Speaker 1: I'm Jason Flammtt Wrongful Conviction. We're proud to be a
Speaker 1: part of the ever growing landscape of true crime shows
Speaker 1: that revealed just how our criminal legal system works and
Speaker 1: often where it fails. This week, I've invited a colleague
Speaker 1: from another podcast to bring their unique style to our
Speaker 1: coverage of yet another wrongful conviction. Back in the late
Speaker 1: seventies and early eighties, there was a string of violent
Speaker 1: crimes in Florida. Young women were being raped and murdered
Speaker 1: seemingly at random. One of the perpetrators was the infamous
Speaker 1: Ted Bundy. He was convicted for one of these murders,
Speaker 1: and among the mountain of evidence that was presented against
Speaker 1: him was a bite mark. A dentist named Dr Suvaran
Speaker 1: was called to testify against Bundy, making famous the use
Speaker 1: of bite mark evidence known as forensic odeontology. Four years
Speaker 1: after Bundy was sent to death row a young woman's
Speaker 1: body he was found with obvious signs of sexual assault
Speaker 1: near Tampa. There was also an injury on her cheek
Speaker 1: that the medical examiner determined to be a bite mark.
Speaker 1: Given that it followed the highly televised Bundy trial, police
Speaker 1: honed in on that bite mark to the exclusion of
Speaker 1: all other evidence. They began taking bite impressions or denticians
Speaker 1: from dozens of men in the neighborhood and brought them
Speaker 1: to Dr suvan. One of those men was eighteen year
Speaker 1: old Robert Dubois. Dr Suvaran alleged that Robert's dentician matched
Speaker 1: the bite mark on the victim, and Robert was arrested.
Speaker 1: No other physical evidence tied him to the case, but
Speaker 1: with the use of a jailhouse informant, Robert was convicted
Speaker 1: of capital murder and sentenced to die by electrocution for
Speaker 1: a crime he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Wrongful Conviction. I'm Gilbert King. I'm on the
Speaker 1: Pulitzer Prize winning author of Devil in the Grove, about
Speaker 1: Third Good Marshal's representation of the young men known as
Speaker 1: the Groveland for who were just exonerated by the State
Speaker 1: of Florida last year. I'm also the writer and host
Speaker 1: of a new nine part narrative podcast called Bone Valley
Speaker 1: by Lava for Good Podcasts, and I'm honored to be
Speaker 1: guest hosting this episode of Wrongful Conviction. Today, we have
Speaker 1: two very special guests and I'm gonna ask them both
Speaker 1: to introduce themselves before we get into the interview. So
Speaker 1: let's start out with the Robert Dubois. Well, my name
Speaker 1: is Robert Dubois. So I was just exonerated in and
Speaker 1: right now I'm sitting in my partment in Tampa, Florida.
Speaker 1: Talk to you guys. And we also have Susan Freedman. Susan,
Speaker 1: you want to introduce yourself? Yeah, thanks Philbert for having me.
Speaker 1: My name is Susan Friedman. I'm a senior staff attorney
Speaker 1: at the Innocence Project based in New York City, and
Speaker 1: I represented Robert through his wrongful conviction. Oh, this is amazing.
Speaker 1: We have so much to talk about that because this
Speaker 1: is really going to be really fascinating. I studied the
Speaker 1: case very familiar with Tampa. Robert, the event that would
Speaker 1: change your life occurred back in Tampa. Um, you were
Speaker 1: just eighteen years old. Can you talk about who you
Speaker 1: were and what your life was before that arrest. Well,
Speaker 1: at that time I was working in town and country
Speaker 1: at an autowapholstery shop for Noel's Outowaupholstery. So I used
Speaker 1: to ride my bike. It's like I guess about five miles,
Speaker 1: So I wrote it to town and country every day
Speaker 1: for the job. So suddenly my whole world was upside down,
Speaker 1: you know, because I'm doing my everyday thing, going back
Speaker 1: and forth to work, and then next thing, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna sell wondering why now, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: just came out of the blue for you. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you don't have any prior runnings with the law
Speaker 1: or do you have you any understanding of what was happening.
Speaker 1: I did have a prior running with the law when
Speaker 1: I was at a teenager, so it was about an
Speaker 1: empty house or car parts, just some dumb stuff. And
Speaker 1: I had moved past that and had two years probation
Speaker 1: community work hours for the Police Athletic League, which I completed.
Speaker 1: And next thing, you know, I mean jail being accused
Speaker 1: of murder. And let's go back to that in a minute.
Speaker 1: But Susan, I just want to ask you your your experience.
Speaker 1: You're coming in, what is what is you like really
Speaker 1: understand about Tampa, Florida and this time the early eighties.
Speaker 1: You know a lot of people think of like Miami Vice,
Speaker 1: this is that era, but this is not like South Florida.
Speaker 1: This is Central Florida, Tampa. It's a little sleepier, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, the one thing to know is that around
Speaker 1: the time when this crime occurred that Robert was wrongly
Speaker 1: convicted of, there actually were a string of women who
Speaker 1: were sexually assaulted and murdered. Um. There wasn't a clear
Speaker 1: m O, but there were a number of women that
Speaker 1: turned up dead um, one of them obviously being the
Speaker 1: victim and Robert's case. The other thing that turns out
Speaker 1: to be really important is that Florida is the home
Speaker 1: of the Ted Bundy case. And in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: Ted Bundy eventually comes to confess to around thirty cases.
Speaker 1: And one of the really important pieces of evidence is
Speaker 1: bite mark testimony. And that's what actually puts Dr Richard
Speaker 1: Subaran on the map. And Dr Suberan testified in uh
Speaker 1: in the Ted Bundy trials, and he also lived in Florida.
Speaker 1: So this was just a very high profile time for
Speaker 1: bite mark evidence generally in the criminal legal system. And
Speaker 1: can you just talk briefly about how that science has
Speaker 1: come to be viewed today as opposed to back in
Speaker 1: the eighties. Yeah, So, you know, we today know that
Speaker 1: bitemark evidence has been wholly discredited. Not only has the
Speaker 1: National Academy of Sciences, who did a review of this
Speaker 1: type of evidence back in two thousand nine, even the
Speaker 1: a b FO, the group that regulates forensic odeontologists, have
Speaker 1: made significant revisions to the conclusions that they can make.
