Speaker 1: On October twenty seventh, two thousand and eight, a pregnant
Speaker 1: woman named Jody Lintrek answered a knot at her front
Speaker 1: door and survived a gunshot, but tragically, her pregnancy was terminated,
Speaker 1: and police found what they believed to be a makeshift
Speaker 1: silencer in her home. Then theorized that one of the
Speaker 1: potential bothers, a married man named Charles Brandon Martin, had
Speaker 1: constructed the alleged silencer and arranged the attack, despite a
Speaker 1: bunch of holes in this theory, including that this alleged
Speaker 1: silencer may have actually been a bomb. One alleged witness
Speaker 1: claimed that Brandon had searched the Internet for ways to
Speaker 1: construct a silencer before disposing of the computer, sending him
Speaker 1: away for life. This is wrongful conviction. You're listening to
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction. You can listen to this and all the
Speaker 1: Lava for Good podcasts one week early n AD free
Speaker 1: by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction, where we're going to go
Speaker 1: to Maryland, just outside of DC, where a pregnant woman
Speaker 1: survived a gunshot wound that ended her pregnancy and then
Speaker 1: a tangled web of Lover's law enforcement and various ulterior
Speaker 1: motives led to the prosecution of not one, but two
Speaker 1: innocent men, while other compelling suspects were ignored. And one
Speaker 1: of the two men caught up in that miserable web
Speaker 1: joins us from a Maryland correction facility, Charles Brandon Martin.
Speaker 1: But he just goes by Brandon. So Brandon, welcome to
Speaker 1: wrongful conviction.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you having me.
Speaker 1: And joining him to help tell this harrowing story. His attorney,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Franzoso, who goes by Beth, and we'll represent him
Speaker 1: along with Donna, at a new trial if the state
Speaker 1: ever stops delaying it. So Beth, welcome, Thank you for
Speaker 1: having us. And while this case is really more of
Speaker 1: a Maryland story, Brandon's story began in DC and it
Speaker 1: revolved heavily around basketball.
Speaker 2: I grew up in the DC area. I went to
Speaker 2: Domatha High School, finished up at Saint Stephen Saint Agnes's
Speaker 2: High School in Alexandria. Before college, I studied social science
Speaker 2: and aff apology and sociology the University of Pittsburgh. Funished
Speaker 2: at Johnstown and I started coaching and in basketball, and
Speaker 2: actually when I was in college, started coaching at the
Speaker 2: high school I had attended in the summers. Then I
Speaker 2: had got a job at Allegheny College in Pittsburgh. So
Speaker 2: I actually didn't move to Maryland until two thousand and
Speaker 2: four with my ex wife, who was my girlfriend at
Speaker 2: the times when I had the head coaching job at
Speaker 2: the college and Southern Maryland. Right after my first son
Speaker 2: was born.
Speaker 1: The two young parents moved back to be closer to
Speaker 1: their support systems understandably, and then they got married and
Speaker 1: it wasn't long before where the second child was born,
Speaker 1: and it appears that Brandon enjoyed.
Speaker 2: Fatherhood with a job I had and everything I was
Speaker 2: able to make my schedule around the kids, and so
Speaker 2: I was basically the primary caregiver for our kids as
Speaker 2: I was there. I mean, like I spent more hours
Speaker 2: for day with the kids than anybody from the second
Speaker 2: they woke up all the way through the night time.
Speaker 2: But that's the most important thing to me with those kids.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the hardest part for me right now,
Speaker 2: is being away from the kids.
Speaker 1: As time went by, the marital arrangement changed and Brandon
Speaker 1: moved out, but they both remained committed to amicably co parenting.
Speaker 3: He and his wife had separated, pad more of just
Speaker 3: a co parenting roommate type thing. His wife was aware
Speaker 3: that he'd had relationships with other women. Go somewhere else
Speaker 3: in the evening, and he'd come home, go to the kids'
Speaker 3: sports games and participate with the kids. He was always
Speaker 3: a really active dad to.
Speaker 2: Try to keep everything the same for the kids since
Speaker 2: they were still young. I would get back to the
Speaker 2: house in the morning before they woke up so that
Speaker 2: they didn't notice anything different, which betwain me and my
Speaker 2: ex wife. He knew what the situation was.
Speaker 1: And while living within this new arrangement, Brandon had three
Speaker 1: more kids, including another son with his wife, but staying single.
Speaker 1: It was just a better fit for him setting a
Speaker 1: casual expectation with any of his intimate partners, which included
Speaker 1: three women at the time of this incident, Sherry Carter,
Speaker 1: Maggie McFadden, and the victim in this case, Jody Lynn Torrick.
Speaker 2: They tried to make it sound like I was in
Speaker 2: committed relationships with all these people. You know, with Jody,
Speaker 2: we probably had only been around each other, probably eight times.
