Speaker 1: On August tenth, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, seventy eight year old
Speaker 1: Leonard Jones and twenty seven year old Michelle Brooks sat
Speaker 1: in a parked car when one male blocked the passenger
Speaker 1: door and another demanded that Jones got out before shooting
Speaker 1: and killing him. The two males fled. Michelle Brooks initially
Speaker 1: chose sixteen year old Johnny Barry from a photo lineup,
Speaker 1: but when she rescinded that idea at a preliminary hearing,
Speaker 1: the charges were dropped. Within a few weeks, Johnny was
Speaker 1: inexplicably re arrested for the crime of which he had
Speaker 1: just been cleared, and while in juvenile detention, he met
Speaker 1: fifteen year old Tahed Lloyd, who admitted that he was
Speaker 1: one of the two attackers in the Jones killing, but
Speaker 1: when he wouldn't agree to clear Johnny's name, the two
Speaker 1: boys fought. Lloyd was later arrested on an unrelated charge,
Speaker 1: and a gun in his possession was linked to the
Speaker 1: Jones murder. However, Lloyd mistakenly believed that Johnny had implicated
Speaker 1: him and his retribution, falsely named Johnny Berry as his
Speaker 1: accomplice and Jones's shooter. At trial. The shell Brooks's testimony
Speaker 1: was shaky at best, but with Lloyd's testimony, Johnny was
Speaker 1: convicted and sentenced to life without parole. Years later, Lloyd
Speaker 1: admitted his lies, but at a hearing when the prosecution
Speaker 1: threatened to charge Lloyd with perjury and retry him for
Speaker 1: the murder, Lloyd refused to officially recant. It took a
Speaker 1: slew of Supreme Court rulings on juvenile life sentences and
Speaker 1: a review by Philadelphia's Conviction Integrity Unit to finally set
Speaker 1: Johnny Berry free after nearly twenty five long years behind bars.
Speaker 1: This is wrongful Conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. I'm
Speaker 1: your host, Jason Flaman. This episode is probably gonna asked
Speaker 1: with your perceptions of justice. I mean, there are so
Speaker 1: many things wrong with this case. You're gonna feel like
Speaker 1: you need a Cairo practice from your head spinning around.
Speaker 1: It's an incredible story of an incredible man named Johnny Berry,
Speaker 1: and it goes all the way to the United States
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions, to lying witnesses and a corrupt system
Speaker 1: that really ignored what should have been absolutely crystal clear
Speaker 1: from day one. So, without further ado, Johnny Barry, Welcome
Speaker 1: to wrongful conviction. Thank you, Thank you very much. Jason. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm so sorry you're here because of what
Speaker 1: you had to go through, But I'm obviously on the
Speaker 1: flip side, I'm super happy that you're free and out
Speaker 1: and have been totally exonerated and vindicated and are now
Speaker 1: living your best life. So okay, what was your life
Speaker 1: like before all of this insanity? Growing up in Philadelphia's
Speaker 1: Philadelphia life was simple, was fun, um and the eldest
Speaker 1: five children. My father was active member in the military.
Speaker 1: My mother was to stay at home mom. We were poor,
Speaker 1: definitely didn't have much, but what we did have was love,
Speaker 1: dedication to one another, and we did our best to
Speaker 1: make things work. It sounds like people living that kind
Speaker 1: of life all over the country, right, just struggling to
Speaker 1: get by day to day, but having good parents and
Speaker 1: lots of love in the household. And so you were
Speaker 1: sixteen years old at the time of this horrible crime
Speaker 1: went on August Leonard Jones, who was seventy eight years old,
Speaker 1: and Michelle Brooks, who was just twenty seven. We're sitting
Speaker 1: in a van in the Parkside neighborhood of Philadelphia, when
Speaker 1: two very young men approached the van. Right, one of
Speaker 1: them blocked the passenger side door from opening, preventing Michelle
Speaker 1: from getting out, and then the other one approached Mr
Speaker 1: Jones with a handgun and yelled at him to get out.
Speaker 1: But before he could even comply. Don't forget he was
Speaker 1: not a young guy, seven eight years old, he was
Speaker 1: shot and killed and then both of the men fled.