Speaker 1: In ten and so in seen after a number of
Speaker 1: research studies that they concluded that they no longer can
Speaker 1: do what's known as source attribution, mean that's say, in
Speaker 1: a certain individual was the biter in a case? UM
Speaker 1: and so that came after years of research in this
Speaker 1: to finally debunk this type of evidence that for so
Speaker 1: long has been held up as an important piece of evidence,
Speaker 1: but that we know today has led to many, many
Speaker 1: wrongful convictions. We know of at least thirty four wrongful
Speaker 1: convictions in the United States, Robert being one of them. Susan,
Speaker 1: can we just talk about the case that UM brought
Speaker 1: Robert into trouble? Can you just talk about the facts
Speaker 1: of the crime? Yeah. On August nine, in the early
Speaker 1: morning hours, a dentist was showing up at work. He
Speaker 1: was opening up his shop and in the back he
Speaker 1: found the victim in this case, she had been uh,
Speaker 1: she was severely beaten and she was there was certainly
Speaker 1: evidence that she had been either actually sexually assaulted or
Speaker 1: there was an attempted sexual assault. She was completely nude
Speaker 1: except for a tube top that was pushed up above
Speaker 1: her chest that exposed her breasts. So police immediately started
Speaker 1: investigating and they canvass the neighborhood. Unfortunately, there were no eyewitnesses,
Speaker 1: and so what we know about the victim is that
Speaker 1: she worked at a local restaurant, a local fast food chain,
Speaker 1: and she had left somewhere around nine to nine fifteen
Speaker 1: in the evening after closing up. We know that someone
Speaker 1: saw her about nine PM a couple of blocks away
Speaker 1: from her home. But then she's found eight blocks south
Speaker 1: of that, and so police started canvassing. They couldn't find
Speaker 1: anyone who had any information, and so very quickly this
Speaker 1: case focused in on the physical evidence, and that evidence
Speaker 1: came from the medical examiner's office. During the autopsy, the
Speaker 1: medical examiner concluded three things. First, that the victim was
Speaker 1: killed as a result of blunt force trauma um as
Speaker 1: I said. She had been severely beaten. And at the
Speaker 1: crime scene they found a total of four to buy
Speaker 1: four wooden boards by her and they all had UH
Speaker 1: and a few of them had blood and hair on them,
Speaker 1: which suggested that they were the murder weapon. The emmy
Speaker 1: also concluded that she likely was sexually assaulted. And then
Speaker 1: the third when he washed her face, he saw that
Speaker 1: there was a pattern injury on her left cheek, which
Speaker 1: he concluded even though he is not an ode ontologist
Speaker 1: or a bite mark expert, he actually concluded must have
Speaker 1: been a bite mark. How did police begin to narrow
Speaker 1: this down to certain suspects? So, because law enforcement didn't
Speaker 1: have any eyewitnesses, they really focused in on the bite mark.
Speaker 1: And in this case, the medical examiner identified what he
Speaker 1: believed to be a bite mark on the victim's left cheek.
Speaker 1: He exercised it and put it in formal to hide,
Speaker 1: which caused it to shrink. But then the photographs of
Speaker 1: the bite mark were shared with Dr Suberan and Dr
Speaker 1: Subaron concluded that this was a human bite mark and
Speaker 1: that he would be able to make a comparison. So
Speaker 1: Dr suber On then advised law enforcement to start collecting
Speaker 1: denticians from individuals who they believed were suspects, and to
Speaker 1: do that using these wax um And if folks are
Speaker 1: thinking about why bees wax that doesn't really make sense.
Speaker 1: You're right, because bees wax is not a good method
Speaker 1: for capturing someone's dentition, but that's what they were using.
Speaker 1: And so Detective Saladino started going around and collecting dozens
Speaker 1: and dozens of denticians from basically any individual that they
Speaker 1: came into contact with, and they turned their attention to
Speaker 1: Robert because they interviewed a woman who had worked at
Speaker 1: the at a store about a block away from where
Speaker 1: the victim was discovered. And what's interesting about this individual
Speaker 1: is that she worked at the store back in February,
Speaker 1: which is six months before this crime. But she alleged
Speaker 1: that she knew a couple of boys who, as she
Speaker 1: said quote, caused trouble. That's what led police to focus
Speaker 1: in on Robert and to ask him for his beeswax sdentician. So, Robert,
Speaker 1: can you just talk a little bit about your first
Speaker 1: contact with police and what you were thinking when you
Speaker 1: when you got approached. What was that like that moment? Well,
Speaker 1: I wasn't very fond of cops in general. I was
Speaker 1: a teenager, but um, when I was approached, He's like,
Speaker 1: would you mind doing a beeswax impression? And I'm like,
Speaker 1: for what he says, Well, I we're just doing you know,
Speaker 1: everybody in the neighborhood or whatever, even though I'm not
Speaker 1: even from that neighborhood. So I went with him downtown.
Speaker 1: Were the only two in the police detective division, and
Speaker 1: he asked me to bite into a soft piece of
Speaker 1: bees wax, so I did, and he drove me back home,
Speaker 1: and he made a crazy statement on the way home.
Speaker 1: He says, there was two girls walking down the street,
Speaker 1: so I thought it pretty weird. He says, um, which
Speaker 1: do you prefer, blonde or brunette? I said, what does
Speaker 1: it matter? You know? So he didn't say anymore, and
Speaker 1: he dropped me off their home. So then I didn't
Speaker 1: hear anymore until October twenty one three, when they came
Speaker 1: to my door at two thirty in the morning and
Speaker 1: asked me to go downtown and said that my mom
Speaker 1: needed to see me. So, taking the consideration, my father's
Speaker 1: in a wheelchair, he's completely paralyzed, so I'm thinking, if
Speaker 1: my mom needs to see me, something's really going on here.
Speaker 1: So I go downtown. Of course my mom isn't there,
Speaker 1: and then they tell me Detective Saladino will come shortly
Speaker 1: and explain what's going on? So in the interim, I'm
Speaker 1: sitting there and a detective looks at me. He's talking
Speaker 1: about fishing, the weather, all this normal stuff, and then
Speaker 1: he says, why did you do it? I said, what
Speaker 1: did I do? What? He said, why did you kill her?
