Speaker 1: On October third, nineteen ninety three, Walter Gowdy threw a
Speaker 1: party at his Indianapolis home. His half brother Romeo Lee,
Speaker 1: and their shorter friend Kiti Harvell drove one of Walter's
Speaker 1: cars to an after hours club in Anderson, Indiana. After
Speaker 1: an altercation outside, Romeo approached a car on the passenger
Speaker 1: side and Kitie was on the driver side. The driver
Speaker 1: was fatally shot and a passenger was wounded. Witnesses described
Speaker 1: the driver side shooter as shorter than the other. Months later,
Speaker 1: Walter Gowdy was the same after hours club in the
Speaker 1: same car and picked up by Detective Rodney Cummings, who
Speaker 1: put him into a one man show up where Walter
Speaker 1: was 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 ID and his strong alibi,
Speaker 1: the charges were dropped, which did not sit well with
Speaker 1: Detective Cummings. When Kytie Harvell was later i indeed 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 side. Detective
Speaker 1: Cummings ran for District Attorney one and reindicted Walter. Despite
Speaker 1: Romeo's confession naming Kite 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 Kite, who placed Walter in his place on the
Speaker 1: driver 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 going back
Speaker 1: and forth. You're like, wait, what what? Like you just
Speaker 1: got going to believe the way this case unfolded and
Speaker 1: how the system, I'm going to be generous and say,
Speaker 1: made mistake after mistake and then compounded their mistakes, and
Speaker 1: then even when the mistakes were corrected, they made sure
Speaker 1: to 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 got to tell you, but we're here with the
Speaker 1: man who survived this ordeal, Walter Guadi Walter, I'm so
Speaker 1: sorry you're here because of why you're here, but I'm
Speaker 1: really honored that you're here to tell your story.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it very much. So appreciate it.
Speaker 1: And with him is his civil attorney, Richard Devorak. 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.
Speaker 3: Thank you for the invitation. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: So this is an Indiana story, which we're hearing more
Speaker 1: and more about lately, as more wrongful convictions and prosecutor
Speaker 1: must conducted police corruption are being wrecked, not only in
Speaker 1: Indiana but all over the country. But before we get
Speaker 1: into how that affects your case, Walter, I want to
Speaker 1: go back to before all of that happened. Now, you
Speaker 1: were born in Chicago, but you grew up out West.
Speaker 1: Is that right?
Speaker 2: Okay? I grew up in Los Angeles, myself and my
Speaker 2: three siblings. My mom's up and moved moved away from
Speaker 2: our father's But I grew up in Los Angeles during
Speaker 2: the heyday of the gang banging and the drugs. That's
Speaker 2: all we had to do to get by.
Speaker 1: You 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?
Speaker 2: Never smoked a joint none in his life. He provided
Speaker 2: himself on that. He's a real cool guy. He's really loyal,
Speaker 2: but he gets angry really quick. Romeo is the one
Speaker 2: that you go get with us. Drama is they want
Speaker 2: to fight out here, We're going to get Romeo. Growing up,
Speaker 2: we both took martial arts, both took boxing. We both
Speaker 2: started gang banging out there. No father figure. My mail
Speaker 2: figures consist of the older guys in the streets. We
Speaker 2: didn't have the people that tells you you could be somebody.
Speaker 1: And the guys doing well out there were selling.
Speaker 2: Drugs exactly exactly. We see the guy with the big Cadillac.
Speaker 2: He always got the money, he got the jury, he
Speaker 2: got the girls slot there. We want to be like that.
Speaker 2: Me being the oldest, I felt in coming upon me
Speaker 2: to get out there and make something for my siblings.
Speaker 2: You know what I mean. I saw selling drugs really young,
Speaker 2: like thirteen years old. So I get a hold to Indiana.
Speaker 2: I say, when I turned like twenty one. A friend
Speaker 2: of mine was out there telling me how much the
Speaker 2: drugs is going for, you know, So I came out
Speaker 2: there and visit and found out, yeah, yeah, more expensive
Speaker 2: Indiana than they are in California.
Speaker 1: So you saw this as an opportunity and started taking
Speaker 1: the risk. You know, there was a lot of risk,
Speaker 1: let's face it, of transporting the drugs from California to
Speaker 1: Indiana in order to reap the reward of a higher
Speaker 1: profit margin. And despite a few arrests, including one in
Speaker 1: Saint Louis from marijuana possession that had an effect, as
Speaker 1: it turns out on this case, the risk had paid off,
Speaker 1: at least temporarily. You made a lot of money, owned
Speaker 1: a home, had multiple cars, and we're investing in legitimate businesses.
Speaker 1: You had your own nightclub. But before we go any further,
Speaker 1: can you tell us a little bit about this one
Speaker 1: character who you met in Indiana with the interesting name
Speaker 1: Kytie Harvell.
Speaker 2: I only had new Kittie like five months before this
Speaker 2: all this happened. Titi is okay Laurna Smith, which is
Speaker 2: my girlfriend at the time. Her brother was locked up
Speaker 2: and her brother best friend was Kitty Harvell. Me and
Speaker 2: her brother became real cool like my brother in law.
Speaker 2: He let me know one day, Man, my god, you
Speaker 2: ain't get out now, don't you look out for him?
Speaker 2: Kydie got out. I'll take him shopping. I'll take him
Speaker 2: on my under my wing. Started him hang with me
Speaker 2: all the time. You know, we become best of friends.
Speaker 2: I felt that he really was a genuine guy. I mean,
Speaker 2: I just did. I don't know. I don't know how
Speaker 2: I got sold to seat. And that's what really the problem.
Speaker 2: My brother got me now because my brother didn't even
Speaker 2: know him. My brother just called herself having his back
Speaker 2: because he's my guy. So now he find his stuff
Speaker 2: in prison with one hundred ten years. Now we're trying
Speaker 2: to help my guy who turned out to be a scumback,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, for lack of a better term.
Speaker 1: Right, I'm sure you probably feel some degree of guilt
Speaker 1: for even putting those two together. But your brother did
Speaker 1: what he did, and at least he came forward instead
Speaker 1: of lying about you like Kydi did. Now there's one
Speaker 1: more thing to cover, which bears heavily on this case.