Speaker 1: And before we dive in to the investigation, it's important
Speaker 1: to note that you, Johnny, had had some brushes with
Speaker 1: the law prior to this, Is that right, Yes? Unfortunately, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was specifically involved with and I'm not proud of
Speaker 1: the summon of drugs and things of that nature. Right,
Speaker 1: So you weren't exactly acquired boy, But that also doesn't
Speaker 1: make you a murderer. And it is relevant though, because
Speaker 1: it means that you were known to the police. And
Speaker 1: so as the investigation got under way, Michelle Brooks, the
Speaker 1: seven year old woman from the van, she described the
Speaker 1: man who had held her door shut and said he
Speaker 1: had a chip front tooth, and then police showed her
Speaker 1: a photographic lineup and from that lineup she picked you.
Speaker 1: And at that time you did have a slightly chip
Speaker 1: front tooth, so police arrested you. But on August thirty one,
Speaker 1: Michelle Brooks games to the preliminary hearing, and when she
Speaker 1: saw you, she told police that you were not the
Speaker 1: person who had held the door shut. You're just not
Speaker 1: the guy. So naturally the charges were dismissed and you
Speaker 1: were free, and that should have been the end of
Speaker 1: it for you right there, you know, But a few
Speaker 1: weeks later you were re arrested for the same crime
Speaker 1: and sent back to juvie. So, Johnny, this is crazy, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, phillis in. Do you have any idea why
Speaker 1: they re arrested you. I have a theory. It was
Speaker 1: a time period where in Philadelphia was being plagued with crime,
Speaker 1: and politicians and public officials were like their feet held
Speaker 1: to fire, like, hey, we gotta do something about this.
Speaker 1: I was a known individual to authorities. I was in
Speaker 1: the streets. I was involved with gang activity, so drugs,
Speaker 1: and I believe that the police specifically honed in on me.
Speaker 1: They had me. They didn't have any other individual at
Speaker 1: that particular time, and they wanted me, and they was
Speaker 1: stuck on me. And that's why we don't have any
Speaker 1: or never came up with any type of evidence as
Speaker 1: to why I was re arrested. Yeah, I guess that's
Speaker 1: not completely out of the realm of possibilities. It was
Speaker 1: Philadelphia in the nineties, after all, when both crime and
Speaker 1: police miscon induct were just rampant. I mean, but what
Speaker 1: happens next is even crazier. So there you are back
Speaker 1: in juvenile detention and you hear about a fifteen year
Speaker 1: old kid named Taihed Lloyd who had been in Julie
Speaker 1: an unrelated charge during your last short extent. Now he
Speaker 1: was still there and some guys, but it hadn't told
Speaker 1: you what he had said after you had left the
Speaker 1: last time. Yeah, So I was incarcerated in the juvenile facility,
Speaker 1: and once there, the individuals who were there and had
Speaker 1: been introduced to me so to speak from my time prior,
Speaker 1: the whole thing was hey, what are you doing here?
Speaker 1: Why are you back? And I'm like, I have no idea.
Speaker 1: They say, okay, well, by the way, do you know
Speaker 1: this guy over here indicating Taihi Lloyd. And I'm like, no,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know him, never met him before,
Speaker 1: you know, what's up with him? They're like, hey, when
Speaker 1: you left. He told us that he and his friend
Speaker 1: had committed the murder and not you, and that you
Speaker 1: really didn't do it. So, hearing that, I approached him
Speaker 1: and I was like, Hey, I'm hearing that you had
Speaker 1: something to do with this homicide that I'm here for.
Speaker 1: I didn't do it. You know I didn't do it.
Speaker 1: Can you help me with it? His exact words to
Speaker 1: me was, I know who did it. I didn't do it,
Speaker 1: but I'm not saying anything. And at that point I said,
Speaker 1: or you're not saying anything. Oh no, you brought this.
Speaker 1: We got into a physical altercation. We started to fight,
Speaker 1: and the officers in that vicinity came and they broke
Speaker 1: the fight up, separated us, but we had bad blood
Speaker 1: between us from that point on because I was so
Speaker 1: bent on. Man, I'm in this freaking hellhole for something.
Speaker 1: You and your friend or whoever it was dead and
Speaker 1: I'm not supposed to be here. And do you remember,
Speaker 1: did Lloyd have chip teeth? Like the witness Michelle Brooks
Speaker 1: had mentioned tyhe Lloyd had a very very identifiable two
Speaker 1: front chip teeth that could have actually taken the tip
Speaker 1: of your pinky finger and stuck it through that chip
Speaker 1: in front of his two teeth. Well, I don't know
Speaker 1: that anybody in your situation would have acted any differently.
