Speaker 1: On November twenty first, nineteen ninety seven, a Suffolk County,
Speaker 1: Virginia man known for drug dealing and gambling named Gene
Speaker 1: Artists and his sister, Yvonne Giles were both fatally shot
Speaker 1: in front of Yvon's six year old son, Treyvon. The
Speaker 1: boy was discovered in his blood soaked T shirt and
Speaker 1: underwear outside of the house shortly after the shooting around
Speaker 1: ten pm. Trayvon gave a very descriptive police report, but
Speaker 1: later became unable to remember the details of the tragic event.
Speaker 1: In a court of law. However, Gene Artist's girlfriend and
Speaker 1: several other associates began making police statements that named another
Speaker 1: man involved in the drug trade, Larrico Kearney, collectively saying
Speaker 1: that he shot Jean to recover a large gambling loss.
Speaker 1: Shortly before his trial, another drug dealer claimed that Lorico
Speaker 1: had plotted to rob Gene Artists of the gambling scoreps
Speaker 1: in order to repay him for a drug den Lorico
Speaker 1: was convicted, but a constitutional violation triggered a new trial
Speaker 1: in which three new witnesses joined the Commonwealth's case. With
Speaker 1: this many people willing to testify, revealing the statements of
Speaker 1: the only person who actually saw the murders, wouldn't even
Speaker 1: have seemed like it was necessary. But this is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to wrongful conviction. Today we have another case
Speaker 1: out of Virginia, which, again the entire substance of the
Speaker 1: state's case was built upon the words of incentivized witnesses
Speaker 1: receiving leniency on their own charges, by the way, all
Speaker 1: while ignoring the only actual credible witness and the most
Speaker 1: likely suspect. I Meanwhile, the man who they focused on
Speaker 1: instead is calling in today, over twenty five long years
Speaker 1: later from Greensville Correctional Facility of Virginia. Larco Kearney, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry you're with us today under the circumstances, but all
Speaker 1: of us here at wrongful Conviction are happy in honor
Speaker 1: that you're joining us today. Thank yoll just forgiving me
Speaker 1: this opportunity, you know, to share my story. Yeah, you're
Speaker 1: most welcoming. Also joining us, and you'll remember him from
Speaker 1: our converage of Terrence Hobbs is Lenny Singleton, who did
Speaker 1: his own stint a legal conviction but a crazy sentence
Speaker 1: of the thousand and three hundred and ten years for
Speaker 1: having stolen a little over five hundred dollars. No one
Speaker 1: was hurt, and no weapon was used. Lenny was a
Speaker 1: jailhouse lawyer and then benefited from a conditional pardon and
Speaker 1: soon joined the Coga Shaw Law firm, from which he
Speaker 1: and his wife, Vandy crusade for the wrongfully convicted. So, Lenny,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the show. Oh, thank you, it's great
Speaker 1: to be here. I think our audience will agree that
Speaker 1: this is very similar to Terrence Hobbs's case, not the
Speaker 1: story itself, but the patterns of the investigation and the
Speaker 1: misconduct and the prosecution. The towns in which they occurred
Speaker 1: were less than twenty miles apart, by the way, Whereas
Speaker 1: I alluded to in the opening, you have a crime
Speaker 1: that occurred in the drug culture of the nineties and
Speaker 1: an investigation that bent over backwards to ignore the most
Speaker 1: likely suspect, turning instead to incentivized and or coerced witness
Speaker 1: testimony in exchange for sentence reductions and things like that.
Speaker 1: The similarities of the cases are striking, from which it's
Speaker 1: easy to see that there's patterns here. Right. We see
Speaker 1: these all over the country, but they it seems like
Speaker 1: there's a cluster of them in Virginia. I don't know
Speaker 1: that we could just focus on Virginia. I think this
Speaker 1: is a widespread issue where snitches, and most of them
Speaker 1: do this for a living. They're always in trouble and
Speaker 1: they know how to work the system. They know who
Speaker 1: to call, they know who to get in contact with.
Speaker 1: I've seen several cases in Virginia where guys will see
Speaker 1: someone on TV on the news, call someone and say, look,
Speaker 1: I'm in the pod with this guy and I overheard
Speaker 1: him saying this, that and the other, when in fact
Speaker 1: those things have never happened. But it is a culture
Speaker 1: in Virginia that needs to be stopped for sure, because
Speaker 1: I've never seen one that actually was true. They're always
Speaker 1: working to get a deal, get a time, because as
Speaker 1: you could clearly see in the letters that Laurco's attorney
Speaker 1: was able to obtain these inmates writing folk telling them
Speaker 1: I'll say whatever you need me to say, just let
Speaker 1: me get this certain deal. I will quote for those
Speaker 1: letters later. It's really egregious. And of course, I guess
Speaker 1: this doesn't only happen in Virginia. It happens in all
Speaker 1: fifty states, but some states have even enacted laws in
Speaker 1: order to only allow this kind of testimony if it's
Speaker 1: corroborated by some physical evidence, of which there usually is none,
Speaker 1: and this case is no exception. But before we get
Speaker 1: into all of that, Larco, you grew up in kind
Speaker 1: of like in two different places, mostly with your mom
Speaker 1: and Surrey, Virginia, and then part of the time with
Speaker 1: your father and your grandparents and Suffolk, Virginia. Is that right?
Speaker 1: I'm a realist from Suffol, Virginia. My mom was a
Speaker 1: single parrent. You know. My dad, you know, it was
Speaker 1: you know, ind and out in the streets. You know,
Speaker 1: he was in and out the jail. My mother's job
Speaker 1: carried her for different places. So I moved from Suffolk
Speaker 1: to Windsor, and eventually I moved to Surrey County. But
Speaker 1: I was still, you know, visiting my grandmother and my
Speaker 1: father on the weekends. And like I said, you know,
Speaker 1: my father, you know he told drugs, and me watching
Speaker 1: my father, you know, you see the so called drug
Speaker 1: because they're wearing nice clothes, driving nice cars, and you know,
Speaker 1: I thought that was cool. And this is something I've
Speaker 1: heard before when a young person growing up around that
Speaker 1: scene quickly notices that everyone who's not selling drugs is
Speaker 1: struggling to get by while the ones who are involved
Speaker 1: in the trade have seemingly comfortable lives and money in
Speaker 1: your pocket. Yeah. Back in those days, seriously, yeah, you
Speaker 1: know when crack cocaine hit. Yeah, they were the heroes
Speaker 1: in the neighborhood actually, sadly, and the only ones with
Speaker 1: any real economic power, until, of course they got caught
Speaker 1: and sent away from some ungodly sentence, like Larico's father.
Speaker 1: But my father went to prison in nineteen ninety five.
Speaker 1: He had fifty four years under the old with parole.
