Speaker 1: In the eighties and nineties, Los Angeles gang culture was
Speaker 1: much more nuanced than anyone outside of it bothered to know.
Speaker 1: For some, gangs meant socializing, while the criminal activity of
Speaker 1: others colored all affiliated with the same broad brush gangs
Speaker 1: were viewed as a problem that needed a swift and
Speaker 1: harsh solution, and it seems that simply connecting it defended
Speaker 1: to a gang was enough to get a conviction. While
Speaker 1: fifteen year old de Duardo Dombrica and eighteen year old
Speaker 1: John Clennie were affiliated with LAWNDEL thirteen for the girls,
Speaker 1: parties and camaraderie, three older LAWNDEL thirteen members, Santo Alvarez,
Speaker 1: Lester Momlre, and Chad Landrum were in it for the
Speaker 1: drugs and violence. On June twenty eighth, nineteen ninety seven,
Speaker 1: Antonio Alarkan, a rival gang member, was killed in a
Speaker 1: dry by shooting. A few days later, to escape unrelated charges,
Speaker 1: Santo Alvarez used his knowledge of that drive by to
Speaker 1: blame Duardo and John. A few weeks later, Alvarez, Monmore,
Speaker 1: and Landrum committed another murder, and the police were happy
Speaker 1: to pin Alvarez's role on a woman who knew the
Speaker 1: deceased rather than their star witness against Eduardo and John.
Speaker 1: With Alvarez's statement and a corrupt identification process that was
Speaker 1: immediately recanted and protested by the witness, the two boys
Speaker 1: were taken to trial. Chad Landrum was willing to confess
Speaker 1: to the drive bye, but his continued violence behind bars
Speaker 1: kept him unavailable. Despite both Alvarez and the witness's less
Speaker 1: than willing participation to trial, the prosecutor and the detectives
Speaker 1: were able to harp on at Duardo and John's gang
Speaker 1: affiliation in order to send them away for life without parole.
Speaker 1: This is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to wrongful conviction today.
Speaker 1: Recovering a case, it gives us a peek into the
Speaker 1: gang world of Los Angeles in the nineteen nineties and
Speaker 1: the way and will which the LAPD and the Prosecutor's
Speaker 1: office dealt with that issue. We have two men that
Speaker 1: were affected by those policies when they were just boys.
Speaker 1: There's a third wrongfully convicted person, Susan Mellen, from a
Speaker 1: related crime. She's not recording with us today, but their
Speaker 1: amazing lawyer is one of the founders of Innocence Matters.
Speaker 1: Deirdre O'Connor, Welcome to Wrongful Conviction. Thank you for having
Speaker 1: me and now our guests of honor, the two men themselves.
Speaker 1: You know, I always say this, but it's true. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry that you guys are here because of why you're here,
Speaker 1: but I'm really happy to have you on Wrongful Conviction today.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to introduce John Clenney first. John, thank
Speaker 1: you for being here with us today on Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me, And of.
Speaker 1: Course Ed Dobrique, thank you for joining.
Speaker 3: Us, Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: So you two guys grew up together. Can you give
Speaker 1: us a little background there.
Speaker 2: I've known Ed since I was about maybe fifteen. We
Speaker 2: both grew up in Londale, California. Londeal's kind of typical
Speaker 2: middle class city in the South Bay. You know, it
Speaker 2: has its little areas that aren't so great, and it's
Speaker 2: some areas are decent.
Speaker 3: So it's about ten minutes fifteen minutes from the beach.
Speaker 3: I think it's a nice city. It's got a good
Speaker 3: high school.
Speaker 1: So growing up in Lawndale, there was a gang in
Speaker 1: your neighborhood called the Lowndale thirteen.
Speaker 3: Well, we grew up there, and we were part of that.
Speaker 1: So you too grew up in the gang culture of
Speaker 1: Los Angeles in the eighties and nineties and really came
Speaker 1: of age in the nineties. And I think it's news
Speaker 1: to some people that the word gang and gang culture
Speaker 1: in general is a bit more nuanced than most of
Speaker 1: the country realized back then. You know, many of our
Speaker 1: listeners are old enough to remember seeing news reports of
Speaker 1: the violence associated with gangs, and that's pretty much all
Speaker 1: anyone outside of that culture knew about it at the time.
Speaker 1: Only negative connotations, of course, So society reacted to that
Speaker 1: perception by electing quote unquote tough on crime politicians who
Speaker 1: implemented these kinds of ham fisted policing tactics, which of
Speaker 1: course had very real effects, as you can both attest
Speaker 1: to locking people up for the sake of doing it,
Speaker 1: but not the right people, and in too many cases
Speaker 1: it's the wrong people, like in yours. But gang culture
Speaker 1: was not just criminality and violence, right, It was much
Speaker 1: more nuanced than that. Would you say that's an accurate depiction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure. Even in a single gang it may
Speaker 2: be like, you know, some people are just families, some
Speaker 2: people are just friends. Of course, you have a criminal
Speaker 2: element to it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone
Speaker 2: is involved in crime. The term gang is not a
Speaker 2: good one, but it's like when you're young and growing
Speaker 2: up and you experience the friendship and the camaraderie, and
Speaker 2: I mean that's kind of where you end up at,
Speaker 2: especially if you're growing up, like in a neighborhood, you
Speaker 2: know where gangs are there.
Speaker 3: You know, not everybody is on the same page, not
Speaker 3: everybody gets along. We were having fun, you know, whether
Speaker 3: we're trying to get girls, trying to have a good time,
Speaker 3: that's what it was. But you definitely had other guys
Speaker 3: that their version of fun or you know, what they
Speaker 3: would do is drugs and violence.
Speaker 4: What I think is true for all gangs, right is
Speaker 4: that there are little subsets inside the gangs where people
Speaker 4: gravitate towards certain activities, you know, chasing girls, maybe scoring
Speaker 4: some weed, that kind of thing. And there was that
Speaker 4: kind of group, and then there were the people like Payaso,
Speaker 4: which is Santo Alvarez, or Ghost Chad Landrum or Wicked
Speaker 4: lester Monlore that were really wanting to make a name
Speaker 4: for themselves. They were getting high all the time and
Speaker 4: doing some real vicious stuff, and they were the ones
Speaker 4: out there doing the drive bys and the kind of
Speaker 4: gratuitous violence that everybody associates gangs with.
Speaker 1: Did you get along with these guys?
Speaker 2: We know them. They're all significantly older than us. I
Speaker 2: knew Lester when I was growing up a little bit,
Speaker 2: like just as a younger kid, but he kind of
Speaker 2: went the drug y kind of violent route, and I
Speaker 2: just was there for kind of like the camaraderie and
Speaker 2: the friendships and the fun. I saw Santos on my
Speaker 2: block a lot here and there, and my neighbor that
Speaker 2: lived in the backhouse, I guess he got his radio stolen,
Speaker 2: you know, out of his car in my driveway, you know,
Speaker 2: and I always pretty much suspected Santos as being the
Speaker 2: one that stole it.
