Speaker 1: On March twenty fourth, two thousand and one, the body
Speaker 1: of Howard Rose was discovered inside a burnt out pickup
Speaker 1: truck on Interstate ninety in Pennsylvania. The night before, police
Speaker 1: had responded to suspicious activity outside the Ohio home of
Speaker 1: Arquita Willis. Two men sped off and were apprehended, both
Speaker 1: of whom gave statements that Willis had killed Rose and
Speaker 1: asked them to help dispose of his body. Soon after,
Speaker 1: Willis was arrested, threatened with a death penalty, and she
Speaker 1: told police that her former fling, a guy named Marcus Blaylock,
Speaker 1: was the shooter and that he had disposed of the
Speaker 1: body on I ninety alone. Despite obvious falsehoods and multiple
Speaker 1: changes to her story, not even nineteen alibi witnesses could
Speaker 1: save Marcus. This is wrongful conviction. You're listening to wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: You can listen to this and all the Lava for
Speaker 1: Good podcasts one week early and ad free by subscribing
Speaker 1: to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Wrangful Conviction, where today we have another case out
Speaker 1: of Kuyahoga County. I mean, they just keep on coming,
Speaker 1: and this is one of the capitals, if not the
Speaker 1: wrongful conviction capital of this country. And joining us is
Speaker 1: one of our favorite attorneys who's very active in this space.
Speaker 1: Kim Coral, welcome.
Speaker 2: Back, Thank you, thanks for having.
Speaker 1: Me and joining us from an Ohio correctional facility where
Speaker 1: he never belonged, but he's been there for over twenty
Speaker 1: four long years. The man himself, Marcus Blaylock, Marcus, thank
Speaker 1: you for joining us.
Speaker 3: Sure, I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: And Marcus was originally Bordingland, but soon moved out to
Speaker 1: a nearby suburb called Maple Heights, or really a sub
Speaker 1: section of that suburb.
Speaker 3: We moved out to Maple Heights seventy five seventy six
Speaker 3: at the time. It's a predominantly white area and the
Speaker 3: area that I grew up in was called President's Road.
Speaker 3: The railroad tracks run behind it, so those houses are cheaper,
Speaker 3: so they put the blacks in that area. So the
Speaker 3: blacks in that area, they kind of stuck together. So
Speaker 3: I had a good childhood. I played sports, football, wrestle,
Speaker 3: ran track, and then at the age of fourteen, I
Speaker 3: got a job working at the local hardware store, and
Speaker 3: the community stuck together in that area. I appreciated that.
Speaker 3: But what I didn't appreciate was the police, because the
Speaker 3: police were very prejudiced. Not even a brown person, not
Speaker 3: a black person, not an Asian person, nothing, just all
Speaker 3: white police force. Just say, if a white kid across
Speaker 3: Broadway get their bike stolen, the first place they're coming
Speaker 3: to look for that bike is in President's role. And
Speaker 3: then it seems like I was being singled out. And
Speaker 3: it was one main cop who ended up turning into
Speaker 3: a detective. Why was he always asking me about this
Speaker 3: and about that? But I come to find out that
Speaker 3: he was also working at Sears. My mother retired from Sears,
Speaker 3: so he knew my mom. And the other cop who
Speaker 3: ended up being the detective all Henderson went to high
Speaker 3: school with my oldest sister. So I got these cops
Speaker 3: asking me questions this periodically and if somebody's having a
Speaker 3: house party and a fight breakout. Seems like I was
Speaker 3: always being targeted, like hey, Mark, who was doing all
Speaker 3: the fighting or who was doing this? And who? I
Speaker 3: don't know. As I got older, I'm not saying I
Speaker 3: was an angel. I got into mischief stuff, like my
Speaker 3: last year of high school. Even though I worked, I
Speaker 3: had a little hustle, I got caught with some marijuana
Speaker 3: and some other drugs. I ended up getting probation or
Speaker 3: whatever for that, so Dad kept the police on me,
Speaker 3: even when years later when I stopped.
Speaker 1: Now, we've seen a lot of cases where a connection
Speaker 1: to drugs made our guests the target of a frame job.
Speaker 1: But by two thousand and one, Mark was thirty two
Speaker 1: years old and he had built a successful landscaping company.
Speaker 3: That landscaping company ended up being very profitable for me.
Speaker 3: I ended up having a lot of contracts with the county,
Speaker 3: so I'm with the city and helped me with money
Speaker 3: to put down to buy a house for my family
Speaker 3: that was off Libby.
Speaker 1: And while Marcus had moved into the white part of town,
Speaker 1: it was some of his old acquaintances from President's Row,
Speaker 1: Dion Johnson, Ernest McCauley, and Arkeda Willis who dragged him
Speaker 1: into this case.
Speaker 3: Arqita growing up, she just wasn't my type at the time,
Speaker 3: but years later I ended up having a friends with
Speaker 3: benefits or so you want to say, relationship with her
Speaker 3: that turned into something else. And then when I cut
Speaker 3: it off, it wasn't tooken in a great way. It
Speaker 3: was like she hated me after that. But Dion was
Speaker 3: a friend and cuts hair. He's a barber, so used
Speaker 3: to cut our hair and whatnot. And honest, he was
Speaker 3: a friend of mine. And when he was released from
Speaker 3: a federal prison after doing five years, I got this business,
Speaker 3: I got this home. I gave him a job.
Speaker 1: He also gave him a cell phone that was registered
Speaker 1: to Marx Landscaping Business, which was about to score a
Speaker 1: major contract.
Speaker 3: And this contract was to service the children's playgrounds and
Speaker 3: the top lots in the city. But this contract was
Speaker 3: not publicized. The same Italian company, we're getting this contract
Speaker 3: for the last five years. So at the time, Maple
Speaker 3: Heights had just elected their first black councilman. So he
Speaker 3: came to my mom and told my mom, Hey, have
Speaker 3: Marcus call me. It's like they got this contract coming up.
