Speaker 1: A warning. This episode contains language and depictions of violence
Speaker 1: that may be disturbing to some listeners. How often do
Speaker 1: you think about the Uprising and Warrior trial? I really
Speaker 1: mattered thinking about it. I'm living it out, but not
Speaker 1: the repercussions for real estate. Keith Lamar has been on
Speaker 1: death row since nineteen ninety five, almost all of it
Speaker 1: spent in solitary confinement. Keith says he's innocent and may
Speaker 1: be executed by the State of Ohio because prosecutors withheld
Speaker 1: evidence which deprived him of getting a fair trial. I
Speaker 1: think they just didn't want to take any charances, so
Speaker 1: they came up with this kind of scheme to effectively
Speaker 1: deny me excoverture evidence. The prosecuted job is not to
Speaker 1: hearing the gifty body, but to see that justice is done.
Speaker 1: But we know that it's not how, It's just the work.
Speaker 1: I'm Leah Rothman. This is the Real Killer. Episode seven.
Speaker 1: A caricature, a travesty, an obscenity. I think discovery is
Speaker 1: probably the most important issue in Keith's trial. I think
Speaker 1: that is where the case really went off the rails.
Speaker 1: That's Alice Lynde. She and her husband Stoughton are widely
Speaker 1: respected civil rights and labor activists, authors, and lawyers. They've
Speaker 1: spent roughly twenty years focusing on the Lucasville Uprising and
Speaker 1: the cases of the five men currently sitting on death Row.
Speaker 1: Much of their research went into Stoughton's book Lucasville, The
Speaker 1: Untold Story of a Prison Uprising. Back when I first
Speaker 1: started working on Keith's story, I visited with Alison Stoughton,
Speaker 1: who were in their early nineties. They declined to be
Speaker 1: interviewed for this podcast, but have been helpful behind the scenes. Sadly,
Speaker 1: Stoughton passed away in November of twenty twenty two. Although
Speaker 1: our time together was brief, I feel lucky to have
Speaker 1: spent any time with them at all. Back in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: Stoughton and Alice are interviewed for Barbara Wolf's documentary Condemned,
Speaker 1: and Miss Wolfe has been kind enough to share her
Speaker 1: footage with me. In it, Alison Stoughton talk about Keith's case,
Speaker 1: the issues with discovery, and what they believe are clear
Speaker 1: Brady violations. Take Stacy Gordon. He was one of the
Speaker 1: five prisoner witnesses who testified for the state, saying he
Speaker 1: saw Keith lead a death squad through L six. Stoughton says,
Speaker 1: there's a valuable piece of the Stacy Gordon puzzle that
Speaker 1: was left out and had it been turned over, it
Speaker 1: could have changed the outcome in key trial. Stacy Gordon
Speaker 1: was one of two key witnesses against Lamar. This man
Speaker 1: was probably the most significant prosecution witness. He lied through
Speaker 1: his teeth. In fact, I think Stacy Gordon was probably
Speaker 1: the individual who actually coordinated the death squad, but setting
Speaker 1: that aside, less than a year before Keith's trial, the prosecution,
Speaker 1: which had indicted mister Gordon for a surprising number of
Speaker 1: violent actions during the eleven days, dropped the more serious
Speaker 1: of those charges and entered into a plea agreement. And
Speaker 1: at that particular time and place, the prosecutor elected to
Speaker 1: ask mister Gordon a few additional questions and had them
Speaker 1: transcribed by a court reporter. Why he did this, I
Speaker 1: don't know, but my wife and I discovered this paper
Speaker 1: in reviewing multitudinous documents about the case. The prosecutor asked
Speaker 1: mister Gordon on that occasion, do you know Keith Lamar?
Speaker 1: Answer no question. Did you see Keith Lamar in the
Speaker 1: l six block in the early hours of the riot
Speaker 1: at Lucasfeld. No, well, this is what Brady understands as
Speaker 1: impeaching evidence. That is to say, if a given witness
Speaker 1: makes a statement on the witness stand and the defense
Speaker 1: lawyer is able to say, in this case, now, mister Gordon,
Speaker 1: you just said, I believe that you didn't see mister Lamar,
Speaker 1: I have take a look at it. I am reading
Speaker 1: that correctly, Am I not? And Gordon has to say yes,
Speaker 1: And the defense counsel then says, well, what should we
Speaker 1: then make of your testimony, your elaborate, detailed testimony about
Speaker 1: what you saw mister Lamard on April eleven. I mean
Speaker 1: that could have changed the outcome of the trial. There
Speaker 1: would have been both exculpatory and impeaching evidence concerning mister
Speaker 1: Gordon had the prosecution done what Brady demands. So to
Speaker 1: reiterate on the stand, Stacy Gordon testifies Keith led the
Speaker 1: group of men sell to cell, killing the alleged snitches,
Speaker 1: but in an interview with prosecutors, Stacy Gordon says he
Speaker 1: didn't know Keith nor did he see him in l
Speaker 1: six during the early hours of the uprising and Stoughton
Speaker 1: says had that interview been turned over to Keith's attorneys
Speaker 1: in night, it could have made a difference. Another example,
Speaker 1: on the eve of trial, the prosecution asked the highway
Speaker 1: patrol to interview a particular witness because the prosecution thought
Speaker 1: he might be called as the defense witness. In other words,
Speaker 1: they thought he might know something harmful to them. The
Speaker 1: highway patrolman conducted the interview. This is less than a
Speaker 1: week before trial, and he reported to Attorney Tiger to
Speaker 1: the prosecutor, he doesn't want to be involved, but if
Speaker 1: he's called, he'll say that he didn't see Lamar do anything. Now,
Speaker 1: talk about exculpatory information. What a yummy for the defense
Speaker 1: counseled to have had at trial a week later. The
Speaker 1: prosecution did nothing to make that information available to the defense.
