Speaker 1: On October three, Walter Goudy, through a party at his
Speaker 1: Indianapolis home, his half brother Romeo Lee, and their shorter
Speaker 1: friend Kydie Harvell, drove one of Walter's cars to an
Speaker 1: after hours club in Anderson, Indiana. After an altercation outside,
Speaker 1: Romeo approached a car on the passenger side and Kiti
Speaker 1: was on the driver's side. The driver was fatally shot
Speaker 1: and a passenger was wounded. Witnesses described the driver's side
Speaker 1: shooter as shorter than the other. Months later, Walter Goudy
Speaker 1: was put the same after hours club in the same
Speaker 1: car and picked up by Detective Rodney Cummings, who put
Speaker 1: him into a one man show up where Walter was
Speaker 1: mistaken for the passenger side shooter his half brother Romeo.
Speaker 1: Despite sixteen alibi witnesses, Walter was charged with the murder,
Speaker 1: but between Walter's overly suggestive I d and his strong alibi,
Speaker 1: the charges were dropped, which did not sit well with
Speaker 1: Detective Cummings. When Kaytie Harvell was later i deed in
Speaker 1: a live lineup by three witnesses as the driver's side shooter,
Speaker 1: he told Cummings that Walter was the driver's side shooter,
Speaker 1: not him. While placing Romeo on the passenger's side. Detective
Speaker 1: Cummings ran for District Attorney one and reindicted Walter. Despite
Speaker 1: Romeo's confession naming Kiti and himself, the state still forged
Speaker 1: ahead with a prosecution based on conflicting witnesses. Almost all
Speaker 1: misidentified Walter as his half brother on the passenger's side,
Speaker 1: except Kaiti, who placed Walter in his place on the
Speaker 1: driver's side. Walter was sentenced to one hundred and ten
Speaker 1: years in prison. This is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: wrongful Conviction today's episode. This is almost like the cartoon
Speaker 1: of the Ping Pong match, where your head just going
Speaker 1: back and forth. You're like, wait, what what Like you
Speaker 1: just got gonna believe the way this case unfolded and
Speaker 1: how the system, I'm gonna be generous to say, made
Speaker 1: mistake after mistake and then compounded their mistakes, and then
Speaker 1: even when the mistakes were corrected, they made sure to
Speaker 1: correct the correction to make sure the mistakes. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's I'm at a loss for words on this one,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, but we're here with the man
Speaker 1: who survived this ordeal, Walter Gaudy Walter I'm so sorry
Speaker 1: you're here because of why you're here, but I'm really
Speaker 1: honored that you're here to tell your story. Appreciate, appreciate.
Speaker 1: And with him is his civil attorney Richard Dvorak. Richard,
Speaker 1: it's your first time on the show, and I certainly
Speaker 1: hope it's not your last. And I know you've done
Speaker 1: great work on this case in particular, and I'm really
Speaker 1: really delighted to have you on the show. Thank you
Speaker 1: for the invitation. I appreciate it. So this is an
Speaker 1: Indiana story, which we're hearing more and more about lately,
Speaker 1: as more wrongful convictions and prosecutors conducted police corruption are
Speaker 1: being wreck ignized, not only in Indiana but all over
Speaker 1: the country. But before we get into how that affects
Speaker 1: your case, Walter, I want to go back to before
Speaker 1: all of that happened. Now, you were born in Chicago,
Speaker 1: but you grew up out West. Is that right? Okay?
Speaker 1: I grew up in Los Angeles, myself and my three symbtoms.
Speaker 1: My mom's up and moved moved away from my father's.
Speaker 1: But I grew up in Los Angeles doing the heyday
Speaker 1: of the gang banging and the drugs. You know, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's all we had to do to get by. You
Speaker 1: mentioned your siblings. Now two of them, Lamont and Romeo,
Speaker 1: were deeply affected by this incident. Romeo, of course, was
Speaker 1: directly involved. Can you tell us about him, never smoked
Speaker 1: a joint nothing in his life, He tried it, stuff
Speaker 1: on that. He's a real cool guy. He really loyal,
Speaker 1: but he gets angry really quick. Romeo is the one
Speaker 1: that you go get with us drama. They want to
Speaker 1: fight out here, We're going to get Romeo. Growing up,
Speaker 1: we both took marcel arts, both took boxing. We both
Speaker 1: started gang banging out there. No father figure are male
Speaker 1: figures consists of the older guys in the streets. We
Speaker 1: didn't had the people that tells you you could be somebody.
Speaker 1: And the guys doing well out there worth selling drugs
Speaker 1: exactly exactly. We see the guy with the big Cadillac
Speaker 1: h he always got the money, you got the jury,
Speaker 1: got the girls slock here. We want to be like that.
Speaker 1: Me being the oldest I felt and coming upon me
Speaker 1: to get out there and make something for my siblings.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean. I saw setting drugs really young,
Speaker 1: like thirteen years old. So I'll get a hold to Indiana.
Speaker 1: I say what, I'll turn one. A friend of mine
Speaker 1: was out there and tell me, uh, how much the
Speaker 1: drugs is going for? You know? So I came out
Speaker 1: there and visit and found out, Yeah, yeah, it's more
Speaker 1: expensive Indiana than they are in California. So you saw
Speaker 1: this as an opportunity and started taking the risk. And
Speaker 1: you know, there was a lot of risk, let's face it,
Speaker 1: of transporting the drugs from California to Indiana in order
Speaker 1: to reap the reward of a higher profit margin. And
Speaker 1: despite if you arrest including one in St. Louis from
Speaker 1: marijuana possession, that had an effect. As it turns out,
Speaker 1: on this case, the risk had paid off, at least temporarily.
Speaker 1: You made a lot of money, owned the home, had
Speaker 1: multiple cars, and we're investing in legitimate businesses. You had
Speaker 1: your own nightclub. But before we go any further, can
Speaker 1: you tell us a little bit about this one character
Speaker 1: who you met in Indiana with the interesting name Kydie Harvell.
Speaker 1: I don't had new Kydi like five months before this
Speaker 1: all this happen. Titi is Okay, Laura Smith, which is
Speaker 1: my girlfriend at the time. Her brother was locked up
Speaker 1: and her brother best friend was Katie Harville. Me and
Speaker 1: her brother became real cool. Like my brother in law.
