Speaker 1: Last time on ear witness.
Speaker 2: Bolly that was walking that door, scanting up on this
Speaker 2: table and say what she said?
Speaker 3: We got a full table.
Speaker 4: Now we got all the evidence we.
Speaker 2: Need this Alison, would you tell us about the information
Speaker 2: that you.
Speaker 5: Have for us?
Speaker 6: Yes, my door to use her three way to call
Speaker 6: for his homeboy, and he named the name is to
Speaker 6: Borrow Johnson.
Speaker 3: We had a weak case.
Speaker 7: It's based on testimony in one witness.
Speaker 4: The only evidence supposedly they had against was this ear
Speaker 4: witness who had never heard him speak before, who had
Speaker 4: no idea who he was.
Speaker 5: This case is all about alternative worlds that are in
Speaker 5: conflict with each other and in conflict with truth, and
Speaker 5: in conflict with what our justice system stands for.
Speaker 4: We forget sometime that there was a third person on
Speaker 4: that phone who told him to discredits what this lady says.
Speaker 4: She heard you know what I mean? And now how close,
Speaker 4: how much closer can you get than that?
Speaker 1: Why did the jury believe this woman who eavesdrop on
Speaker 1: the call over you who actually had.
Speaker 2: On the call.
Speaker 4: I don't understand.
Speaker 2: I never understood that.
Speaker 4: You know, the victim's family deserve to know what happened
Speaker 4: to their loved one. But they get no justice, no
Speaker 4: peace out of a wrongful conviction, you know, And this
Speaker 4: is simply a case of does anybody all do do.
Speaker 1: You remember the first time you met him? At Ty
Speaker 1: Alper was just starting out his legal career at the
Speaker 1: Southern Center for Human Rights when he met to Forest Johnson.
Speaker 1: To Forest was one of the first people on death
Speaker 1: row that Ty'd been assigned to represent. In January of
Speaker 1: two thousand and three, ty gets into one of the
Speaker 1: old Volvos that the Southern Center had in their parking
Speaker 1: lot in Atlanta and drives four hours south to Holman
Speaker 1: Prison and at Moore, Alabama.
Speaker 2: The first time I met him was down at Holman.
Speaker 2: I was by myself and well, I was going to
Speaker 2: go down and make sure that he was okay with
Speaker 2: us representing him and to sort of tell him where
Speaker 2: his case was.
Speaker 1: Tye is twenty nine years old, and here's what he knows.
Speaker 1: To Forest Johnson is just eight months old than he is,
Speaker 1: and he's been on death row for over four years
Speaker 1: for a crime he says he did not commit. When
Speaker 1: ty finally gets inside the prison, he's taken to a
Speaker 1: room called the visiting yard, but it isn't a yard
Speaker 1: at all. It looks like a middle school cafeteria surrounded
Speaker 1: by plexiglass. Outside the plexiglass, correctional officers and men in
Speaker 1: prison uniforms, white slacks, white shirt with Alabama Department of
Speaker 1: Corrections stamped on the back are walking by. Inside, there's
Speaker 1: no ac and the sad attempt of cooling the room
Speaker 1: is left to metal fans that hang in the corners
Speaker 1: to forrest sits at a table in a plastic chair
Speaker 1: across from Tye. Ty tries to talk quietly so he
Speaker 1: doesn't disturb other lawyers working with their clients on the yard,
Speaker 1: but loud enough to be heard over the roar of
Speaker 1: the fans.
Speaker 2: And I remember saying to him, you know, mister Johnson,
Speaker 2: I want you to know we're at the very early
Speaker 2: stages of your appeals. There's many rounds of appeals to go.
Speaker 2: We're going to file a petition in the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: Then we're going to go back into state court. If
Speaker 2: we lose there, we're going to go back into federal court,
Speaker 2: and all this could take many years. And he just
Speaker 2: started crying, and I assumed that he was upset because
Speaker 2: I knew that he had claimed that he was claiming
Speaker 2: he was innocent, and I assumed that he was upset
Speaker 2: that this was going to take so long, and I
Speaker 2: asked him what was wrong, and he said that he
Speaker 2: was so happy because he had just assumed that they
Speaker 2: could come any minute and take him to be executed.
Speaker 2: And it was just the thing that struck me the most,
Speaker 2: because not only had he been screwed over in pretty
Speaker 2: much every possible way you can be, but nobody was
Speaker 2: telling anything about what was going on in this case.
Speaker 1: But to Forrest's days without a lawyer to fight for
Speaker 1: him are over. It's now up to Tie and the
Speaker 1: team of lawyers at the Southern Center to do what
Speaker 1: no one has done before, thoroughly investigate to Forrest's conviction,
Speaker 1: a conviction that hinged on the word and credibility of
Speaker 1: a single witness, Violet Ellison.
