eighty six, so they were
Speaker 1: only working with sorology in not DNA, and if understand
Speaker 1: this correctly, the undergarments were tested by Harry O'Neill, a
Speaker 1: criminalist working with NOPD the Orleans Police Department, while Patricia
Speaker 1: Daniels with the Cornor's Office tested the rape.
Speaker 2: Kit, so he's a two separate test, but they're both
Speaker 2: coming to the same conclusion, which is they cannot detect
Speaker 2: any blood type activity in the seminal stains and spumtazoa
Speaker 2: found on the evidence.
Speaker 1: So with zerology there are really only two ways to
Speaker 1: narrow down a field of suspects. Blood typing like ab
Speaker 1: AB and O and then secretor status, which refers to
Speaker 1: whether or not your blood type shows up in other
Speaker 1: bodily fluids like semen or saliva.
Speaker 2: The majority of the population secretes their blood type into
Speaker 2: our bodily fluids, but some percentage of the population doesn't.
Speaker 2: And value from these two different tests and not finding
Speaker 2: any indication of blood type being secreted into the bodily
Speaker 2: fluids of perpetrata.
Speaker 1: So the assailant was among the twenty percent of the
Speaker 1: population who are non secretors, which unfortunately is quite convenient
Speaker 1: for the assailant, but secretor status still offers a way
Speaker 1: to narrow a field of suspects, if only to the
Speaker 1: exclusion of eighty percent of the population. So this was
Speaker 1: all the police had to go on, along with a
Speaker 1: composite sketch from a victim who really didn't get a
Speaker 1: great look at her assailant. So how did they land
Speaker 1: on Sullivan?
Speaker 2: Officially, what happened in the investigation is six weeks after
Speaker 2: a crime. As the police tell it, an officer working
Speaker 2: in the burglary case was doing a fingerprint check Sullivan
Speaker 2: from the burglary case saw his photo, thought, gosh, this
Speaker 2: guy looks a lot like this composite sketch. Even though
Speaker 2: he doesn't look that much like the composite sketch, we
Speaker 2: should probably consider him a suspective his untold rape we've
Speaker 2: had from six weeks earlier, and so an officer in
Speaker 2: the print unit supposedly coming up with his reka moment.
Speaker 2: This is the basis by which the detective from the
Speaker 2: rape case goes back to the victim with a photo
Speaker 2: of Sullivan.
Speaker 1: So this composite sketch didn't really look like Solovon, yet
Speaker 1: their focus still landed on him. Sullivan, how do you
Speaker 1: remember this all going down?
Speaker 3: Well, the burglary, I was being about it. They wanted
Speaker 3: to know what the property was, They wanted to know
Speaker 3: if there was someone else involved, and when I didn't cooperate, well,
Speaker 3: ultimately I was threatened that if I didn't cooperate and
Speaker 3: if I didn't tell them what they wanted to know,
Speaker 3: then they would see to it that I was given
Speaker 3: a life sentence. I mean, they didn't mention the crime
Speaker 3: that I would be punished with. They didn't question about
Speaker 3: a rape, you know, so they played good cop, bad
Speaker 3: cop and threatened me. You know, I didn't have an
Speaker 3: adult present, I didn't have an attorney present, and they
Speaker 3: had me to take poto Rod pictures a certain way
Speaker 3: with a baseball cap on turned to the back. And
Speaker 3: I had no knowledge that this was the actual description
Speaker 3: that was given of the perpetrator of the rape charge
Speaker 3: that I would later be charged with.