Speaker 1: Kiti is about five to eight look and looks nothing
Speaker 1: like you and Romeo, who are both over six feet tall.
Speaker 1: And let's face it, you share a mother, your family.
Speaker 1: You guys look similar.
Speaker 2: Yeah we do, Yeah we do. We get a lot
Speaker 2: even to this day, and were both balked now, so
Speaker 2: we really get it now.
Speaker 1: And this is important because it really comes up the
Speaker 1: identification process in this case, because you have people identifying
Speaker 1: you in your brother Romeo's role on the passenger side
Speaker 1: of the car, and then Kitie and perhaps the police
Speaker 1: tried to create and capitalize on some confusion around there
Speaker 1: being two shooters, one short, one tall on which side
Speaker 1: of a car. So let's get to that. The night
Speaker 1: of October third, nineteen eighty three, you were hosting a
Speaker 1: party at your home in Indianautlis Now tell us how
Speaker 1: the rest of the night played out, and Richard, feel
Speaker 1: free to jump in whatever you want.
Speaker 2: So October third, I thow a party in Annapolis. Nice party,
Speaker 2: big party, a lot of way. He's smoking, drinking, hanging party.
Speaker 2: It no miles party. During the party, my brother in Harvelle.
Speaker 2: They left went to a club and which is like
Speaker 2: thirty forty five minutes they go there in Anderson, Indiana.
Speaker 2: Altercation occurred outside of the club. I later found out
Speaker 2: they was in one of my cars. At the time,
Speaker 2: I had like six cars. I'm ready in the cars.
Speaker 2: The altercation occurred with Kyti and the victim, Missus McLeod
Speaker 2: shooting the curve and Rom your assistant in the shooting.
Speaker 2: It had nothing to do with a car jack and
Speaker 2: that's the story Kyte made up. I later found out
Speaker 2: through my brother and again again I had several cars
Speaker 2: and I wouldn't need to, you know, be involved, nothing
Speaker 2: like that. But they had this incident. They agreed not
Speaker 2: to tell me about it because I'll be upset. I
Speaker 2: do absolute nothing about this case.
Speaker 3: So there was a shooting at a club called the
Speaker 3: Oasis and Anderson, Indiana. There were two shooters ran up
Speaker 3: on a car that was parked in the parking lot
Speaker 3: outside of the Oasis, and one shooter was a shorter
Speaker 3: person and he was up on the driver side and
Speaker 3: there was a taller suspect on the passenger side. The
Speaker 3: occupants of the vehicle were a Marvin McLeod who was
Speaker 3: in the driver's seat, Damon Nunn who was in the
Speaker 3: passenger seat, and then Jill Barkley who was in the
Speaker 3: back seat. So mister McLeod, unfortunately and tragically was shot
Speaker 3: and died, and mister Nunn was shot, but he survived
Speaker 3: and ended up being a witness in this case. So
Speaker 3: there was no suspect. Originally, this went on for several
Speaker 3: months with no suspect. There was some heat from the
Speaker 3: NAACP and other organizations, and there's some pressure to solve
Speaker 3: the case. So fast forward to February of nineteen ninety four.
Speaker 3: Walt was actually at the Oasis and there was someone in,
Speaker 3: an employee of Oasis, who said, oh, that person you
Speaker 3: know looks familiar. They thought that maybe he might have
Speaker 3: been one of the people involved. Now, that person never
Speaker 3: testified a trial, never identified him or anything. That just
Speaker 3: that's what got their attention. And obviously it'd be pretty
Speaker 3: logical to show up at the place where you did
Speaker 3: the shooting.
Speaker 4: In the same car, no less in the same car,
Speaker 4: in the same car some of there playing pool and
Speaker 4: here comes two officers ask me, see smady, you asked
Speaker 4: some step outside sound was identified as being someone who's
Speaker 4: evolved in a shooting in October, which you will to
Speaker 4: come down to the station for a lineup.
Speaker 1: So at this point we've already established that you knew
Speaker 1: nothing about this crime, but you did something that later
Speaker 1: really seemed to get under the skin of Detective Rodney Cummings.
Speaker 1: You gave him an alias James Benneman in order to
Speaker 1: avoid the warrant that I mentioned earlier out of Saint
Speaker 1: Louis from marijuana possession. So continue, you go down to
Speaker 1: the station for this lineup, right.
Speaker 2: I go to the station. They put me in that
Speaker 2: room by myself. There was one way mirror glass. He
Speaker 2: come back in the area, he tells me I was identified. Possible. Impossible,
Speaker 2: they don't. I'm not arrested, but they put me in
Speaker 2: a jail suit like forty five minutes later. This time
Speaker 2: they put me in a full lineup with five people.
Speaker 2: This time me and five people, because the witness knew
Speaker 2: four of the other people it was in the lineup.
Speaker 2: The people that's identified, it's Senaport 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 suggestive. I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: why were you released at that time that caught?
Speaker 2: Would me still be an adamant that it wasn't me
Speaker 2: willing to submit to a polygraph. I gave him all
Speaker 2: cell phone numbers. I gave him my page you number.
Speaker 2: I gave my address to well I'm located at all that.
Speaker 2: So he told me he was willing to let me
Speaker 2: go this on Friday. He's willing to let me go
Speaker 2: come back Monday when he gets some more witnesses that
Speaker 2: he can put me in more lineups. Had me agree
Speaker 2: to come back Monday. When I agreed, I agreed. But however,
Speaker 2: I gave you aliens name because I had warrant by
Speaker 2: the Saint Louis had marijuana on the highway, so I
Speaker 2: gave him a fake name. Had they ran my princes,
Speaker 2: I wasn't going nowhere. So by Monday you knew who
Speaker 2: I was because you went on the random prince. You
Speaker 2: knew I was. Now you know I had to warrant. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you're not who you say you were. So Monday I
Speaker 2: call him, I said, I ain't got transtation, can you
Speaker 2: come pick me up? I don't worry about we be
Speaker 2: in touch. Tuesday that came kicked the door into my
Speaker 2: girlfriend house, arrested me, did another lineup.
