Speaker 1: At nine pm on October thirtieth, nineteen ninety four, Marcus
Speaker 1: Boyd and Greg Elking were on Marcus's porch in Saint
Speaker 1: Louis when two men approached them. Both were carrying guns
Speaker 1: and wearing masks that covered all but their eyes. Greg
Speaker 1: Elking ran off as shots rang out and Marcus was killed.
Speaker 1: Marcus's girlfriend was upstairs and was immediately available to the
Speaker 1: police when they asked who might have done it. She
Speaker 1: claimed that Marcus may have had a drug dispute with
Speaker 1: his friend, Lamar Johnson. After the only eyewitness, Greg Elkin,
Speaker 1: viewed a photo lineup, a man named Philip Campbell, along
Speaker 1: with Lamar Johnson were arrested, and Elking identified both men
Speaker 1: in a live lineup. Lamar maintained that he had been
Speaker 1: miles away at the time of the crime, but at trial,
Speaker 1: the lead detective testified that a round trip to the
Speaker 1: scene of the crime could have taken Lamar less than
Speaker 1: five minutes, making his guilt plausible. A jailhouse informant also
Speaker 1: said that he had overheard Lamar confessing to the murder,
Speaker 1: but the most incriminating testimony of all came from Greg Elkin.
Speaker 1: Although he didn't see the shooters faces behind their masks.
Speaker 1: Elking said he recognized Lamar easily because of a distinctive
Speaker 1: lazy eye. The eyewitness testimony was damning. After all, there
Speaker 1: couldn't possibly be any incentive for someone to make up
Speaker 1: something like that. But this is wrongful conviction. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to wrongful conviction. I'm Lauren Bret Pacheco, broadcast journalist and
Speaker 1: host of the podcast's Murder in Oregon, Murder in Illinois,
Speaker 1: and Murder in Miami, and I am so excited to
Speaker 1: be filling in for Jason Flahm in today's case. Irrefutable
Speaker 1: evidence of innocence, as well as an eventual confession from
Speaker 1: both of the actual assailants were not enough to receive
Speaker 1: a new trial. It took twenty eight years a new
Speaker 1: legislation for justice to finally be done in the Missouri
Speaker 1: appellate system. And we are honored to be joined by
Speaker 1: its survivor, Lamar Johnson.
Speaker 2: Welcome Heah, thank you for having us.
Speaker 1: It's an honor. And the other half of us refers
Speaker 1: to Lamar's attorney from Morgan Pilot in Kansas City, who's
Speaker 1: also on the board of the Midwest Innocence Project. Lindsay Rynolds,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: So, Lamar, if we can just go back. I know
Speaker 1: that you are forty nine now correct, Yes, and this
Speaker 1: happened when you were twenty, So just explain a little
Speaker 1: bit about who you were at the age of twenty,
Speaker 1: where you were living, what you were doing, and what
Speaker 1: you were about at that point in your life.
Speaker 2: I was kind of like a lot of people from
Speaker 2: the in his cities at that age. I was, I
Speaker 2: was working, I was in school, but I was also,
Speaker 2: you know, trying to hustle a little bit because that
Speaker 2: was the probably the height of the cracker and so,
Speaker 2: like a lot of kids in the neighborhood, I was
Speaker 2: trying to make a little money on the side, and
Speaker 2: of course that you know, puts me in the crosshourds
Speaker 2: of some police officers in my neighborhood. Yeah.
Speaker 3: The detective that was leading this investigation, Detective Joseph Nickerson,
Speaker 3: you know, a long time veteran by the time he
Speaker 3: retired of the Saint Louis City Police Department. He knew
Speaker 3: Lamar before. There was this group of young men, the
Speaker 3: usual suspects for anything that happened within that neighborhood. They
Speaker 3: were brought in, called down to the police station over anything,
Speaker 3: whether or not they were even just because they were
Speaker 3: a group of you know, young black men from the
Speaker 3: wrong part of town.
Speaker 1: And our audience may recall the name Joseph Nickerson from
Speaker 1: the wrongful conviction of Billy Allen, who continues to languish
Speaker 1: on federal death row, will have his episode linked in
Speaker 1: the bio so they can further acquaint themselves with Detective Nickerson,
Speaker 1: who is actually on the Saint Louis DIA's do not
Speaker 1: testify list due to credibility issues. And just like Marcus
Speaker 1: and Lamar, Billy Allen was also dealing drugs, so it
Speaker 1: seems like Nickerson had a type now, Lamar, I understand
Speaker 1: it was easy for Nickerson to make a connection between
Speaker 1: you and the victim in this case, Marcus Boyd. Not
Speaker 1: only were you guys both selling drugs at the time,
Speaker 1: but you were really close friends. In fact, you were
Speaker 1: almost like family through a woman named Leslie Williams, who
Speaker 1: was the mother of Marcus's child.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was dating Leslie Williams, the cousin of Pamela Williams,
Speaker 2: and I have a daughter by Pamela Williams. Pam and
Speaker 2: Leslie lived together, so that's how we met, probably about
Speaker 2: five years before then. We just really good, came close.
Speaker 1: Did you have a falling out of sorts? Before he
Speaker 1: was murdered?
Speaker 2: Marcus and I never had a fallen out on an argument, never.
