Speaker 1: I'm Jason Flom, host of Wrongful Conviction, but this week,
Speaker 1: instead of hearing me, I've invited a true genius from
Speaker 1: the legal world to bring their knowledge and expertise to
Speaker 1: the conversation as guest host here at Wrongful Conviction. We
Speaker 1: believe that sharing the stories of the incarcerated innocent can
Speaker 1: create real change in the world, even beyond what these
Speaker 1: real life legal superheroes do every day. On June, joggers
Speaker 1: were out on a wooded trail in Pontiac, Michigan, when
Speaker 1: they discovered the body of thirty five year old Robert Mihia.
Speaker 1: He had been stabbed to death. Mahia was last seen
Speaker 1: at a bar a couple of nights before, and he
Speaker 1: left with a stranger. Witnesses described that person to police,
Speaker 1: who created a composite sketch and published in the local newspaper.
Speaker 1: There were no other leads. Connie Cook lived in Pontiac
Speaker 1: back then, and when she saw the suspects sketch and
Speaker 1: heard about the reward money, she decided to turn and
Speaker 1: in her ex boyfriend, Gilbert Pool. She told police he'd
Speaker 1: confessed to a murder shortly before they moved together to
Speaker 1: North Carolina. Police went to North Carolina and rested Gilbert
Speaker 1: and took him back to Michigan for trial. Among the
Speaker 1: other evidence that was presented, the state called forensic godontologist
Speaker 1: Dr Allen Warnick to explain the supposed bite mark found
Speaker 1: on the victim's body. Even at the time, there was
Speaker 1: a suspicion of this type of junk science, but Dr
Speaker 1: Warnick's testimony was presented to Gilbert's jury as scientific fact.
Speaker 1: Gilbert looked nothing like the suspects sketch and its blood
Speaker 1: type did not match any of the blood found near
Speaker 1: the victim's body. But on June six, Gilbert Pool was
Speaker 1: convicted of murder sentenced to life in prison without the
Speaker 1: possibility of parole. This is wrongful conviction. Hi'm Chris fabricat On,
Speaker 1: the director of stratetic Litigation at the Innocence Project in
Speaker 1: New York and author of the book Junk Science and
Speaker 1: the American Criminal Justice System. Hello, my name is Gilbert Pool.
Speaker 1: I was recently exonerated through the Innocence Project and the
Speaker 1: Conviction integrat Unit in the state of Michigan. Hi. I'm
Speaker 1: Marla Mitchell Cysian, and I'm the former director of the
Speaker 1: w m U Cooley Innocence Project and currently serving of
Speaker 1: counsel with the office. And Mr Pool tell us how
Speaker 1: you got involved in the criminal legal system and what
Speaker 1: led to your original conviction. I was briefly living in Michigan.
Speaker 1: I moved from Michigan back down in North Carolina and
Speaker 1: nineteen eight and Uh, I met a girl up here
Speaker 1: in Michigan, and she went with me back down in
Speaker 1: North Carolina. Subsequently, we our relationship ended and UH we
Speaker 1: broke up. She came back to Michigan. Um, I'm been
Speaker 1: honest to me. She had went to the police down
Speaker 1: there and told them that I had committed a crime
Speaker 1: in Michigan. And this is out of nowhere. Did you
Speaker 1: had you been to Pontiac and um, and did you
Speaker 1: think that your girlfriend might say something like this about you?
Speaker 1: I was, I was twenty two years old and I
Speaker 1: was working as a plumber in North Carolina to him
Speaker 1: plumbar repair work. I was briefly living in Michigan. I
Speaker 1: had moved up here from North Carolina, but I found
Speaker 1: it hard to maintain employment up here because I was
Speaker 1: not from the state, and as a Union state, you
Speaker 1: had to establish a five year residency in the state.
Speaker 1: Before you could join the union. So I decided this
Speaker 1: wasn't a place for me and I moved back to
Speaker 1: North Carolina. My girlfriend and I, Connie Cook. When we separated.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a friendly separation, to put it lightly, and um,
Speaker 1: I didn't think it was beyond her to make up something,
Speaker 1: but I didn't think it was to this degree or
Speaker 1: this this here. After we had separated, I was out
Speaker 1: working and I came off from work one day and
Speaker 1: my door was open and everything in the mobile home
Speaker 1: was gone. And I thought, well, okay, she came back
Speaker 1: and stole everything I had. There was no note or anything,
Speaker 1: but that's okay. If she needed that, that's fine. Moving on. Um.