Speaker 1: I mean, not every reason to be angry and to
Speaker 1: want to try to do what you could do in
Speaker 1: that situation to extricate yourself. Right, And here's this guy
Speaker 1: who holds the key, and he's right in front of you.
Speaker 1: And then it actually turned in the complete opposite direction.
Speaker 1: What I'm talking about is Lloyd was arrested several months
Speaker 1: later and they found him in possession of a handgun
Speaker 1: that was linked to the murder. Ballistics confirmed this, and
Speaker 1: he thought that you had implicated him because you had
Speaker 1: known that he had done it from the talk inside
Speaker 1: the prison, and so he went ahead and implicated you
Speaker 1: in the crime, almost like street justice or something like that. Right,
Speaker 1: And as happens in these cases time and time again,
Speaker 1: he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a fifteen
Speaker 1: to thirty seven years since for a murder that he
Speaker 1: did commit. So he saved himself from a life sentence
Speaker 1: and changed for lying and presenting false testimony against you. Well,
Speaker 1: now what happens next is predictable, right, You get charged
Speaker 1: with murder, robbery, conspiracy, and possessing instruments of crime. So
Speaker 1: now you're facing the worst imaginable scenario. What was going
Speaker 1: through your mind when you found out you were being
Speaker 1: charged with all these terrible crimes. When I realized that
Speaker 1: I was being charged for this murder and that he
Speaker 1: was bearing testimony against me, I was horrified. I still
Speaker 1: remained optimistic that I was going to go to trial
Speaker 1: and beat the case because I didn't do it. And
Speaker 1: so let's go to the trial. So this is September.
Speaker 1: He had already spent the year in jail awaiting trial, right,
Speaker 1: and then Michelle Brooks. So Michelle Brooks, remember was the
Speaker 1: witness who was in this vehicle at the time of
Speaker 1: the murder. Now, her testimony was conflicting and confusing. She
Speaker 1: identified you as the person who held the door shut
Speaker 1: during the robbery, but then she also identified you as
Speaker 1: the gunman, which of course they couldn't both be true.
Speaker 1: And she also said that she had told the police
Speaker 1: previously that you weren't involved in the crime, and then
Speaker 1: she restated that in her testimony. So if I'm on
Speaker 1: the jury, I'm going wait a minute, there's three totally
Speaker 1: different stories here. But I think the nail in your conference,
Speaker 1: so to speak. Was that Lloyd testified saying that you
Speaker 1: and he had committed the crime. He knew full well
Speaker 1: who had committed the crime with him, and that guy,
Speaker 1: his actual co conspirator, remained on the streets as a
Speaker 1: result of them taking you in his place. So who
Speaker 1: was your attorney and did they mount any kind of
Speaker 1: a defense for you. My attorney at the time was
Speaker 1: Donald Michael Potova. I will say that he did his best.
Speaker 1: He was quart appointed, overworked, underpaid, and he tried his
Speaker 1: best to save this young boy's life. And it was
Speaker 1: so much that he could have done with a so
Speaker 1: called co defendant who pointed the finger and said, hey, yeah,
Speaker 1: I was a part of this crime, but he'd done
Speaker 1: it with me. Give me a deal, you know. So predictably,
Speaker 1: you were convicted of murder, robbery, possessing instruments of a crime,
Speaker 1: and conspiracy and sentenced to life in prison without the
Speaker 1: possibility of parole. What was that awful moment like when
Speaker 1: the jury came back in with the verdict. When I
Speaker 1: was convicted and they handed down that life sentence, tears
Speaker 1: came down my eyes like a baby. I looked back
Speaker 1: at my mother at the time I was living, and
Speaker 1: I cried because I couldn't believe that the system had
Speaker 1: felt my family and my community and me, And at
Speaker 1: that point I just felt absolutely helpless. This episode is
Speaker 1: underwritten by a i G, a leading global insurance company,
Speaker 1: and by Accenture, a global professional services company with leading
Speaker 1: capabilities in digital, cloud and secure Working to reform the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system is a key pillar of the ai
Speaker 1: G pro Bono Program, which provides free legal services and
Speaker 1: other support to many nonprofit organizations and individuals most in
Speaker 1: need as part of Accenture's commitment to racial and civil justice.