Speaker 1: You know. Okay, so so much for camaraderie. So this
Speaker 1: kind of accurately paints a picture of the divide that's
Speaker 1: at the crux of this story. And I mean by
Speaker 1: that the larger perception of gangs in the nineties, and
Speaker 1: then how the issue was dealt with, like I said,
Speaker 1: in a ham fisted kind of way, by detectives like
Speaker 1: the ones in this case. There was Sergeant Riggs, but
Speaker 1: also Marcella Win in a related case Deirdre. Have either
Speaker 1: of them had any other wrongful convictions that they've been tied.
Speaker 4: To Win certainly does. She's burial offender. There's at least
Speaker 4: five known people ob Anthony and Reggie Cole case. They
Speaker 4: were code defendants. It was Wynn's first murder case at
Speaker 4: South Bay Homicide.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we covered that case here on Rafel conviction and
Speaker 1: we'll have it linked in the bio.
Speaker 4: Then she had these two guys, Ed and John. Now
Speaker 4: she had a tangential role in that, but had she
Speaker 4: done the right thing, these guys would not have been
Speaker 4: in custody. She also had the Susan Mellon case where
Speaker 4: she relied on a non reliable person obviously unreliable, there
Speaker 4: was no question about it. And then she had another case,
Speaker 4: the Michelle Pulo's case, she relied on the same unreliable
Speaker 4: witness that she used against Susan Mellon.
Speaker 1: That is really disgusting tactic that we see over and
Speaker 1: over again revisiting and reusing the same useful liars like
Speaker 1: Mark Tevins did in The Bronx and Upper Manhattan and
Speaker 1: this kid Joey Morales, who was a witness in six
Speaker 1: different murders in each time he was out getting milk
Speaker 1: for his mom. And Danny Ringclen, who we interviewed on
Speaker 1: this podcast, which is still in prison three decades later
Speaker 1: because of this fake witness, and of course Mark Tevans.
Speaker 1: It looks like Win was cut from the same cloth.
Speaker 5: She was a terrible detective and didn't follow the rules
Speaker 5: at all.
Speaker 1: Now, as far as Sergeant Riggs is concerned, you're going
Speaker 1: to see what he does in this case in terms
Speaker 1: of the identification process, and one can only surmise that
Speaker 1: if he was so comfortable running rough shot over a
Speaker 1: witness who was protesting at the identification in the courtroom
Speaker 1: and in post conviction, Yeah, while at the identification, he's
Speaker 1: literally going, I can't see that far. I can't do
Speaker 1: this identification for you because I can't see. So this
Speaker 1: guy tried to stand up and do the right thing
Speaker 1: and was overruled and overridden and bullied by these cops.
Speaker 1: So it's fair to say that this is something that
Speaker 1: this particular officer had done before.
Speaker 5: The one thing I would say, Jason, in these in
Speaker 5: these gags cases, you know, all bets are off with
Speaker 5: these detectives, they can do whatever they want because they
Speaker 5: know that nobody has any sympathy. All they have to
Speaker 5: do is say the word gang member, and the prosecutors,
Speaker 5: the jurors, judges, everybody rallies around a conviction. So the
Speaker 5: rules are completely different in a gang case. And that's
Speaker 5: why you see detectives violate the rules as much as
Speaker 5: they do because they can.
Speaker 1: Get away with it, right. They violate the rules while
Speaker 1: lumping every gang member in under the umbrella of quote
Speaker 1: violent gang member, regardless of what subset of the gang
Speaker 1: that individual identified with. And what happened in this case,
Speaker 1: as happens unfortunately all over the country tragically, is that
Speaker 1: you have a violent character like Santo Alvarez who conveniently
Speaker 1: trades false information for his own freedom, and then he
Speaker 1: and they remain free, I mean, other people like him
Speaker 1: to commit more acts of violence while getting innocent folks
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted. And according to the fall information that Alvarez
Speaker 1: eventually gave the police. This story began to unfold on
Speaker 1: the day before the incident in question, June twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety seven, when a few kids from around the
Speaker 1: Lowndal thirteen neighborhood who were not in any way affiliated,
Speaker 1: were the victims of a drive by. This was allegedly
Speaker 1: perpetrated by members of the Lil Watts Gang. Now none
Speaker 1: of this was ever investigated or substantiated, but this story
Speaker 1: from Santo Alvarez was used as the alleged motive for
Speaker 1: a retaliatory drive by the following night. But did either
Speaker 1: of you guys even know the kids who were shot
Speaker 1: or shot at the night before, and particularly did you
Speaker 1: know nineteen year old Luis Madrano.
Speaker 2: I didn't know the guy. Those guys were not associates
Speaker 2: of Londo. They were not friends of Londo that I
Speaker 2: know of. But somehow, I guess to maybe create a
Speaker 2: motive for our case, they got brought into that as
Speaker 2: being a good way to say, oh, yeah, these guys
Speaker 2: are retaliating for this.
Speaker 1: And what happened the following night June twenty eight, nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety seven, was that a member of the Little Watts Gang,
Speaker 1: twenty five year old Antonio Alakhan, was at an autobody
Speaker 1: shop and while outside using the payphone next door, out
Speaker 1: of sight of those in the autobody shop, he was
Speaker 1: killed by a drive by shooter. Jeju what else can
Speaker 1: you tell us?
Speaker 4: Allar Khan had a truck that was being worked on
Speaker 4: over a period of time at the shop, and the
Speaker 4: shop owner, Daniel Curiel, was at the shop that night
Speaker 4: with a couple of other people in the shop and
Speaker 4: Aller Khan happened to stop by, and while he was there,
Speaker 4: I think he got a page and he wanted to
Speaker 4: use the phone to call this woman who turned out
Speaker 4: to be his mistress. So he was offered to use
Speaker 4: the inside phone, but he declined and decided to go
Speaker 4: outside because he wanted privacy. So he went out of
Speaker 4: the shop. There's an adjacent building and there's a payphone
Speaker 4: outside of that, and he went to the payphone to
Speaker 4: speak with his mistress, and then suddenly a car pulled up.
Speaker 4: Somebody got out of the car and just unloaded multiple
Speaker 4: shots and he was killed really, probably before he had
Speaker 4: any chance to react in any way. And then the
Speaker 4: shooter got back in the car and the car drove off,
Speaker 4: and as it drove off, it passed the opening of
Speaker 4: the body shop garage door. So basically there's the storefront
Speaker 4: on the corner adjacent to it is the body shop,
Speaker 4: but the body shop sits in from the sidewalk so
Speaker 4: that there's parking in front of it. So when you're
Speaker 4: inside the body shop with the door open and looking out,
Speaker 4: you would not have a direct line to the phone
Speaker 4: booth because the wall of the building would be blocking it.