Speaker 3: They haven't even publicized it. They keep giving it to
Speaker 3: the same company. We're going to back you and make
Speaker 3: sure that you get this contract.
Speaker 1: And even though he had the lowest bid, the contract
Speaker 1: went to the incumbent company. The council member encouraged Marcus
Speaker 1: to contest that decision at the upcoming meeting.
Speaker 3: Now, mind you, at this council meeting. You have the
Speaker 3: chief of police, the mayor, seven council people, the fire chief.
Speaker 3: You have one of the two detectives that frame me
Speaker 3: for this crime. I haven't had any run ins with
Speaker 3: Maple Heist police or the police period. In over five years.
Speaker 3: Everything is going smooth for me. My business is going great.
Speaker 3: So I'm kind of leary to go to this council meeting.
Speaker 3: So when they get to the awarding of the contracts
Speaker 3: and did anybody have anything to say, I stand up
Speaker 3: and say yes I do. My name is Mark on
Speaker 3: Mark's Landscaping. I had a lord bid, but I didn't
Speaker 3: get the contract. Papers is shuffling. They shut the mics off.
Speaker 3: They're looking up there whispering to each other. They cut
Speaker 3: the mic back on and was like, oh, it seems
Speaker 3: to be had been a mistake. The contract has already
Speaker 3: been awarded. But Mark will make sure that your company
Speaker 3: will get work in the future. Let me tell you something.
Speaker 3: Two months later, I'm arrested for this case.
Speaker 1: So that brings us to the end of March two
Speaker 1: thousand and one, when Marcus was growing his business and
Speaker 1: supporting his family in their newly purchased home in the
Speaker 1: White part of town. He had also been fortunate enough
Speaker 1: to be able to help send his cousin to the
Speaker 1: University of Cincinnati, so his cousin invited Marcus to an
Speaker 1: alumni event over the weekend of Friday, March twenty third
Speaker 1: into Saturday, the twenty fourth of two thousand and one.
Speaker 3: They're having their first annual Black student reunion, hosting it
Speaker 3: in Cleveland. He lived in Cincinnati, so he's coming to clean.
Speaker 3: This is my cousin. I supported him all while he
Speaker 3: went through college. I know most of his fraternity friends,
Speaker 3: people that he went to college with, so normally when
Speaker 3: they have things, I'm always in attendance.
Speaker 1: Dean Johnson had even given Marcus a haircut during the
Speaker 1: day on March twenty third, but after they parted ways,
Speaker 1: according to Johnson's police statement, he and Ernest McCauley were
Speaker 1: contacted by Archida Willis. She had been entertaining a known
Speaker 1: drug deal named Howard Rose, who had been fatally shot,
Speaker 1: and Willis needed help with disposing of his body.
Speaker 2: So around eleven thirty, the next door neighbor and great
Speaker 2: ann of Arkida Willis, Dorothy Evans, makes a call to
Speaker 2: police concerning suspicious activity. She states that she heard noises
Speaker 2: like someone moving furniture outside her bedroom window near Arkida
Speaker 2: Willis's home, and then looked to see if Willis's car
Speaker 2: was in the driveway, but it wasn't. She saw a
Speaker 2: dark vehicle she didn't recognize in the driveway and she
Speaker 2: calls the police, and while on the phone with the
Speaker 2: nine one one dispatcher, she saw two individuals dressed in
Speaker 2: black exitding the home next door. A little while later,
Speaker 2: Willis arrives at the front door of Evan's home. Willis
Speaker 2: asked Evans if Evans had called the police, and when
Speaker 2: Evans asked Willis what was going on, Willis responded saying
Speaker 2: that someone was helping her do something and that's all
Speaker 2: she said. When the police officers arrive, they observe a
Speaker 2: car fleeing the scene and after a short chase, they
Speaker 2: apprehend two individuals, Ernest mc collie and Dion Johnson.
Speaker 1: Johnson and McCauley were arrested for trespassing. While the police
Speaker 1: did a safety check of Arkida's home and they saw
Speaker 1: a puddle of blood on her driveway.
Speaker 2: They returned to Willis's house and they're like, what is
Speaker 2: this puddle of blood in the driveway, they went to
Speaker 2: the backyard, they find a back window unlocked. They go
Speaker 2: to the bathroom and find lick candles around the bathtub,
Speaker 2: a warm bathwater with Sophie residue and drying blood, and
Speaker 2: a pager with blood on it, and this blood later
Speaker 2: is tested and found to be the blood of Howard Rose.
Speaker 2: Now the police leave the bathroom move to the bedroom
Speaker 2: where they see a box spring without a mattress and
Speaker 2: no bed linens visible.
Speaker 1: As of now, there was no body and according to
Speaker 1: later statements from Marquita, at this time, Rose's body was
Speaker 1: in his truck parked on a side street while she
Speaker 1: went to work, where the police eventually tracked her down
Speaker 1: and they asked her to come to the station so
Speaker 1: they could ride to the house together, and she explained
Speaker 1: that Johnson and McAuley were not intruders.
Speaker 3: First she said she had some friends over there moving
Speaker 3: some furniture. Then when they asked about the blood they
Speaker 3: found in the driveway, where did it come from? She said, what,
Speaker 3: a blood came from a dogfight. She was hosting a
Speaker 3: dog fight at her house.
Speaker 2: Oh, obviously, dog fighting.
Speaker 1: It's as ridiculous as it is sinister.
Speaker 2: It's not what I would have gone with, but that's
Speaker 2: what our Keida Willis goes with. When they go to
Speaker 2: her house, she's accompanied then with like a thin black
Speaker 2: mail with a Jamaican accent, by the name of Omar.
Speaker 2: He was present while police questioned Willis outside her home.
Speaker 2: Willis refused to allow the officers to do a second
Speaker 2: search of her home, and in the police reports they
Speaker 2: report that Willis is evasive and uncooperative and.