Speaker 1: Accenture's Legal Access Program provides pro bono legal services in
Speaker 1: partnership with more than forty organizations, bringing meaningful change to
Speaker 1: people and communities worldwide. When I first got the prison,
Speaker 1: they sent me to State Correctional Institution Gradiford. That place
Speaker 1: was like another world. I was eighteen at the time.
Speaker 1: When I first entered into Grade Afford. It was like
Speaker 1: hallways full of people, full of people like close jury loud,
Speaker 1: and I thought, who are all these people? Wow, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of counselors that work here. Because I saw
Speaker 1: a very few people who had on the state issued clothing. Well,
Speaker 1: what it was were all inmates, and at that particular
Speaker 1: time we were allowed to wear our street clothing. So
Speaker 1: the hallways was filled with inmates or residents as I
Speaker 1: like to call up. At that time, president was a
Speaker 1: lot more ran by the residents, more so than it
Speaker 1: is now. At that time, the residents had more control
Speaker 1: over the institutions, and there was a lot more liberties,
Speaker 1: more freedom. It was more volatile than it is now.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, it had like a balance
Speaker 1: to the police. The residents kind of ran it, but
Speaker 1: they maintained a balance, so people didn't just do anything,
Speaker 1: you know, there were checks and balances if you've done something,
Speaker 1: you know. Ad ministration kind of worked hand to hand
Speaker 1: with some of the residents and we kind of figured
Speaker 1: it out. That didn't mean that some stuff didn't happen sometimes,
Speaker 1: but it was a lot more easier. And I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: five or six seven years went by like nothing. So
Speaker 1: six seven years later, two thousand and two, after your
Speaker 1: convictions had already been upheld on appeal, you received a
Speaker 1: letter that must have rocked your world. Tell us about that.
Speaker 1: I received under the door and myself a recantation letter
Speaker 1: from tye Lord basically saying, hey, here's a long awaited
Speaker 1: piece of information that you've been waiting for. He wanted
Speaker 1: to come clean, wanted to clear my name, and so
Speaker 1: he did that. He talked about the fact of him
Speaker 1: having known me prior to being incarcerated at the juvenile facility.
Speaker 1: He talked about his incentives or motive for lying, and
Speaker 1: he also saw it as a means to receive less time.
Speaker 1: And I do remember that he was pretty insistent on
Speaker 1: he wasn't recanting for me. He more so was concerned
Speaker 1: about my mother and things of that nature. So for me,
Speaker 1: it was like a bitter sweet sort of thing at
Speaker 1: the time because I was so elated. I was so
Speaker 1: blown away by receiving that recantation. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: I was done with the loss of my mother. That
Speaker 1: was hard, you know, I don't really talk about that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's um it's hard to imagine being stuck inside and
Speaker 1: getting the worst news that you could get like that.
Speaker 1: And what a crazy whirlwind of events, right if you
Speaker 1: get that worst news and then you get this letter
Speaker 1: that you've probably been maybe not even allowing yourself to
Speaker 1: hope would come, but it came. So this guy who
Speaker 1: had literally put you in prison for the rest of
Speaker 1: your life, not only sent this letter, but he also
Speaker 1: signed an after David under oath saying that he had
Speaker 1: falsely implicated you because he thought that you had told
Speaker 1: the prosecution about Lloyd admitting in the juvenile detention center
Speaker 1: that he had taken part of the crime. So then
Speaker 1: your lawyer, Robert Gamberg filed a post conviction petition for
Speaker 1: a new trial and was granted the hearing. Now he
Speaker 1: had collected a significant amount of evidence to defend your innocence,
Speaker 1: like statements from two different people who are in the
Speaker 1: juvenile detention center back in ninety four who overheard Lloyd
Speaker 1: say that he was going to falsely accuse and implicate you.