Speaker 3: She was actually dating someone else by the name of
Speaker 3: Emmanuel and they were actually more boyfriend girlfriend. Jody became pregnant,
Speaker 3: it was uncertain who the father was, and Brandon was
Speaker 3: very respectful of her making whatever decision that she wanted to,
Speaker 3: which could include either having an abortion or keeping the baby,
Speaker 3: and he agreed that if the baby was his, he
Speaker 3: would support the baby. I think Emmanuel was not thrilled
Speaker 3: that she was pregnant and didn't know who the father was,
Speaker 3: so the state tried to paint this out to Brandon
Speaker 3: being angry that she was pregnant and wanting to kill
Speaker 3: her so that way he wouldn't have to pay child support,
Speaker 3: but it simply wasn't true. Not to mention that there
Speaker 3: was a whole host of other people that did have
Speaker 3: some type of motive.
Speaker 1: And this appears to have included one of Brandon's other
Speaker 1: intimate partners, Maggie McFadden, who had allegedly threatened other women
Speaker 1: with gun violence, including Sharry Carter, Which brings us to
Speaker 1: October twenty seventh, two thousand and eight, when Jody Lyn
Speaker 1: Torrik was at home talking to a friend on the phone.
Speaker 3: She was two months pregnant at the time, talking on
Speaker 3: the phone to her friend Blair around three o'clock in
Speaker 3: the afternoon and someone knocked on her front door saying
Speaker 3: they were a salesman, and then she ended the call.
Speaker 3: Blair tried to call her back a few times, Jody
Speaker 3: never picked up the phone, so she got worried and
Speaker 3: she called Jody's roommate, Jessica. Jody also worked for Jessica.
Speaker 3: Blair requested that Jessica leave work and check on Jody.
Speaker 3: So Jessica Jody lying there unconscious with a gunshot wound,
Speaker 3: and she calls nine to one one. The police come
Speaker 3: to the scene. At that point, Jody's lying in the doorway.
Speaker 3: She's still breathing, and she was hospitalized for quite some
Speaker 3: time for serious injuries.
Speaker 1: A three eighty caliber bullet and casing were collected from
Speaker 1: where she was found, and then across the living room
Speaker 1: from there, police found a curious looking gatorade bottle. The
Speaker 1: mouth was wrapped in layers of duct tape and medical
Speaker 1: tape which formed a rectangular opening, and then on the
Speaker 1: bottom there was a hole covered in ashen soot, and
Speaker 1: the lead detective from ann Arundel County, Richard Alman, thought
Speaker 1: that that was a makeshift silencer.
Speaker 3: There was no expert testimony whatsoever about gatorade bottles or
Speaker 3: other bottles being made into silencers. Detective Richard Alban testified
Speaker 3: it reminded him of a makeshift silencer he'd seen in
Speaker 3: a Stephen Sagal movie, but.
Speaker 1: Rather than ordering chemical analysis to prove that theory, it
Speaker 1: just became an accepted fact, and there were a few
Speaker 1: hairs stuck in the tape and the contraption was saved
Speaker 1: for DNA testing and hair microscopy. Meanwhile, they spoke with
Speaker 1: Jody's roommate, Jessica Higgs.
Speaker 3: During the interview, Jessica used the very crass racist language.
Speaker 3: She used the N word and stated she did not
Speaker 3: like black people, that she didn't like that Jody had
Speaker 3: black men in and out of the house, and that
Speaker 3: she didn't like or didn't trust Brandon because he's black.
Speaker 3: She basically came up with this unfounded, baseless theory that, oh,
Speaker 3: it must have been Brandon because he was in some
Speaker 3: way pissed off that she was pregnant and didn't want
Speaker 3: to have an abortion.
Speaker 1: The police theorized that this married man wanted Jody dead
Speaker 1: to hide his infidelity and potential extramarital child. So Anne
Speaker 1: Arundel County Police coordinated with Charles County to pay a
Speaker 1: visit to Brandon and his wife.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, the next day they were accusing me when
Speaker 2: I was that holme with the kids and I see
Speaker 2: a truck parked in front of my driveway, like blocking
Speaker 2: my driveway, tended windows, and I actually ended up calling
Speaker 2: the police because I'm afraid. I'm at home with the
Speaker 2: kids and I'm thinking if somebody about to try to
Speaker 2: rob me or something that they said they were going
Speaker 2: to send someone over, which clearly they didn't because they
Speaker 2: knew who it was. And so the original interaction with
Speaker 2: them was when I found out that she had actually
Speaker 2: been shot.
Speaker 1: This episode of Wrongful Conviction is proudly sponsored by Erase PTSD.
Speaker 1: Now every day, countless individuals face the invisible wounds of
Speaker 1: trauma and PTSD. Your support empowers us to provide life
Speaker 1: changing treatments like the Stella Ganglon Block SGB, which inhibits
Speaker 1: nerve impulses and helps to restore hope, reclaim lives, and
Speaker 1: save lives after incarcerat. Together, we can ensure that those
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted receive the care they need to heal and
Speaker 1: reintegrate into society. Join us in this mission to erase
Speaker 1: PTSD and uplift our communities. Visit ERASEPTSD now dot org.