Speaker 1: Then they left. They appear to have lost all interest
Speaker 1: in Omar, and it's believed that at this point the
Speaker 1: body was disposed of near Exit six on the Interstate
Speaker 1: ninety in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: In the early morning hours of March two, twenty fourth,
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania police are called to the scene of a fire
Speaker 2: on I ninety. A pickup truck with Ohio plates is
Speaker 2: engulfed in flames. Howard Rose is inside. He's identified through
Speaker 2: an autopsy and it's determined that the cause of death
Speaker 2: is a single gunshot wound to the head. The investigation
Speaker 2: produced information that Willis was with Howard Rose on the
Speaker 2: day he was killed, and they determined that the death
Speaker 2: they were investigating had initially taken place in Maple Heights,
Speaker 2: and so reshifting our focus back to Ohio, Ernest McCully
Speaker 2: and Dean Johnson, who had been arrested on the twenty third,
Speaker 2: were released from Maple Heightst. Jail and for some reason
Speaker 2: their property is all returned to them, including the bloody
Speaker 2: clothing that they were wearing.
Speaker 1: Who knows why, perhaps since they had been so forthcoming
Speaker 1: with whose blood it was, as well as that it
Speaker 1: was Arkda who hads built.
Speaker 3: It, they all pointed the finger on herd as she
Speaker 3: was the one that did it. She was the one
Speaker 3: that called them to help remove the body, clean up
Speaker 3: the whole nine.
Speaker 1: I guess cooperation can buy you a lot. Case in point,
Speaker 1: Arquita was soon arrested, pressed again about her ridiculous dogfight explanation,
Speaker 1: threatened with the death penalty, and somehow was still able
Speaker 1: to come out of this with a plea deal for
Speaker 1: obstruction and evidence tampering, receiving only four years.
Speaker 2: Willis is initially charged with aggravated murder, burglary, and kidnapping.
Speaker 2: Those charges are dropped in exchange for her testimony against Playlock.
Speaker 3: All she had to do was write a statement, put
Speaker 3: the gun in my hand and sand that I killed
Speaker 3: this guy over a drug deal gone bad, which was
Speaker 3: all alive because I never was at her house doing
Speaker 3: a drug deal before or after he was killed. It
Speaker 3: was her and a Jamaican guy that accompanied her to
Speaker 3: PA and New York when she disposed of the body.
Speaker 1: However, at this point, according to Arqida, Marcus had driven
Speaker 1: the body out to Pennsylvania alone. But how does one
Speaker 1: return to Maple Heights when the burnt out pickup truck
Speaker 1: was still out on I ninety. Well that would require
Speaker 1: another adjustment in her story, but for now. Upon this
Speaker 1: dubious statement, Marcus was arrested.
Speaker 3: It was April six, two thousand and one. I'm riding
Speaker 3: with my contractor. We just come back from home depot
Speaker 3: from picking up some materials. It looked at like one
Speaker 3: hundred toy soldiers. They ran out of my house, my garage,
Speaker 3: my neighbor's house with black on with masks on, telling
Speaker 3: me to get out the truck, get out the truck.
Speaker 3: I get off the truck, and when a guy lift
Speaker 3: this mask up. This guy's been messing with me for years,
Speaker 3: he said, I finally got you. I wanted you to
Speaker 3: make one false mode so I could have killed you.
Speaker 3: I'm looking at this stew like, are you serious. I
Speaker 3: get to the police station, they tell me what I'm
Speaker 3: being arrested for. I said, are you see? I said,
Speaker 3: I didn't have nothing to do with that. Let me
Speaker 3: write a statement, did detective? And say, I'm not letting
Speaker 3: you write a statement. When I get done with you,
Speaker 3: you're gonna be guilty. And that was the last conversation
Speaker 3: I had with that guy, Oh besides him telling me
Speaker 3: who did I think I was to buy a house
Speaker 3: and made likes.
Speaker 1: On April ninth, Arkita Willis said that Marcus had taken
Speaker 1: her car to Pennsylvania, so they searched for car for
Speaker 1: many physical ties to Marcus, and yeah, you guessed that
Speaker 1: they found nothing. But this still begs the question who
Speaker 1: actually drove the pickup then, which was answered in another
Speaker 1: narrative change at the preliminary hearing.
Speaker 2: Willis, at this point, according to the third version of
Speaker 2: her story, now claims that she and a person by
Speaker 2: the name of Omar, followed the truck containing Howard Rose's
Speaker 2: body driven by Blaylock, who she claims as a person
Speaker 2: who set the truck on fire. Claimed that after Blaylock's
Speaker 2: hat the truck on fire, he got in the backseat
Speaker 2: of her car, and the three of them proceeded to
Speaker 2: New York City and stayed at Omar relative's home in
Speaker 2: the Bronx.
Speaker 1: Curiously, this Omar character was never pursued.
Speaker 3: They never arrested this guy, but he's in my paperwork
Speaker 3: with the prosecution. They sealed the investigative file before I
Speaker 3: even went to trial. My lawyers asked several times for discovery.
Speaker 3: We never received the discovery before trial or at trial.
Speaker 3: They have been withholding evidence since I was arrested in
Speaker 3: two thousand and one to this date, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 3: they're still fighting my attorney from getting post discovery, pre
Speaker 3: trial discovery and during trial discovery.
Speaker 1: So who knows what else they have and why they
Speaker 1: need to hide it and why did they completely let
Speaker 1: this Omar guy off the hook. In addition to that,
Speaker 1: there's the grand jury, where evidence of probable cause is
Speaker 1: supposed to be presented to obtain the indict the transcripts
Speaker 1: of which are typically not made available to defendants, but
Speaker 1: Marcus's attorney had reason to fight to have it unsealed
Speaker 1: both before and after the trial.
Speaker 3: Somebody told my trial attorneys that they need to get
Speaker 3: the grand jury transcripts if you want those charges thrown out.