Speaker 1: And this lawyer Gamberg obtained a statement from a prison inmate,
Speaker 1: Bryant Miles, who said that Russell Q. Wilson admitted that
Speaker 1: he and Lloyd had committed the crime and that Lloyd
Speaker 1: was the gunman. Bengo, right, this is powerful stuff. This
Speaker 1: is where it takes a crazy turn. In two thousand seven,
Speaker 1: Lloyd was prepared to testify via a video conference, but
Speaker 1: the prosecution had some dirty tricks. A d O a
Speaker 1: prosecutor threatened to charge Lloyd with perjury and retry him
Speaker 1: for the murder if he persisted in his recantation, and
Speaker 1: the judge conducting the hearing became concerned that Lloyd was
Speaker 1: opening himself up to a perjury prosecution, which he was,
Speaker 1: so he appointed a lawyer to represent Lloyd and continue
Speaker 1: the hearing. And then the prosecutor got just what they wanted,
Speaker 1: right the hearing resumed and to A thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: But Lloyd took the Fifth Amendment and you were sent
Speaker 1: back to prison. What a freaking turn of events that is,
Speaker 1: and just how people understand if he had lost If
Speaker 1: they had gone and done what they said they were
Speaker 1: going to do and followed through on their threat, he
Speaker 1: could have gone back to prison for the rest of
Speaker 1: his life. In ISTAD of fifteen thirty seven, am I right, yeah,
Speaker 1: because that was part of his agreement with the District
Speaker 1: Attorney's office, is that it turned out that he testified falsely,
Speaker 1: perjured testimony anything like that, the dealer is off the
Speaker 1: table and he would have been prosecuted to the full
Speaker 1: assistant of the law. But the problem with that is,
Speaker 1: as I see the District Attorney's office in Pennsylvania. They
Speaker 1: have immunity, and so when they utilized his agreement as
Speaker 1: a threat to him, which it was, it takes away
Speaker 1: the power of the balance of justice and the scales
Speaker 1: of justice because now even though he wanted to do
Speaker 1: the right thing and tell the truth, he's concluded from
Speaker 1: doing that because it's like, hey, I'm not gonna go
Speaker 1: to jail and exchange for helping this guy to get
Speaker 1: out didn't leave him any real room to do the
Speaker 1: right thing. And this is a concerning who were instrumental
Speaker 1: in seeing too that he planned the fifth Their feet
Speaker 1: aren't held to the fire or anything like that because
Speaker 1: they have immunity. Yeah, here's this guy, Lloyd, who finally
Speaker 1: found his moral compass or his some kind of courage
Speaker 1: to come forward and tell the truth. And the prosecutors like, nope,
Speaker 1: we don't want the truth. We're not interested in no
Speaker 1: kind of truth. We're happy the way things are. And
Speaker 1: this takes us to February of two thousand eighteen. So
Speaker 1: now you've been in for twenty three years. Yeah, approximately, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And so there have been a number of Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decisions in the past couple of decades that have had
Speaker 1: a significant positive impact on juvenile justice, and I want
Speaker 1: to just break those down for a second. They include that.
Speaker 1: Back in two thousand five Roper versus Simmons, the United
Speaker 1: States Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional
Speaker 1: for juveniles, and then into a thousand and ten with
Speaker 1: Grand versus Florida, the U. S. Supreme Court invalidated life
Speaker 1: without parole sentences for juveniles and non homicide incidents. In
Speaker 1: two thousand and twelve, in Miller versus Alabama, the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences imposed
Speaker 1: on juveniles were unconstitutional in all cases. And then in
Speaker 1: two thousand and sixteen, in Montgomery versus Louisiana, the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court made the holding they made in Miller retroactive,
Speaker 1: and so due to that very ruling, you received a
Speaker 1: reduced sentence that made you immediately eligible for parole and
Speaker 1: common Pleas Court Judge Barbara McDermott's love her right, and
Speaker 1: Judge McDermott, if you're listening, we're sending you a big
Speaker 1: shout out and our respect for having done what you did.
Speaker 1: It's important that we recognize when people in positions of
Speaker 1: power do what's good and right. So she noted that
Speaker 1: you could quote continue the fight on the street instead
Speaker 1: of in prison, and quote she met, of course, fight
Speaker 1: to prove your innocence. But in August fourteen eighteen, you
Speaker 1: finally came home. What was that like when you just
Speaker 1: walked out the door. Was there a big crowd to
Speaker 1: meet you? What did you do? Oh? Man, Well, at
Speaker 1: the time, there was one very significant, very special person there.
Speaker 1: Didn't meet me, as my wife, she was right there,
Speaker 1: walked out with a box in my hand, gave her
Speaker 1: a big hook, and I kind of like trotted as
Speaker 1: fast as I could end the direction away from the
Speaker 1: prison because in my mind, I felt like, at any moment,
Speaker 1: they're going to say, hey, Johnny, listen, we made a mistake. Man,
Speaker 1: you gotta come back. So I wanted to get the
Speaker 1: hell out of it. She said, hey, man, you moved
Speaker 1: kind of quickly, and I'm like, well, you know, if
Speaker 1: you want to get with it, you better come on.