Speaker 1: Yet an alleged rift between you two over drugs was
Speaker 1: eventually used as a motive for what happened on October thirtieth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four, at around nine pm. At this time,
Speaker 1: Leslie Williams was in the apartment that she shared with
Speaker 1: Marcus Boyd bathing their baby, while Marcus was downstairs on
Speaker 1: their porch on Louisiana Avenue, and a man named Greg
Speaker 1: Elkin was there to repay Marcus for some crack. So
Speaker 1: they were talking when two armed men approached in black
Speaker 1: ski masks that covered everything but their eyes. One ordered
Speaker 1: Greg off the porch. They fatally shot Marcus and ran off,
Speaker 1: and obviously Leslie came running down to the porch, and.
Speaker 2: Once the shooting store, she ran downstairs and she was
Speaker 2: able to see the gunman on the porch shooting, but
Speaker 2: she couldn't make out who they were. And you know,
Speaker 2: I guess the routine question that officers ask say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, who do you think might have something to
Speaker 2: do with and she just, you know, she just said Lamars.
Speaker 2: She couldn't think of anybody else. She didn' couldn't think
Speaker 2: of any reason. And she was asked about that, well,
Speaker 2: why did you think that I didn't have any reason?
Speaker 2: They didn't owe each other any money or drugs or
Speaker 2: anything like that. So I just think that this in
Speaker 2: my name that came to her mind.
Speaker 1: And it would have been very difficult to identify you
Speaker 1: because both of the gunmen were wearing masks.
Speaker 2: That's true.
Speaker 1: Plus you were almost three miles away at the time
Speaker 1: with your youngest daughter and her mother, Erica Barrow, while
Speaker 1: also handling some business of your own.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got a call from a guy I had
Speaker 2: just met, and he wanted to purchase some crime, and
Speaker 2: I arranged to meet him at a corner of thirty
Speaker 2: ninth and Lafayette. And it just happens that at that
Speaker 2: corner of a friend of ours lived at that apartment too,
Speaker 2: and so I just told Erica to come with us,
Speaker 2: her and a baby to come with us, and we
Speaker 2: went to that apartment and so that I could kind
Speaker 2: of visit the friend and also meet with this person.
Speaker 1: And it was during this five minute span where your
Speaker 1: whereabouts could not be accounted for by Erica Barrow, that
Speaker 1: the state eventually alleged that you had sped from Lafayette
Speaker 1: and thirty ninth Street, picked up the actual other assailant
Speaker 1: in the case, Philip Campbell, changed into dark clothing, put
Speaker 1: on masks, pulled up at Marcus's, and killed him in
Speaker 1: front of his apartment at thirty nine ten, Louisiana, which
Speaker 1: was what like two point seven miles away?
Speaker 2: Yeah, two to three miles away.
Speaker 1: And so how long would it have actually taken you
Speaker 1: to get there and get back? Realistically?
Speaker 3: I don't know that.
Speaker 2: I know that Lindsley and I don't have driven at distance.
Speaker 2: I know the Prosecutor's office has driven. In fact, I
Speaker 2: mean the Attorney General's office even drove it a different
Speaker 2: and I know that you couldn't have done it in
Speaker 2: five minutes, let alone to two to three minutes that
Speaker 2: Detective Nicholson testified a trial that it could have been driven.
Speaker 1: Right, simple Google search sets distance at two point seven miles,
Speaker 1: taking at least ten minutes by car, making a twenty
Speaker 1: minute round trip so pure math, this is impossible. Now, Lamar,
Speaker 1: this was your really close friend who had just been shot.
Speaker 1: And I understand you found out about it right away.
Speaker 2: Well, I learned after I went out and met with
Speaker 2: this person and made the deal and came back in,
Speaker 2: I received the call from my oldest daughter's mother and
Speaker 2: she told me that Marcus had been a shot. She
Speaker 2: also said that Marcus's girlfriend had said that she thought
Speaker 2: that maybe I had something to do with it. So
Speaker 2: I actually, I said, well, what happened to Marcus? And
Speaker 2: she said he was outside with the white guy and
Speaker 2: he got shot. And then I said, I asked, well,
Speaker 2: did you think I had something to do with him?
Speaker 2: When she said yeah, I said why did you think that?
Speaker 2: And she said, well, I couldn't think of anybody else, so.
Speaker 1: She didn't see what happened, but for whatever reason, she
Speaker 1: decided that there was some kind of an issue between
Speaker 1: you and Marcus, and that started this chain of events. Basically, essentially,
Speaker 1: that's what happened, and you were all ready a known
Speaker 1: entity to the lead detective on this case, Joe Nickerson,
Speaker 1: so that's all he needed to hear.
Speaker 3: I mean, the investigation for what it was was started
Speaker 3: and ended at the scene that night. Honestly, Lamar Johnson's name,
Speaker 3: you know, is in that first police report from the scene,
Speaker 3: before the eyewitness had even been identified, let alone found
Speaker 3: and interviewed. And so when a single eyewitness in a
Speaker 3: case hasn't even been identified by name, and they have
Speaker 3: their suspect, I mean, that's not an investigation designed to
Speaker 3: find facts, in my view.
Speaker 1: And when they located Greg Elkin, the eyewitness a couple
Speaker 1: of days later, what did he say?
Speaker 3: He says what would be expected knowing the facts of
Speaker 3: this case, which is, I couldn't identify anybody. I couldn't
Speaker 3: see I didn't recognize them. They were masked. I can't
Speaker 3: help That's what he's saying when he's first contacted, which
Speaker 3: makes perfect sense.