Speaker 2: So, after he has been booked on the Burger, and
Speaker 2: they've taken these photos. The detective go see the victim
Speaker 2: with a photo array and the photos they've taken. We
Speaker 2: don't have recording of this procedure. It's a cross racial
Speaker 2: identification procedure. Is also being administered by the detective who
Speaker 2: knows how the suspect is, which you know now you
Speaker 2: would have to do an identification double blind, even without
Speaker 2: any deliberate malfeasance if a person knows who the suspects
Speaker 2: had influences for witness making a description and Howard is
Speaker 2: described later and again we have no recording. Is for
Speaker 2: the victim views a photo array, picks out Sullivan in
Speaker 2: some form and is then shown I believe, polaroids of
Speaker 2: Sullivan in the hat, which kind of reinforces the identification
Speaker 2: as a kind of like well, and he wore his
Speaker 2: hat like this too, So at the end of his
Speaker 2: identification procedure, the victim is making an identification of Sullivan.
Speaker 1: So we have no idea what kind of suggestions were
Speaker 1: being made to the victim. And then add to that
Speaker 1: the toxic fact that it was cross racial, which study
Speaker 1: after study has proven is less accurate than guessing.
Speaker 2: This is one of the challenging things about the cases.
Speaker 2: We do not have the photo oray he was identified from,
Speaker 2: and we don't even know with any certainty what photo
Speaker 2: of they had of Sullivan and raided alone, who were fulfillers,
Speaker 2: and if they looked anything like him or not. We
Speaker 2: don't have the photo lineup, so we don't actually.
Speaker 1: Know, so Jerry Curl's in facial hair or not. They
Speaker 1: got their cross racial misidentification while Sullivan was already being
Speaker 1: held on the burglary charge. Now, Sullivan, when did you
Speaker 1: find out about the rape charge?
Speaker 3: After being charged with a burglary while in Central Laga?
Speaker 3: Either the following day or day after that, I was
Speaker 3: taken back down and I was charged with another burglary,
Speaker 3: a rape, two council crime against nature, which was all
Speaker 3: one case, and this was the rape charge.
Speaker 1: And after finding out a bit more about this charge,
Speaker 1: were you able to remember where you were at on
Speaker 1: May ninth?
Speaker 3: I mean, I was arrested six weeks after this rapehead occurred.
Speaker 3: So how would be lying if I said, well, I
Speaker 3: was here, I was there six weeks ago. I don't
Speaker 3: know where I was at six weeks ago.
Speaker 1: And you're barely seventeen, So it's not like you had
Speaker 1: a daily planner or like a you know, a calendar
Speaker 1: like we all have on our phones now these days,
Speaker 1: So you weren't sure where you were on that day,
Speaker 1: but it certainly wasn't the garden district. Did they try
Speaker 1: to corroborate the identification with the physical evidence.
Speaker 2: So they took blood and saliva from Sullivan pre trial apparently,
Speaker 2: so charge first, do the science later, and according to
Speaker 2: report of a time, they somehow fouled for sample so
Speaker 2: badly they didn't even detect Sullivan's blood type, so at
Speaker 2: a time of trial they didn't know his blood type,
Speaker 2: let alone whether he's a secretor or not. And then
Speaker 2: at the eleventh hour, right before trial, they disclose this
Speaker 2: evidence of the perpetrator was a non secretor. But the
Speaker 2: case goes ahead to trial anyway.
Speaker 1: So at this point the prosecution didn't get a second
Speaker 1: sample from Sullivan to be sure that they had the
Speaker 1: right person.
Speaker 2: But also law says the state needs to give stuff
Speaker 2: to defense in enough time for them to be able
Speaker 2: to use it.
Speaker 1: So what's the answer to the million dollar question? I
Speaker 1: think I can actually predict this, but go ahead.
Speaker 3: My blood type is B and I am a secretor.
Speaker 1: So it was fully impossible that you could have committed
Speaker 1: this crime.
Speaker 2: As far as we can tell, no one knows all
Speaker 2: of a secreteors state us. At this time, they just
Speaker 2: plowed ahead with the trial. And I think you've got
Speaker 2: a wonder do you in fact not want a scientific
Speaker 2: answer because it might contradict your witness.