Speaker 1: So this was a caricature, a travesty and obscenity. I
Speaker 1: dilatwards to describe what an insult, not just to the
Speaker 1: defendant and defendants council. This is not what Brady versus
Speaker 1: Maryland intended. I wonder did Ohio have some kind of
Speaker 1: loophole to Brady back in the day. I mean, Brady
Speaker 1: was and is a US Supreme Court case that should
Speaker 1: apply to everyone, including those in Ohio. But maybe there's
Speaker 1: something I'm missing. I asked Bob Toy, one of keith
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five trial attorneys, about it. The discovery practice
Speaker 1: back in the night nineties was really outrageous, and I
Speaker 1: know that because I was involved in it from seventy
Speaker 1: eight to ninety two. As a prosecutor, you basically try
Speaker 1: your case without providing the defense much evidence at all,
Speaker 1: just the bare basics. Right now, we have open discovery,
Speaker 1: which the way the case would be tried today would
Speaker 1: be nothing like it was tried in the nineties. As
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned, if somebody were to look at
Speaker 1: it today, they throw this out and say this was
Speaker 1: not a fair process, because it wasn't a fair process.
Speaker 1: Back to Stacy Gordon, it seems he's no longer incarcerated,
Speaker 1: at least in Ohio. I've tried to track him down
Speaker 1: but haven't had any luck. Keith says, besides Stacy Gordon's statement,
Speaker 1: there are many other examples of exculpatory evidence withheld from
Speaker 1: him at trial, like an actual confession made by a
Speaker 1: man named Aaron Jefferson. I have the transcript of his confession.
Speaker 1: In it, Aaron Jefferson describes in great detail how he
Speaker 1: killed Darryl Depina, one of the alleged snitches in L six.
Speaker 1: Aaron Jefferson apparently came forward a year so after the
Speaker 1: riot and confessed to killing darl Deepina, someone whom I
Speaker 1: was ultimately sentenced to death for killing. I wasn't uh
Speaker 1: giving his statement prior to trials. Another inmate named Hackett
Speaker 1: alleged Lee daw Aaron Jefferson killed a white inmate in
Speaker 1: L six. And so this it wasn't It wasn't only
Speaker 1: that Amoron Jefferson confess. It was also that they would
Speaker 1: held statements from people who witness correborated that confession, you know.
Speaker 1: And so by the prosecution might say where Amorons Jefferson's
Speaker 1: recollections are faulty, he was wrong about you know, his
Speaker 1: you know, his involvement. Is hard to d and say
Speaker 1: that or make that claim when you have when it
Speaker 1: is correborating, you know, the profession. How can that not
Speaker 1: make a difference? If the system itself is legit, how
Speaker 1: can that not make a difference. According to the transcript
Speaker 1: from Keith's arraignment hearing, defense attorneys ask prosecutors to turn
Speaker 1: over any statements where people like Aaron Jefferson confessed to
Speaker 1: or were accused of hitting or harming any of the
Speaker 1: victims Keith was on trial for killing. Judge Fred Crowe
Speaker 1: grants the defense's request. Prosecutor Seth Tiger says he will
Speaker 1: comply the best he can. Then Judge Crowe tells the
Speaker 1: prosecutor that he doesn't have to go through every document,
Speaker 1: but he should comply to the fullest extent possible in
Speaker 1: good faith with the court's order. Again, I have Aaron
Speaker 1: Jefferson's full confession now, but were the full statements and
Speaker 1: interviews with Aaron Jefferson and the others ever turned over
Speaker 1: back then. I don't know. Maybe they were, I just
Speaker 1: haven't seen any documentation that confirms they were. Regardless, the
Speaker 1: state says, Aaron Jefferson's confession is not credible. So I
Speaker 1: just want to make sure that I'm clear because in
Speaker 1: reading everything that I'm reading and trying to wrap my
Speaker 1: head around all of it, still, even this many months in,
Speaker 1: it's not easy to say. When you started to receive
Speaker 1: some exculpatory evidence or discovery that could have helped you
Speaker 1: that wasn't turned over at trial. Are you able to
Speaker 1: say I got this on this day, I got this
Speaker 1: on this day. No, because they came you know, to
Speaker 1: you know, random sources at different time it happened. I
Speaker 1: teached me a little you know, to back. But Keith
Speaker 1: says some came in via the other four on death row. Remember,
Speaker 1: after Keith's two thousand and seven evidentiary hearing, the attorneys
Speaker 1: for the four other filed motions and were granted access
Speaker 1: to evidence they hadn't been given before. Well supposedly, if
Speaker 1: while going through the evidence they saw something that pertained
Speaker 1: to Keith, they would share it with him. But Keith says,
Speaker 1: it's not how he got any of this potentially favorable
Speaker 1: evidence that's important. It's what he got that matters. Well,
Speaker 1: access to all the evidence that I've been able to
Speaker 1: obtain over the years, I think that it would be
Speaker 1: hard for a jury, a jury of my peers, to
Speaker 1: convicting the other's clients. Yeah, you always have in this system,
Speaker 1: plausible deniability. I continue my conversation with Keith about his
Speaker 1: case and the criminal justice system. He says failed him.
