Speaker 1: Dear Governor is a production of I Heart Media and
Speaker 1: three Months Media. Dear Governor Newsom, Dear Mr Governor Newsom,
Speaker 1: this is an open letter to Governor Gavin Newsom. Dear
Speaker 1: Governor Newsom. Okay, So today is Jarvis Master's final state
Speaker 1: appeal and I just pulled into one of many Joe's
Speaker 1: auto parking lots in downtown Los Angeles. It is a
Speaker 1: beautiful Sunday morning. Jervis's attorneys will go before the California
Speaker 1: Supreme Court in the Ronald Reagan State Building, which is
Speaker 1: about a half a mile from where O J was
Speaker 1: tried back in Jarvis can't be here, not allowed to
Speaker 1: leave San Quentin's death throw. Most of his friends are
Speaker 1: in the Bay Area. So I'm here to show my support,
Speaker 1: along with Connie fam who is a longtime advocate and
Speaker 1: confidant of Jarvis's. We're meeting my mom and my brother
Speaker 1: in the court house. Father Gregory Boyle of Homeboy Industries
Speaker 1: said that he's going to be sending a bunch of
Speaker 1: his homies to attend today to show solidarity with Jarvis.
Speaker 1: For some background, Jarvis filed a petition for his writ
Speaker 1: of habeas corpus back in two thousand five. It's taken
Speaker 1: the court fourteen years to hear as constitutionally guaranteed arguments.
Speaker 1: For perspective, Jarvis was sentenced to death five years before
Speaker 1: o J was ever even tried. Back in Corrections, Officer
Speaker 1: Sergeant Dean Birchfield was murdered at San Quentin. Three of
Speaker 1: the inmates were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The
Speaker 1: guy who actually did the stabbing was sentenced to life
Speaker 1: without parole, the guy who was accused of masterminding the
Speaker 1: murder was also given life without parole, and Jarvis, who
Speaker 1: was accused of making the SHIV, was sentenced to death.
Speaker 1: Now we'll get into the details of his case and
Speaker 1: talk to investigators and attorneys who who know it well
Speaker 1: at a later date, but suffice to say there's a
Speaker 1: lot of alarming incongruities the suppression of information, witness recantations,
Speaker 1: destruction of evidence. Also, keep in mind, Jarvis never murdered anyone,
Speaker 1: that's a verifiable fact, and on top of that, he's
Speaker 1: always denied that he had anything to do with the
Speaker 1: making of the weapon, full and probably obvious disclosure. Those
Speaker 1: of us producing this podcast believed Jarvis to be factually innocent.
Speaker 1: We know what we've read, and we've heard from league
Speaker 1: of scholars who are familiar with the case. Over the years,
Speaker 1: we've gotten to know Jarvis. We've witnessed his good works,
Speaker 1: and we appreciate that he's a man of integrity and honesty.
Speaker 1: We do not expect you to believe him. We don't
Speaker 1: even ask you to believe him. We simply invite you
Speaker 1: to get to know this fascinating man, and to hear
Speaker 1: about the unusual circumstances of his case, and judge for
Speaker 1: yourself whether the death penalty is appropriate. As Governor Newsom
Speaker 1: told us, there are innocent men on death row, and
Speaker 1: there are hundreds of folks on death row now today
Speaker 1: whose crimes and convictions are anything but cut and dry.
Speaker 1: As the only Western country that still executes its citizens,
Speaker 1: perhaps you'll consider a worthwhile exercise to question what is
Speaker 1: in order to answer what can be, or maybe even
Speaker 1: what should be. Perhaps the answers you draw will help
Speaker 1: inform your vote in the elections. Is the death penalty
Speaker 1: a necessary evil to keep our streets safe and too
Speaker 1: exact righteous punishment, and to deliver a semblance of justice
Speaker 1: to victims? There is it too fraught with ambiguity and
Speaker 1: contradictions and biases to ensure that we're all protected equally
Speaker 1: under the law. Okay, I've made it over to three
Speaker 1: D South Spring Street, which is the home of the courthouse.