Speaker 4: But once the car moved forward, they would be able
Speaker 4: to see the car.
Speaker 1: Pass by right, So no one actually got a good
Speaker 1: look at the shooter, including the shop owner, who told
Speaker 1: detectives that, but detectives cajoled him anyway into making an
Speaker 1: id that he has never supported. Curiel even demonstrated later
Speaker 1: at trial that he can't reliably see twenty feet in
Speaker 1: front of him. Can you talk a bit about his
Speaker 1: vantage point.
Speaker 4: Curio's working on a car with his back to the street.
Speaker 4: He hears the sound of the gunshots going off, but
Speaker 4: he thought it was fireworks, and because of the echoing effect,
Speaker 4: he thought it was coming from the back. So he
Speaker 4: goes to the back and he looks out to see
Speaker 4: what's going on back there, and that's when he realizes
Speaker 4: it's coming from the front. And by then the car
Speaker 4: is moving past the shop, so he would have been
Speaker 4: I think more than twenty feet away from the car
Speaker 4: at the time that he first observed it.
Speaker 1: So what he and others did see was that this
Speaker 1: was a black or dark green colored sedan and that
Speaker 1: the front passenger had yelled some kind of gang epithet
Speaker 1: at Alar Khan as they drove off. So this shooting
Speaker 1: happened around eleven pm on June twenty eighth, nineteen ninety seven.
Speaker 1: And from looking into this case, I realized that this
Speaker 1: state has some other significance and most of our audience
Speaker 1: will remember this like I do, because early that same night,
Speaker 1: Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear off during a heavyweight
Speaker 1: championship fight. So people remember that night very very clearly.
Speaker 1: In fact, you guys were friends. Ed was fifteen, John
Speaker 1: was eighteen, and you were hanging out to watch the
Speaker 1: fight together.
Speaker 3: Is that right, Yes, sir, Yeah, on the day of
Speaker 3: had you know, barbecue invited me.
Speaker 2: It was actually a great night. You know, we'd never
Speaker 2: seen something like that before, right, It was pretty memorable.
Speaker 2: There was multiple people there, you know, cooking, eating, drinking it.
Speaker 2: It was a good night.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was insane. I remember calling my friends and
Speaker 1: family just to check if they had seen it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, people called the house a few people and they're like,
Speaker 2: what the hell happened seeing it on the news, and
Speaker 2: you know if they didn't watch the fight, you know.
Speaker 1: Right, they knew you were watching and called to ask
Speaker 1: about it. You were seen on the front lawn talking
Speaker 1: on your cordless phone by a neighbor as well, who
Speaker 1: got home reundled. So not only the people at the party,
Speaker 1: but also those that called you and your neighbor, they
Speaker 1: all placed you at home at the time of the shooting,
Speaker 1: which was about an eight to twelve minute drive away
Speaker 1: from your home. And this shooting was alleged to be
Speaker 1: in retaliation for the shooting of some kid you didn't
Speaker 1: even know. Now, this case was being investigated by Sergeant DORYL.
Speaker 3: Riggs.
Speaker 1: Several days go by, and on July first, Santo Alvarez
Speaker 1: Akapayaso got picked up for possession of a weapon and
Speaker 1: a hypodermic needle by Torrence PD. And this is when
Speaker 1: the story start.
Speaker 2: So basically, Santos Alvarez is in jail, trying to find
Speaker 2: his way out of jail, starts telling the I believe
Speaker 2: it was a Torrance Police department where he was at.
Speaker 2: You know, hey, I know something about a murder that happened,
Speaker 2: and they called the Sheriff's Homicide.
Speaker 1: Right so Torrence PD called over to La County Sheriff's
Speaker 1: Homicide Department and Sergeant Riggs came to interview Santo Alvarez,
Speaker 1: and they started asking about this dark colored car, maybe black,
Speaker 1: perhaps green, and while distancing himself from Londeale gang activity,
Speaker 1: he said that the only person he can think of
Speaker 1: from Londale with a car like that was a guy
Speaker 1: named Robert Caputo. And he said that he saw the
Speaker 1: two of you in Kaputo's car on the day of
Speaker 1: the murder, among other things.
Speaker 2: But also Santo Alvarez creates this story that he saw
Speaker 2: me the day of the murder and I was upset
Speaker 2: about that shooting from the prior day of Luis Madrano
Speaker 2: and that I wanted to retaliate, and then he said
Speaker 2: that he saw me, like you know, a few days
Speaker 2: later or whatever, and says that he overhears me talking
Speaker 2: to someone else saying that I shot someone or blasted
Speaker 2: that for or something like along those lines is what
Speaker 2: he used. So with that, from my understanding, they let
Speaker 2: him out. Then they go back to the witnesses. I
Speaker 2: feel they put pressure the most on probably Daniel Curriel
Speaker 2: since he was a shop owner and showed him six
Speaker 2: packs and coerced him and who identifying us because of
Speaker 2: what Santos said.
Speaker 3: So you mentioned that Alva said that we were in
Speaker 3: Carpudle's car, right, but computer had turned that car in
Speaker 3: or sold it. They could tell there that he was
Speaker 3: lying about that, and that's a significant thing to lie
Speaker 3: about it. You said they were in a car that
Speaker 3: the guy doesn't have exactly.
Speaker 1: Capudle had sold it in February nineteen ninety seven, about
Speaker 1: five or six months before the shooting. Yet Riggs and
Speaker 1: his partner Garcia brought a six pack photo array over
Speaker 1: to Curiel with the purpose of getting him to id
Speaker 1: YouTube as if they couldn't spot that lie about Capudo's
Speaker 1: car right off the bat. This bogus photo lineup happened
Speaker 1: on July tenth, I believe, before Ed's arrest, and Curiel
Speaker 1: has always disputed this, but Riggs says that he identified
Speaker 1: Ed as the shooter and John is the front passenger.
Speaker 1: He held a gang epithet. So what really happened here?
Speaker 2: Well, Riggs convinces him basically, look, you're never going to
Speaker 2: have to go to court. We don't even need you
Speaker 2: this is just to help our case a little bit.
Speaker 2: We already got these guys, but in reality he was
Speaker 2: their entire case. So he convinces Curiel to say, all right,
Speaker 2: I'll sign for you today.
Speaker 3: My arrest July tenth, nineteen ninety seven, on my way
Speaker 3: to the gym with a friend, and he noticed that
Speaker 3: there was cow cars behind us, and there was three
Speaker 3: of them, and then there was three coming in front
Speaker 3: of us. It had a bad feeling, like this is
Speaker 3: not a traffic ticket. They pulled us over, pulled the
Speaker 3: guns out, drive us off the car, and one of
Speaker 3: my mom's friends happened to be driving by, and so
Speaker 3: she was across the street just observing. But I was
Speaker 3: trying to communicate with her to call my mom. Dude.