Speaker 1: It wasn't later that I was able to really, you
Speaker 1: know fully kind of appreciate restarantantly. And I started telling
Speaker 1: people like, listen, this is what this guy, Mark pete
Speaker 1: Myer did. Mark pete Meyer, remember he was the special
Speaker 1: prosecutor appointed to oversee the Lucasville cases. In a deposition
Speaker 1: for keith evidentiary hearing, Mark pete Meyer testified that he
Speaker 1: applied a quote narrow Brady standard to the Lucasville cases.
Speaker 1: Keith says, based on pete Meyer's own admission, that proves
Speaker 1: evidence was withheld at his trial. He also says, you
Speaker 1: don't have to look far to find someone else. He
Speaker 1: did it too. My name is Derek Wayne. I'm the
Speaker 1: hundred and nineteenth death row exonery in the United States.
Speaker 1: I did twenty years on our house death row. In
Speaker 1: August of nineteen eighty four, bartender Gary Mitchell is beaten
Speaker 1: to death when two men robbed the Central Bar in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Speaker 1: A few months later, a man named Charles Howell is
Speaker 1: arrested for the murder. Howell confesses and names Derek Jamison
Speaker 1: as the main killer. Howell agrees to testify against Derek
Speaker 1: in exchange for a lighter sentence, which turns out to
Speaker 1: be ten years in prison despite having at least five
Speaker 1: alibis at the time of the murder. In October of
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty five, Derek Jamison is found guilty and sentenced
Speaker 1: to death. I speak with Derek via zoom from a
Speaker 1: hotel room in Tampa, Florida, where he now lives. The
Speaker 1: first day I arrived on Ohio death Row one of
Speaker 1: the worst days of my life. No pigil mad you
Speaker 1: being innocent, not knowing nothing about this case, and they
Speaker 1: send you to die and leah. I arrived at the
Speaker 1: Maxis Security presidentile looked as filled and they're marching down
Speaker 1: down as long part or. The guard said the new
Speaker 1: guy here, and he said dead man. While I wouldn't
Speaker 1: sail twenty seven, and I was in Sail twenty seven
Speaker 1: for fourteen years. It's past the nightmare. It's hell. It's hell.
Speaker 1: You were living hell. This is worth worth in the
Speaker 1: nightmare because you could wake up from the nightmare. You
Speaker 1: can't wake up from a living here. You know, did
Speaker 1: you have an execution date set? I had six days
Speaker 1: execution six days? Can you imagine that? And then I
Speaker 1: was since to die, So you really like seven execute
Speaker 1: the date? Let that sink in Derek is scheduled to
Speaker 1: be executed seven times, each time receiving a stay from
Speaker 1: the governor, the last time coming with only ninety minutes
Speaker 1: to spare. I'm trying to understand how psychologically devastating it
Speaker 1: is to come so close to being executed. I mean,
Speaker 1: what does that do to a person? What does that
Speaker 1: do to you? To get so close to being if
Speaker 1: if you ain't carefully to destroy you know, because I
Speaker 1: saw it destroy a lot of my praying, you know,
Speaker 1: like I saw people leah our death, row Louse date
Speaker 1: mind right in front of me. You know, it was
Speaker 1: real anguish and pain. I mean it would not that
Speaker 1: could do either, you know it went it went, that
Speaker 1: could do about it. I like it to suffer and
Speaker 1: pray in time. A new attorney uncovers exculpatory evidence that
Speaker 1: had been withheld from Derek's defense team, evidence that contradicted
Speaker 1: Charles Howell's story. He told lawyers to note him did
Speaker 1: he live? He told him he did. They had three
Speaker 1: different statements for Chop as to how one statement, two
Speaker 1: statements is a lie, three statements really a damn line,
Speaker 1: you know, But they got they found all this out
Speaker 1: out that I've been convicted. He gave the police like
Speaker 1: three different statements, you know what I'm saying, And I
Speaker 1: went in the court. I went in the court room
Speaker 1: with the most powerful prosecutor in the stateable high of
Speaker 1: Mark Fredmay. He one of the most powerful prosecutors. But
Speaker 1: he made mistakes. Even the best to ever do it
Speaker 1: made mistake. I had told Derek one of the reasons
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk with him is because of Mark
Speaker 1: Pete Meyer's connection to his case. They found out new
Speaker 1: discovered evidence that they would him thirty five pieces of evidence.
Speaker 1: You only need one new piece of ever did to
Speaker 1: get a new trial. They were him thirty five piece.