Speaker 1: Nevertheless, the trial began and ended on the same day,
Speaker 1: December two, nineteen eighty six. The NOPDS criminalist O'Neil unwittingly
Speaker 1: testified to your innocence at trial that the assailant was
Speaker 1: a non secretor, but no one cared to discover, let
Speaker 1: alone make the jury aware of your secretor status. Makes
Speaker 1: sense for the prosecutor. They already ad an identification from
Speaker 1: the victim. After all, she.
Speaker 3: Got understand and they asked us some questions about the
Speaker 3: crime and asked us did she see the perpetrate on
Speaker 3: the court. She said that I was the perpetrate at
Speaker 3: the crime.
Speaker 1: And without knowing your secretor status or your whereabouts on
Speaker 1: May nineteen eighty six, this was probably an easy decision
Speaker 1: for the jury.
Speaker 3: I mean I was in and out of trial within
Speaker 3: an hour or so. I mean the state presented the
Speaker 3: physical evidence, they presented, the expert witnesses, they presented the victim.
Speaker 3: It was never any day presented on my behalf and
Speaker 3: I was found guilty.
Speaker 1: And then you were sentenced to thirty five years in prison.
Speaker 3: I mean, it was so disturbing to me. My family
Speaker 3: was unable to help me. I had nobody to come
Speaker 3: and give me advice. I was seventeen, so I couldn't
Speaker 3: began to try and figure this out, understand this. I
Speaker 3: didn't think that this could happen to me. I didn't
Speaker 3: think it could happen to anybody. It was like, man,
Speaker 3: this can't be real.
Speaker 1: This episode is sponsored by Marsha mccleanan, the world's leading
Speaker 1: professional services firm in the areas of risk, strategy and people.
Speaker 1: It's legal and compliance department provides pro bono legal assistance
Speaker 1: and other support to underrepresentative communities and individuals.
Speaker 3: After being convicted. To have to go to prison for
Speaker 3: a rape crime, you know, this is one of the
Speaker 3: most degrading crimes that a man could be charged with
Speaker 3: in prison, other than child molestation. You're an outcast, I mean,
Speaker 3: you don't have friends. You're pervert, however they want to
Speaker 3: describe you. Then that's what it is. So this he
Speaker 3: has a real effect on a seventeen at eighteen year
Speaker 3: old because now you got to try to find ways
Speaker 3: to protect yourself. And you know, my only host was, man,
Speaker 3: this is gonna be fixed. And then my lord, he
Speaker 3: tells me we're gonna be able to get you out
Speaker 3: of here. I'm gonna get you out of here. I'm
Speaker 3: gonna test you and we're gonna present your blood results,
Speaker 3: and I'm gonna get you out of here. So that's
Speaker 3: all I was hoping for, my dear court.
Speaker 2: So that's an initial appeal after the trial, which the
Speaker 2: sole issue he lawyer raises in the only files of
Speaker 2: three and a half page brief is that he got
Speaker 2: the blood typing report too late to be able to
Speaker 2: use it. The court tends it back with an instruction,
Speaker 2: but you need we need to figure out this guy's
Speaker 2: blood type and figure out if he was prejudiced by
Speaker 2: the late disclosure of the perpetrator's blood typing information, because obviously,
Speaker 2: if it was a match, puss out, it's kind of
Speaker 2: a no harm, no foul, It didn't hurt him. But
Speaker 2: if it doesn't match him, then it's terrible. But the
Speaker 2: prosecutor waits hill the morning of it's too late to
Speaker 2: use it to tell him this information. So then in
Speaker 2: January nineteen eighty eight they confirm that he is a
Speaker 2: type BEE and that he secretes his blood type into
Speaker 2: his body fluids.
Speaker 3: So therefore I was the total opposite of what the
Speaker 3: state head actually identify in open call. You can determine
Speaker 3: my blood type, dom salavo do my seminal fluid. I
Speaker 3: am a SECRETA.
