Speaker 1: Back in the spring of twenty twenty one, Terrence Rice's
Speaker 1: case was stagnating before the Brooklyn Conviction Review Unit, and
Speaker 1: he reached out to us at Wrongful Conviction to see
Speaker 1: if he could create some pressure from the outside. The
Speaker 1: interview was ready for release in October twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: when his legal team requested that we temporarily shelved the
Speaker 1: episode as they were at a critical juncture in negotiations
Speaker 1: with Brooklyn DA Eric Gonzalez. After nearly a year, the
Speaker 1: interview has finally been cleared for release. Shortly after midnight
Speaker 1: on October ninth, nineteen ninety, Terrence Rice finished a payphone
Speaker 1: 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. Terrence was swept up in the chaos with
Speaker 1: three other men. While two of the three of all
Speaker 1: always maintained that Terrence was not in Apartment one F.
Speaker 1: The third man, Tyrone Flowers, allegedly was beaten into giving
Speaker 1: a false statement supporting an uncorroborated police narrative. This narrative
Speaker 1: alleged that, separate from a well documented gun battle inside
Speaker 1: it in front of the building, that Terrence allegedly fired
Speaker 1: four or five shots at police officers out of the
Speaker 1: back window of Apartment one F, to which officers claimed
Speaker 1: to have returned fire, and that Terrence allegedly climbed out
Speaker 1: of that window totally unscathed before his arrest on the walkway.
Speaker 1: Tyrone 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 Terrence 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 Flahman.
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 going to go FLAWM, you're crazy. This can't be true,
Speaker 1: but it is true. So, without further ado, Terrence 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, he's not
Speaker 1: as strong enough word, but I'm sorry you're here under
Speaker 1: these circumstances. But I'm really happy that you're here to
Speaker 1: share this unbelievable tale.
Speaker 2: Yes, thanks for having me. I highly appreciate you, not
Speaker 2: just for my case, but for all the cases that
Speaker 2: you're publicized, because you're literally giving a voice to the voiceless.
Speaker 2: And I just want you to know that my words
Speaker 2: is insufficient to show and express my appreciation.
Speaker 1: Well, listen, I don't even feel like I have an
Speaker 1: option here. I mean, I have to tell these stories.
Speaker 1: So first of all, let's go back to before all
Speaker 1: of this happened. Tell us about what life was like
Speaker 1: for you growing up in Brownsville, Brooklyn.
Speaker 2: Okay, growing up in until the houses in Brownsville, Brooklyn.
Speaker 2: It's just like most inner city neighborhoods where it's relatively
Speaker 2: poor and people just living their life trying to do
Speaker 2: the best things that they could do. Like far too
Speaker 2: many other residents of the neighborhood, I've had trouble with
Speaker 2: the law, you know, minus stuff, juvenile things like that.
Speaker 2: The thing is, when you're young and you're running the
Speaker 2: street and you're getting yourself into things that you don't
Speaker 2: realize the impact that it's going to have later, you
Speaker 2: make bad decisions. So leading up until my arrest for
Speaker 2: this case, I just lived a normal life. I lived
Speaker 2: with a female who was helping me get on my feet.
Speaker 2: I had a parole to help me get a job
Speaker 2: with a program that they call Wildcat. I took all
Speaker 2: the Civil Service exam, and one of the places that
Speaker 2: called me back with the New York City Department of Sanitation.
Speaker 2: I actually went passed the test schedule for physical and everything.
Speaker 2: The only reason why I'm not retiring as the New
Speaker 2: York City Sanitation worker now is because I was wrawully arrested,
Speaker 2: falsely convicted, and I've been.
Speaker 1: Here ever since, and I'm just going to go back
Speaker 1: now to give our audience a little context. So this
Speaker 1: was nineteen ninety in Brownsville, Brooklyn. Both crime and police
Speaker 1: misconduct were out of control. It's also important to note
Speaker 1: that at this time cell phones were really rare, so
Speaker 1: there was no unlimited talking text or anything like that.
Speaker 1: Landline phone bills, by the way, 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 payphone booth
Speaker 1: on the regular. And if you remember, these phone booths
Speaker 1: used to be ubiquitous, right, they were all over the city.
Speaker 1: Now back to the day question. It's October ninth, nineteen ninety,
Speaker 1: just after midnight twelve ten am. Police were in the
Speaker 1: area already when they responded to gunshots at three thirty
Speaker 1: Dumont Avenue that were happening between a group in the
Speaker 1: hallway outside of Apartment one F and the guys within
Speaker 1: that apartment who later became Terrence's co defendants, of course,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about Tyrone Flowers and Daryl Smith, as well
Speaker 1: as Randy Hampton, who ended up never being indicted. Now, Terrence,
Speaker 1: you lived in the adjacent building three point forty Dumont,
Speaker 1: which was about two hundred feet away, right, and there
Speaker 1: was a little courtyard in between the buildings. So take
Speaker 1: us back before this gun battle happened, when you were
Speaker 1: making your usual phone call that you made to your girlfriend.