Speaker 1: In May of two thousand, Derek's attorneys file a petition
Speaker 1: for a writ of habeas corpus. The court grants the
Speaker 1: writ and orders a new trial based on the evidence
Speaker 1: withheld back at his original trial. Five years later, on
Speaker 1: October twenty fifth, two thousand and five, after the state
Speaker 1: decides not to retry him, Derek walks out of prison
Speaker 1: a freeman. During Derek's time on death row, he lost
Speaker 1: several of his family members and watched as seventeen of
Speaker 1: his friends were executed. I halt so watch y'all. Two
Speaker 1: of my cousin my days, my mom, my dad, friends,
Speaker 1: Pip Piles knowing I'm my friend that I grew up
Speaker 1: with a death row twenty years, two decades. It was
Speaker 1: just I use circus stands as a poor being poor.
Speaker 1: But a lot of people, you know, but guilty. But
Speaker 1: a lot of people is in it it too. Keith LeVar,
Speaker 1: he is in him and the guy that was the
Speaker 1: Lucasfield five ill it should be free. No one think
Speaker 1: about the state. The prosecutors they came never admit that
Speaker 1: they wrong. You'd never seen a prosecutor admit that they
Speaker 1: did wrong in a depth. Doty cap. What would have
Speaker 1: happened if your lawyers had not uncovered those thirty five
Speaker 1: pieces of evidence that had been with help, I'd be
Speaker 1: in the secretary right now. I begad the I begd
Speaker 1: So how did this happen? According to court documents back
Speaker 1: in the mid eighties, instead of Cincinnati PD turning over
Speaker 1: the whole case file to the Hamilton County Prosecutor's office,
Speaker 1: they would routinely select certain pieces of information and evidence
Speaker 1: that they deemed to be relevant and put it in
Speaker 1: something called a quote homicide book and that was handed
Speaker 1: over to prosecutors. In a nineteen ninety nine hearing, Mark
Speaker 1: pete Meyer testifies that at the time of Derek's trial,
Speaker 1: he relied on that homicide book. When answering the defense's
Speaker 1: demands for discovery, He said that he would have turned
Speaker 1: over any Brady material had he known it existed. Mister
Speaker 1: pete Meyer and another prosecutor also stated that they received
Speaker 1: no training from the Hamilton County Prosecutor's office as to
Speaker 1: what constituted exculpatory evidence. So basically, it seems that the
Speaker 1: police cherry picked what was handed over to the prosecutors,
Speaker 1: and the prosecutors didn't ask any questions, and that led
Speaker 1: to an innocent man. Derek jamieson being wrongfully convicted and
Speaker 1: almost executed, Describe the moment that you walked out of
Speaker 1: prison a freeman. Oh bad live You remember you remember,
Speaker 1: I know you remember this, this go brighten up just
Speaker 1: that you remember the day before kiss when he was
Speaker 1: a king and they tell you to go to bed
Speaker 1: and you'd be lad there. You can't go to sneak
Speaker 1: because you're too excite. You remember that feeling, that exciting feeling,
Speaker 1: That's what it felt like. It was the most beautiful
Speaker 1: day in the world, you know, free. I walked about
Speaker 1: it there twenty years the same day, the same day
Speaker 1: I walked it there, I walked out. And what did
Speaker 1: they give you as a parting gift? Seventy five dollars
Speaker 1: as all I ever received from the Stateable Howard, seventy
Speaker 1: five bucks after twenty years. I'm so sorry. I'm so
Speaker 1: sorry for what happened to you. Thanks, we are, thank you.
Speaker 1: For the last several years, Derek has been working with
Speaker 1: the nonprofit Witness to Innocence, an organization led by death
Speaker 1: Row Exonery focused on supporting each other and their families,
Speaker 1: shining a light un wrongful convictions, and abolishing the death penalty.
Speaker 1: I get to reach out that people like you, you know,
Speaker 1: because you know, in America we need right now, we need.
Speaker 1: All we need is love of the past, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, via our human beings are sacred, you know,
Speaker 1: so we need as much love is path. Keith and
Speaker 1: I continue our conversation about his experiences with the criminal
Speaker 1: justice system, specifically the prosecutors, none of whom have yet
Speaker 1: agreed to speak with me. By the way, this is
Speaker 1: another one of those times when Keith's audio isn't great,
Speaker 1: but because Keith is particularly passionate during this conversation, I
Speaker 1: decide to include it. And let me just be very
Speaker 1: clear that I am absolutely trying to talk with Seth
Speaker 1: Tiger Anderson Pete Meyer. So far, I've only heard back
Speaker 1: from Tiger, who has declined to talk with me. But
Speaker 1: I'm not done trying. But that's the thing. They don't
Speaker 1: have to respond. They don't have to say anything. They
Speaker 1: don't owe you an explanation. You don't have to talk
Speaker 1: to Mark Pete Myer. Look at his record withhold in evidence.
Speaker 1: This is his m oh, this is how you get
Speaker 1: to be where Yet right now you know he didn't
Speaker 1: keep there by playing by the rules. Because I'm saying
Speaker 1: the Puma was being fair. We're talking about the balanced thing.
Speaker 1: My record is all open for interrogation. You're asking me
Speaker 1: all these difficult questions. I don't mind answer them, but
Speaker 1: they're not going to talk to you and all, you know, explanation.