Speaker 1: It wasn't until a couple of weeks later that the
Speaker 1: police came to my workplace and serve me with this warrant.
Speaker 1: And then uh everything made sense. Then okay, Uh she
Speaker 1: used me to uh basically get a ride back to
Speaker 1: Michigan and claim a reward that was open for a
Speaker 1: murder case that was unsolved in Michigan. She has me
Speaker 1: confessant to a murder six months before it actually happened.
Speaker 1: It's a problem. They took her in and I gave
Speaker 1: her a polygraph test. So she worked with the polygraph
Speaker 1: examiner until they came up with a test that she
Speaker 1: could pass. Well, let's bring in Marla talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about the crime. The Mr Pool really had no
Speaker 1: idea what the details were. Marley, can you tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit about the crime that Mr Pool was
Speaker 1: ultimately charged with? Yes, So Mr Pool was convicted of
Speaker 1: murdering Um, a man in Pontiac, Michigan. And um. Mr
Speaker 1: Mieha was actually pretty well known in the Pontiac community
Speaker 1: at that time. He had worked for Pontiac and he
Speaker 1: had worked for the county in a variety of government jobs.
Speaker 1: UM and he was he was actually pretty popular individual
Speaker 1: at the time. He was living um what would have
Speaker 1: been considered at that time sort of a double life,
Speaker 1: meaning he was a gay man in Pontiac, Michigan in
Speaker 1: n and he frequented a gay bar, which was the
Speaker 1: last place he was seen alive. So Miha had left
Speaker 1: with a stranger that evening. Um. That's ranger through the
Speaker 1: narrative became Mr Pool. Gil became a suspect when his
Speaker 1: ex girlfriend Connie Cook said, I have information about a
Speaker 1: murder Um, which at that point in time when she
Speaker 1: came forward the murder. The case of gone cold for
Speaker 1: about seven or eight months, and that's when Mr Pool
Speaker 1: became the suspect. And so Mr Pool tell us about
Speaker 1: when you first learned that you weren't just going to
Speaker 1: be able to take care of this quick and go
Speaker 1: back to work. What was the first moment where you
Speaker 1: recognize that you were beginning along slow slide into the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system. After I got back to Michigan, things yeah,
Speaker 1: really were setting annual Back in Oakland County jail. Um
Speaker 1: the investigator started taking samples from me, hair samples, blood samples,
Speaker 1: bite impressions, UM, dental mold. A dental mold will definitely
Speaker 1: get to the dental molds. They were They were starting
Speaker 1: to cook up the junk science right away. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I hired an attorney in Michigan who contacted me
Speaker 1: once while I was introduced to the county jail. Uh,
Speaker 1: they had composite drawings ran in a newspaper that was
Speaker 1: not me. He showed me the newspaper, he said, look,
Speaker 1: this is the paper that they had. It doesn't even
Speaker 1: match you. It's not even close. And it was just
Speaker 1: a matter of a bengeful girlfriend and uh, started the
Speaker 1: process that we're just gonna have to take care of
Speaker 1: but not to worry. He was seeing. He seemed to
Speaker 1: be kind of nonchalant about it. So it was kind
Speaker 1: of calming to me a little bit, but asked Tom
Speaker 1: moved on. Uh. In the months in the county jail
Speaker 1: crept up on me, and then Uh, it became a
Speaker 1: lot more serious. Martha. Let me bring you into talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about the investigation that was going on,
Speaker 1: where this composite sketch came from, and who the people
Speaker 1: were that saw the victim um on the night the
Speaker 1: victim was murdered. Yes, so the victim was a regular
Speaker 1: at this bar and most of the patrons were individuals
Speaker 1: that were either his friends or knew him. And so
Speaker 1: obviously one of the first things that the police did
Speaker 1: to investigate this case is to interview everyone that was
Speaker 1: in the bar that evening, and they all provided descriptions
Speaker 1: and there were two composite drawings that came out in
Speaker 1: the local newspaper, the Oakland Press, and as Mr Pool stated,
Speaker 1: they didn't look anything like Mr. Pool. Unfortunately, when Connie
Speaker 1: Cook served Mr Pool up on a silver platter, what
Speaker 1: the government did and what the police investigation did, is it?