Speaker 1: They don't allow recording apparatus in the courtroom, so I
Speaker 1: will be reporting back later. Jervis Master's case involves a
Speaker 1: prosecution that was rotten to the core. Joe Baxter, the
Speaker 1: appellate attorney who has represented Jarvis for over twenty five years,
Speaker 1: from a KPF a FM interview four years ago, did
Speaker 1: two main witnesses against them are chronic lawers. Both of
Speaker 1: those witnesses ever cantered their testimony. The state failed to
Speaker 1: disclose that one of its main witnesses against Jarvis Masters
Speaker 1: was the key suspect in a murder investigation at the
Speaker 1: time he was on the witness stand and guess what
Speaker 1: the investigation was shut down the minute he agreed to testify. Last,
Speaker 1: and certainly not least, the Marine County d A threatened
Speaker 1: the life of the other witness who had SINTR candidate
Speaker 1: if he refused to testify against Jarvis Masters. So this
Speaker 1: is a case, as I said, that just rotten to
Speaker 1: the rotten to the core. And it's a total miscarriage
Speaker 1: of justice. And I can fully understand why Jarvis's frustrated
Speaker 1: by the delay in his case, waiting for the courts
Speaker 1: further to come in. I have been waiting twenty six
Speaker 1: years for it almost. I think it's a long good
Speaker 1: anybody on death row by far Jarvis masters. And it
Speaker 1: wasn't cold shelf. It wasn't on the shelf colde. It
Speaker 1: was on the docket. It was in their face for many, many,
Speaker 1: many years, and they didn't do anything until now. I
Speaker 1: don't know why they weighed it so long, because think
Speaker 1: about it, course they could have found I mean, if
Speaker 1: they really believed I shocked that if they could have
Speaker 1: just said, you know what, didn't I go to another
Speaker 1: courting room, go to you to federal courting room and
Speaker 1: do your appeal. They didn't do that. They didn't do it.
Speaker 1: If me and the guy did. Two of the guys
Speaker 1: were charged with the same thing, and I found guilty
Speaker 1: of the same thing, and their appeals were hurt within
Speaker 1: three or four years. Why it wasn't my hurt, but
Speaker 1: in the same amount of time. M M. It doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense in a civil case if you go to
Speaker 1: trial and the jury flying for the plaintiff. Let's say
Speaker 1: we know that you have appeals. You can go through
Speaker 1: the state system of appeals and and then when that's over,
Speaker 1: that's the end of the case. But we have a trial,
Speaker 1: we have an appeal, that's the end of it. If
Speaker 1: your lawyer committed malpractice, go sue your lawyer, but the
Speaker 1: case is final. Larry Marshall is a professor of law
Speaker 1: Stanford University and maintains an active pro bono practice through
Speaker 1: which he represents individuals and criminal appeals and post conviction
Speaker 1: proceedings in the criminal justice system. We recognize that we
Speaker 1: do need more than just the idea of an appeal
Speaker 1: that when new evidence emerges or new arguments can be
Speaker 1: made that could not have been made undirect appeal, then
Speaker 1: we're going to create a mechanism through which the system
Speaker 1: will look at those to see if there are constitutional violations. So,
Speaker 1: for example, assume that you have a situation where your
Speaker 1: lawyer was dismal, Your lawyer never investigated the case, never
Speaker 1: talked to some key witnesses, You get convicted, you go
Speaker 1: up on appeal. You can't raise that issue because by definition,
Speaker 1: the case as it stands, looking at what happened at
Speaker 1: the trial court doesn't say anything about those witnesses, and
Speaker 1: the direct appeal only deals with what happened at the
Speaker 1: trial itself. The appellate court of the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: looking to say, did the trial court make any mistakes? Well,
Speaker 1: the trial court didn't make any mistakes. In my example,
Speaker 1: it was the lawyer who was dismal. So now what
Speaker 1: do we do. We say, if you want to raise
Speaker 1: that issue on habeas, we will let you go out
Speaker 1: and investigate. We will let you get a statement from
Speaker 1: those statements from those witnesses saying, boy, nobody ever contacted me.