Speaker 3: They tried to do an official lineup, and they do
Speaker 3: a second lineup. This one didn't involve people that she
Speaker 3: knew by that time, though. It's ridiculous because she obviously
Speaker 3: know who she picked out originally. And then to charge
Speaker 3: Walter with the murder. But Walter was at a party
Speaker 3: in Indianapolis, and he had sixteen alibi witnesses, and you.
Speaker 1: Had, let's face it, you had no clue about what
Speaker 1: happened in Anderson. But your brother, who was locked up
Speaker 1: in Arizona unrelated charge, had found out that you are
Speaker 1: now in jail for a murder in which he played
Speaker 1: a role, and he eventually officially confessed before you went
Speaker 1: to trial. Unfortunately, that confession was never heard by your jury.
Speaker 1: But could you tell us about when you first found
Speaker 1: out about your brother's involvement.
Speaker 2: When I first got locked up, I was in there
Speaker 2: maybe two weeks. No idea. While I'm here, this sounds crazy.
Speaker 2: I know I haven't done that much wrong in the world.
Speaker 2: I know I love a few things, but so Romeo
Speaker 2: calls my girlfriend, my daughter's mother, when she told him
Speaker 2: I was locked up for murder. He liked for murder, Like, yeah,
Speaker 2: they say he shot somebody in Andersy, like you recognize,
Speaker 2: Like he's played my lawyer. Everything happened. My Lord comes
Speaker 2: to visit me, big old smile on his face. I
Speaker 2: know why to think it's you. I still what it
Speaker 2: was your brother in Harvel, because my brother's in Arizona
Speaker 2: locked up. I know I've been on the phone with
Speaker 2: Themorrow Morning.
Speaker 1: Okay, so this is in maybe March of nineteen ninety four,
Speaker 1: but he doesn't officially come forward until December ninety five,
Speaker 1: which is after you were reindicted and about to go
Speaker 1: to trial. And let's be clear, Romeo gave that confession
Speaker 1: against his own self interest. He ended up with a
Speaker 1: one hundred and ten year sentence. So, I mean, talk
Speaker 1: about just going against your own self interest. But it
Speaker 1: finally made sense of your misidentification because, like we said,
Speaker 1: you two are half brothers, and you do look alike.
Speaker 1: But we're getting ahead of ourselves here. At this point,
Speaker 1: all you officially had in your defense, which was enough
Speaker 1: to drop the charges, was sixteen alibi witnesses placing you
Speaker 1: in Indianapolis, the fact that your identification was overly suggestive.
Speaker 1: And then Jill Barkley, the backseat passenger witness, had spotted
Speaker 1: Kitie Harvel in Indianapolis and reported it the court.
Speaker 2: To reports, Kitty was in a Value City one day
Speaker 2: in Indianapolis and the chick that was in the back
Speaker 2: seat of the car when a shoot happened. Seeing they
Speaker 2: locked eyes on each other and she watched him as
Speaker 2: he walked out and she's like, that's the guy. So
Speaker 2: this is her. In a report she mentioned that because
Speaker 2: when they gave him a lineup, she's like, that's the
Speaker 2: guy right there, I seeing the Value City, that's him.
Speaker 2: That's the shooter. That's the shooter that was on the
Speaker 2: driver's side of the car.
Speaker 1: Right So Jill Barklay's identification of Kitie happened in March
Speaker 1: of ninety four along with two other witnesses, Jackie Barclay
Speaker 1: and Latanya Young. Latanya had at one point idd Walter
Speaker 1: as a driver's side shooter, but in March of ninety
Speaker 1: four she was positive it was Kitie. So maybe Latania
Speaker 1: impeaches herself, but Jackie and Jill have been pretty consistent,
Speaker 1: so this likely played heavily into your charges being dropped
Speaker 1: by the prosecutor at the time, Bill Lawler. So then
Speaker 1: you were extradited to Saint Louis for the marijuana possession warrant.
Speaker 3: Rodney Cummings and his partner Steve Navier. They did not
Speaker 3: agree with this decision to drop the charges.
Speaker 2: He wasn't willing to let it go. He didn't want
Speaker 2: to let it go to him. To this day, he
Speaker 2: think I got away to him. I got away with murder.
Speaker 2: I don't know how I got away. I just did
Speaker 2: sixty nineve years for one but two out of had
Speaker 2: him do it at all. His beef for me was
Speaker 2: that I deceived him with the name. He felt that
Speaker 2: I played him. That's his where, that is where to use.
Speaker 2: He said, you played me, but.
Speaker 1: Fake name or not. The prosecutor was simply following the evidence,
Speaker 1: not some personal vendetta. He was doing his job, in
Speaker 1: other words, So while Cummings continued to investigate the case,
Speaker 1: Walter remained on his mind. Now. Despite this positive id,
Speaker 1: Kiti didn't get picked up until June of ninety four
Speaker 1: on an unrelated burglary charge and an interview that was
Speaker 1: not even discovered until civil litigation, Kitie denied being involved
Speaker 1: and gave a bogus alibi. Now, perhaps after looking into that,
Speaker 1: Cummings brought Kitie in for a videotaped live lineup in
Speaker 1: September ninety four and once again and he was positively
Speaker 1: id as the driver side shooter by the three witnesses.
Speaker 1: Now Kitie decided to save himself, and despite the conflict
Speaker 1: between Walter's height and that of the driver side shooter's description,
Speaker 1: Kitie Harvell, who stood only five to eight, said that
Speaker 1: it wasn't him who was the shorter driver side shooter,
Speaker 1: but it was Walter, who is not five eight but
Speaker 1: again over six feet tall. Hard to make that mistake
Speaker 1: and snitched on Romeo as the taller shooter on the
Speaker 1: passenger side. But now with this statement and your charge
Speaker 1: is being dropped. There was a dynamic created between the
Speaker 1: then prosecutor, Bill Lawler and Detective Cummings.
Speaker 3: And Roddy Cummings happened to be a lawyer. He had
Speaker 3: gone to night school while he was a police officer
Speaker 3: to become a lawyer, and he took it upon himself
Speaker 3: to run for the prosecutor's office. It's election season, it's
Speaker 3: the fall of ninety four and lo and behold he wins.