Speaker 1: It focused then on Mr Pool. Um. This problem was
Speaker 1: compounded because instead of the composites that were published in
Speaker 1: the newspaper a week after or the murder, the government
Speaker 1: produced new drawings UM. We to this day do not
Speaker 1: know where they came from. UM. And they proceeded to
Speaker 1: suggest to the witnesses and the jury that these were
Speaker 1: the drawings that were in the newspaper, and those drawings
Speaker 1: looked exactly like Mr Pool. In fact, to this day,
Speaker 1: I personally believe that they drew those drawings from photographs
Speaker 1: that they obtained through their investigation, So they took a
Speaker 1: new sketch and essentially painted a bull's eye around their
Speaker 1: new target and got their identification that way. No, and
Speaker 1: we all know that eyewitness misidentification as a leading contributing
Speaker 1: factor to wrongful conviction. It's played a role in nearly
Speaker 1: seventy of all convictions that have in a return by
Speaker 1: DNA evidence. But usually those are honest mistakes by well
Speaker 1: intentioned actors that are using a suggestive lineup. It's usually
Speaker 1: not manipulating an image to gain an identification. Mr Pool.
Speaker 1: Were you aware that this was going on at the time? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I was poking. My lawyer in the in the side
Speaker 1: said listen, object to this, and he did a very
Speaker 1: poor job during trial of getting to the bottom of
Speaker 1: the composite drawing SWITCHERU that they that they came to
Speaker 1: um and I wanted to jump in when you said misidentification.
Speaker 1: This was not a misidentification. This was absolutely a fabrications.
Speaker 1: Missing identification. Uh suggests that somebody made a mistake. I
Speaker 1: don't think there were any mistakes made here. I think
Speaker 1: this was l planned out and intentional. And if you
Speaker 1: look at it from that perspective, all the puzzles fit
Speaker 1: like they orchestrated this whole thing to get a conviction. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, and I didn't mean to suggest
Speaker 1: that there was some sort of mistake, you know. I
Speaker 1: just hadn't heard something like a new composite spets to
Speaker 1: match a suspect before. And I've been around the block,
Speaker 1: so that's a that's a new one for me, you know.
Speaker 1: And then we're going to bring in the junk science
Speaker 1: in a minute. But I want to just go back Marley,
Speaker 1: if you could just talk a little bit about how
Speaker 1: the victim was discovered and some of the evidence that
Speaker 1: was alleged to have been found on the victim's body
Speaker 1: and ultimately associated with Mr Pool. Sure. The victim left
Speaker 1: the bar at closing time on a Sunday night Monday morning,
Speaker 1: and the next day he failed to show up for
Speaker 1: work and towards the end of that day this was
Speaker 1: very out of character for him. Um, he was considered
Speaker 1: a missing person and UM. He was discovered on a
Speaker 1: running path by two runners who were out for an
Speaker 1: early morning run, and of course they called the police immediately. UM.
Speaker 1: They identified his body rather quickly and UM when they
Speaker 1: took him. When they arrived at the crime scene, there
Speaker 1: was a lot of blood because he had been stabbed
Speaker 1: to death, but there was also um less concentrated blood
Speaker 1: around the body. So they as a result, they collected
Speaker 1: some blood droplets from some stones and some grass near
Speaker 1: the body. This is another actually extremely heartbreaking piece of
Speaker 1: this case in terms of having this information back in
Speaker 1: and how it was treated. So they used blood typing
Speaker 1: at the time, UM, which only allows us to put
Speaker 1: ourselves in a category of how dreds thousands sometimes millions
Speaker 1: of people. And they determined that the victim's blood was
Speaker 1: OH and that there was also a foreign blood type
Speaker 1: present be type blood, which, as we now know Mr
Speaker 1: Pool is a B. He was excluded from the evidence
Speaker 1: before the trial. Right, that's what we're telling here, Right, So,
Speaker 1: Mr Pool, you have at this point you've given up
Speaker 1: all forcibly had blood samples taken from you, hair samples
Speaker 1: taken from you, a dental mold taken from you. You've
Speaker 1: been um an identification has been manufactured against you. Your
Speaker 1: girlfriend has falsely accused you of a crime. You're in
Speaker 1: jail and you're about to start trial. Tell us about
Speaker 1: when the dentist came for your teeth. Well, uh, forensic otentologist,
Speaker 1: self proclaimed expert and bite marks came to the county
Speaker 1: jail and took bite markets in wax I say, I
Speaker 1: say he's a self proclaimed I guess he was certified
Speaker 1: by a Board of American Board of Odentologists. Photo junk
Speaker 1: scientists certified him. Right, But the certification comes in the
Speaker 1: form of certifying identification of remains that are unidentifiable otherwise.