Speaker 1: They're not fighting for their life trying to do in
Speaker 1: addition to fighting for my life, I'm trying to say
Speaker 1: that I am not that person. That's not me. But
Speaker 1: you're reading the records you're reading the files about my case,
Speaker 1: about my history. You're talking to my family, people who
Speaker 1: knew me when I was nine years old, ten years old,
Speaker 1: so on and so forth. And I don't mind you
Speaker 1: doing that now ask them to do that, because I
Speaker 1: wanted you to have before you know access, but it
Speaker 1: would be you know, not it won't be for the
Speaker 1: balance story if you're don't do the same thing with them,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. I'm not talking about some angels,
Speaker 1: people with stellar reputations, people who have reputations of you know,
Speaker 1: playing everything by the book. These people are cooked and
Speaker 1: that needs to be a part of the story as well.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, for the de justice, if
Speaker 1: that's what you're trying to do with your salvery, with
Speaker 1: your podcast, you know, talking about the real killer. You
Speaker 1: got to look at for a Mark quick Miles and
Speaker 1: his records. You don't have to say anything. Its records
Speaker 1: speaks for just like my record speaks for me, you know,
Speaker 1: and shit, I gotta answer to you know. So far
Speaker 1: we haven't found a bunch of other examples of stories
Speaker 1: like Derek Jamieson's and I'm looking, well, you don't need
Speaker 1: a hundred examples that one example was enough. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's enough what they did to him. There's one person
Speaker 1: Keith says that withholding evidence is Mark Pete Myer's m O.
Speaker 1: Then he says, I shouldn't need a ton of examples.
Speaker 1: Derek Jamieson is enough. It's a contradiction, sure, but I
Speaker 1: understand his point and Keith's write about this. What I'm
Speaker 1: trying to do with this podcast is tell a balanced story.
Speaker 1: And that means not only looking at Keith, but looking
Speaker 1: at the prosecutors and the system that's about to execute him.
Speaker 1: But there's other examples. Who's doing other people what he
Speaker 1: did at to be and I just write a body.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's an article in the Daily
Speaker 1: Beats about the practices of the prosecutors, not just human Ohio,
Speaker 1: but across this country. This is what there is not
Speaker 1: even about more people. Are we talking about a system
Speaker 1: or little jefice system. There's no accountability before prosecuting, there's
Speaker 1: no acountability. Mark Pepe Mark, what did he do to
Speaker 1: Derek Jamison who with healthless corporatory evidence they resolving Darren
Speaker 1: Jadness and being sent to death. Well, Keith says he
Speaker 1: first learned about Derek and his case. While researching Mark
Speaker 1: Peetemeyer's role in his own he and Derek have spoken
Speaker 1: a few times since Derek was exonerated. Derek Jamison, that's
Speaker 1: all of that time I came home. They didn't even
Speaker 1: compensate then give me any money. They'd apologize nothing, And
Speaker 1: right now he lived the shambels he living, you know,
Speaker 1: also the good will and kinds of strangers and the
Speaker 1: ship is that that's that's about meaning about this business
Speaker 1: is you know, this is slammed. These people have just
Speaker 1: let off the hook over and over and over. But
Speaker 1: since Keith and I had that conversation, my research turned
Speaker 1: up another death row case connected to Mark Peetemeyer, Jeffrey Wogenstall.
Speaker 1: He's been on death row for twenty nine years and
Speaker 1: is currently housed at Chillicothee Correctional Institution, and like Derek Jamison,
Speaker 1: he's had several stays of execution. Back in nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Wogenstall is convicted of killing ten year old Amber Garrett.
Speaker 1: She had been abducted, stabbed, and beaten to death. Kim Rigby,
Speaker 1: one of Wogenstall's attorneys from the Office of the Ohio
Speaker 1: Public defender agrees to speak with me about his case.
Speaker 1: My client, Jeffrey Wogenstall, was wrongfully convicted based on a
Speaker 1: host of Brady violations that were committed at his trial.
Speaker 1: This tragic story begins back in nineteen ninety one. So
Speaker 1: in the early morning of November twenty fourth, nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 1: ten year old at the time, Amber Garrett disappeared from
Speaker 1: the bedroom that was in which she shared with her
Speaker 1: two younger siblings. And this all took place in the
Speaker 1: small town of Harrison, Ohio, in Hamilton County. At the
Speaker 1: time of her disappearance, Amber's brother, who was sixteen, I
Speaker 1: believe at the time, Eric Horne, was supposed to be
Speaker 1: babysitting while her mother, Peggy Garrett, was out supposedly at
Speaker 1: various bars that evening. Before long police have a suspect.
Speaker 1: Peggy and Eric pointed the finger at Jeffrey Woganstall, who
Speaker 1: was an acquaintance of the Garrets at the time and
Speaker 1: who had been out with Peggy at least for a
Speaker 1: period of time earlier that evening when Amber disappeared. Thus,
Speaker 1: state's case against Jeff has Amber disappearing with Jeff around
Speaker 1: three thirty am. But Kim says the time of Amber's
Speaker 1: disappearance is really based on what Eric and Peggy told police.
Speaker 1: Eric says he knew his sister was missing around three am,
Speaker 1: but didn't say anything about it to his mother. Peggy
Speaker 1: says she only figured out Amber was missing after she
Speaker 1: failed to return home from church that afternoon, and that's
Speaker 1: when she called police. Jeff had a prior burglary conviction
Speaker 1: and so he was on parole. So when Peggy told
Speaker 1: the cops that Jeff was responsible for Amber's disappearance and
Speaker 1: they came knocking on his door, Jeff opened the door.