Speaker 1: But then later that day Elkin and his wife met
Speaker 1: Nickerson at a diner and he was shown in array
Speaker 1: which included and Philip Campbell, but according to Elking, he
Speaker 1: made no identification. As it came out later, they had
Speaker 1: a discussion that somehow changed Elkin's mind about what he'd seen.
Speaker 1: That evening November third, nineteen ninety four, Lamar and Philip
Speaker 1: Campbell were both picked up. Now, during this time, Lamar
Speaker 1: waved his Miranda rights, spoke to Nickerson, told him where
Speaker 1: he was across town, and it was impossible for him
Speaker 1: to have committed the crime. And it was during this
Speaker 1: time Lamar was alleged to have spoken to another detective,
Speaker 1: the detective Campbell, but Lamar was completely unaware of this
Speaker 1: alleged conversation until trial. Lamar knew he was innocent, so
Speaker 1: he agreed to be in the lineup.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they bring Greg Elking down to the station and
Speaker 3: Lamar's in one of the lineups. There's three fillers just pulled,
Speaker 3: you know, from the jail to be put into that lineup,
Speaker 3: and Greg Elking views it at least three times. First time,
Speaker 3: he can't identify anybody, the second time identify anybody. The
Speaker 3: third time he identifies a filler from the jail, who,
Speaker 3: of course everyone knows, and not a suspect and is
Speaker 3: got the world's greatest alifi right he's in custody. The
Speaker 3: lineup containing Philip Campbell, the co defendant and an actual
Speaker 3: perpetrator in this case. He couldn't identify anyone, didn't recognize
Speaker 3: anyone from that lineup, and of course within that lineup
Speaker 3: is somebody that was actually on that porch with Greg Elking.
Speaker 3: There was no identification made, and not only no identification
Speaker 3: and identification of someone else, and it should have been
Speaker 3: the end of.
Speaker 1: It, but that, of course wasn't the end of it.
Speaker 1: We now know that Greg was told who to identify,
Speaker 1: and later he did. But take us to what happened
Speaker 1: immediately after this live lineup.
Speaker 2: So when I left out of the out lineup room,
Speaker 2: Detective Nickoson was kind of leaning over a table, and
Speaker 2: I could tell that he was frustrated, and I remember
Speaker 2: telling him, see, I told you I didn't do this,
Speaker 2: And I remember the way that he looked up at
Speaker 2: me like he had atred in his eyes. That's the
Speaker 2: only way that I know how to describe it. But
Speaker 2: I'd left there knowing that I hadn't been identified, And
Speaker 2: when they came back later and said, well you've been identified,
Speaker 2: I knew then that something was going on, that something
Speaker 2: was wrong.
Speaker 3: Greg Elkin's testimony on this is clear. He was told
Speaker 3: the numbers of the lineup. You know, it's three and
Speaker 3: it's four. Three, of course was la Mar's position, and
Speaker 3: four was Philip Campbell's position. And you know the train
Speaker 3: left the station right then.
Speaker 4: This episode is underwritten by global law firm Greenberg Truid.
Speaker 4: Through its pro bono program, Greenberg Trowig leverages it's more
Speaker 4: than twenty six hundred lawyers across forty four offices to
Speaker 4: serve the greater good of our communities and provide equal
Speaker 4: access to justice for all. In the field of criminal justice,
Speaker 4: greenbrog Triwergy attorneys have exonerated and free demanded Philadelphia represent
Speaker 4: numerous individuals previously sentenced to life for crimes committed as
Speaker 4: juveniles and resentencing hearings, and receive the American Bar Association's
Speaker 4: twenty twenty one Exceptional Service Award for Death Penalty Representation
Speaker 4: for their work on five death penalty cases. GT is
Speaker 4: reimagining what big law can be because of a more
Speaker 4: just world. Only happens by design.
Speaker 2: So they took me in Philip down to the booking area,
Speaker 2: which was the central holdover, and there's a twenty hour
Speaker 2: period where the Circuit Attorney's office makes a decision on
Speaker 2: whether or not to actually charge you, and the jailer
Speaker 2: came that next day and said that charges had been issued, and.
Speaker 1: While you and Philip Campbell were in that holding area,
Speaker 1: enter in jailhouse snitch named William. Can you tell me
Speaker 1: a little bit, Lindsey about William Mock.
Speaker 3: Well, William Mock had been an informant before. But you
Speaker 3: know the tall tale that he told in Lamar's case
Speaker 3: was that while he was in custody in this city
Speaker 3: holdover area, and that's that place in the jail where
Speaker 3: people are held before charges are issued. It's a long
Speaker 3: line of more than ten cells housing up to you know,
Speaker 3: fifteen folks, loud folks, people coming off of drugs, and
Speaker 3: that's where they were at this particular period. They're never
Speaker 3: selled together. And William Mock claims to hear Lamar and
Speaker 3: Philip yelling to each other through this holding area, basically
Speaker 3: confessing to this, saying things like, you know, we shouldn't
Speaker 3: let the white guy live, and you know we got to,
Speaker 3: you know, hide the gun. And you know he's claiming,
Speaker 3: he Mock, that he's hearing this and hearing Lamar yelling
Speaker 3: out not only hey, I'm Lamar Johnson. My name is Lamar,
Speaker 3: and here's my information to a Lamont.
Speaker 1: It's so absurd, it's so absurd.
Speaker 3: It's absurd, even if you know this Lamont person had
Speaker 3: been in there, right, But there's not a Lamont in
Speaker 3: that jail. When William Mock is in there talking about
Speaker 3: these instances, they knew Lamont wasn't in there. Lamar's lawyer
Speaker 3: brings it up at trial.