Speaker 3: So they fought to get it. That judge said that
Speaker 3: she was doing an in camera inspection and if she
Speaker 3: finds anything that will warrant the defense council to have
Speaker 3: it and she would turn it over to us. Well,
Speaker 3: she denied us having it.
Speaker 1: And who knows what the judge's motivations were, because what
Speaker 1: they discovered in post conviction is wild.
Speaker 2: What we see is that there's no probable cause for
Speaker 2: him to have ever been indicted in the first place.
Speaker 2: At the time they went to the grand jury, the
Speaker 2: police only had three statements about the death of Howard Rose.
Speaker 2: Both McCully and Johnson's statements claimed that Willis told them
Speaker 2: that she, and not Marcus Blaylock, shot Howard Rose in
Speaker 2: the back of the head, and only Willis's statement implicated Blaylock.
Speaker 2: Both McCully and Johnson's tasably entirely on Willis, and the
Speaker 2: only other evidence is Detective Joseph aerbar So, despite admitting
Speaker 2: at the preliminary hearing that he has no idea who
Speaker 2: shot Howard Rose, he tells the grand jury, based on
Speaker 2: nothing that's documented nowhere, that there were two lacerations on
Speaker 2: Rose's body and opined in an inflammatory way that those
Speaker 2: lacerations were the result of pre mortem torture. Now it's
Speaker 2: later learned and trial that they were the result of
Speaker 2: the autopsy. But this misrepresentation was super prejudicial because you've
Speaker 2: got a detective saying without basis that it's Blaylock who
Speaker 2: did it, and that he tortured him before he died.
Speaker 1: And it appears that this wasn't the only misrepresentation.
Speaker 3: They liedd a grand jury and said that they talked
Speaker 3: to me and I gave him a statement or I
Speaker 3: admitted that I was there or whatever. I never talked
Speaker 3: to you like that. I never admitted. But Danny cleaned
Speaker 3: it up. This is detective Airbar, that's who testified. He
Speaker 3: came right back and said, well, we never heard from Blaylock. Now,
Speaker 3: which one is that I told you that I was there?
Speaker 3: Or is it that you didn't hear from Blaylock. It's
Speaker 3: the second one. You didn't hear from me because I
Speaker 3: never made any statements or anything. When I told you
Speaker 3: that I will make a statement giving you my alibi,
Speaker 3: you told me you didn't want to hear it. The
Speaker 3: only thing you want to hear is if I'm guilty.
Speaker 1: In addition, the grand jury questioned how Marcus became a
Speaker 1: suspect at all, as Arkda is the only witness to
Speaker 1: mention Marcus, while the other two named only Arqda.
Speaker 3: They said they had other cooperating evidence besides Alkeda Willard's statement. Well,
Speaker 3: they didn't have anything else besides her statement. They didn't
Speaker 3: have any coroborating evidence. I was indicted on the presumption
Speaker 3: that there will be other coroborating evidence to go along
Speaker 3: with Alqda's statement.
Speaker 1: Perhaps the judge was also fooled into thinking that they'd
Speaker 1: have corroborating evidence by the time of Marcus's trial. Maybe
Speaker 1: even the prosecuting attorney, Richard Bomback, had fooled himself by now.
Speaker 3: They already tried to use cell phones and say my
Speaker 3: telephones was a cell phone that was contacting the girl
Speaker 3: Arqda all that day. I haven't talked to her in
Speaker 3: almost two years. It's Ernest's phone, my friend who was
Speaker 3: just released from prison, who I went and purchased a
Speaker 3: cell phone for, was contacted her. You know, years ago,
Speaker 3: you couldn't just go get a cell phone. You had
Speaker 3: to have credit. His credit was messed up. I had
Speaker 3: a business account with all tail. I said, I'll just
Speaker 3: put you on my account. You're about to be working
Speaker 3: for Marx Landscaping anyway. His family testify that yes, it
Speaker 3: is in Marx's landscape, but it's not Mark's phone, it's
Speaker 3: Earnest's phone.
Speaker 1: So all they ever had was Arquida.
Speaker 3: Well, she came in a courtroom. She get on the
Speaker 3: stand and they asked her, you know, did she see
Speaker 3: the accused or whatever? And she points at me. She's
Speaker 3: fake crying on the witness stand. Not a teardrop fell
Speaker 3: from her eye. Everybody in the courtroom witnessed. It seemed
Speaker 3: like the judge played right along into her because she
Speaker 3: handed her a box of clean next. So she's blowing
Speaker 3: and wiping her nose and there's nothing coming out. I'm
Speaker 3: listening to her and looking at her like this is crazy.
Speaker 3: She can't really recall exactly what she's saying, so the
Speaker 3: prosecution grabbs her statements and he said, well, maybe I
Speaker 3: can give you this, and this can job your memory.
Speaker 3: He said, we all know that you lied. It came
Speaker 3: out that you lied in your previous statements or whatever,
Speaker 3: and you implicated Marcus Playlock. Later on why don't you
Speaker 3: read your statement to the jury and to the court
Speaker 3: and point out where you told the truth that and
Speaker 3: where you lie.
Speaker 2: At While under oath, she admits to telling a different
Speaker 2: version of her story to the police, to actually driving
Speaker 2: the truck that contained Howard Rose's body, going to Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: to dispose of Howard Rose's body, lying to the police
Speaker 2: and feinding ignorance about what happened to Rose, lying during
Speaker 2: the March twenty third interview, lying during the April sixth interview,
Speaker 2: lying during the April ninth interview, line during the June
Speaker 2: sixth interview, and lying in written statements. And she admits
Speaker 2: to lying because Willis did not want the crime to
Speaker 2: be found out. And she admits that she intended to
Speaker 2: lie to the police at each of those times. Super credible.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult to co sign a witness's credibility if
Speaker 1: anything they've said is false, but that's what they did.