Speaker 1: I said kill who? I said, what? Are you crazy?
Speaker 1: So I'm thinking there's some kind of sick joke. So
Speaker 1: aside from this, there's no other physical evidence that is
Speaker 1: causing police to focus in on Robert. It's just they're
Speaker 1: doing this thing with the teeth, right, Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: Police approach Robert and he's completely cooperative because he has
Speaker 1: nothing to hide. He knows he didn't commit this crime.
Speaker 1: In fact, the other forensic evidence excludes Robert. And would
Speaker 1: you consider that in an example of tunnel vision, you
Speaker 1: have all this other evidence that's possibly exculpatory, is exculpatory,
Speaker 1: and yet here they are focusing on this something that
Speaker 1: we now consider junk signs. What what what happened there?
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. This is classic tunnel vision and cognitive
Speaker 1: bias setting in. This was the case with no eye witnesses,
Speaker 1: and when police got their tip and they believe that
Speaker 1: Robert was the sort to the pipe mark, all the
Speaker 1: other evidence that was exculpatory, they found reasons to ignore,
Speaker 1: and they focused in on Robert, and we're able to
Speaker 1: explain away any fact that didn't line up with their
Speaker 1: theory of the case. And Robert, this must have been,
Speaker 1: you know, the worst day of your life to get
Speaker 1: accused of something like this and arrested. Can you just
Speaker 1: walk through the arrest and what that was like for you? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I was very angry and baffled. I mean
Speaker 1: I was very angry, angry with the police when they
Speaker 1: tried to handcuff me because I knew I had done
Speaker 1: nothing wrong, you know. And then because I'm angry when
Speaker 1: they took me to the jail, they had the nurse
Speaker 1: shoot me up with how doll, so that put me out,
Speaker 1: and when I woke up, I was strapped down to
Speaker 1: a steel bunk with leather straps. So then the following morning, um,
Speaker 1: they take me for all these dental impressions and I'm
Speaker 1: still doped up off the how doll or whatever it was,
Speaker 1: and I was just baffled. I was just trying to
Speaker 1: get it over with because I knew I had done
Speaker 1: nothing wrong, So I was living kind of like in
Speaker 1: a bad dream I couldn't wake up for. This episode
Speaker 1: is sponsored by the A I G pro Bono Program.
Speaker 1: A I G is a leading global insurance company, and
Speaker 1: the A I G pro Bono Program provides free legal services,
Speaker 1: as well as other support to many nonprofit organizations as
Speaker 1: well as individuals who are most in need, and they
Speaker 1: recently announced that working to reform the criminal justice system
Speaker 1: will become a key pillar of the program's mission. And
Speaker 1: any of the time, did you ever have occurred to
Speaker 1: you like I need a lawyer at this point, No,
Speaker 1: because I knew I had done nothing wrong, So it
Speaker 1: never even really crossed my mind. I didn't know enough
Speaker 1: about the legal system to even know I had that right.
Speaker 1: And I think one of the things that's really important
Speaker 1: about Robert just said is that a lot of times
Speaker 1: people's innocence puts them at risk, especially in interrogations and
Speaker 1: in these kinds of situations where they're interacting with law enforcement.
Speaker 1: They know that they're innocence and they believe that the
Speaker 1: that the evidence will prove that. And so Robert went
Speaker 1: ahead and completely cooperate with law enforcement, knowing that he
Speaker 1: didn't commit this crime. He didn't bite the victim. He
Speaker 1: was never there and so he had no reason to
Speaker 1: hide on anything, and so he didn't think he needed
Speaker 1: a lawyer. Yeah, I'm always amazed by the exonaries that
Speaker 1: you talked to. They have so much faith in the
Speaker 1: justices and like, they will just clear this up together.
Speaker 1: We'll talk this over because I didn't do it, and
Speaker 1: they they are at the most risk of anybody because
Speaker 1: they're just talking the police right off the bat. So, Susan,
Speaker 1: can you just give us a brief summary of what
Speaker 1: what Robert's trial was like? Sure? So you know, the
Speaker 1: focus of this case was the bite mark evidence, but
Speaker 1: police and prosecutors wanted to have more evidence to support
Speaker 1: this conviction. Police alleged that someone named Claude Butler, who
Speaker 1: was no stranger to the Tampa Police Department, they were
Speaker 1: very well acquainted with him, alleged that Robert actually confessed
Speaker 1: to him while they were both incarcerated at the local
Speaker 1: jail while Robert was awaiting trial. Claude Butler, at the
Speaker 1: time had had been arrested previously for various offenses, but
Speaker 1: at that time he also was facing charges for kidnapping,
Speaker 1: robbery with a firearm, grand theft, auto dealing in stolen property,
Speaker 1: battery on a law enforcement agent. So he was looking
Speaker 1: at multiple life sentences and so Claude was the second
Speaker 1: piece of evidence that police used. Then the third piece
Speaker 1: of evidence was this witness named Jack. And Jack was
Speaker 1: really perplexing because there were no police reports that memorialized
Speaker 1: any interviews with Jack. He was not on the witness list.
Speaker 1: He didn't testify in the grand jury. He pops up
Speaker 1: two weeks before Robert goes to trial, and Jack alleges
Speaker 1: that he was staying at the Peter Pan Motel, which
Speaker 1: is where Robert was arrested, and that one day, he
Speaker 1: doesn't remember exactly what day it was, but there was
Speaker 1: a party going on. He walked in, he saw Robert
Speaker 1: sitting on the bed. He looked very glum, and when
Speaker 1: he asked Robert what was going on? Again, Robert does
Speaker 1: not know this person. Robert just says, I wanted for murder.
Speaker 1: And so from there they want the jury to infer
Speaker 1: that Robert is confessing to committing this crimeer in some
Speaker 1: way corroborating the allegation that he did commit this crime.
Speaker 1: And that's the entire case. Robert, what are you thinking
Speaker 1: when you're watching, you know, people like Jack and Claude
Speaker 1: Butler get up there on the stand and talk about
Speaker 1: you what's going through your mind when you're watching this testimony.
