Speaker 1: Back in the spring of Terence Rice's case was stagnating
Speaker 1: before the Brooklyn Conviction Review Unit, and he reached out
Speaker 1: to us at Wrongful Conviction to see if he could
Speaker 1: create some pressure from the outside. The interview was ready
Speaker 1: for release in October when his legal team requested that
Speaker 1: we temporarily shelved the episode as they were at a
Speaker 1: critical juncture in negotiations with Brooklyn DA Eric Gonzalez. After
Speaker 1: nearly a year, the interview has finally been cleared for release.
Speaker 1: Shortly after midnight on October, Terence Rice finished a pay
Speaker 1: phone call outdoors at the Tilden Housing Projects in Brownsville, Brooklyn,
Speaker 1: while using the walkway on the rear side of a
Speaker 1: neighboring building to return home. A gun battle was taking
Speaker 1: place inside and in front of that building, involving the
Speaker 1: occupants of Apartment one F. Police were already in the
Speaker 1: area and began arresting those fleeing the shooting through the
Speaker 1: back door. Terence was swept up in the chaos with
Speaker 1: three other men. While two of the three of always
Speaker 1: maintained that Terence was not in Apartment one F, the
Speaker 1: third man, Tyrone Flowers, allegedly was beaten into giving a
Speaker 1: false statement supporting an uncorroborated police narrative. This narrative alleged that,
Speaker 1: separate from a well documented gun battle inside it in
Speaker 1: front of the building, that Terence allegedly fired four or
Speaker 1: five shots at police officers out of the back window
Speaker 1: of Apartment one f to which officers claimed to have
Speaker 1: returned fire, and that Terence allegedly climbed out of that
Speaker 1: window totally unscathed before his arrest on the walkway. Tyrone
Speaker 1: Flowers denied the validity of his alleged statement at trial,
Speaker 1: but that same statement was used to rebut his denials,
Speaker 1: even though there were no spent shell casings, bullets, broken glass,
Speaker 1: or any marks on the building to corroborate this version
Speaker 1: of events. The three officers testimonies went unchallenged at trial,
Speaker 1: and Terence was sentenced to three consecutive life terms for
Speaker 1: a crime that never even happened. This is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to wrongful conviction. I'm your host, Jason Flaman.
Speaker 1: Today we have a man that I'm going to introduce
Speaker 1: to you from behind bars where he remains after thirty
Speaker 1: one years for a crime that never even happened. With
Speaker 1: evidence that never existed, and with so many lies and
Speaker 1: misconduct and competence thrown into this toxic mix that you're
Speaker 1: literally gonna go flam. You're crazy, this can't be true,
Speaker 1: but it is true. So without further ado, Terence Rice,
Speaker 1: I've been wanting to share your story for a long
Speaker 1: long time now, and I'm I mean, sorry is not
Speaker 1: a strong enough for you. But I'm sorry you're here
Speaker 1: under these circumstances. But I'm really happy that you're here
Speaker 1: to share this unbelievable tale. Yes, thinks for having me.
Speaker 1: I highly appreciate you, not just for my case, but
Speaker 1: for all the cases that you publicize, because you're literally
Speaker 1: giving a voice to the voiceless. And I just want
Speaker 1: you to know that my words is insufficient to show
Speaker 1: and express my appreciation. Well, listen, I don't even feel
Speaker 1: like I have an option here. I mean, I have
Speaker 1: to tell these stories. So first of all, let's go
Speaker 1: back before all of this happened. Tell us about what
Speaker 1: life was like for you growing up in Brownsville, Brooklyn. Okay,
Speaker 1: growing up in until then houses in Brownsville, Brooklyn. It's
Speaker 1: just like most in the city neighborhoods where it's relatively
Speaker 1: poor and people just living their life trying to do
Speaker 1: the best things that they could do, Like far too
Speaker 1: many others residents of the neighborhood. I've had trouble with
Speaker 1: the lord. You know, Minu stuff, juve now, things like that.
Speaker 1: The thing is when you're young and you running the
Speaker 1: street and you're getting yourself into things that you don't
Speaker 1: realize the impact that is going to have later, you
Speaker 1: make bad decisions. So leading up until my rest for
Speaker 1: this case, I just lived a normal life. I lived
Speaker 1: with a female who was helping me get on my feet.
Speaker 1: I had a parole to help me get a job
Speaker 1: with a program that they called Wildcats. I took all
Speaker 1: the Civil Service exam, and one of these places that
Speaker 1: called me back with the New York City Department of Sanitation.
Speaker 1: I actually went past the test schedule for physical and everything.
Speaker 1: The only reason why I'm not retiring at the New
Speaker 1: York City Sanitation worker now is because i was growthfully arrested,
Speaker 1: falsely convicted, and I've been here ever since. And I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna go back now to give our audience a
Speaker 1: little context. So this was Brownsville, Brooklyn. Both crime and
Speaker 1: police misconduct were out of control. It's also important to
Speaker 1: note that at this time cell phones were really rare,
Speaker 1: so there was no unlimited talking text or anything like that.
Speaker 1: Landline phone bills, by the way, it could get really expensive.