Speaker 1: And that his testimony was incentivized.
Speaker 3: Of course, as they are right. I mean, jailhouse snitches
Speaker 3: don't work for free, and this particular one certainly did it.
Speaker 3: But Lamar's jury, Lamar, no one knew that William Mock
Speaker 3: had a history of doing this exact same thing just
Speaker 3: two years before he did it in this case.
Speaker 1: Since then, letters that Mock wrote to Nickerson and the
Speaker 1: prosecutor have been obtained. Letters that were written from prison
Speaker 1: after his own probation had been revoked, in which he
Speaker 1: was offering his services in exchange for free. And not
Speaker 1: only were his motivations for testifying exposed in his letters
Speaker 1: to the prosecutor, but also in his letters to Nickerson,
Speaker 1: Mock's overt racism was on full display.
Speaker 3: Yes, he's writing his letters as again as snitches do,
Speaker 3: saying this is what I want and calling Lamar and
Speaker 3: Phil his co defendant, you know, to bt Inward and
Speaker 3: a number of other comments. And that's important because it shows,
Speaker 3: of course his bias his motivation for doing some of this,
Speaker 3: which is why under the rules that would have to
Speaker 3: be disclosed so that the jury can test that bias.
Speaker 3: And you know, that was one of our strongest Brady
Speaker 3: claims in the case that these letters weren't disclosed to
Speaker 3: Lamar or the jury.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about the trial, which began July tenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five, in Saint Louis County Circuit Court. The
Speaker 1: prosecutor was Assistant Circuit Attorney Dwight Warrant, and Lamar, your
Speaker 1: public defender was David Bruns. One of the key points
Speaker 1: brought up a trial was Greg Elkins's eyewitness identification in
Speaker 1: which he said that he recognized you in the lineup
Speaker 1: because of your quote lazy eye. That's true, which is
Speaker 1: bizarre because I'm looking right at you, sir, and you
Speaker 1: do not have a lazy eye. So what was all
Speaker 1: of that about.
Speaker 2: Well, so that's confusing because he doesn't verify identification in
Speaker 2: the photo spread. He actually identifies somebody else in the lineup,
Speaker 2: and it's only after he had spent some time along
Speaker 2: with Detective Niggers and that he suddenly said, oh, I
Speaker 2: know who did it. It was number three or number four.
Speaker 2: And then in the police before he says that he's
Speaker 2: got to identify me based on a lazy or crooked eye.
Speaker 2: I don't know where that came from. I've never heard
Speaker 2: that before my entire life. That's the first time that
Speaker 2: it's mentioned, which is of course when he needs some
Speaker 2: sort of means of justifying an identification.
Speaker 3: I'm sure they knew that this case is weak. Were
Speaker 3: going to have to explain how somebody makes an identification
Speaker 3: of fully masked black men at dark you know. And
Speaker 3: Dwight Warren said that at the hearing right, there was
Speaker 3: no case without this identification because, as Lamar said, no
Speaker 3: physical evidence, no motive was ever investigated or presented, because
Speaker 3: there was no motive for Lamar to kill Marcus. So
Speaker 3: Greg Elking's identification was central. And so when he pointed
Speaker 3: to Lamar in front of that jury and said, that's
Speaker 3: the guy I was on the porch and that's him,
Speaker 3: I mean, it was the key.
Speaker 1: But you found out much later after your conviction that
Speaker 1: Elking had been incentivized to lie about identifying you, and
Speaker 1: that after the trial he'd even tried to come forward
Speaker 1: with the truth.
Speaker 2: Well, I eventually was able to get in contact with
Speaker 2: Greg and he by then he had already written his
Speaker 2: pastor been trying to come forward. He just wanted to
Speaker 2: do the right thing, and he just wrote out everything
Speaker 2: that had occurred. He told that him and his family
Speaker 2: was suffering financially and that as an assentive he had
Speaker 2: received money new apartment and they had utilities that was
Speaker 2: taken care of. And I mean everything that he said
Speaker 2: is eventually we was able to cooperate all the way
Speaker 2: down to their taking care of traffic tickets van. That's
Speaker 2: just how detailed it was.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, no one was aware of Greg Elkins's motivation as
Speaker 1: a trial, nor was anyone besides the prosecutor aware of
Speaker 1: William Mock's motivations, which were not only racist, but were
Speaker 1: also entirely motivated by gaining his freedom.
Speaker 2: Mack had also claimed, in addition to me supposedly talking
Speaker 2: with this Lamont about killing a white witness in this case,
Speaker 2: I supposed to have also robbed and killed some other
Speaker 2: white guy. And it just split the trial up and
Speaker 2: for most of that whole second day because of this
Speaker 2: false other case that Mack had came up with. This
Speaker 2: just began to talk about the imaginary case, which police
Speaker 2: had to eventually admit that they looked for this case
Speaker 2: and it never even happened.
Speaker 3: They're being asked on the stand in front of the jury, well,
Speaker 3: did you investigate this other supposed robbery and homicide of
Speaker 3: a white guy on the south Side. Yeah, we did.
Speaker 3: What'd you find? There's no case. So here we are
Speaker 3: yet again that they have a very big important fact
Speaker 3: that William Mack is pretending to have overheard that they
Speaker 3: know it doesn't exist. The case is not real.
Speaker 1: And that wasn't the only false testimony that was submitted.