Speaker 1: The testimony that was truthful, according to this admitted liar,
Speaker 1: was that before going to work, she arranged for Marcus
Speaker 1: to buy drugs from Rose at her house. When she
Speaker 1: didn't hear from Rose, she called Marcus, who eventually told
Speaker 1: her to come home from work, where she said that
Speaker 1: she saw Rose's body on her bed and Marcus admitted
Speaker 1: to shooting him. That McCauley and Johnson helped move the
Speaker 1: body to the truck, and that she parked the truck
Speaker 1: on a side street before calling her friend Omar to
Speaker 1: drive her back to work, and at some point her
Speaker 1: next door neighbor, a great aunt, deb saw men in
Speaker 1: the driveway and called the cops.
Speaker 3: Her aunt justified that she would know me a mile away.
Speaker 3: I know what Mark drives, I know how Mark looks.
Speaker 3: I've been knowing him since he was a little boy. No,
Speaker 3: Mark was not one of the persons that I've seen
Speaker 3: that night.
Speaker 1: Her kid's testimony continued that after she'd gotten off work,
Speaker 1: met with the police, told them to lie about the dogfight,
Speaker 1: and they left. That she, Omar, and Marcus got a
Speaker 1: gas can and then they followed Marcus out to Exit
Speaker 1: six on nine ninety, where he lit the truck on fire,
Speaker 1: and the three sped off to New York City, returning
Speaker 1: on Sunday, March twenty fifth, around eight am. But none
Speaker 1: of this was true, or at least the part about
Speaker 1: Marcus's involvement is.
Speaker 3: No way impossible That I could have been traveling to
Speaker 3: PA or New York. I'm not David Copperfield. I can't
Speaker 3: be in two places at one time. I'm in Cleveland.
Speaker 3: My cell phone shows that I'm in Cleveland. Back in
Speaker 3: the day, you had roaming charges when you go out
Speaker 3: of your call area. None of my phones were roaming.
Speaker 3: That's because I never loved Cleveland. But her phone is
Speaker 3: Roman in another state. That's because that's where she went
Speaker 3: and disposed of the body. So when they knew that fact,
Speaker 3: she said, yeah, I drove a body out of town,
Speaker 3: but Marcus was with me. How was I with you?
Speaker 3: I was in Cleveland. I got witnesses to prool where
Speaker 3: I'm at, and my cell phone records proof that I'm
Speaker 3: in Cleveland.
Speaker 1: Which was the site for the University of Cincinnati's first
Speaker 1: annual Black Students Reunion, for which he attended events on
Speaker 1: both Friday and Saturday nights. It was even photographic proof
Speaker 1: for Saturday, the twenty fourth.
Speaker 3: I was on a picture that night. However, the prosecutor
Speaker 3: took it and twisted it and said, there's no date
Speaker 3: on the picture, but behind it is a banner. This
Speaker 3: is the first annual reunion, So there was no other one.
Speaker 3: This is where I was on this particular night.
Speaker 1: And they brought in nineteen alibi witnesses to corroborate his
Speaker 1: alibi for both nights.
Speaker 3: People that were at the party, people who were wh
Speaker 3: meed that weekend, some of them I didn't even know
Speaker 3: my brother. I took my niece shopping that weekend. I
Speaker 3: had all those people testifying it on my behalf, but
Speaker 3: it made no difference. I could have put on one
Speaker 3: hundred witnesses. It didn't make a difference.
Speaker 2: The police and the prosecutors unethically and impermissively rely on
Speaker 2: testimony which they know to be false, and the jury
Speaker 2: just gets it.
Speaker 1: Dead wrong, even though the prosecutor and the witness herself
Speaker 1: admitted that her testimony was full of lives, and so
Speaker 1: Marcus was convicted.
Speaker 3: After I get found guilty, I'm distraught, family's distraw. My
Speaker 3: mother's screaming like she just witnessed me getting killed. While
Speaker 3: they hauling me off, you can hear her screams echoing
Speaker 3: throughout the courts corridor. They sent me back to the
Speaker 3: holding sale of wherever I was at my lawyer's coming.
Speaker 3: You know, tell me, hey, we're gonna untill it you
Speaker 3: got a case here. This isn't right. Appeals court, they're
Speaker 3: gonna overturn this right away. I don't see how the
Speaker 3: jury found you guilty. There was no evidence presented. The
Speaker 3: girl even lied on the witness stand. I'm hearing them,
Speaker 3: but at the time I'm not hearing them. All i'm
Speaker 3: hearing is the judge saying guilty on all charges and
Speaker 3: my mother's cries. At the time, I have a daughter
Speaker 3: that's eighteen months old, and I have a nine year
Speaker 3: old son going on ten, and I'm everything to him.
Speaker 3: I am everything to both of my kids. My son
Speaker 3: I didn't know until later. I asked him years later,
Speaker 3: like how does this affect you? He was a teenager
Speaker 3: at the time when I asked him this, but I
Speaker 3: wanted to know, like, how does me being incarcerated affect you?
Speaker 3: And he said, I feel like I lost my best friend.
Speaker 3: Son is in the military now, he's in this fourteenth
Speaker 3: year in the United States Navy. He's a chief in
Speaker 3: the Navy. Not only do I have those kids, my
Speaker 3: two kids, now, I have grandkids who I don't want
Speaker 3: them to see me like this. They don't even know
Speaker 3: that I'm incarcerated. They never met me. They've seen pictures
Speaker 3: of me, but they don't know me, and I just
Speaker 3: want that opportunity to be there. My mother's now and
Speaker 3: med eighties. Her health is failing. There's so many people
Speaker 3: that died in my family. My father has passed. My
Speaker 3: older brother we were tight. He's nine years old me.
Speaker 3: He was basically like a father to me. He passed
Speaker 3: away in twenty seventeen. He had a heart attack. So like,
Speaker 3: this doesn't just affect me, this affects my whole entire family.
Speaker 3: If it wasn't for my faith in God, I wouldn't
Speaker 3: be here talking to you now on this podcast. I'm
Speaker 3: doing things in here to try to keep me busy.