Speaker 1: So it's not a stretch to think that a guy
Speaker 1: living in public housing would be using a pay phone
Speaker 1: booth on the regular. And if you remember, these phone
Speaker 1: booths used to be ubiquitous, right, there were all over
Speaker 1: the city. Now back to the day of the question,
Speaker 1: it's October nine, just after midnight twelve ten am. Police
Speaker 1: were in the area already when they responded the gunshots
Speaker 1: at three thirty Dumont Avenue that were happening between a
Speaker 1: group in the hallway outside of Apartment one F and
Speaker 1: the guys within that apartment who later became Terence's co defendant.
Speaker 1: Of course, I'm talking about Tyroll and Flowers and Darryl Smith,
Speaker 1: as well as Randy Hampton, who ended up never being indicted. Now, Terence,
Speaker 1: you lived in the adjacent building three forty Dumont, which
Speaker 1: was about two feet away, right, and there was a
Speaker 1: little courtyard in between the buildings. So take us back
Speaker 1: before this gun battle happened, when you were making your
Speaker 1: usual phone call that you made to your girlfriend. Okay,
Speaker 1: So my significant other, she worked a job on throw
Speaker 1: away video and the shift that she worked was from
Speaker 1: four to twelve. So my lifestyle was if we were
Speaker 1: actually together or I wasn't going to pick up from work,
Speaker 1: we were routinely called on the phone. We had phone
Speaker 1: booths located in the back of my building. So I
Speaker 1: completed the court and on my way back to my building,
Speaker 1: it was shots fired inside of three thirty do my
Speaker 1: Avenue and I lived three forty do my Avenue, So
Speaker 1: as I'm approaching the rear of my building, the officers
Speaker 1: had to already be in the area because they responded
Speaker 1: to that. Then some gods ran out of three thirty
Speaker 1: do my Avenue. Of course du my avenue, and that
Speaker 1: melee wanted the officers to see me and pointed his
Speaker 1: gun at me and told me to freeze, get down
Speaker 1: on my knees, and basically walked towards him on my knees.
Speaker 1: So that's what I did. So I feel like I'm
Speaker 1: missing a connection here. So it just was that you
Speaker 1: just happened to be on the street and they were
Speaker 1: just like, let's just grab this guy. I think that
Speaker 1: anybody that would have been out there that night, they
Speaker 1: would have at least ain't sure. Okay, this is not
Speaker 1: somebody that got anything to do with that shooting that's
Speaker 1: going on, So that's how that happened. So is this
Speaker 1: literally just the wrong place, wrong time, that's really all
Speaker 1: it is. Exactly exactly. I got handcuffed, they grabbed somebody
Speaker 1: else that they said came out of the ridd of
Speaker 1: the building, and two other guys were found inside of
Speaker 1: the department in three thirty Dumont Avenue, Department one F.
Speaker 1: So those guys claimed that they were watching a football
Speaker 1: game and shots came through the door. Some guys from
Speaker 1: inside the department fight out, the police robbed and when
Speaker 1: the police told him to come in so they could
Speaker 1: secure it everywhere, they came out. So it was a
Speaker 1: total of four bus that was arrested. Right, So, Tyrone
Speaker 1: Flowers and Darryl Smith were arrested from inside apartment one F,
Speaker 1: and then Randy Hampton was arrested outside and later ended
Speaker 1: up never being indicted though Tyrone and Darryl, however, were
Speaker 1: indicted along with you. And the story of the shooting
Speaker 1: inside of was that the guys inside of Apartment one
Speaker 1: F had been in a dispute with another group about
Speaker 1: a girl earlier that same day, and in response, the
Speaker 1: other party to that dispute came and shot through the
Speaker 1: door of Apartment one F from the hallway, and the
Speaker 1: guys inside one F then returned fire. As the other
Speaker 1: group retreated from the doorway of Apartment one F, the
Speaker 1: shooting moved from there to the front area of the building.
Speaker 1: The other party to this shooting was never found, arrested
Speaker 1: or anything, but that gun battle inside and in front
Speaker 1: of three thirty Dumont was well documented. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: spent shells and bullets, bullet marks and bullet holes on
Speaker 1: the walls and doors, and later ballistic evidence as well.
Speaker 1: So they've got these other guys who were involved to
Speaker 1: some degree, whatever degree, with the shooting inside and in
Speaker 1: front of three thirty Dumont, and you who was just
Speaker 1: on the walkway in the back of the building without
Speaker 1: a weapon. All four of you were brought down to
Speaker 1: the precinct. I mean, did you think you had anything
Speaker 1: to really worry about at that time? At that time,
Speaker 1: I'm still thinking of right, once y'all realize, I'm want
Speaker 1: to walk withay alongside my building I'm out of here. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the officers decided the fabricate a story. They said that
Speaker 1: I was shooting out of the window towards Dumont Avenue
Speaker 1: when they approached the rear of the building when they
Speaker 1: announced themselves, allegedly turned around and shot four or five
Speaker 1: times in their direction. They're saying that they're shot back
Speaker 1: at this window, and I came out of the window
Speaker 1: and they just arrested me. But unlike the other gun
Speaker 1: battle through the front door of apartment one after, there
Speaker 1: are no shell casings or bullets, no bullet marks or
Speaker 1: bullet holes, no broken glass from the alleged return fire
Speaker 1: from police officers. Nothing, in other words, to corroborate this
Speaker 1: version of events. But this is three police officers telling
Speaker 1: the story. They charged me actually with tempted to murder
Speaker 1: the three police officers in possession of weapons weapons that
Speaker 1: they found inside of a closet inside the apartment one
Speaker 1: of a threety do Mon Avenue. I hired an attorney
Speaker 1: immediately after being arrested. He hired an investigator name is
Speaker 1: Robert l d. Robert Ludi went to basically canvas the area.