Speaker 2: Okay, So my significant other, she worked a job on
Speaker 2: Broadway Video and the ship that she worked was from
Speaker 2: four to twelve, So my lifestyle was if we were
Speaker 2: actually together or I wasn't going to pick her up
Speaker 2: from work, we were routinely call on the phone. We
Speaker 2: had phone booths located in the back of my building.
Speaker 2: So I completed the call and on my way back
Speaker 2: to my building, it was shot fired inside of three
Speaker 2: thirty Do my avenue. Now I lived three forty. Do
Speaker 2: my avenue, So as I'm approaching the rear of my building,
Speaker 2: the officers had to already be in the area because
Speaker 2: they responded to that. Then some guys ran out of
Speaker 2: three thirty do my avenue, the cross do my avenue,
Speaker 2: and that melee wanted the officer to see me and
Speaker 2: pointed his gun at me and told me to freeze,
Speaker 2: get down on my knees, and basically walk towards him
Speaker 2: on my knees. So that's what I did.
Speaker 1: So I feel like I'm missing a connection here, So
Speaker 1: it just was that you just happened to be on
Speaker 1: the street and they were just like, let's just grab
Speaker 1: this guy.
Speaker 2: I think that anybody that would have been out there
Speaker 2: that night, they would have at least they' sure, okay,
Speaker 2: this is not somebody that got anything to do with
Speaker 2: that shooting that's going on. So that's how that happened.
Speaker 1: So is this literally just wrong place, wrong time, That's
Speaker 1: really all it is.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly. I got handcuffed, they grabbed somebody else that
Speaker 2: they said came out of the art of the building,
Speaker 2: and two other guys was found inside of the department
Speaker 2: in three point thirty du Mont Avenue, Department one F.
Speaker 2: So those guys claimed that they was watching a football
Speaker 2: game and shots came through the door. Some guys from
Speaker 2: inside the apartment fire out, the police robbed, and when
Speaker 2: the police told them to come in so they could
Speaker 2: secure it erea, they came out. So it was a
Speaker 2: total of four of us that was arrested.
Speaker 1: Right, So, Tyrone Flowers and Darryl Smith were arrested from
Speaker 1: inside apartment one F, and then Randy Hampton was arrested
Speaker 1: outside and later ended up never being indicted. Though Tyrone
Speaker 1: and Darryl however, were indicted along with you, and the
Speaker 1: story of the shooting inside of three point thirty two
Speaker 1: month was that the guys inside of Apartment one F
Speaker 1: had been in a dispute with another group about a
Speaker 1: girl earlier that same day, and in response, the other
Speaker 1: party to that dispute came and shot through the door
Speaker 1: of Apartment one F from the hallway, and the guys
Speaker 1: inside one F then returned fire as the other group
Speaker 1: retreated from the doorway of Apartment one F, the shooting
Speaker 1: 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 are you about it at that time.
Speaker 2: At that time, I'm still thinking of right. Once y'all
Speaker 2: realized I'm on a walkway alongside my building, I'm out
Speaker 2: of it. Unfortunately, the officers decided to fabricate a story.
Speaker 2: They said that I was shooting out of the window
Speaker 2: towards Dumont Avenue when they approached the rear of the
Speaker 2: billion when they announced themselves, I allegedly turned around and
Speaker 2: shot four or five times in their direction. They're saying
Speaker 2: that they shot back at this window, and I came
Speaker 2: out of the window and they just arrested me.
Speaker 1: But unlike the other gun battle through the front door
Speaker 1: of Apartment one AFF, there are no shell casings or bullets,
Speaker 1: no bullet marks or bullet holes, no broken glass from
Speaker 1: the alleged return fire from police officers, nothing, in other words,
Speaker 1: to corroborate this version of events. But this is three
Speaker 1: police officers telling the story.
Speaker 2: They charged me, actually with tempted to murder three police
Speaker 2: officers and possession of weapons weapons that they found inside
Speaker 2: of a closet inside the apartment one F three to
Speaker 2: thirty do my Avenue. I hired an attorney immediately after
Speaker 2: being arrested. He hired an investigator named is Robert Ladie.
Speaker 2: Robert Ladee went to basically canvass the area. He came
Speaker 2: back with approximately five witnesses at the time, and they
Speaker 2: all said I had nothing to do with this crime.
Speaker 2: And then he wound up interviewing my Coda finis one
Speaker 2: of the gods that they snatched up and the other
Speaker 2: two that was found inside the apartment, and these gods
Speaker 2: gave statements saying, listen, we've seeing this guy around the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: 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 boy 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 backside
Speaker 1: of the building for or five times at the police
Speaker 1: and then climbed out of that same window where you
Speaker 1: 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, that
Speaker 1: the physical evidence here doesn't support their version of events
Speaker 1: for 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?
Speaker 2: Nope, they didn't do that. They didn't do that at all.
Speaker 2: They didn't test that window for anything. They didn't test
Speaker 2: it for no finger plants.