Speaker 1: There was also an alleged confession from Lamar on the
Speaker 1: day he was arrested before the lineup to a detective
Speaker 1: Ralph Campbell, no relation to Philip Campbell, in which he
Speaker 1: was alleged to say, I shouldn't have let the white
Speaker 1: guy live. Another conversation that never took place, and the
Speaker 1: fabrications and misinformation don't end there a trial, a ski
Speaker 1: mask was introduced that actually had been found in Lamar's
Speaker 1: car during a traffic stop. But the problem with this
Speaker 1: ski mask was when it was found in Lamar's car.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was two months before Marcus was killed, and
Speaker 2: that mass was put in my car by a friend
Speaker 2: of mine, guy that I knew, Yeah.
Speaker 3: At one of the many times he was curbed as
Speaker 3: they call it, you know, Saint Louis or to pull
Speaker 3: up on you and search your car. That happened in August.
Speaker 3: You know, they came. They took it from the trunk
Speaker 3: of Lamar's car, along with a number of other items,
Speaker 3: and packaged and put into police custody down in the
Speaker 3: property lockers in August of nineteen ninety four, where it
Speaker 3: sat and where it was on the night of October thirtieth,
Speaker 3: so they knew it could never have been used. And
Speaker 3: it's sitting there on council table as an exhibit for
Speaker 3: all to see. And you know, it's one of the many,
Speaker 3: in my view, really intentionally prejudicial things. It's completely irrelevant
Speaker 3: to this case, is.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent. Now. Your trial attorney, David Bruns did
Speaker 1: point that out, as well as the fact that you
Speaker 1: did not have a lazy eye. Your girlfriend, Erica Barrow,
Speaker 1: testified you were almost three miles away from the scene,
Speaker 1: adding that you were only out of her site for
Speaker 1: five minutes. But Detective Nickerson rebutted your alibi, testifying that
Speaker 1: he had driven that route twenty to fifty times, saying
Speaker 1: that Lamar could have made the trip in no more
Speaker 1: than five minutes. This testimony was left unchecked, so your
Speaker 1: alibi was rebutted. They've got Elkin's identification, Mock's overheard confession,
Speaker 1: and Detective Campbell offering an alleged confession as well. So
Speaker 1: how long did the jury deliberate?
Speaker 2: They delivered for an hour and a half. They came
Speaker 2: back in and as most people know, if the jury
Speaker 2: is not looking at you, that's a bad sign. And
Speaker 2: none of them looked at me, And I think it
Speaker 2: was the clerk that read the verdict. Everything was kind
Speaker 2: of a blur back then, and they said I was
Speaker 2: guilty first recree murder and on Crome action.
Speaker 1: What what went through your body? What went through your head?
Speaker 2: I didn't know how to react. It was I just
Speaker 2: couldn't believe that a jury would believe that, you know,
Speaker 2: it just it was no motive. It re presented, no
Speaker 2: physical evidence for it. So I was stunt. I was stunt.
Speaker 1: Now this is what really got me, because between the
Speaker 1: time of your conviction and sentencing, something insane happens and Lindsey,
Speaker 1: can you address that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the verdict came down on July fifth of nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety five, and Phil Campbell knows, of course that Lamar
Speaker 3: had nothing to do with this, and they start writing
Speaker 3: letters back and forth to each other Lamar and Phil Campbell,
Speaker 3: and Phil Campbell is saying, I know you didn't do this.
Speaker 3: It's really screwed up that you got convicted when it
Speaker 3: was me and BA James Howard his nickname, and I'm sorry, man,
Speaker 3: but you know that's how the game goes. And we
Speaker 3: can't tell on BA our friend, and Lamar writing back saying,
Speaker 3: you know, you guys got to help me tell the
Speaker 3: truth on this. Lamar finally writes to Judge Shaw, his
Speaker 3: trial judge and the judg who's getting ready to sentence him.
Speaker 3: He says, I'm getting these letters from my co defendant.
Speaker 3: I didn't do this. Somebody helped me, basically asking for
Speaker 3: help in the way that he knows how to do it.
Speaker 3: Dwight Warren, the prosecutor in this case, applies for a
Speaker 3: search warrant LO and behold, here are all the letters
Speaker 3: that Lamar's been talking about. They're filed on the court docket.
Speaker 3: They're put into the record. They're the basis of motion
Speaker 3: for a new trial, and it is completely and utterly
Speaker 3: ignored by everybody.
Speaker 1: Not only did Campbell acknowledge that you had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with it, he cut a deal for seven years.
Speaker 1: They knew that he was guilty, and he's serving less
Speaker 1: time than you are, and they know you're wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 1: But if I'm not mistaken, Campbell had two affi Davids,
Speaker 1: one in ninety six and then another one shortly before
Speaker 1: he died in two thousand and nine. Correct, and James
Speaker 1: Howard or Ba, the man Campbell named as his accomplice,
Speaker 1: also signed AffA David stating that Lamar was innocent. In fact,
Speaker 1: he did so on three different occasions between two thousand
Speaker 1: and two and two thousand and nine.
Speaker 2: So that's why you've got multiple Affi Davis over the years.
Speaker 2: And I was constantly trying to present those to the
Speaker 2: course and they just weren't hurt.
Speaker 1: So now we know that two people, the people who
Speaker 1: were actually responsible for the murder, came forward, not once,
Speaker 1: but multiple times and confessed to it and said you
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with it. I cannot imagine how
Speaker 1: you must have felt like punching air, thinking that every
Speaker 1: single time you can prove your innocence, and it's falling
Speaker 1: not just on deaf ears, but it's being completely ignored. Right,
Speaker 1: And you're twenty when you went in. You were sentenced
Speaker 1: to life without parole, and you had two young daughters.