Speaker 3: Detective Cummings now becomes Prosecutor Cummings. And what does Prosecutor
Speaker 3: Cummings do. He turns around and reindictes Walter for the
Speaker 3: charges that the prior prosecutor dismissed. So now we have
Speaker 3: the detective becoming the prosecutor to prosecute a case where
Speaker 3: he was once the detective.
Speaker 1: The PACER's Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode
Speaker 1: of Rawful Conviction and of the Last Mile organization, which
Speaker 1: provides business and tech training to help incarcerated individuals successfully
Speaker 1: and permanently reenter the workforce. The PACER's Foundation is committed
Speaker 1: to improving the lives of Hoosiers across Indiana, supporting organizations
Speaker 1: that are dedicated primarily to helping young people and students.
Speaker 1: For more information on the work of the Pacers Foundation
Speaker 1: or the Last Mile program, visit Pacersfoundation dot org or
Speaker 1: the Last Dot Org.
Speaker 3: When Cummings reindictes Walter, it's on the theory that the
Speaker 3: two shooters are Walter and his brother Romeo Lee, and
Speaker 3: Kyte was a witness.
Speaker 1: To all this.
Speaker 3: Part of the problem, though, is that the state witnesses,
Speaker 3: some of whom identified Walter as one of the possible shooters,
Speaker 3: had identified Kata Harvell as the shooter, and that was
Speaker 3: something that would have completely messed up that theory. So
Speaker 3: what happens is they go to trial and Mark Mayner,
Speaker 3: the original trial attorney, suspected that he was not being
Speaker 3: given all of the police reports, and he did a
Speaker 3: motion to get the police reports and a second motion
Speaker 3: to reconsider a motion for in camera inspection of the
Speaker 3: prosecutor's file to see if there were some police reports
Speaker 3: that he wasn't getting.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: The judge denied it, and Walter went to trial without
Speaker 3: knowing that the state's witnesses had identified Kite Harvel, another
Speaker 3: state's witness, as one of the shooters. But what further
Speaker 3: makes it absolutely impossible that Walter was one of the
Speaker 3: shooters was the fact that during this prosecution, before he
Speaker 3: went to trial, Romeo, his half brother, finally came forward
Speaker 3: and admitted that he was the second shooter, that he
Speaker 3: and Kyte did the shooting. So we have our two shooters.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: That makes all the sense in the world, because the
Speaker 3: physical descriptions in this case were that a shorter gentleman
Speaker 3: was on the driver side and a taller gentleman was
Speaker 3: on the passenger side. Well, Walter and Romeo are both
Speaker 3: tall and they look alike. Kiti Harvel is short. So
Speaker 3: rather than go on what was the truth, and the
Speaker 3: truth is that Romeo lead to the shooting on the
Speaker 3: passenger side and Kitie did the shooting on the driver side. Instead,
Speaker 3: the theory at Walter's trial was that Walter did it
Speaker 3: with Romeo and Kyde was just a witness.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this one with instructions. Right, So you have this shooter,
Speaker 1: Romeo admitting, which is highly unusual before the trial, before
Speaker 1: Walter's trial, that he did it, and he not only
Speaker 1: said that Kyitie 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.
Speaker 3: And unfortunately, the jury never heard the Romeo Lee confession
Speaker 3: because Maynard couldn't figure out how to get it into evidence.
Speaker 3: 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.
Speaker 3: Out, Well, this is another unique thing about this case,
Speaker 3: unique to Indiana. Under Indiana law, the Indiana Supreme Court
Speaker 3: actually ruled this and it still exists today. Police reports
Speaker 3: are considered work product and they do not have to
Speaker 3: be tendered by the state to the defense. Now you
Speaker 3: have to ask, well, they still have to comply with
Speaker 3: the United States Constitution, They have to comply with Brady,
Speaker 3: So how do they do that? Well, I took several
Speaker 3: depositions in this case as part of the civil matter,
Speaker 3: and I asked several prosecutors, and none of them had
Speaker 3: a good answer for how that happens. I mean, how
Speaker 3: do you tender exculpatory material that's in a police report
Speaker 3: without tendering the police report. So that's another aspect of
Speaker 3: all this is that they were withheld under the fig
Speaker 3: leaf that this was work product, which actually had some
Speaker 3: sort of legal fig leaf to cover it. Now, what's
Speaker 3: interesting is that we know from later on that withheld
Speaker 3: evidence was the viewing of the witnesses of Harvel as
Speaker 3: the other shooter, So this was a videotape. Well, under
Speaker 3: any and of law, a videotape cannot be considered work product,
Speaker 3: but police reports can. So the police reports that were
Speaker 3: exculpatory were tender to the prosecutors. They weren't Cummings because
Speaker 3: Cummings had to recuse himself. But the trial prosecutors had
Speaker 3: the police reports, they had the exculpatory evidence, but they
Speaker 3: didn't have the videotape. And why was that Well because
Speaker 3: back in election season, in September of ninety four, before
Speaker 3: Walter was re indicted, Cummings took the videotape out of evidence,
Speaker 3: signed it out of evidence, and it was returned back
Speaker 3: to the police locker back in nineteen ninety five. And
Speaker 3: guess what the date was that that was returned back
Speaker 3: into the evidence locker. It was the exact same afternoon
Speaker 3: that the judge denied the in camera inspection of the file.
Speaker 3: The prosecutors would not have had the fig leaf of
Speaker 3: not giving over the lineup video, but they did have
Speaker 3: the fig leaf of not giving over the police reports.
Speaker 1: So under this work product rule, they were covered from
Speaker 1: sharing the police reports about Kitie being identified as the
Speaker 1: driver's side shooter, But the videotape of that identification procedure,
Speaker 1: which would fall under non work product evidence, was technically
Speaker 1: not hidden because Cummings, who had accused himself, had taken
Speaker 1: it out of the evidence locker. So now two of
Speaker 1: the most important critical pieces of evidence in this case
Speaker 1: that point to who actually committed this crime were out
Speaker 1: of play. So Walter was charged with the murder as
Speaker 1: well as attempted carjacking and robbery. You know, those other
Speaker 1: two charges related to the motive that Kittie Harvell had invented,
Speaker 1: A motive that made no sense considering that Walter owned
Speaker 1: six or seven cars already and had more than enough
Speaker 1: money to buy whatever he wanted. Now, David Puckett and
Speaker 1: Paula Maris Roberts were the prosecutors in this case, and
Speaker 1: Walter was represented by Mark Maynard. So I'm almost afraid
Speaker 1: to ask what at the trial.