Speaker 2: And so this then goes to a hearing of promotion
Speaker 2: for a new trial to determine well, we've now shown
Speaker 2: that sal has been prejudiced by this late disclosure because
Speaker 2: his blood type doesn't match. And so this goes to
Speaker 2: a hearing in nineteen eighty eight, and at this point
Speaker 2: the analyst who had said a trial, well, the evidence
Speaker 2: indicates it was a non secretor suddenly is now saying, well,
Speaker 2: I don't know, maybe like I missed for stain and
Speaker 2: was testing something else. I can't really say anything about
Speaker 2: whether the person was a creator or not. Now there
Speaker 2: has been zero change in the evidence between when a
Speaker 2: trial he says the evidence indicates non secretor and here
Speaker 2: two years later when he's in court saying well, I
Speaker 2: can't really say anything about this. If he had a
Speaker 2: genuine concern about his prior testing, has nothing to stop
Speaker 2: him from having retested the evidence. Then the only thing
Speaker 2: that has changed is but now it doesn't help the
Speaker 2: prosecution for it to be non secretor, because we know
Speaker 2: that Sullivan is a secretor, And so the defense lawyer
Speaker 2: doesn't ask him any questions about his prior testimony from
Speaker 2: the trial, and doesn't present any evidence, and then doesn't
Speaker 2: call any expert of his own, and at the end
Speaker 2: of this for court waits for a while and then
Speaker 2: with no real explanation, says that Sullivan isn't entitled to
Speaker 2: a new trial.
Speaker 1: At this point, Sullivan was entitled to an appointed lawyer
Speaker 1: for the appeal of that decision, but that lawyer simply
Speaker 1: did not follow through For four years. There was no communication,
Speaker 1: sharing of documents or strategy, nothing. And then when the
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals recognized the dereliction and appointed a new lawyer,
Speaker 1: it took two more long years before the motion appeared
Speaker 1: before the court, this time filed on behalf of Walter Sullivan,
Speaker 1: not Sullivan. Walter so already off to a just a
Speaker 1: great start, right, I mean, I hope you sounded like
Speaker 1: I was dripping with sarcasm, because I was. And another
Speaker 1: denial came in September of ninety five. But in ninety
Speaker 1: seven the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed that the Appeals Court
Speaker 1: had been using the wrong legal standard, as if this
Speaker 1: new evidence had just been found from a neutral source,
Speaker 1: rather than that this was a late disclosure by the state,
Speaker 1: which constituted a material Brady violation.
Speaker 2: The Court of Appeals been told by the Louisiana Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: you've got to analyze this under the rules for non
Speaker 2: disclosure rather than just evidence found from a neutral source.
Speaker 2: The Court of Appeals does actually get the legal standard
Speaker 2: wrong a second time.
Speaker 1: This time they based their denial on O'Neill's altered testimony
Speaker 1: from the motion for a new trial rather than his
Speaker 1: trial testimony. That the assailant was, unlike Sullivan, a non secretor.
Speaker 2: And then after this ruling, the court appointed lawyer doesn't
Speaker 2: take further appeal to really easy on the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: or any kind of a federal court. And so this
Speaker 2: is it for Sullivan in terms of getting lawyers provided
Speaker 2: by the state.
Speaker 1: And I mean, do we have this wrong? Nothing was
Speaker 1: filed again until twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2: Between nineteen ninety seven and twenty twenty one, no one
Speaker 2: is helping Sullivan.
Speaker 1: Oh God, Sullivan, I mean you touch a quarter century.
Speaker 1: I mean you talked about how hard it was for
Speaker 1: you in prison, even when there was some hope for
Speaker 1: you in post conviction. But that's a long, bleak stretch
Speaker 1: of a lot of years.
Speaker 3: As I just explained to you, being in prison as
Speaker 3: a sex offender is not easy. It's not easy at all.