Speaker 1: That's erase PTSD now dot org for more information and
Speaker 1: ways to get involved. Without knowing the time of the shooting,
Speaker 1: Brandon told them where he was the day before, at
Speaker 1: Maggie McFadden's house speaking with her brother Frank Bradley about
Speaker 1: rehab from about one thirty to four thirty PM, thereby
Speaker 1: making him unavailable for him to have shot Jody.
Speaker 2: And then in the meantime, the police were actually speaking
Speaker 2: to my wife at the time, and they made her
Speaker 2: meet them at like a mattress warehouse or something like
Speaker 2: that on the way home from her job. So they
Speaker 2: had her basically alone talking to her. And so I'm
Speaker 2: trying to call her and can't reach her. They wouldn't
Speaker 2: let her pick the phone up when I'm calling now.
Speaker 1: Unaware of the marital arrangement that upended their theory, they
Speaker 1: may have hoped to upset her with the news of
Speaker 1: an extra marital affair and child, perhaps gaining the state's witness,
Speaker 1: but to no avail. They were told about Brandon's other
Speaker 1: intimate partners, which brought them to Sherry Carter, as well
Speaker 1: as Maggie McFadden and her brothers Frank, Dennis and Michael Bradley,
Speaker 1: all of whom corroborated Brandon's alibi. But instead of rethinking
Speaker 1: their theory in the face of this new evidence, they
Speaker 1: persisted with Brandon while trying to again aggravate his wife.
Speaker 2: When they had originally asked about searching the house and
Speaker 2: searching the car and all that stuff, we didn't have
Speaker 2: any issue with that. That was fine. But instead of
Speaker 2: going on the schedule that we had agreed upon, they
Speaker 2: waited until they knew I was going to be gone
Speaker 2: from the work, and they came over the house when
Speaker 2: she was there with the kids, and so just trying
Speaker 2: to upset her, messing the house up, slashing bags open
Speaker 2: that could have just been unzipped, and just making a
Speaker 2: mess of the place, doing the best they could to
Speaker 2: try to upset her in any way, hoping that I
Speaker 2: had done something and she was going to fell on me,
Speaker 2: but there was nothing to do.
Speaker 1: In addition to information, they may have been looking for
Speaker 1: a three eighty caliber pistol or some other incriminating evidence,
Speaker 1: but all they turned up was a text exchange between
Speaker 1: Brandon and Jody.
Speaker 3: If you look at the text messages, it just says
Speaker 3: what time do you work, to which she responded, I'm off.
Speaker 3: Brandon said hello at five eleven, which was two hours
Speaker 3: after the shooting. He sent another message, I got some
Speaker 3: stuff with the kids to about seven o'clock, so any
Speaker 3: time later, how much did you need, suggesting that they
Speaker 3: had talked over the phone or something, So why they
Speaker 3: suggested that was in some way nefarious or him trying
Speaker 3: to ascertain if she was home alone. In fact, it
Speaker 3: suggests one that they were just having a normal conversation
Speaker 3: about him providing her something that she needed and scheduling it.
Speaker 3: And the fact that he was completely clueless as to
Speaker 3: the fact that she'd been shot because he's texting her
Speaker 3: two hours after.
Speaker 1: Yet inexplicably, this was later present at as evidence of guilt. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: a month out from the shooting, Jody regained consciousness, but
Speaker 1: she had no memory of the shooting and she couldn't
Speaker 1: identify the shooter.
Speaker 3: She could remember I think what happened up to the
Speaker 3: day of the shooting in her life generally, and she
Speaker 3: gained her memory for future events, but did not remember
Speaker 3: anything about being shot.
Speaker 2: Well, they interviewed Jody when she first got home. He
Speaker 2: let them know that I've never asked her to get
Speaker 2: a horse. I think she said, he never told me
Speaker 2: to do anything associated with it. Then they come the
Speaker 2: trial still saying that was going on when she actually
Speaker 2: told them that before.
Speaker 1: So they chose to ignore the victim and Brandon's wife
Speaker 1: about the motive or lack thereof, as well as his
Speaker 1: corroborated alibi, and they obtained a warrant to collect strands
Speaker 1: of Brandon's hair for comparison to the gatorade bottle. Again,
Speaker 1: no testing was done to determine if this crazy Stephen
Speaker 1: Sigall movie silence er theory held any water. I mean,
Speaker 1: my first thought was that this contraption was found outside
Speaker 1: of the immediate crime scene. Sounds like a let's face,
Speaker 1: it sounds like a homemade bomb.
Speaker 2: I think he might be pretty spot on there.