Speaker 1: He came back with approximately five witnesses at the time,
Speaker 1: and they all said, I've had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: this crime. And then he wind up interviewing my code offenders,
Speaker 1: one of the guys that they snatched up and the
Speaker 1: other two that was found inside the department, and these
Speaker 1: gods gave statements saying, listen, we've seen this guy around
Speaker 1: the neighborhood. You know he was nowhere in this apartment.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, three officers identified you as a shooter. And
Speaker 1: then Tyrone Flowers alleged that he was beaten into giving
Speaker 1: a video statement supporting their version of events that you
Speaker 1: fired either a revolver or a shotgun. And that's even
Speaker 1: somebody who knows very little bout guns like myself knows,
Speaker 1: that's a big discrepancy there. That you supposedly fired out
Speaker 1: of the window of Apartment one F on the back
Speaker 1: side of the building four or five times at the
Speaker 1: police and then climbed out of that same window where
Speaker 1: you were arrested when you got to the ground level unharmed. Right,
Speaker 1: But again, no bullets or shells, no broken glass, no
Speaker 1: bullet holes or bullet marks. I mean, you can't have
Speaker 1: a shootout and then magically everything just disappears right, The
Speaker 1: physical evidence here doesn't support their version of events for
Speaker 1: the simple reason that it was all just made up.
Speaker 1: And no, it was standard protocol back then to test
Speaker 1: people's hands for gunshot residue. Right, did they test your hands? Nope,
Speaker 1: they didn't do that. They didn't do that at all.
Speaker 1: They didn't test that window for anything. They didn't test
Speaker 1: it for no finger plants, nothing, no, And yeah, why
Speaker 1: would they when they knew that the results would have
Speaker 1: just disproved the story that they were trying to tell. Right,
Speaker 1: you don't have to be Colombo to figure this out.
Speaker 1: And I think it's important to note that if you
Speaker 1: had done what they claimed that you did, if you
Speaker 1: were actually crazy enough to shoot at the police, you
Speaker 1: and that building would have been basically Swiss cheese by
Speaker 1: the end of that interaction, but instead not a scratch exactly.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows that, everybody listening knows that at our pointed
Speaker 1: the time, in the middle of the night, at the
Speaker 1: high of the crack rror in New York City, when
Speaker 1: all of that violence was at its height, I would
Speaker 1: have went straight to the more. This episode is underwritten
Speaker 1: by a i G, a leading global insurance company. A
Speaker 1: i G is committed to corporate social responsibility and is
Speaker 1: making a positive difference in the lives of its employees
Speaker 1: and in the communities where we work and live. In
Speaker 1: light of the compelling need for pro bono legal assistance
Speaker 1: and in recognition of a i g s commitment to
Speaker 1: criminal and social justice reform, the a i G Pro
Speaker 1: Bono Program provides free legal services and other support to
Speaker 1: underrepresented communities and individuals. So when we were in the
Speaker 1: present and they separated all of us, one of the
Speaker 1: Corona finis was a seventeen year o kid named Tyrone Floud.
Speaker 1: He said they beat him into making a confession, essentially
Speaker 1: saying that everybody was in the apartment. Somebody shot through
Speaker 1: the apartment. The officers asked him, were that an apartment
Speaker 1: and he was like yes. They asked him, was anybody
Speaker 1: shooting out of the window would have shot done when
Speaker 1: anybody shooting out of the window with it? He was
Speaker 1: like yes. So when he made this confession, he told
Speaker 1: us he did that, and he said, listen, I'm willing
Speaker 1: to give a statement saying that they beat me up
Speaker 1: to the police said they may be make a statement
Speaker 1: to other two gods. They said, I'm not in the
Speaker 1: apartment prior to trial. Immediately after receiving the statements, my
Speaker 1: lawyer fould what you call the severance motion, and this
Speaker 1: motion is designed have me separate trial from the co
Speaker 1: defendant so that we will be able to enjoy exculpatory
Speaker 1: testimony saying that I'm innocent, right because both Randy Hampton
Speaker 1: and Darryl Smith never wavered that you weren't even in
Speaker 1: the apartment, let alone had anyone fired anything out the
Speaker 1: window at the police. So add those two testimonies to
Speaker 1: Tyrone's claim of being beaten into giving that video statement,
Speaker 1: and that should have done the job. But that's, of
Speaker 1: course not how things panned out. During the proceedings prior
Speaker 1: to trial, I had a hearing where my lawyer was
Speaker 1: not president. My lawyer fouled the after David with court
Speaker 1: saying that he was going to trial in my hand
Speaker 1: and didn't know when the trial would be concluded. Irrespected
Speaker 1: with that position, and I was not represented the judge
Speaker 1: that not a motion that he had before the court
Speaker 1: for me to have a separate trial from these guys
Speaker 1: so that at the trial they could come and testify
Speaker 1: on my behalf even if they didn't want to testify
Speaker 1: on their own behalf at their own trial. So now
Speaker 1: I go to trial. We went through a long colloqueen
Speaker 1: court about why you're not giving me the separate trial.