Speaker 1: He allowed them to search his house, and the cops
Speaker 1: at that point saw a marijuana pipe, and they'd attained
Speaker 1: him at that point for violating parole. Jeff says around
Speaker 1: three am, he went to the house to buy marijuana
Speaker 1: from Eric, then Eric asked him to drive him to
Speaker 1: a house a couple of blocks away. Jeff says after
Speaker 1: dropping Eric off, he went home, where he was alone
Speaker 1: until police showed up that afternoon. Several days later, Amber's
Speaker 1: body is discovered in Bright, Indiana, about six miles from
Speaker 1: her home in Ohio. So what did the police have
Speaker 1: other than Peggy and Eric's pointing the finger at him.
Speaker 1: Over the time of the investigation, they accumulated a few
Speaker 1: other like circumstantial pieces of evidence. There were a few
Speaker 1: different witnesses who testified that they saw Jeff and or
Speaker 1: a car that looked like Jeff's either driving through Harrison
Speaker 1: towards what would be Jamison Road, where Amber's body was found,
Speaker 1: or that they saw him and or a car off
Speaker 1: the side of the road where Amber's body was later discovered.
Speaker 1: There was also an FBI expert that was brought in
Speaker 1: who testified that a hair found on Amber's clothing matched Jeff.
Speaker 1: There was a minuscule spot of blood that was substantially
Speaker 1: smaller than a drop that was found on the door
Speaker 1: handle in the backseat of Jeff's car that could have
Speaker 1: matched Amber's DNA. There were also small stains in Jeff's
Speaker 1: apartment that looked like they could be blood. There was
Speaker 1: a jailhouse sinch that testified that Jeff confessed to him,
Speaker 1: and finally, there was plant material found on Jeff's jacket
Speaker 1: and shoes that was similar to the area where Amber's
Speaker 1: body was found. So Jeff was charged with the aggravated
Speaker 1: murder of Amber Garrett. He was also charged with kidnapping
Speaker 1: and burglary who tried the case for the state. The
Speaker 1: lead prosecutor was Joseph Dieters, and the two assistant prosecutors
Speaker 1: were Mark Peepemeyer and Rick Gibson. Jeffrey wogenstall Is eventually
Speaker 1: found guilty and sentenced to death, So he exhausted his
Speaker 1: state appeals and he headed into federal court. He's now
Speaker 1: in federal court. It's the early two thousands, and he
Speaker 1: finally gets something. He was granted discovery in federal court
Speaker 1: and he was specifically allowed to depose people about Eric
Speaker 1: Horne and Eric Horn's testimony because there was evidence that
Speaker 1: they had at the time that Eric had lied on
Speaker 1: the stand about never using or trafficking drugs. See when
Speaker 1: Amber's brother, Eric Horne testified at Jeffrey's trial, he stated
Speaker 1: that he had never done or sold drugs, which wasn't true.
Speaker 1: He was an adjudicated delinquent for trafficking. And once the
Speaker 1: defense team realized that the federal court allowed additional discovery
Speaker 1: and depositions of Eric Horn, of the police officers involved
Speaker 1: from the Harrison Police Department, and also of the three
Speaker 1: prosecutors that were involved in trying Jeff's case. In one
Speaker 1: of those depositions, an officer who was the lead investigator
Speaker 1: in Jeff's case testified that after Eric Horn was arrested,
Speaker 1: he called Prosecutor Joe Dieters to tell him he had
Speaker 1: just arrested one of their key witnesses. He also testified
Speaker 1: that he had other conversations with Mark Petemeyer and or
Speaker 1: Rick Gibson as well about the fact that he had
Speaker 1: arrested Eric Horn. When Eric was put on the stand
Speaker 1: by Mark Peetemeyer, Mister Peetemeyer allowed Eric to state more
Speaker 1: than once that he never did drugs and that he
Speaker 1: never trafficked drugs, and objected multiple times to questions by
Speaker 1: the defense to that effect. The courts ultimately say Eric
Speaker 1: Horne's false testimony wouldn't have changed the outcome of Jeffrey's
Speaker 1: original trial, but some news from the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: may help his case. Remember, Kim mentioned the state's case
Speaker 1: against Jeffrey included an FBI expert who testified that the
Speaker 1: hair found on Amber's clothing matched jeff Well back around
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, The DOJ, the Innocence Project, and the National
Speaker 1: Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers conducted a joint investigation into
Speaker 1: microscopic hair comparison. The DOJ reviewed cases where the FBI
Speaker 1: tested or submitted reports using microscopic hair comparison, which is
Speaker 1: what they did in Jeff's case, and what they found
Speaker 1: was that before the year two thousand, the FBI's testimony
Speaker 1: contained errors in at least ninety percent of the cases.