Speaker 3: I'm a mentor, a spiritual mentor, and even my heart,
Speaker 3: I still have hope that things would one day turn around.
Speaker 3: I don't know when, but I have faith that it's
Speaker 3: going to happen.
Speaker 1: And it's been an uphill battle despite many positive developments
Speaker 1: along the way, the first of which was getting one
Speaker 1: of the slew of charges an obstruction of justice conviction,
Speaker 1: overturned way back in two thousand and three, and at
Speaker 1: the same time, Marcus's attorney discovered all the lies and
Speaker 1: manipulation and the grand jury which he tried to raise
Speaker 1: in the obstruction proceedings.
Speaker 3: And I received those grand jury transcripts, but my lawyer
Speaker 3: sent me a one page letter like this is everything.
Speaker 3: We get in front of the judge when they're dismissing
Speaker 3: the obstruction charges, and my lawyer says, you'r honor, we
Speaker 3: have the grand jury transcripts right here. There was no
Speaker 3: probable cost. My clients shouldn't have never been indicted. She says,
Speaker 3: she didn't want to hear about it. We're not there
Speaker 3: to discuss the grand jury transcripts. She hit the gavel
Speaker 3: and it was over with and I was out the.
Speaker 1: Courtroom at this point. His sentence was reduced to twenty
Speaker 1: eight years to life, while his co defendants received very
Speaker 1: lenient deals for actually being involved. Rakida Willis was charged
Speaker 1: only with obstruction of justice and evidence tampering, even though
Speaker 1: according to Dion and Ernest, she was the actual shooter.
Speaker 3: She ended up doing four years. Dion did two years,
Speaker 3: Ernest at nine. I think he ended up doing seven
Speaker 3: and a half.
Speaker 2: So almost immediately after Arkita does her four years, she
Speaker 2: calls up Ernest mccaullay and in the conversation, she admits
Speaker 2: that she falsely implicates Blaylock. In this case, Willis admits
Speaker 2: to killing Howard Rose. McCauley asked, well is when she
Speaker 2: decided to shift the blame to Blaylock, and Willis told
Speaker 2: McCauley that she didn't care about mister Blaylock. McCully says, listen,
Speaker 2: you took a soul, She says, right, and McCully says,
Speaker 2: which would be Howard And she says, uh huh. You
Speaker 2: could save two souls, which would be me and mister
Speaker 2: She says, uh huh. The conversation shows she's admitting that she,
Speaker 2: and not Blaylock, killed Howard Rose. She states, although she
Speaker 2: had changed her stories to fit the date she said,
Speaker 2: detectives did not investigate. Willis said this showed that the
Speaker 2: detective's vindictiveness toward Blaylock.
Speaker 3: She said she even told the detectives in front of
Speaker 3: her attorneys that she drove the body away and they
Speaker 3: fell out their cheer, laughing because they couldn't believe it.
Speaker 3: But they say, well, it doesn't make a difference. Just
Speaker 3: pay to ten percent bond. Whatever obstruction of justice and
Speaker 3: tempering what evidence bond was to get out.
Speaker 2: When McCauley asks Willis what her largest reservation about admitting
Speaker 2: that she killed Rose would be, Willis responds because she
Speaker 2: wants to be home too. She then discusses a fictional
Speaker 2: in air quotes book she wants to write about the murder,
Speaker 2: entitled Murder One was the case they gave me, And
Speaker 2: then they talk about the contents in her book, where
Speaker 2: she admits that she hates Blaylock. She tells McCauley that
Speaker 2: she feels badly because of all the people in prison
Speaker 2: who didn't actually do the crime. She says it was
Speaker 2: easy to frame Marcus because she hated him. When McCauley
Speaker 2: tells Willis about lying being problematic because it necessitates moral lies,
Speaker 2: Willis says, it isn't that hard. You get a story,
Speaker 2: you stick with it, and that's that, and that's a quote. Moreover,
Speaker 2: Willis admits that she lied to her own attorneys about
Speaker 2: what transpired, and she admits that she couldn't believe that
Speaker 2: a jury convicted Marcus based solely on her testimony, giving
Speaker 2: how many times her story shifted.
Speaker 1: Prison phone conversations are recorded, so McCauley reached out to
Speaker 1: Marcus's lawyer and they retrieved and transcribed the recording, adding
Speaker 1: it to his federal havias where you need to show
Speaker 1: that your constitutional rights were violing, and they bolstered the
Speaker 1: filing with this evidence of innocence.
Speaker 3: It's two three hours worth of conversation that my lawyer
Speaker 3: ended up getting and submitted it into evidence in my
Speaker 3: federal hay and it changed the direction that my hat
Speaker 3: was going at that time. And I told my lawyer
Speaker 3: to file a stay and take that evidence back to
Speaker 3: the trial courts so you can exhaust it. If the
Speaker 3: federal courts hear it before the trial court, then I'll
Speaker 3: be forever barred from bringing it back up. So what
Speaker 3: happened was he didn't listen to me. He said, no,
Speaker 3: I'm going to file at both places. Whoever answers first,
Speaker 3: we're good. We got a confession from the actual murderer.
Speaker 3: So when it got included in the record, the magister
Speaker 3: judge said that the conversation proves that the state of
Speaker 3: Ohio convicted the wrong person when they found Playlock guilty
Speaker 3: of the murderer. Roles those exact words.
Speaker 1: However, the court ruled that an innocence claim absent the
Speaker 1: constitutional violation was insufficient so the recordings, having not been
Speaker 1: added to the record and exhausted in trial court, were
Speaker 1: now procedurally barred. But then Arkeita kept right on communicating
Speaker 1: with Ernest McCauley.