Speaker 1: And the judge said to my lawyer, you was here
Speaker 1: during a court date that I examine him, and he
Speaker 1: said nothing about testifying, and my lawyer was like, your honor,
Speaker 1: that never happened. I was never president, I was on
Speaker 1: trial and Mahan New York County. So they went back
Speaker 1: and forth from the Kirk ultimately identified to the judge listen,
Speaker 1: he was not here. So my lawyers that this is
Speaker 1: the first time I'm in court, were all parties President.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you I have exonerated statements from them. I
Speaker 1: intend to call him. And the judge still denied the motion.
Speaker 1: Every rus allowed him to testify. So they granted the
Speaker 1: severance with the guy that made the videotape statement. My
Speaker 1: position is that you granted that because you were able
Speaker 1: to impeach him because he made a prized statement saying
Speaker 1: something contrary to that. The other they did not the severance.
Speaker 1: They put Tyrone Flowers on the stand and Tyrone Flowers
Speaker 1: was basically up there hours whether or not what he
Speaker 1: said on a video was true or what he was
Speaker 1: saying today, meaning that time I was on trial, he
Speaker 1: had a whole bunch of contradictions because, like I said, understand,
Speaker 1: he's saying they was beating him up to the precinct,
Speaker 1: and he was basically saying what the officers wanted to say.
Speaker 1: And the video statement, the officers asked them, were that
Speaker 1: in an apartment and he was like yes. They asked him,
Speaker 1: was anybody shooting out of the window? He was like yes.
Speaker 1: My position with that was the same thing as with
Speaker 1: the officers. And what he's saying is true, where the
Speaker 1: evidence of that right. It always comes back to the
Speaker 1: fact that this version of events is just words, right,
Speaker 1: even though these words were repeated by three police officers
Speaker 1: as well as allegedly and and this they say allegedly,
Speaker 1: but it's very credible, especially in that era, that they
Speaker 1: were beaten out of Tyrone Flowers. This narrative runs counter
Speaker 1: to all the physical evidence, while your version events is
Speaker 1: supported by the physical evidence as well as by Randy
Speaker 1: Hampton and Darryl Smith. Unfortunately for you, however, Darryl, as
Speaker 1: your codefendant, was not allowed to testify, and Randy was
Speaker 1: never called by your lawyer. But what about all the
Speaker 1: other alibi witnesses that your investigator actually interviewed. One witness
Speaker 1: identified me by the phone of miss Braunson. Another witness
Speaker 1: lived in three Dumont Avenue and was like, I see
Speaker 1: who was in that, but he was not there. He
Speaker 1: was not involved in that. So these witnesses my lawyer
Speaker 1: never put on a stand. This is just straight crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean, these other witnesses were not presented your severance motion.
Speaker 1: Denial kept the jury from hearing from Darryl Smith about
Speaker 1: your innocence, and then with Tyrone's video statement impeaching what
Speaker 1: he was coming forward with on the stand, this was
Speaker 1: not looking good for you. Between the prosecution's tactics and
Speaker 1: the failures of your attorney. It was basically a systematic
Speaker 1: removal of any evidence in your defense. So the people
Speaker 1: put their case on and it was essentially the testimony
Speaker 1: of the the officers. Once they got the testimony from them,
Speaker 1: they went through the technical stuff and marshooting a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of evidence to establish that it was a shootout
Speaker 1: between whoever was in that apartment and whoever shot through
Speaker 1: that apartment door. They had pictures of the bullet hole
Speaker 1: through the door. They had bullet markers all in the hallway.
Speaker 1: They had spitshells. Some of them matched weapons that they
Speaker 1: found inside the apartment in the closet, and some of
Speaker 1: them didn't. I guess those were guys that shot in
Speaker 1: and they were never arrested. Every single thing that they
Speaker 1: testified about with respects to these two groups of people
Speaker 1: shooting at each other, they had all of the physical
Speaker 1: evidence for that, but there was not one single shred
Speaker 1: of evidence demonstrating that anything happened between anybody at any
Speaker 1: window and a police officer. Now, one of the officers
Speaker 1: actually testified that he's seen the shotgun and the shotgun
Speaker 1: was being fired, and this happened before the revolver. Two
Speaker 1: of them said they didn't see a shotgune. Not one
Speaker 1: single shotgun splace shell was recovered when they recovered all
Speaker 1: of these other stuff. So evidence with respects to why
Speaker 1: I'm is non existence outside of the testimony on these
Speaker 1: three officers, you know, And it's striking to me that
Speaker 1: they didn't even bother to coordinate their stories. If I
Speaker 1: had to guess, they must have thought, well, we're going
Speaker 1: to convict this guy regardless, So why are we even
Speaker 1: gonna waste time trying to sit around and make sure
Speaker 1: our stories match. They didn't even bother to do that.