Speaker 1: He was denied a couple of times. He ended up
Speaker 1: doing sixteen years or four months. And what did life
Speaker 1: look like for you after he went away? I understand
Speaker 1: you had moved out of your mom's in with your
Speaker 1: father and your grandparents. It's just me, my grandmother or
Speaker 1: my grandfather. I'm indozing in the streets. There's nothing you
Speaker 1: know to glorified, you know, be proud of. But I
Speaker 1: was in don't buying the son of drugs, right, So
Speaker 1: you were probably already on the radar of local law enforcement.
Speaker 1: But have you ever been arrested before? I was arrested
Speaker 1: in October of ninety seven, I had a possession of cocaine,
Speaker 1: assault on the alser, and other traffic valition that came
Speaker 1: with that same incident one month before this happened. Whoa,
Speaker 1: WHOA Back up a second. There the assault of a
Speaker 1: police officer. What happened in that case? I think that
Speaker 1: in the process of them restraining me, I think he
Speaker 1: may have hurt his finger. Oh Jesus Christ. I mean so,
Speaker 1: since the arrest was the impetus for the officers injury,
Speaker 1: they of course, you know, some sort of cities or
Speaker 1: gaslighting moves, they got to charge you with assault of
Speaker 1: an officer, which makes you sound like a super violent
Speaker 1: person when in actuality he had injured himself, Yes, sir.
Speaker 1: And so now with this arrest and the alleged assault,
Speaker 1: and I'm putting that in quotation marks of a police
Speaker 1: officer just a month before the murders. From what I understand,
Speaker 1: this put you on house arrest with an ankle monitor
Speaker 1: with only supervised outings. So, needless to say, you're a
Speaker 1: well known entity to the local police. We were right
Speaker 1: for the picking, so to speak. Right, you were an
Speaker 1: easy fall guy for them. And one of the deceased
Speaker 1: in this case was also known to both of you
Speaker 1: and the police, which is the guy named David Eugene
Speaker 1: artists who went by a GENA. What was your relationship
Speaker 1: to Gene? We would running to each other on a
Speaker 1: regular basis, you know, like I said, he was on
Speaker 1: drug dealer in the earlier and Gene would you know always,
Speaker 1: you know, looked the entice people to gamble, to shoot
Speaker 1: dice because he was he was good at it. I
Speaker 1: guess that's how he supported himself, no gambling and seven drugs.
Speaker 1: And it was part of the state's theory that he
Speaker 1: had enticed you into a few games in which you
Speaker 1: had lost big money. Did you used to gamble with Gene?
Speaker 1: I never person to gamble with Gene because I knew,
Speaker 1: I knew how good Gene was. Yeah, some of those
Speaker 1: guys man, he come up with these techniques. There's a
Speaker 1: way you can actually set the dice and increase the
Speaker 1: probability of a certain number. Gene probably he was good
Speaker 1: with dice. He knew how to set him. He knew
Speaker 1: I'd increase his chances at winning. So you knew better
Speaker 1: than to play with Gene. Had your father was and
Speaker 1: the one who gave you that advice, he actually did
Speaker 1: on you know, more than one occasion. He actually did.
Speaker 1: You had even turned him down in front of two
Speaker 1: individuals who eventually were coerced into testifying against you. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about Casey Davis and Travis Chalk. The morning that
Speaker 1: Gene Artist was killed, he came to the house trying
Speaker 1: to entice us to gamble. Of course all of us
Speaker 1: said no, right, but the authorities eventually coerced those two
Speaker 1: men into making false statements about you, saying that you
Speaker 1: were in possession of a black forty five caliber byrom
Speaker 1: the day before, and then in the morning the twenty first,
Speaker 1: that you had said, quote, if he don't have g
Speaker 1: or better, I'm gonna kill him because I'm tired of
Speaker 1: him winning my money and coming with no money and quote.
Speaker 1: Chalk went on to say that you and Jean shot
Speaker 1: dice for about an hour and then agreed to pause
Speaker 1: the game and pick it up later. The authorities were
Speaker 1: also successful in getting Jean's girlfriend at the time to
Speaker 1: say that you had once lost something like five thousand
Speaker 1: dollars to Gene in the dice game, but that also
Speaker 1: had never happened. His girlfriend at the time, her name
Speaker 1: was Sabrina Northfleet, I think that she had some child depended,
Speaker 1: or she had a situation going on, you know, That's
Speaker 1: why she fabricated a story which never happened, seeing me
Speaker 1: gamble with Jane in the place that, as God as
Speaker 1: my witness, I had never my life been too. But
Speaker 1: there was something that she testified too that was true,
Speaker 1: which was seeing you and Jeane together earlier on in
Speaker 1: the night that he was murdered, when she pulled up
Speaker 1: to Gene and a gas station and you had asked
Speaker 1: him for a ride home. I was at the sub
Speaker 1: shot that was across the street from the gas station
Speaker 1: to Gene Artists, was at asked for a rat and
Speaker 1: she had pulled up in that gas station too. I
Speaker 1: guess her Gene they had an argument, but she did
Speaker 1: see me sitting in the car with Gene. He was
Speaker 1: just giving me a ride home, so he dropped you
Speaker 1: off at your grandparents. You later walked down the street
Speaker 1: to be with one of your kids at the child's
Speaker 1: mother's house. Both the child's mother and grandmother later testified
Speaker 1: to your whereabouts during the murders of Gene Artists at
Speaker 1: his sister EVONN. Giles, which was November twenty first, nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety seven. They were both shot while at home sometime
Speaker 1: between nine and ten pm, and apparently there was a
Speaker 1: pizza delivery before the murders. The pizza delivery person, Teresa Rix,
Speaker 1: saw two men arguing on their way into the residence
Speaker 1: at one sixteen Franklin Street, neither of which she recognized
Speaker 1: as Uiko. So there was another witness to this entire
Speaker 1: harrowing scene, this whole ordeal. There was one person who
Speaker 1: was there and who actually saw the killer, six year
Speaker 1: old treyvon Artists, who lived in the apartment with his
Speaker 1: mother and his uncle. At about ten pm the night
Speaker 1: of November twenty first, ninety seven, Tryvonne was found standing
Speaker 1: outside of that one sixteen Franklin Street address, wearing nothing
Speaker 1: but a shirt and his underwear, with his mother's blood
Speaker 1: on his clothes, and he led a neighbor to the
Speaker 1: bodies in the apartment. Okay, first, let's take a second
Speaker 1: to recognize that this is a frightened little boy in
Speaker 1: a terrifying situation. Now, the neighbor that took him back
Speaker 1: inside was his mother's boyfriend, Jody Cross, and by now
Speaker 1: the police had been called. Tray Vaughan gave a statement
Speaker 1: to the police at eleven PM, so this wasn't long after,
Speaker 1: in which he stated clearly and unequivocally that a relative
Speaker 1: of his named Gregory Artists, not Lrico, had been in
Speaker 1: the apartment and had shot and killed his mother, Yvonne Giles,
Speaker 1: right in front of him. He repeated these statements to
Speaker 1: the police twice more the next day, and he's crystal
Speaker 1: clear with the police about what happened. Can you read
Speaker 1: some of the report for us? They question, did you
Speaker 1: see the man that shot your mom? He said yes,
Speaker 1: and they asked him. Is his name Jody Cross? He says, no,
Speaker 1: that's my mom's boyfriend. Did Gregory Artists shoot your mom? Yes?