Speaker 1: So if you had a body that was burnt, and
Speaker 1: you could take the teeth from that body and compare
Speaker 1: them to dental records and identify that victim. But to
Speaker 1: take that science and stretch it to say, Okay, we're
Speaker 1: going to take a bruise. It's essentially what they found
Speaker 1: on the victim was a bruise, and I match it
Speaker 1: to somebody's teeth and say those teeth matched. A bruise
Speaker 1: is a far stretch, it's it's it's not a solid
Speaker 1: substrate like wax that they're taking my impressions from. UH
Speaker 1: scan is fluid. It's it's movable, it's elastic, it's gonna stretch,
Speaker 1: and and so you're not going to have depth or angulation, registration,
Speaker 1: all these things that would come into play when you're
Speaker 1: identifying a corpse. Bite mark evidence is subject to speculation
Speaker 1: masquerading as scientific evidence. As Mr Pool just said, skin
Speaker 1: does move and it changes, and that makes it nearly
Speaker 1: impossible to say for sure which teeth may which marks.
Speaker 1: More fundamentally, these forensic dentists don't even know a bite
Speaker 1: mark from any other type of injury. And beyond that,
Speaker 1: skin changes constantly in a decomposing body, and it changes
Speaker 1: constantly in a healing victim. So teeth that might match
Speaker 1: one day or even one hour might not match the
Speaker 1: next hour or the next day. The friends that go
Speaker 1: to inteologists in this case was Dr Alan Warnick, the
Speaker 1: only one practicing in Michigan at that time. Any good
Speaker 1: defense layer is supposed to question the expert its credentials
Speaker 1: in front of the jury in a process called varder.
Speaker 1: So today, if we were listening to this case today,
Speaker 1: if a jury was hearing this case today, they would
Speaker 1: learn that this type of evidence that Dr Allen Warnick
Speaker 1: was about to convict Mr Pool with has been responsible
Speaker 1: for at least thirty five known wrongful convictions and indictments.
Speaker 1: The jury would also learn that the National Academy of
Speaker 1: Sciences calls forensic go to atology junk science and grows speculation,
Speaker 1: as has every other scientific entity that has ever examined
Speaker 1: this fundamental junk science. I wrote an entire book on
Speaker 1: the subject to junk science, and I've been on another
Speaker 1: of our podcast Junk Science talking about the outrageous practice
Speaker 1: of byte mark identification and matching. But let's get back
Speaker 1: to Mr Pool's case. Despite the fact that he and
Speaker 1: his lawyer both knew that this wasn't a credible witness,
Speaker 1: Dr Alan Warnick was nevertheless allowed to get up on
Speaker 1: the witness stand, raised his right hand, and testify as
Speaker 1: a so called expert practicing in a valid field of forensics.
Speaker 1: So when he when he gets on the stand and he,
Speaker 1: you know, with his little quiet lab coat on, and says, well,
Speaker 1: the odds of winning the lottery were better than it
Speaker 1: not be a Mr. Pool. That's exactly what he told.
Speaker 1: The jury worked for word. So the jury, here's that
Speaker 1: which is a personal opinion, but they're they're instructed to
Speaker 1: regard it as a truth. How do I win? How
Speaker 1: do I come back that? So let's take us um
Speaker 1: from the moment of the opening statement and describe how
Speaker 1: you experienced your trial as this nightmare unfolded. I believe
Speaker 1: I'll seem attorney twice before the trial, both Tom's. It
Speaker 1: was less than ten minutes. He was a paid attorney
Speaker 1: at trial. He gave me a notepad and a piece
Speaker 1: of paper. He's is here. If you want to make notes,
Speaker 1: just write it down and show it to me. And
Speaker 1: I was kind of keeping score. Well, well okay, well
Speaker 1: that didn't sound good for me. So you know that
Speaker 1: was one against me. Well, well that didn't sound good.