Speaker 3: I didn't want my mom not to know what happened
Speaker 3: to me either, you know. So I was fifteen. They
Speaker 3: tried me as an adult, and they sent me to
Speaker 3: the county jail, and I found myself in a very
Speaker 3: binding section of the ale and that was my kind
Speaker 3: of introduction to the system.
Speaker 4: Three weeks after the Alercan shooting, Santo Alvarez, Lester Moanler,
Speaker 4: and Chad Landrum were hanging out in this house that
Speaker 4: had been vacated that was referred to as the Melon
Speaker 4: Patch because the family that owned it their last name
Speaker 4: was Melon. So they break in the back. They're getting high.
Speaker 4: A homeless guy, Richard Daly, who had prior connection with
Speaker 4: the woman who used to live there, Susan Mellon, stops by.
Speaker 4: They're originally partying with him, and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 4: Chad Landrum viciously attacks Daily maxis head multiple times with
Speaker 4: a hammer and kills him. And then with the help
Speaker 4: of Santo and Lester, they wrap up the body and
Speaker 4: bring it to an alley in San Pedro, where they
Speaker 4: set it on fire in hopes of destroying any evidence.
Speaker 4: Said well, enable the police to connect them.
Speaker 1: Right, And you all didn't find out about this until
Speaker 1: post conviction, even though the person who prosecuted both Ed
Speaker 1: and John prosecuted this case as well. And we talked
Speaker 1: a bit about her before. But the Daily murder fell
Speaker 1: on Marcella Win's desk, right, All of these informants came
Speaker 1: to her saying it was Piasso ghost and wicked with
Speaker 1: the hammer right in the Melon Patch, open and shut, right,
Speaker 1: But that's not what happened. This person Susan Mellon ended
Speaker 1: up getting dragged into it in Piaso's stead right instead
Speaker 1: of him. How did that happen?
Speaker 4: Well, I think initially when she takes the path of
Speaker 4: least resistance in all of her investigations, So when people
Speaker 4: were handing up the three gang members, she was going
Speaker 4: to pursue that and go after them. She even submitted
Speaker 4: an Affi David for arrest warrants for all three of them. However,
Speaker 4: she doesn't want to do any heavy lifting, so there
Speaker 4: wasn't enough evidence for the DA to pursue Piasso and
Speaker 4: Wynn didn't do the investigation she needed to build a
Speaker 4: case against them. So at the same time that it
Speaker 4: was becoming clear that she'd have to work to get
Speaker 4: Piasso further implicated in it, this other tweaker, June Patty,
Speaker 4: came along and said, Hey, I got some information on Melon.
Speaker 4: You can pursue her. And so Wind shifted gears and
Speaker 4: went after Melon. And while she was doing this, she
Speaker 4: was in communication with Riggs about Piasso's role as a
Speaker 4: witness as their star witness in that case. So in
Speaker 4: those conversations that were never documented, the substance of that
Speaker 4: was never documented. Clearly these detectives made decisions that benefited
Speaker 4: both of them. So Riggs was allowed to use Piasso
Speaker 4: in the Alarkan shooting, and Win was free to pursue Melon,
Speaker 4: another innocent person, for the Daily murder.
Speaker 1: So ultimately, Chad Landrum and Lester Monlaur were rightfully pursued,
Speaker 1: along with Susan Mellon, who was wrongfully pursued. They were
Speaker 1: all tried separately, and Landrum and Mellon were both convicted.
Speaker 1: Monlare was acquitted, So both Monlare and Alvarez got off
Speaker 1: scott free, ready willing and able to commit even more crimes.
Speaker 1: That's right, yeah, Jesus Christ. So now August fourteenth rolls
Speaker 1: around and John, you were arrested for the alar Khan
Speaker 1: drive by as the front seat passenger.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was a shocker obviously, but for the first
Speaker 2: you know, six months of going to jail. When I
Speaker 2: got arrested, I thought the next court date they would realize, hey,
Speaker 2: this guy's not supposed to be here. We're going to
Speaker 2: go ahead and release them, and you know, every court
Speaker 2: date turned into a next court date till I finally realized, like,
Speaker 2: these guys are serious, they really you know, they're really
Speaker 2: trying to charge me with this.
Speaker 1: So now October thirtieth, nineteen ninety seven, curial was brought
Speaker 1: into view a live lineup, and on the advice of
Speaker 1: your lawyer, John, you tried to change your appearance. So
Speaker 1: even though you were innocent of this crime, this move
Speaker 1: made you look not so great.
Speaker 2: My lawyer, Frank ta Jacomo, he tells me, you know, hey,
Speaker 2: this guy, he's already seen pictures of you. They've shown
Speaker 2: him your six pack or whatever. Let's kind of make
Speaker 2: it a little more difficult for him to pick you out. So,
Speaker 2: you know, grow your hair out, shave your mustache. And
Speaker 2: I'm listening to the advice of my attorney, So I say,
Speaker 2: all right, you know, I grow my hair out, shave
Speaker 2: my mustache. I go to my lineup and then I'm waiting.
Speaker 2: They bring me off the stage from the lineup, and
Speaker 2: the deputy is like, who are you? And I'm like,
Speaker 2: what do you mean you're not John Plenty?
Speaker 1: Who are you?
Speaker 2: And I'm like, yes, I am, And he's like, no
Speaker 2: one recognizes you out there. Your lawyer doesn't recognize you,
Speaker 2: the detective doesn't recognize you. You did you switch wristbands
Speaker 2: and I'm like, no, I didn't switch wristbands like it's me,
Speaker 2: you know, And I said, how does my lawyer not
Speaker 2: recognize me? He just saw me two weeks ago. He's
Speaker 2: the one that told me to change my appearance. Little
Speaker 2: did I know that was going to be used against me.
Speaker 2: They used that as a sign of a consciousness of guilt.
Speaker 1: So later on Curio and identifying you in the live lineup,
Speaker 1: he went on to testify that he had just recognized
Speaker 1: John from the photo race and in referring to Riggs, quote,
Speaker 1: I already knew who he was looking for. End quote.
Speaker 1: Now you two are on your way to be tried together,
Speaker 1: and Chad Landrum has already been convicted and sentenced to
Speaker 1: life without the possibility of parole. Amazingly, Landrum reached out
Speaker 1: to Ed's family because he wanted to come clean about
Speaker 1: the Alarchan drive by.
Speaker 3: He wanted to testify in the case. And my Lord
Speaker 3: did bring him down to our trial or it was
Speaker 3: maybe a pre trial pullust or something, and they never
Speaker 3: got his statement. It didn't give him a chance to
Speaker 3: testify or confess.