Speaker 1: Nothing, No, And yeah, why would they when they knew
Speaker 1: that the results would have just disproved the story that
Speaker 1: they were trying to tell. Right, you don't have to
Speaker 1: be Colombo to figure this out. And I think it's
Speaker 1: important to note that if you had done what they
Speaker 1: claimed that you did, if you were actually crazy enough
Speaker 1: to shoot at the police, you and that building would
Speaker 1: have been basically Swiss cheese by the end of that interaction,
Speaker 1: but instead not a scratch exactly.
Speaker 2: Everybody knows that. Everybody listener knows that at our pointed
Speaker 2: a time in the middle of the night, at the
Speaker 2: height of the crack error in New York City, when
Speaker 2: all of that violence was at its height, I would
Speaker 2: have went straight to the moor.
Speaker 1: This episode is underwritten by AIG, a leading global insurance company.
Speaker 1: AIG is committed to corporate social responsibility and is making
Speaker 1: a positive difference in the lives of its employees and
Speaker 1: in the communities where we work and live. In light
Speaker 1: of the compelling need for pro bono legal assistance, and
Speaker 1: in recognition of AIG's commitment to criminal and social justice reform,
Speaker 1: the AIG pro Bono Program provides free legal services and
Speaker 1: other support to underrepresented communities and individuals.
Speaker 2: So when we was in a precat and they separated
Speaker 2: all of us, one of the CODA finishs was a
Speaker 2: seventeen year o kid named Tyrone Flowers. He said they
Speaker 2: beat him into making a confession, decentsionally saying that everybody
Speaker 2: was in the apartment. Somebody shot through the apartment. The
Speaker 2: officers asked him, was not in the apartment and he
Speaker 2: was like yes. They asked him, was anybody shooting out
Speaker 2: of the window with the shot done? Was anybody shooting
Speaker 2: out of the window where he was like yes. So
Speaker 2: when he made this confession, he told us he did that,
Speaker 2: and he said, listen, I'm willing to give a statement
Speaker 2: saying that they beat me up in the pre said
Speaker 2: they made make the statement, so other two gods, they said,
Speaker 2: I'm not in the apartment. Prior to trial, immediately after
Speaker 2: receiving the statements, my lawyer filed what you call the
Speaker 2: severage motion, and this motion is designed to have me
Speaker 2: separate trial from the co defendents so that we would
Speaker 2: be able to enjoy exculpatory testimonial saying that I'm innocent.
Speaker 1: Right, because both Randy Hampton and Darryl Smith never waivered
Speaker 1: that you weren't even in the apartment, let alone had
Speaker 1: anyone fired anything out the window at the police. So
Speaker 1: add those two testimonies to Tyrone's claim of being beaten
Speaker 1: into giving that video statement, and that should have done
Speaker 1: the job. But that's, of course not how things panned out.
Speaker 2: During the proceedings prior to trial, I had a hearing
Speaker 2: where my lawyer was not present. My lawyer filed the
Speaker 2: affidavit with court saying that he was on trial in
Speaker 2: my hand and didn't know when the trial would be concluded.
Speaker 2: Irrespectful of that position, and I was not represented. The
Speaker 2: judge did not a motion that he had before the
Speaker 2: court for me to have a separate trial from these
Speaker 2: guys so that at the trial they could come and
Speaker 2: testify on my behalf, even if they didn't want to
Speaker 2: testify on their own behalf at their own trial. So now, oh,
Speaker 2: I go to trial. We went through a long colloquy
Speaker 2: in court about why you're not giving me the separate trial,
Speaker 2: and the judge said to my lawyer, you was here
Speaker 2: during a court date that I examined him, and he
Speaker 2: said nothing about testifying that. My lawyer was like, your honor,
Speaker 2: that never happened. I was never president. I was on
Speaker 2: trial in Manhattan, New York County. So they went back
Speaker 2: and forth, and the clerk ultimately identified to the judge listen,
Speaker 2: he was not here. So my lawyer said, this is
Speaker 2: the first time I'm in court with all parties President.
Speaker 2: I'm telling you I have exonerating statements from them. I
Speaker 2: intend to call them. And the judge still denied the
Speaker 2: motion and refused allowed him to testify. So they granted
Speaker 2: the severance with the guy that made the videotape statement.
Speaker 2: My position is that you granted that because you were
Speaker 2: able to impeach him because he made a prior statement
Speaker 2: saying something contrary to that the other they denied. The
Speaker 2: severance stayed put Tyrone Flowers on the stand, and Tyrone
Speaker 2: Flowers was basically up there hours whether or not what
Speaker 2: he said on a video was true or what he
Speaker 2: was saying today, meaning the time I was on trial,
Speaker 2: he had a whole bunch of contradictions because, like I said,
Speaker 2: on a stand, he's saying they was beating them up
Speaker 2: in the precinct, and he was basically saying what the
Speaker 2: officers want him to say in the video statement. The
Speaker 2: officers asked him with that in the apartment and he
Speaker 2: was like yes. They asked him, was anybody shooting out
Speaker 2: of the window. He was like yes. My position with
Speaker 2: that was the same thing as with the officers. And
Speaker 2: what he's saying is true, where's the evidence of that
Speaker 2: at right?