Speaker 1: He let me know one day, man, my god cat
Speaker 1: get out. Now, don't you look out for him? Kydie
Speaker 1: got out. I'll take him shopping. I'll take him. My
Speaker 1: mond under my wing started to hang with me all
Speaker 1: the time. You know, we become best of friends. I
Speaker 1: felt that he really was a genuine guy. Man, I
Speaker 1: just did I don't know. I don't know how I
Speaker 1: got sold to see And that's what really the problem.
Speaker 1: My brother got me now because my brother didn't even
Speaker 1: know him. My brother just called himself having his back
Speaker 1: because he's my guy. So now he finds stuff in
Speaker 1: prison a hundred ten years now, we're trying to help
Speaker 1: my guy. We turned out to be a scumbat, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, for lack of a better term, right, I'm
Speaker 1: sure you probably feel some, you know, a degree of
Speaker 1: guilt for even putting those two together. But your brother
Speaker 1: did what he did, and at least he came forward
Speaker 1: instead of lying about you like Kaitie did. Now there's
Speaker 1: one more thing to cover, which bears heavily on this case.
Speaker 1: Kaitie is about five eight look and looks nothing like
Speaker 1: you and Romeo, who are both over six ft tall,
Speaker 1: and let's face it, you share a mother, your family.
Speaker 1: You guys look similar. We do. We get a lot
Speaker 1: even to this dayca were both bowed now, so we
Speaker 1: really get it now. And this is important because it
Speaker 1: really gums up the identification process in this case, because
Speaker 1: you have people identifying you in your brother Romeo's role
Speaker 1: on the passenger side of the car, and then Kiti
Speaker 1: and perhaps the police tried to create and capitalize on
Speaker 1: some confusion around there being two shooters, one short, one
Speaker 1: tall on which side of a car. So let's get
Speaker 1: to that. The night of October three three, you were
Speaker 1: hosting a party at your home in India. Opus now
Speaker 1: tell us how the rest of the night played out,
Speaker 1: and Richard, feel free to jump in whatever you want.
Speaker 1: So October three, I thought a party in Annapolis. Nice party,
Speaker 1: big party, not the way you're smoking, drinking and hanging
Speaker 1: party of miss party. During the party, my brother and
Speaker 1: Harveil they left went to the club and it was
Speaker 1: like thirty four or five minutes they go to Anderson, Indiana.
Speaker 1: Altercation occurred outside of the club. I later found out
Speaker 1: it was in one of my cars. At the time.
Speaker 1: I had like six cars. I'm ready in the cars.
Speaker 1: The altercation occurred with Kayati and the victim Mr McCleod
Speaker 1: soon occurred and roam your assistant in the student. It
Speaker 1: had to do with a card jack and that's the
Speaker 1: story Cordie made up. I later found out through my
Speaker 1: brother and again again I had several cars and I
Speaker 1: wouldn't need to, you know, be involved in like that.
Speaker 1: But they had this incident. They agreed not to tell
Speaker 1: me about it because I'll be upset. I absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: about this case. So there was a shooting at a
Speaker 1: club called the Oasis and Anderson, Indiana. There were two
Speaker 1: shooters ran up on a car that was parked in
Speaker 1: the parking lot outside of the Oasis, and one shooter
Speaker 1: was a shorter person and he was up on the
Speaker 1: driver's side and there was a taller suspect on the
Speaker 1: passenger side. The occupants of the vehicle were A Marvin
Speaker 1: McLeod who was in the driver's seat, Damon Nunn who
Speaker 1: was in the passenger seat, and then Jail Barkley who
Speaker 1: was in the back seat. So Mr McLeod unfortunately and
Speaker 1: tragically was shot and died and Mr Nunn was shot,
Speaker 1: but he survived and end up being a witness in
Speaker 1: this case, so there was no suspect. Originally, this went
Speaker 1: on for several months with no suspect. There was some
Speaker 1: heat from the Double A c P and other organizations,
Speaker 1: and there's some pressure to solve the case. So fast
Speaker 1: forward in February, Walt he was actually at the Oasis
Speaker 1: and there was someone an employee of Oasis, who said, oh,
Speaker 1: that person you know looks familiar. They thought that maybe
Speaker 1: he might have been one of the people involved. Now,
Speaker 1: that person never testified a trial, never identify him or anything.
Speaker 1: That just that's what got their attention. And obviously it'd
Speaker 1: be pretty logical to show up at the place where
Speaker 1: you did the shooting in the same car, no less,
Speaker 1: in the same car, in the same car some there
Speaker 1: playing poo and here comes to officers as step. So
Speaker 1: I was identified as being someone who's evolving a suit
Speaker 1: in October, which we wouldn't come out to the station
Speaker 1: for a lineup. So at this point we've already established
Speaker 1: that you knew nothing about this crime, but you did
Speaker 1: something that later really seemed to get under the skin
Speaker 1: of Detective Rodney Cummings. You gave him an alias James
Speaker 1: Benneman in order to avoid the war that I mentioned
Speaker 1: earlier out of St. Louis from marijuana possession. So continue,
Speaker 1: you go down to the station for this lineup, right.
Speaker 1: I go to the station. They put me in a
Speaker 1: room by myself. There's a one way mirror glass. He
Speaker 1: come back in the area. He tells me I was identified,
Speaker 1: possible and possible. They don't. I'm not arrested, but they
Speaker 1: put me in the jail suit like four or five
Speaker 1: minutes later, just time to put me in a full
Speaker 1: lineup with five people. This time me and five people,
Speaker 1: because the witness knew four of the other people it
Speaker 1: was in the lineup. The people that's identified, it's inport reports.
Speaker 1: So the second lineup was basically pointless. It's almost as
Speaker 1: suggestive as the one man show up, if that's even possible.
Speaker 1: So nonetheless, the witness from the backseat, Jill Barkley, identified
Speaker 1: you as the taller passenger side shooter, which kind of
Speaker 1: makes sense since you look like your own half brother.