Speaker 1: From what I've read, there's a reason why he didn't
Speaker 1: get that chance. He was actually brought down to the courthouse.
Speaker 2: What happened, Yeah, I guess he got into it or
Speaker 2: something with someone. I think it was on the bus
Speaker 2: or not too sure, but he ended up stabbing him
Speaker 2: in the courthouse tank and that was the end of that.
Speaker 1: So you're one shot at getting around the false testimony
Speaker 1: of Alvarez, and this protested identification just got dragged away
Speaker 1: for acting out violently again stabbing another guy. And then
Speaker 1: you go to trial in La County Superior Court and
Speaker 1: no one brought up Landrum's involvement or went again an
Speaker 1: affidavit nothing. So Ed was represented by Walter Urban and
Speaker 1: John by Frank Dajacomo. The prosecutor was Valerie Cole, and
Speaker 1: so the prosecution's theory was that Ed, John and a
Speaker 1: third Londale thirteen gang member were in the dark green car.
Speaker 1: John was in the front passenger seat, Ed was in
Speaker 1: the back seat, and Ed was the shooter. So they
Speaker 1: never caught up with this alleged driver. Right, John allegedly
Speaker 1: shouted an epithet about the Little Watch gang. This was
Speaker 1: allegedly retaliation for this other shooting. But of course this
Speaker 1: entire theory came from Santo Alvarez who was deflecting the
Speaker 1: blame from his own crew. What was presented by the
Speaker 1: prosecution to support this wacky ass theory.
Speaker 4: The prosecution was entirely dependent on pre trial statements of
Speaker 4: Santo Alvarez and the pre trial identification of Curio. At
Speaker 4: the actual trial, Curio did not identify either Ed or John.
Speaker 4: He specifically testified that the only reason he made the
Speaker 4: pre trial identification was because he was, you know, kind
Speaker 4: of pressure to and he gave the whole story about
Speaker 4: how the police pointed out the pictures and said, hey,
Speaker 4: this guy's bragging about it, this guy was in the
Speaker 4: front seat, this guy's a shooter, or all that. So
Speaker 4: the jurors weren't basing their verdict on what the testimony
Speaker 4: in front of them. They were basing their verdict on
Speaker 4: the statements made outside of their presence. Same thing with Payaso.
Speaker 4: When he gets into trial, he's like, I don't know,
Speaker 4: I don't know, I don't know what I said, might
Speaker 4: have said whatever. So they use the tape recording of
Speaker 4: the statement that Paiasso made to Rigs and by the way,
Speaker 4: they rehearsed it before they did the official tape. Right
Speaker 4: they talked to him off record, and then they put
Speaker 4: the tape on and they talked to them, and so
Speaker 4: the jurors were told, hey, look it, this is a
Speaker 4: gang case. Piasso doesn't want to come in here and
Speaker 4: rat out his homies. So you can believe what he
Speaker 4: said to Riggs when he's trying to get out of custody,
Speaker 4: and Curiol, poor Curial, he's being intimidated and threatened by
Speaker 4: all these gang members. So that's why he's not going
Speaker 4: to say it in front of you all. But he
Speaker 4: looked what he said to the cops. You know, he
Speaker 4: made this idea, and that was the entirety of the
Speaker 4: prosecutor's case. And the other thing she did, without any
Speaker 4: legitimate basis for doing so, is she made every single
Speaker 4: one of the alibi witnesses look like liars and made
Speaker 4: it sound like the alibi was this last minute defense
Speaker 4: that defense lawyers put together at the very end, when
Speaker 4: John's mother had presented the lawyers with line by line,
Speaker 4: minute by minute timeline of where everybody was, who showed up, when,
Speaker 4: who left, when, the names, the phone numbers and all
Speaker 4: of that the day she hired John's lawyer, So the
Speaker 4: alibi was known right from the get go, but the
Speaker 4: jurors were misled into believing it was all some fabrication
Speaker 4: by the tricky defense lawyers.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can see how you could impeach alibi
Speaker 1: witnesses as friends and loved ones, or as they did
Speaker 1: in this case, fellow gang members and friends of lou
Speaker 1: till thirteen. So the message is that everyone is gang
Speaker 1: related and therefore lying. But your lawyer could have backed
Speaker 1: up the alibi with phone records. It's not that complicated.
Speaker 1: It but even without that support though, from what I understand,
Speaker 1: the one witness that was used in this corrupt identification process, Curiel,
Speaker 1: was adamant that he did not stand by this identification.
Speaker 1: Did he really take off his glasses to demonstrate how
Speaker 1: bad his vision was, because that would have been pretty powerful.
Speaker 1: Does anyone remember that? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I remember that he took off his glasses in court
Speaker 2: and couldn't see anything. I mean, you could tell he
Speaker 2: couldn't see anything. You know when when someone I can
Speaker 2: take off my glasses and you can tell I need
Speaker 2: them just by looking at me. So, I mean, it
Speaker 2: was amazing, man, it was.
Speaker 1: It was crazy.
Speaker 3: Another thing that I remember happening with the district attorney.
Speaker 3: She said that I gave him my thumbs up.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I read about that to Curio like as if
Speaker 1: he was helping you out.
Speaker 3: And I'm curious, now she's ever used that tactic against
Speaker 3: other defendants, because the whole courtroom focused on me, and
Speaker 3: this is did you just give the guy a thumbs up?
Speaker 3: And open court room? Now mine? He wasn't doing me
Speaker 3: any favors. There was no reason, and I did not
Speaker 3: give him a thumbs up. I'm looking at the jury
Speaker 3: like I did not. But it was effective. Yeah, that
Speaker 3: was that was dirty.
Speaker 1: It sounds like they were just running the disgraceful place book.
Speaker 1: I mean, part of Curiro's testimony was that the cops
Speaker 1: just convinced him that they had the right guys, and
Speaker 1: at that time, everyone believed the police right. And then
Speaker 1: all they had to do was say gang and gang
Speaker 1: member enough times and it's almost like Pavlov's dog. It
Speaker 1: just almost a knee jerk reaction from the jury to say, okay, great,
Speaker 1: when do I get to vote guilty. The alibis and
Speaker 1: the witness protesting the identification just didn't seem to matter
Speaker 1: at all.
Speaker 2: You got it one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: And then though that thumbs up in there if I.
Speaker 4: Could jump in on that point. And in LA they
Speaker 4: created this hardcore gang unit in the late eighties I
Speaker 4: believe it was eighty eight or eighty nine, and the
Speaker 4: whole purpose of that hardcore gang unit was like, damn,
Speaker 4: it's hard to prove these cases because everybody's a liar
Speaker 4: and everybody has baggage, and we don't have good witnesses.