Speaker 1: I was sitting there and disbelief, you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: sitting there, like, how can they even believe this stuff?
Speaker 1: You know? So I just watched it like I was
Speaker 1: watching um, kind of like I was outside watching in
Speaker 1: you know. So I said there every day they took
Speaker 1: me to the courthouse at five am, and I didn't
Speaker 1: get back to the jail to like midnight because they
Speaker 1: keep you on hold and sale for transport and all that.
Speaker 1: So I was just sitting there. I was tired, I
Speaker 1: was baffled. I just had no clue while we're sitting here,
Speaker 1: you know. And Susan, what kind of defense did Robert
Speaker 1: have to start in this trial? One thing that's important
Speaker 1: here is that this was a capital trial, so Robert
Speaker 1: was facing the death penalty, and he had an attorney
Speaker 1: whose defense in this case was the one he put
Speaker 1: on another dentist, Dr. Norman Sperber, who said that, oh no,
Speaker 1: this is a bite mark, but it's not Robert's bite.
Speaker 1: There are too many inconsistencies here. And so it can't
Speaker 1: be Robert's fight. And so now basically you had these
Speaker 1: two bite mark experts going at it and what we
Speaker 1: call in the legal field the battle of the experts,
Speaker 1: and it just came down to the jury obviously siding
Speaker 1: with the prosecution. And the second thing was that Robert's
Speaker 1: mother testified that Robert was home on the night of
Speaker 1: the crime. And then the third part of the case
Speaker 1: really was ving or trying to prove or trying to
Speaker 1: convince the jury that Claude Butler should not be trusted
Speaker 1: and that he was an incentivized witness. Right he's facing
Speaker 1: multiple life sentences instead only got five years UM and
Speaker 1: to prove that that is why he cooperated with law enforcement.
Speaker 1: You know, just listening, it seems like a really hard
Speaker 1: thing for the defendant to overcome when this science is
Speaker 1: just deemed, as you know, infallible. And then you have
Speaker 1: a jailhouse snitch who's we don't even know anything about
Speaker 1: jail house snitches back then, we didn't know how often
Speaker 1: they were being used. So these two things just must
Speaker 1: seem impossible to overcome at trial, that's right, you know.
Speaker 1: So you have this dentist who gets on he is
Speaker 1: a famous dentist. He's known for the Ted Bundy cases.
Speaker 1: He's got all of his fancy degrees, He's got lots
Speaker 1: of credentials that he's telling the jury about, and he
Speaker 1: testifies that to a reasonable degree of dental certainty, Robert
Speaker 1: is the source of the bite. How does anyone dispute that.
Speaker 1: Who on the jury would then decide that, in fact,
Speaker 1: actually this dentist is wrong and I know better and
Speaker 1: this isn't a bite. This is something that we've seen
Speaker 1: time and time again with a lot of cases that
Speaker 1: involved the misapplication of forensics science. You have these techniques
Speaker 1: that were born out of a need for law enforcement
Speaker 1: to use them, that never are validated, that don't go
Speaker 1: through the rigorous research that we do in other areas
Speaker 1: of science and medicine. Yet then they're used in courtrooms
Speaker 1: to convict people and to sentence them to death the
Speaker 1: way this happened in Robert's case, Right, And I imagine
Speaker 1: just coming off knowing what a storm that Wold Ted
Speaker 1: Bundy case was. I mean, he was a superstar, a
Speaker 1: superstar dentist. He's the one that basically his credentials, like
Speaker 1: I'm the one who solved it. And and enabled us
Speaker 1: to catch Ted Bundy. So you know, you go onto
Speaker 1: the next case and you have this guy testifying. That's
Speaker 1: a lot to overcome. Robert. Can you talk about what
Speaker 1: it was like. You know, you mentioned just sort of
Speaker 1: being in a daze and being disbelieving that this was
Speaker 1: actually happening to you, which is a pretty common theme.
Speaker 1: But you know, you obviously had to wait for that
Speaker 1: verdict to come back. Can you just walk us to
Speaker 1: that moment in your life, what you can remember of
Speaker 1: that moment when the jury has a verdict During the trial,
Speaker 1: I kind of uh detached myself, so to speak, So
Speaker 1: I wasn't worried about the verdict because I knew I
Speaker 1: had done nothing wrong. So I still had a little
Speaker 1: faith left in the system. So when they came back
Speaker 1: with the verdict, yeah, I was just amazed. But the
Speaker 1: sentencing thing was the same way. You know, It's like
Speaker 1: the jury recommended life in prison, the judge overrode it
Speaker 1: and said, you know, sentenced me to die by electrocution.
Speaker 1: I'm just up, said and baffled about the whole thing.
Speaker 1: And now I know I'm really in a in a mess.
Speaker 1: I'm in a trap, you know, And I don't see
Speaker 1: a way out. I mean, I can't even imagine what
Speaker 1: that's like. The jury comes back, says you're guilty and
Speaker 1: and says you you're sentencing you to life, and it
Speaker 1: gets worse. The jury the judge over overrides the jury recommendation.
Speaker 1: Do you remember going back into your cell after that
Speaker 1: and thinking I just got sentenced to death for a
Speaker 1: crime I didn't commit. Yes, So once they sentenced me
Speaker 1: to death, it's like from that moment on, I had
Speaker 1: like dirty officers around me, you know, escorting me all
Speaker 1: the way back to the jail into my sale. If
Speaker 1: I had if they let me out to use the phone,
Speaker 1: I had thirty officers surrounding me. So I think it
Speaker 1: was only like until the next morning. They got a
Speaker 1: transport to take me the death row at two thirty
Speaker 1: in the morning. And what was that like, You're arrivaling,
Speaker 1: you know, at at this age, arriving at you know,
Speaker 1: Florida's most notorious death row. What what was that like?
Speaker 1: I mean, could you have just imagine yourself in this
Speaker 1: situation and how do you hang on to any optimism
Speaker 1: at this point? Well, I know, the ride to death row,
Speaker 1: still in a daze, and I'm wondering, how could this
Speaker 1: be happening? You know, how did this just happen to me?