Speaker 1: But then you were released. Maybe they kind of knew
Speaker 1: that their lineup was overly suggested. I don't know, I mean,
Speaker 1: why were you released at that time that cart would
Speaker 1: me still be an adamant that it wasn't me willing
Speaker 1: to submit to a polygraph. Okay, all cell phone numbers,
Speaker 1: I gave my page you none. I gave my address
Speaker 1: to well, I'm located at all that. So he told
Speaker 1: me he was willing to let me go this on Friday,
Speaker 1: he's willn't let me go. Come back money when he
Speaker 1: gets some more witnesses. That he put me in more lineups,
Speaker 1: had me agree to come back Monday. When I agree,
Speaker 1: I agree. But however, I gave you it is name
Speaker 1: because I had warrant by the St. Louis had marijuana
Speaker 1: on the highway, So I gave him a fake name
Speaker 1: and they ran my princes. I wasn't going nowhere. So
Speaker 1: by Monday you knew I was because you went on
Speaker 1: ran the prints. You knew I was. No. You know
Speaker 1: I had to warrant. Yeah, you're not who you say
Speaker 1: you were. So Monday I call him, I said, I
Speaker 1: ain't got translation, can you come pick me up. I
Speaker 1: don't worry about what being touch Two day they came,
Speaker 1: kicked the door into my girlfriend house, arrested me, did
Speaker 1: another lineup. They tried to do an official lineup, and
Speaker 1: they do a second lineup. This one didn't involve people
Speaker 1: that she knew, but by that time, the it's ridiculous
Speaker 1: because she obviously know who who she picked out originally,
Speaker 1: and then they need to charge Walter with the murder.
Speaker 1: But Walter was at a party in Indianapolis, and he
Speaker 1: had sixteen al of my witnesses, and you had, let's
Speaker 1: face it, you had no clue about what happened to Anderson.
Speaker 1: But your brother, who was locked up in Arizona unrelated charge,
Speaker 1: had found out that you were now in jail for
Speaker 1: a murder in which he played a role, and he
Speaker 1: eventually officially confessed before you went to trial. Unfortunately, that
Speaker 1: confession was never heard by your jury. But could you
Speaker 1: tell us about when you first found out about your
Speaker 1: brother's involvement. When I first got locked up, I was
Speaker 1: in there maybe two weeks. No idea why I'm here.
Speaker 1: This sounds crazy. I know I haven't done that much
Speaker 1: wrong in the world. I know, I love you things.
Speaker 1: But so Romeo calls my girlfriends, my daughter's mother, when
Speaker 1: she told about locked up for murder. He liked for murder, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: they say he saw somebody Anderson you're like, you recognize,
Speaker 1: like he's playing my lawyer. Eythy. Now my Laury comes
Speaker 1: of visibly, big old smile on his face. I know
Speaker 1: what it thinks you. I said, what it was your
Speaker 1: brother and our veil because my brother's in Arizona locked up.
Speaker 1: I know, I've been on the phonower tomorrow morning. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this is and maybe March, but he doesn't officially
Speaker 1: come forward until December, which is after you were re
Speaker 1: indicted and about to go to trial. And let's be clear,
Speaker 1: Romeo gave that confession against his own self interest. He
Speaker 1: ended up with a hundred and ten years sentence. So
Speaker 1: I mean, talk about it's going against your own self interest.
Speaker 1: But it finally made sense of your misidentification because, like
Speaker 1: we said, you too are half brothers, and you do
Speaker 1: look alike. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here. At
Speaker 1: this point, all you officially had in your defense which
Speaker 1: was enough to drop the charges was sixteen alibi witnesses
Speaker 1: placing you in Indianapolis, the fact that your identification was
Speaker 1: overly suggestive, and then Jill Barkley, the backseat passenger witness,
Speaker 1: had spotted kydie Hartveld in Indianapolis and reported it the
Speaker 1: Courts of Reports. Toddy was in a Value City one
Speaker 1: day in Indianapolis and the chick that was in the
Speaker 1: back seat of the car when the suit happened. Seeing
Speaker 1: they locked eyes on each other and she watched him
Speaker 1: as he walked out and she like, that's the guy.
Speaker 1: So this is in her in the report. She mentioned
Speaker 1: that because when they gave a lineup, She's like, that's
Speaker 1: the guy right there in the Value City. That's you know,
Speaker 1: that's the shooter. That's the suit that was on the
Speaker 1: driver side of the car. Right So Jill Barclay's identification
Speaker 1: of Kiti happened in March of ninety four, along with
Speaker 1: two other witnesses, Jackie Barclay and Latania Young. Latania had
Speaker 1: at one point I did Walter as a driver's side shooter,
Speaker 1: but in March of ninety four she was positive it
Speaker 1: was Kiti. So maybe Latania impeaches herself, but Jackie and
Speaker 1: Jill have been pretty consistent. So dislikely played heavily into
Speaker 1: your charges being dropped by the prosecutor at the time,
Speaker 1: Bill Lawler. So then you were extradited to St. Louis
Speaker 1: for the marijuana possession warrant Rodney Cummings and his partner
Speaker 1: Steve Navier. They did not agree with this decision to
Speaker 1: drop the charges. One will let it go. He didn't
Speaker 1: want to let it go to him to this day.
Speaker 1: You think I got away to him, I got away
Speaker 1: with murder. I don't know how I got away this
Speaker 1: nine years for one but two out how to do
Speaker 1: it at all. His beef with me was that I
Speaker 1: deceived him with the name. He felt that I played him.
Speaker 1: This is where that, this is where to use. He said,
Speaker 1: you played me, but fake name or not. The prosecutor
Speaker 1: was simply following the evidence, not some personal vendetta. He
Speaker 1: was doing his job. In other words, So while Cummings
Speaker 1: continued to investigate the case, Walter remained on his mind. Now,
Speaker 1: despite this positive idea, Kiti didn't get picked up until
Speaker 1: June of ninety four, an unrelated burglary charge and an
Speaker 1: interview that was not even discovered until civil litigation. Kiti
Speaker 1: denied being involved and gave a bogus alibi. Now, perhaps
Speaker 1: after looking into that, Cummings brought Kity in for a
Speaker 1: videotaped live lineup in September ninety four, and once again
Speaker 1: and he was positively ideed as the driver's side shooter
Speaker 1: by the three witnesses. Now Katie decided to save himself,
Speaker 1: and despite the conflict between Walter's height and that of
Speaker 1: the driver's side shooters description, Kittie Harvell, who stood only
Speaker 1: five eight, said that it wasn't him who was the
Speaker 1: shorter driver's side shooter, but it was Walter, who is
Speaker 1: not five eight but again over six ft tall. Hard
Speaker 1: to make that mistake and snitched on Romeo as the
Speaker 1: tallest shooter on the passengers side. But now with this
Speaker 1: statement and your charges being dropped, there was a dynamic
Speaker 1: created between the then prosecutor Bill Lawler and Detective Cummings.