Speaker 4: We got to figure out a way. And basically what
Speaker 4: they did was they created this unit where they recruited
Speaker 4: all these over zealous prosecutors and say, hey, you get
Speaker 4: to be the shining star here and you can make
Speaker 4: these cases that nobody else can make. And then they
Speaker 4: gave them strategies for how to do that. How do
Speaker 4: what's the work around when you really can't prove your
Speaker 4: case beyond a reasonable doubt, Just say gang, gang, Gang, Gang, gang,
Speaker 4: as many times as you can make everything be about
Speaker 4: scaring the hell out of the jurors and making them
Speaker 4: think that whoever sitting in the defenden seat is the
Speaker 4: worst person in the world just because they happened to
Speaker 4: have affiliated with a gang for whatever reason, and regardless
Speaker 4: of their level of involvement, Let's get them off the street.
Speaker 4: Evidence be damned.
Speaker 1: Even their use of the word homies. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: a racist dog whistle if I ever heard one.
Speaker 2: I saw the gang gang gang push by the prosecutor,
Speaker 2: by the you know, by the detectives. You know, I
Speaker 2: saw my lawyer not do a good job at all.
Speaker 2: The combination of all those things. I felt my life
Speaker 2: slipping away from.
Speaker 3: Me when they read the verdict. I remember they heard,
Speaker 3: you know, my family, my mom welling. I remember looking
Speaker 3: up at the lights in the court room trying to not,
Speaker 3: you know, let no tears come out. Man.
Speaker 2: I think I probably did shed a couple tears. You know,
Speaker 2: people talk about the worst moment in their life, that
Speaker 2: was for sure the worst moment right there.
Speaker 3: You know, I get to prison on brand new. I
Speaker 3: don't know what to expect. I know that I'm surrounded
Speaker 3: by a bunch of guys that are violent, angry, confrontational,
Speaker 3: and so I'm navigating through that. You got to walk
Speaker 3: on eggshells to be sure. And I used to work
Speaker 3: out a lot because if I did end up having
Speaker 3: to get into a confrontation, I wanted to be able
Speaker 3: to defend myself, and so I used to work out
Speaker 3: for three hours a day. In the beginning.
Speaker 2: I tell people this story all the time, like my
Speaker 2: kind of welcome to prison moment. I'm scared, but I'm
Speaker 2: also trying not to show fear. You know, that's not
Speaker 2: a good idea in prison. I'm walking on the yard
Speaker 2: some guys sitting down on a curb, and as I'm walking, I'm,
Speaker 2: you know, probably a foot or two away from him,
Speaker 2: and a guy comes up behind him and just slices
Speaker 2: his whole face open, from like his lip to his ear.
Speaker 2: And just seeing that happen, like, you know, a foot
Speaker 2: away from me, it was like, where the fuck am I? So,
Speaker 2: like Ed said, it's just survival.
Speaker 1: Mode, that's it.
Speaker 3: As soon as I could, I started to read books,
Speaker 3: and then I learned that, you know, the way the
Speaker 3: criminal appeal process works is your lawyer is gonna dump
Speaker 3: the case on you, and then it's going to be
Speaker 3: on you to represent yourself. And that's when I started
Speaker 3: to go into the library. I wouldn't go to the yard.
Speaker 3: I would go to the library instead, because you go
Speaker 3: me chose one of the other. And started to learn
Speaker 3: the law. And then I found myself in solitary and
Speaker 3: I had to try to figure out way how am
Speaker 3: I going to get out of solitary was? I started
Speaker 3: to study solitary confinement cases and I put together a
Speaker 3: memorandum of law on why lawyers should come to California
Speaker 3: and challenge long term solitary confinement. And in those efforts
Speaker 3: I managed to meet Professor Jose Lobel from the University
Speaker 3: of Pittsburgh. It was through his student Brett grow who's
Speaker 3: now the director of the Abolitionist Law Center. They read
Speaker 3: my memorandum, they researched it, and they decided to come
Speaker 3: to California follow a class action, and that case settled
Speaker 3: in twenty fifteen, twenty fourteen. And you know, I was
Speaker 3: partly responsible for getting guys that had been in there
Speaker 3: for thirty five years, twenty eight years, twenty seven years. Myself,
Speaker 3: I was there for thirteen years. It is one of
Speaker 3: the things that I've done in my life that I
Speaker 3: still feel the rewards of because today there's people that
Speaker 3: are outside and seeing the sky, seeing their family, and
Speaker 3: that is due to the work that I did. Obviously,
Speaker 3: I wasn't acted alone. I had there was a team
Speaker 3: of lawyers. But I put in the work and it
Speaker 3: paid off.
Speaker 1: Well. You should be very proud of that, and as
Speaker 1: part of that settlement, California can no longer put a
Speaker 1: prisoner in solitary confinement for indeterminate periods. In Ed's case,
Speaker 1: it was thirteen years with no end in sight, simply
Speaker 1: based upon alleged gang membership. So now that you fought
Speaker 1: your way out of the prison. Within the prison, let's
Speaker 1: get to how you guys are here speaking with us today.
Speaker 1: So your initial appeals were denied. As far as I
Speaker 1: could see here, there's no real movement on this until
Speaker 1: Landrum once again reached out to Ed's family, saying that
Speaker 1: he wanted to confess to murdering Alarcon. Right, we knew
Speaker 1: this already, but I guess he hadn't ever gone on
Speaker 1: the record about it and wasn't exactly easily reachable. He
Speaker 1: was also by this time in solitary doing life without parole.
Speaker 1: So John, take us through this.
Speaker 2: My friend told me when I got convicted, like, I'm
Speaker 2: going to get you a lawyer. I don't care how
Speaker 2: long it takes, you know, once I can afford one,
Speaker 2: I'm going to get you one. So when this stuff
Speaker 2: came up with Landrum, that's when I talked to my
Speaker 2: best friend and I told him, you know, now's the time,
Speaker 2: you know, this guy's coming forward and confessing, like we
Speaker 2: need to get a lawyer, and thank god we got
Speaker 2: deir Dr.
Speaker 4: John's friend reached out to me in May of twenty twelve,
Speaker 4: and what had happened prior to that was Chad Landrum
Speaker 4: had written out a confession and provided it to Ed's
Speaker 4: family and then Ed used it to file his own
Speaker 4: habeas petition, but he didn't have any resources or a
Speaker 4: lawyer to help him, so it was just the paper
Speaker 4: that went in and the juds just dismissed it without
Speaker 4: any thoughtful analysis at all. So when John's friend reached
Speaker 4: out to me, the first thing we did is we
Speaker 4: scheduled a trip to Pelican Bay to meet with Chad
Speaker 4: Landrum and Ed Dunbriky. Both of them were in the
Speaker 4: shoe unit and they had no ability to communicate with
Speaker 4: one another. My sense of it was if there was
Speaker 4: merit to Chad Landrum's confession, we needed to do a
Speaker 4: lot more work to build it up, and so we
Speaker 4: asked all kinds of details, including who else would have
Speaker 4: known back in the day about Chad's role in this
Speaker 4: killing and the details he had not a single note
Speaker 4: in front of him reminding him about any of the
Speaker 4: details of the case, and he could give me specific
Speaker 4: information consistent with the police report, including the fact that
Speaker 4: he got out of the car and shot alar Khan.