Speaker 3: Not only the population, but you also have the officers
Speaker 3: you have to deal with. And then you had the
Speaker 3: work expect of prison. I mean they digging ditches and
Speaker 3: picking and farm vegetables, stuff that I had never done
Speaker 3: before in my life. So I didn't know anything about
Speaker 3: none of this. So I stayed in and out of lockdown,
Speaker 3: in and out of I'm locked up because I didn't
Speaker 3: know how to do the work, and I'm trying to
Speaker 3: adjust to this. And then my family, you know, every
Speaker 3: now and then somebody else would come, but mostly it
Speaker 3: was my older sister, my mother. Sadly to say, my
Speaker 3: mother never visited me while I was in prison. And
Speaker 3: then my sister dies and nobody's coming to see me.
Speaker 3: It's hard, you know what I mean. I'm in prison
Speaker 3: for years, years upon years. My biggest fear in prison
Speaker 3: was that I didn't want to die in prison for
Speaker 3: something I didn't do. So I'm trying to take care
Speaker 3: of myself. I'm trying to stay healthy, and I'm trying
Speaker 3: not to stress and worry. So I'm just there. I'm existing.
Speaker 3: It's not living, you know, I didn't have a life.
Speaker 3: I was just existing and I lost my father, I
Speaker 3: lost my mother. Man, it was a time I actually
Speaker 3: went over a decade and didn't get a visit. You know,
Speaker 3: Nobody came to see me. Nobody tried to help me.
Speaker 3: I didn't have the knowledge and education to, you know,
Speaker 3: go about helping myself. And I don't really know how
Speaker 3: I managed to do it, but I just believe that
Speaker 3: God put it within me to subvive this situation. And
Speaker 3: the only thing I could think about is not dying
Speaker 3: in prison, getting out and someday trying to find a
Speaker 3: way to prove my innocence because I mean, man, I
Speaker 3: was young, I was on drugs, I was in the streets,
Speaker 3: I was stealing. You know. One thing, I know, without
Speaker 3: a doubt, I would have never raped in anybody. I
Speaker 3: would have never committed a rate. I know that without
Speaker 3: a doubt. And I just knew that, Man, somebody has
Speaker 3: to help me. But it just seems as if it
Speaker 3: wasn't gonna happen, because it went from ten years to
Speaker 3: twenty years and then thirty years.
Speaker 1: So Hypno was established and it's a project New Orleans
Speaker 1: in two thousand and one. Had you ever reached out
Speaker 1: to them?
Speaker 3: No, I had no knowledge of the inn some project
Speaker 3: New Orleans. I knew nothing of them. I can remember
Speaker 3: in two thy and nineteen, you know, they had started
Speaker 3: the Kiosk machine. People get letters and stuff through the
Speaker 3: Kiosk machine and do like man, because dudes used to
Speaker 3: see man, I ain't never used to write nobody. I
Speaker 3: never received mail nothing. I mean, so a friend of
Speaker 3: mine had told me. The dud was like, man, you
Speaker 3: need to set up the Kiosk machine because you can
Speaker 3: get pictures of your family or you know, you can
Speaker 3: get letters. And really, in my mind it's like, man,
Speaker 3: ain't nobody gonna write me, Ain't nobody gonna send me
Speaker 3: no pictures? So man, one morning, one morning I came
Speaker 3: in from work and I looked at the Kioska. She
Speaker 3: and I had a letter from mister Richard Davis, and
Speaker 3: it was like, if you celeb reporters and you was
Speaker 3: charged and convicted with a rape in nineteen eighty six
Speaker 3: and all of his baish, you need to contact my
Speaker 3: office immediately, you know, because it's how yes, you know
Speaker 3: you've been subjected to an injustice, Richard.
Speaker 1: Could you have ever imagined just one email from you
Speaker 1: carried this much weight.
Speaker 2: I wish we had a system where we didn't make
Speaker 2: any kind of addition. I wish the system ever convicted him,
Speaker 2: but I wish it we absolute minimum they dealt with
Speaker 2: him in nineteen eighty eight, when I was five years
Speaker 2: old and I'd never met him. I liked Sullivan a lot,
Speaker 2: but I wish i'd never met him. I wish we
Speaker 2: had a system that treated his life as important enough
Speaker 2: that it was dealt with just like competently conscientious professionals.