Speaker 1: And Roddy Cummings happened to be a lawyer. He had
Speaker 1: gone to night school while he was a police officer
Speaker 1: to become a lawyer, and he took it upon himself
Speaker 1: to run for the prosecutor's office. It's election season, it's
Speaker 1: the fall of ninety four, and lo and behold, he wins.
Speaker 1: Detective Cummings now becomes Prosecutor Cummings. And what does Prosecutor
Speaker 1: Cummings do? He turns around and reindites Walter for the
Speaker 1: charges that the prior prosecutor dismissed, so now we have
Speaker 1: the detective becoming the prosecutor to prosecute a case where
Speaker 1: he was once the detective. The Pacers Foundation is a
Speaker 1: proud supporter of this episode of rawful Conviction and of
Speaker 1: the Last Mile organization, which provides business and tech training
Speaker 1: to help incarcerated individuals successfully and permanently re enter the workforce.
Speaker 1: The Pacers Foundation is committed to improving the lives of
Speaker 1: Hoosiers across Indiana, supporting organizations that are dedicated primarily to
Speaker 1: helping young people and students. For more information on the
Speaker 1: work of the Pacers Foundation or the Last Bile Program,
Speaker 1: visit Pacers Foundation dot org or the Last Smile dot org.
Speaker 1: When Cummings reindites Walter, it's on the theory that the
Speaker 1: two shooters are Walter and his brother Romeo Lee, and
Speaker 1: Kaytie was a witness to all this. Part of the problem, though,
Speaker 1: is that the state witnesses, some of whom identified Walter
Speaker 1: is one of the possible shooters, had identified Kayde Harvel
Speaker 1: as the shooter, and that was something that would have
Speaker 1: completely messed up debt theory. So what happens is they
Speaker 1: go to trial and Mark Mader in the original trial
Speaker 1: attorney suspected that he was not being given all the
Speaker 1: police reports, and he did a motion to get the
Speaker 1: police reports and a second motion reconsider a motion for
Speaker 1: in camera inspection of the prosecutor's file to see if
Speaker 1: there were some police reports that he wasn't getting well.
Speaker 1: The judge denied it, and Walter went to trial without
Speaker 1: knowing that the state's witnesses had identified Kaydie Harvel, another
Speaker 1: state's witness, as one of the shooters. But what further
Speaker 1: makes it absolutely impossible to Walter was was one of
Speaker 1: the shooters was the fact that during this prosecution, before
Speaker 1: he went to trial, Romeo, his half brother, finally came
Speaker 1: forward and admitted that he was the second shooter, that
Speaker 1: he and Kaide did the shooting. So we have our
Speaker 1: two shooters now. That makes all the sense in the world.
Speaker 1: Because the physical descriptions in this case were that a
Speaker 1: shorter gentleman was on the driver's side and a taller
Speaker 1: gentleman was on the passenger side. Well, Walter and Romeo
Speaker 1: are both tall and they look alike. Kaydie Harvell is short.
Speaker 1: So rather than go on what was the truth? And
Speaker 1: the truth is that Romeo lead to the shooting on
Speaker 1: the passenger side and Kadi did the shooting on the
Speaker 1: driver's side instead. The theory at Walter's trial was that
Speaker 1: Walter did it with Romeo and Kaide was just a witness. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this one with instructions. Right. So you have this shooter,
Speaker 1: Romeo admitting, which is highly unusual before the trial for
Speaker 1: Walter's trial, that he did it, and he not only
Speaker 1: said that Kitty was the other shooter, but that Walter
Speaker 1: wasn't there. He's a guy with firsthand knowledge and a
Speaker 1: lot of everything to lose, right, And unfortunately, the jury
Speaker 1: never heard the Romeo Lee confession because Maynard couldn't figure
Speaker 1: out how to get into evidence. The confession never came in.
Speaker 1: So one of the single most important piece of evidence
Speaker 1: in this whole freaking case, which was later used to
Speaker 1: convict Romeo, that jury never even heard it. It's insane,
Speaker 1: let's face it. And in case this wasn't enough, the
Speaker 1: idea that this judge didn't feel that there was any
Speaker 1: need for the defense to see the evidence from the
Speaker 1: police files. Richard, help you out, well, this is another
Speaker 1: unique thing about this case, unique to Indiana. Under Indiana law,
Speaker 1: the Indiana Supreme Corps actually ruled this and it still
Speaker 1: exists today. Police reports are considered work product and they
Speaker 1: do not have to be tendered by the state to
Speaker 1: the defense. Now you have to ask, well, they still
Speaker 1: have to comply with the United States Constitution, they have
Speaker 1: to comply with Brady, So how do they how do
Speaker 1: they do that? Well, I took several depositions in this
Speaker 1: case as part of the civil matter, and I asked
Speaker 1: several prosecutors, and none of them had a good answer
Speaker 1: for how that happens. I mean, how do you tender
Speaker 1: exculpatory material that's in a police report without tendering the
Speaker 1: police report. So that's another aspect of all this is
Speaker 1: that they were withheld under the fig leaf that this
Speaker 1: was work product, which actually had some sort of legal
Speaker 1: fig leaf to cover it. Now, what's interesting is that
Speaker 1: we know from later on that the withheld evidence was
Speaker 1: the viewing of the witnesses of Harvell as the other shooter.
Speaker 1: So this was a videotape. Well, under any in the law,
Speaker 1: a videotape cannot be considered work product, but police reports ken.
Speaker 1: So the police reports that were exculpatory were tendered to
Speaker 1: the prosecutors. They weren't Cummings because Cummings had to recuse himself.
Speaker 1: But the trial prosecutors had the police reports, they had
Speaker 1: the exculpatory evidence, but they didn't have the videotape. And
Speaker 1: why was that Well, because back in election season, in
Speaker 1: September of before Walter was reindicted, Cummings took the videotape
Speaker 1: out of evidence, signed it out of evidence and it
Speaker 1: was returned back to the police locker back and guess
Speaker 1: what the date was that that was returned back into
Speaker 1: the evidence locker. It was the exact same afternoon that
Speaker 1: the judge denied the in camera inspection of the file.