Speaker 1: It always comes back to the fact that this version
Speaker 1: of events is just words. Right, even though these words
Speaker 1: were repeated by three police officers as well as allegedly
Speaker 1: and this they say allegedly, but it's very credible, especially
Speaker 1: in that era, that they were beaten out of Tyrone Flowers.
Speaker 1: This narrative runs counter to all the physical evidence. While
Speaker 1: your versus events is supported by the physical evidence as
Speaker 1: well as by Randy Hampton and Darryl Smith. Unfortunately for you, however, Darryl,
Speaker 1: as your co defendant, was not allowed to testify, and
Speaker 1: Randy was never called by your lawyer. But what about
Speaker 1: all the other alibi witnesses that your investigator actually interviewed.
Speaker 2: One witness identified me by the phone of miss Brunton.
Speaker 2: Another witness lived in three thirty through mont Avenue and
Speaker 2: was like, I see who was in that, But he
Speaker 2: was not there, He was not involved in that. So
Speaker 2: these witnesses my lawyer never put on a stand.
Speaker 1: This is just straight crazy. I mean, these other witnesses
Speaker 1: were not presented your severance motion. Denial kept the jury
Speaker 1: from hearing from Darryl Smith about your innocence, and then
Speaker 1: with Tyrone's video statement impeaching what he was coming forward
Speaker 1: with on the stand, this was not looking good for you.
Speaker 1: Between the prosecution's tactics and the failures of your attorney,
Speaker 1: it was basically a systematic removal of any evidence in
Speaker 1: your defense.
Speaker 2: So the people put the case on and it was
Speaker 2: essentially the testimony of the officers. Once they got the
Speaker 2: testimony from them, they went through the technical stuff and marshooting.
Speaker 2: A whole bunch of evidence to establish that it was
Speaker 2: a shootout between whoever was in that apartment and whoever
Speaker 2: shot through that apartment door. They had pictures of the
Speaker 2: bullet hole through the door. They had bullet markers all
Speaker 2: in the hallway. They had spin shehells. Some of them
Speaker 2: matched weapons that they found inside the apartment in the closet,
Speaker 2: and some of them didn't. I guess those were guys
Speaker 2: that shot in and they would never arrested. Every single
Speaker 2: thing that they testified about with respects to these two
Speaker 2: groups of people shooting at each other, they had all
Speaker 2: of the physical evidence for that, but there was not
Speaker 2: one single shred of evidence demonstrating that anything happened between
Speaker 2: anybody at any window and a police officer. Now, one
Speaker 2: of the officers actually testified that he'd seen the shotgun
Speaker 2: and the shotgun was being fired, and this happened before
Speaker 2: the revolver. Two of them said they didn't see a shotgun.
Speaker 2: Not one single shotgun spent shell was recovered when they
Speaker 2: recovered all of this other stuff. So evidence with respects
Speaker 2: to why I'm convicted is non existence outside of the
Speaker 2: testimony by these three officers you.
Speaker 1: Know, And it's striking to me that they didn't even
Speaker 1: bother to coordinate their stories. If I had to guess,
Speaker 1: they must have thought, well, we're gonna convict this guy regardless,
Speaker 1: So why are we even going to waste time trying
Speaker 1: to sit around and make sure our stories match. They
Speaker 1: didn't even bother to do that. So you have conflicting testimony,
Speaker 1: all of which is nonsensical because it didn't match any
Speaker 1: of the facts. You have a total lack of evidence.
Speaker 1: It sounds like, I mean, it's a show trial. When
Speaker 1: the jury went out, did you still feel like you
Speaker 1: had a hope in hell of being acquitted.
Speaker 2: It's not like I had a jury that was made
Speaker 2: up of people that understand. It's a difference in the
Speaker 2: way police is being conducted a lot of stuff that
Speaker 2: people is outraged about now. It's stuff that was unfortunately
Speaker 2: normal for me and God that grew up with me.
Speaker 2: See back then they didn't have campus, But for us,
Speaker 2: it was like, it's nothing for the police to pull up,
Speaker 2: guns drawn, get down, get on a car, don't move.
Speaker 2: That's regular stuff for us. So everybody don't have that view.
Speaker 2: So when a person here, somebody in authority that took
Speaker 2: the oath to uphold the law. Why would these guys
Speaker 2: break that, Why would they get together and say that,
Speaker 2: why would you make that up? So these juries, they
Speaker 2: don't know that part of it. But to answer your
Speaker 2: question directly, yes, I really thought that I had a shot,
Speaker 2: because who is going to believe that they're going to
Speaker 2: be evicted for something, Not that you got the wrong
Speaker 2: person or any It never even happened. It never happened.
Speaker 1: It's just an unbelievable indictment of our system in general.