Speaker 3: At the trial, the state presented the eyewitness testimony, so
Speaker 3: the incredibly suggestive eye witness identification came in against Walter.
Speaker 3: Kyde testified against Walter, and unfortunately the jury never heard
Speaker 3: the Romeo Lee confession, even though he came forward a
Speaker 3: couple months before the trial. Cummings indicted Romeo for the murder,
Speaker 3: but that happened right before Walter's trial, and when they
Speaker 3: tried to call Romeo's a witness, he took the fifth
Speaker 3: and the confession never came in evidence. Now, that would
Speaker 3: have been incredibly helpful to Walter as well, for the
Speaker 3: jury to know that his brother, who looks like him
Speaker 3: and everyone said looks like him, confessed to doing it
Speaker 3: with Kayde the state's witness. And of course at trial,
Speaker 3: the jury also didn't know that Kye Harvell had been
Speaker 3: identified by the other state's witnesses as one of the shooters.
Speaker 1: So the jury heard Kite identify Walter as the driver's
Speaker 1: side shooter and Romeo as the passenger side shooter. But
Speaker 1: then the rest of the state's witnesses identified Walter as
Speaker 1: the passenger side shooter because he looks like Romeo. And
Speaker 1: it's never pointed out to the jury that Kittie was
Speaker 1: identified as a driver's side shooter because the prosecution kept
Speaker 1: that to themselves. It's too bad the evidence that would
Speaker 1: have exposed the lies and made it all make sense,
Speaker 1: all of it was either hidden or not admitted as evidence.
Speaker 1: Now now something happened outside of the trial that I
Speaker 1: need to mention here Walter's brother Lamont, who we haven't
Speaker 1: really talked about. On October third, he was at the
Speaker 1: party and Kitie pulled him into the situation in his
Speaker 1: statement to Cummings. So as soon as Lamont landed to
Speaker 1: testify on Walter's behalf, Lamont was arrested. He never had
Speaker 1: to testify against Walter, but he was coerced into a
Speaker 1: plea bargain corroborating Kittie's statement. So this was not part
Speaker 1: of trial, but it kept his alibi testimony out of trial.
Speaker 1: What about the other alibi witnesses?
Speaker 3: So Walter presented several alibi witnesses, you know, but this
Speaker 3: is not something where you know, he's on on video,
Speaker 3: but he was at a party with you know, friends,
Speaker 3: and one of the witnesses they did sort of trip
Speaker 3: her up in that she testified she took a flight
Speaker 3: and she was confused about which airline she took, and
Speaker 3: there was some impeachment about that. One of the other
Speaker 3: reasons why I believe that Walter was convicted and why
Speaker 3: they didn't believe the alibi was because one of the
Speaker 3: alibi witnesses, a woman by the name of Linda Phelps,
Speaker 3: you know, happened to be friends with Kytie Harvel and
Speaker 3: before trial she came off of her statement that Walter
Speaker 3: was at this party, which undercut his alibi defense. Well,
Speaker 3: the problem is there was a police report that was
Speaker 3: withheld from evidence that indicated that before she flipped, Kaye
Speaker 3: had a conversation with her, which then miraculously then she
Speaker 3: comes off of her alibi. So really anything like that
Speaker 3: that can sort of chip away at an alibi when
Speaker 3: you're staring at five eyewitnesses, you know, and no confession
Speaker 3: that was introduced, no evidence that the eyewitnesses were identifying
Speaker 3: the other states witnessed kydirl and it's hard for a
Speaker 3: jury to overcome that.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, Walter was convicted by the jury of murder, attempted murder,
Speaker 1: attempted carjacking, and attempted robbery on December twenty first, nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety five, sentenced about a month later on January seventeenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety six, to one hundred and ten years in prison.
Speaker 1: So a life sentence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was wow. Sheeees. Let's go to the verdict first,
Speaker 2: then we go to citizen because both of them was
Speaker 2: really painful. So they find me guilty. I'm I'm livid,
Speaker 2: to say the least. I'm very perplexed about not only
Speaker 2: did all the money I spent in it, not only
Speaker 2: the fact that you're innocent, you know, it's the fact that,
Speaker 2: like where is justice? Citizens? Like thirty days later, citizen
Speaker 2: came up. I didn't go. You just find me guilty
Speaker 2: of somebody, and I don't want to hear nothing else
Speaker 2: to court got to say, so they said. My lawyer
Speaker 2: to the deal. He said, I need you to be
Speaker 2: in court for I can make this motion to just
Speaker 2: miss the verdict and emotion for the judge to step aside.
Speaker 2: After that, if you decide to leave, find and let
Speaker 2: the judge you know you want to leave it. So okay,
Speaker 2: I agree to that. I go over there, I walk in.
Speaker 2: The judge makes you look before the post. Citizen, is
Speaker 2: anything you like to say, mister Gaudy, yess I would Johnny.
Speaker 2: I would like to let you the court, that prosecutor
Speaker 2: right there, my lawyer, my prime invest car, everybody here. No,
Speaker 2: I'm not gifted this crime, I said. I don't care.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter how much time you give me. I'm
Speaker 2: gonna spent every day of it proved minuses. I said
Speaker 2: this time, I don't want to hear the verdict. I
Speaker 2: like to go back to myself. Whatever time you're gonna
Speaker 2: give me, you're gonna give me. I don't care if
Speaker 2: you gave me sixty or you gave me one hundred
Speaker 2: and ten. And I'm not good for none of it.
Speaker 2: In sixteen years of being in prison, sixteen and a
Speaker 2: half years for me that he lived the lifestyle and
Speaker 2: I lived in all that. I didn't have not one
Speaker 2: fight in sixteen half years. In a year, not one art.