Speaker 1: Did you see Gregory Artist shoot your mom? Yes? How
Speaker 1: do you know Gregory Artists? He has been to my
Speaker 1: house before and played cards with my uncle. Rayvon gives
Speaker 1: the police details. He says, I've spent time at his house,
Speaker 1: his kids and I play together. He knows this guy.
Speaker 1: So they ask him, tell me, in your own words,
Speaker 1: what you know about this offense? And I guess this
Speaker 1: is the next day, he says, Trayvon Artists advised he
Speaker 1: was in his mom's bedroom with her watching TV when
Speaker 1: he heard David and Gregory Artists arguing. They were arguing
Speaker 1: over a card game. Gregory said that David was cheating again.
Speaker 1: Jeane's full name is David Eugene Artists, so the name
Speaker 1: David and Jean referred to the same man. He says
Speaker 1: that Jean had a small silver gun and that Gregory
Speaker 1: had a big black gun that Jean shot Gregory, and
Speaker 1: Gregory shot at Jeanne. Him and his mom went into
Speaker 1: Trayvon's closet to hide. When no more shots were fired,
Speaker 1: him and his mom got out of the closet and
Speaker 1: went down the hall. He followed his mom once they
Speaker 1: were in the front fourrier, Gregory and David were standing
Speaker 1: there and two more shots were fired and he fell
Speaker 1: dead on the floor. Gregory then walked up to me
Speaker 1: and my mom and he was told by Gregory, I'm
Speaker 1: going to shoot and kill your mom now. And remember
Speaker 1: Gregory Artists killed your mom and that's when he shot her,
Speaker 1: this says in the neck area, and she fell on
Speaker 1: the floor by the window and he shot her again.
Speaker 1: Gregory then left out the house and then they asked
Speaker 1: him to describe Gregory Artists, and he describes them to
Speaker 1: the tea. He says that Gregory Artist was a black male,
Speaker 1: darker with two birthmarks or moles on each side of
Speaker 1: his forehead and white freckles. He's about fifty years old.
Speaker 1: Gregory lives in North Carolina, the two story house and
Speaker 1: lives with his mom. It's just awful for this little kid.
Speaker 1: And then the authorities appear to have completely ignored him
Speaker 1: except for the description of the murder weapon, a big
Speaker 1: black gun which they knew to be a forty five
Speaker 1: from the fragments they pulled from his mother's skull. Now
Speaker 1: seven hundred thousand cast was also found at the scene,
Speaker 1: I believe five hundred and fifty of which was in
Speaker 1: Gene Artist's pocket, in addition to some drugs, So the
Speaker 1: idea that this was a robbery sprung on by dice
Speaker 1: game losses to a fellow drug dealer is absurd. But
Speaker 1: instead of just going to North Carolina and arresting Gregory Artists,
Speaker 1: Detective ec Harris appears to use genes involvement in drugs
Speaker 1: as an opportunity to target other guys in that business,
Speaker 1: including yourself, for either a wrongful conviction or a false
Speaker 1: statement to use in a wrongful conviction. And as we mentioned,
Speaker 1: you were on house arrest at the time for that
Speaker 1: cocaine possession and the bogus assault charge when they came
Speaker 1: to see you, and you had been seeing a gene
Speaker 1: at the gas station that night, so your name was
Speaker 1: floating around in the rumor mill, so to speak. So
Speaker 1: I guess, you know, my name was in this rumor mill,
Speaker 1: and they realized that I was on house arrest, they
Speaker 1: gave me a valiation because I was actually out of
Speaker 1: my house, you know, that weekend that this crime happened.
Speaker 1: So I was taking the jail, and I guess the
Speaker 1: prosecutors or whoever had planned me to sale with an informant.
Speaker 1: His name was Brad Parker, and he tried to question
Speaker 1: me about these homicides, and I explained to the gentleman like, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what I'm locked up for. The following week,
Speaker 1: I was giving a barn, so I was out again.
Speaker 1: Later on he ended up writing to the prosecutors or
Speaker 1: whatever and telling them that I admitted to him while
Speaker 1: I was in that sale about committing these crimes. So
Speaker 1: I think all investigations everything stem from there. And he
Speaker 1: wasn't the only one willing to offer false statements against
Speaker 1: you in your codefending Quintin Parish aka QP. Eventually a
Speaker 1: laundry list of people was compiled, including Casey Davis, Travis Chalk,
Speaker 1: Sabrina Norfleet, as well as two other guys, Tony Booth
Speaker 1: and Willie Hardy. But was this statement from Brad Parker
Speaker 1: how they originally obtained your arrest laurrant No. One wasn't
Speaker 1: Brad Parkle. They had got a statement from a Willie
Speaker 1: Hardy state in that I made a lair's profession to
Speaker 1: him about committing these murders. He was a suspect in
Speaker 1: his crime, him and my co defendant, Quinn Persh. So
Speaker 1: it turned out that he and Quinton Parish were childhood
Speaker 1: buddies who grew up on the same block. But Quinton
Speaker 1: refused to give false statements, unlike Willy Hardy. So you
Speaker 1: were arrested on December twenty eighth, nineteen ninety seven, and
Speaker 1: your family hired an attorney named Ken Melvin, who was
Speaker 1: very effective. Now. Hardy testified to this false statement at
Speaker 1: a preliminary hearing in June of ninety eight, but ended
Speaker 1: up catching his own charges and hired William P. Robinson
Speaker 1: the same attorney as his buddy Quintin Parish, you're a
Speaker 1: co defendant. Hardy admitted to his attorney Robinson that he
Speaker 1: had given false testimony against you and your attorney Ken
Speaker 1: Melvine was president. They recorded this conversation where he admitted
Speaker 1: to lying about Luriko Kearney. Willie Hardy said he had
Speaker 1: been threatened and harassed by detectives every day, threatening to
Speaker 1: charging with the crime for which Kearney is incarcerating. So
Speaker 1: now with this recording, your attorney filed a motion for
Speaker 1: dismissal of all charges against you, and eventually there was
Speaker 1: a hearing. Meanwhile, the prosecution was scrambling to find a
Speaker 1: new star witness and they found another guy from the
Speaker 1: Suffolk drug game, Tony Booth. I ran into him one
Speaker 1: time and in Wester Time, What a reason to jail? Well,
Speaker 1: when was on the basketball According to jail, he had
Speaker 1: hired Kenne Milon and he asked me about how Kenne
Speaker 1: mel was doing on my case, and I was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's doing a good job. Maybe a couple of days
Speaker 1: later he was transferred from the Western Time What a
Speaker 1: Reason to jail to Chesterpeake. That's when I later learned
Speaker 1: you know that you know he had hopped on my case, right,
Speaker 1: so he hired Ken Melvin for his own charges and then,
Speaker 1: using this conversation on the yard as a pretext for
Speaker 1: an alleged confession, began working with the state as a
Speaker 1: witness in or a case, presenting Ken Melbourne with a
Speaker 1: conflict of interest. And now this attorney, who had been
Speaker 1: super effective thus far, was likely to be forced to
Speaker 1: drop you as a client. All this may or may
Speaker 1: not have been engineered by the prosecution. Smells like an onion.