Speaker 1: But yeah, man, for me, that moment was like a
Speaker 1: breath of fresh air and burning building. I felt like
Speaker 1: I had absolutely won. When I walked out those doors
Speaker 1: and I got in that car with those prison attire
Speaker 1: on and we drove down that route. Let's not forget
Speaker 1: that even though you were free, you were really free, right,
Speaker 1: you were still a convicted murderer and all the things
Speaker 1: that go with that. But in another good turn of events,
Speaker 1: there was a new DA in town. His name was
Speaker 1: Larry Krasner, and Larry Krasner was a friend of mine
Speaker 1: and a great man. He had by this time established
Speaker 1: one of the most robust conviction integrity units, run by
Speaker 1: Patricia Cummings, in the country. And they reviewed your case
Speaker 1: and they found all the statements that corroborated your innocence.
Speaker 1: And so June, less than a year after you were freed,
Speaker 1: all the convictions were vacated and all the charges were dismissed.
Speaker 1: How did that feel? Well? Let me start off first,
Speaker 1: boss saying to Patricia Cummins, phenomenal woman, and to Larry Krasner,
Speaker 1: shout out to them virtual hugs. I love those two individuals.
Speaker 1: I love the work that they are doing. I take
Speaker 1: my head off to them. On that particular day where
Speaker 1: I was exonerated. First, it took about maybe fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1: The judge said a few words. She told me I
Speaker 1: was exonerated. I accepted it, and the court went on
Speaker 1: with its normal daily proceeding, and I'm like, wow, twenty
Speaker 1: three years and some change versus fifteen minutes, and I
Speaker 1: walked out of the courtroom a freeman. I just felt
Speaker 1: like I got me back. I have felt empowered, and
Speaker 1: I felt like I could then begin my new life.
Speaker 1: And the a d a time. Gata actually told a
Speaker 1: judge McDermott that had the prosecution allowed Lloyd to testify
Speaker 1: at the post conviction hearing in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: without the threat of being prosecuted for perjury, you would
Speaker 1: have been granted a new trial. Those are powerful words
Speaker 1: that you don't hear often enough from people like him. Yep,
Speaker 1: I actually know him very well, very very decent person
Speaker 1: with courage beyond description. So I'm glad that he has
Speaker 1: been in addition to that office and changing the trajectory
Speaker 1: of the way in which that office had been running
Speaker 1: for past thirty or some odd years. Amen to that
Speaker 1: as well. And so as many villains as there are
Speaker 1: in this story, it feels like there's almost an equal
Speaker 1: number of heroes, and I'm glad we're recognizing them here
Speaker 1: and now. And then in August of two nineteen, you
Speaker 1: file the federal civil rights laws. It's seeking damages from
Speaker 1: the city of Philadelphia. And I have to say, in
Speaker 1: all the years I've been doing this work, one of
Speaker 1: the questions that I'm asked the most is people they
Speaker 1: always want to know that the person who was wrongfully convicted, like,
Speaker 1: surely they got compensation that millions of dollars and like
Speaker 1: an apology, right, And unfortunately that's not what happens in
Speaker 1: far too many of these cases. Actually, in the large
Speaker 1: majority of these cases, and yours is one of them.
Speaker 1: Am I right? Yeah, Actually, a lot of cases that
Speaker 1: do not become successful on civil wrongful conviction suit. They
Speaker 1: just aren't successful, and it's a year after year process
Speaker 1: fighting tooth and now to be compensated. So Pennsylvania is
Speaker 1: one of the states that doesn't have a compensation statute,
Speaker 1: you know, and the Innocence Project has been leading the
Speaker 1: charge to pass compensation statutes and laws around the country.
Speaker 1: I think they're now thirty two or thirty three states
Speaker 1: that have them. Even then, they vary widely, and some
Speaker 1: of them provide very very little no matter what you
Speaker 1: went through. But Pennsylvania doesn't have a law, and so
Speaker 1: you haven't received any compensation whatsoever for your twenty three
Speaker 1: years in prison. No civil lawsuits are still on the way,
Speaker 1: but as far as the state saying, hey, look, we apologize,
Speaker 1: we acknowledge you've been wrongfully convicted, and as a gesture
Speaker 1: of you being able to keep on your feet out here, no,
Speaker 1: that hasn't happened. Well, listen, hopefully it's not too far off,
Speaker 1: and hopefully you will be successful in one of these
Speaker 1: civil suits, so you definitely deserve it. In the meantime, though,
Speaker 1: I'm happy to say that you have welcomed the baby
Speaker 1: boy into the world. Right, yep, my baby boy. His
Speaker 1: name is Yusuf. He's just turned to He's so advanced
Speaker 1: man and so smart. That's awesome. That's a beautiful scene.