Speaker 1: And months turned to years, which turned into decades.
Speaker 2: Decades.
Speaker 1: Yes, you gave an interview that actually broke my heart.
Speaker 1: You said that you had never been to the beach,
Speaker 1: and you had never been on a plane. What was
Speaker 1: it like watching the time that you had spent in
Speaker 1: prison exceed the time that you had lived outside.
Speaker 2: The biggest thing was just the relationships with my daughters
Speaker 2: that I lost. You know, I wasn't able to develop
Speaker 2: that type of bond with them that you know most
Speaker 2: fathers have with their daughters. I guess just the relationship
Speaker 2: with family than children. That's the thing that hurts the most.
Speaker 1: What kept you going the truth?
Speaker 2: I knew that if ever I could be heard, I
Speaker 2: believe that any any foreign impartial person would they would
Speaker 2: They would have any choice to find that I was
Speaker 2: at least didn't receive it for a trial. But I
Speaker 2: knew that they couldn't find that I was actually innocent,
Speaker 2: because to deny you would have to step over a
Speaker 2: lot of things. You'd have to ignore a lot of stuff.
Speaker 2: You'd have to ignore the confessions, you'd have to ignore
Speaker 2: the trial I received, You'd have to ignore that what
Speaker 2: we knew about Mock. I mean, when you've got one
Speaker 2: thing after another after another, it's just hard to say
Speaker 2: that none of this is the truth.
Speaker 1: So, lindsay, let's fast forward to twenty fourteen, which I
Speaker 1: believe is around the time you and your firm, Morgan
Speaker 1: Pilot got involved in Lamar's case along with the Midwest
Speaker 1: Innocence Project. And one of the things you were trying
Speaker 1: to do is to verify what Lamar had heard from
Speaker 1: Greg Elking that he received financial compensation from Saint Louis
Speaker 1: for giving false testimony, and so you were trying to
Speaker 1: confirm the existence of those payments.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was telling Lamar and through his letters, they
Speaker 3: paid me. They did this, they did that. And Lamar
Speaker 3: was requesting of the Attorney General's Office, the Circuit Attorney's office,
Speaker 3: the Saint Louis City Police Department, the Victim's Crime Fund.
Speaker 3: We were writing and asking where are the documents showing
Speaker 3: compensation to this particular witness, and the response is overwhelmingly
Speaker 3: were there are no records, what you're asking for does
Speaker 3: not exist, or ignored us and didn't respond at all.
Speaker 1: But then in twenty seventeen, Kimberly Gardner became the new
Speaker 1: Saint Louis Circuit Attorney and a year later she forms
Speaker 1: the Saint Louis Conviction Integrity Unit. What happened when you
Speaker 1: brought your request to them?
Speaker 3: She directed them to investigate, and in February of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 3: Tony Box, one of her employees, found the documents, sixty
Speaker 3: plus pages of them showing more than four thousand, nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety four dollars of compensation to Greg Elking and his family.
Speaker 3: So it wasn't until right before the filing of the
Speaker 3: motion for new trial in the City of Saint Louis
Speaker 3: that the actual documents were produced that corroborated mister Elking.
Speaker 1: And in July of twenty nineteen, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed
Speaker 1: a motion for a new trial. All of this evidence
Speaker 1: is presented, the affidavids from Campbell and Howard, the compensation
Speaker 1: to Elking, proof of William Mock's unreliability, and at that
Speaker 1: hearing Kim Gardner recommends that Lamar began to the new
Speaker 1: trial that should have been the turning point for you.
Speaker 2: Lamar, Yeah, I mean I was hopeful that that would
Speaker 2: be enough. I mean, I don't know what else you
Speaker 2: could what else you could have that would justify relief
Speaker 2: in this case, But unfortunately the judge that it was
Speaker 2: assigned to had a different position or belief. Decidi you
Speaker 2: didn't have any authority to act in the case except to.
Speaker 1: Deny because at that time, Missouri law said that outside
Speaker 1: of the initial appeal what is known as a twenty
Speaker 1: nine to fifteen in Missouri, which happens within ninety days
Speaker 1: of trial, where you can raise any issues in effective assistance, breedy, violations,
Speaker 1: new evidence, et cetera. After that period, neither the prosecutor
Speaker 1: nor the trial court has the authority to challenge the conviction. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, Lamar, even with the circuit attorney and virtually
Speaker 1: all the evidence on your side, the system still failed you.
Speaker 1: But rather than the end of the road, you and
Speaker 1: your team saw this as a challenge and you made
Speaker 1: the decision to take this fight all the way to
Speaker 1: the Missouri Supreme Court. Lindsay, what made you want to
Speaker 1: take this case forward, did you feel like you could
Speaker 1: actually win?
Speaker 3: So we knew it was going to be an uphill battle.
Speaker 3: But Circuit Attorney Gardner was, you know, at that time,
Speaker 3: the only prosecutor that was willing to test the bounds
Speaker 3: of this and highlight the real gap in Missouri law here.
Speaker 3: And we had long conversations about that with mister Johnson,
Speaker 3: you know, saying test litigation is important, but can be
Speaker 3: real pain in it because you know, sometimes you must
Speaker 3: lose in a very public way before things can change.