Speaker 1: The prosecutors would not have had the fig leaf of
Speaker 1: not giving over the lineup video. They did have the
Speaker 1: fig leaf of not giving over the police reports. So
Speaker 1: under this work product rule, they were covered from sharing
Speaker 1: the police reports about Kittie being identified as the driver's
Speaker 1: side shooter. But the videotape of that identification procedure, which
Speaker 1: would fall under non work product evidence, was technically not
Speaker 1: hidden because Cummings, who had recused himself, had taken it
Speaker 1: out of the evidence locker. So now two of the
Speaker 1: most important critical piece of evidence in this case that
Speaker 1: point to who actually committed this crime. We're out of play.
Speaker 1: So Walter was charged with the murder as well as
Speaker 1: attempted carjacking and robbery. You know, those other two charges
Speaker 1: related to the motive that Kittie Harvell had invented, A
Speaker 1: motive that made no sense considering that Walter owned six
Speaker 1: or seven cars already and had more than enough money
Speaker 1: to buy whatever he wanted. Now, David Puckett and Paula
Speaker 1: Mariice Roberts were the prosecutors in this case, and Walter
Speaker 1: was represented by Mark Maynard. So I'm almost afraid to
Speaker 1: ask what upened at the trial. At the trial, the
Speaker 1: state presented the eyewitness testimony, so the incredibly suggestive I
Speaker 1: witness identification came in against Walter. Kaid testified against Walter,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately the jury never heard the Romeo Lee confession,
Speaker 1: even though he came forward a couple of months before
Speaker 1: the trial. Cummings indicted Romeo for the murder, but that
Speaker 1: happened right before Walter's trial, and when they tried to
Speaker 1: call Romeo as a witness, he took the fifth and
Speaker 1: the confession never came into evidence. Now, that would have
Speaker 1: been incredibly helpful to Walter as well, for the jury
Speaker 1: to know that his brother, who looks like him and
Speaker 1: everyone said looks like him, confessed to doing it with Kaide,
Speaker 1: the state's witness. And of course at trial, the jury
Speaker 1: also didn't know that Kaydie Harboll had been identified by
Speaker 1: the other state's witnesses as one of the shooters. So
Speaker 1: the jury heard Kadi identify Walter as the driver's side
Speaker 1: shooter and Romeo as the passenger's side shooter, but then
Speaker 1: the rest of the state's witnesses identified Walter as the
Speaker 1: passengers side shooter because he looks like Romeo. And it's
Speaker 1: never pointed out the jury that Kitty was identified as
Speaker 1: a driver's side shooter because the prosecution kept that to themselves.
Speaker 1: It's too bad the evidence that would have exposed the
Speaker 1: lies and made it all make sense, all of it
Speaker 1: was either hidden or not admitted as evidence. No. Now,
Speaker 1: something happened outside of the trial that I need to
Speaker 1: mention here. Walter's brother, Lamont, who we haven't really talked about.
Speaker 1: On October three, he was at the party and Kittie
Speaker 1: pulled him into the situation. In his statement to Cummings,
Speaker 1: so as soon as Lamont landed to testify on Walter's behalf,
Speaker 1: Lamont was arrested. He never had to testify against Walter,
Speaker 1: but he was coerced into a plea bargain corroborating Kitie's statement.
Speaker 1: So this was not part of trial, but it kept
Speaker 1: his alibi testimony out of trial. What about the other
Speaker 1: alibi witnesses? So Walter presented several alibi witnesses, you know,
Speaker 1: but this is not something where you know, he's on
Speaker 1: on video, but he is at a party with you know, friends,
Speaker 1: and one of the witnesses they did sort of trip
Speaker 1: her up in that she testified she took a flight
Speaker 1: and she was confused about which airline she took, and
Speaker 1: there was some impeachment about that. One of the other
Speaker 1: reasons why I believe that Walter was convicted and why
Speaker 1: they didn't believe the alibi was because one of the
Speaker 1: alibi witnesses, a woman by the name of Linda Phelps,
Speaker 1: you know, happened to be friends with Kaydie Harvel and
Speaker 1: before trial she came off of her statement that Walter
Speaker 1: was at at this party, which undercut his alibi defense. Well,
Speaker 1: the problem is there was a police report that was
Speaker 1: withheld from evidence that indicated that before she flipped, Kaid
Speaker 1: had a conversation with her, which then miraculously then she
Speaker 1: comes off of her alibi. So really anything like that
Speaker 1: that can sort of chip away at an alibi when
Speaker 1: you're staring at five eye witnesses, you know, and no,
Speaker 1: no confession that was introduced, no evidence the eye witnesses
Speaker 1: were identifying the other states witnessed Kittie r L And
Speaker 1: it's hard for a jury to overcome that. Ultimately, Walter
Speaker 1: was convicted by the jury of murder, attempted murder, attempted carjacking,
Speaker 1: and attempted robbery in December twenty one, sentenced about a
Speaker 1: month later on January seventy six to a hundred and
Speaker 1: ten years in prison. So a life sentence. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: was wow. Jeez. Let's go to the verdict first, then
Speaker 1: we go to citizen because both of them was really painful.
Speaker 1: So they found me guilty. I'm I'm I'm living, to
Speaker 1: say the least, very perplexed about not only all the
Speaker 1: money I spent in it, not only the fact that
Speaker 1: you're innocent, you know, it's it's the fact that, like
Speaker 1: where is justice sentizens Like thirty days later, citizen came up.
Speaker 1: I didn't go. You just found me good to someone.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear nothing else I got to say, so,
Speaker 1: they said. My lawyer to the deal. He said, I
Speaker 1: need you to be in court for I can make
Speaker 1: this motion most to just miss the verdict, and a'most
Speaker 1: for the judge to step aside. After that, if you
Speaker 1: decided to leave, find you let the judge you know
Speaker 1: you want to leave, It's okay, I agree to that.
Speaker 1: I go over there, I walk in. The judge makes
Speaker 1: it loves before the post. Citizen. Is anything you'd like
Speaker 1: to say, Mr County, Yes I would, Johnny, I would
Speaker 1: like to let you the court that prosecy right there,
Speaker 1: my lawyer, my prime Ustcar, everybody here. No, I'm not
Speaker 1: guilty this crime, I said. I don't care. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter how much time you give me. I'm a spend
Speaker 1: every day of it proved minuses. I said, this time,
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear the verdict. I'd like to
Speaker 1: go back to myself. Whatever time you're gonna give me,
Speaker 1: you're gonna give me, I don't care if you gave
Speaker 1: me sixty or you gave me hunt the ten. And
Speaker 1: I'm not good for none of it. In sixteen years
Speaker 1: of being in prison, sixteen and a half years for
Speaker 1: me that he lived the lifestyle I lived in all that.