Speaker 1: There's another mark against me. While the marks kept adding
Speaker 1: up in the it doesn't look good column here, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm getting very nervous as lack of preparation. I would say,
Speaker 1: uh was coming to light and it was not looking
Speaker 1: good for the home team, Okay for the audience with
Speaker 1: their own score seats at home. Evidence presented against Mr
Speaker 1: Pool was limited to this, the doctor composite sketch, his
Speaker 1: ex girlfriend's false testimony that he admitted to the crime,
Speaker 1: and the junk science the bite mark evidence. A Michigan
Speaker 1: State Police scientists also conducted blood type testing at the
Speaker 1: crime scene and did not find any type A B
Speaker 1: blood that would have matched to Mr. Pool. Due to illness,
Speaker 1: this scientist did not testify, and instead of delaying the
Speaker 1: trial to get this crucial testimony in front of the jury,
Speaker 1: Mr Pool's lawyers just entered the paper report into evidence,
Speaker 1: which isn't close to us convincing. So yeah, it was
Speaker 1: definitely not looking good for the home team. So at
Speaker 1: this point, Mr Pool, you decided to testify on your
Speaker 1: own behalf. Take us through that experience and how you
Speaker 1: were feeling at this time. Um so I am absolutely
Speaker 1: beside myself. I'm in a panic state. When the prosecutor
Speaker 1: ended his his presentation, the judge asked my attorney to
Speaker 1: put on his witnesses. My attorney says, yeah, no, we're
Speaker 1: good defense. Rest He put on no witnesses at all, whatsoever. Wait,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, wait a minute, you're not gonna put
Speaker 1: on any witnesses at all. Somebody's got to go up
Speaker 1: in my defense. I'll testify, he said, Well, I wouldn't. Yes,
Speaker 1: you're getting on the stand. The prosecutor is really gonna
Speaker 1: I don't care. Somebody's got to stand up for me.
Speaker 1: So I demanded to be put on the stand, and
Speaker 1: I got up. So let me interrupt you here for
Speaker 1: a second. Your attorney had not talked to you about
Speaker 1: whether or not you're going to testify until that moment.
Speaker 1: You had no conversation about that. No, he didn't prep
Speaker 1: you for any of this testimony. No, so you had
Speaker 1: no idea what you might say or might not say,
Speaker 1: and he just advised you not to do it, and
Speaker 1: that was it, right. But I said, I said, no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, I'm getting on the stand. Somebody's got
Speaker 1: to say I didn't do it. Somebody's got to see me,
Speaker 1: my reaction or whatever I mean, however plays out. I
Speaker 1: can't be convicted and just sit here and not say anything.
Speaker 1: If I'm gonna go down. I'm gonna go down kicking
Speaker 1: and screaming. So I did my best. I got on
Speaker 1: the stand and against the prosecutors manipulations of wordying or
Speaker 1: his learned techniques of of interviewing somebody. Uh I did
Speaker 1: my best. But uh, I guess I didn't translate to
Speaker 1: the jury. It's very you know, I mean, anybody can
Speaker 1: be made to sound like a liar under those heightened circumstances.
Speaker 1: And so tell us about what was your family at
Speaker 1: the um there for the verdict in in your testimony,
Speaker 1: you know, due to my attorney's um initial response or
Speaker 1: initial investigation, it was just a matter of routine. This
Speaker 1: is not you. The evidence says it's not you. Don't
Speaker 1: worry about it. You'll never be convicted. No, my family
Speaker 1: is in North Carolina. I wasn't gonna have them fly
Speaker 1: up to Michigan. So I had no family or friends
Speaker 1: or anybody. I had no support there in the court
Speaker 1: room at all. And so you walked into this believing
Speaker 1: that you know, a day or two later you'd be acquitted,
Speaker 1: go back to your life. I could see that this
Speaker 1: was orchestrated for a conviction of an unsolved murder. Of
Speaker 1: a very important person, well loved by the community. We're
Speaker 1: satisfying a community need for a conviction. And and I
Speaker 1: was just a young two year old kid, so you
Speaker 1: know I was served up. Wow. I mean you were
Speaker 1: just you know, in a life raft on your own,
Speaker 1: cut from the shore. It sounded like, with no support,
Speaker 1: no family support, no lawyerly support, no scientific support, you
Speaker 1: get convicted and sentenced to life without parole. Is that right? Correct?
Speaker 1: Tell us the role that Hank Clayton played in this trial.
Speaker 1: Hank Clayton was in this storyline as an individual who
Speaker 1: had spent a considerable amount of time with the victim
Speaker 1: leading up to the time of his disappearance. And it
Speaker 1: was basically uncontroverted that on the night of the murder,
Speaker 1: leading up to the murder, that Miha had left the
Speaker 1: bar at least once with Mr Clayton and returned with him.