Speaker 3: His case was chosen because of the strength of these facts.
Speaker 3: This innocence case is unimpeachable, like it has it all
Speaker 3: at every level where there was supposed to be some
Speaker 3: protection for an accused person, the system fell apart in
Speaker 3: this case. Nonetheless, the questions before the Supreme Court had
Speaker 3: nothing to do with those those amazing facts. It was
Speaker 3: is he too late for justice? Whatever that means? And
Speaker 3: is Missouri law big enough to recognize that a prosecutor,
Speaker 3: no matter when she comes into information credible, reliable, and cooperated,
Speaker 3: that a conviction obtained by her office is false, does
Speaker 3: she have the authority and the duty to do something
Speaker 3: about it? Those were the questions, and.
Speaker 1: When it came time to decide those questions.
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court, in a gutting decision, said no, under
Speaker 3: Missouri law today, there is no such mechanism, and for
Speaker 3: that reason, and that reason alone, Lamar Johnson's motion and
Speaker 3: petition for a new trial are denied. However, in this opinion,
Speaker 3: you know they called on the legislation. We agree with
Speaker 3: mister Johnson and Miss Gardner. This is unfortunate. It's worse
Speaker 3: than that. But Lamar Johnson's case had garnered so much
Speaker 3: national attention that people were having the reaction that you had,
Speaker 3: which is, how does this happen in the United States
Speaker 3: of America that a prosecutor goes to court says, this
Speaker 3: person's innocent, yet here he sits in custody. All that
Speaker 3: mattered because the legislature that had been unwilling, uninterested, passed
Speaker 3: legislation in record speed. That opinion came down on March second,
Speaker 3: two and twenty one, and with six weeks left of session,
Speaker 3: it was past. But it was because of the way
Speaker 3: we lost, in my view.
Speaker 1: And then on August twenty eighth, twenty twenty one, please
Speaker 1: tell me what law was enacted in Missouri.
Speaker 3: The Johnson Fix was signed by Governor Parson in one
Speaker 3: of the reddest of red states in all the land.
Speaker 3: And now a prosecutor in Missouri, whether in the city
Speaker 3: of Saint Louis or in an outstate rural county, can
Speaker 3: go to court at any time, whether it's ten years
Speaker 3: or twenty five or twenty eight, and go to court
Speaker 3: and say our office made a mistake. I'm here to
Speaker 3: fix it.
Speaker 1: And I believe one of the first to be exonerated
Speaker 1: under the Johnson Fix was Kevin Strickland, right, whose wrongful
Speaker 1: conviction was overturned in November of twenty twenty one after
Speaker 1: he had spent forty three years in prison.
Speaker 3: And there's others pending. He will not be the last,
Speaker 3: There's no doubt. And what a legacy for Lamar to leave.
Speaker 3: And we were so happy that it would help others.
Speaker 3: That was the whole point of it.
Speaker 1: And we've seen this same issue in another case that
Speaker 1: we've covered on this podcast, Ken Middleton. His trial judge
Speaker 1: edith Iss granted him a new trial in twenty four
Speaker 1: but this issue halted that new trial on appeal. Now,
Speaker 1: his current district attorney, Jean Peters Baker, who has acknowledged
Speaker 1: Ken's innocence. Even with this new statute refuses to act
Speaker 1: we'll have his episode linked in the bio. So with
Speaker 1: this lawn place, Kim Gardner filed a new motion repeating
Speaker 1: the claims made in the previous filing, and Judge David
Speaker 1: Mason held five days of hearings in December of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. And there is this wonderful moment from those
Speaker 1: hearings where Judge Mason is questioning Detective Nickerson about your
Speaker 1: non existent lazy eye, Lamar. I want to quote from
Speaker 1: it because it's just a masterclass in dismantling a witness
Speaker 1: on the stand. So basically, the judge was asking whether
Speaker 1: this lazy eye identification was enough that even if Nickerson
Speaker 1: thought that you know, Lamar, you had a lazy eye,
Speaker 1: which you do, not that this is this is the
Speaker 1: exact quote from that exchange, Judge Mason, you didn't think
Speaker 1: you needed to dig any further Nickerson, dig into what,
Speaker 1: Judge Mason, maybe a little more corroboration, something that could
Speaker 1: corroborate a little more than just the eye Nickerson. Well,
Speaker 1: mister Johnson matched the height, weight and age of what
Speaker 1: the witness had given and Judge Mason says that gentleman
Speaker 1: back there does too you want to arrest him. I mean,
Speaker 1: I probably didn't do it justice, but it really is
Speaker 1: worth watching. It's epic. You can find it on YouTube.
Speaker 1: In fact, we will link to it in the bio.
Speaker 1: And then on February fourteenth, twenty twenty three, Valentine's Day,
Speaker 1: Judge Mason found you factually innocent and vacated the conviction.
Speaker 1: You walked out of the courtroom that day a free man.
Speaker 2: Take me to that moment, it just felt like a
Speaker 2: heavy weight was being lifted. It's just the weight of
Speaker 2: like losing a close friend of mine, the weight of
Speaker 2: everything I'd lost over the last twenty eight years. It
Speaker 2: was just slowly lifting, and I was coming to believe
Speaker 2: that it actually was true. So that was that's how
Speaker 2: I felt.
Speaker 1: Can you tell me a little bit about your life today.