Speaker 1: So you have conflicting testimony, all of which is nonsensical
Speaker 1: because it didn't match any of the facts. You have
Speaker 1: a total lack of evidence. It sounds like, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a show trial. When the jury went out, did
Speaker 1: you still feel like you had a hope in hell
Speaker 1: of being acquitted. It's not like I had a trury
Speaker 1: that was made up of people that understand. It's a
Speaker 1: difference in the way policing is being conducted. A lot
Speaker 1: of stuff that people is outraged about now, it's stuff
Speaker 1: that was unfortunately normal for me and God that grew
Speaker 1: up with me feedback then they didn't have cameras, But
Speaker 1: for us it was like, it's nothing for the police
Speaker 1: to pull up, guns drawn, get down, get on the car,
Speaker 1: don't move. That's regular stuff for us. So everybody don't
Speaker 1: have that view. So when a person here, somebody in
Speaker 1: authority that took the oath to uphold the Lord, why
Speaker 1: would these guys break that? Why would they get together
Speaker 1: and say that, Why would you make that up? So
Speaker 1: these juries, they don't know that part of it. But
Speaker 1: to answer your question directly, yes, I really thought that
Speaker 1: I had a shot, because who is going to believe
Speaker 1: that they're going to be evicted for something, Not that
Speaker 1: you got the wrong person or any It never even happened.
Speaker 1: It never happened. It's just an unbelievable indictment of our
Speaker 1: system in general. I mean the fact that you're there now.
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ. You've been in prison eight years longer than
Speaker 1: you were alive outside of prison. So this is insanity
Speaker 1: for a crime that never happened. I'm gonna say it
Speaker 1: again and again and again, a crime that never happened,
Speaker 1: in which no one was hurt, and no one was touched,
Speaker 1: and no one was harmed in any conceivable way, not
Speaker 1: even their feelings were hurt. So okay, So the moment
Speaker 1: that you were convicted, if you could take us back
Speaker 1: to that, must have been the worst moment of your life.
Speaker 1: October sixteenth ago, before the citiesn't judge and a citisen't judge,
Speaker 1: basically said that I am going to run twenty five
Speaker 1: years to life sinces consecutively, which told you seventy five
Speaker 1: years to life, because I do not want any one
Speaker 1: of these officers to feel like I'm punish you all.
Speaker 1: At the same time, she sensing me like I was
Speaker 1: a serial killer. So when I got sense to that,
Speaker 1: they immediately shackled me up, wrote me on the bus,
Speaker 1: and I will shipped the AGA at the time I
Speaker 1: was convicted. If somebody woted the capitity three officers in
Speaker 1: town square, they will not have been able to receive
Speaker 1: another day more than what I'm saying through very day.
Speaker 1: Live in New York State, Twitter selves since October ninety
Speaker 1: I'm in green Haven Corruption Facility that's in Stormville, New York,
Speaker 1: you know, approximately an hour outside of the city, outside
Speaker 1: of the Bronx and U exercise, our run marathons, I runs,
Speaker 1: and I also do mental exercise. Is metter paying, So
Speaker 1: I do that. I take that time out for myself,
Speaker 1: the kid spiritually a line, so that I will be
Speaker 1: able to prepare myself for the visions of the day
Speaker 1: and all of this stuff that I got to go through.
Speaker 1: You can only imagine this the negativity and environment coming
Speaker 1: from both sides of the fense. But I have a
Speaker 1: very very strong support system, yourself included Derek Hamilton. Unbelievable.
Speaker 1: This guy spent a bunch of time in prison before
Speaker 1: being exonerated. Since the day stepped out, this is the
Speaker 1: type of work he's been doing. So I'm encouraged by that.
Speaker 1: I have a wife whom I've been married to for
Speaker 1: more than quarter of a century. People don't understand how
Speaker 1: we do that because they can't stay together that long
Speaker 1: out there, but she's definitely a rock and the kids,
Speaker 1: and so it's a combination of these things. Of course,
Speaker 1: you have moments that are harder than other moments. I
Speaker 1: love mute, I love to read. I'm always reading, and
Speaker 1: aside from Fright in my case, I helped a lot
Speaker 1: of other guys. I made sure I got a legal
Speaker 1: research certificate so I could work in lower libraries. I
Speaker 1: did the IOC, which is basically an inmate lands own
Speaker 1: committee where I represent population to the administration, bring the
Speaker 1: concerned administiation back to the population. I do youth empowerment class.
Speaker 1: Has been involved in a bunch of different organizations and
Speaker 1: everything that I felt was significant, just trying to be
Speaker 1: the best person I could be. Well, Terence say, is
Speaker 1: you have all my respect? And so now with your
Speaker 1: post conviction litigation, so much of this starts with the
Speaker 1: ineffective representation by your trial attorney, right and effective with
Speaker 1: sisters and council. Of course, I raised that on a pill.
Speaker 1: They didn't even acknowledge that I had also the severance
Speaker 1: issue and how it was not constitutive sound for them
Speaker 1: to not the severance motion for my codefinders. I have
Speaker 1: been in Brooklyn District attorneys to convicted review you and
Speaker 1: for over six years now, and they're supposed to be
Speaker 1: investigating this wrongful conviction. The district attorney, one of the investigators,
Speaker 1: did interview the girl and she raverified where she worked
Speaker 1: and that I would call every day and this was
Speaker 1: our lifestyle, but basically dismissed that as if that has
Speaker 1: nothing to do because you're not on our witness at
Speaker 1: the crime. I had an extensive meeting with one of
Speaker 1: the sisters the district attorneys. I explained to I said, listen,
Speaker 1: look how ridiculous the story is. If the officers, all
Speaker 1: three of them, they all talking about I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to scare them, I'm trying to murder them. At what
Speaker 1: time when I came out of this window actually towards y'all,
Speaker 1: did y'all decide I was no longer to prey, and
Speaker 1: I know nobody shot a nothing. After the meeting, when
Speaker 1: I called my attorney said, the digrict attorney said that
Speaker 1: your story has problems because you've told them during the
Speaker 1: meeting that the officers see you on the walkway, made
Speaker 1: you get down on your knees and walked towards them,
Speaker 1: And we had pictures. And if there's nothing wrong with
Speaker 1: the bottom of Terrence's pants from the knees down to
Speaker 1: his foot, and if what he said was true, that
Speaker 1: it would have been something dirty or something on his knee.