Speaker 2: She admits her guilt on multiple occasions. In letters she's
Speaker 2: drafted to Ernest McCully, Willis admits to killing Howard Rose
Speaker 2: and that mister Blainlogg was not involved, and like the
Speaker 2: phone call, McCully often refers to a soul that was
Speaker 2: lost or stolen because of Willis's lies. She wrote, I
Speaker 2: guess when you take a life, you have to live
Speaker 2: with it. You really don't have a choice but to
Speaker 2: look at it different. She discusses her gratitudes towards McCully
Speaker 2: for his assistance and helping to remove Rose's body from
Speaker 2: her house. She describes her fear that mccullay Harbor's resentment
Speaker 2: towards her because he remains incarcerated for the crime she committed.
Speaker 2: She says, all of which we've been through, I still
Speaker 2: wonder if you hate me. I wonder if one day
Speaker 2: you'll break my neck because of what you're going through
Speaker 2: because of me. She goes on rape I just feel
Speaker 2: like crying all the time. Then I start questioning myself
Speaker 2: all those lies I told. I never would have guessed
Speaker 2: they'd believe my statement. I just thought I'd get a
Speaker 2: plea bargain and they would find everyone not guilty because
Speaker 2: of all of the dishonesty in all of my written statements.
Speaker 1: This time, his attorney took it to the trial court.
Speaker 2: A judge decided that to these letters and recordings you
Speaker 2: couldn't prove they were her. She would not testify taking
Speaker 2: responsibility for them, and so those subsequent post conviction petitions
Speaker 2: were denied. They went back and forth through the Court
Speaker 2: of Appeals.
Speaker 1: At this point, it appears that the state offered Ernest
Speaker 1: a deal for early release, which he told Marcus about
Speaker 1: in a letter two days after he made the deal
Speaker 1: and later testified to in twenty fourteen. This is what
Speaker 1: he said about the offer.
Speaker 3: Ernest said that he ended up writing a statement later
Speaker 3: for the prosecution to get out of prison early. He
Speaker 3: told him that whatever he writes is this against me
Speaker 3: is going to be a lie because I'm innocent. But
Speaker 3: they said they don't care if he lie. They just
Speaker 3: needed to stop my post conviction and it did.
Speaker 1: A statement was drafted allegedly from Ernest that the phone
Speaker 1: conversations were just a setup and that Marcus was the
Speaker 1: actual shooter, And despite presenting a letter from Ernest admitting
Speaker 1: that the statement was just a means to get his
Speaker 1: on early release, Marcus didn't get any traction again on
Speaker 1: the now procedurally barred confession materials until a twenty thirteen
Speaker 1: affid David for one of the Cauley's cellmates, Shannon Drake.
Speaker 3: He gets throwed in the mix because Ernest let him
Speaker 3: listen to Archidah on the phones and wrote affidavit from
Speaker 3: my lawyer Sam. He heard her saying how she set
Speaker 3: me up. In twenty fourteen, I'm back in the courtroom
Speaker 3: on our everdentary of hearing it. Ernest came in there
Speaker 3: and got on the stand and Danny said that he
Speaker 3: ended up writing a statement, and a statement is really
Speaker 3: no good until you testify to it. So now he's
Speaker 3: testifying that statement is false. The prosecution told him what
Speaker 3: to say, and as a matter of fact, that's not
Speaker 3: even my signatures. Blaylock is innocence. The judge doesn't make
Speaker 3: a ruling on her for two years, and then when
Speaker 3: she comes back two years later in twenty sixteen, she denies,
Speaker 3: saying that evidence was not new.
Speaker 1: Which goes back to the original sin that this phone
Speaker 1: conversation was presented in federal court but was never exhausted
Speaker 1: in trial court, so it was used up where it
Speaker 1: couldn't be effective on its own, and then they can
Speaker 1: say that this related evidence is not new. But there
Speaker 1: was a new hope in Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's office, the
Speaker 1: creation had long last of a conviction Integrity Unit.
Speaker 3: Well, I found an application to them for my role
Speaker 3: for conviction in twenty eighteen. I didn't hear nothing from
Speaker 3: him for two years. In twenty twenty, during the pandemic,
Speaker 3: I had someone reach out to the head of that
Speaker 3: unit at the time. He said, oh, it's ironic that
Speaker 3: you're calling me about the Blacklock case because something new
Speaker 3: has came up and I'm going to ask the head
Speaker 3: prosecutor for special permission to re review his case.
Speaker 1: So at this time Marcus reached out to Kim, who
Speaker 1: agreed to represent him with the CiU.
Speaker 2: So I talked to the then head of the Conviction
Speaker 2: Integrity Unit, who says he won't confirm that they've found
Speaker 2: something new, but he doesn't deny that he's had this
Speaker 2: conversation with this contact person, mister Blaylock. But the whole
Speaker 2: time we're going through this and get a response from
Speaker 2: them one way or the other, like about what's going on,
Speaker 2: what the investigation is. However, McCully is telling us, Yeah,
Speaker 2: they interviewed me. We send our investigator out to talk
Speaker 2: to Willis, who says, those prosecutors took me out to
Speaker 2: dinner and I told them the truth. I'm not going
Speaker 2: to say anything more. And then she slams the door
Speaker 2: in his face words to that effect. So we know
Speaker 2: they have some investigation which is favorable. And you would
Speaker 2: think if their answer was we don't have anything favorable
Speaker 2: to overturn, that would have been said years ago. In
Speaker 2: the course of this they had represented at some point
Speaker 2: that it moved on to the investigation phase and the
Speaker 2: voting phase.
Speaker 1: Now, this CiU was assigned an independent review board made
Speaker 1: up of judges and community members, whose purpose was to
Speaker 1: review the findings of these reinvestigations and vote on recommendations
Speaker 1: for the head prosecutor.