Speaker 3: And that also, I guess what would explain why there
Speaker 3: may have been some burnt residue in it. That's what
Speaker 3: happens to marijuana when you smoke it. Also, whither it
Speaker 3: would have been a little bit of a tape around it,
Speaker 3: and there was a multiple DNA profile not rolling out
Speaker 3: either Jody or Brandon, and I think the fact that
Speaker 3: Jody's and Brandon's and who knows who else is might
Speaker 3: have been on it because it was a mixed profile,
Speaker 3: would be consistent with that being what this gatorade bottle
Speaker 3: was used for. And so essentially that there's nothing about
Speaker 3: the DNA that would suggest that he did anything nefarious
Speaker 3: with this gatorade bottle. But yet, because Detective Albin had
Speaker 3: seen this interesting Steven Siagall movie, he decided to make
Speaker 3: that the theory of the state's case that it was a silencer, so.
Speaker 1: With Jessica Biggs theory which had been debunked by Jody
Speaker 1: and Brandon's wife, followed by an innocuous text exchange, and
Speaker 1: then Brandon's hair found on what was probably a bond.
Speaker 1: Considering Jody wasn't excluded either. I mean, how many shooting
Speaker 1: victims handle the silencer that's used on them. Nevertheless, they
Speaker 1: arrested Brandon.
Speaker 2: It was a surprise. I was actually on my way
Speaker 2: taking the kids to practice when we were heading to
Speaker 2: the car, getting the kids in the car, and they
Speaker 2: just pulled up with all the police and all this
Speaker 2: stuff in arrestment.
Speaker 1: He was arrested on March thirtieth, two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: then bonded out, which started a fight over pretrialed detention
Speaker 1: that tied up his lawyers and had Brandon in and
Speaker 1: out of jail while they worked to build support for
Speaker 1: the silencer theory, starting with Sherry Carter.
Speaker 3: Brandon had a computer because he was a coach at
Speaker 3: the College of Southern Maryland, so he had his work
Speaker 3: laptop at home, and she got upset with him and
Speaker 3: made up a story that he was searching all these
Speaker 3: things on the computer about making silencers out of bottles,
Speaker 3: and then she testified the computer had been destroyed in
Speaker 3: the police testimony was such that they did not have
Speaker 3: the computer.
Speaker 1: But we later found out that they definitely fucking did,
Speaker 1: and that a forensic search of this particular computer and
Speaker 1: others belonging to Brandon had disproved Cherry's story. And in
Speaker 1: light of that tidbit, do we believe that other potentially
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence was just simply somehow lost.
Speaker 3: They lost street camera footage that would have showed if
Speaker 3: Brandon had driven towards Jodie's house that day, or for
Speaker 3: that matter, specifically who drove toward the house that day.
Speaker 3: They lost part of a recording of a police interview
Speaker 3: in which Maggie's brother Michael Bradley basically endorsed brandon saalibi,
Speaker 3: which directly conflicted with Michael Bradley's trial testimony.
Speaker 1: During his initial interview, Michael Bradley corroborated Brandon's alibi statement
Speaker 1: that he was at their house on the afternoon of
Speaker 1: the shooting, but in November two thousand and nine, in
Speaker 1: exchange for immunity and other Favorschael Bradley changed that story,
Speaker 1: adding in a new name, Jerry Burks.
Speaker 3: Bradley testified that it was him, Frank, Jerry Burks, Brandon.
Speaker 3: They were smoking marijuana in the house. He was intoxicated.
Speaker 3: That he saw Frank take medical tape to the kitchen.
Speaker 3: He saw Brandon and Frank go up to Maggie McFadden's room,
Speaker 3: Frank coming down and retrieving a gatorade bottle, and then
Speaker 3: Brandon and Jerry Burks left the house.
Speaker 1: Bradley said they left around two pm, and then the
Speaker 1: pair allegedly returned and asked Frank to discard of a bag.
Speaker 1: But where did this Jerry Burke's guy come from?
Speaker 2: He was a friend of Maggie's brother, and I believe
Speaker 2: a friend of Maggie, and just my feeling of it
Speaker 2: is that he sort of was in the same situation
Speaker 2: as me where they're a legend he did something that
Speaker 2: he probably didn't actually do.
Speaker 3: I think that they were hoping in some way that
Speaker 3: Jerry would turn on Brandon, but he didn't.
Speaker 1: And we'll get into Michael Bradley's reason for throwing Jerry
Speaker 1: Burks under the bus in a bit. But they used
Speaker 1: his statement and Sherry Carter's lies to bring Jerry Burkes
Speaker 1: into the fold. But Burkes called their bluff refusing to
Speaker 1: give a statement about how Brandon allegedly hired him to
Speaker 1: shoot Jody using this alleged silencer.
Speaker 3: He maintained his innocence, He was tried by a jury,
Speaker 3: he was acquitted, And it really does seem that after
Speaker 3: Jerry was found not guilty, they really ramped up the
Speaker 3: prosecution of Brandon. The judge didn't even allow the fact
Speaker 3: that Jerry was acquitted to be heard by the jury
Speaker 3: in Brandon's case.
Speaker 1: By this time, Brandon had been re arrested on a
Speaker 1: false assault allegation, and even that same judge didn't find
Speaker 1: the charge credible.