Speaker 1: Might be an onion. But for now, let's get back
Speaker 1: to the hearing to dismiss your charges. Based on the
Speaker 1: recording which Willie Hardy admitted to perjuring himself at your
Speaker 1: preliminary hearing. What happened when they got him understand fearing
Speaker 1: he would be charged with perjury, he said he'd been
Speaker 1: through a lot and he'd been shot, so he couldn't
Speaker 1: remember anything. Now, George Westbrook Parker said, it's a possibility
Speaker 1: that before mister Kearney trial comes up, he may regain
Speaker 1: its memory back. And so this judge Westbrook Parker ruled
Speaker 1: the Kearney's indictment would not be dismissed. Because the witness
Speaker 1: did not recant, even though they had a recording that
Speaker 1: he said he was lying about it. So now on
Speaker 1: this day the postcule to put it in emotion to
Speaker 1: have mister Melbourne just qualified from my case. Could they
Speaker 1: now have another witness, which was Tony Booth. Mister Melvin
Speaker 1: was disqualified off my case. It was strategic, you know.
Speaker 1: I guess they felt still with the case that they had,
Speaker 1: it would have been offered them to get a conviction
Speaker 1: on me. I had ken of Melvin's my attorney. So
Speaker 1: that was September of ninety nine, and as your first
Speaker 1: trial was fast approaching, your codefendant, Quentin Parish, probably seeing
Speaker 1: what you both were up against, decided to take an
Speaker 1: alpha play to avoid a potential life sentence. And that's
Speaker 1: how they get a lot of guys too. They scare
Speaker 1: with that. I could see him very easily pleading out,
Speaker 1: even though he had nothing to do with it, just
Speaker 1: because he was afraid he would never get out. But Lorico,
Speaker 1: you weren't backing down even though you were facing a
Speaker 1: similar faith. Yeah, I had two council of capital murder
Speaker 1: and two council of use of a foul. So eighth
Speaker 1: theory of his crime was circumstantial evidence of Rico's alleged
Speaker 1: riff with Gene Artists over some gambling debt. Now, Lorico
Speaker 1: tells us that this whole disagreement over a gambling between
Speaker 1: he and Jean was impossible because he knew better than
Speaker 1: the play dice with a guy that was a real hustler, right,
Speaker 1: Jeane was that guy need want to lose his money.
Speaker 1: But the state fabricated statements to the contrary from Sabrina Northfleet,
Speaker 1: Travis Chalk, and Casey Davis. Sabrina Northfleet gave a false
Speaker 1: testimony witness in Jeene to win five thousand dollars from
Speaker 1: me around September of that year, so that, you know,
Speaker 1: provided a false motive for them. Travis Chalk gave a
Speaker 1: testimony that he was at you know, my house before
Speaker 1: these murders happened. He said, when Jeane pulled up, I
Speaker 1: made a statement to him. If Jeane didn't have a
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a better I would kill him because I'm
Speaker 1: tired of Jeane winning my money and coming with no money.
Speaker 1: And we went in the house to gamble, and the
Speaker 1: gentleman that was in the driveway with him at the time,
Speaker 1: whose name Miss Casey Davis. He testified to seeing me
Speaker 1: with the forty five caliber firearm on overn with twenty.
Speaker 1: A firearms identification expert testified that the forty five caliber
Speaker 1: bullet killed Miss Giles is saying that they were fired
Speaker 1: from the same weapon, and some cartridge casings were found,
Speaker 1: both of a forty five and a three eighty caliber. Right,
Speaker 1: No bullets or fragments were found in Gene, but two
Speaker 1: different casings likely came from the exchange between Gene and
Speaker 1: Gregory Artists. So they've fabricated the motive and the means
Speaker 1: and now they placed you with Gene, which is actually
Speaker 1: something that was true. Sabrina Norfleet saw you two guys
Speaker 1: together at the gas station that night. Yeah, she's seen
Speaker 1: us together at the East Coast gas station. She just
Speaker 1: played to him about the argument, and you know, she
Speaker 1: told them that I was the last person you know,
Speaker 1: seeing with Gene Artists. And my thing is this, you know,
Speaker 1: y'all charged me with another individual. So would it come
Speaker 1: in a do y'all think me with mister Hers. She's
Speaker 1: telling y'all it was just me and Jeane together. Right.
Speaker 1: Part of the state's evidence was this mister Travis Chalk,
Speaker 1: who said that he had seen Jean driving alone in
Speaker 1: a white Chevy, and that Larco and Quentin Parish known
Speaker 1: as QP, they were in a white mitsub she Gallant
Speaker 1: hiding towards Franklin Street following him. So he was supposed
Speaker 1: to be in Jean's car, but now he's in a
Speaker 1: different car with another guy following Jeane. Which way is it, guys?
Speaker 1: I mean he can't have it both ways? Travis Truck
Speaker 1: several years later, Gavin HALFI David that all of it
Speaker 1: was alive. In fact, I do have that Affidavid. Travis
Speaker 1: Chalk said, I never saw Lorico Kearney with a gun,
Speaker 1: nor did he say anything about killing anyone over some
Speaker 1: gambling debts, as stated to me by a detective E. C. Harris.