Speaker 1: I mean the fact that you're there now. Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: You've been in prison eight year years longer than you
Speaker 1: were alive outside of prison. So this is insanity for
Speaker 1: a crime that never happened. I'm gonna say it again
Speaker 1: and again and again. A crime that never happened, in
Speaker 1: 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 2: On October sixteenth, nineteen ninety one, a go before the
Speaker 2: citizen Judge and a citizen judge basically said that I
Speaker 2: am going to run twenty five years to life since consecutively,
Speaker 2: which total seventy five years to life, because I do
Speaker 2: not want any one of these offers to feel like
Speaker 2: I'm punishing you all. At the same time, she sentence
Speaker 2: in me like I was a serial killer. So when
Speaker 2: I got sense to that, they immediately shackled me up,
Speaker 2: wrote me on the bus, and I was shipped to Attica.
Speaker 2: At the time I was convicted, if somebody voted the
Speaker 2: capitated three officers in town Square, they will not have
Speaker 2: been able to receive another day more than what I'm
Speaker 2: saying to very good live in New York State Twitter
Speaker 2: sales since October ninth, nineteen ninety I'm in green Haven
Speaker 2: Correction Facility that's in Stormville, New York, you know, approximately
Speaker 2: an hour outside of the city, outside of the Bronx,
Speaker 2: and I exercise. I run marathons, I run, and I
Speaker 2: also do mental exercises met to play in So I
Speaker 2: do that I take that time out for myself to
Speaker 2: get sprtually a line so that I will be able
Speaker 2: to prepare myself for the visions of the day and
Speaker 2: all of this stuff that I got to go through.
Speaker 2: You can only imagine this the negativity and the environment
Speaker 2: coming from both sides of the fence. But I have
Speaker 2: a very very strong support system, yourself included Daryl Hamilton. Unbelievable.
Speaker 2: This guy spent a bunch of time in prison before
Speaker 2: being exonerated. Since the day stepped out, this is the
Speaker 2: type of work he've been doing. So I'm encouraged by that.
Speaker 2: I have a wife whom I've been married to for
Speaker 2: more than quarter of a century. People don't understand how
Speaker 2: we do that because they can't stay together that long
Speaker 2: out there, but she's definitely a rock and the kids,
Speaker 2: and so it's a combination of these things. Of course,
Speaker 2: you have moments that are harder than other moments. I
Speaker 2: love mut I love to read. I'm always reading, and
Speaker 2: aside from frighting my case, I helped a lot of
Speaker 2: other guys. I made sure I got a legal research
Speaker 2: certificate so I could work in Lord Library. I did
Speaker 2: the IOC, which is basically an inmate ls On committee
Speaker 2: where I represent population to the administration, bring the Conservative
Speaker 2: administration back to the population. I do youth empowerment classes,
Speaker 2: being involved in a bunch of different organizations, and everything
Speaker 2: that I felt was significant, just trying to be the
Speaker 2: best person I could be.
Speaker 1: Well, Terence, all I can say is you have all
Speaker 1: my respect. And so now with your post conviction litigation,
Speaker 1: so much of this starts with the ineffective representation by
Speaker 1: your trial attorney.
Speaker 2: Right ineffective assistance a counsel. Of course, I raised that
Speaker 2: on a pill. They didn't even acknowledge that I had
Speaker 2: also the severge issue and how it was not constitutional
Speaker 2: sound for them to deny the severage motion for my
Speaker 2: codes Flinders. I have been in Brooklyn District Attorney's conviction
Speaker 2: review you it for over six years now, and they
Speaker 2: supposed to be investigating this rawful conviction. The district attorney,
Speaker 2: one of the investigators, did interview the girl and she
Speaker 2: verified where she worked and that I would call every
Speaker 2: day and this was our lifestyle, but basically dismissed that
Speaker 2: as if that has nothing to do because you not
Speaker 2: an eye witness of the crime. I had an extensive
Speaker 2: meeting with one of the sisters the district attorneys. I
Speaker 2: explained to her. I said, listen, look how ridiculous the
Speaker 2: story is. If the officers, all three of them, they
Speaker 2: all talking about I'm not trying to scare them, I'm
Speaker 2: trying to murder them. At what time when I came
Speaker 2: out of this window actually towards y'all, did y'all decide
Speaker 2: I was no longer a threat and nobody shot at nothing.
Speaker 2: After the meeting, when I called my attorney, said the
Speaker 2: digital attorney said that your story has problems because you've
Speaker 2: told them during the meeting that the officers seeing you
Speaker 2: on the walkway, made you get down on your knees
Speaker 2: and walk towards them, and we had pictures. And if
Speaker 2: there's nothing wrong with the bottom of Terrence's pants from
Speaker 2: the knees down to his foot, and if what he
Speaker 2: said was true, that it would have been something dirt
Speaker 2: or something on his knee. So I couldn't believe they
Speaker 2: said that. So what I did was I called my
Speaker 2: wife and acted, did she have a copy of my
Speaker 2: trial transfrist really available? She said absolutely. I said, go
Speaker 2: to officers Mackie testimony. He said that when he noticed me,
Speaker 2: he made me get down on my knees, put my
Speaker 2: hands behind my back, and walked towards him. I said,
Speaker 2: make a copy of that. Send that to the District
Speaker 2: Attorney's office. They sent it to the district Attorney's office.