Speaker 4: There were only two witnesses that saw that they were
Speaker 4: women across the street, and they were never used in
Speaker 4: the trial, so none of that was in the trial record.
Speaker 4: All of the people from the auto body shop never
Speaker 4: saw anybody out of the car because the car doesn't
Speaker 4: come into their line of sight until after the shooting
Speaker 4: is done. He also knew that Alercan was shot with
Speaker 4: different types of bullets. That was a fact that, although
Speaker 4: it was contained in the records, would not be something
Speaker 4: that some random person would have known about. So there
Speaker 4: was a lot of key points in Chad Landrum's statements
Speaker 4: to me that made me think that he probably was
Speaker 4: telling the truth, And so I asked him to tell
Speaker 4: me confirmation as to who else knew back then, and
Speaker 4: he told me his brother knew, and we followed up
Speaker 4: and talked to the brother, and the brother gave us
Speaker 4: all kinds of information, And I also asked Chad if
Speaker 4: he would take a polygraph, and he immediately agreed to,
Speaker 4: but the prison wouldn't allow us to go up there,
Speaker 4: and so then, you know, all of the places you
Speaker 4: would go logically in an investigation like this, including contacting
Speaker 4: Curiel stop by his work out of the blue, and
Speaker 4: he agrees to talk to us at an eyehap as
Speaker 4: soon as he gets off of work, and he lays
Speaker 4: it all out. He tells us consistent with his recantation, everything,
Speaker 4: and it's all on tape, so nobody can say we
Speaker 4: put words in his mouth or anything. And then we
Speaker 4: did the same thing with all the alibi witnesses to
Speaker 4: find out, you know, was there more that could have
Speaker 4: been done to show that they were telling the truth,
Speaker 4: including the logical things like phone records and other people
Speaker 4: who could corroborate what they said. And it all fell
Speaker 4: into place, and it was like I remember talking to John.
Speaker 4: You know, we filed our brief in three months after investigation,
Speaker 4: and we felt like, this is a no brainer. He
Speaker 4: should be out that year.
Speaker 1: I think that's how we all hope our system works,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately that's not how it usually goes, and this
Speaker 1: was no exception. So John's habeas was filed in October
Speaker 1: twenty twelve. He presented all this material, and like you said,
Speaker 1: it was a no brainer. In twenty thirteen, Landram made
Speaker 1: a formal confession on the record, then ed joined the
Speaker 1: Havieus as well. So it seems like they're there's a
Speaker 1: lot of momentum. And in an effort to further support
Speaker 1: Landrum's confession, you reached out to his co defendant on
Speaker 1: the Richard Daily Murder, another wrongfully convicted person, Susan Mallon Right.
Speaker 4: So we went and visited her. There were some delays
Speaker 4: along the way because she was being represented by someone else,
Speaker 4: but a year later I ended up representing her and
Speaker 4: in a lot of what I needed to prove her
Speaker 4: innocence overlapped with what I needed to prove for John
Speaker 4: and ultimately ed because there were so many witnesses in common,
Speaker 4: and representing Susan gave me access to witnesses that I
Speaker 4: didn't have before that.
Speaker 1: So this is twenty fourteen, Landram and even Alvarez one
Speaker 1: on the record confessing to their roles in the Daily
Speaker 1: Murder and clearing Susan of any responsibility. And after seventeen
Speaker 1: years in prison, seventeen long years, Susan's conviction was vacated
Speaker 1: charges were dismissed, and she went on to sue Marcello
Speaker 1: win and won twelve million. Good for her, So we're
Speaker 1: obviously very happy for Susan. That seemed to be our
Speaker 1: system operating at the speed that it should, I mean,
Speaker 1: notwithstanding the seventeen long years wrongfully incarcerated, but for John
Speaker 1: and Ed. There was a court order in November of
Speaker 1: twenty twelve for the DA to respond to this habeas petition.
Speaker 1: What happened, Deirdre?
Speaker 4: There was one delay after another. There was transfers of
Speaker 4: district attorneys and all kinds of stuff that just a
Speaker 4: month turned into six month, turned into a year, turned
Speaker 4: into five years. And it's hard. I can't even imagine,
Speaker 4: excuse meey, what it's like for these guys to have
Speaker 4: to count on a lawyer on the outside saying, don't worry,
Speaker 4: I got you back. I'm I'm going to do this,
Speaker 4: you know, I'm going to get it taken care of,
Speaker 4: when they have been disappointed every step of the way,
Speaker 4: and I, you know, my experience of it is like,
Speaker 4: you know, the frustration I feel on my end can't
Speaker 4: even begin to compere to what these guys are going through.
Speaker 1: Right. Imagine having the keys to the prison gate staring
Speaker 1: you in the face for eight years before the district
Speaker 1: attorney or the courts even pretend to not ignore them.
Speaker 1: It wasn't until twenty twenty that a judge finally made
Speaker 1: a ruling that amounts to basically a brain fart of
Speaker 1: a man in cognitive decline. So tell us about this judge,
Speaker 1: Edmund Clark Junior, and how this thing finally turned around.
Speaker 4: So it was clear we weren't going to be able
Speaker 4: to force anybody's hand until we filed this supplemental brief.
Speaker 4: And I mean this is this brief because of all
Speaker 4: of the evidence that was developed during Susan Mellon's case
Speaker 4: was even stronger than what we had, and we had
Speaker 4: a clear winner from the beginning. But it lands in
Speaker 4: the hands of a judge who couldn't care less, and
Speaker 4: in a heartbeat, without any hearing or anything, he denies it.
Speaker 4: He characterizes it as a pro say pro per petition.
Speaker 4: When I have my name all over it, it's clear
Speaker 4: I'm representing him and I had already been on the
Speaker 4: and he completely distorted the history of it and made
Speaker 4: it sound like it was a brand new petition. That
Speaker 4: was relitigating issues that had already been decided against John.
Speaker 4: So he dismissed it and then he retired soon after that.
Speaker 4: So I file two motions, one for reconsideration and one
Speaker 4: for a ruling on the original petition. And either way
Speaker 4: we were prepared to go to the Court of appeal.
Speaker 4: That's where we thought we were going to end up.
Speaker 4: But fortunately the judge who took the other judge's place
Speaker 4: really was concerned that this might be a case involving
Speaker 4: innocent people, and she told the DA you're going to
Speaker 4: need to commit get yourself on paper, tell me what
Speaker 4: your position is on this case, because if these are
Speaker 4: innocent people, we have to deal with it. And once
Speaker 4: they were forced to deal with it, then they submitted.