Speaker 8: Do you he my may.
Speaker 7: Love, hads may.
Speaker 4: Sorrowstp re lit.
Speaker 7: In this b.
Speaker 6: Both tears.
Speaker 4: I want to see.
Speaker 1: Revelation.
Speaker 2: I want to know who you are.
Speaker 3: I'm reation.
Speaker 8: In thisspiration to the word Who's holding stands?
Speaker 9: To the.
Speaker 6: Who's holding the stand?
Speaker 1: I'm Beth Shelburne. This is ear witness, Chapter six misfiled.
Speaker 1: After ty leaves Holman prison, he and the rest of
Speaker 1: Taforest's new legal team go through the case. They need
Speaker 1: to understand how their new client ended up on death row.
Speaker 1: They hear about to Forest's alibi that he was at
Speaker 1: Tea's place when Deputy Hardy was shot. They learn about
Speaker 1: Yolanda Chambers changing stories. They read how the state presented
Speaker 1: conflicting theories at different trials. Now it's clear to the
Speaker 1: legal team to Forest Johnson did not kill Deputy Hardy.
Speaker 1: The state's case completely revolved around Violet Ellison's testimony, so.
Speaker 2: We knew that that was a potentially fruitful area to
Speaker 2: investigate because she was the state's whole case.
Speaker 1: They need to figure out whether they can challenge Violet
Speaker 1: Ellison's testimony. If they can show that it wasn't reliable,
Speaker 1: they can argue that to Forrest deserves a new trial.
Speaker 1: So they need to know why did Violet Ellison come
Speaker 1: forward in the first place. Prosecutor Jeff Wallace told two
Speaker 1: juries that Violet was a credible witness, someone who overheard
Speaker 1: to Forrest Johnson admit to the crime, and she came
Speaker 1: forward because it was the right thing to do. But
Speaker 1: there were other reasons Violet Ellison might have come forward.
Speaker 2: We knew the reward was offered because it was all
Speaker 2: over the papers, but we didn't know who got it,
Speaker 2: or if Violet Elison got it.
Speaker 1: The reward was not a secret. It was mentioned in
Speaker 1: press releases and reported on TV news.
Speaker 2: So the next step was okay. Well, were there questions
Speaker 2: about her credibility that the juris already never heard, And
Speaker 2: an obvious one was what was she paid for her testimony?
Speaker 1: If Violet Ellison knew about the reward money before trial,
Speaker 1: or even if she had qualified for the reward, the
Speaker 1: jury should have been told this when they heard her testimony.
Speaker 1: The legal issues here get complicated fast, but it's important
Speaker 1: to understand that the prosecution must turn over anything that
Speaker 1: would be helpful to the defense. It can be a
Speaker 1: lead on another suspect, or some forensic report that casts
Speaker 1: doubt on a piece of evidence, or information that calls
Speaker 1: the credibility of a state's witness into question. This is
Speaker 1: called Brady information, after a famous US Supreme Court case
Speaker 1: called Brady v. Maryland. And if a court finds out
Speaker 1: later that prosecutors failed to turn over Brady information, that's
Speaker 1: a constitutional violation and the court will order a new trial.
Speaker 1: So if prosecutors knew that Violet Ellison came forward looking
Speaker 1: for the reward, they should have told to Forest trial
Speaker 1: lawyers about it, and then they could have brought it
Speaker 1: up at trial. They could have told the jury when
Speaker 1: you go back and deliberate about Violet Ellison's testimony, Remember
Speaker 1: there's a reward being offered and she wants that reward.
Speaker 1: Are you sure money isn't part of the equation here?
Speaker 1: But the jury never heard anything about the reward.
Speaker 3: She was very credible.
Speaker 1: Monique Hick was on the jury into Forrest's second trial
Speaker 1: and she voted to convict to Forest based on Violet
Speaker 1: Ellison's testimony.
Speaker 3: She just seemed very truthful, like she had nothing to
Speaker 3: gain by coming forward. She had heard this information and
Speaker 3: she felt like I have to share this. She was
Speaker 3: a very credible witness compared to some of the others
Speaker 3: that took the sandlight. We believed her, obviously, we believed
Speaker 3: her because we convicted him and it was on her testimony.