Speaker 2: My beef was not with no inmate, my beef with
Speaker 2: the system. I did my whole time Lowlai berries, digging
Speaker 2: in researching cases. Men. Loli was my second home. I
Speaker 2: didn't get into the prison politics and the things going
Speaker 2: on in prison, with the games and the playing cards
Speaker 2: and the shoot dice and and smoking cigarettes. Man. But
Speaker 2: when they stopped smoking cigarettes in there, they gave us
Speaker 2: heads up that they was gonna quit in ninety eight.
Speaker 2: In August they told January first, no more cigarettes in
Speaker 2: Missis City Prison. Ninety eight. When they cut out the cigarettes,
Speaker 2: I saw the opportunity. Now we got the black market.
Speaker 2: What I do I took a whole bunch of cards.
Speaker 2: This dash. I dig holes everywhere. I had holes dug
Speaker 2: all around the prison. Boy had hole I had I
Speaker 2: used to work in the kitchen, I had it. I
Speaker 2: had cartazolt in the ceiling up in the man I
Speaker 2: stashed all the way to January. And look, I didn't
Speaker 2: even break them out of January. I didn't break them
Speaker 2: out to like April or May. But when I broke
Speaker 2: them out, WHOA you talk about one hundred dollars a
Speaker 2: pack of cigarettes? You talked five for one cigarette. They
Speaker 2: take the one cigarette down and break it down in
Speaker 2: five cigarettes two dollars apiece. So that's what that's really
Speaker 2: what I got. The bulk of my money for my
Speaker 2: attorney fees, I paid for like four attorneys in there.
Speaker 2: But the bulk of my attorney fees came from tobacco sales.
Speaker 2: Ain't lots of tobacco sales.
Speaker 1: So tobacco sales made up the Walter Gotty defense fund.
Speaker 1: But you also did a lot of your appeals on
Speaker 1: your own pro se. 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 still took another sixteen years.
Speaker 3: The Romeo Lee trial was the unraveling of Walter's conviction. Ultimately,
Speaker 3: although it took a long time, the state put on
Speaker 3: a case against Romeo Lee heavily reliant on his confession.
Speaker 3: And remember that confession was that Kayde and Romeo did
Speaker 3: the shooting. But you know, they presented the same evidence
Speaker 3: that they presented against Walter, and that's with the eyewitnesses
Speaker 3: putting Walter as the passenger side shooter, even though Romeo's
Speaker 3: confession was that he was on the passenger side, so
Speaker 3: there was something for him to argue, at least at
Speaker 3: that trial. But it was during that trial that during
Speaker 3: the cross examination of Steve Napier, they learned that Kye
Speaker 3: Harvell was identified by these states witnesses as the other shooter.
Speaker 3: So it wasn't enough to you know, cause a not
Speaker 3: guilty in Romeo's trial, but the attorney for Romeo Lee
Speaker 3: did give that evidence to Mark Maynard. I should also
Speaker 3: note that the lineups not only consisted of three of
Speaker 3: the state's witnesses identifying Kye Harvel as the shooter, but
Speaker 3: Damon Nunn, who was the attempt murder victim and was
Speaker 3: an eyewitness who identified Walter as one of the shooters.
Speaker 3: When he was shown the lineups with Kayte Harvel, he
Speaker 3: identified a filler in that lineup as one of the shooters.
Speaker 3: So obviously that's going to destroy Nun's credibility or reliability
Speaker 3: as well when he identifies a filler as one of
Speaker 3: the shooters.
Speaker 2: Romeo's lawyer recovered as evidence and turned it over to
Speaker 2: She recipees to Sharon Clark. Matter of fact, she didn't
Speaker 2: have to do that because she had been watching my
Speaker 2: whole child or my lawyers were really cool, so she
Speaker 2: knew very much about the case. So she's like, wait
Speaker 2: a minute, Mark never had this. This is gonna help
Speaker 2: mister Galiti.
Speaker 3: So now Romeo Lee's attorney gives Mark Maynard these withheld
Speaker 3: police reports. Mark Maynard had been representing Walter on direct
Speaker 3: appeal as well. He tried to get this into the
Speaker 3: record on direct appeal. That didn't work.
Speaker 2: My lawyer, he says it to his pre course and
Speaker 2: try to mend my appeal. Now, minds you, in the
Speaker 2: appeal he had lives that the prosecutor withheld eesculpatory evidence.
Speaker 2: He lies this without having a proof. Now he got
Speaker 2: the proof. Mind you, when he first got the proof,
Speaker 2: he sat on him for two weeks because he was
Speaker 2: dealing with his father's death, so he wasn't doing nothing. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and I understood that, you know, he had to do
Speaker 2: his father's death and all that. So here goes our time.
Speaker 2: Now when you send it up to the courts. As
Speaker 2: you send it up, the decisions coming down already denied.
Speaker 2: And in the decision you deny it because you said
Speaker 2: that he's a legend that this happened, but he had
Speaker 2: no proof of it. But the proof is on your
Speaker 2: desk now, but you are denied it.
Speaker 3: The court said no, you're going to have to a
Speaker 3: post conviction. So Walter is left alone here. He has
Speaker 3: to file a pro se post conviction petition saying that
Speaker 3: these Brady materials should give him a new trial, and
Speaker 3: he was appointed a new council public defender named Sharon Fay.
Speaker 3: Now you would think that when the original judge would
Speaker 3: hear about all the shenanigans, Walter would have been immediately
Speaker 3: given a new trial and never prosecuted again. But no,
Speaker 3: it took six years and an evidentary hearing before the
Speaker 3: judge finally denied the post conviction petition. And then you'd
Speaker 3: think an appellate court would step in and say, well
Speaker 3: that's wrong, that didn't happen. Indiana Supreme Court denied. We'll
Speaker 3: go to federal court. Federal courts have to take this seriously, right, Nope,
Speaker 3: pro say federal habes corpus petition denied.
Speaker 2: If you don't have a degree, they don't honor it up.
Speaker 2: Nobody like you or me just coming there and just
Speaker 2: know all the law to them, like it's a slap
Speaker 2: in the face for it was. It went to school
Speaker 2: all them years, bust a butt to get the degree,
Speaker 2: and you're gonna come here with citing all the same thing.
Speaker 2: They know, they're gonna honor it.