Speaker 2: They had a witness basically lie and say that I
Speaker 2: had assaulted them. Now it came up doing a hearing
Speaker 2: that it was a false statement, and the judge explained
Speaker 2: that even though I don't believe that it occurred, I'm
Speaker 2: going to hold you because trials two weeks away. Then
Speaker 2: the trial gets postponed or a good deal of time,
Speaker 2: and they still kept me in there.
Speaker 1: Trial was postponed until April twenty ten. Meanwhile, the media
Speaker 1: was regurgitating whatever the state fed them.
Speaker 2: They asked the possible jurors, who has read or seen
Speaker 2: anything about this case on TV or in the newspapers
Speaker 2: because they're trying to root out bias, and every single
Speaker 2: person stands up, you know the right Then you're like okay.
Speaker 2: And the issue with that is that the way the
Speaker 2: media is used by the police and the state is
Speaker 2: that they'll go to the media and they'll say that
Speaker 2: this person was the rested goodness and this and so
Speaker 2: on the news in the newspaper, they'll put your face
Speaker 2: in there and said you allegedly did this, and no
Speaker 2: one's listening to the allegedly, and no one is thinking
Speaker 2: about the fact that it might not be true, and
Speaker 2: so everybody stands up, and the next part of the
Speaker 2: guavier is asking them if they can still be fair
Speaker 2: and impartial, so everybody puts back down.
Speaker 1: Trial began on April twenty seven, twenty ten, with the victim,
Speaker 1: Jody Lynn Torok.
Speaker 3: She testified that she did not remember anything as far
Speaker 3: as what happened on that day, that she and Brandon
Speaker 3: had a sexual relationship, and that she was pregnant, and
Speaker 3: she also had a relationship with another man named Emmanuel,
Speaker 3: and that she was uncertain who the father was, and
Speaker 3: that she and Brandon had some discussions about abortion, and
Speaker 3: she told him that she wished to keep her baby,
Speaker 3: and there was no testimony that he in any way
Speaker 3: was threatening to her or anything of the like.
Speaker 1: But the state doesn't have to prove motive. And they
Speaker 1: also presented the innocuous text thread with a straight bass
Speaker 1: and said that it was evidence of guilt. And then
Speaker 1: they moved on to the alleged silencer, you know, the
Speaker 1: bong silencer theory, and they put on medical experts that
Speaker 1: tied Brandon's DNA to this gatorade bottle. The first one
Speaker 1: testified that one hair was human, the other was from
Speaker 1: a cat, and then an expert in mitochondrial DNA, doctor
Speaker 1: Terry Milton, took the stand.
Speaker 3: Doctor Terry Melton testified, what mitochondrial DNA could show that
Speaker 3: someone is from the same maternal lineage, but it can
Speaker 3: never say for sure that this hair absolutely for sure
Speaker 3: came from this person. Doctor Melton testified she could rule
Speaker 3: out ninety nine point ninety four percent of North Americans,
Speaker 3: but during cross examination she acknowledged that left roughly one
Speaker 3: hundred and eighty thousand Americans and thirty thousand people in
Speaker 3: Maryland with that same mitochondrial DNA profile.
Speaker 1: So in plain English, it's a big fat nothing burner.
Speaker 3: And they called Sarah Chenoweth, the forensic chemist who testified
Speaker 3: about DNA and said it included DNA from at least
Speaker 3: three individuals, which also would be consistent with it being
Speaker 3: a bong, and says at least one male and one female.
Speaker 3: She did roll out three other people submitted for comparison,
Speaker 3: didn't roll out Brandon, didn't rule out Jody. Plus, we're
Speaker 3: not suggesting that his DNA necessarily he wasn't on the
Speaker 3: bottle that they all used as a bong. But even
Speaker 3: if there was a hair that could have possibly been Brandon's, well,
Speaker 3: when people pass around a bong, their hair might get
Speaker 3: on it. So I don't think that's really neither here
Speaker 3: nor there. So that was it. There was no expert
Speaker 3: testimony about silencers, how they're constructed. They could have tested
Speaker 3: it trying to figure what was that little bit of
Speaker 3: ash in the bottom was at marijuana or was it gunshot?
Speaker 3: Resident they didn't bother to do it because they didn't
Speaker 3: seem to think it was important.
Speaker 1: The state hired three biological evidence experts to testify about
Speaker 1: a contraption that they hadn't even proved was involved with
Speaker 1: the shooting. Instead, they relied on Sherry Carter and Michael Bradley,
Speaker 1: the latter of whom Michael told his news story about
Speaker 1: Jerry Burks, but he kind of fell apart on cross examination.
Speaker 3: On cross examination, he was questioned about the fact that
Speaker 3: he received immunity from prosecution from Jody Turok's shooting in
Speaker 3: exchange for his testimony, and that he also received a
Speaker 3: benefit in his obstruction of justice charges in New Jersey,
Speaker 3: and he admitted that those charges stemmed from him lying
Speaker 3: to the police. So he's a person who's approven liar
Speaker 3: to the point where he actually was charged with obstruction
Speaker 3: because of it, and then he admitted he only testified
Speaker 3: because Maggie McFadden asked him to because she was involved
Speaker 3: in the attempted murder.