Speaker 1: He says that that detective led to say I saw
Speaker 1: Lorico Kearney with the type of gun that was used
Speaker 1: in the murders, and that he harassed me almost daily,
Speaker 1: and that he came with papers to encourage me to sign,
Speaker 1: threatening me with incarceration if I did not cooperate. Travis
Speaker 1: Chalk said, I was young and afraid, and I was
Speaker 1: given paperwork as to what the same court by Detective
Speaker 1: ec Harris. Obviously, the jury didn't benefit from this knowledge,
Speaker 1: just as they had not benefited from Willie Hardy's admissions
Speaker 1: from the preliminary hearing. Man the Commonwealth brought in another
Speaker 1: steaming pile of conflicting testimony from Tony Booth. Now the
Speaker 1: motive isn't just about being mad about losing five grands
Speaker 1: of Jean. Now it was five grand that he needed
Speaker 1: to pay mister Booth for drugs. Tony Booth said that
Speaker 1: I sold drugs for him. I owed him money and
Speaker 1: I told him that, you know, I had to kill
Speaker 1: some people to get the money back. I lost the
Speaker 1: money gambling. And the testimony that he gave it didn't
Speaker 1: matter the evidence. He just said, I said I held
Speaker 1: the guns to the people's head while PC he said PC,
Speaker 1: and Coda for his name was QOT. He was saying
Speaker 1: PC and PC first deal pockets of money and drugs.
Speaker 1: You know why I held the guns to him and
Speaker 1: killed him out to the you know, gene artists. He
Speaker 1: had cracked cocaine's five hundred and fifty dollars in cash
Speaker 1: in his pocket at the time of his death. So
Speaker 1: the testimony that Tony Booth gave. It didn't even match
Speaker 1: the evidence, right. If you had robed Jeane to pay
Speaker 1: Tony as he alleged, then Jean's pockets that have been
Speaker 1: full of money and drugs. You don't have to be
Speaker 1: Sherlock Holmes to figure this out. Yeah. Absolutely. Booth was
Speaker 1: awaiting sentencing for his own charges, which was a projected
Speaker 1: two hundred and eighty months well over twenty three years,
Speaker 1: and that sentencing was suspended until he fulfilled his obligation
Speaker 1: at your first and second trials, Tony Booths, you guessed
Speaker 1: it ended up serving only five years now, Larrico's public
Speaker 1: defender courtesy of Tony Boothmind you, Michael Rosenberg poked holes
Speaker 1: in booths story inspredibility on cross examination. That's could, But
Speaker 1: what else was presented in your favor? The defense caught
Speaker 1: an eternity you know, to get understand explaining to the
Speaker 1: jury about the pre boggain that Tona Booth had entered
Speaker 1: into know about him looking for a centers production. Also,
Speaker 1: a witness, Teresa Ricks, testified she was a pizza delivery
Speaker 1: person who had delivered a pizza to one sixteen Franklin
Speaker 1: Street in the hours before the murders, and she did
Speaker 1: see two black men, one heavy set, one medium, bill
Speaker 1: entered the house after arguing with each other getting out
Speaker 1: of their car. And this Miss Ricks testified that neither
Speaker 1: of these men were Lark o'kearney, who she knew from school.
Speaker 1: They went to school together, my son's mother and her mother.
Speaker 1: They actually testified on my behalf to saying that you
Speaker 1: know I was there for my baby mother's house, you
Speaker 1: know at the time that disillared defense had happened. Well,
Speaker 1: she actually testified on my behalf too. You know, she
Speaker 1: told the jury that you know, she was in the
Speaker 1: driveway when I came from my baby mother's house. Unfortunate
Speaker 1: only loved ones don't make convincing alibi witnesses, as they're
Speaker 1: easily explained away as someone who might be willing to lie.
Speaker 1: But his attorney was in possession of the statement from
Speaker 1: the only witness who should have mattered, which was Treyvon,
Speaker 1: and Trayvon was who pointed the finger directly at Gregory Artists.
Speaker 1: Yet this alternate and much more likely suspect was never
Speaker 1: presented to the jury. Among so much more, the fact
Speaker 1: that as Laura didn't bring up any physical evidence, and
Speaker 1: none of it pointed to Larrico. Was just astounding to me.
Speaker 1: They took fingerprints from the crime scene, and to this
Speaker 1: day they haven't tried to match those fingerprints to anyone
Speaker 1: except Lorico Kearney. I mean, what about Gregory artists. Apparently
Speaker 1: no one was interested enough, so the jury came to
Speaker 1: a predictable conclusion. I mean, I didn't have any idea
Speaker 1: that I could be actually convicted of that crime. You know,
Speaker 1: I had how hopes, Like I said, I was born home,
Speaker 1: my family in the court room. I didn't think it
Speaker 1: was anywhere that they could find me guilty. I mean,
Speaker 1: I couldn't believe it. I was in shock like I
Speaker 1: was known. I cannot feel like you know, I let
Speaker 1: everybody down even though it was beyond my control. And
Speaker 1: your verdict that the first trial was really odd. You
Speaker 1: were found guilty of first degree murder, but only of
Speaker 1: Evan Giles along with the related firearm charge, you know,
Speaker 1: because you had Casey Davis testified he seen me with
Speaker 1: the forty five caliber weapon. I guess they said, you know,
Speaker 1: the forty five callible fragment of a bullet was found
Speaker 1: in the school. It was a compromise thirty right forty
Speaker 1: five caliber bullet fragments were only pulled from Vane Giles's skull,
Speaker 1: and maybe they weren't totally convinced of your guilt, so
Speaker 1: they acquitted you for the murder of Gene Artists cold
Speaker 1: comfort there, but you were still sentenced to life for
Speaker 1: the Evan Giles homicide plus three years for the gun charge.
Speaker 1: But your public defender, a new one who you had
Speaker 1: been assigned, Joseph Winston, was actually able to appeal. This
Speaker 1: verdict didn't win since the only person who could contradict
Speaker 1: Tony Booth was you, and the Commonwealth's attorney unconstitutionally arguing
Speaker 1: to the jury that you should have testified. This constituted
Speaker 1: a clear violation of your Fifth Amendment rights, so they
Speaker 1: properly declared it a mistrial. I was convicted in February
Speaker 1: of two thousand. My case was overturned Junior Ruary twenty nine,
Speaker 1: two thousand and two. That hadn't been in prison at
Speaker 1: that time but fifteen months, but I had been around
Speaker 1: guys that had actually been down with twenty and twenty
Speaker 1: five years. Now. I finally get that paper brook saying
Speaker 1: that my case was overturned, and I shared that with
Speaker 1: a few individuals, and you know, like some people were
Speaker 1: happen for me, like you know, we've been way like
Speaker 1: to get paper brook like this for twenty plus years.
Speaker 1: And it was basically telling me, though, take advantage of
Speaker 1: the opportunity. And when I did go back to court,
Speaker 1: they offered me a plea. Boggain it. They just convicted you,
Speaker 1: but now they're offering you a plea. That kind of
Speaker 1: feels like they had a little bit of a guilty
Speaker 1: conscience maybe, like they knew this conviction was bullshit. So
Speaker 1: now Joseph Winston was off your case, you were transferred
Speaker 1: to jail, and a new public defender named Dwayne Struthers
Speaker 1: was assigned to your case. No, he came to see
Speaker 1: me and actually, wouldout be interested in taking a pleae deal?