Speaker 1: If they had, I would have testified that this defendant
Speaker 1: was not the person who you know who committed the murder.
Speaker 1: I would have testified that readily. And then you'll get
Speaker 1: to bring in evidence about that your lawyer never did
Speaker 1: interview those people, and so on. So that's an example
Speaker 1: of what can happen at habeas. You also have situations
Speaker 1: where you find out that the prosecutor did not turn
Speaker 1: over exculpatory evidence as the law requires the prosecutor to do,
Speaker 1: and that comes to light afterwards after trial. There again
Speaker 1: we let you advance that. And these are just two
Speaker 1: of many, many examples. And another one is the ability
Speaker 1: to come in and show that there's newly discovered evidence
Speaker 1: that demonstrates your factual innocence. Jarvis's attorneys they filed the
Speaker 1: petition previous corpus back in two thousand five. Why would
Speaker 1: it take so? What is that almost fifteen sixteen years
Speaker 1: to have the oral arguments? Is that unprecedented? Is that typical?
Speaker 1: I can't tell you whether it's unprecedented or not, but
Speaker 1: I'll tell you it's shocking. Um, it's shocking that how
Speaker 1: long this is taken. And I can't begin to understand
Speaker 1: how it's possible that the process has taken this this long. Um.
Speaker 1: So I wish I had an answer on that. It's
Speaker 1: just there are delays. Uh. You know a lot of
Speaker 1: the delays in the in the death penalty in California
Speaker 1: are due to a shortage of lawyers willing to take
Speaker 1: these cases. Uh, and that, but I don't believe that
Speaker 1: was what caused the delay in Jarvis's case. He had
Speaker 1: lawyers throughout Um, and Um, the delay is just it's
Speaker 1: unfathomable to me. Yeah, calling the matter now of Enried
Speaker 1: arcs j Masters on Abeas Corplasce. The judicial branch of
Speaker 1: the California Courts does not permit broadcast of their proceedings,
Speaker 1: so we've produced a dramatization directly from the court transcripts.
Speaker 1: At the oral arguments today, Alice Luster, the Deputy Attorney
Speaker 1: General at the Office of the California Attorney General, argued
Speaker 1: on behalf of the state, may it please the court
Speaker 1: new credible evidence is what is required on habeas to
Speaker 1: overturn what is under this law a presumptively valid judgment,
Speaker 1: and what we have in this case. The referee found
Speaker 1: time after time after time that the evidence presented by
Speaker 1: petitioner at the Jarvis Master's habeas hearing was simply not credible.
Speaker 1: Joe Baxter, Jervis's ap Pellet attorney, followed by his second chair,
Speaker 1: Chris Andrian, argued to the contrary, had the jury known
Speaker 1: what we now know, the jury would have had far
Speaker 1: more than a reasonable doubt about Jarvis Master's guilt. Second,
Speaker 1: what we now know and what the referee found and
Speaker 1: what the Attorney General accepted, is that the state's case
Speaker 1: is founded on the testimony of two inveterate liars Bobby Evans,
Speaker 1: whom the state's b GF expert described as a spectacular liar,
Speaker 1: and Rufus Willis, who the referee described as an inveterate
Speaker 1: liar with selective memory who would do anything to save
Speaker 1: his skin. What we also now know, based on the
Speaker 1: findings is that the remaining piece of evidence against Masters,
Speaker 1: what the d A called the choke chain around his neck,
Speaker 1: two kites written by him were probably not authored by him,
Speaker 1: your honor, Associate Justices. I didn't play a major role
Speaker 1: in a in a lot of the briefing, but you
Speaker 1: probably remember I was the lead counsel at the habeas hearing,
Speaker 1: and as it came time for closing argument, I sat
Speaker 1: down with the guys and and we started talking, and
Speaker 1: I said, you know, I think the role I need
Speaker 1: to play, the role, the role I'd like to play
Speaker 1: for you today is to put you into shoes of
Speaker 1: a trial lawyer like myself, somebody who's been trying cases
Speaker 1: for over forty six years now. I'm an experienced trial lawyer,
Speaker 1: and I've had a chance to take all of this
Speaker 1: in and take another look at and say to you,
Speaker 1: if we look the state of the record as it is,
Speaker 1: right now with the presentation of false evidence, new evidence
Speaker 1: lead to the likelihood of a different outcome at the trial.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to say the answer is unequivvabally yes.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you why. I think the way
Speaker 1: you have to look at this is take all these
Speaker 1: different things that Mr Baxter was talking about and say,
Speaker 1: we have a new state age the stage. The stage
Speaker 1: has been reset. When you look at Bobby Evans and
Speaker 1: you look at Rufus Willis as well as you have
Speaker 1: if we take the referees findings here, you've got these
Speaker 1: two inveterate liars and Mr Backs are referred to them.
