Speaker 1: On August tenth, nineteen ninety four, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, seventy
Speaker 1: eight year old Leonard Jones and twenty seven year old
Speaker 1: Michelle Brooks sat in a parked car when one male
Speaker 1: blocked the passenger door and another demanded that Jones get
Speaker 1: out before shooting and killing him. The two males fled.
Speaker 1: Michelle Brooks initially chose sixteen year old Johnny Barry from
Speaker 1: a photo lineup, but when she rescinded that idea at
Speaker 1: a preliminary hearing, the charges were dropped. Within a few weeks,
Speaker 1: Johnny was inexplicably rearrested for the crime of which he
Speaker 1: had just been cleared, and while in juvenile detention, he
Speaker 1: met fifteen year old Taheed Lloyd, who admitted that he
Speaker 1: was one of the two attackers in the Jones killing,
Speaker 1: but when he wouldn't agree to clear Johnny's name, the
Speaker 1: two 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 him,
Speaker 1: and as retribution, falsely named Johnny Berry as his accomplice
Speaker 1: and Jones's shooter. At trial, Michelle Brooks's testimony was shaky
Speaker 1: at best, but with Lloyd's testimony, Johnny was convicted and
Speaker 1: sentenced to life without parole. Years later, Lloyd admitted his lies,
Speaker 1: but at a hearing when the prosecution threatened to charge
Speaker 1: Lloyd with perjury and retry him for the murder, Lloyd
Speaker 1: refused to officially recant. It took a slew of Supreme
Speaker 1: Court rulings on juvenile life sentences and a review by
Speaker 1: Philadelphia's Conviction Integrity Unit to finally set Johnny Barry free
Speaker 1: after nearly twenty five long years behind bars. This is
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jason Flahman. This episode is probably gonna with your perceptions
Speaker 1: of justice. I mean, there are so many things wrong
Speaker 1: with this case. You're gonna feel like you need a
Speaker 1: chiropractic from your head spinning around. It's an incredible story
Speaker 1: of an incredible man named Johnny Berry, and it goes
Speaker 1: all the way to the United States Supreme Court decisions,
Speaker 1: to lying witnesses, and a corrupt system that really ignored
Speaker 1: what should have been absolutely crystal clear from day one.
Speaker 1: So without further ado, Johnny Berry, Welcome to Wronfuel Conviction.
Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you very much. Jason.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean, I'm so sorry you're here because
Speaker 1: of what you had to go through, But I'm obviously
Speaker 1: on the flip side, I'm super happy that you're free
Speaker 1: and out and have been totally exonerated and vindicated and
Speaker 1: are now living your best life. So okay, what was
Speaker 1: your life like before all of this insanity?
Speaker 2: Growing up in Philadelphia, Wes Philadelphia, life was simple. It
Speaker 2: was fun. I am the eldest of five children. My
Speaker 2: father was active member in the military. My mother was
Speaker 2: a stay at home mom. We were poor, definitely didn't
Speaker 2: have much, but what we did have was love, dedication
Speaker 2: to one another, and we did our best to make
Speaker 2: things work.
Speaker 1: It sounds like people living that kind of life all
Speaker 1: over the country, right, just struggling to get by day
Speaker 1: to day, but having good parents and lots of love
Speaker 1: in the household. And so you were sixteen years old
Speaker 1: at the time of this horrible crime went on August tenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four. Leonard Jones, who was seventy eight years
Speaker 1: old and Michelle Brooks, who was just twenty seven, were
Speaker 1: sitting in a van in the Parkside neighborhood at Philadelphia,
Speaker 1: when two very young men approached the van. Right one
Speaker 1: of them blocked the passenger side door from opening, preventing
Speaker 1: Michelle from getting out, and then the other one approached
Speaker 1: mister Jones with a handgun and yelled at him to
Speaker 1: get out, but before he could even comply. I don't
Speaker 1: forget he was not a young guy, seventy eight years old.
Speaker 1: He was shot and killed and then both of the
Speaker 1: men fled. And before we dive in to the investigation,
Speaker 1: it's important to note that you, Johnny, had had some
Speaker 1: brussures with the law prior to this.