Speaker 2: Long before I was even doing this work about the
Speaker 2: system people deserve, and it's not the system they have.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, I have to agree, and this case also could
Speaker 1: have been resolved much sooner had Sullivan been sentenced differently
Speaker 1: during this awful span of twenty four years nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: seven to twenty twenty one. On the outside, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court made some landmark decisions regarding juvenile justice, which ruled
Speaker 1: that mandatory life sentences and death sentences for children were
Speaker 1: a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on Cruel and
Speaker 1: Unusual punishment. But unfortunately release since Sullivan was sent to
Speaker 1: thirty five years instead of a life sentence, he didn't
Speaker 1: qualify the benefit from these new rulings. But a kind
Speaker 1: of much overdue confluence of positive developments did come along.
Speaker 1: So how did his case eventually reach your desk?
Speaker 3: Richard?
Speaker 2: I had first read about Sullivan's case in I think
Speaker 2: twenty eleven. I was just doing legal research on another
Speaker 2: case about non disclosure of evidence, and I'd read the
Speaker 2: opinion and he was not very technical. Asia, well, that's
Speaker 2: bullshit that they upheld for conviction in this case. So
Speaker 2: it's stuck in my head. And then ten years later
Speaker 2: there was a change to the law, which meant that
Speaker 2: I thought that was a way to represent the case potentially.
Speaker 2: And then also the District Attorney's office had a civil
Speaker 2: rights division, and I knew they're particularly interested in people
Speaker 2: who had served over thirty five years in prison. So
Speaker 2: I began gathering files on the case of a point
Speaker 2: that I wrote to Sullivan. I just knew what was
Speaker 2: in the court opinion, and so I just knew what
Speaker 2: the police officer had said after it didn't suit them
Speaker 2: for Sullivan to be a non secretor. And so but
Speaker 2: one of the first things I got was for trial truands,
Speaker 2: and it's like obvious, guy's completely changed his opinion about
Speaker 2: the case based on what suits for prosecutor at any
Speaker 2: given time.
Speaker 1: And then, as we mentioned earlier, the last denial in
Speaker 1: appeals court was wrongly based on O'Neill's altered testimony, but
Speaker 1: the carner had also had the same findings that the
Speaker 1: assailant was a non secretor. So it sure seems like
Speaker 1: O'Neill had lied, but you still got to prove that.
Speaker 2: And so fortunately as a guy called Alan Keel, who
Speaker 2: I'd worked with as a DNA analyst, and before he
Speaker 2: was a DNA analyst, he was a zerologist, so he
Speaker 2: was willing to consult on the case, and so I'd
Speaker 2: sent him more than materials. And then basically the reason
Speaker 2: it looked like bullshit that the guy changed his estimony
Speaker 2: like that is because it was, and he is able
Speaker 2: to give a report explaining, you know, in scientific terms,
Speaker 2: that has no reason this guid should have changed his
Speaker 2: opinion and some of the reasons he gives for the
Speaker 2: second opinion he gives. If that was true, it really
Speaker 2: calls into question whether he should be any kind of
Speaker 2: a scientist at all. I mean, he's wrapping it up
Speaker 2: in fancy was. But what he's essentially saying is, well,
Speaker 2: maybe I didn't get any secrete evidence because instead of
Speaker 2: testing the stain, I tested a bit of fabric next
Speaker 2: to the stain accidentally, which I mean, if you believe
Speaker 2: for a second that was true, why not go back
Speaker 2: and test the evidence again.
Speaker 1: So you found a credible source in Keel to confirm
Speaker 1: what was clear to everyone that O'Neill's shady change of
Speaker 1: opinion at the motion for neutral hearing was total horseship.