Speaker 1: Overturning a conviction is damn near impossible. Our system prioritizes
Speaker 1: finality in part because a jury's verdict is considered a
Speaker 1: community statement and given great weight. So for to Forrest
Speaker 1: to get a new trial, his lawyers needed to prove
Speaker 1: two things that Violet Ellison came forward with her story
Speaker 1: in the hopes of getting the reward, and that police
Speaker 1: and prosecutors were aware of this true motive. There's one
Speaker 1: big problem. If Violet Ellison had been paid, documentation of
Speaker 1: the payment should have been into Forrest's case file, but
Speaker 1: there wasn't anything there. Still, Tye and the other attorneys
Speaker 1: had a hunch that Violet Ellison got the money. The
Speaker 1: legal team tried calling everywhere they could, the Sheriff's office,
Speaker 1: the Governor's office, the Record's division. What should have been
Speaker 1: just a simple phone call turned into a multi week endeavor. Finally,
Speaker 1: someone at the Governor's office said they might have something
Speaker 1: and would send over a fax.
Speaker 2: I do remember us all hovering around the facts machine
Speaker 2: waiting to see what it was, because it was the
Speaker 2: first time that anyone had acknowledged that there might be
Speaker 2: something that was helpful.
Speaker 1: The fax machine spits out a piece of paper signed
Speaker 1: by Judge Alfred Bayhackle, the man who presided over to
Speaker 1: Forrest's trials and sentenced him to death. The paper authorized
Speaker 1: Violet Ellison to receive five thousand dollars in reward money
Speaker 1: in exchange for her testimony that led to the conviction
Speaker 1: of to Forest Johnson.
Speaker 2: That was when we knew, okay, she did know about
Speaker 2: this reward. She was motivated by the reward when she testified,
Speaker 2: and the judge knew about it in an order that
Speaker 2: was not included in the court file.
Speaker 1: For to Forest's legal team. This was a huge first step.
Speaker 1: The language in the court order said that Violet Ellison
Speaker 1: came forward pursuant to the public offer of a reward.
Speaker 1: And again, this authorization document was signed by the judge.
Speaker 1: It's an official court document. It should have been into
Speaker 1: Forrest's court file right there where everyone could see it,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't. Instead, to Forest's legal team had to
Speaker 1: go on a bureaucratic goose chase to find it was
Speaker 1: someone trying to hide something. What other documents were missing
Speaker 1: from the public file. So a young investigator working with
Speaker 1: the Forest's legal team named Jason Marx went right to
Speaker 1: the source. He walked up to Violet Ellison's house, holding
Speaker 1: Judge Bahackle's court order that authorized her payment in one
Speaker 1: hand and knocked on her front door with the other.
Speaker 9: When I showed up at her house, he said something
Speaker 9: about the phone calls, and I said, oh, I'm not
Speaker 9: here to talk to you about the phone calls. I'm
Speaker 9: here to talk about the reward that you got. And
Speaker 9: that's when she said I didn't get a reward. I
Speaker 9: was like, oh, well, that's funny. I was like, I
Speaker 9: have some paperwork here that says you got a reward,
Speaker 9: and so basically yeah. So basically confronted her with the document,
Speaker 9: she said, oh, yeah, I did get a reward, got
Speaker 9: five thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: After initially denying it, Violet Ellison told Jason the state
Speaker 1: paid her five thousand dollars for testifying against to Forrest Johnson.
Speaker 2: We knew when we got the judge's order that he
Speaker 2: had authorized the payment, and then she told us that
Speaker 2: she got paid, so we knew it all. When you
Speaker 2: take a step back, he's on death row because the
Speaker 2: jury believed a woman who they didn't know is being
Speaker 2: paid for her testimony, and that should cause real concerns
Speaker 2: and questions about the validity of the conviction.
Speaker 1: To Forest's legal team files a Brady claim against the
Speaker 1: state that argues the jury into Forest's trial should have
Speaker 1: heard about the reward, Violet Ellison knew about the reward
Speaker 1: when she came forward, and that the state suppressed the
Speaker 1: information on purpose. The state denies everything. They deny any
Speaker 1: Brady violation, and they deny all of the allegations into
Speaker 1: Forest's petition, including that Violet Ellison was motivated by the
Speaker 1: reward and that she was paid five thousand dollars. But
Speaker 1: to Forest's legal team has evidence to the contrary, the
Speaker 1: court order that was faxed to them and Violet Ellison herself.
Speaker 1: After the state submits a written denial of all of
Speaker 1: the charges brought by to Forest's legal team, the case
Speaker 1: heads to court, but Alabama courts won't hear the case.
Speaker 1: They say the reward doesn't qualify as Brady, so the
Speaker 1: appeal takes years to make its way through the courts.