Speaker 1: I didn't have no one fight in sixteen half years here,
Speaker 1: not one on My beef is not with no inmate,
Speaker 1: my beef with the system. I did my whole time
Speaker 1: law line, berries, digging, in researching cases. Man was my
Speaker 1: second home. I didn't get into the prison politics and
Speaker 1: the things that going on in prison, with the games
Speaker 1: and the playing cars and this shoe dice and and
Speaker 1: smoke sick wrests time. But when they stopped smoking cigarettes
Speaker 1: in there, they gave us heads up that they're gonna quit.
Speaker 1: And the August they told January first, no more cigarettes
Speaker 1: in Mexican City Prison nine. When they cut out the cigarettes,
Speaker 1: I saw the opportunity that we got the black market.
Speaker 1: What I do. I took a whole bunch of cartons stash.
Speaker 1: I dig holes everywhere. I had hold, dug all around
Speaker 1: the prison. Why hold I had used to work in
Speaker 1: the kitchen, I had it. I had cards all in
Speaker 1: the ceiling up in the man. I stasped all the
Speaker 1: way to January and look I didn't break him out
Speaker 1: of January. I didn't break up my tolight April mate.
Speaker 1: But when I broke him out, WHOA, we talked about
Speaker 1: a hundred dolls of pack of cigarettes. You talk five
Speaker 1: for one cigarette. They take the one cigarette down and
Speaker 1: break it down in five cigarettes two dollars apiece. So
Speaker 1: that's what that's really what I got. The bulk of
Speaker 1: my money for my attorney fees, I paid for like
Speaker 1: four attorneys in there. But the bulk of my attorney
Speaker 1: fees came from tobacco sales. Ain't lots of tobacco sales,
Speaker 1: So tobacco sales made up to walter Gallery defense fund.
Speaker 1: But you also did a lot of your appeals on
Speaker 1: your own pro say, And it's crazy, though not unbelievable
Speaker 1: in our system, but still crazy that with how all
Speaker 1: of the evidence had come out during your brother's trial,
Speaker 1: even then, it's still took another sixteen years. The Romeoly
Speaker 1: trial was the unraveling of Walter's conviction. Ultimately, although it
Speaker 1: took a long time, the state put on a case
Speaker 1: against Romeo Lee heavily reliant on his confession. And remember
Speaker 1: that confession was that Kaide and Romeo did the did
Speaker 1: the shooting. But you know, they presented the same evidence
Speaker 1: that they presented against Walter, and that's with the eyewitnesses
Speaker 1: putting Walter as the passenger side shooter, even though romeo
Speaker 1: confession was that he was on the passenger side, So
Speaker 1: there was some something for him to argue, at least
Speaker 1: at that trial. But it was during that trial that
Speaker 1: during the cross examination of Steve Napier, they learned that
Speaker 1: Kaydie Harvel was identified by these states witnesses as the
Speaker 1: other shooter. So it wasn't enough to you know, cause
Speaker 1: a knock guilty and Romeo's trial, but the attorney for
Speaker 1: Romeo Lee did give that evidence to Mark Maynard. I
Speaker 1: should also note that the lineups Natalie consisted of three
Speaker 1: of the state's witnesses identifying Kaydie Harvel as the shooter.
Speaker 1: But Damon Nunn, who was the attempt murder victim and
Speaker 1: was an eyewitness who identified Walter as one of the shooters,
Speaker 1: um when he was shown the lineups with Kaydie Harvell,
Speaker 1: he identified a filler in that lineup as one of
Speaker 1: the shooters. So obviously that's going to destroy Nun's credibility
Speaker 1: or reliability as well. When he identifies a Filler as
Speaker 1: one of the shooters. Romeo's lawyer recovered his evidence. It
Speaker 1: turned it over to recipes to Saron Clark. A matter
Speaker 1: of fact, she didn't have to do that because she
Speaker 1: had been watching my whole trial or my lawyers were
Speaker 1: really cool, so she knew very much about the case.
Speaker 1: So she's like, wait a minute, Mark never had this.
Speaker 1: This is gonna help mysticality. So now Romeo Lee's attorney
Speaker 1: gives Mark Maynard these withheld police reports. Mark Maynard had
Speaker 1: been representing Walter and direct appeal as well. He tried
Speaker 1: to get this into the record on direct appeal. That
Speaker 1: didn't work. My lawyer, he says it this pre course
Speaker 1: and trying to mend my pew. Now, mind you end
Speaker 1: appeal here, lest that the prosecutor withheld the sculptor evidence
Speaker 1: here leaves this without having a proof. Now he got
Speaker 1: the proof, mind you, When he first got the proof,
Speaker 1: he said on them for two weeks because he dealing
Speaker 1: it with his father's death, so he weren't doing nothing.
Speaker 1: And I understood that. You know, he had to do
Speaker 1: with father's death and all that. So here goes our time.
Speaker 1: Now when you send it up to the courts as
Speaker 1: you send it up, the decisions coming down already denied,
Speaker 1: and the decision you deny it because you said that
Speaker 1: he's a legend that this happened, but he had no
Speaker 1: proof of it. But the proof is on your desk now,
Speaker 1: but you are denied it. The court said, no, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have to a post conviction. So Walter is left
Speaker 1: alone here. He has to file a pro se post
Speaker 1: conviction petition saying that these Brady materials should give him
Speaker 1: a new trial, and he was appointed a new council
Speaker 1: public defender named Sharon Faye. Now you would think that
Speaker 1: when the original judge would hear about all these shenanigans,
Speaker 1: Walter would have been immediately given a new trial and
Speaker 1: never prosecuted again. But no, it took six years and
Speaker 1: an evidentry hearing before the judge finally denied the post
Speaker 1: conviction petition. And then you would think an appellate court
Speaker 1: would step in and say, well, that's wrong, that didn't happen.