Speaker 1: You know, I told him no, lesson to be time third,
Speaker 1: you know, because you know, I mean, I didn't do this,
Speaker 1: and that's what I'm explaining to him. He asked me
Speaker 1: where they would all for ten years to third? Would
Speaker 1: you be interested in that? And at the time I
Speaker 1: had been inconcrated a little bit over five years, and
Speaker 1: I said, with this five years, it already did be
Speaker 1: included with this ten and he didn't know. So without
Speaker 1: a potential five year deal or time served, you were
Speaker 1: ready for a second chance to fight for your innocence
Speaker 1: in court, and that meant the state got a second
Speaker 1: chance too. So you were initially in protective custody or
Speaker 1: the PC pot as it's known, and then you got
Speaker 1: transferred into the general population, where you made some new acquaintances,
Speaker 1: notably Ronald Bruckings and Raymond Copeland. They tried to, you know,
Speaker 1: befriend me. So I had been in there with them
Speaker 1: maybe a couple of months, and all of a sudden
Speaker 1: they put me back in this protective custody part and
Speaker 1: Bookers and Copner came to visit, and you know, they
Speaker 1: enticed them to lie. And I know you've read them.
Speaker 1: I've got the letters that they vote to the prosecutor
Speaker 1: and to the Detective ec Hurst to meet in the head.
Speaker 1: So mister Brooking says to the Commonwealth Attorney, mister Jamieson, Hello,
Speaker 1: mister Jamison, I'm hoping to find you and yours and
Speaker 1: the best of health, highest of spirits, the highest of spirits.
Speaker 1: It's a crazy kit. I'm writing you in concern of
Speaker 1: the visit received from you today, I feel as if
Speaker 1: we did not reach a very clear understanding about having
Speaker 1: my jeep returned and the charges dropped. Now I'm waiting
Speaker 1: on an appeal. This you could stop, just have the
Speaker 1: federal courts to withdraw their appeal and drop the case.
Speaker 1: I have never had a violent charge, so this should
Speaker 1: not be hard. I have gave my life to the Lord. Oh,
Speaker 1: and I'm willing to help you as best as I can.
Speaker 1: If I'm going to take the stand, I need to
Speaker 1: know my charges are being dropped. I just want to
Speaker 1: chance to start my new found life in Christ over
Speaker 1: on the outside. If you give me another chance, I
Speaker 1: will not let you down. Sincerely, Yours in Christ, while
Speaker 1: I put my hand on the Bible, swear to tell
Speaker 1: the truth, and then lie my ass off to help
Speaker 1: the state ruin another man's life, just like Jesus would do.
Speaker 1: I mean, apparently, mister Brookins pretended to be a friend
Speaker 1: of Lorico's father, and then he took a look at
Speaker 1: Lorico's transcripts, all in this twisted attempt to concoct a
Speaker 1: believable alleged confession in exchange for his own charges being
Speaker 1: dropped and the return of his jeep, and then along
Speaker 1: comes mister Brookings cellmate or blockmaid, Raymond Copeland. Raymond Copeland,
Speaker 1: he was sentenced to ten years. In the letter that
Speaker 1: he wrote to the prosecutor, he was seeking to have
Speaker 1: his ten years sentence cut to three, you know, for
Speaker 1: his testimony and basically saying he can be as convincing
Speaker 1: and moving as possible to help burying me. And also
Speaker 1: that he had testified in another murder case for this
Speaker 1: prosecutor before. Right, So this is a trial tested bullshit artist,
Speaker 1: So letty please read from the letter mister Copeland wrote
Speaker 1: about the meeting he had with the Commonwealth Attorney just
Speaker 1: six days before his own proceedings Raymond Copeland. He says,
Speaker 1: I am writing in concern about our last meeting, which
Speaker 1: took place on January twenty eight, two thousand and three,
Speaker 1: where you mention not making any promises, and I can
Speaker 1: respect that, but perhaps we need to discuss my situation
Speaker 1: more clearly. I am participating in a double murder trial.
Speaker 1: I know others are involved that have a lot more
Speaker 1: time and more serious crimes than I do, so I
Speaker 1: want you to know I'm not trying to wait until
Speaker 1: I get to prison before my requests are granted. I
Speaker 1: was sentenced by Westbrook Parker, which you may be familiar with.
Speaker 1: I know from experience. If you can talk with Parker,
Speaker 1: who's the judge, I can get everything I've asked for
Speaker 1: because I'm not asking for much. I can't go to
Speaker 1: any prison because of possible retaliation for my testimony. Now,
Speaker 1: before I take the witness stand, all I'm asking is
Speaker 1: your word off the record. Please contact me and let
Speaker 1: me rehearse my testimony. And also I need to evaluate
Speaker 1: my situation as far as how I will be rewarded
Speaker 1: rehearse my testimony. Rehearse my testimony. There was also a
Speaker 1: third jailhouse snitch, Christopher Joyner, but we were unable to
Speaker 1: obtain any damning letters from him. However, in Virginia there's
Speaker 1: no parole, and Joinner's fifty four year sentence appears to
Speaker 1: have magically disappeared as he was released. In fact, years ago,
Speaker 1: he alleged that he overheard incriminating statements from Larrico while
Speaker 1: he was on the phone. So now that everyone was
Speaker 1: well rehearsed, you went back to trial in February two
Speaker 1: thousand and three. There was still no physical evidence tying
Speaker 1: Larrico to the scene. Fingerprints that they believe would be
Speaker 1: probative just didn't match. Lariko Kearney, Sabrina Northfleet, Travis Chalk,
Speaker 1: Casey Davis, and Tony Booth returned. So this much was
Speaker 1: exactly the same, minus the Fifth Amendment violation. And now
Speaker 1: there were three new lying jailhouse snitches. And in addition
Speaker 1: to their sentence productions and letters to the Commonwealth Attorney,
Speaker 1: there were even more reasons to find their testimonies totally unreliable.
Speaker 1: Brooke's testifact that I said I kicked the door in,
Speaker 1: and that was known throughout the trial, like whoever had
Speaker 1: committed this crime, It was no forced insue, they knew
Speaker 1: the victims struggles. He did point that out, and the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: you know, just made up some bogus three like showed
Speaker 1: them a pitch of a door in the back of
Speaker 1: the apartment, like, look at that door. Don't look like
Speaker 1: somebody was trying to get out their doors. So clearly
Speaker 1: Brookins misunderstood the facts that he was supposed to regurgitate
Speaker 1: for the state. But what about Copeland. Copelan's testimon was
Speaker 1: basically the same because they was in the same bluff
Speaker 1: and of course they got together. They you know, the
Speaker 1: goal with what they would saying, including the same mistakes
Speaker 1: that proved they didn't know what the fuck they were
Speaker 1: talking about. Now, Christopher Joyner, he was in the protective
Speaker 1: custody pod with you because he was also cooperating on
Speaker 1: a number of other cases, which does not bode while
Speaker 1: for his credibility either. And he alleged overhearing you say
Speaker 1: incriminating things while on the phone. Now, you had taken
Speaker 1: a phone call while he was in ear shot one
Speaker 1: day when you had returned from motion hearing in which
Speaker 1: you found out that Brookers and Copeland were going to
Speaker 1: testify against you. My child was a start that Monday,
Speaker 1: and I found out that Friday, so I came back.