Speaker 2: Is that right, Yes? Unfortunately, yeah, I was specifically involved
Speaker 2: with and I'm not proud of the selling of drugs
Speaker 2: and things of that nature.
Speaker 1: Right, So you weren't exactly a choir boy. But that
Speaker 1: also doesn't make you a murderer. And it is relevant though,
Speaker 1: because it means that you were known to the police.
Speaker 1: And so as the investigation got underway, Michelle Brooks, the
Speaker 1: twenty seven year old woman from the van, she described
Speaker 1: the man who had held her door shut and said
Speaker 1: he had a chipped front tooth, and then police showed
Speaker 1: her a photographic lineup, and from that lineup she picked you,
Speaker 1: and at that time you did have a slightly chipped
Speaker 1: front tooth, so police arrested you. But on August thirty first,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four, Michelle Brooks came to the preliminary hearing
Speaker 1: and when she saw you, she told police that you
Speaker 1: were not the person who had held the door shut.
Speaker 1: You're just not the guy. So naturally the charges were
Speaker 1: dismissed and you were freed, and that should have been
Speaker 1: the end of it for you right there, you know,
Speaker 1: But a few weeks later you were rearrested for the
Speaker 1: same crime and sent back to Julie. So, Johnny, this
Speaker 1: is crazy, right, I mean, phill us in, do you
Speaker 1: have any idea why they rearrested you.
Speaker 2: I have a theory. It was a time period where
Speaker 2: Philadelphia was being plagued with crime, and politicians and public
Speaker 2: officials were like their feet held to the fire, like, hey,
Speaker 2: we got to do something about this. I was a
Speaker 2: known individual to authorities. I was in the streets, I
Speaker 2: was involved with gang activity, I sold drugs, and I
Speaker 2: believe that the police specifically honed in on me. They
Speaker 2: had me, they didn't have any other individual at that
Speaker 2: particular time, and they wanted me and they were stuck
Speaker 2: on me. And that's why we don't have any or
Speaker 2: never came up with any type of evidence as to
Speaker 2: why I was rearrested.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess that's not completely out of the realm
Speaker 1: of possibilities. It was Philadelphia in the nineties, after all,
Speaker 1: when both crime and police miscond were just rampant. I mean,
Speaker 1: but what happens next is even crazier. So there you
Speaker 1: are back in juvenile detention and you hear about a
Speaker 1: fifteen year old kid named Tyeth Lloyd who had been
Speaker 1: a juvie on an unrelated charge during your last short stint.
Speaker 1: Now he was still there and some guys, but aheadn't
Speaker 1: told you what he had said after you had left
Speaker 1: the last time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I was incarcerated in the juvenile facility, and
Speaker 2: once there, the individuals who were there and had been
Speaker 2: introduced to me, so to speak from my time prior,
Speaker 2: the whole thing was, hey, what are you doing here?
Speaker 2: Why are you back? And I'm like, I have no idea.
Speaker 2: They say, okay, well, by the way, do you know
Speaker 2: this guy over here indicating Tayhi Lloyd, and I'm like, no,
Speaker 2: I don't know him, never met him before, you know,
Speaker 2: what's up with him? They're like, hey, when you left,
Speaker 2: he told us that he and his friend had committed
Speaker 2: the murder and not you, and that you really didn't
Speaker 2: do it. So, hearing that, I approached him and I
Speaker 2: was like, hey, I'm hearing that you had something to
Speaker 2: do with this homicide that I'm here for. I didn't
Speaker 2: do it. You know I didn't do it. Can you
Speaker 2: help me with it? His exact words to me was,
Speaker 2: I know who did it. I didn't do it, but
Speaker 2: I'm not saying anything. And at that point I said,
Speaker 2: or you're not saying anything? Oh no, you bought this.
Speaker 2: We got into a physical altercation. We started to fight,
Speaker 2: and the officers in that vicinity came and they broke
Speaker 2: the fight up, separated us, but we had bad blood
Speaker 2: between us from that point on because I was so
Speaker 2: bent on. Man, I'm in this freaking hell hole for
Speaker 2: something you and your friend or whoever it was, did
Speaker 2: and I'm not supposed to be here.