Speaker 2: Well, it's been fast, the Innocence Project, working with a
Speaker 2: very generous firm and people who kind of loan me
Speaker 2: an apartment to try to, you know, get me started,
Speaker 2: and I can actually take some time and decide what
Speaker 2: I want to do and how I can best use
Speaker 2: this experience to try to, you know, help others who
Speaker 2: are are either going through it or help them to
Speaker 2: avoid going through it. And that's ultimately what I want
Speaker 2: to do, is to just do my part and trying
Speaker 2: to make the system better, because it can be better.
Speaker 1: And have you been connecting with your daughters.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. My daughter is going to get married next month
Speaker 2: and she wants me to walk her down now, and
Speaker 2: I think that's something that every father looks forward to doing,
Speaker 2: so I'm very grateful at the timing. Oh and my
Speaker 2: other daughter she's engaged too, so I get a double
Speaker 2: a double daddy duty.
Speaker 1: That's wonderful. And if any of our listeners want to
Speaker 1: help support you in getting your life restarted, I know
Speaker 1: that the Midwest Innocence Project has set up a GoFundMe
Speaker 1: page for you, and we'll have links to that in
Speaker 1: the episode bio. So at this point, we have something
Speaker 1: on that podcast called Closing Arguments. And first of all,
Speaker 1: I want to thank you so much both of you
Speaker 1: for spending this time with me. It's just a mind blowing,
Speaker 1: heartbreaking and yet very inspiring story. And I commend both
Speaker 1: of you for your perseverance and your resilience and your fight. Really,
Speaker 1: if I could ask you guys to make your closing
Speaker 1: arguments in terms of what your takeaway is from your experience,
Speaker 1: and I'll ask you, Lindsey, to go first.
Speaker 3: You know, the motto of the Johnson team, which included
Speaker 3: so many incredible advocates at the Midwest Innocence Project and
Speaker 3: Lathrope and our little you know army, I guess, would
Speaker 3: continually would tell the press, tell ourselves the truth always
Speaker 3: finds a way, you know. And there were moments where
Speaker 3: we were amongst ourselves wondering if that was really true,
Speaker 3: if our mantra was going to be proven. You know,
Speaker 3: you know this was going to be right. And the
Speaker 3: deep relief that I have that it has has restored
Speaker 3: some of that old faith and fire that I had before.
Speaker 3: Because this system is a brilliant and beautiful system that
Speaker 3: we have. The Constitution provides everything that we need to
Speaker 3: ensure reliability, to ensure fairness, to conduct trials in a
Speaker 3: way that honors this uniquely American idea that is a
Speaker 3: really beautiful thing to be proud of. But the things
Speaker 3: that freed Lamar Johnson existed in nineteen ninety four for him,
Speaker 3: the Sixth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment. All
Speaker 3: of those things that are just brilliant protectors of these
Speaker 3: life and liberty and fairness and against overreach. Those things existed,
Speaker 3: but the levers weren't working. The people in charge weren't
Speaker 3: doing their job. This case couldn't have gone worse. At
Speaker 3: every single stop along the road. It failed. Every check,
Speaker 3: every safety valve that's built into this system failed in
Speaker 3: this case.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 3: On the on the second time around. It took too long,
Speaker 3: but it did work, and what happened out of it
Speaker 3: was the shining the crown jewel of the American system,
Speaker 3: which is it is touchstone of due process, truth, fairness
Speaker 3: and all of that righteousness. It took too long, it
Speaker 3: took too much. We should be ashamed, we should be angry,
Speaker 3: we should be motivated, but we should be proud still
Speaker 3: of this system that it can do it if we
Speaker 3: demand it, and we need folks to get in the
Speaker 3: game and demand it of their elected officials, of their prosecutors,
Speaker 3: of their state officials. I mean, it's the voters that
Speaker 3: demand the stuff. And this system's worth fighting for. It
Speaker 3: can get it right, it can do great things, and
Speaker 3: it did it in this case.
Speaker 2: Finally, Oh, I would start by repeating what Lindsay said.
Speaker 2: It is troubly the truth. We'll find a way in
Speaker 2: then it. You know that people can lie about it,
Speaker 2: deny it, or try to hide it, but it's there.
Speaker 2: It's going to them out. What I guess what I
Speaker 2: would add is that is gratitude. I mean, in spite
Speaker 2: of all that has happened and all the bad things
Speaker 2: that happened, there's still a lot to be grateful for
Speaker 2: in the end, and that's what I choose to hold
Speaker 2: on to at this point in my life. No, I mean,
Speaker 2: I've always said that just holding on to that anger
Speaker 2: is just trading one prison for another. And I've given
Speaker 2: too much of my time to that. And I would
Speaker 2: anybody who's going through that struggle of what I went through,
Speaker 2: there's hope they should be comforted in that and that
Speaker 2: my case is a testament of what can happen.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your guest host,
Speaker 1: Lauren Bright Pacheco. I'd like to thank executive producers Jason
Speaker 1: Flamm and Kevin Wardis for inviting me to be here.
Speaker 1: Special thanks also to our wonderful production team Connor Hall, Annie, Chelsea,
Speaker 1: Lyla Robinson and Jeff Cliburn. The music in this production
Speaker 1: comes from three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be
Speaker 1: sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on
Speaker 1: Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction,
Speaker 1: as well as Lava for Good. On all three platforms,
Speaker 1: you can find me online at Lauren Bright Pacheco, and
Speaker 1: you can find my podcasts Murder and Oregon, Murder and Illinois,
Speaker 1: and my latest Murder Miami wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
Speaker 1: in association with Signal Company Number one