Speaker 1: You know, as one of our guest host, Patrick Presley
Speaker 1: likes to say, pro say gets no play. They will rarely,
Speaker 1: not never, but rarely ever give you the time of
Speaker 1: day if you don't have a lawyer. So how does
Speaker 1: this turn around? What happened next?
Speaker 3: His last shot is his pro se attempt to get
Speaker 3: this overturned in the Seventh Circuit, and thankfully the Seventh
Speaker 3: Circuit appointed at him counsel from a big law firm,
Speaker 3: and this attorney was able to convince the Seventh Circuit
Speaker 3: that he received an unfair trial, and the Seventh Circuit
Speaker 3: reversed his conviction after Walter did about sixteen years wrongfully
Speaker 3: in prison.
Speaker 1: It never ceases to amaze me that a defendant could
Speaker 1: present such clear Brady violations, exculpatory materials that completely destroy
Speaker 1: the state's case at trial and prove their claims of
Speaker 1: actual innocence along with ineffective assistants of council claims. I
Speaker 1: mean Mark Maynard even told Walter to pursue that claim
Speaker 1: since he was in fact ineffective at getting that confession
Speaker 1: and the identifications of Kyitie as the driver side shooter
Speaker 1: into court. So with that evidence, no reasonable juror would
Speaker 1: have convicted Walter. Yet every court along the way bent
Speaker 1: over backwards, fell over themselves to ignore this wrongful conviction
Speaker 1: in favor of I can only guess here the finality
Speaker 1: of judgment and the sacrosanct jury verdict not to mention
Speaker 1: covering for their colleagues in the prosecutor's office, and in fact,
Speaker 1: Cummings is currently seeking a seventh term and running unopposed
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two. I don't know what can be
Speaker 1: done about that, But it really is sickening. So sixteen
Speaker 1: years it took for a court to finally accept the
Speaker 1: evidence that they used to convict his brother Romeo in
Speaker 1: another trial that was shortly after his own. It's just disgusting,
Speaker 1: let's face it. There's no other word for it. But
Speaker 1: this ruling came down in May twenty ten, and your
Speaker 1: lawyer at that time was Andrew Corritis. Remember Richard is
Speaker 1: Walter civil attorney. But Walter, tell us, what do you
Speaker 1: remember about that moment when you got the news.
Speaker 2: Oh, this is one of the best days of my life.
Speaker 2: Right here, I get a legal mail May fifth, to
Speaker 2: down ten or to come down ala who you got
Speaker 2: one hundred twenty days to give him a new trial
Speaker 2: or release him? Now. I think I'm gonna go home
Speaker 2: any day, But they still playing hardball. I'm in a honey.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm countdown days every day. I'll wait you.
Speaker 2: I think they canna call my name any day.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I think they gonna say, you know what, let him
Speaker 2: go on one hundred and twentieth day. I gotta be
Speaker 2: going home this morning. I would have gave my phone
Speaker 2: to my neighbor. I gave my all my commissary away
Speaker 2: and gave anything design A twenty day in the trial.
Speaker 2: I asked my neighbor back for my phone quick, we'll
Speaker 2: call my lawyer. He said, be patient. I work with
Speaker 2: my mom and talks with him right now. If we
Speaker 2: fire the charges, they said, he're gonna take you this trial.
Speaker 2: He said. He talked to the prosecutor and asked the prosecutor,
Speaker 2: what did you see in this case that you said?
Speaker 2: I didn't see nothing. That's the problem. They just handled
Speaker 2: the case, and I didn't want to just drop it.
Speaker 3: So the Madison County prosecutor was Rodney Cummings. When this
Speaker 3: thing was reversed and sent back to the lower court
Speaker 3: for a new trial, the judge ordered that a new
Speaker 3: prosecutor's office should look at it, and so an independent
Speaker 3: prosecutor named Barry Brown from a different county looked at
Speaker 3: this and he was the one who finally decided to
Speaker 3: drop the charges. And I will say that Rodney Cummings
Speaker 3: was quoted as saying at the time that mister Brown
Speaker 3: didn't have the guts to retry Walter.
Speaker 1: Whoa the guts right after the I don't even know
Speaker 1: how to dignify that with words. After the evidence that
Speaker 1: they had at the time of trial completely shredded this
Speaker 1: guy's theory. He's still holding onto it almost three decades later.
Speaker 1: You know, if it's not too late, I really wish
Speaker 1: somebody would run against him. You could hit him over
Speaker 1: the head with his own words all the way into
Speaker 1: the prosecutor's office this fall. But we're running out of time.
Speaker 1: The citizens of Madison County really do deserve better. Walter
Speaker 1: certainly did so. Brown dismissed the charges in January twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: I remember January thirteenth, two down twelve. I remember like
Speaker 2: it was yesterday. I got that phone call from Richard,
Speaker 2: let me know, all charges dismissed. We ready to go
Speaker 2: with the loss. And he found my lawsuit the very
Speaker 2: next day. He had already been paying for the lawsuit
Speaker 2: because he was the one lawyer that was willing to
Speaker 2: take my case without it being all the way resolved.
Speaker 2: He believed it the case.
Speaker 1: So thanks to Richard, the civil suit was filed immediately.
Speaker 1: But of course these things are rarely resolved immediately. At
Speaker 1: the time, Indiana didn't even have a compensation statute. Now
Speaker 1: now they do, and there's something not so good about
Speaker 1: it because it forces innocent men and women to waive
Speaker 1: 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 legitimize Brady violations. I believe there's movement on both
Speaker 1: sides of those issues, and we fully support that. So
Speaker 1: as far as Walter's civil suit is concerned, the US
Speaker 1: District Court denied it, but in May twenty nineteen, the
Speaker 1: Seventh Circuit stepped up again and reinstated the lawsuits. So
Speaker 1: in April twenty twenty, Walter settled his lawsuit. But let's
Speaker 1: face it, there's no amount of money that would ever
Speaker 1: make up for the lost time with loved ones.
Speaker 2: First, I want to say, I think it's very unfair
Speaker 2: that these prosecutors and detectives are able to pull something
Speaker 2: like this off and get away with just giving them
Speaker 2: a little bit of money. And it's old with you know.
Speaker 2: I mean like it took years. I went in prison
Speaker 2: the new father my oldest was number three years old.