Speaker 1: When to Forest and Ty first met, to Forrest's five
Speaker 1: kids were all under the age of ten, and as
Speaker 1: the Braak claim crawls through the legal system, seventeen years
Speaker 1: go by, to Forrest's oldest daughter has graduated college and
Speaker 1: his four other kids are having kids of their own. Finally,
Speaker 1: to Forest's legal team gets the case in front of
Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court. The justices tell the Alabama
Speaker 1: courts that they're wrong for not reviewing to Forrest Brady claim.
Speaker 1: The State of Alabama must hear the evidence about the reward.
Speaker 1: Ahead of the hearing, Judge Teresa Pulliam gives the state
Speaker 1: very clear orders.
Speaker 2: You have to turn over everything, everything that you have
Speaker 2: that concerns a reward payment. You have to turn it
Speaker 2: over to mister Johnson's lawyers.
Speaker 1: So the state gives to Forest's legal team what they
Speaker 1: say are all of the documents about to Forest's case.
Speaker 1: An attorney representing the state tells Judge Pulliam the files
Speaker 1: contained nothing about anyone applying for a reward or being
Speaker 1: granted a reward.
Speaker 2: I think it was eight or nine banker's boxes of documents,
Speaker 2: and we went through every single page looking for any
Speaker 2: mention of a reward payment about Elson, and there was
Speaker 2: nothing in there.
Speaker 1: But then to Forest's legal team gets a tip from
Speaker 1: an insider. The woman who served as office manager at
Speaker 1: the Jefferson County District Attorney's office went to Forest was
Speaker 1: on trial.
Speaker 2: So she told us that if we were only looking
Speaker 2: in the case file, we weren't looking everywhere. That the
Speaker 2: documentation might be because they also had a reward file
Speaker 2: that they kept separate from the case files that would
Speaker 2: include paperwork and documentation of witnesses who had sought rewards
Speaker 2: and or been paid rewards.
Speaker 1: Reward information in the DA's office, according to this source,
Speaker 1: was kept in a separate confidential file away from prosecutors
Speaker 1: involved in trials like Jeff Wallace. This meant he couldn't
Speaker 1: turn it over to to Forest lawyers because he didn't
Speaker 1: know about it. To to Forest's attorneys, this meant the
Speaker 1: information about the reward was kept from them intentionally suppressed.
Speaker 1: The judge orders the DA's office to turn over this
Speaker 1: separate confidential file.
Speaker 2: We got an email that said, we found these documents.
Speaker 2: They had been misfiled, and here they are.
Speaker 1: Here they are. After seventeen years, the state finally turned
Speaker 1: over every document to Forest lawyers had asked for the
Speaker 1: hidden treasure trove. An application for the reward that's signed
Speaker 1: by Violet Ellison, a copy of the actual check for
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars made out to Violet Ellison, an email
Speaker 1: exchange between District Attorney David Barber and the Governor's office
Speaker 1: about how to pay the reward. And a letter from
Speaker 1: DA Barber asking the governor to pay Violet Ellison the money,
Speaker 1: saying that she came forward pursuant to the offer of
Speaker 1: a reward. If this hidden information about the reward kept
Speaker 1: away from to Forest lawyers for seventeen years doesn't count
Speaker 1: as prosecutorial misconduct as a Brady violation, what does? But
Speaker 1: according to the state, all of these documents were simply misfunnild.
Speaker 1: When I hear misfiled, I imagine someone accidentally putting a document
Speaker 1: into the wrong folder, or maybe a paper falling behind
Speaker 1: a cabinet. But that's not what happened. It sounds like
Speaker 1: they had it organized in a file they kept explicitly
Speaker 1: for rewards, a file that no one seemed to know
Speaker 1: about except the office manager and the DA himself, David Barber,
Speaker 1: who headed the prosecutor's office. How is this acceptable?
Speaker 3: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yes, I was calling for David Barber speaking mister Barber.
Speaker 1: My name is Beth Shelburne. I called David Barber, who's
Speaker 1: now retired after serving as Jefferson County's top prosecutor for
Speaker 1: twenty four years. He was DA when to Forest was
Speaker 1: tried for capital murder and personally involved in the reward issue.
Speaker 1: He wrote the letter asking the governor to pay Violet Ellison.
Speaker 1: The defense team for mister Johnson didn't have any records
Speaker 1: about the reward until twenty nineteen. The Attorney General's office
Speaker 1: produced the records and said they had been misfiled. Okay,
Speaker 1: does that sound strange to you or do you have
Speaker 1: any idea how that could.
Speaker 3: Have happened.
Speaker 8: The AG's office. If they said he got misfiled, then
Speaker 8: I guess he got misfiled. Human error.
Speaker 9: I guess.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't think.