Speaker 1: And you have a cleaning business now as well. Right.
Speaker 1: I work alongside of another individual, and what we do
Speaker 1: is we can clean commercial and residential properties and then
Speaker 1: we also do cleanouts. So individuals want like debris and
Speaker 1: things like that moved and the sense of the dumpster
Speaker 1: and things like that. We do our best to provide
Speaker 1: that service. And so Johnny, for people who are listening
Speaker 1: out there, who are wanting to help, and we know
Speaker 1: how expensive it is raising a little kid. Is there
Speaker 1: a way that people can reach out to you about
Speaker 1: your cleaning business if they're in the Philadelphia area, or
Speaker 1: to make a speech to help, you know, to help
Speaker 1: cover your expenses while you're waiting for what we hope
Speaker 1: will be a successful outcome of a civil case eventually.
Speaker 1: If there are a way for people to contact you,
Speaker 1: you can contact me directly. My email is my name
Speaker 1: backwards Barry Johnny eleven and eleven at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: All right, so if anyone can help, has the ability
Speaker 1: to help, and is willing to help, please go to
Speaker 1: the link in the bio. We're gonna have Johnny's contact
Speaker 1: info there to help Johnny and his family. Of course,
Speaker 1: now we have the part of our show that I
Speaker 1: love the most. I think our audience does too. We
Speaker 1: call it, of course, closing arguments. And Johnny, here's how
Speaker 1: it works. It's very very simple. First of all, I
Speaker 1: thank you again for being here with us today courageously
Speaker 1: sharing your insane story and your experience in the service
Speaker 1: of others. And now I'm just gonna kick back, turn
Speaker 1: off my microphone and leave my headphones on, and of
Speaker 1: course leave your microphone on so you can share with
Speaker 1: us any other thoughts that you want to impart to
Speaker 1: our large and growing audience. Thank you for having me,
Speaker 1: and I do appreciate being here. The one thing that
Speaker 1: I'm focusing on right now here in Pennsylvania is hopefully
Speaker 1: getting the legislatures to realize the importance of enacting a
Speaker 1: law which would allow for perole eligibility for people who
Speaker 1: are serving life sentences and deserve to see the parole board.
Speaker 1: I think it's important for a number of reasons. One because,
Speaker 1: to me, if you really do the numbers, it's cost efficient.
Speaker 1: It costs about an upwards of maybe thirty seven to
Speaker 1: forty thousand dollars to house and inmate annually, and if
Speaker 1: the animate or resident is geriatric or in some other
Speaker 1: type of state where they need assistance, can run you
Speaker 1: up with some hundreds of thousands of dollars, So it's
Speaker 1: cost efficient. Also, if you really look at these statistics,
Speaker 1: for an individual who has been commuted after serving a
Speaker 1: life sentence, or has been pardoned or has been released
Speaker 1: on parole, or some other type of situation like that,
Speaker 1: the recentivism break for that type of individual is less
Speaker 1: than one percent. So statistics have shown that these type
Speaker 1: of individuals. This class of people mostly do not re offend.
Speaker 1: The statistics show is less than one percent. So I
Speaker 1: call on the legislature. I call on their constituents. It
Speaker 1: makes sense, man do the sensible thing, and that a
Speaker 1: legislation to say parole eligibility. That means an individual would
Speaker 1: have a chance to see the parole board and then
Speaker 1: leave it to the parole board to make that decision
Speaker 1: based on that individual's case and then also what that
Speaker 1: person has been done while in conto and I put
Speaker 1: that number and maybe twenty five years. So that's what
Speaker 1: I would say, Support a bill for parole eligibility. Thank
Speaker 1: you for listening to Wrong for Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor hall All, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wardis. With research by Lila Robinson. The music
Speaker 1: in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
Speaker 1: composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava
Speaker 1: for Good. On all three platforms, you can also follow
Speaker 1: me on both TikTok and Instagram. At it's Jason flop
Speaker 1: Ralevul Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcasts
Speaker 1: and association with Signal Company Number one