Speaker 2: We didn't hear nothing back on that. So the next communication,
Speaker 2: my attorney said, Terrence, the district attorney is saying that
Speaker 2: during the meeting, you told them that you didn't know
Speaker 2: miss Brunton at the time you got arrested. You found
Speaker 2: out a bob when she became a witness. But the
Speaker 2: record shows that this is who you called from the precinct.
Speaker 2: I said, you gotta be kidding me. He said, no,
Speaker 2: this is what they're telling me. So I pulled out
Speaker 2: the police report from the phone call that I made.
Speaker 2: The phone call that I made was to the house
Speaker 2: I was living at three point forty do my avenue
Speaker 2: and to the females who I call every night. Send
Speaker 2: that to them. When they sent that to the district
Speaker 2: Attorney's office, they said, oh, we made a mistake. Somebody
Speaker 2: wrote something in and we thought that they wrote Brunching,
Speaker 2: but it really was somebody named Carr. So I was like,
Speaker 2: all right, And it just been a back and forth.
Speaker 1: And then and back and forth and went like that,
Speaker 1: squabbling over these trivial details while they ig Nord was
Speaker 1: glaringly obvious that this was a quote unquote crime that
Speaker 1: never even happened. That building would have been lit up
Speaker 1: like a freaking Christmas tree if Terrence had shot even
Speaker 1: once at those police officers. But that's simply not what happened.
Speaker 1: So while the squabbling continued, it appeared that some headway
Speaker 1: had been made in negotiations, so Terrence's legal team requested
Speaker 1: that we shelve this interview until they had a chance
Speaker 1: to hammer out the terms of this release with the
Speaker 1: Brooklyn District Attorney Ericnzalie. And I'm happy to report that
Speaker 1: Terrence now joins us finally from outside the walls. So Terrence,
Speaker 1: welcome back to Ronful Conviction.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I appreciate you guys having.
Speaker 1: Me so Terrence. The moment that I finally heard that
Speaker 1: you were out, I mean I was so happy calling
Speaker 1: friends and family. Uh might call my colleagues here at
Speaker 1: Roneful Conviction. You know Connor, our producer, I think he
Speaker 1: this case has for some reason or other, this case
Speaker 1: has bothered him as much as any and I know
Speaker 1: he's been so invested in this, and so it's you know,
Speaker 1: it was a great call with him, and we're all
Speaker 1: just so happy for you. So I can't imagine what
Speaker 1: this must be like for your family and of course
Speaker 1: your wife Michelle, who's been such a credible and steadfast supporter.
Speaker 1: Shout out to every one of them for their strength
Speaker 1: through this unbelievable or deal in nightmare.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, so take us there.
Speaker 1: What was it like to be finally reunited with him
Speaker 1: three decades on?
Speaker 3: It was great.
Speaker 4: The wife came up to the facilities, she was out
Speaker 4: there with a couple of family members when I was released,
Speaker 4: And from there we went out to City Isllen and
Speaker 4: had lunch because they were out there all morning and
Speaker 4: nobody got any sleep the night before, probably even before that,
Speaker 4: but definitely not the night before, because they were excited
Speaker 4: about coming to you know, be there to be in
Speaker 4: my support system.
Speaker 3: I didn't actually feel.
Speaker 4: Off the boat until I actually got home, you know,
Speaker 4: and I was able to be like, wow, I'm here now,
Speaker 4: you know. But because of the circumstances surrounding how I
Speaker 4: got released. As great as the feeling is, it was a.
Speaker 1: Bittersweet, right because even though you're out, justice really still
Speaker 1: hasn't been served in this case, or if it's been served,
Speaker 1: it's been served cold. Because despite the obvious, which is
Speaker 1: that you are an innocent man, and again innocent of
Speaker 1: a crime that never even happened. You still remain sort
Speaker 1: of a prisoner in a much bigger prison, right as
Speaker 1: a par league. I mean, even recently you and I
Speaker 1: were going to get together and you know you weren't
Speaker 1: able to do it because of this, these crazy restrictions
Speaker 1: that are put on you. Can you explain the deal
Speaker 1: that you got from the Brooklyn DA.
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 4: So they were trying to get my lawyers to convince
Speaker 4: me to plead guilty and that they would reduce the sentence,
Speaker 4: and I was like, absolutely not. I will die on
Speaker 4: my feet before I live on my knees and say
Speaker 4: that I am guilty of something that even they know
Speaker 4: and it's obvious that never happened. And what they ultimately
Speaker 4: did was foul the motion to have my sentence that
Speaker 4: was running consecutively rank concurrent. So I had three twenty
Speaker 4: five to life sentence that was ran consecutively which total
Speaker 4: to seventy five years to life. By them putting an
Speaker 4: emotion to run a concurrent that would effectively make my
Speaker 4: sentence to twenty five to life.