Speaker 8: I guess people. I mean, things happen. You have people
Speaker 8: working in agencies, DA's offices, AG's office's, Governor's office, things
Speaker 8: getting misfiled, And I mean it happened.
Speaker 1: It happens. Actually, it did happen at least one other
Speaker 1: time on Barber's watch. In two thousand and four, a
Speaker 1: man named Montez Spradley was sentenced to death for murder
Speaker 1: based on the testimony of one witness, just like to
Speaker 1: Forrest Johnson. Eventually, Spradley's lawyers discovered the star witness was
Speaker 1: paid ten thousand dollars for her testimony, but police and
Speaker 1: prosecutors never disclosed the reward payment because the reward documents
Speaker 1: were kept in this same separate file as Violet Ellison's
Speaker 1: reward payment. The judge in that case also didn't disclose
Speaker 1: information about the reward. The judge was Gloria Bahackle, the
Speaker 1: sister of Alfred Bahackle, the judge into Forests trial.
Speaker 6: Hello.
Speaker 1: Hey, my name is Beth Sholburn. I was wondering if
Speaker 1: mister Alfred ba Hackle is here. My producer Mara, and
Speaker 1: I went to Judge Alfred bay Hackle's house hoping to
Speaker 1: talk to him about these off the record payment authorizations,
Speaker 1: but he told us that he wasn't interested in commenting
Speaker 1: on any specific cases or his time as a judge.
Speaker 8: I've talked to you.
Speaker 1: It's about a murder case and several of the trials here.
Speaker 2: I can't talk about, okay.
Speaker 1: Montes Bradley was able to prove his innocence and was
Speaker 1: released from prison in twenty fifteen to Forrest and his
Speaker 1: attorneys hope for this same outcome. I first heard about
Speaker 1: to Forest Johnson's case in twenty nineteen when the Brady
Speaker 1: hearing was scheduled. I was assigned to cover the hearing
Speaker 1: for WBrC The News station where I used to work.
Speaker 1: This hearing would determine whether Violet Ellison's secret reward payment
Speaker 1: amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. I didn't know much about to
Speaker 1: Force case back then, only that he was on death
Speaker 1: row for a crime that he said he didn't commit
Speaker 1: and was convicted on the testimony of an ear witness
Speaker 1: who was paid off the record. In preparation for the hearing,
Speaker 1: I met with Taforest's cousin Antonio Green, and other family
Speaker 1: members at their uncle's house. They all said to Forrest
Speaker 1: was optimistic about the hearing, and he.
Speaker 4: Tells me, he says all the time, well, you know,
Speaker 4: cause I know I didn't do this, so one day
Speaker 4: it'll all come out.
Speaker 3: Old.
Speaker 1: Yeah. On the day of the hearing, I only took
Speaker 1: a pen and notebook into Judge Pulliam's courtroom because she
Speaker 1: doesn't allow recording. I sat next to to Forest's mother, Donna,
Speaker 1: in a middle row, and I spotted to Forrest sitting
Speaker 1: at the defense table with his attorneys. This was the
Speaker 1: first and only time I've ever seen to Forrest Johnson
Speaker 1: in person. He was wearing an orange and white striped
Speaker 1: jail jumpsuit and was in handcuffs and leg irons. At
Speaker 1: one point, he turned and smiled at his family, and
Speaker 1: I heard his mom next to me say softly, hey baby.
Speaker 1: The courtroom was packed, and much of the crowd was
Speaker 1: to Forrest's family and friends, but I also saw Jefferson
Speaker 1: County's newly elected district attorney seated in the first row,
Speaker 1: Danny Carr. He's the first black man to be elected
Speaker 1: top prosecutor in Jefferson County. A month before this hearing,
Speaker 1: a group of faith leaders who knew about to Forest
Speaker 1: case published an open letter to Carr asking him to
Speaker 1: push for a new trial, but at this point Carr
Speaker 1: had not commented publicly on the case. The hearing starts
Speaker 1: at nine am to Forrest's attorneys present all of the
Speaker 1: documents that took the state seventeen years to turn over.
Speaker 1: They argue that the documents showed so the state suppressed
Speaker 1: evidence that Violet Ellison initially contacted police in pursuit of
Speaker 1: the reward money, and then the state hid that she
Speaker 1: was eventually paid five thousand dollars. Just after ten am,
Speaker 1: the state calls only one witness to testify, Violet Ellison.