Speaker 1: And in fact, there were witness statements and testimony at
Speaker 1: the pre limb that suggested that he in fact left
Speaker 1: the bar with Hank Clayton. The police did question Mr Clayton,
Speaker 1: and they did search his truck. They did find a knife,
Speaker 1: they didn't find anything unusual, uh, in the back of
Speaker 1: his truck and they pretty much dropped him as a
Speaker 1: suspect and the victim was stabbed right, So there was
Speaker 1: no testing of this knife. There was testing and they
Speaker 1: they did not find any blood. We had an investigator
Speaker 1: look into his background and he was known to threaten
Speaker 1: people with knives and you know, behave in a jealous manner,
Speaker 1: if you want to call it that. We we also
Speaker 1: spent many, many years trying to determine what Mr Clayton's
Speaker 1: blood type was. We were unsuccessful in trying to determine that,
Speaker 1: and we had to remind ourselves that we might not
Speaker 1: be able to solve the crime. And we had to
Speaker 1: step back and think through how are we going to
Speaker 1: exonerate Mr? Pool? So, Mr Pool, after your sentenced, UM,
Speaker 1: tell us about your life in prison before m Arlotte
Speaker 1: took on your case. What was your appeals like? What
Speaker 1: was your prison life like? I started trying to educate
Speaker 1: myself as to how I got in there, the law,
Speaker 1: the statutes, well, what was required for a conviction? How
Speaker 1: do I appeal? A just started ordering books and reading
Speaker 1: case law. I formulated a list of I guess I
Speaker 1: could say demands. I was going to make sure I
Speaker 1: was in control of this of this journey here because
Speaker 1: I'm leaving it up to my attorney. Even look when
Speaker 1: I had paid did turn out well. The court appointed lawyer,
Speaker 1: I got him on the phone maybe twice um throughout
Speaker 1: the whole Pillot process. I never want seen him. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it looks like to this day. Oh
Speaker 1: my god. And the lawyering you got, Mr Pool, it
Speaker 1: just outrages me. I see a lot of bad lawyering
Speaker 1: in this job. But you know, here, you know, you
Speaker 1: have sech stark evidence of innocence before you even get indicted,
Speaker 1: and just go through a trial where they, you know,
Speaker 1: aren't being straightforward with the blood evidence, and they're using
Speaker 1: all this junk science and they're inventing sketches, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's hard to believe that we're talking about
Speaker 1: the United States. I was absolutely side myself. I said
Speaker 1: that I'm not I want to lose the appeal too.
Speaker 1: So I had to start out from basics. So in
Speaker 1: too much time, I got my g D. I went
Speaker 1: to an office occupation class to learn how to type
Speaker 1: so I could type my briefs. And then so I
Speaker 1: got me a typewriter and I started writing myself formulating
Speaker 1: my own supplemental briefs to put in on behalf of myself,
Speaker 1: and I put everything but the kitchen sinking there. Actually
Speaker 1: took my case all the way up to the United
Speaker 1: States Supreme Court, and every court got it wrong. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I can only attribute that to UH just not giving
Speaker 1: me the time of day because I was a prisoner.
Speaker 1: Unlesson I've been I've been studying law for twenty five years.
Speaker 1: How could I not know what I'm talking about by
Speaker 1: this time. I have no doubt that you're appellate briefs
Speaker 1: are stronger than the briefs that are filed in these cases.
Speaker 1: I want to get to um your decision to reach
Speaker 1: out to Marli's clinic, and how you came um when
Speaker 1: you began to learn about the power of DNA evidence,
Speaker 1: and how you decided to reach out to the instance
Speaker 1: project that Marlo runs. The whole time, I reached out
Speaker 1: to attorneys trying to get assistance because I needed a
Speaker 1: signature behind my briefs, behind my research. I need somebody
Speaker 1: to sign on and say yes, this is legit. I
Speaker 1: needed somebody. I needed a voice to stand behind me. Eventually,
Speaker 1: the stars aligned. Marla came to my aid, and Marla
Speaker 1: has been working diligently on my case ever since. We
Speaker 1: Actually we're looking pretty closely at girl's case after he
Speaker 1: wrote us, because we could tell based on just his
Speaker 1: questionnaire that if half of this was true, he was
Speaker 1: wrongly convicted. Marla in her law students submitted hundreds of
Speaker 1: freedom of information request to reinvestigate the case and do
Speaker 1: their own forensic DNA testing on the evidence that remained. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: because Mr Poole had, as he said, put everything but
Speaker 1: the kitchen sink into trying to get himself out on
Speaker 1: his own, Marla and her students weren't allowed to submit
Speaker 1: everything they found to the appellate courts because it wasn't
Speaker 1: technically new evidence. But the turning point in this case
Speaker 1: finally comes when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel launches the
Speaker 1: first statewide conviction Integrity Unit in twy nineteen. And Marla,
Speaker 1: this is the same year you filed an application for
Speaker 1: Mr Pool's case. When we did his application, we went
Speaker 1: in full guns. We had the expert's opinion on the
Speaker 1: d NA, we had the expert's opinion on the identification,
Speaker 1: and then we had the full history of the role
Speaker 1: that Alan Warnick played in the case, along with his
Speaker 1: association with other wrongful convictions in the state of Michigan.