Speaker 1: But it unfortunately upheld Sullivan's wrongful conviction long after his
Speaker 1: secretor status had proven his actual innocence all the way
Speaker 1: back in January nineteen eighty eight, when Orleans Parish GA
Speaker 1: Harry Connick Senior was still in office, and after him,
Speaker 1: le Uncanni Zaro was unfortunately no better. However, in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: Jason Williams was elected, ushering in a much needed and
Speaker 1: long overdue era of sanity.
Speaker 2: So in early twenty twenty two, I presented this case
Speaker 2: to the Civil Rights Division, a woman Lame Melissa Montel,
Speaker 2: who immediately saw of this guy should not be in prisoner.
Speaker 2: And so while I think the evidence we had found,
Speaker 2: I think if we had had to litigate the case,
Speaker 2: I think Sulivan was leaederly entitled to have his conviction
Speaker 2: thrown out. The District Attorney's office actually signed off on
Speaker 2: agreeing to it. So this was a rare case where
Speaker 2: we could actually file a joint motion with the District
Speaker 2: Attorney's office asking for court to vacate his conviction. And
Speaker 2: then judged Darryl Durbany, we went into court shortly before
Speaker 2: we filed it, explained the case to him and he's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: get this case to me. He understood that this is
Speaker 2: something he wanted to sign off on too, I.
Speaker 3: Mean a judge, and he seemed to be very disturbed matters,
Speaker 3: and he made some statements quote unquote, he stated, there,
Speaker 3: you know, to say that this was uncashionable would be
Speaker 3: an understatement, you know, And he actually asked him, you
Speaker 3: know what happened? Why is it this guy has been
Speaker 3: in prison all these years? After this Physicaloeverns was presented
Speaker 3: on his behalf and then the prosecuting she was like,
Speaker 3: you know, man, this shouldn't have happened. These people actually lie.
Speaker 2: And so you have Sullivan's conviction was vacated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, luckily you have Jason Williams in office rather
Speaker 1: than Conic Senior or ely On Connizarro.
Speaker 2: Leon Cannizero was a judge who denied the motion for
Speaker 2: a new trial after the blood typing came back, proving
Speaker 2: Sullivan was a type beaty.
Speaker 1: Greeta wait, wait, wait, so Connazaro, this character was the
Speaker 1: one who watched O'Neill blatantly lie about the evidence that
Speaker 1: proved your actual innocence and still denied your motion for
Speaker 1: a new trial. Right, and then became district attorney for
Speaker 1: the seventeen years following Harry Connock Senior. You know what,
Speaker 1: let's just move on to the good stuff. You had
Speaker 1: your conviction finally vacated in the summer of twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3: It was in August August the twenty fifth, but the
Speaker 3: week prior to that, mister Davis called me and he
Speaker 3: told me that, you know, I was going to be
Speaker 3: going back to court and that you I was going
Speaker 3: to be exonerated. And he asked me to see how
Speaker 3: you feel in that moment. You know, I told him,
Speaker 3: you know, I feel as if I could breathe, because man,
Speaker 3: for all the years, it was like I couldn't breathe.
Speaker 3: My whole life was taken from me. And as I said,
Speaker 3: I can't tell you what I would have done had
Speaker 3: I not went to present. I don't know what would
Speaker 3: have happened to me in the streets. But what I
Speaker 3: do know with absolute certainty is I would have never
Speaker 3: raped the woman. Ever. That's one of the hard things
Speaker 3: about this case. Even though I'm out and I'm free,
Speaker 3: the victim is deceased, so I never see this woman.
Speaker 3: I'll never looked on her eyes, and she'll never know.
Speaker 3: And that my mother, my sister, these are people I
Speaker 3: would have wanted to know that I didn't do this,
Speaker 3: you know, I wanted them to see that date and
Speaker 3: this victim, she wasn't only a victim to a rape,
Speaker 3: she was also a victim to injustice as well, because
Speaker 3: I mean the criminal justice system didn't serve up because
Speaker 3: the perpetrate out of crime Neville was brought to justice.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you'd think that even just out of pure self interest,
Speaker 1: right for their own safety of their own families, right,
Speaker 1: you think that these folks in law enforcement would want
Speaker 1: to get the actual perpetrator off the street and save
Speaker 1: all the future potential victims from enduring a horrible ordeal
Speaker 1: like this poor person did this poor woman. But that's
Speaker 1: not what happened here with you, Sullivan, and in so
Speaker 1: many other cases. So now you're out. I understand that
Speaker 1: you've got steady work, but is there a go fundme
Speaker 1: or some other way our audience can support you?