Speaker 1: She's seventy seven years old and walks to the stand
Speaker 1: using a cane. She has short white hair and is
Speaker 1: dressed in a white blazer and black pants. After she's
Speaker 1: sworn in, Violet Ellison says that she knew the victim
Speaker 1: and followed the details about the murder and investigation by
Speaker 1: watching the news and reading the newspaper. But despite all that,
Speaker 1: and despite the fact that information about the reward was
Speaker 1: all over the news, she is vehement that she didn't
Speaker 1: know about the reward. She testifies that the first time
Speaker 1: she heard about the reward was after to Forrest was
Speaker 1: sentenced to death in July of two thousand and one,
Speaker 1: three years after he was convicted. She says that's when
Speaker 1: someone from the DA's office contacted her and asked her
Speaker 1: to come in and sign papers for the reward money.
Speaker 1: At the end of this five hour hearing, Judge Pulliam
Speaker 1: says she's not going to make a decision that day.
Speaker 1: She'll consider all of the evidence and then issue her
Speaker 1: ruling to Forrest's mother. Donna, sitting next to me, bursts
Speaker 1: into tears. After the hearing, I was going over my
Speaker 1: notes and noticed a big discrepancy between the state's story
Speaker 1: and Violet Ellison's testimony about what triggered the reward three
Speaker 1: years after to Forrest was convicted. In opening statements, the
Speaker 1: state lawyer said that Violet Ellison asked the DA's office
Speaker 1: about the reward, but on the stand, Violet said it
Speaker 1: was the other way around that they contacted her. This
Speaker 1: might seem like a minor detail, but knowing what triggered
Speaker 1: the reward payment is key in determining whether or not
Speaker 1: this is a Brady violation. Who called who first? How
Speaker 1: did this payment come about? So I emailed the Attorney
Speaker 1: General's office for some clarity, and they directly contradicted Violet
Speaker 1: Ellison's testimony again, writing three years after the trial, Ellison
Speaker 1: requested the cash reward that had been offered by the governor,
Speaker 1: and since then Alabama's Attorney General completely reversed the state's narrative.
Speaker 1: The AG's office now claims that the prosecutor asked for
Speaker 1: the reward to be paid unbeknownst to Violet Ellison. But
Speaker 1: former DA David Barber told me he wouldn't do that,
Speaker 1: that rewards were triggered by law enforcement or a witness
Speaker 1: themselves applying for a reward, and Prosecutor Jeff Wallace said
Speaker 1: he had nothing to do with rewards. Everyone I asked
Speaker 1: gave a different answer, pointing the finger in a different direction.
Speaker 1: Nobody wanted to own up to triggering the payment. The
Speaker 1: state continuously changing its story on this important detail isn't
Speaker 1: just sloppy, it's incredibly suspicious. It takes nine months for
Speaker 1: Judge Pulliam to issue her decision. She writes that she
Speaker 1: found Violet Ellison to be confident, describing her as well
Speaker 1: dressed and well spoken, and that her articulate testimony outweighed
Speaker 1: the evidence presented by to Forrest Johnson's attorneys. Pulliam says
Speaker 1: the documents don't prove that Violet Ellison knew about the
Speaker 1: money when she testified, and don't amount to misconduct by
Speaker 1: the state. She doesn't address the fact that it took
Speaker 1: the state seventeen years to admit they had paid Violet Ellison.
Speaker 2: Really, what she was doing was validating the credibility of
Speaker 2: Violet Ellison, saying I didn't know that there was even
Speaker 2: a reward offered in the case, which is impossible to believe,
Speaker 2: and then validating her testimony that three years after the trial,
Speaker 2: not having known that there is even a reward offered
Speaker 2: in the case, the DA's office out of the blue
Speaker 2: called her up one day and said, Hey, remember that
Speaker 2: case you testified in. We have five thousand dollars of
Speaker 2: the state's money that we'd like to give you for that.
Speaker 2: Do you want to come down and get it? And
Speaker 2: she said sure and came down and got it, which
Speaker 2: is also impossible to believe.
Speaker 1: To Forrest's legal team appeals the decision, and in April
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty one, I attend oral arguments in front
Speaker 1: of the State Court of Criminal Appeals. I notice all
Speaker 1: five judges on the court are white. In fact, everyone
Speaker 1: in the courtroom is white. The disconnect is striking to
Speaker 1: Forest Johnson. Isn't here All these white people are discussing
Speaker 1: the fate of a black man who is locked away
Speaker 1: on death row, completely absent from this process. This dynamic
Speaker 1: isn't unique to this hearing. Black people make up twenty
Speaker 1: seven percent of Alabama's overall population, but fifty four percent
Speaker 1: of the state prison population. There are no black appellate
Speaker 1: judges and only three of the forty two elected das
Speaker 1: and Alabama are black. This lack of representation means it's
Speaker 1: almost always white people making policy and punishment decisions that
Speaker 1: impact a disproportionate poor and black population. To Forest hearing
Speaker 1: in the Court of Criminal Appeals lasts just forty nine minutes.