Speaker 1: And do you remember did Lloyd have chip teeth like
Speaker 1: the witness Michelle Brooks had mentioned.
Speaker 2: TYI, Lloyd had a very very identifiable two front chip teeth.
Speaker 2: I could have actually taken the tip of your pinky
Speaker 2: finger and stuck it through that chip in front of
Speaker 2: his two teeth.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know that anybody in your situation would
Speaker 1: have acted any differently. I mean not every reason to
Speaker 1: be angry and to want to try to do what
Speaker 1: you could do in that situation to extricate yourself. Right,
Speaker 1: And here's this guy who holds the key, and he's
Speaker 1: right in front of you, and then he actually turned
Speaker 1: in the complete opposite direction. What I'm talking about is
Speaker 1: Lloyd was arrested several months later and they found him
Speaker 1: in possession of a handgun that was linked to the murder.
Speaker 1: Ballistics confirmed this, and he thought that you had implicated
Speaker 1: him because you had known that he had done it
Speaker 1: from the talk inside the prison, and so he went
Speaker 1: ahead and implicated you in the crime, almost like street
Speaker 1: justice or something like that. Right, And as happens in
Speaker 1: these cases time and time again, he agreed to plead
Speaker 1: guilty in exchange for a fifteenth to thirty seven year
Speaker 1: sentence for a murder that he did commit. So he
Speaker 1: saved himself from a life sentence changed for lying and
Speaker 1: presenting false testimony against you. Well, now what happens next
Speaker 1: is predictable, right, You get charged with murder, robbery, conspiracy,
Speaker 1: and possessing instruments of crime. So now you're facing the
Speaker 1: worst imaginable scenario. What was going through your mind when
Speaker 1: you found out you were being charged with all these
Speaker 1: terrible crimes.
Speaker 2: When I realized that I was being charged for this
Speaker 2: murder and that he was bearing testimony against me, I
Speaker 2: was horrified. I still remained optimistic that I was going
Speaker 2: to go to trial and beat the case because I
Speaker 2: didn't do it.
Speaker 1: And so let's go to the trial. So this is
Speaker 1: September nineteen ninety five. He had already spent the year
Speaker 1: in jail awaiting trial. And then Michelle Brooks. So Michelle Brooks,
Speaker 1: remember was the witness who was in this vehicle at
Speaker 1: the time of the murder. Now, her testimony was conflicting
Speaker 1: and confusing. She identified you as the person who held
Speaker 1: the door shut during the robbery, but then she also
Speaker 1: identified you as the gunman, which of course that couldn't
Speaker 1: both be true. And she also said that she had
Speaker 1: told the police previously that you weren't involved in the crime.
Speaker 1: And then she restated that in her testimony. So if
Speaker 1: I'm on the jury, I'm going wait a minute, there's
Speaker 1: three totally different stories here. But I think the nail
Speaker 1: in your conference, so to speak, was that Lloyd testified
Speaker 1: saying that you and he had committed the crime. He
Speaker 1: knew full well who had committed the crime with him,
Speaker 1: and that guy, his actual co conspirator, remained on the
Speaker 1: streets as a result of them taking you in his place.
Speaker 1: So who was your attorney and did they mount any
Speaker 1: kind of a defense for you.
Speaker 2: My attorney at the time was Donald Michael Podova. I
Speaker 2: will say that he did his best. He was quote appointed, overworked, underpaid,
Speaker 2: and he tried his best to save this young boy's life.
Speaker 2: And it was so much that he could have done
Speaker 2: with a so called co defendant who pointed the finger
Speaker 2: and said, hey, yeah, I was a part of this crime,
Speaker 2: but he done it with me. Give me a deal,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 1: So predictably, you were convicted of murder, robbery, possessing instruments
Speaker 1: of a crime, and conspiracy and sentenced to life in
Speaker 1: prison without the possibility of parole. What was that awful
Speaker 1: moment like when the jury came back in.
Speaker 2: With the verdict. When I was convicted and they handed
Speaker 2: down that life sentence, tears came down my eyes like
Speaker 2: a baby. I looked back at my mother at the time,
Speaker 2: who was living, and I cried because I couldn't believe
Speaker 2: that the system had felt my family and my community
Speaker 2: and me, and at that point I just felt absolutely helpless.