Speaker 1: UM we didn't argue that the pipe mark evidence was new.
Speaker 1: We just argued that once you find this other stuff
Speaker 1: to be new, you're going to take a look at
Speaker 1: the whole case, and you're gonna want to take a
Speaker 1: really close look at this pipe mark. When they formulated
Speaker 1: the Conviction Integrity Unit, my case was one of them.
Speaker 1: They started initially considering they're going to make sure they
Speaker 1: got it right. And the detectives actually told me where
Speaker 1: either going to be your best friend or your worst enemy,
Speaker 1: because we're not Polini punches here. We're gonna put it
Speaker 1: all out on the table. So I knew in my
Speaker 1: heart I was getting out, and I started bragg Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get out of here. I'm telling people around
Speaker 1: me I'm getting out of here, and regularly I'm getting
Speaker 1: updates from Marla. I got uh notified that I had
Speaker 1: a Zoom meeting the next day. I remember very specifically.
Speaker 1: We were in the midst of covid ill so we
Speaker 1: couldn't tell you in person. She says, it's going before
Speaker 1: the judge next week. And there's nobody opposing you. Everybody
Speaker 1: is in agreement that you're innocent. And I am pretty
Speaker 1: sure I was crying before I probably got the words out.
Speaker 1: But it was one of that happiest days for me
Speaker 1: to say, your case, after working on it for almost
Speaker 1: twenty years, is finally turning the corner. And I was
Speaker 1: shaking up. I mean, I think I can remember crying
Speaker 1: twice in my conviction. Once when the judge sentenced me
Speaker 1: and I had to make that phone call to my mother,
Speaker 1: And the other time was when Marla told me that
Speaker 1: that next day I had to hear and and uh,
Speaker 1: within hours, Marla and her team of attorneys, we're at
Speaker 1: the prison, welcome me out the door. I didn't even
Speaker 1: have a pair of shoes to put on. They brought
Speaker 1: me pants and shoes from the church, and I was
Speaker 1: met there by easily a hundred people. Everybody from the
Speaker 1: Attorney General's office was there. There were tears and apologies
Speaker 1: all around, and uh, I guess that's when I was
Speaker 1: kind of reborn. I was able to start a new life,
Speaker 1: which was not easy. I'm not going to complain about it,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to tell you it was not easy
Speaker 1: and it's still difficult at times. I've been out for
Speaker 1: a year now and I'm just now getting the hang
Speaker 1: of some of this technology. They didn't even have cell
Speaker 1: phones when I went to prison, So and there's been
Speaker 1: a lot, a big learning curve of how to act
Speaker 1: in society because this is a whole new world. It's
Speaker 1: not the end, because there's so many cases, so many
Speaker 1: cases that still have to be reviewed and vetted, and
Speaker 1: and that I wasn't the only one. So there's people
Speaker 1: I left behind, and I feel like obligated to kind
Speaker 1: of pay it forward here and help some others here.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of people that are caught up
Speaker 1: in a procedural morass that they can't dig out of,
Speaker 1: especially some people that are in there that are have
Speaker 1: less than a full education, or don't have the skills
Speaker 1: to navigate these waters, or don't have the support. I
Speaker 1: didn't have any support, but I fought a long time
Speaker 1: to the nail to get support. That that's just a
Speaker 1: testament to my tenacity. Some people just don't have that.