Speaker 1: Why am I going to death Row? You know? And
Speaker 1: then I arrive at death Row or Florida State Prison,
Speaker 1: and I see this big green building and it's like
Speaker 1: a filling of gloom when you see this building. And
Speaker 1: then I go up into the building. They escort me
Speaker 1: down this long hallway into a cell on death Row
Speaker 1: and they slammed the door, and that's my new home.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, man, are these guys like sitting here
Speaker 1: waiting to die? So it was very disturbing. And you know,
Speaker 1: some of the guys already had warrant signed, so they
Speaker 1: were really afraid because they knew if their name may
Speaker 1: come up, once it comes up again, they might get killed.
Speaker 1: You know. So these things, you know, went through all
Speaker 1: of our heads. You know, is it gonna be my turn?
Speaker 1: When you hear that plane fly over the prison? You
Speaker 1: don't know? And is it true that old Sparky the
Speaker 1: Florida's Electric Chair it's right there on death Row, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I mean? And in the eighties it was pretty active, right,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it was on que Wing So yeah, well,
Speaker 1: just while I was there alone. They killed Margaret Francois,
Speaker 1: Jeff Daughtry, Willie Darden, Ted Bundy, another guy only knew
Speaker 1: m as Frog, another guy named Tiny. So they killed
Speaker 1: all total while I was there like twelve. What is
Speaker 1: that like being on death row when that happens. What's
Speaker 1: the general mood among among people on death row? It's
Speaker 1: very quiet and gloomy, you know, It's like, let me
Speaker 1: tell you, they the torture, the mental torture they use
Speaker 1: on death row, even though they may not even realize
Speaker 1: they were doing it. I thought they did though. Is
Speaker 1: a plane Whenever the governor signs a death roard, the
Speaker 1: plane flies over Florida State Prison, lands on their runway,
Speaker 1: and walks the after war into the colonel of the prison.
Speaker 1: The colonel sends his officers to death row to get
Speaker 1: whoever it belongs to. Then they escorted them up to
Speaker 1: the colonel's office, they go to death watch, and nine
Speaker 1: times out of tail you don't see him no more.
Speaker 1: That must be just the most terrifying sound when you're
Speaker 1: in death row to hear a plane landing. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: that And then every Wednesday at one o'clock in the afternoon,
Speaker 1: they would test the electric chair, so all the lights
Speaker 1: on death Row with Dim Robert. Three years after your conviction,
Speaker 1: your attorney managed to get your death sentence changed to
Speaker 1: life in prison with a mandatory quarter, meaning you'd get
Speaker 1: to go see the parole board after five years served.
Speaker 1: You must have felt a bit of relief when that happened. No,
Speaker 1: not at all. So now I'm not on death row.
Speaker 1: I no longer have the right for legal representation anymore.
Speaker 1: Now I am literally on my own. You're entitled to
Speaker 1: legal representation as long as you have a death sentence.
Speaker 1: I was not happy when my death sentence got overturned
Speaker 1: to life because I had asked the attorney over and
Speaker 1: over again to please fight the conviction, and he kept
Speaker 1: fighting the sentencing. How do I hope to prove my
Speaker 1: innocence is all if all you're doing is fighting to
Speaker 1: get a death sentence turned to life. Now I went
Speaker 1: from death row to the worst population in the state
Speaker 1: of Florida. So FSP is the dumping ground for what
Speaker 1: they considered the worst of the worst. Okay, this is inmates.
Speaker 1: There's been at other institutions stabbed at the inmates raped?
Speaker 1: Are the inmates stabbed officers and done just numerous awful things,
Speaker 1: and they got sent here as a punishment. So it's
Speaker 1: like the wild wild West. They won't accept me to
Speaker 1: no other prison because I came from death row. That's
Speaker 1: how I ended up at FSP. FSP, by the way,
Speaker 1: is Florida State Prison. And while you were there, you
Speaker 1: were writing a lot of letters. How did you get
Speaker 1: to be such a prolific letter writer? I had never
Speaker 1: written a letter till I went to jail, not that
Speaker 1: I remember, you know, And now that's all I'm doing. Susan,
Speaker 1: can you just give us a brief synopsis of this
Speaker 1: post conviction history that Robert had, Like what what he
Speaker 1: what he was trying to do, what, what kind of
Speaker 1: appeals he was trying to find, what areas he was
Speaker 1: looking to explore. Probert was his own best advocate. He
Speaker 1: wrote to everybody, UM and that included lawyers, the media,
Speaker 1: really anyone who would listen, UM. And you know, after
Speaker 1: his death sentence was vacated, he continued to have hope
Speaker 1: that the truth would come to light and that he
Speaker 1: would be proven innocent. And one of the really important
Speaker 1: things that Robert did was in two thousand and six
Speaker 1: he filed a motion for access to DNA testing because
Speaker 1: he believed if we use this modern DNA testing that's
Speaker 1: now available, it would prove that he was innocent. And
Speaker 1: what is truly remarkable here is that he was convicted
Speaker 1: in five and what we learned is that in October
Speaker 1: of nineteen ninety, just five years after he's convicted, the
Speaker 1: State of Florida destroys all of the evidence that was
Speaker 1: admitted at his trial, including the victims rape kit. So
Speaker 1: they have an extensive hearing where the state puts on
Speaker 1: evidence that everything was destroyed and that the only evidence
Speaker 1: that's remaining are a few hairs and two cigarette butts.
Speaker 1: And so I'm just really curious the laws about you know,
Speaker 1: in a capital case, they're disposing evidence after five years, Like,
Speaker 1: what are the laws about that? So today we have
Speaker 1: preservation laws in I believe every single state, but here
Speaker 1: in nine Robert's death sentence had been vacated, and so
Speaker 1: the court just entered an order disposing of all of
Speaker 1: the evidence. Luckily, as we learned in post conviction with
Speaker 1: the reinvestigation, that was actually not the case. But it
Speaker 1: was shocking to see that in five short years after
Speaker 1: a death sentence, that the state destroyed all of that
Speaker 1: biological evidence, especially because in nine we did start to
Speaker 1: have DNA come online and it was started, it was
Speaker 1: being used, So that was really shocking to see in
Speaker 1: this case. Susan, how did you become involved in this case?