Speaker 3: This episode is underwritten by AIG, a leading global insurance company,
Speaker 3: and by Accenture, a global professional services company with leading
Speaker 3: capabilities in digital, cloud and secure Working to reform the
Speaker 3: criminal justice system is a key pillar of the AIG
Speaker 3: pro Bono program, which provides free legal services and other
Speaker 3: support to many nonprofit organizations and individuals most in need.
Speaker 3: As part of Eccentsure's commitment to racial and civil justice.
Speaker 3: Accenture's Legal Access program provides pro bono legal services in
Speaker 3: partnership with more than forty organizations, bringing meaningful change to
Speaker 3: people and communities worldwide.
Speaker 2: When I first got to prison, they sent me to
Speaker 2: state correctional institution Gratifford. That place was like another world.
Speaker 2: When I was eighteen at the time. When I first
Speaker 2: entered into grated Ford, it was like halways full of people,
Speaker 2: full of people like close jury loud, and I thought,
Speaker 2: who are all these people? Wow, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: counselors that were here, because I saw very few people
Speaker 2: who had on the state issued clothing. Well what it was,
Speaker 2: were all inmates, and at that particular time, we were
Speaker 2: allowed to wear our street clothing. So the hallways was
Speaker 2: filled with inmates or residents as I like to call them.
Speaker 2: At that time, Prisidon was a lot more ran by
Speaker 2: the residents, more so than it is now. At that time,
Speaker 2: the residents had more control over the institutions and there
Speaker 2: was a lot more liberties, more freedom. It was more
Speaker 2: volatile than it is now. But on the other hand,
Speaker 2: it had like a balance to the police. The residents
Speaker 2: kind of ran it, but they maintained a balance, so
Speaker 2: people didn't just do anything. You know, there were checks
Speaker 2: and balances if you've done something. You know. Administration kind
Speaker 2: of worked hand to hand with some of the residents
Speaker 2: and we kind of figured it out. That didn't mean
Speaker 2: that some stuff didn't happen sometimes, but it was a
Speaker 2: lot more easier. And I'm telling you five six seven
Speaker 2: years went by like nothing.
Speaker 1: So six seven years later, two thousand and two, after
Speaker 1: your convictions had already been upheld on appeal. You received
Speaker 1: a letter that must have rocked your world. Tell us
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 2: I received under the door and myself a recantation letter
Speaker 2: from TYI Lord, basically saying, hey, here's a long awaited
Speaker 2: piece of information that you've been waiting for. He wanted
Speaker 2: to come clean, wanted to clear my name, and so
Speaker 2: he did that. He talked about the fact of him
Speaker 2: having known me prior to being incarcerated at the juvenile facility.
Speaker 2: He talked about his incentives or motive for Lyon, and
Speaker 2: he also saw it as a means to receive less time.
Speaker 2: And I do remember that he was pretty insistent on
Speaker 2: he wasn't recanting for me. He more so was concerned
Speaker 2: about my mother and things of that nature. So for me,
Speaker 2: it was like a bittersweet sort of thing at the
Speaker 2: time because I was so elated. I was so blown
Speaker 2: away by receiving that recantation, but at the same time
Speaker 2: I was dealing with the loss of my mother. That
Speaker 2: was hard, you know, I don't really talk about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's 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'd 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 affter 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: statements from two different people who were in the juvenile
Speaker 1: detention center back in ninety four who overheard Lloyd say
Speaker 1: 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. BINGO, right, This is powerful stuff. This
Speaker 1: is where it takes a crazy turn. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven. Lloyd was prepared to testify by a video conference,
Speaker 1: but the prosecution had some dirty tricks a DOA prosecutor
Speaker 1: threatened to charge Lloyd with perjury and retry him for
Speaker 1: the murder if he persisted in his recantation, and the
Speaker 1: judge conducting the hearing became concerned that Lloyd was opening
Speaker 1: himself up to a perjury prosecution, which he was, so
Speaker 1: he appointed a lawyer to represent Lloyd and continued the hearing,
Speaker 1: and then the prosecutor got just what they wanted, right.