Speaker 1: You've got these two guys and you can't believe a
Speaker 1: word they say. But some guy sitting on death row
Speaker 1: now because at some point, well that's what they said
Speaker 1: that day, and because they said something that day, we're
Speaker 1: going to accept that. And that's fundamentally wrong. I don't
Speaker 1: think you can say, oh, we're going to accept what
Speaker 1: they said at the trial when all this other stuff
Speaker 1: has come out, and that shows that maybe those statements
Speaker 1: that the murder trial weren't presently aren't enough to convict
Speaker 1: Mr Masters at trial. It's my understanding that the defense
Speaker 1: went pretty hard to impeach both Willis and Evans. Is
Speaker 1: that not correct? I'm just saying that to you as
Speaker 1: some one who lived through this case. I see it
Speaker 1: now as being a whole different case. And as you
Speaker 1: put this case in my lap today, and as I
Speaker 1: look at it and say, he's got a good chance
Speaker 1: to win this case, and she should get that chance.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you, Mr Andrean He corny He Connie,
Speaker 1: how do you feel? I feel very disheartened. It's one day.
Speaker 1: Connie Famine I sat next to each other in the
Speaker 1: back of the dimly lit baroque courtroom. She's known Jarvis
Speaker 1: for over twenty years. We did a little post game
Speaker 1: on the phone after we return from the hearing. What
Speaker 1: is your what is your take of the day? You know,
Speaker 1: it's just it's hard to say. It's hard to say
Speaker 1: because you know, I'm just I just feel really kind
Speaker 1: of depleted. I mean, it's a little bit disappointing, but
Speaker 1: now I just want to hope for the best. You know, Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: I feel the same, Lay. I think it was completely disheartening.
Speaker 1: I was. I was so disappointed that that his case
Speaker 1: was heard at the end of a long day I mean,
Speaker 1: how many court cases did we sit through before the
Speaker 1: the court heard his case. It was like four year four. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're like four cases. Probably we're doing like property management
Speaker 1: and like you know, labor law, wage stepped and I mean,
Speaker 1: here we are talking about like a man's life, you
Speaker 1: know that, you know, I mean, it's it's the difference
Speaker 1: between life and best for somebody, and they just you know,
Speaker 1: these cases went on and on and on. You know,
Speaker 1: in civil law, there's civil law cases is there give
Speaker 1: each other were money and here we are, like at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, everyone's exhausted. It's like five
Speaker 1: talk and that's when it was hurt. I mean really,
Speaker 1: I know, and I felt like they almost felt bored
Speaker 1: or like they weren't paying attention, like they engaged in
Speaker 1: the civil law cases, but that none of the justices,
Speaker 1: none of the seven justices, really seemed to be particularly
Speaker 1: invested or maybe that was just my perception. No, I
Speaker 1: think you're totally right. I think it was the end
Speaker 1: of a long day and everyone which was really really tired.