Speaker 1: Robert wrote to the Innocence Project the way he wrote
Speaker 1: to many organizations. Uh, And when we review this case,
Speaker 1: there are two things that set out to us that
Speaker 1: he was convicted based on faulty forensics and a jailhouse informant,
Speaker 1: which are too leading contributing factors to wrongful conviction. And
Speaker 1: we believe that even though they said that a significant
Speaker 1: amount of the DNA evidence was destroyed, it's possible that
Speaker 1: we could still get access to some of that other
Speaker 1: evidence and do some additional retesting. And so we accepted
Speaker 1: Robert's case and we started investigating immediately. And Robert, what
Speaker 1: was that like for you? I mean, just being in
Speaker 1: the situation and just thinking about all these years that
Speaker 1: are passing for you. Yeah, I mean, you know, I
Speaker 1: was hoping to have a wife and kids in the
Speaker 1: house and all this stuff. So that was taken from me.
Speaker 1: That didn't happen. It still hasn't happen. So I started
Speaker 1: focusing on not the things I didn't have, but be
Speaker 1: grateful for the things I do have and did have.
Speaker 1: So I just moved forward. And as the years went by,
Speaker 1: I had three parole hearings. All three were negative. It
Speaker 1: didn't happen. Now in my mind, um, this is like
Speaker 1: the last straw, you know, this is pretty much blocks
Speaker 1: off everything I had going for me. And I'm like,
Speaker 1: you know, I just felt total hopelessness, and I just
Speaker 1: put my hands together and I said, God, send your hands.
Speaker 1: That night, they have what they call a legal call
Speaker 1: out sheet letting you know you have legal mail. So
Speaker 1: the next day I went to get the letter and
Speaker 1: it was from Susan saying that hey, we read your case.
Speaker 1: We're taking your case, you know. And then like I
Speaker 1: think a week later, she was sitting across the table
Speaker 1: from me talking to me. When we accepted the case,
Speaker 1: I started digging into Robert's file. This was a capital case.
Speaker 1: There were a lot of materials. While I had hope
Speaker 1: that we'd be able to do some additional DNA testing
Speaker 1: on the items that we believed still existed, I also
Speaker 1: knew that this was going to be an informing case.
Speaker 1: We had to get to the bottom of what was
Speaker 1: going on with Claude Butler, because just from a cold
Speaker 1: read of the record, it is clear that he's incentivized
Speaker 1: and that he was testifying falsely at Robert's trial. So
Speaker 1: we started digging into him immediately, and very quickly, a
Speaker 1: lot of things surfaced about him that confirmed all of
Speaker 1: our original suspicions. The trial prosecutor in Robert's case, who
Speaker 1: elicited all kinds of testimony about the fact that Claude
Speaker 1: Butler was not receiving any benefits, he was testifying out
Speaker 1: of the goodness of his heart. He believed this was
Speaker 1: the right thing to do, to tell everybody what Robert
Speaker 1: confessed to him. We found out that the trial prosecutor
Speaker 1: in Robert's case filed emotion to mitigate in the informants case,
Speaker 1: urging that judge to let Claude Butler walk free because
Speaker 1: Claude Butler was a key witness in Robert's case and
Speaker 1: that he was part of him securing a death sentence
Speaker 1: against Robert. The other thing that we did is we
Speaker 1: started digging into Jack because we were so surprised by Jack.
Speaker 1: We didn't understand where he came from just like the
Speaker 1: trial defense counselor was shocked by him, So were we
Speaker 1: and what do we do? We found a criminal case
Speaker 1: where he was the star witness. And in that case,
Speaker 1: Jack alleged that someone locked on his door, he was
Speaker 1: covered in blood. This person entered the hat, entered his
Speaker 1: hotel room, that he helped him dispose of the clothes
Speaker 1: that recovered in blood. And then, as it turned out,
Speaker 1: this person was charged with capital murder. And so Jack,
Speaker 1: who at minimum could have been an accessory after the
Speaker 1: fact in this case, is not charged at all. He
Speaker 1: becomes a star witness in this other case, and he
Speaker 1: pops up in Robert's case, and Robert has no idea
Speaker 1: who who this is. There are no police reports connecting
Speaker 1: Jack to this case, and all of a sudden, it
Speaker 1: becomes very clear that Jack is a plant. Right, Jack
Speaker 1: is inserted into this case on the eve of Robert's trial. Susan,
Speaker 1: what did you learn about that bite mark after all
Speaker 1: these years? So one of the things that we did
Speaker 1: during the reinvestigation was we submitted all of the materials,
Speaker 1: we had photographs, testimony about the bite mark evidence to
Speaker 1: Dr Adam Freeman, who is a board certified forensic codontologist
Speaker 1: and dentist, and he examined all those materials and he
Speaker 1: made a number of conclusions about both the evidence collection
Speaker 1: and the pattern injury itself. So first he concluded that
Speaker 1: the way that people's denticitions were collected using that beeswax
Speaker 1: was an improper way to collect to obtain denticians. He
Speaker 1: evaluated the pattern injury on the victim's cheek and specifically
Speaker 1: he was looking at measurements and concluded that this was
Speaker 1: way too big to be a human bite mark. So
Speaker 1: ultimately we found out that this was not a bite
Speaker 1: mark at all. And one of the things that I
Speaker 1: think is really important here is that the victim was
Speaker 1: beaten so severely in the face that this may have
Speaker 1: actually been from the boards. The severe damage that she suffered.
Speaker 1: Maybe the one of the boards left an injury that
Speaker 1: appeared to be the pattern injury that the dentist obviously
Speaker 1: assumed the bite mark, But this in fact was not
Speaker 1: a bite mark on the victim at all. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: really want to get into this part of it. So
Speaker 1: you're you're you're dealing with the thirteenth Circuit in Florida. Um,
Speaker 1: can you just talk about these conviction integatory review units
Speaker 1: how important they were to this particular case. Conviction integrity units,
Speaker 1: sometimes also called conviction review units, are specialized units within
Speaker 1: prosecutors offices that are supposed to look at cases where
Speaker 1: an individual is factually innocent and reinvestigate. They're really important
Speaker 1: units that allow for prosecutors not only to correct wrongful
Speaker 1: convictions but also prevent them by implementing policies that they
Speaker 1: realize are important in order to prevent wronkle convictions in
Speaker 1: the future and have implement those policies in their offices.