Speaker 1: The United States Department of Justice sent over a letter
Speaker 1: to Jeff's defense counsel to inform them that the microscopic
Speaker 1: hair comparison testimony at Jeff's trial was scientifically inaccurate. Around
Speaker 1: that same time, defense counsel and this is when I
Speaker 1: entered the case, found that the prosecutors allowed the jail
Speaker 1: house sna to also lie on the stand. The snitch
Speaker 1: testified that he did not receive consideration for testifying. However,
Speaker 1: in a sworn affidavit that he gave to defense counsel
Speaker 1: in twenty thirteen, he explained that he did in fact
Speaker 1: receive consideration. The courts once again say neither the DOJ's
Speaker 1: findings on the microscopic hair comparison nor the newly discovered
Speaker 1: evidence about the jailhouse snitch would have made a difference
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, the public records law changed in Ohio,
Speaker 1: so defense counsel, including myself at the time, filed a
Speaker 1: public records request with the Harrison Police Department. They did
Speaker 1: not appear to want to release those records to us. Eventually,
Speaker 1: the Appellate prosecutor for Hamilton County allows Kim and the
Speaker 1: team to copy the police file, and what they find
Speaker 1: is staggering. We've found a treasure trove of police reports
Speaker 1: and tips that were previously unknown to the defense. We
Speaker 1: found evidence that implicated Peggy Garrett. We found evidence that
Speaker 1: implicated Eric Horn. We found evidence that just undermined both
Speaker 1: Peggy and Eric's testimony. There were police reports that showed
Speaker 1: Peggy hit Amber in the head three times the night
Speaker 1: before she went missing. Peggy often had drug fueled parties.
Speaker 1: There was a note in the police file that said
Speaker 1: that Amber had been raped by one of the men
Speaker 1: who had partied at her house. Another note showed that
Speaker 1: police were contemplating charging Peggy with child and dangerment. We
Speaker 1: found notes that said that Peggy got in deep into
Speaker 1: debt and sold Amber to a drug dealer. We found
Speaker 1: things that said someone saw Peggy at a waffle house
Speaker 1: crying that she had really effed up because she'd sold
Speaker 1: Amber for fifteen hundred dollars. We also found a host
Speaker 1: of information that implicated Eric Horn and Amber's disappearance. We
Speaker 1: found information to show that he was actually a suspect.
Speaker 1: There was also evidence that Eric took and failed a polygraph,
Speaker 1: and when confronted with that, he said, fuck you, fuck
Speaker 1: the machine, I'm out of here. We found things that
Speaker 1: also undercut the eyewitnesses more so than before. Kim and
Speaker 1: her team uncover more evidence that bring Jeffrey's conviction into question,
Speaker 1: like that speck of blood found in Jeffrey's car. Further
Speaker 1: testing was done on it, and although Amber could not
Speaker 1: be excluded, the state failed to test other possible sources,
Speaker 1: like her mother, Peggy, who was known to have been
Speaker 1: in the car on several occasions, including allegedly the night
Speaker 1: Amber disappeared. And in regards to the blood found in
Speaker 1: Jeffrey's house, well that turned out to not be of
Speaker 1: human origin. And there's more. Going back to Jeff's coat
Speaker 1: and shoes, The process secution called a witness to testify
Speaker 1: that the thorns and other plant material found on the
Speaker 1: jacket and shoes were similar to the plant materials in
Speaker 1: the area where Amber's body was found. However, that plant
Speaker 1: material is similar to pretty much anywhere in the woods
Speaker 1: in the Midwest. So armed with all of this and
Speaker 1: even more new evidence, they amassed Kim and the team
Speaker 1: file emotion for a new trial. The vast majority of
Speaker 1: our claims are related to prosecutorial misconduct, specifically that they
Speaker 1: withheld Brady evidence at the time of Jeff's trial, and
Speaker 1: that had this information been given to defense council at
Speaker 1: the time of trial, it would have clearly emite a
Speaker 1: difference in Jeff's case, and in that he wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been convicted. So what are the similarities between Derek Jamison's
Speaker 1: case and Jeffrey Woganstall's Well. Both were tried in Hamilton County,
Speaker 1: both had Mark Petemeyer as one of the prosecutors on
Speaker 1: their cases, and both had allegations of Brady violations which
Speaker 1: seemed to stem from what was in the police files
Speaker 1: and not turned over. Remember the Homicide book. Just from
Speaker 1: reading the record in mister Jamieson's case that mister Petemeyer
Speaker 1: had testified in Derek's case about some of the practices
Speaker 1: in Hamilton County at the time where the police would
Speaker 1: only turn over what they called a homicide book to
Speaker 1: the prosecutors before a trial. The police would determine what
Speaker 1: would go in that homicide book. So if there was
Speaker 1: anything that was exculpatory or potentially exculpatory in the police
Speaker 1: file but wasn't given to the prosecutors, the prosecutors at
Speaker 1: the time wouldn't be aware and couldn't turn it over. Obviously,
Speaker 1: we all know that that's not how Brady works. What
Speaker 1: the police know is imputed to what the prosecution knows.
Speaker 1: And so regardless, if mister Petemeyer, mister Gibson knew what
Speaker 1: was in the Harrison police files, they should have been
Speaker 1: aware of that and it should have been turned over.