Speaker 1: Indiana Supreme Court denied. We'll go to federal court. Federal
Speaker 1: courts have to take this seriously, right, Nope, pro sed
Speaker 1: federal habeas corpus petition denied. If you don't have a degree,
Speaker 1: they don't honor up nobody like you and me just
Speaker 1: coming there and just know all a lot to them,
Speaker 1: like it's a slap in the face for was it
Speaker 1: with the school all them years? Bus they but to
Speaker 1: get the degree? You're gonna come here reciting all the
Speaker 1: same thing. They know they're gonna honor you know. As
Speaker 1: one of our guest host, Patrick Presley likes to say,
Speaker 1: pro say gets no play. They will rarely, not never,
Speaker 1: but rarely ever gave you the time of day if
Speaker 1: you don't have a lawyer. So how does this turn around?
Speaker 1: What happened next? His last shot is his pro say
Speaker 1: attempt to get this overturned in the Seventh Circuit, And
Speaker 1: thankfully the Seventh Circuit appointed him counsel from a big
Speaker 1: law firm, and this attorney was able to convince the
Speaker 1: Seventh Circuit that he received an unfair trial. On the
Speaker 1: Seventh Circuit reversed his conviction after Walter did about sixteen
Speaker 1: years wrongfully in prison. It never ceases to amaze me
Speaker 1: that the defendant could present such clear Brady violations exculpatory
Speaker 1: materials that completely destroy the state's case at trial. And
Speaker 1: prove their claims of actual innocence along with ineffective assistance
Speaker 1: of council claims. I mean Mark Maynard even told Walter
Speaker 1: to pursue that claim since he was in fact ineffective
Speaker 1: at getting that confession and the identifications of Katie as
Speaker 1: the driver's side shooter into court. So with that evidence,
Speaker 1: no reasonable juror would have convicted Walter. Yet every court
Speaker 1: along the way bent over backwards, fell over themselves to
Speaker 1: ignore this wrongful conviction in favor of I can only
Speaker 1: guess here the finality of judgment and the sacrosag jury
Speaker 1: verdict not to mention covering for their colleagues in the
Speaker 1: prosecutor's office. And in fact, Cummings is currently seeking a
Speaker 1: seventh term and running unopposed in I don't know what
Speaker 1: could be done about that, but it really is sickening.
Speaker 1: So sixteen years it took for a court to finally
Speaker 1: accept the evidence that they used to convict his brother
Speaker 1: Romeo in another trial that was shortly after his own.
Speaker 1: It's just disgusting, let's face it, there's no other word
Speaker 1: for it. But this ruling came down in May, and
Speaker 1: your lawyer at that time was Andrew Curitas. Remember Richard
Speaker 1: is Walter's civil attorney. But Walter tell us, what do
Speaker 1: you remember about that moment when you got the news. Oh,
Speaker 1: this is one of the best days in my life.
Speaker 1: Right here, I get a legal male may fil down
Speaker 1: order come down. You got is to give him a
Speaker 1: new trial or release him. Now, I think I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go home any days, but they're still playing hardball. I'm in, honey.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm counting down days. Every every day I'm
Speaker 1: watup thinking for the common Dame. Any day. Now, I
Speaker 1: think they're gonna say, you know what, let him go
Speaker 1: on a hunted and twentieth day. I got to be
Speaker 1: going home this morning. I wouldn't gave my phone to
Speaker 1: my neighbor. I gave all my all my commissary way
Speaker 1: and gave anything design a twenty day. I ain't the trial.
Speaker 1: I asked my neighbor back to my let me see
Speaker 1: my phone, like quick call the lawyer. He said, be patient,
Speaker 1: I work with and talk to him right now if
Speaker 1: we file the targets and said they're gonna take his trial.
Speaker 1: He said he talked to the prosecutor and asked the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: what did you see in this case that you said,
Speaker 1: I didn't see nothing. That's the problem. They just handled
Speaker 1: the case, and I didn't want to just drop it.
Speaker 1: So the Madison County prosecutor was Rodney Cummings. When this
Speaker 1: thing was reversed and sent back to the lower court
Speaker 1: for a new trial, the judge, you know, ordered that
Speaker 1: a new prosecutor's office should look at it, and so
Speaker 1: an independent prosecutor named Barry Brown from a different county
Speaker 1: looked at this and he was the one who finally
Speaker 1: decided to drop the charges. And I will say that
Speaker 1: Rodney Cummings was quoted as saying at the time that
Speaker 1: Mr Brown didn't have the guts to retry Walter whoa
Speaker 1: the guts right after the I don't even know how
Speaker 1: to dignify that with words. After the evidence that they
Speaker 1: had at the time of trial completely shredded this guy's theory,
Speaker 1: he's still holding onto it almost three decades later. You know,
Speaker 1: if it's not too late, I really wish somebody would
Speaker 1: run against him. You could hit him over the head
Speaker 1: with his own words all the way into the prosecutor's
Speaker 1: office this fall. But we're running out of time. The
Speaker 1: citizens of Madison County really do deserve better. Walter certainly
Speaker 1: did so Brown dismissed the charges in January. I remember
Speaker 1: January thirteen, two times twelve, like I remember like it
Speaker 1: was yesterday. I got that phone call from Richard let
Speaker 1: me know all Chares dismissed. We ready to go with
Speaker 1: the loss, and he found my lawsuit the very next day.
Speaker 1: He had already been pairing for the lawsuit because he
Speaker 1: was the one laurder that was willing to take my
Speaker 1: case without it being all the way resolved. He bled
Speaker 1: the case. So thanks to Richard, the civil suit was
Speaker 1: filed immediately, But of course these things are rarely resolved immediately.
Speaker 1: At the time, Indiana didn't even have a compensation statute.
Speaker 1: Now now they do, and there's something not so good
Speaker 1: about it because it forces innocent men and women to
Speaker 1: waive their right to civil litigation if they accept the compensation.
Speaker 1: To me, this just adds insult to injury, and I
Speaker 1: hope that it's corrected soon, along with that ridiculous work
Speaker 1: product rule, which we should just call call it legalized
Speaker 1: or legitimized Brady violations. I believe there's a movement on
Speaker 1: both sides of those issues that we fully support that
Speaker 1: So as far as Walters civil suit is concerned, the U. S.
Speaker 1: District Court denied it, but in May the Seventh Circuits
Speaker 1: stepped up again and reinstated the lawsuits. So in April
Speaker 1: Walter settled his lawsuit. But let's face it, there's no
Speaker 1: amount of money that would ever make up for the
Speaker 1: lost time with loved ones. First, I want to say,
Speaker 1: I think it's very unfair that he's prosecutor uh and
Speaker 1: detectives are able to pull something like this off and
Speaker 1: get away with just giving a little bit of money
Speaker 1: and it's over, you know. I mean, like you get
Speaker 1: some years like my I would imprison the new father.