Speaker 1: The hearing resumed two thousand and eight, but Lloyd took
Speaker 1: the Fifth Amendment and you were sent back to prison.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: What a freaking turn of events that is. And just
Speaker 1: so people understand, if he had lost, if they had
Speaker 1: gone and done what they said they were going to
Speaker 1: do and follow through on their threat, he could have
Speaker 1: gone back to prison for the rest of his life
Speaker 1: instead of fifteen to thirty seven.
Speaker 2: Am I right, yeah, because that was part of his
Speaker 2: agreement with the distric Attorney's office, is that it turned
Speaker 2: out that he testified falsely, perject testimony or anything like that,
Speaker 2: the dealers off the table and he would have been
Speaker 2: prosecuted to the full assistant of the law. But the
Speaker 2: problem with that is, as I see the District Attorney's
Speaker 2: office in Pennsylvania, they have immunity, and so when they
Speaker 2: utilize his agreement as a threat to him, which it was,
Speaker 2: it takes away the power of the balance of justice
Speaker 2: and the scales of justice because now even though he
Speaker 2: wanted to do the right thing and tell the truth,
Speaker 2: he's precluded from doing that because it's like, hey, I'm
Speaker 2: not going to go to jail and exchange for helping
Speaker 2: this guy to get out. Didn't leave him any real
Speaker 2: room to do the right thing. And dic attorney, who
Speaker 2: were instrumental in seeing to that he plied the fifth.
Speaker 2: Their feet aren't held to the fire or anything like
Speaker 2: that because they have immunity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, here's this guy, Lloyd, who finally found his moral
Speaker 1: compass or his some kind of courage to come forward
Speaker 1: and tell the truth. And the prosecutor is like, Nope,
Speaker 1: we don't want the truth. Yep, we're not interested in
Speaker 1: no kind of truth. We're happy the way things are.
Speaker 1: And this takes us to February of twenty eighteen. So
Speaker 1: now you've been in for what twenty three years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, approximately, Yeah.
Speaker 1: And so there have been a number of Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decisions in the past couple decades that have had a
Speaker 1: significant positive impact on juvenile justice, and I want to
Speaker 1: just break those down for a second. They include that
Speaker 1: Back in two thousand and five Roper versus Simmons, the
Speaker 1: United States Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was
Speaker 1: unconstitutional for juveniles, and then in two twenty ten, with
Speaker 1: Graham versus Florida, the US Supreme Court invalidated life without
Speaker 1: parole sentences for juveniles and non homicide incidents. In twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: in Miller versus Alabama, the US Supreme Court ruled that
Speaker 1: mandatory life without parole sentences imposed on juveniles were unconstitutional
Speaker 1: in all cases. And then in twenty sixteen, in Montgomery
Speaker 1: versus Louisiana, the US Supreme Court made the holding they
Speaker 1: made in Miller retroactive. And so due to that very ruling,
Speaker 1: you received a reduced sentence that made you immediately eligible
Speaker 1: for parole and common Please Court Judge Barbara McDermott's lover fantastic.
Speaker 2: You love her right love.
Speaker 1: And Judge McDermott, if you're listening, we're sending you a
Speaker 1: big shout out and our respect for having done what
Speaker 1: you did. It's important that we recognize when people in
Speaker 1: positions of power do what's good and right. So she
Speaker 1: noted that you could quote continue to fight on the
Speaker 1: street instead of in prison end quote. She met, of course,
Speaker 1: fight to prove your innocence. But on August fourteenth to
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, you finally came home. What was that like
Speaker 1: when you just walked out the door. Was there a
Speaker 1: big crowd to meet you?
Speaker 2: What did you do? Oh? Man, Well, at the time,
Speaker 2: there was one very significant, very special person there did
Speaker 2: meet me, as my wife. She was right there, walked
Speaker 2: out with a box in my hand, gave her a
Speaker 2: big hug, and I kind of like trot it as
Speaker 2: fast as I could in the direction away from the
Speaker 2: prison because in my mind, I felt like, at any moment,
Speaker 2: they're going to say, hey, Johnny, listen, we made a mistake. Man,
Speaker 2: you gotta come back. So I wanted to get the
Speaker 2: hell out of here. She said, hey, man, you moving
Speaker 2: kind of quickly, and I'm like, well, you know, if
Speaker 2: you want to get with me, you better come on.