Speaker 2: I talked to the members of the board who said, no,
Speaker 2: we've never heard about this case. We haven't met for
Speaker 2: over two years, and As a result, November of twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two, all community members of the Higer County Prosecutor's
Speaker 2: Conviction Integrity Unit resigned, citing the units inactivity perceived lack
Speaker 2: of impact, with a letter noting that the office had
Speaker 2: not even referred a case for review since prior to
Speaker 2: the pandemic. As far as I'm concerned, Ural Sailor's the
Speaker 2: only case of exoneration by the Conviction Integrity Unit. Now
Speaker 2: there's Octavius Williams, where he was voted to be exonerated,
Speaker 2: but instead they just gave him a judicial release, which
Speaker 2: really compromises the idea that the purpose was ever without
Speaker 2: conviction integrity.
Speaker 1: And you can hear about both of those cases. We're
Speaker 1: going to have our coverage linked in the episode description.
Speaker 1: So Kim filed motions to compel the CiU to release
Speaker 1: anything they'd found, because, after all, when Marcus filed with
Speaker 1: the CiU, they'd signed an agreement to share materials, not
Speaker 1: to mention other obligations to do so.
Speaker 2: As a result of the court sort of order that, well,
Speaker 2: if your beef is with the Conviction Integrity Unit, the
Speaker 2: whole board resigns. So we're not sure that they are
Speaker 2: a thing anymore, and therefore we can't compel them. These
Speaker 2: obligations exist out of ongoing Brady obligations, concepts of justice,
Speaker 2: out of the prosecutor's ethical duty to pursue justice. And
Speaker 2: there's an AVIA requirement that if they find subsequent evidence,
Speaker 2: they're required to turn it over. None of that seems
Speaker 2: to matter. The agreement doesn't seem to matter, and here
Speaker 2: we are two and a half years into litigation just
Speaker 2: about whether they have to turn over the materials from
Speaker 2: this investigation because we need to establish that it was
Speaker 2: Willis who said this, and Willis is not presently cooperative.
Speaker 2: Marcus Blaylock's conviction should have never occurred, but it should
Speaker 2: have ended the first time Willis made it admission that
Speaker 2: she had framed him. And it's now been twenty years
Speaker 2: since that admission, and the justice system is playing games
Speaker 2: about whether or not he should have access to this
Speaker 2: state's investigation of his innocence. That shouldn't even be a question.
Speaker 2: I mean, my public records requests have been denied, my
Speaker 2: court filings have been denied. Now we're at a man
Speaker 2: in the Court of Appeals, and it's just every step
Speaker 2: of the way we're hit with obstacles about just having
Speaker 2: access to information, and information should be free to everybody.
Speaker 2: So the path forward is we are not going to
Speaker 2: stop until we get this investigation because we know that
Speaker 2: what's contained in it is the basis to move forward.
Speaker 2: And the reason we know that is nobody would work
Speaker 2: so hard to protect nonsense.
Speaker 1: Is there anything that our audience can do to help?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think public outcry, call the prosecutors,
Speaker 2: demand that they released information. Why are they protecting it?
Speaker 1: What is the purpose?
Speaker 2: What are they hiding?
Speaker 1: And if anyone wants to learn more about Marcus and
Speaker 1: his case, he's written a book.
Speaker 3: My book is out, My Long Journey through Faith at
Speaker 3: New Beginning by Marcus Blaylock. I appreciate to somebody that
Speaker 3: knows about this case, that heard about this case, that
Speaker 3: maybe the witness has talked to in the past, please
Speaker 3: come forward, Feel free to talk to my attorney. I
Speaker 3: have a website to free Mark M A R. C.
Speaker 3: Blaylock B L A L O C K dot com.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're going to link the book his website
Speaker 1: as well as ways that you can contact Kim if
Speaker 1: you have any information about this case, And with that
Speaker 1: we're going to go to closing arguments, where first of all,
Speaker 1: I think each of you for being here, and now
Speaker 1: I'm going to kick back in my chair and close
Speaker 1: my eyes and just listen to anything else you have
Speaker 1: to say. Kim, as always, let's start with you, and
Speaker 1: then you can just hand the microphone off to Marcus
Speaker 1: and he'll take us off into the sunset.
Speaker 2: This case is so obvious. How it got indicted is
Speaker 2: the original question. How there was probable cause to move
Speaker 2: forward with an arrest, with an indictment, with a trial,
Speaker 2: and how a conviction is sustained. We're questions that weren't
Speaker 2: answered until after trial, unfortunately, but we've known the answer
Speaker 2: for now more than twenty years. And the fact that
Speaker 2: we haven't been able to extend justice or procedure to
Speaker 2: Marcus Blaylock to give him access to tell the truth
Speaker 2: of his story is one of the greatest injustices i've seen.
Speaker 2: The fact that the prosecutor's office, in acknowledgement that it
Speaker 2: had information favorable to mister Blaylock, did an investigation and
Speaker 2: won't turn that over, have spent thousands of hours and
Speaker 2: dollars just keeping this information secret is proof positive that
Speaker 2: the system is protecting what it knows to be a
Speaker 2: wrongful conviction.
Speaker 3: Something is hidden and you're not showing it. You're not
Speaker 3: showing your hand. But yet and still she shows her hand.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's not right, it's not right. You have
Speaker 3: me wrongfully convicted now going on twenty four years support
Speaker 3: crime I didn't commit, and you use the self admitted statement,
Speaker 3: a percase statement at that to convict me. I need prayers.
Speaker 3: I need prayers, support phone calls for this to go through.
Speaker 3: My lawyer is amazing, but I need a miracle right now.
Speaker 3: That's what I need. I need God to create a
Speaker 3: miracle for me so I can be exonerated from this
Speaker 3: wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
Speaker 1: to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
Speaker 1: week early and ad free by subscribing to Lava for
Speaker 1: Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our
Speaker 1: production team, Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well as
Speaker 1: my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and Jeff Kleiber.
Speaker 1: The music in this production was supplied by three time
Speaker 1: OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph be Sure to follow us
Speaker 1: across all social media platforms at Lava for Good and
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on Instagram
Speaker 1: at it's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 1: We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported
Speaker 1: in this show are accurate.
Speaker 3: The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in
Speaker 3: this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect
Speaker 3: those of Lava for Good.