Speaker 1: I used the phone. I called my stepfather, displaying to
Speaker 1: him you know what it happened to court and everything
Speaker 1: that you know, he heard me say on the phone,
Speaker 1: and my stepfather he wrote it down and put his
Speaker 1: own little twist and spin on it. He actually test
Speaker 1: the fact that I professed to Brookings and Copeland bout
Speaker 1: you know, me doing a murdle. I was bragging or
Speaker 1: saying that I was like OJ Simpson, It's just with
Speaker 1: some bogus stuff he was saying. It didn't even make sense.
Speaker 1: And like we mentioned, he too received a sentence reduction
Speaker 1: for his OJ Simpson references. Now, the defense called the
Speaker 1: Albi witnesses again your loved ones, as well as the
Speaker 1: pizza delivery person, in addition to other people who Copeland
Speaker 1: and Brookns had previously test the lie about. But the
Speaker 1: difference with this trial was Treyvon who was now eleven
Speaker 1: years old because five years had gone by. You called
Speaker 1: him to the stand to get him to recount what
Speaker 1: he had already said at the statements to police, which
Speaker 1: was the Gregory Artists had murdered gene artist Andy von
Speaker 1: Giles right in front of him alone. I tried to
Speaker 1: call him as my witness at the second trial, and
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get him to testify to what he said, well,
Speaker 1: at least get the statement presented to the jury. And
Speaker 1: you know, they scow was the jury, and they did
Speaker 1: what you call the proper and they placed them on
Speaker 1: the stand. He just said he didn't remember anything. Do
Speaker 1: you know. They showed him the statement and he, like
Speaker 1: I guess he may have been coached, but he just
Speaker 1: said he couldn't remember and the judge said that I
Speaker 1: couldn't get the statement into the jury because I couldn't
Speaker 1: have each my own witness. So they didn't allow the
Speaker 1: statement to get into the jury. And once again, the
Speaker 1: jury did not hear the most important witness statement, the
Speaker 1: one taken from the only eyewitness to the crime, just
Speaker 1: moments after it happened. Now, who knows if he was
Speaker 1: coached or coerced by the state or maybe by his
Speaker 1: own family. After all, Gregory Artists was his relative. It's
Speaker 1: even possible that the memory was so painful that the
Speaker 1: associative amnesia took over it. Either way, the jury didn't
Speaker 1: hear what we all know he had said right after
Speaker 1: he saw his uncle and mother fatally shot. Instead, the
Speaker 1: state pieced together, coerced or incentivized witness statements people with
Speaker 1: no knowledge or the crime. That's the state's case. That's
Speaker 1: it floating on the hope that the jury might think, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: they can't all be lying. And I understand the Commonwealth
Speaker 1: attorney did something that showed that they knew. You tell
Speaker 1: me what you think, but it seems like they knew
Speaker 1: how fraudulent this prosecution was. They passed a plea deal
Speaker 1: to your attorney, Dwayne Struther's. Even after all this, after
Speaker 1: the common Will presented the case, they asked and would
Speaker 1: not be willing pleaded the second degree murdle. And again
Speaker 1: I asked him, like, you know how much time it discurred?
Speaker 1: And from his actions, you know the way he looked
Speaker 1: at me, he wanted me to gamble with the jury.
Speaker 1: I've already had been convicted once and I knew it
Speaker 1: was a possibility that, you know, I could get life
Speaker 1: from prison again, and your attorney didn't properly advise you
Speaker 1: about this, but second degree murderer carries a sentence of
Speaker 1: five to forty years, not life, not in Virginia. And
Speaker 1: I refused it. And here I am sitting again, you know,
Speaker 1: I get convicted again. I ended up with life. I mean,
Speaker 1: it must have felt like deja vu all over again.
Speaker 1: It definitely did. I'm like, this can't be happening like
Speaker 1: a second time. It's like I just felt like defeated,
Speaker 1: and I know this time my fight would be a
Speaker 1: whole lot harder. It's very rare that you see anybody
Speaker 1: get three trials being convicted the second time. But it
Speaker 1: was hard going back to waters with I just can
Speaker 1: remember the ride that I had when my first trial
Speaker 1: was overturned and they curried me back to the jail.
Speaker 1: I was in tears for really because or the prison
Speaker 1: conditions and all the people that I'm going to leave behind,
Speaker 1: Like I would never see this again. Guys, don't get
Speaker 1: these this opportunity I'm about to get and like I said,
Speaker 1: the whole rat back to that jail, I was the teals.
Speaker 1: I was like, this is the child of my life
Speaker 1: that's over with. And it didn't happen that way. You know,
Speaker 1: me being convicted the second time, I knew. I knew
Speaker 1: my fight would be you know, a whole lot harder.
Speaker 1: Of course, I went through the litigation process, and my
Speaker 1: family later on down the line, you know, put out
Speaker 1: more money from me trying to get me out. I
Speaker 1: just always try to be positive and keep their hope
Speaker 1: like one day, like like justice would prevail and I
Speaker 1: would be able to, you know, walk out these prison doors.
Speaker 1: That return trip to prison was February two thousand and three.
Speaker 1: It's now February two thousand and twenty three, and you're
Speaker 1: still there. But like you said, the fight is not over.
Speaker 1: Your first attempt was for ineffective assistance. Of counsel Dwayne
Speaker 1: Struthers yet had a series of like this for their
Speaker 1: actions from the state bar, like the two thousand and
Speaker 1: three Then his license was suspended for two years in
Speaker 1: two thousand and six because you know, he failed to
Speaker 1: you know, communicate with his class and you know, he
Speaker 1: didn't pursue cases diligently. So I was hoping when I
Speaker 1: found his haber's claim against him, that they would overturn
Speaker 1: my case just based on the lack of competence of
Speaker 1: Dwayne Struggles. And I did get the evidentiary heard owned
Speaker 1: Struggles and competency because of them offered me the police
Speaker 1: bargain for second degree murder and he didn't know how
Speaker 1: much time that it curred. The district court granted to
Speaker 1: hear my issue on that claim back in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight. But the thing where I didn't get any
Speaker 1: relief on that issue is because you know, the calling
Speaker 1: Wealth Attorney Philip ferguson the head call Weelf attorney and
Speaker 1: Suffolk at that time, he testified that in Suffolk he
Speaker 1: has a policy that all pre bogglins must be reviewed
Speaker 1: and signed by him, and he wasn't going to give
Speaker 1: the authorization, so that's why the judge then he didn't
Speaker 1: ruin of my favor, and so that rendered the point moved,
Speaker 1: not that there aren't plenty of other points to raise
Speaker 1: it by their effective assistance, because at the second trial
Speaker 1: he did not point out that the only witness to
Speaker 1: the murder, young Trayvon, did not point you out in court.