Speaker 1: My oldest was number three years old. I came by
Speaker 1: to grandfather. I can't get them the years back. I
Speaker 1: dontay how much money you getting there, can't get them back, kids, graduations,
Speaker 1: their birthdays. I can't. I can't get that back there.
Speaker 1: It actually destroyed my ability to be a really affective father.
Speaker 1: Their minds are made up already in life with life
Speaker 1: means to them. I don't even know what to say.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can only imagine through the lens of
Speaker 1: my relationship with my own kids, and it just breaks
Speaker 1: my heart. What about your brothers. I mean, Romeo is
Speaker 1: still inside. I'm sure you'll probably take this opportunity to
Speaker 1: visit them. But what about Lamont, the brother that they
Speaker 1: coerced into a plea that corroborated Kitie statement. Do you
Speaker 1: think you'd be able to put that behind you and reconnect?
Speaker 1: Listen my fluid the test file for me and the
Speaker 1: rest of him on the spot and said that Katie
Speaker 1: said he's involved and just had a charge on him.
Speaker 1: He said in the jail when they found me guilty,
Speaker 1: and I'm no one with the money now, so he
Speaker 1: don't have a lawyer in the no money. He didn't
Speaker 1: want to take the chance the game police bargain of
Speaker 1: five years probation to say that what Katie said was correct,
Speaker 1: that he was there and he watched it. He didn't
Speaker 1: have test fied to this because I already convicted. I'm
Speaker 1: already gone. Matter of fact, nobody in the family has
Speaker 1: seen her from m since then, because it was all
Speaker 1: piste off of him for doing that, like why would
Speaker 1: you do that? It's almost like you coroberating Katie story.
Speaker 1: But I understood his part. I haven't been able to
Speaker 1: talk to him and let him know dude, listen, I'm
Speaker 1: not mad at you. I understood that's a big chance
Speaker 1: to take right there, and he took the police bargain
Speaker 1: that he Since nobody in the family seen him, we
Speaker 1: don't know where he at. Again, I just reaching out
Speaker 1: to leave you. No, I wasn't mad at gave up
Speaker 1: on reaching out because I don't want to think I
Speaker 1: was reaching out trying to look for you or nothing.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean, Like it ain't it ain't
Speaker 1: that serious. I'm just havy to be home. Wow. So
Speaker 1: Lamont or if anyone knows Lamont, please let him know.
Speaker 1: Make the most out of the time you both have left.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have Walter socials linked in the bio reach
Speaker 1: out to him. Walter also has a podcast that will
Speaker 1: link to and with that we're going to go to
Speaker 1: closing arguments. This is of course a part of the
Speaker 1: show where I thank you both for joining us and
Speaker 1: sharing your story. And now I'm going to turn my
Speaker 1: microphone off, kick back in my chair and just listen
Speaker 1: to anything you feel is left to be said. Richard,
Speaker 1: let's start with you and Walter take us on home.
Speaker 1: So there's been a lot of talk about you know,
Speaker 1: Rodney Cummings, and people may have the impression that, well,
Speaker 1: this is sort of a one bad apple situation. But
Speaker 1: the real problem here is that time and again there
Speaker 1: were numerous people involved in the in the judicial system
Speaker 1: who could have stopped this. From the judge initially who
Speaker 1: could have forced the review of the prosecutor's file so
Speaker 1: that the withholding wouldn't have happened in the first place,
Speaker 1: to the trial prosecutors going along with this withholding, to
Speaker 1: the trial judge again once they learned about this withholding
Speaker 1: not correcting this wrong. To the Indiana appellate courts who
Speaker 1: could have stopped this, To the Indiana Supreme Court who
Speaker 1: could have stopped this. The federal Havius Corpus judge could
Speaker 1: have stopped this. We shouldn't have to rely on the
Speaker 1: second highest court in in in the land of Federal
Speaker 1: court to right these wrongs. Uh. These should be corrected
Speaker 1: immediately in the lower courts, but they're not, unfortunately, and
Speaker 1: in Indiana, not only in Walter's case, but in in
Speaker 1: in other Indiana cases. Time and again, these wrongs are
Speaker 1: not corrected, UH in a timely manner. The people who
Speaker 1: come as crossed these wrong for convictions need to step
Speaker 1: up and not just allow it to happen, and they
Speaker 1: need to do it quickly to make sure it gets
Speaker 1: done in a timely matter, not sixteen years later. I
Speaker 1: do appreciate you all give me the opportunity now I
Speaker 1: feel that. And no amount of money they give me,
Speaker 1: no amount of money they gave me, no mount of
Speaker 1: money to give me form me on now. It's gonna
Speaker 1: take back all the years this spunk kids life. That's
Speaker 1: the biggest thing for me. My kids, like, uh, anything
Speaker 1: they do for me now, it's gonna be for my
Speaker 1: baby securing their futures, you know what I mean. Make
Speaker 1: sure they got the right account set up, put insurances
Speaker 1: on us if something happened, make sure I got insurance.
Speaker 1: So make sure my family don't have to be out
Speaker 1: there with a bucket on the corner trying to bury me.
Speaker 1: If you know when I when I passed, I went out.
Speaker 1: If I passed, I'm gonna pass someday, but when I do,
Speaker 1: to make sure they ain't gotta struggle in and try
Speaker 1: to go and go fund me. I didn't went through
Speaker 1: all this in that boxing there to get out and
Speaker 1: die and can't be buried out here. You know what
Speaker 1: I mean. I know what it is to appreciate. I
Speaker 1: wake up appreciate life. I wake up appreciate my freedom.
Speaker 1: I really do. I wake up appreciate everything about my freedom.
Speaker 1: And I'm free. I'm still free. I don't care if
Speaker 1: I ain't got it right now. I got to dine
Speaker 1: in my pocket. I am free. Thank you for listening
Speaker 1: to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our production team
Speaker 1: Connor Hall, Jeff Claver, and Kevin Wardis, with research by
Speaker 1: Lila Robinson. The music in this production was supplied by
Speaker 1: three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to
Speaker 1: follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as
Speaker 1: well as at Lava for Good. On all three platforms.
Speaker 1: You can also follow me on both TikTok and Instagram
Speaker 1: at It's Jason flom Raleful Conviction is the production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number
Speaker 1: one one on