Speaker 1: And I mean, frankly, prosecutors should be seeking justice, not
Speaker 1: just convictions. I wonder, are these alleged Brady violations the
Speaker 1: only issue the Hamilton County Prosecutor's office has been called
Speaker 1: out for. According to a Cincinnati Inquirer article back in
Speaker 1: September of two thousand, the Ohio Supreme Court rebuked the
Speaker 1: Hamilton County Prosecutor's office for making improper statements to jurors
Speaker 1: in fourteen death penalty cases. In the previous twelve years,
Speaker 1: statements which could have potentially overturned verdicts on appeal. Kim
Speaker 1: says the courts have also taken notice about how Jeff's
Speaker 1: case was handled. The first District Court of Appeals Hare
Speaker 1: in Ohio had stated the prosecutor's conduct needs reviewed by
Speaker 1: other authorities, and that was when they were specifically referring
Speaker 1: to the information about them withholding from the defense Eric
Speaker 1: Horns trafficking conviction. Is there any oversight? I mean, there
Speaker 1: is the state Bar, I mean who oversees all attorneys,
Speaker 1: but effectively. Now, for the record, I've found many articles
Speaker 1: praising the Hamilton County Prosecutor's office and specifically Mark Pete Meyer.
Speaker 1: By many accounts, he's considered a well liked by the
Speaker 1: book prosecutor who has worked many high profile cases in Ohio.
Speaker 1: And again, he hasn't answered my requests for an interview.
Speaker 1: For now, Kim, her team and Jeff are in a
Speaker 1: holding pattern. So as it stands, no court has made
Speaker 1: a final determination on Jeff's case based on all of
Speaker 1: the avidence that we have now. Obviously, I would love
Speaker 1: if Jeff was exonerated. I am hoping and I'm more
Speaker 1: hopeful that he'll receive a new trial based on our
Speaker 1: motion for new trial or our filings in both state
Speaker 1: and federal court. We've spent a lot of time in
Speaker 1: this episode talking about Mark Petemeyer and two cases other
Speaker 1: than Keats handled by him and the Hamilton County Prosecutor's office.
Speaker 1: Turns out there's an interesting development in one more. In
Speaker 1: December of twenty twenty two, Elwood Jones, who has been
Speaker 1: on death row for twenty seven years for the murder
Speaker 1: of Rhoda Nathan, is granted a new trial. The Cincinnati Inquirer,
Speaker 1: who told Ellwood Jones's story for the fourth season of
Speaker 1: their podcast, Accused, is in the courtroom when Judge Wendy
Speaker 1: Cross renders her decision. It is clear that the failure
Speaker 1: to disclose the existence a relevant exculpatory and impeaching evidence
Speaker 1: prior to trial deprived Ellwood Jones of a fair trial.
Speaker 1: The sixth Amendment requires a new trial as the only
Speaker 1: appropriate remedy. Accordingly, Ellwood Jones's motion for a new trial
Speaker 1: is hereby granted. Judge Cross calls out the prosecutors from
Speaker 1: Elwood jones original trial. One of the prosecutors just happens
Speaker 1: to be Mark Petemeyer. By the way, in January of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, Joe Dieters, the elected Hamilton County Prosecutor,
Speaker 1: leaves the office. Why because he's appointed by Governor Mike
Speaker 1: DeWine to be the one hundred and sixty third Justice
Speaker 1: of the Ohio Supreme Court. When I speak to Keith
Speaker 1: about all this, he says he's not surprised by any
Speaker 1: of it. Human beings, but not accountability. People do things
Speaker 1: when they when when they are not being watched. You
Speaker 1: know what I mean, when they are not being held accountable,
Speaker 1: that they wouldn't do if there's consequences too. You have
Speaker 1: been uh given the power to simple people to death.
Speaker 1: I'm need to take people off the planets, even legal
Speaker 1: anxious process. And he don't have to be correct, You
Speaker 1: don't have to be upstanding, your your your your practices
Speaker 1: don't have to be legit. How you can get this
Speaker 1: person to this journey. But this system is not about justice, misnamal,
Speaker 1: It's not have anything to do justice. Next time on
Speaker 1: the real killer. Do you know Keith Lamar? I know?
Speaker 1: Did you see him inside L six the artes? Please?
Speaker 1: I speak with two men who had two very different
Speaker 1: vantage points during the uprising. Did you ever see Keith
Speaker 1: as part of that group? Oh? Yes, Oh yeah, he
Speaker 1: was there. Yes. To learn more about Jeffrey Wogenstall's case,
Speaker 1: or if you have any information about the murder of
Speaker 1: Amber Garrett, please go to our episode page for a
Speaker 1: link to his website and the phone number for the
Speaker 1: Office of the Ohio Public Defender. The Real Killer is
Speaker 1: a production of AYR Media and iHeartRadio, hosted by me
Speaker 1: Leah Rothman. Executive producers Leah Rothman and Eliza Rosen for
Speaker 1: AYR Media. Written by Leah Rothman, Executive producer Paulina Williams,
Speaker 1: Senior Associate producer Jill Pacheznik, Coordinator George Fom. Editing and
Speaker 1: sound design by Cameron Taggy. Mixed and mastered by Cameron Taggy.
Speaker 1: Audio engineering by Matt Jacobsen. Studio engineering by Anna Moolshan
Speaker 1: Legal counsel for a y R Media, Gianni Douglas, Executive
Speaker 1: producer for iHeartRadio, Maya Howard