Speaker 1: And I mean, but that's scary to think that somebody's
Speaker 1: life is on the line under those conditions, you know,
Speaker 1: I know, Yeah, I'm so glad we were we were
Speaker 1: able to come out and you know, and I'm glad
Speaker 1: that the law students were there in the gallery to
Speaker 1: watch at least, you know, some part of the proceedings today. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, it's always an education. I mean, I've got
Speaker 1: on several juries previously, but this is I have never
Speaker 1: I have never sat on a jury. So that was
Speaker 1: that was actually my first time ever stepping foot into it,
Speaker 1: into a courtroom. It's pretty intimidating. Now, Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: was very formal. I was pleasantly surprised by the diversity
Speaker 1: of the judges though. I mean there were seven of
Speaker 1: them and it was did you see that three of
Speaker 1: those were women and there were several different ethnicities, So
Speaker 1: that that was that was a positive. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: and like I said, I mean, this case is so
Speaker 1: complicated honestly, Um, you know, we we all believe in
Speaker 1: Darvice's innocence, but in terms of like what the law limits,
Speaker 1: in terms of the arguments that were presented today, UM,
Speaker 1: I think just puts all of it in a difficult situation,
Speaker 1: and including I think maybe the judges because they can
Speaker 1: only comment on certain parameters of the case. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: and and it's yeah, it's it's very technical, and uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's a hard thing to resolve. Um. I
Speaker 1: mean if this if this thing goes to the federal level,
Speaker 1: you know, um, you know, well that's the next step,
Speaker 1: isn't it that. I mean, if the if the if
Speaker 1: the opinion comes back and it's not in favor of Jarvish,
Speaker 1: then I mean he's exhausted all of his state appeal,
Speaker 1: so he will be headed to the to the federal level, right,
Speaker 1: and a whole new team team of attorneys, and it's
Speaker 1: going to be a whole new move ballet, right, Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: And hopefully at that level there will be new sets
Speaker 1: of eyes that can you know, look at this case again,
Speaker 1: you know, and and it's hard. I mean, this case
Speaker 1: is is over what almost thirty five years old? Um,
Speaker 1: so yeah, but you know it's not impossible. So keep
Speaker 1: the faith. I mean, we've heard of some really egregious
Speaker 1: cases where uh, people have been released and people have
Speaker 1: been exonerated after thirty five forty years. This is a
Speaker 1: really great political moment to really shine a spotlight on
Speaker 1: what's going on in our justice system. Dear Governor newsom
Speaker 1: My name is Connie fam and I am a public
Speaker 1: school teacher in southern California. Twenty years ago, when I
Speaker 1: myself was in high school, I read Jarvis J. Master's
Speaker 1: book Finding Freedom, Writings from Death Row. It had a
Speaker 1: profound impact on me as a young person, a Buddhist
Speaker 1: and an Asian American. It was awe inspiring to see
Speaker 1: an example of how someone who shared my own spiritual
Speaker 1: convictions could live their ideals and craft an amazing life
Speaker 1: of service even under the most tragic of circumstances. Well
Speaker 1: lear me to say this. I'm a lot older than County,
Speaker 1: but I still think Connie is my big shield. It
Speaker 1: kind of stick over me. The power of Ris's books
Speaker 1: lie in the fact that they serve both as mirrors
Speaker 1: into our own lives and as windows into the lives
Speaker 1: of others. I meant her when she was in high school.
Speaker 1: I think Finding Freedom. It just came out and I
Speaker 1: had been outful a while, and she wrote me a
Speaker 1: letter and shared a lot of commitments that I thought
Speaker 1: was inspiring. She wanted to be a teacher, she lived
Speaker 1: in a Buddhist community. I heard the Buddhist in her.