Speaker 1: Yes, Bradley testified that his sister directly asked him for
Speaker 1: protection because she was involved. And then the state's other
Speaker 1: star witness, Sherry Carter, also implicated Maggie McFadden.
Speaker 3: Cherry testified that Maggie McFadden was threatening Sherry, among others
Speaker 3: on social media, was emailing her employer, and that Maggie
Speaker 3: actually made a statement that she had someone shot and
Speaker 3: the description of that statement sounded an awful lot like
Speaker 3: she was talking about Jodi. She also had made comments
Speaker 3: that she liked to fight and beat people up, and
Speaker 3: she had shot people before. She was so volatile the
Speaker 3: state decided not even to call her as a witness.
Speaker 1: The state then found themselves trying to throw the court
Speaker 1: off of Maggie McFadden's scent.
Speaker 3: It was completely just twisted. It was backwards, basically saying
Speaker 3: that the McFadden theory was far fetched because her aggressive
Speaker 3: behavior would draw attention to her as a suspect and
Speaker 3: it was not logical that someone who's that flamboyantly aggressive
Speaker 3: would have been responsible for trying to shoot someone?
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm, yeah, okay, but this wasn't Maggie McFadden's trial,
Speaker 1: and that's not all that Sherry Carter said.
Speaker 3: Cherry testified that she'd been in a relationship with Brandon
Speaker 3: for three years, that he had a computer at his house,
Speaker 3: and that it was his work computer from the College
Speaker 3: of Southern Maryland and it had a lot of restrictive settings,
Speaker 3: so he wouldn't be able to modify system files or
Speaker 3: download software without an administrator password. And so she then
Speaker 3: testifies that we did this, and he did that, he
Speaker 3: looked up silencers, and then he said he got rid
Speaker 3: of the computer because they looked up so many crazy
Speaker 3: things on the internet in her apartment that if it
Speaker 3: got searched, he didn't want it found. So she says that,
Speaker 3: and she said she'd seen Brandon with a handgun in
Speaker 3: September and October, and her testimony was unimpeached, and.
Speaker 1: Had Brandon's trial attorney known that this computer was not
Speaker 1: only in the state's possession, but also that it had
Speaker 1: been forensically analyzed and no such searches had been detected,
Speaker 1: then he too would have known that Sharry Carter had
Speaker 1: perjured herself and that the state knowingly had presented false evidence.
Speaker 1: But without that knowledge, well trial counsel they did the
Speaker 1: best they could.
Speaker 3: A lot of the case was made on cross examination. Basically,
Speaker 3: the argument was that the bottle was not a silencer,
Speaker 3: but it was a boon, that the DNA did not
Speaker 3: indicate that he had any role in constructing a silencer
Speaker 3: or anything like that, and that Jodie's DNA was found
Speaker 3: on it again that would corroborate the idea of it
Speaker 3: being a bong, and that the state's theory about the
Speaker 3: silencer failed to explain the presence of JODI's DNA. But
Speaker 3: there was also a lot of references to who else
Speaker 3: might have had a motive. Here you have Emmanuel Quarterly,
Speaker 3: who's the other boyfriend of Jody. Then you have Maggie
Speaker 3: McFadden who's all over the place threatening people, confessing to shootings,
Speaker 3: alluding that it was Jody, and the fact that she's
Speaker 3: directing her brothers what to do and how to talk
Speaker 3: to the police. And then Maggie McFadden's friend Steve Burnett,
Speaker 3: lied to the police about his whereabouts and was never
Speaker 3: able to explain what he was doing.
Speaker 1: Plus, Brandon's wife testified about their arrangement and how she
Speaker 1: knew that he had children with other women, So he
Speaker 1: would not have been motivated to kill Jody for keeping
Speaker 1: the baby.