Speaker 1: It's another tony.
Speaker 3: At the end of the trial, once the verdict was
Speaker 3: read and everything was done, the jury was finished with
Speaker 3: their job, and I remember the judge saying that to
Speaker 3: Forrest would be sentenced at another date.
Speaker 1: Monique Kicks again, who served on the jury into Forrest's
Speaker 1: second trial. Monique wanted to talk with me after she
Speaker 1: saw a news story about Violet Ellison and the reward payment,
Speaker 1: so I made the hour long drive to her house
Speaker 1: to speak to her in person. Monique was twenty seven
Speaker 1: years old when she voted for to Forrest's guilt and
Speaker 1: a death sentence. As soon as that was over, security
Speaker 1: quickly ushered the jury out the back door of the
Speaker 1: courthouse to the parking deck. She never found out if
Speaker 1: the judge agreed that to Forrest should be put to
Speaker 1: death or spend life in prison.
Speaker 3: I never heard anything, didn't see it in the news,
Speaker 3: may have dismissed it that night. The internet wasn't a thing.
Speaker 3: I couldn't look it up, google it, so I honestly
Speaker 3: never knew ultimately what happened to mister Johnson.
Speaker 1: Twenty years later, Monique gets a book recommendation from a friend.
Speaker 1: The Sun Does Shine, a memoir by Anthony ray Hinton,
Speaker 1: a black man from Birmingham who was sent to death
Speaker 1: row in nineteen eighty five despite a solid alibi and
Speaker 1: no eyewitnesses tying him to the murder. He was exonerated
Speaker 1: thirty years later.
Speaker 3: And so I was reading the book. And as I'm
Speaker 3: reading the book, I'm like, oh, wow, this was set
Speaker 3: in Birmingham in the eighties. I was like, I was
Speaker 3: on a jury in the nineties in Jefferson County in Birmingham.
Speaker 3: That's interesting. By the time I got to the end
Speaker 3: of the book, I remember I looked at my husband
Speaker 3: and I said, oh, my goodness, I think we convicted
Speaker 3: an innocent man. Because I was like, there's no way
Speaker 3: ten years later that the injustices and the corruption that
Speaker 3: were going on in the system had cleaned themselves up.
Speaker 3: About two weeks later, I'm sitting on my sofa and
Speaker 3: I opened up my local news app to just read
Speaker 3: the headlines to Forrest Johnson has been claiming innocence for
Speaker 3: over twenty years on death row. Something to that effect.
Speaker 3: And I opened up the article and started reading, and
Speaker 3: I just started sobbing, like uncontrollable, because I was like, oh,
Speaker 3: my goodness, we did commit to an innocent man and
Speaker 3: he's been on death row all these years and I
Speaker 3: didn't know it.
Speaker 1: It wasn't until twenty nineteen, more than two decades after
Speaker 1: she voted to convict to Forrest Johnson, that Monique learned
Speaker 1: that the state's key witness, Violet Ellison, was paid in
Speaker 1: secret for her testimony.
Speaker 3: You know, the star witness was paid, and the defense
Speaker 3: didn't know it. The jurors didn't know it. So yeah,
Speaker 3: I was shocked. And then I was like, well, how
Speaker 3: shocked were to Forrest and his family when we accused
Speaker 3: him of being guilty? So I just can't imagine what
Speaker 3: that was like to them. Another blow.
Speaker 1: At the time of the trial, Monique found Violet Ellison
Speaker 1: to be composed and confident. Do you think that your
Speaker 1: impression of her would have been different had you known
Speaker 1: she was being paid five thousand dollars.
Speaker 3: I definitely believe we would have as a jury talked
Speaker 3: about that, like how credible is this testimony? She's being
Speaker 3: paid for it? Yes, I do think that would have
Speaker 3: there would have been conversations about it, and I do
Speaker 3: believe it would have changed out could have changed outcome.
Speaker 3: I really felt like the jury was used in this
Speaker 3: big game of injustice. We were just just like, here's
Speaker 3: some theories. We're just gonna keep throwing them out until
Speaker 3: we can get a group of people together to believe it.
Speaker 3: And I just feel like we were being used in
Speaker 3: this game. They needed a conviction. It was a high
Speaker 3: profile case, you know, it was a sheriff's deputy. Somebody
Speaker 3: needed to pay for it. And to me, it just
Speaker 3: seems like we're just gonna throw these things out, gather
Speaker 3: people together until we get some that believe it, and
Speaker 3: unfortunately I was in the group that believed it.