Speaker 1: And so, after I did as much investigating as I
Speaker 1: possibly colude on Claude, Butler and Jack and obtained all
Speaker 1: of the records that I could from the police department,
Speaker 1: I put together a memo to Teresa Hall, who was
Speaker 1: the chief at the time, the chief of the conviction
Speaker 1: review unit, and I put forward all the evidence I
Speaker 1: had that made me suspicious about the conviction, the reasons
Speaker 1: why I thought that uh, Butler and Jack didn't have
Speaker 1: any credibility, And then I put forward an investigation plan
Speaker 1: and asked her to join me in re investigating this case.
Speaker 1: And so that was my pitch to her, and then
Speaker 1: very quickly she came back to me and we started
Speaker 1: our joint reinvestigation. But the timing was tough because it
Speaker 1: was March of and we all remember what happened in
Speaker 1: March of the world shut down as a result of
Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen pandemic. But to her credit, we pushed
Speaker 1: through and we continued to investigate, and we got a
Speaker 1: lot done despite the fact that we were all working remotely.
Speaker 1: Right And do you recall a moment where, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe Teresa Hall sent you an email or called you
Speaker 1: on the phone and said, we're going forward with this.
Speaker 1: This is we're going to move on. This was there
Speaker 1: at one of those moments. Well, I think there were
Speaker 1: two moments that stand out to me. One was Teresa
Speaker 1: emailing me and accepting the case. The second was when
Speaker 1: she called me and said, I think we may have
Speaker 1: vaginal swabs from the victim's rape kit, which blew my
Speaker 1: mind because there was an entire hearing about the fact
Speaker 1: that all of the evidence was destroyed, but she got
Speaker 1: a tip that there may still be UH swabs from
Speaker 1: the victim's rape kit at the medical Examiner's office. I
Speaker 1: knew that the DNA was going to be a game changer.
Speaker 1: So when she called me and told me she thought
Speaker 1: there was even a slight possibility that this vaginal swab
Speaker 1: was still available, that was huge for us. And Robert,
Speaker 1: what was it like for you getting all this news
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, She told me, you know, they
Speaker 1: did the DNA say uh test and not only did
Speaker 1: they exclude you, but they also put it into codas
Speaker 1: and found a match. So I was like floored by
Speaker 1: all this, and she says, you will be free by
Speaker 1: Thursday morning. And what was the reaction on the phone, Robert,
Speaker 1: what did that feel like? No, it was very special.
Speaker 1: I was very thankful for all of them. I've always
Speaker 1: told everybody I didn't do it, you know, and you know,
Speaker 1: you would get some responses such as, yeah, everybody says that,
Speaker 1: But I say, yeah, but everybody ain't telling you the truth.
Speaker 1: I said, I really am innocent. So I've had a
Speaker 1: lot of staff members from the prison contact me when
Speaker 1: I got out and they said, you know, you always
Speaker 1: said you were in this, and we always knew there
Speaker 1: was something different about you, you know. So they still
Speaker 1: stay in touch. And so you were given your date,
Speaker 1: but freedom was at the next day, or it was
Speaker 1: Thursday was on Thursday her birthday. Oh, that's a great birthday.
Speaker 1: That's a really nice present. All right. What was it
Speaker 1: like being free, finally walking out of there? Oh? Man, undescribable,
Speaker 1: you know, to actually walk out of that prison and
Speaker 1: know that that was it. The nightmares finally over. Robert.
Speaker 1: What has it been like since you release? It's been
Speaker 1: very challenging. Remember I went into a world I didn't know,
Speaker 1: and then in I come back into another world that
Speaker 1: I don't know anymore. You know, modern technology, cell phone,
Speaker 1: never seen one home depot, Walmart, all the different restaurants.
Speaker 1: Now there's just self checkout. As Susan and I became
Speaker 1: accustom went together, it was pretty exciting. It's been. It's been, Um,
Speaker 1: it's been an adventure. Just coming out of prison during
Speaker 1: a pandemic. Not only you having to adjust to uh,
Speaker 1: you know, decades that have passed by while you were
Speaker 1: in prison, but now you're coming out during a pandemic.
Speaker 1: What was that like for you? Yeah? It was that
Speaker 1: was challenging as well, because you know, everywhere you went
Speaker 1: required a face mask, and you know, it's like when
Speaker 1: I was walking by an armored car wearing a face mask,
Speaker 1: I'm like, if I would have done this in three
Speaker 1: they would have shot me. So then I found out,
Speaker 1: you know, there were obstacles, of course. So my goal
Speaker 1: when I got out was to get my voter registration card,
Speaker 1: to get my passport, which I've never had one, which
Speaker 1: I got um, to get my license. So I went
Speaker 1: over there with a night three expired license to get
Speaker 1: it renewed. It was pretty exciting seeing their face trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how I'm bringing nine license to haven't renewed.
Speaker 1: You've been driving this whole time. Actually, she's let me
Speaker 1: ask what has been the challenge here? Robert was not
Speaker 1: eligible for compensation from the state after this exoneration. Can
Speaker 1: you talk about that? Yeah? So, you know, I think
Speaker 1: that people see an exoneration and it's so beautiful and
Speaker 1: it's so joyful, and they believe that this is the
Speaker 1: end of the journey. But this is just the beginning
Speaker 1: of the next part of an individual's journey, where they
Speaker 1: have to heal from the trauma that they have suffered
Speaker 1: from their wrongful conviction. And although no amount of money
Speaker 1: will ever make anyone whole, certainly compensation goes a long
Speaker 1: way at helping someone get on their feet, Um, get
Speaker 1: a job right, feel some sense of security. And in
Speaker 1: Florida currently there is a stat there is a bill
Speaker 1: pending to fix Florida's compensation statute. So right now, the
Speaker 1: statute in Florida prevents anyone who had any prior convictions compensation.