Speaker 3: Without this whole computer thing trying to tie him up
Speaker 3: to this bong that they claim was a silencer, and
Speaker 3: have no forensic evidence whatsoever. They really didn't have anything
Speaker 3: of a case. The only couple witnesses they had were
Speaker 3: really alternate suspects. Sherry, this was, I would say, the
Speaker 3: butt four witness. That was not for this witness, he
Speaker 3: wouldn't have been convicted. And she testified the computer had
Speaker 3: been destroyed. The jury instruction, I'll read it verbatim. You
Speaker 3: have heard evidence that the defendant removed a computer from
Speaker 3: the house of Sherry Carter. Concealment of evidence is not
Speaker 3: enough by itself to establish guilt, but may be considered
Speaker 3: as evidence of guilt. Concealment of evidence may be motivated
Speaker 3: by a variety of factors, some of which are fully
Speaker 3: consistent with innocence. You must first decide whether the defendant
Speaker 3: concealed any evidence in this case. If you find that
Speaker 3: the defendant concealed evidence in this case, then you must
Speaker 3: decide whether that conduct shows a consciousness of guilt. Crucially,
Speaker 3: this instruction allowed the jury to infer guilt from Brandon's
Speaker 3: alleged decision to get rid of the laptop due to
Speaker 3: search history, and the only basis for the instruction was
Speaker 3: Sherry Carter's testimony. So essentially the instruction was that if
Speaker 3: he concealed every evidence that could be used as consciousness
Speaker 3: of guilt.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't have a criminal record, I've never
Speaker 2: been through anything like this, and so you still have
Speaker 2: some faith system that if you didn't do something, you're
Speaker 2: not going to get Even with all the stuff that
Speaker 2: state was trying to make up, go and drown, no
Speaker 2: one that took the stand actually said I didn't, So
Speaker 2: I did still have hope. I didn't think that it
Speaker 2: was going to end up the way it did. So
Speaker 2: they simply a North France, which is the highest security
Speaker 2: level prison in Maryland, which is actually I believe it
Speaker 2: was the Ultra Max or something like that. I think
Speaker 2: they have a superstructure show about the prison, which this
Speaker 2: is like a one on one They would call it
Speaker 2: twenty three and one, which you like in yourself about
Speaker 2: twenty three hours a day, and so yeah, so I'm
Speaker 2: up here basically. Ever since prison being what it is,
Speaker 2: there's things that are normalized in here that should not
Speaker 2: be normal. I don't even remember the amount of people
Speaker 2: that's been killed stuff in here anymore. People being murdered
Speaker 2: in here. It's not even spoke about it. It's like
Speaker 2: it's something that people say in passion now because it
Speaker 2: happened so often, Like the man who was murdered by
Speaker 2: the Coressian authors that was caught on the body camera recently,
Speaker 2: people and outrage about it, which they should be, but
Speaker 2: that happens daily like that. It just because it finally
Speaker 2: was one video.
Speaker 1: And of course he's talking about Robert Brooks, the man
Speaker 1: who was murdered on video, brutally murdered by a group
Speaker 1: of New York State Correction officers. Now, Robert, what can
Speaker 1: we say? Rest in peace? And to his point, from
Speaker 1: what we hear during these interviews, that kind of thing
Speaker 1: is all too common behind the walls. And that makes
Speaker 1: post conviction, that gation all that more urgent, because every
Speaker 1: day is life and death. And Brandon tapped into his
Speaker 1: scholastic background in the law library.
Speaker 2: The only thing I really do is read the law,
Speaker 2: read the Bible. And once I got confident in my
Speaker 2: legal abilities as far as filing briefs and things of
Speaker 2: that nature, probably in the past seven years, I think
Speaker 2: I've helped about twenty guys get positive results in cases,
Speaker 2: regardless that that's them going home, getting admitted in the
Speaker 2: drug program, getting time cut, finding information similar to mine.
Speaker 1: So let's get back to Brandon's case.
Speaker 2: I had filed a public information next, and once I
Speaker 2: finally got the police file was when I found the
Speaker 2: information about the computer. In fact, it was on page
Speaker 2: four because I'm up all night doing legal work, and
Speaker 2: so i had my light on and I'm flipping the
Speaker 2: page and I saw it, and I'm just I started
Speaker 2: talking to myself. Really, I'm like, oh, this is what
Speaker 2: I've been talking about all along.
Speaker 3: The state had not only the computer, but they also
Speaker 3: had the announcealysis of the computers that was done by
Speaker 3: the state's computer experts, which concluded that these searches had
Speaker 3: not been done on these computers and that was not
Speaker 3: disclosed to the defense. So it completely proves that Sherry
Speaker 3: was lying and they deliberately presented false evidence. Then they
Speaker 3: had the jury instructed that he was the one that
Speaker 3: hid the evidence.
Speaker 2: So the very next morning I called Justin Brown to
Speaker 2: let him know what I found in there, and when
Speaker 2: we started filing it from there, that was in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: They also discovered Michael Bradley's initial interview in which he
Speaker 1: corroborated Brandon's alibi, as well as that they at one
Speaker 1: point had had video of the road leading up to
Speaker 1: JODI's home which could have identified the actual killer, but
Speaker 1: mysteriously it somehow went missing.
Speaker 3: So there were so many things that were exculpatory that
Speaker 3: the jury should have heard about but didn't hear about,
Speaker 3: and instead were fed this false bill of lies about
Speaker 3: silencers and computer searches and destruction of evidence that not
Speaker 3: only wasn't true, but the opposite was true. It was
Speaker 3: the government that was hiding the evidence and they did
Speaker 3: it to secure this false conviction against Brandon, and Justin Brown,
Speaker 3: who was Brandon's attorney at that time, did an excellent
Speaker 3: job presenting it. At the post conviction level. Judge Silkworth
Speaker 3: granted the post conviction relief based upon your Brady violation,
Speaker 3: which the court concluded that it was significant enough to
Speaker 3: vacate the conviction and remain for a new trial, and.