Speaker 2: But yeah, man, for me, that moment was like a
Speaker 2: breath of fresh air and a burning building. I felt
Speaker 2: like I had absolutely won when I walked out those
Speaker 2: doors and I got in that car with those prison attire,
Speaker 2: and we drove down that rope.
Speaker 1: Let's not forget that even though you were free, you
Speaker 1: weren't really free, right, you were still a convicted murderer
Speaker 1: and all the things that go with that. But in
Speaker 1: another good turn of events, there was a new DA
Speaker 1: in town. His name was Larry Krasner, and Larry Krasner
Speaker 1: was a friend of mine and a great man. He
Speaker 1: had by this time established one of the most robust
Speaker 1: conviction integrity units, run by Patricia Cummings, in the country.
Speaker 1: And they reviewed your case and they found all the
Speaker 1: statements that corroborated your innocence. And so June twenty fourth,
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, 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?
Speaker 2: Well? Let me start off first by saying to Patricia Cummins,
Speaker 2: phenomenal woman, and to Larry Krasner, shout out to them
Speaker 2: virtual hugs. I love those two individuals. I love the
Speaker 2: work that they are doing. I take my head off
Speaker 2: to them on that particular day where I was exonerated. First,
Speaker 2: it took about maybe fifteen minutes. The judge said a
Speaker 2: few words. She told me I was exonerated. I accepted it,
Speaker 2: and the court went on with its normal daily proceeding.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, wow, twenty three years and some change
Speaker 2: versus fifteen minutes, and I walked out of the courtroom
Speaker 2: a freeman. I just felt like I got me back.
Speaker 2: I had felt empowered, and I felt like I could
Speaker 2: then begin my new life.
Speaker 1: And the Ada tom Gata actually told Judge McDermott that
Speaker 1: had the prosecution allowed Lloyd to testify at the post
Speaker 1: conviction hearing in two thousand and eight, without the threat
Speaker 1: of being prosecuted for perjury, you would have been granted
Speaker 1: a new trial. Those are powerful words that you don't
Speaker 1: hear often enough from people like him.
Speaker 2: Yep. I actually know him very well, very very decent
Speaker 2: person with courage beyond description. So I'm glad that he
Speaker 2: has been in addition to that office and changing the
Speaker 2: trajectory of the way in which that office had been
Speaker 2: running for past thirty or some odd years.
Speaker 1: Amen to that as well, and so as many villains
Speaker 1: as there are in this story. It feels like there's
Speaker 1: almost an equal number of heroes, and I'm glad we're
Speaker 1: recognizing them here and now. And then in August of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, you filed a federal civil rights loss. It's
Speaker 1: seeking damages from the city of Philadelphia. And I have
Speaker 1: to say, in all the years I've been doing this work,
Speaker 1: one of the questions that I'm asked the most is
Speaker 1: people they always want to know that the person who
Speaker 1: was wrongfully convicted, like, surely they got compensation that millions
Speaker 1: of dollars and like an apology, right, And unfortunately that's
Speaker 1: not what happens in far too many of these cases. Actually,
Speaker 1: in the large majority of these cases, and yours is
Speaker 1: one of them, am I right?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Actually, a lot of cases do not become successful
Speaker 2: on civil wrongful conviction suit. They just aren't successful. And
Speaker 2: it's a year after year process fighting tooth and nail
Speaker 2: to be compensated.
Speaker 1: So Pennsylvania is one of the states that doesn't have
Speaker 1: a compensation statue, you know, and the Innocents Project has
Speaker 1: been leading the charge to pass compensation statutes and laws
Speaker 1: around the country. I think they're now thirty two or
Speaker 1: thirty three states that have them. Even then, they vary
Speaker 1: widely and some of them provide very very little no
Speaker 1: matter what you went through. But Pennsylvania doesn't have a law,
Speaker 1: and so you haven't received any compensation whatsoever for your
Speaker 1: twenty three years in prison.