Speaker 1: It was not just words than I heard but a
Speaker 1: commitment to the practice. His writings have helped open a
Speaker 1: whole new world to people, young and old. Governor, I
Speaker 1: write to you knowing I represent hundreds of school teachers,
Speaker 1: social workers, counselors, and professors from across the country. We
Speaker 1: have read, been inspired and transformed by Jarvis's essays, stories
Speaker 1: and articles, and have gone on to share them with
Speaker 1: our students. This is not someone who's going to, you know,
Speaker 1: find another path in her life. This is someone who's
Speaker 1: going to keep a path she's on, and however it
Speaker 1: brings something new to her, she's gonna be that way.
Speaker 1: Through his personal correspondence to our classrooms and offices, he
Speaker 1: has become a friend, a mentor, and her brother to
Speaker 1: so many people, and through his guidance and compassion, he
Speaker 1: has helped to inform our life's work and dedication to others.
Speaker 1: So we started writing each other and we wrote. We wrote.
Speaker 1: Most times it was not about Buddhism, but a lot
Speaker 1: of times it was about how she deal with certain
Speaker 1: things and how I explained to her what I deal
Speaker 1: with every day. And she thought that was very, very
Speaker 1: powerful because she lives in a community that was more,
Speaker 1: more comfortable, more structured, and when I was in and
Speaker 1: I was on death row, these people visit me. Blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. It's an ongoing travesty that Jarvis spends any
Speaker 1: more time in prison for a crime that he did
Speaker 1: not commit. I believe in Jarvis's innocence not because I
Speaker 1: was physically present at San Quatin in when Sergeant Halbert
Speaker 1: Field tragically lost his life. I believe in him because
Speaker 1: of what my lived experience tells me that anyone who
Speaker 1: can muster the courage and clarity of mind to precisely
Speaker 1: articulate suffering and redemption in the way that Jarvis does,
Speaker 1: cannot also falsify their innocence. But she stated in the background,
Speaker 1: you know and really really became my big sister over
Speaker 1: the years, and actually have a feel good calling that
Speaker 1: you know, Governor and issuing your moratorium. You have gone
Speaker 1: on record stating there are innocent people on death row. Well,
Speaker 1: Jarvis is one of them, and I urge your office
Speaker 1: to closely examine his case as soon as possible. On
Speaker 1: behalf of my friend Jarvis and in faith and solidarity,
Speaker 1: Connie fam Jarvis has been very transparent about the fact
Speaker 1: that he is a much different man now than when
Speaker 1: he first walked through the gates of San Quentin in
Speaker 1: nineteen one. He was on a fast track to prison
Speaker 1: from the moment he left the womb. By his late teens,
Speaker 1: he was bitter and angry, had a chip on his shoulder,
Speaker 1: and he made many ill conceived choices that eventually landed
Speaker 1: him in prison. Next week, as we anxiously await the
Speaker 1: opinion from today's habeas hearing, we'll learn about those crimes
Speaker 1: as Jarvis reflects on that dark time in his life,
Speaker 1: whether he has any regrets, and how he was able
Speaker 1: to make such a dramatic transformation. Today's episode was written
Speaker 1: and produced by Donna Fazzari and myself Corny Cole. Our
Speaker 1: theme song sentenced his compliments of the band stick Figure
Speaker 1: from their album Set in Stone. Stu Sternbach has composed
Speaker 1: of the original music and provided voice work for this episode.
Speaker 1: Special thanks also to Sue Cardon and Tim Carton for
Speaker 1: their voice work. Nate Defort did the sound design. Visit
Speaker 1: free Jarvis dot org to find out more about Jarvis's
Speaker 1: case and to sign your name to our dear Governor
Speaker 1: newsom petition and if you have questions for Jarvis, please
Speaker 1: leave a message on our hotline at two zero one
Speaker 1: nine zero three thirty five seventy five. That's two zero
Speaker 1: one nine zero three thirty five seventy five. Dear Governor.
Speaker 1: Newsom is a production of I Heart Media and three
Speaker 1: Months Media. For more podcasts for my Heart Radio, visit
Speaker 1: the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to your favorite shows,