Speaker 3: Well, well, my release. You know, the Anderson Project has
Speaker 3: a client service person who helps helps out and there
Speaker 3: were go fundme page.
Speaker 1: All right, well, we'll make sure that we have that
Speaker 1: linked in the bio. And now, of course we've come
Speaker 1: to my favorite part of this show. I'll call it
Speaker 1: closing arguments, where I first of all, thank you both
Speaker 1: for being here with us and courageously sharing this incredible,
Speaker 1: harrowing story. I'm going to turn my microphone off, leave
Speaker 1: my headphones on, close my eyes, and kick back in
Speaker 1: my chair and just listen. To anything else you guys
Speaker 1: want to share. Richard, let's start with you and then Sullivan. Walter,
Speaker 1: you can take us right on out into the sunset.
Speaker 2: So I think Sullivan's case, beyond his own story, of course,
Speaker 2: is just a real demonstration of how much power of
Speaker 2: the system gives people without expecting any kind of responsibility
Speaker 2: or foreigness. It's just the the incredible fecklessness with which
Speaker 2: his case was treated and the incredible power they have
Speaker 2: to define his life or being incredibly careless about it.
Speaker 2: That's what I see is that you know, this is
Speaker 2: not a well hidden injustice. This was right there in
Speaker 2: the open from nineteen eighty eight, and it just, you know,
Speaker 2: a real staggering black to consider Sullivan a person worthy
Speaker 2: of care. You know, he's not asking for some kind
Speaker 2: of like extraordinary favor or kindness out system. Just the
Speaker 2: basic level of care is all it would have taken.
Speaker 3: And that anyone who hear my story, you know, if
Speaker 3: you listen and you hear my story, you know, all
Speaker 3: I ask is that you know you understand and know
Speaker 3: that you know these things happen and it didn't just
Speaker 3: happen to me, It happens to many people throughout the country.
Speaker 3: You know, people have been subjected to injustice and wrongful
Speaker 3: and canceration and put in prison for extended amount of times,
Speaker 3: and you can't make up for it, you know, I mean,
Speaker 3: thirty six years. It's impossible to make up for it. So,
Speaker 3: you know, life is very hard for me. But I live.
Speaker 3: I live, and you know, I just try to make
Speaker 3: the best of it, and I thank God for every
Speaker 3: day and I embrace life. I want to live, you know,
Speaker 3: I want to live. I want to live life to
Speaker 3: as full as but it's a real challenge. You know,
Speaker 3: I lost my mother, my father, my family. I don't
Speaker 3: have any kids, and I lost a lot. I'm fifty
Speaker 3: four years old. I don't have kids. You know, a
Speaker 3: lot was taken from me. You know, I just was
Speaker 3: denied a chance to live a life. And I believe that.
Speaker 3: I know, I don't believe it. I know it without
Speaker 3: a doubt. I'm a good person. I'm a good man,
Speaker 3: and you know I believe that I would have made
Speaker 3: the best out of life.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
Speaker 1: to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
Speaker 1: week early by subscribing to Lava for Good plus on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our production team Connor
Speaker 1: hall Any, Chelsea, Lyla Robinson, and Kathleen Fink, as well
Speaker 1: as my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Awardis, and
Speaker 1: Jeff Clyburn. The music in this production was supplied by
Speaker 1: three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to
Speaker 1: follow us across all social media platforms at Lava for
Speaker 1: Good and at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me
Speaker 1: on Instagram at It's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a
Speaker 1: production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal
Speaker 1: Company Number one