Speaker 1: There's no reason for somebody to be condemned to prison
Speaker 1: because they don't have the fight in them. So I
Speaker 1: hear you're called action is for people to support the
Speaker 1: Cool Innocence Project or righteous Endeavor, no doubt. But Marlo,
Speaker 1: what can listeners do to help people like Mr Pool
Speaker 1: and your work. Well, certainly we would we would welcome
Speaker 1: your financial support, but also, UM, I would just say
Speaker 1: that there's a number of really promising policy issues going
Speaker 1: on in the state right now. We're working on amendments
Speaker 1: to our Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act. We want to make
Speaker 1: sure that our clients are adequately compensated. If you care
Speaker 1: about criminal justice issues, it's a great time to just,
Speaker 1: UM touch base with your legislator and say that you'd
Speaker 1: like to support improvements to the criminal justice system. And
Speaker 1: you know I'm always available to answer questions about our
Speaker 1: office or about the policy work that's going on in
Speaker 1: Michigan right Let's put the justice in the criminal justice system.
Speaker 1: I hear that. Thank you both so much for taking
Speaker 1: the time to share your incredible story UM with the
Speaker 1: listeners of Wrongful Conviction Podcast. We're at the point of
Speaker 1: the show called closing arguments. Do around Robin as to
Speaker 1: any final thoughts that you want to share with our audience,
Speaker 1: and UM will begin with you. Marla, I would just
Speaker 1: say that when you look back at Mr Pool's case,
Speaker 1: all of the heartbreaking errors and mistakes could have been
Speaker 1: avoided and corrected. You know that that actually kind of
Speaker 1: makes me get up every day and and do the work.
Speaker 1: But I guess you know. My My final thought to
Speaker 1: those who are listening is just you know, a wrongful
Speaker 1: conviction can happen to anyone, and we all love someone,
Speaker 1: so that means it could happen to someone that we love.
Speaker 1: Everyone's entitled to an effective attorney at trial and on appeal.
Speaker 1: Everyone is entitled to a fair proceeding where things are
Speaker 1: not made up in their criminal trial. We have to
Speaker 1: start looking at innocence cases differently. We can't treat them
Speaker 1: like typical appellate cases for sure, because years this When
Speaker 1: we look back, right, we see Gil's case and we're like,
Speaker 1: how did this take thirty two years? But yet Gil
Speaker 1: knows and Chris knows, and I know that even after
Speaker 1: thirty two years, it was a mirror call. Mr Pool,
Speaker 1: what's your closing argument? If you ask anybody what's the
Speaker 1: best criminal justice system in the world, I don't think
Speaker 1: anybody's going to come up with anything better than what
Speaker 1: the United States has. But when you have human actors,
Speaker 1: and when you have human interaction, personalities getting the way, UH,
Speaker 1: bad choices getting the way and bad actors get in
Speaker 1: the way. A lot of that comes from uh no
Speaker 1: penalties for the bad actors. I think the takeaway is here, um,
Speaker 1: take a real deep look at the things that are
Speaker 1: presented from different perspectives. If you look at things from
Speaker 1: a perspective that this was all fabricated, it all makes sense.
Speaker 1: It was not because I was guilty, It was because
Speaker 1: they had the ability to do it without any penalty.
Speaker 1: So I think that needs to be corrected. Thank you
Speaker 1: for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our
Speaker 1: executive producers The Deadly dr Jason Flam and Kevin Wardis.
Speaker 1: The senior producer for this episode is Jackie Paulli, and
Speaker 1: our producers are Lila Robinson and Jeff Cliborne. Our editor
Speaker 1: is Rock Sindra Guidi. The music in this production is
Speaker 1: by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure
Speaker 1: to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction,
Speaker 1: as well as at Lava for Good. On all three platforms.
Speaker 1: You can also follow me on Twitter at Chris Underscore
Speaker 1: Fabricant and on Instagram at Chris Underscore Fabricant. Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 1: is the production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association
Speaker 1: with Signal Company Number one m If you were riveted
Speaker 1: by the staircase, as I know I was, you're gonna
Speaker 1: want to tune in next week for the guest hosted
Speaker 1: episode of Wrongful Conviction because get this, the two incredible
Speaker 1: lawyers from the show, David Rudolphin Sonya Peiffer, are gonna
Speaker 1: talk to David's former client, Michael Peterson, and you know
Speaker 1: that name about one of the most famous and infamous
Speaker 1: wrong for conviction stories in the history of America. You
Speaker 1: know about the case, but now you're gonna hear the
Speaker 1: real story behind it. Tune in listen next Monday in
Speaker 1: the wrong Ful Conviction podcast feed.