Speaker 2: I came out of grandfather. I can't get the years
Speaker 2: back I don't care how much money you get me.
Speaker 2: I can't get them back kids, graduations, they birthdays, I can't.
Speaker 2: I can't get that back to It actually destroyed my
Speaker 2: ability to be a really effective father. Their minds are
Speaker 2: made up already in life. What life means to them.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what to say. I mean, I
Speaker 1: can only imagine through the lens of my relationship with
Speaker 1: my own kids, and it just breaks my heart. What
Speaker 1: about your brothers, I mean, Romeo is still inside. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you'll probably take this opportunity to visit them, But
Speaker 1: what about Lamont, the brother that they coerced into a
Speaker 1: plea that corroborated Kidi statement, Do you think you'd be
Speaker 1: able to put that behind you and reconnect?
Speaker 2: Listen, Lama flew in the test FI for me and
Speaker 2: the rest of him on the spot and said that
Speaker 2: Kytie said he was involved and just had a charge
Speaker 2: on him. He said to jail when they found me guilty,
Speaker 2: and I'm the one with the money now, So he
Speaker 2: don't have a lawyer and he on no money. He
Speaker 2: didn't want to take that chance. They gave him plea
Speaker 2: bargain for five years probation to say that what Kytie
Speaker 2: said was correct, that he was there and he watched it.
Speaker 2: He didn't have testifout to this because I already convicted.
Speaker 2: I'm already gone. Matter of fact, nobody in the family
Speaker 2: he's seen or her from Missince then, because they was
Speaker 2: all pissed off of him for doing that, like why
Speaker 2: would you do that? It's almost like you cooperating Kytie's story.
Speaker 2: But I understood his part. I haven't been able to
Speaker 2: talk to him and lave. No, dude, listen, I'm not
Speaker 2: mad at you. I understood that's a big chance to
Speaker 2: take right there, and he took the plea bargain. He
Speaker 2: since nobody in the family seen him, we don't know
Speaker 2: where he at. Again, I just reaching out this labe. No,
Speaker 2: I wasn't matter. But I just gave up on reaching
Speaker 2: out because I don't want to think I was reaching
Speaker 2: out trying to look for you or nothing, you know
Speaker 2: what I mean, Like, it ain't that serious. I'm just
Speaker 2: happy to be home.
Speaker 1: Wow. So Lamont or if anyone knows Lamont, please let
Speaker 1: him know. Make the most out of the time you
Speaker 1: both have left. We're gonna have Walter's socials linked in
Speaker 1: the bio reach out to him. Walter also has a
Speaker 1: podcast that we'll link to, and with that we're going
Speaker 1: to go to closing arguments. This is, of course the
Speaker 1: part of the show where I thank you both for
Speaker 1: joining us and sharing your story. And now I'm going
Speaker 1: to turn my microphone off, kick back in my chair
Speaker 1: and just listen to anything you feel is left to
Speaker 1: be said. Richard, let's start with you and Walter take
Speaker 1: us on home.
Speaker 3: So there's been a lot of talk about, you know,
Speaker 3: Rodney Cummings, and people may have the impression that, well,
Speaker 3: this is sort of a one bad apple situation, but
Speaker 3: the real problem here is that time and again there
Speaker 3: were numerous people involved in the judicial system who could
Speaker 3: have stopped this. From the judge initially, who could have
Speaker 3: forced the review of the prosecutor's file so that the
Speaker 3: withholding wouldn't have happened in the first place, to the
Speaker 3: trial prosecutors going along with this withholding, to the trial
Speaker 3: judge again once they learned about this withholding not correcting
Speaker 3: this wrong. To the Indiana appellate courts who could have
Speaker 3: stopped this, To the Indiana Supreme Court who could have
Speaker 3: stopped this, the federal havieas Corpus judge could have stopped this.
Speaker 3: We shouldn't have to rely on the second highest court
Speaker 3: in the land, a federal court, to right these wrongs.
Speaker 3: These should be corrected immediately in the lower courts, but
Speaker 3: they're not. Unfortunately, and in Indiana, not only in Walter's case,
Speaker 3: but in other Indiana cases, time and again, these wrongs
Speaker 3: are not corrected in a timely manner. The people who
Speaker 3: come acros cross these wrongful convictions need to step up
Speaker 3: and not just allow it to happen, and they need
Speaker 3: to do it quickly to make sure it gets done
Speaker 3: in a timely matter, not sixteen years later.
Speaker 2: I do appreciate y'all give me the opportunity now. I
Speaker 2: feel that no amount of money they give me, no
Speaker 2: amount of money they gave me, no aunt of money
Speaker 2: they give me for me on out, it's gonna take
Speaker 2: back all the years out of this my kid's life.
Speaker 2: That's the biggest thing for me, my kids life. Anything
Speaker 2: they do for me now is gonna be for my baby.
Speaker 2: Securing their futures, you know what I mean. Make sure
Speaker 2: they got the right account set up, putting insurances on
Speaker 2: us if something happened. Make sure I got insurance. Make
Speaker 2: sure my family don't have to be out there with
Speaker 2: a bucket on the corner trying to bury me. If
Speaker 2: you know when I when I passed, I went out.
Speaker 2: If I passed, I'm gonna pass someday, but when I do,
Speaker 2: to make sure they ain't got to struggle and try
Speaker 2: to go go fund me. I done went through August
Speaker 2: in that boxing there to get out and die and
Speaker 2: can't be buried out here. You know what I mean,
Speaker 2: I know what it is. Appreciate life. I wake up,
Speaker 2: Appreciate life. I wake uppreciate my freedom. I already do.
Speaker 2: I wake up appreciate everything about my freedom. Man, I'm free.
Speaker 2: I'll steal free. I don't care if I ain't got
Speaker 2: it right now. I got a dime in my pocket.
Speaker 2: I am free.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Cliburn, and Kevin Wardis.
Speaker 1: With research by Lyla Robinson. The music in this production
Speaker 1: was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction as well as at Lava for Good on
Speaker 1: all three platforms. You can also follow me on both
Speaker 1: TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason flam Raeful. Conviction is
Speaker 1: the production of Lava for Good podcast and association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one