Speaker 1: Right, and since you had already done thirty two years,
Speaker 1: that made you eligible for parole, but we know that
Speaker 1: the parle board doesn't usually let anyone out unless they
Speaker 1: admit guilt and show remorse, which you just said you
Speaker 1: weren't about to do. So how is it possible that
Speaker 1: you're here right now?
Speaker 4: So the conditions for the sentence reduction would be that
Speaker 4: the District Attorney's office would not oppose the motion and
Speaker 4: that they will actually support my release. But I had
Speaker 4: to sign a waiver for them not to be civilly
Speaker 4: liable and layman's turn so that the viewers can understand
Speaker 4: clearly they wanted to be relieved of any possibility of
Speaker 4: me swing once I eventually be exonerated or have this
Speaker 4: illegal sentence vacated, which was ridiculous to me because first
Speaker 4: and foremost, just by you putting that on the table
Speaker 4: indicatese that you know I have no business being here
Speaker 4: and that you expect me to be exonerated. Because if
Speaker 4: you had an ironclad case and you believe that I
Speaker 4: was really guilty, how would a guilty person be able
Speaker 4: to suit anybody for anything. So this, for me is
Speaker 4: an indication that you know, eventually this man is going
Speaker 4: to be exonerated. We just don't want to compensate him
Speaker 4: for them thirty two years he served.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember you explaining this possibility me a few
Speaker 1: months back while you were still awaiting your hearing, and
Speaker 1: I'm still justice pissed off that your release couldn't have
Speaker 1: just been allowed by some normal legal channels rather than
Speaker 1: this deal that feels like well, like you said, bittersweet.
Speaker 4: I was led to believe that the judge would not
Speaker 4: sentence me if I don't sign that. Ultimately, I signed
Speaker 4: it because I said, at least it's not nowhere near
Speaker 4: in a mission of guilt. It's just, you know, monetary
Speaker 4: conversation and overcoming a civil law is much easier than
Speaker 4: trying to overcome an admission of guilt for something that
Speaker 4: I didn't do, you know, And I wanted to come
Speaker 4: home with my family. So I signed it, and they
Speaker 4: did what they said they were going to do, and
Speaker 4: they supported my release. That was important because, as you
Speaker 4: asked me, and I pointed out to you, a parole
Speaker 4: board requires somebody to admit guilt.
Speaker 1: Your courage to stand firm and your innocence is impressive
Speaker 1: and inspiring. You didn't let them get you to bend
Speaker 1: the knee, and that's just badass. If there's any silver
Speaker 1: lines in these proceedings, it's that at least that aspect
Speaker 1: of it feels like justice. And I got to say,
Speaker 1: as a fella New Yorker, I'd be happy to do
Speaker 1: right by you, as I'm sure everyone who hears this
Speaker 1: story would, to give you the compensation that you deserve,
Speaker 1: which I mean no number would ever be enough to
Speaker 1: return to you what those three cops took from you
Speaker 1: with their lives, you know.
Speaker 4: For me, I will say that compensation does not buy
Speaker 4: back the years that people lost. Right irrespective of whatever
Speaker 4: amount of money, I do think that it is deserving
Speaker 4: whatever is appropriate under the law, under the circumstances, because
Speaker 4: it gives a person an opportunity to live whatever golden
Speaker 4: years they have left at to going through the ordeal
Speaker 4: and put their family in a position, if they're not
Speaker 4: already in the position to live a better life generational wealth,
Speaker 4: so to speak. To have to suffer trying to make
Speaker 4: ends meet after going through that ordeal is another matter.
Speaker 4: But personally, for me, it is the fact that I
Speaker 4: am found guilty for something that never happened.
Speaker 3: How do I begin a healing process. It's nothing to
Speaker 3: do with money. Jason nothing to do with it.
Speaker 2: Not for me.
Speaker 3: It's getting to a place.
Speaker 4: Where I'm exonerated, you know, I'm made whole and acknowledge
Speaker 4: that that ordeal should have never happened. I'm on parole
Speaker 4: right now. I feel like it's prison without the cell,
Speaker 4: without the bars. I gotta worry about getting pulled over,
Speaker 4: and as soon as my name is ran through the computer,
Speaker 4: I'm looked at immediately as somebody who tried to kill
Speaker 4: three New York City police officers and it never happened.
Speaker 3: So I'm still living that ordeal. It is traumatic. My
Speaker 3: next milestone is sixty years old.
Speaker 4: I have a parole officer. I have to be in
Speaker 4: by eight o'clock at night. I can't leave the house
Speaker 4: before eight o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: So it's happy as I am to be able to
Speaker 3: hug my wife without bars being in between us, be
Speaker 3: with my family, eat good food and all of that.