Speaker 1: Monique is one of three jurors that I've interviewed. All
Speaker 1: three regret voting to convict to Forrest Johnson. None of
Speaker 1: them could quite put their finger on why they were
Speaker 1: convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, other than
Speaker 1: believing Violet Ellison. Once they learned she was paid for
Speaker 1: her testimony, it was like to Forrest suddenly became real
Speaker 1: to them. The weight of their decision was crushing. But
Speaker 1: besides speaking out about their regret. There's nothing they can do.
Speaker 1: They can't take back their votes. They have to live
Speaker 1: with their decision.
Speaker 3: Felt a lot of grief, Shane guilt for having been
Speaker 3: a part of this. I'm pretty even kill person. I'm
Speaker 3: not a cry or you know how some people cry
Speaker 3: about anything. That's not my go to a big crier,
Speaker 3: But anytime the subject comes up, it is like grief
Speaker 3: deep in my soul and I just get very emotional.
Speaker 1: I felt like I needed to talk to the person
Speaker 1: at the center of the case outside of courtrooms and legalies.
Speaker 1: I wanted to hear from Violet Ellison. She has a
Speaker 1: small brick house on a busy street in Birmingham. When
Speaker 1: I go there, the main front door is open, and
Speaker 1: as I walk closer, I can see Violet Ellison sitting
Speaker 1: inside wearing a robe. She stands up and turns to
Speaker 1: face me. Hey are you miss Violet Ellison? Miss Ellison,
Speaker 1: my name is Beth. I'm a journalist and I was
Speaker 1: hoping to talk to you about the Deputy Hardy murder
Speaker 1: that you are a witness in. Eventually she steps out
Speaker 1: onto the porch where we continue the conversation, and I feel.
Speaker 3: Like I'm just being a really cute for telling you
Speaker 3: the truth?
Speaker 6: Yeah, and I do. I don't like you.
Speaker 1: Well, I just wanted to ask you about the issue
Speaker 1: of the reward, since that what is That's what I mean.
Speaker 1: I talked to Violet Ellison for twenty minutes and she
Speaker 1: tells me no less than a dozen times that she
Speaker 1: did not know about the reward when she came forward
Speaker 1: to talk to police, and that she did not know
Speaker 1: about it when she testified against to Forrest at two trials.
Speaker 1: Do you think about the fact that he's on death
Speaker 1: row though? I mean, I know you said you don't
Speaker 1: really to support the death penalty.
Speaker 7: Yeah, well I did at first, you know, in trouble
Speaker 7: my spirit, and as time went by, you try to
Speaker 7: forget the bad things that you know happened.
Speaker 1: But it's a little surreal for me to be face
Speaker 1: to face with Violet Ellison, this woman who's the lynchpin
Speaker 1: of the entire case against to Forest. As we say goodbye,
Speaker 1: she delivers the most ironic thank you I've ever received,
Speaker 1: telling me she appreciates me talking to her directly instead
Speaker 1: of relying on someone else's characterization of what she said.
Speaker 6: Nobody has come to me like you to see how
Speaker 6: I feel about it, And they just reported on what
Speaker 6: somebody say hearsay, and I don't like that now because
Speaker 6: you'll never get the truth like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there is a man on death row because the
Speaker 1: jurors believed Violet Ellison. Now we know what the jury
Speaker 1: didn't know at trial, that she was paid for her testimony,
Speaker 1: and that the state hid this information. They told the
Speaker 1: jury that Violet Ellison was credible and believable, and they
Speaker 1: still say that, but they weren't truthful about the reward.
Speaker 1: So why should we believe how they characterize their key witness.
Speaker 10: I hate to see it. I know that's my grandmother.
Speaker 10: That's a true scam audital in a way she can
Speaker 10: get a dollar. I'm telling you she ain't that type.
Speaker 10: It's just gonna help to my just to help them.
Speaker 10: It gotta have money, It gotta have money as long.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's next time. Ear Witness is a production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company. Number One.
Speaker 1: Executive producers are Jason Flam, Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wardis, and
Speaker 1: me Beth Shelburn. The investigative reporting for this series was
Speaker 1: done by me and Maraa McNamara. Producers are Maraa McNamara,
Speaker 1: Hannah Bial and Jackie Polly. Kara Kornhaber is our senior producer.
Speaker 1: Britt Spangler is our sound designer. Additional story editing from
Speaker 1: Marie Sutton, fact check help from Catherine Newhan, and special
Speaker 1: thanks to to Forrest Johnson's legal defense team. You can
Speaker 1: follow the show on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter at
Speaker 1: Lava for Good. To see behind the scenes content from
Speaker 1: our investigation, visit Lava for Good dot com, slash ear
Speaker 1: Witness