Speaker 1: Since twenty sixteen, the state has tied them up on
Speaker 1: appeal rather than allow the new trial to go forward.
Speaker 1: And in that time, Beth and Donna Fairman, as well
Speaker 1: as a team from the powerhouse law firm Scadden, have
Speaker 1: fought to maintain that twenty sixteen new trial motion all
Speaker 1: the way to most recently the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Speaker 3: At that level, Brandon was represented by some excellent lawyers
Speaker 3: from Scadden who did an outstanding job, and basically a
Speaker 3: three judge panel concluded that he's entitled to a new trial.
Speaker 3: And so that's where we are right now. I am
Speaker 3: looking forward to representing him at his trial or Donald Fairman,
Speaker 3: and I think that he has waited way too long
Speaker 3: for justice to happen here.
Speaker 1: So here we are in February twenty twenty five, as
Speaker 1: the state has a few more delayed tactics to still try, because,
Speaker 1: after all, what the hell are they going to present
Speaker 1: at a new trial? Michael Bradley, Sherry Carter, I mean,
Speaker 1: multiple DNA profiles found on a bond. Maybe, I mean
Speaker 1: I can't.
Speaker 2: With this shit.
Speaker 1: But before I actually lose my shit, let's go to
Speaker 1: closing arguments, where first of all, I want to thank
Speaker 1: both of you for joining us today. So now I'm
Speaker 1: going to turn off my microphone, leave my headphones on
Speaker 1: and kick back in my chair and just listen to
Speaker 1: anything else you want to share. So Elizabeth, you go first.
Speaker 1: Then just sort of hand the microphone off the rand
Speaker 1: and he'll take us off into the sunset.
Speaker 3: I think that he has been the victim of a
Speaker 3: grievous injustice, that the system has failed him time and
Speaker 3: time again. I am, however, grateful to the courts that
Speaker 3: saw things as they should have and granted him a
Speaker 3: new trial, and I feel confident that Jerry, hearing actual
Speaker 3: evidence rather than evidence that was manufactured twisted around, we'll
Speaker 3: see that he's an innocent man and will find him
Speaker 3: not guilty when he goes to trial.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having us on here and giving us
Speaker 2: the opportunity to have this conversation, because with how everything
Speaker 2: has gone here, you see that the way that things
Speaker 2: are spoken about from one point of view are not
Speaker 2: necessarily what it really is, and so you have so
Speaker 2: many lies and those things that will put into the trial.
Speaker 2: You know, Yeah, people I know on the street that
Speaker 2: don't know the truth about the situation and will repeat
Speaker 2: stuff that's on the news because they don't understand and
Speaker 2: that the news is just getting stuff from the police,
Speaker 2: and so you have stuff going to family members, kids,
Speaker 2: all of that stuff that are being said that clearly
Speaker 2: aren't true, and there's no way for these people to
Speaker 2: get the actual information. So I do believe that this
Speaker 2: is a very important outlet. And for me clearly sitting
Speaker 2: in here, I understand that this isn't what I want
Speaker 2: to be here, but I also know that certain positive
Speaker 2: things still occur. What you have to look for, you
Speaker 2: have to understand what is wanted from you, what is
Speaker 2: needed from you, And so that's why, like I said earlier,
Speaker 2: I try to help in any way I can with
Speaker 2: anyone because you never know why God has allowed you
Speaker 2: to be in a certain situation. But if you don't
Speaker 2: try to do the things that He wants to do,
Speaker 2: then there's no positive that's going to come from it,
Speaker 2: and then you're just looking at everything from such a
Speaker 2: negative point of view. And so I know that at
Speaker 2: some point, when it's the proper time, I'll be out
Speaker 2: of here. But while I'm in here, I'm going to
Speaker 2: continue to try to help people because I've always done that,
Speaker 2: and so just try to keep the positive mind say,
Speaker 2: while continuing the fight for right, really for the justice,
Speaker 2: for the truth. My kid, my family, They're the most
Speaker 2: important thing to do. And so to be able to
Speaker 2: get home to them and give the in person support
Speaker 2: that I should have been able to give to them,
Speaker 2: their whole labs up and lock up for the most
Speaker 2: part of their whole labs. And so I'll just pray
Speaker 2: that happened soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
Speaker 1: to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
Speaker 1: week early and ed free by subscribing to Lava for
Speaker 1: Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our
Speaker 1: production team, Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well as
Speaker 1: my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and Jeff Cliber.
Speaker 1: The music in this production was supplied by three time
Speaker 1: OSCAR nominated composer Jay Rowse. Be sure to follow us
Speaker 1: across all social media platforms at Lava for Good and
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on Instagram
Speaker 1: at It's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good Podcasts and Association, a Signal Company Number one.
Speaker 1: We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported
Speaker 1: in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed
Speaker 1: by the individuals featured in this show are their own
Speaker 1: and do not necessarily reflect those of Love of for
Speaker 1: Good