Speaker 1: So I couldn't believe they said that. So what I
Speaker 1: did was I called my wife an accid did she
Speaker 1: have a copy of my child transcripts really available? She
Speaker 1: said absolutely. I said, go to officers Mackie testimony. He
Speaker 1: said that when he noticed me, he made me get
Speaker 1: down on my knees, put my hands behind my back,
Speaker 1: and walk towards him. I said, make a copy of that.
Speaker 1: Send that to the district attorney's office. They sent it
Speaker 1: to the district attorney's office. We didn't hear nothing back
Speaker 1: on that. So the next communication, my attorney said, Terrence,
Speaker 1: the district attorney is saying that during the meeting, you
Speaker 1: told them that you didn't know miss Brunson at the
Speaker 1: time you got arrested. You found out about when she
Speaker 1: became a witness. But the record shows that this is
Speaker 1: who you call from the precinct. I said, you gotta
Speaker 1: be kidding me. He said, no, this is what they're
Speaker 1: telling me. So I pulled out the police report from
Speaker 1: the phone cart that I made. The phone court that
Speaker 1: I made was to the house I was living in,
Speaker 1: three forty Domont Avenue and to the females who I
Speaker 1: call every night. Send that to them. When they sent
Speaker 1: that to the District Attorney's office, they said, oh, we
Speaker 1: made a mistake. Somebody wrote some them in and we
Speaker 1: thought that they wrote Brunson, but it really was somebody
Speaker 1: named car So I was like, all right, and it's
Speaker 1: just been a back and forth and then and back
Speaker 1: and forth and went like that, squabbling over these trivial
Speaker 1: details while they nord what was glaringly obvious that this
Speaker 1: was a quote unquote crime that never even happened. That
Speaker 1: building would have been lit up like a freaking Christmas
Speaker 1: tree if Terence had shot even once at those police officers.
Speaker 1: But that's simply not what happened. So While the squabbling continued,
Speaker 1: it appeared that some headway had been made in negotiations,
Speaker 1: so terence Is legal team requested that we shelved this
Speaker 1: interview until they had a chance to hammer out the
Speaker 1: terms of this release with the Brooklyn District Attorney Eric
Speaker 1: and Zalice. And I'm happy to report that Terence now
Speaker 1: joins us finally from outside the walls. So Terrence, welcome
Speaker 1: back to Wrongful Conviction. Thank you very much. I appreciate
Speaker 1: you guys having me so Terrence. The moment that I
Speaker 1: finally heard that you were out, I mean I was
Speaker 1: so happy calling friends and family. Uh might call my
Speaker 1: colleagues here at Wrongful Conviction. You know Connor, our producer,
Speaker 1: I think he this case has for some reason or other,
Speaker 1: this case has bothered him as much as any and
Speaker 1: I know he's been so invested in this, and so
Speaker 1: it's uh, you know, it was a great call with him,
Speaker 1: and we're all just so happy for you. So I
Speaker 1: can't imagine what this must be like for your family
Speaker 1: and of course your wife Michelle, who has been such
Speaker 1: a credible and steadfast supporter. Shout out to every one
Speaker 1: of them for their strength through this unbelievable or deal
Speaker 1: and nightmare? Absolutely, um, so take us there. What was
Speaker 1: it like to be finally reunited with him three decades on?
Speaker 1: It was great. The wife came up to the facility,
Speaker 1: she was out there with a couple of family members
Speaker 1: when I was released, and uh, from there, we went
Speaker 1: out to City Allen and had lunch because they were
Speaker 1: out there all morning and nobody got any sleep the
Speaker 1: night before, probably even before that, but definitely not the
Speaker 1: night before, because they were excited about coming to you know,
Speaker 1: be there to be in my support system. I didn't
Speaker 1: actually feel off the boot until I actually got home,
Speaker 1: you know, and I was able to be like, wow,
Speaker 1: I'm here now, you know. But because of the circumstances
Speaker 1: surrounding how I got released, as great as the feeling is,
Speaker 1: it was a bitter sweet right, because even though you're out,
Speaker 1: justice really still hasn't been served in this case, or
Speaker 1: if it's been served, has been served cold. Because despite
Speaker 1: the obvious, which is that you're an innocent man, and
Speaker 1: again innocent of a crime that never even happened, you
Speaker 1: still remained sort of a prisoner in a much bigger
Speaker 1: prison right as a paroleague. I mean even recently, you
Speaker 1: and I were going to get together, and you know
Speaker 1: you weren't able to do it because of this these
Speaker 1: crazy restrictions that are put on you. Can you explain
Speaker 1: the deal that you got from the Brooklyn d A Okay,
Speaker 1: So they were trying to get my lawyers to convince
Speaker 1: me to plead guilty and that they were reduced the sentence,
Speaker 1: and I was like, absolutely not. I will die on
Speaker 1: my feet before I live on my knees and say
Speaker 1: that I am guilty of something that even they know,
Speaker 1: and it's obvious that never happened. And what they ultimately
Speaker 1: did was filed the motion to have my sentence that
Speaker 1: was running consecutively ran concurrent. So I had three twenty
Speaker 1: five life sentence that was ran consecutively, which toldal to
Speaker 1: seventy five years of life. By them putting an emotion
Speaker 1: to run a concurrent that would effectively make my sentence
Speaker 1: to twenty five life right, and since you had already
Speaker 1: done thirty two years, that made you eligible for parole.