Speaker 1: It seems like seeing you in court should have jarred
Speaker 1: something loose if you, in fact had killed his mother,
Speaker 1: but you didn't. And once again, the fact that none
Speaker 1: of the fingerprints taken from the scene that they felt
Speaker 1: were probitive, none of them were a match for you
Speaker 1: because you weren't there, But this was not raised, as
Speaker 1: was the fact that the fingerprints have never been tested
Speaker 1: against Gregory artists, which is insane. So, Lenny, I know
Speaker 1: you've been on this case since your release brought you
Speaker 1: to the Western branch of the John A. Cogshal Law Firm.
Speaker 1: And in another stunning, awful setback for this case, Attorney
Speaker 1: Cogo Show, a legend in the innocence community and a
Speaker 1: friend to me and you guys and so many others,
Speaker 1: passed away suddenly in June twenty twenty two. May he
Speaker 1: rest in peace. So where does that leave Larco's case.
Speaker 1: So once again the law firm of John Ay Cogshaw
Speaker 1: filed Loreco's petition on January fifth, two was in twenty
Speaker 1: two to the Secretary of Commonwealth Office. That petition primarily
Speaker 1: dealt with the statements made by Trayvon Artists the day
Speaker 1: of the murders and the following day when they interviewed
Speaker 1: him again. Of course, we know there was no physical
Speaker 1: evidence that pointed to Larrico Curnie's guilt, and that Trayvon
Speaker 1: Artist definitively told the detectives who killed his mom and uncle.
Speaker 1: That was the foundation upon which this petition was established,
Speaker 1: along with the convicted felons who came forward with false
Speaker 1: testimony in order to get deals. And fortunately we were
Speaker 1: able to get an affidavit from mister Travis Chalk, who
Speaker 1: said he just wanted to clear his conscience, and he
Speaker 1: came forward and said it was all a lie. Everything
Speaker 1: he said was a lie. He didn't see Larrico Kearney
Speaker 1: with a gun. He didn't see Larico Kearney following Jane Artists.
Speaker 1: He was told exactly what to say by this detective
Speaker 1: when he went to court, and he said as much
Speaker 1: in the affidavit. The petition also details everything you've heard here,
Speaker 1: the inconsistencies and contradictions between the false witnesses and between
Speaker 1: the statements and the facts of the crime. So what
Speaker 1: does the petition seek? A conditional pardon on behalf of
Speaker 1: Larco Kearney. His petition is awaiting review because of the
Speaker 1: long list of people who file before him. From what
Speaker 1: we've been told, they're so swamp that it's going to
Speaker 1: be a long process. So we're hoping to get as
Speaker 1: much airplay as possible for mister Kearney to hopefully change
Speaker 1: this wrongful conviction. Well, you have all of our support,
Speaker 1: and hopefully our audience will lead a hand as well.
Speaker 1: There's currently a petition alerting the governor of this wrongful conviction,
Speaker 1: pleading for his team to take notice of the grave
Speaker 1: injustice that this is. So please do it right now.
Speaker 1: Click the link in the episode bio and get involved.
Speaker 1: And now we go to my favorite part of the show.
Speaker 1: It's called, of course, closing arguments, where I first of all,
Speaker 1: thank you guys for being here and sharing this harrowing story.
Speaker 1: And then I'm going to turn my microphone off, leave
Speaker 1: my headphones on kick back in my chair and just
Speaker 1: listen to any closing thoughts you may have. So let's
Speaker 1: kick it off with Lenny and then close it out
Speaker 1: with Ulrico. Once again, we have a case where the
Speaker 1: only evidence that the Commonwealth has in a double murder
Speaker 1: is convicted felons. It's a sad state of affairs when
Speaker 1: we are putting people away for life based on convicted
Speaker 1: felons getting deals. It's time for us to do something,
Speaker 1: especially in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's time for prosecutors
Speaker 1: to bear some of this weight for using convicted felons
Speaker 1: that they know have extensive criminal records and they know
Speaker 1: they're getting deals. It's time for the prosecution to possibly
Speaker 1: suffer as a result of this. I mean, it's the
Speaker 1: only way that I can see that this situation will
Speaker 1: ever change. It's a sad day that somebody like larco
Speaker 1: Kearney has been in the prison system for twenty five
Speaker 1: years or more for something he did not do. There
Speaker 1: is no evidence to support it. It's time for this
Speaker 1: to change. I mean, I would just like to say
Speaker 1: thank y'all for allowing me the opportunity to share my
Speaker 1: story with the world. Again. This is a situation that
Speaker 1: anybody can find theirself in. Anybody can come forward and
Speaker 1: just say you said anything, it's not right without the
Speaker 1: supporting evidence. But twenty five plus years in prison, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm still healthy. I still have hope that someday, you know,
Speaker 1: the justice will prevail and I would be able to
Speaker 1: walk off this prison and be with the people that
Speaker 1: love me, try to build, you know, a relationship with
Speaker 1: my children. I would like to see my daughter walk
Speaker 1: down the out and like I said, just wanted to,
Speaker 1: you know, just go out there and just be a
Speaker 1: pillow to my community and try to help others that
Speaker 1: may be lost so they won't end up in the
Speaker 1: same position. And then I'm in again. I just expressed
Speaker 1: my condolences to know the artist family what they have
Speaker 1: went through. You know, nobody deserved to that. But I
Speaker 1: shouldn't spend the rest of my life in prison based
Speaker 1: on you know, people trying to help their whole situations.
Speaker 1: And I'm just looking forward to the day, like I said,
Speaker 1: I'm releasing and I feel in my heart that you know,
Speaker 1: Josepha prevailed and the right thing will be done, you know,
Speaker 1: my heart and my courage. I'm just too big just
Speaker 1: to die in Prison. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: I'd like to thank our production team Connor Hall, Cheff
Speaker 1: Clyburn and Kevin Wards, with research by Lila Robinson. The
Speaker 1: music in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR
Speaker 1: nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Speaker 1: Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast,
Speaker 1: and on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at
Speaker 1: Lava for Good. On all three platforms. You can also
Speaker 1: follow me on both TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason
Speaker 1: plot Raleval Conviction is the production of Lava for Good
Speaker 1: Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number one