Speaker 4: It's still a bittersweet, and hopefully every Gonzales will see
Speaker 4: that this needs to be corrected and move towards that. However,
Speaker 4: whether it's with or without his support, I'll file my
Speaker 4: motion and I'll have the evidence where it's obvious that
Speaker 4: I should not have gone through the ordeal and let
Speaker 4: the system work. You know, again, it doesn't always work,
Speaker 4: and we need to.
Speaker 1: Support you know, we'll be here to support you in
Speaker 1: any way we can. And I know you had a
Speaker 1: change dot org petition before you were released. Is that
Speaker 1: how our audience can show support?
Speaker 4: Yes, absolutely, I want to let people know where we're at.
Speaker 4: I'll modify the change do or petition to reflect my
Speaker 4: current status. However, I still encourage the supporters that sign
Speaker 4: to share and encourage their supporters on whatever social media
Speaker 4: platforms or whatever platform they have, to encourage people to
Speaker 4: continue to sign and support because the ultimate goal is
Speaker 4: exoneration and that has not been met and all the
Speaker 4: support we can gather will be highly appreciated.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll have that length in the episode Bier for
Speaker 1: folks to scroll down and sign. And Eric has done
Speaker 1: a lot of good, but this time this is just
Speaker 1: bizarre and straight up wrong, and I'd like to encourage
Speaker 1: him to do the right thing. So please join me
Speaker 1: in signing that petition. And with that, we're now going
Speaker 1: to go to my favorite part of the show. It's
Speaker 1: called course closing arguments and terrence. If it's starry with you.
Speaker 1: I'd like to use the closing that you had recorded
Speaker 1: while you were still in prison. It's a straight up
Speaker 1: appeal to the e Gunzales, and I think it still
Speaker 1: rings true today. Is that all right with you?
Speaker 4: Absolutely? Because I believe that it's still relevant. But in
Speaker 4: closing this interview, I would like the listeners to ask themselves,
Speaker 4: if you do not believe that I am innocent, and
Speaker 4: you do not believe or foresee that eventually I will
Speaker 4: be victorious and exonerating myself, why would you be preoccupied
Speaker 4: with me signing a waiver for civil liability. A guilty
Speaker 4: person can't sue anybody for anything.
Speaker 2: Well, as you guys know, I'm terrist right. You just
Speaker 2: heard my story and how I got wrong fully convicted,
Speaker 2: speaking directly to Erigan Zales having the opportunity to do so,
Speaker 2: Rikan Zalen. I read an article that you did in
Speaker 2: the Marshal Project from September twenty nineteen. It was by
Speaker 2: Tom Robin. In that article, you said that in nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety six, when you were just starting out as a
Speaker 2: junior prosecutor, your brother was killed. You was twenty seven
Speaker 2: years old at the time. You talked about how your
Speaker 2: father never got over it. When the man convicted of
Speaker 2: shooting your brother came up for parole after serving ten years,
Speaker 2: your father opposed release. After two more years, the parole
Speaker 2: bore granted releasing. You said that when that process was over,
Speaker 2: knowing that the guy was punished and that your father
Speaker 2: didn't have to go to any more parole hearings, be
Speaker 2: able to sense a closure. I'm sorry for your loss.
Speaker 2: I lost the wife to gun violence. On March's thirtieth,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four. My wife was shot in the head
Speaker 2: in the East New York session of Brooklyn by stray bullet.
Speaker 2: No one was ever arrested for her murder. So I
Speaker 2: understand that you also said that you believe in the
Speaker 2: letter of the law, and that is what the law
Speaker 2: allowed in your brother's case, and your family had moved on.
Speaker 2: On October nineth, nineteen ninety I was falsely arrested for
Speaker 2: a crime that never happened. So far, I have already
Speaker 2: served very close to three times that of which the
Speaker 2: person served that killed your brother. In my case, no
Speaker 2: one suffered a scratch. Your office is well aware of
Speaker 2: the circumstances around in this case. Aside from the legal
Speaker 2: issues that clearly demonstrate I am wrongfully convicted. Your office,
Speaker 2: through their own investigation, is in possession of many statements
Speaker 2: from witnesses exonerating me. There is not one single thread
Speaker 2: of physical evidence against me. The rule of law that
Speaker 2: you said you believe in, it does not allow for
Speaker 2: the continued imprisonment of innocent people. In the same article,
Speaker 2: you said that people who were convicted when they were
Speaker 2: twenty three years old or younger, your office will consider
Speaker 2: support for role for individuals who were twenty three years
Speaker 2: were younger at the time of samsons. I was twenty
Speaker 2: three years old. I am sentence the seventy five years
Speaker 2: in life. You talked about promoting trust in the priminal
Speaker 2: justice system. It is time for you to practice what
Speaker 2: you preach. Everic Gonzales, if you are unsatisfied with the
Speaker 2: evidence that demonstrates that I'm wrong pre condicted and you
Speaker 2: need something to hang your hat on, why don't you
Speaker 2: hang your hat on your own words.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Cliburn,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wardis, 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 wrong 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: Ravel Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcasts
Speaker 1: and association with Signal Company Number one