Speaker 1: And so Robert when he was a teenager, he had
Speaker 1: to minor non violent felony convictions and now because of that,
Speaker 1: he is completely barred from seeking compensation through the Florida
Speaker 1: compensation scheme, even though he spent thirty seven years wrongfully incarcerated,
Speaker 1: including three years on death row. Right, and these charges
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with the crime that he was
Speaker 1: accused of. It was something from his teenage years. Correct,
Speaker 1: So we could do the call to action. Um, Susan,
Speaker 1: I'll start with you. Is there anything that you know
Speaker 1: our audience who's listening to this, who's just outraged by
Speaker 1: these kinds of stories, anything that you know they any
Speaker 1: specific issues that you feel need changing and that we
Speaker 1: can help as audience members listening to this. Thanks for
Speaker 1: asking about that, Gilbert. So I am going to urge
Speaker 1: the audience if they want to learn more about how
Speaker 1: they can help us fix Florida's compensation statute. They should
Speaker 1: go to the Innocence Project web page to learn how
Speaker 1: they can join us in calling on the Florida State
Speaker 1: legislature to finally fix the broken compensation statute in Florida.
Speaker 1: There right now is a bill that is pending that
Speaker 1: would make two critical changes. One that would allow individuals
Speaker 1: with prior convictions to see compensation, and to that would
Speaker 1: extend the very tight deadline that they had that Florida
Speaker 1: currently has of ninety days for a for a person
Speaker 1: who's been exonerated to file their request for compensation. So
Speaker 1: again I urge everyone to head over to the Innocence
Speaker 1: Project website and learn how they can support Agonores in
Speaker 1: Florida finally received the compensation that they are entitled to.
Speaker 1: And Robert, is there anything from your point of view
Speaker 1: that could make life easier for recent agonore ees. The
Speaker 1: most challenging thing is like for me, when I went
Speaker 1: to a bank to open a bank account, or when
Speaker 1: I try to get an apartment or even try to
Speaker 1: get a job. I have no history, so they're looking
Speaker 1: at me like I'm an alien. Where did I come from?
Speaker 1: You know, what was your past employment? Prison? What was
Speaker 1: your past resident prison, you know, so you don't want
Speaker 1: to tell this to to your new employers or to
Speaker 1: a bank or whoever. So you know, you just have
Speaker 1: to kind of explain the story. And this is why
Speaker 1: I don't have a history. Um. I'm going to enter
Speaker 1: the closing argument phase of this of this conversation today,
Speaker 1: and I think we're gonna start with Susan. Susan, I'm
Speaker 1: going just gonna give you the floor here. What do
Speaker 1: you want to say about your work with Robert and
Speaker 1: how the importance of what the Innocence Project does, the
Speaker 1: importance of what the public can do in order to
Speaker 1: not only bring justice to these gross injustices, but also
Speaker 1: to prevent them from happening again. The Innocence Project just
Speaker 1: had its thirtieth anniversary in August, and over these last
Speaker 1: thirty years, we have learned so touch about the criminal
Speaker 1: legal system and the significant flaws that we have that
Speaker 1: leads to wrongful convictions and also that just lead to
Speaker 1: unfair trials that biolate people's constitutional rights. There is a
Speaker 1: role for every single person in correcting and preventing wrongful
Speaker 1: convictions and preventing just injustice in the criminal legal system.
Speaker 1: I would urge people to see what issues are impacting
Speaker 1: your communities and get out there and vote. We don't
Speaker 1: endorse anybody, but certainly get out there, educate yourself and
Speaker 1: understand the issues, because every single citizen has a role
Speaker 1: to play in correcting are very, very flawed criminal legal system. Well,
Speaker 1: I really want to thank you because I learned so
Speaker 1: much just listening to you today about the Florida justice system,
Speaker 1: and so I really am grateful for that. Um So
Speaker 1: thank you, and Robert give you the closing argument, the
Speaker 1: real closing argument here. Anything you want to talk about,
Speaker 1: it's all yours. I'm just happy to be where my family,
Speaker 1: and my goal really is to tell people that, you know,
Speaker 1: if they support the Innocence Project in this I'm not
Speaker 1: the only one. There's still others in there, you know,
Speaker 1: and they need help. They're in the same predicament I
Speaker 1: was when I was begging for help, you know, and
Speaker 1: they just don't see an out, you know, without the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project, and people like Susan, you know, they have
Speaker 1: no hope. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm
Speaker 1: your guest host, Gilbert King. I'd like to thank our
Speaker 1: executive producers Jason flam and Kevin Wurdis. The senior producer
Speaker 1: for this episode is Jackie Pauli, and our producers are
Speaker 1: Lila Robinson and Jeff Clyburne. Our editor is Lexandra Guidi.
Speaker 1: The music in this production is by three time OSCAR
Speaker 1: nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Speaker 1: Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast,
Speaker 1: and on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at
Speaker 1: Lava for Good on all three platforms. If you're interested
Speaker 1: in more wrongful conviction stories in Florida, check out my
Speaker 1: new nine part series Bone Valley. The podcast investigates the
Speaker 1: case of Leo Schofield, a young man accused of murdering
Speaker 1: his wife and who has been in prison ever since,
Speaker 1: despite his unwavering claims of innocence. Subscribe to Bone Valley
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. You can find more information
Speaker 1: at Lava for Good dot com. Wrongful Conviction is a
Speaker 1: production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal
Speaker 1: Company Number one. Next week, on the guest hosted episodes
Speaker 1: of Wrongful Conviction, investigative reporter Beth Shelburne, We'll talk with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Hollman about the Alabama criminal justice system and Jeffery's
Speaker 1: experience of being incarcerated for ten years for a crime
Speaker 1: he did not commit. They'll talk about the crime, Jeffrey
Speaker 1: time in prison, and the extremely rare pro sate motions
Speaker 1: Jeffrey filed that eventually led to his release. Beth Shelburne
Speaker 1: is an Alabama native and a veteran journalist who has
Speaker 1: spent her career focused on the criminal justice system and
Speaker 1: the issue of mass incarceration, and this conversation will touch
Speaker 1: on many of the issues she's covered in her work.
Speaker 1: Listen next Monday in the Wrongful Conviction podcast Feed