Speaker 1: But we know that the pro board doesn't usually let
Speaker 1: anyone out unless they admit guilt and show remorse, which
Speaker 1: you just said you weren't about to do so how
Speaker 1: is it possible that you're here right now. So the
Speaker 1: conditions for the sentence reduction would be that the District
Speaker 1: Attorney's office would not oppose the motion and that they
Speaker 1: were actually support my release, but I had to sign
Speaker 1: a waiver for them not to be civilly liable and
Speaker 1: layman's turn so that the viewers can understand clearly they
Speaker 1: wanted to be relieved of any possibility of me sowing
Speaker 1: once I eventually be exonerated or have this illegal sentence vacated,
Speaker 1: which was ridiculous to me because first and foremost, just
Speaker 1: by you putting that on the table in the case
Speaker 1: that you know I have no business being here and
Speaker 1: that you expect me to be exonerated. Because if you
Speaker 1: had iron clad case and you believe that I was
Speaker 1: really guilty, how would a guilty person be able to
Speaker 1: sue anybody for anything. So this, for me is an
Speaker 1: indication that you know, eventually this man is gonna be exonerated.
Speaker 1: We just don't want to compensate them for them thirty
Speaker 1: two years he Yeah, I remember you explaining this possibility
Speaker 1: to me a few months back while you're still awaiting
Speaker 1: your hearing, and I'm still just as piste off that
Speaker 1: your least couldn't have just been allowed by some normal
Speaker 1: legal channels rather than this deal that feels like well,
Speaker 1: like you said, bitter sweet, I was led to believe
Speaker 1: that the judge would not sentence me if I don't
Speaker 1: sign that. Ultimately, I signed it because I said, at least,
Speaker 1: it's not nowhere near an admission of guilt. It's just,
Speaker 1: you know, monetary conversation and overcoming a civil ball is
Speaker 1: much easier than trying to overcome an admission of guilt
Speaker 1: for something that I didn't do, you know, And I
Speaker 1: wanted to come home with my family. So I signed it,
Speaker 1: and they did what they said they were going to do,
Speaker 1: and they supported my release. That was important because, as
Speaker 1: you asked me, and I pointed out to you, a
Speaker 1: parole board requires somebody to admit guilt. Your courage to
Speaker 1: stand firm and your innocence is impressive and inspiring. You
Speaker 1: didn't let them get you to bend the knee, and
Speaker 1: that's just badass. If there's any silver liance these proceedings,
Speaker 1: it's that at least that aspect of it feels like justice.
Speaker 1: And I gotta say, as a fellow new Yorker. I'd
Speaker 1: be happy to do right by you, as I'm sure
Speaker 1: everyone who hears this story would to give you the
Speaker 1: compensation that you deserve, which I mean no number would
Speaker 1: ever be enough to return to you what those three
Speaker 1: cops took from you with their lives. You know, for me,
Speaker 1: I will say that conversation does not buy back the
Speaker 1: years that people lost. Right inspect of whatever amount of money,
Speaker 1: I do think that it is deserving whatever is appropriate
Speaker 1: under the law, under the circumstances, because it gives a
Speaker 1: person an opportunity to live whatever golden years they have
Speaker 1: left at to going through the ordeal and put their
Speaker 1: family in the position, if they're not already in a
Speaker 1: position to live a better life generational wealth, so to speak.
Speaker 1: To have to suffer trying to make ends met after
Speaker 1: going through that ordeal is another matter. But personally, for me,
Speaker 1: it is the fact that I am found guilty for
Speaker 1: something that never happened. How do I begin a healing process.
Speaker 1: It's nothing to do with money, Jason, nothing to do
Speaker 1: with it. Not for me is getting to a place
Speaker 1: where I'm exonerated. You know, I'm made whole and acknowledge
Speaker 1: that that ordeal should have never happened. I'm on parole
Speaker 1: right now. I feel like it's prison without the cell,
Speaker 1: without the bars. I gotta worry about getting pulled over,
Speaker 1: And as soon as my name is ran through the computer,
Speaker 1: I'm looked at immediately as somebody who tried to kill
Speaker 1: three New York City police officers. And it never happens.
Speaker 1: So I'm still living that ordeal. It's traumatic. My next
Speaker 1: milestone to sixty years old, I have a parole officer.
Speaker 1: I have to be in by eight o'clock at night.
Speaker 1: I can't leave the house before eight o'clock in the morning,
Speaker 1: you know. So it's happy as I am to be
Speaker 1: able to hug my wife without bars being in between us,
Speaker 1: be with my family, eager food and all of that.