Speaker 2: No civil lawsuits are still on the way, but as
Speaker 2: far as the state saying, hey, look, we apologize, we
Speaker 2: acknowledge you've been wrongfully convicted, and as a gester of
Speaker 2: you being able to kid on your out here, no,
Speaker 2: that hasn't happened.
Speaker 1: Well, listen, hopefully it's not too far off, and hopefully
Speaker 1: you will be successful in one of these civil suits,
Speaker 1: so you definitely deserve it. In the meantime, though, I'm
Speaker 1: happy to say that you have welcomed the baby boy
Speaker 1: into the world.
Speaker 2: Right, yep, it's my baby boy. His name is Yusuf.
Speaker 2: He's just turned two. He's so advanced. Man, it's so smart.
Speaker 1: That's awesome. That's a beautiful scene. And you have a
Speaker 1: cleaning business now as well.
Speaker 2: Right. I work alongside of another individual, and what we
Speaker 2: do is we can clean commercial and residential properties and
Speaker 2: then we also do clean outs so individuals wann't like
Speaker 2: debris and things like that moved and then sense of
Speaker 2: the dumpster and things like that. We do our best
Speaker 2: to provide that service.
Speaker 1: And so, Johnny, for people who are listening out there,
Speaker 1: who are wanting to help, and we know how expensive
Speaker 1: it is raising a little kid. Is there a way
Speaker 1: that people can reach out to you about your cleaning
Speaker 1: business if they're in the Philadelphia area, or to make
Speaker 1: a speech to help, you know, to help cover your
Speaker 1: expenses while you're waiting for what we hope will be
Speaker 1: a successful outcome of a civil case eventually. Is there
Speaker 1: a way for people to contact you?
Speaker 2: You can contact me directly. My email is my name
Speaker 2: backwards Barry Johnny eleven 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, and I think our audience does too.
Speaker 1: We call it, of course, closing arguments, and Johnny, here's
Speaker 1: how it works. It's very very simple. First of all,
Speaker 1: I thank you again for being here with us today,
Speaker 1: courageously sharing your insane story and your experience in the
Speaker 1: service of others. And now I'm just going to kick back,
Speaker 1: turn off my microphone, 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.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me, and I do appreciate being here.
Speaker 2: The one thing that I'm focusing on right now here
Speaker 2: in Pennsylvania is hopefully getting the legislatures to realize the
Speaker 2: importance of enacting a law which would allow for parole
Speaker 2: eligibility for people who are serving life sentences and deserve
Speaker 2: to see the parole board. I think it's important for
Speaker 2: a number of reasons. One because to me, if you
Speaker 2: really do the numbers, it's cost efficient. It costs about
Speaker 2: in upwards of maybe thirty seven to forty thousand dollars
Speaker 2: the house and inmate annually, and if the intimate or
Speaker 2: resident is geriatric or in some other type of state
Speaker 2: where they need assistance, it can run you in up
Speaker 2: with some hundreds of thousands of dollars. So it's cost efficient. Also,
Speaker 2: if you really look at these statistics for an individual
Speaker 2: who has been commuted after serving a life sentence or
Speaker 2: has been pardoned or has been released on parole, or
Speaker 2: some other type of situation like that. The recidivism break
Speaker 2: for that type of individual is less than one percent.
Speaker 2: So statistics have shown that these type of individuals, this
Speaker 2: class of people mostly do not reoffend. The statistics show
Speaker 2: is less than one percent. So I'll call on the legislature.
Speaker 2: I call on their constituents. It makes sense, man, do
Speaker 2: the sensible thing, and that a legislation to say parole eligibility.
Speaker 2: That means an individual would have a chance to see
Speaker 2: the parole board and then leave it to the parole
Speaker 2: board to make that decision based on that individual's case
Speaker 2: and then also what that person has been doing while
Speaker 2: in cons of it. And I put that number in
Speaker 2: maybe twenty five years. So that's what I would say,
Speaker 2: Support a bill for parole eligibility.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Rafel Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Cliburn,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wartis, with research by Lyla 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 Flam.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcasts
Speaker 1: and association with Signal Company Number one