Speaker 1: It's still bitter sweet, and hopefully everygan Zalas we'll see
Speaker 1: that this needs to be corrected and moved towards that. However, Brothers,
Speaker 1: with or without his support, I'll follow my motion and
Speaker 1: I'll have the evidence where it's obvious that I should
Speaker 1: not have going through the ordeal and let the system work.
Speaker 1: You know again, it doesn't always work, and we need
Speaker 1: to support you know. We'll be here to support you.
Speaker 1: In any way we can. And I know you had
Speaker 1: to change dot org petition before you were released. Is
Speaker 1: that how our audience can show support? Yes, absolutely, I
Speaker 1: want to let people know where we're at. I'll modify
Speaker 1: to change that or petition to reflect my current status. However,
Speaker 1: I still encourage the supporters that sign to share and
Speaker 1: encourage their supporters on whatever social media platforms or whatever
Speaker 1: platform they have to encourage people to continue to sign
Speaker 1: and support because the ultimate goal is exoneration and that
Speaker 1: has not been met and all the support we can
Speaker 1: gather will be highly appreciated. Well, we'll have that length
Speaker 1: in the episode bio for folks to scroll down and sign.
Speaker 1: And Eric has done a lot of good, but this
Speaker 1: time this is just bizarre and straight up wrong, and
Speaker 1: I'd like to encourage him to do the right thing.
Speaker 1: So please join me and signing that petition. And with that,
Speaker 1: we're now going to go to my favorite part of
Speaker 1: the show. It's called, of course, closing arguments and terrence.
Speaker 1: If it's hardy with you, I'd like to use the
Speaker 1: closing that you had recorded while you were still in prison.
Speaker 1: It's a straight up appeal to the guns alas, and
Speaker 1: I think it's still rings true today. Is that all
Speaker 1: right with you? Absolutely? Because I believe that it is
Speaker 1: still relevant. But in closing this interview, I would like
Speaker 1: the listeners to ask themselves. If you do not believe
Speaker 1: that I am innocent, and you do not believe or
Speaker 1: foresee that eventually I will be victorious and exonerating myself,
Speaker 1: why would you be preoccupied with me signing a waiver
Speaker 1: for civil liability. A guilty person can't sue anybody for anything. Well,
Speaker 1: as you guys know, I'm teris right. You just heard
Speaker 1: my story and how I got wrongfully convicted. Speaking directly
Speaker 1: to Evergnzalis having an opportunity to do so. Evergans list
Speaker 1: I read an article that you did in the Marskerew
Speaker 1: Project from September two thousand and nineteen. It was Tom Robert.
Speaker 1: In that article you said that in nine when you
Speaker 1: were just starting out as a junior prosecutor, your brother
Speaker 1: was killed. You was twenty seven years old at the time.
Speaker 1: You talked about how your father never got over it.
Speaker 1: When the man convicted of shooting your brother came up
Speaker 1: for parole after serving ten years, your father opposed release.
Speaker 1: After two more years, the parole board granted release. You
Speaker 1: said that when that process was over, knowing that the
Speaker 1: guy was punished and that your father didn't have to
Speaker 1: go to any more parole hearings, to be able to
Speaker 1: a sense of closure, I'm sorry for your lord. I
Speaker 1: lost the wife to gun violence. On Mars three year.
Speaker 1: My wife was shot in the head in the East
Speaker 1: New York Session in Brooklyn by straight bullet. No one
Speaker 1: was ever arrested for her murder. So I understand that
Speaker 1: you also said that you believe in another of the law,
Speaker 1: and that is what the law allowed in your brother's case,
Speaker 1: and your family had moved on. On October nine, I
Speaker 1: was falsely arrested for a crime that never happened. So far,
Speaker 1: I have already served very close to three times that
Speaker 1: or which the person served that killed your brother. In
Speaker 1: my case, no one suffered the scratch. Your office is
Speaker 1: well aware of the circumstances around in this case. Aside
Speaker 1: from the legal issues that clearly demonstrate I am wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 1: Your office, through their own investigation, is in possession of
Speaker 1: many statements from witnesses exonerating me. There is not one
Speaker 1: single shred of physical evidence against me. The rule of
Speaker 1: law that you said you believe in it does not
Speaker 1: allow for the continued imprisonment of innocent people. In the
Speaker 1: same article, you said that people who were convicted when
Speaker 1: they were twenty three years old or younger, your office
Speaker 1: will consider supporting for role for individuals who were twenty
Speaker 1: three years were younger at the time of sensing. I
Speaker 1: was twenty three years old, I'm says to seventy five
Speaker 1: years in life. You talked about promoting trust in the
Speaker 1: perminent justice system. It is time for you to practice
Speaker 1: what you preach. Everything is alice. If you are unsatisfied
Speaker 1: with the evidence that demonstrates that I'm wrong, prey convicted,
Speaker 1: and you need something to hang your hat on, why
Speaker 1: don't you hang your hat on your own words. Thank
Speaker 1: you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank
Speaker 1: our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyver, and
Speaker 1: Kevin Wardis. With research by Lila Robinson. The music in
Speaker 1: this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer
Speaker 1: Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at wrong for 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 Raval.
Speaker 1: Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcasts in
Speaker 1: association with Signal Company Number one