Speaker 4: Then they just read the document and answered the document.
Speaker 4: Back in twenty twelve, it would have been the same
Speaker 4: answer they submitted. They said that based on the cumulative
Speaker 4: error in the case, that the conviction should be vacated
Speaker 4: and they were not going to pursue the charges. They
Speaker 4: were going to recommend that it'd be dismissed. They could
Speaker 4: have done that back in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: I'm rarely at a loss for words, but this just
Speaker 1: really makes my stomach turn. I mean, it's just so
Speaker 1: it makes me so angry, frustrated, and just I feel
Speaker 1: a sense of deep sadness. And this didn't even happen
Speaker 1: to me, But I just hate injustice. And this is
Speaker 1: such a grotesque example of the system at its worst.
Speaker 1: We see it a lot on the show, but this one,
Speaker 1: this one's really leaving a bitter taste. But the silver lining,
Speaker 1: of course, is that you're out, even if it took
Speaker 1: so much longer that it should have, and never mind
Speaker 1: that it should have never even happened in the first place.
Speaker 1: And John, I understand that despite it all, you have
Speaker 1: somehow managed to maintain a positive outlook.
Speaker 2: Every day is a blessing for sure, you know. And
Speaker 2: as each day goes by, it seems so much farther
Speaker 2: away from everything that happened. But it just feels great
Speaker 2: to be out and great to be free. And words
Speaker 2: can't express it or describe it. Really.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I get in arrested at fifteen and
Speaker 3: sent off to prison. There's a lot of things in
Speaker 3: normal society that I've never experienced, you know. Just this
Speaker 3: last year was the first time I took a plane ride.
Speaker 3: First time I've been to a lake, to a river,
Speaker 3: but also like the first time I had to pay bills,
Speaker 3: the first time I had to keep up with appointments, responsibilities,
Speaker 3: balancing school and work. What I'm finding is that it
Speaker 3: doesn't just fall into place. It doesn't and I'm working
Speaker 3: through that. But there are times when I feel a
Speaker 3: little bit lost out here. I really do, I really do,
Speaker 3: But I'm confident and optimistic that it's going to come together.
Speaker 1: And Ed, I understand that you'd like to start a nonprofit.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us a little bit about what you're
Speaker 1: doing now.
Speaker 3: I applied for a job in Pittsburgh at a nonprofit,
Speaker 3: the Abolitionist Law Center. I'm hopeful that I get the job.
Speaker 3: If I do, I'm headed out that way in order
Speaker 3: for me to work there, but also to learn about
Speaker 3: nonprofits and how it runs, and with the goal of
Speaker 3: creating my own. I want to call it juvenile Justice
Speaker 3: for All, and the goal would be to have children
Speaker 3: treated equally and fairly, to have their parents rights respected.
Speaker 3: That a lot of times they just adopt adult laws.
Speaker 3: The adult prison system doesn't help children at all. I
Speaker 3: look to filing cases in court, but also working on
Speaker 3: policy changes speaking to other nonprofits and getting them to
Speaker 3: support some of these ideas. My goal is to have
Speaker 3: a uniform system in America treating children equally and fairly
Speaker 3: across the board. Ed.
Speaker 1: You've already been able to accomplish so much from behind bars,
Speaker 1: so we're going to be on the lookout for juvenile
Speaker 1: justice for all. And we'll also link to Innocence Matters,
Speaker 1: the organization that Deirdre co founded, so please show them
Speaker 1: your support, and John's Instagram as well, where he'll keep
Speaker 1: you up to date on the continued fight for justice.
Speaker 1: In this case. The courts are still trying to deny
Speaker 1: the factual innocence claim here, but after what we've heard
Speaker 1: here today, I can't see any reason for it. And
Speaker 1: with that, we're going to go to closing arguments, where
Speaker 1: first of all, I thank each of you from the
Speaker 1: bottom of my heart for joining us here, and then
Speaker 1: I'm gonna kick back in my chair, shut my microphone off,
Speaker 1: and leave my headphones on and just listen to anything
Speaker 1: else you feel is left to be said. Deirdre please
Speaker 1: start us off, and then we'll leave it to the
Speaker 1: guys to take us off into the sunset.
Speaker 4: I think that it's essential for these stories to be told,
Speaker 4: and I'm so grateful that you guys give people like
Speaker 4: John and Ed the opportunity to tell the story said
Speaker 4: they live through. I think it's important for the public
Speaker 4: to understand how fallible the system is, and I wish
Speaker 4: it was limited to the nineties, but I represent people
Speaker 4: who are charged today. It's the same fight, the same struggle,
Speaker 4: and we've got to get it right the first time.
Speaker 4: We have to want to get it right the first time,
Speaker 4: because it doesn't serve anybody, even if all we care
Speaker 4: about collectively as a society is the money.
Speaker 3: Aspect of this.
Speaker 4: We're throwing money away. We're paying for people to be
Speaker 4: housed in prisons for crimes they didn't commit, and the
Speaker 4: real criminals are out there committing other crimes. So we
Speaker 4: need to get it right. We need to want to
Speaker 4: get it right, and we need to applaud people like
Speaker 4: John and Ed who have gone through hell and back,
Speaker 4: and we need to make their lives easier once they
Speaker 4: get out. We need to help them in whatever way
Speaker 4: we can.
Speaker 3: Well, I do appreciate this opportunity to speak about our
Speaker 3: case and what we went through. I know that there's
Speaker 3: a lot of other people out there that are in
Speaker 3: the same circumstances and they're in the same struggle. So
Speaker 3: I do appreciate the work that you're doing, and I
Speaker 3: just I'm happy to be free, you know, I'm happy
Speaker 3: to be free. I'm looking forward to making a difference
Speaker 3: out here. I think it kind of for me would
Speaker 3: give my life meaning when I feel like I've lost
Speaker 3: so much of it already, I'm hopeful that what's left
Speaker 3: of it I can actually make a difference and my
Speaker 3: experience will help other people.
Speaker 2: A couple of things. I'd just like to thank you
Speaker 2: Jason for what you do and Wrongful Conviction podcast Lava
Speaker 2: for Good.
Speaker 1: I follow all.
Speaker 2: That stuff very closely. Keep it up because it's needed.
Speaker 2: I think it helps a lot, and even if it
Speaker 2: helps a little, a little is more than nothing. So
Speaker 2: for me, the one thing I would tell people is
Speaker 2: never to lose hope, never to give up. That's the
Speaker 2: key to everything, because I know Case I never gave
Speaker 2: up hope. I kept the fight, never got away from that.
Speaker 2: If you're innocent, you better fight until you can't fight anymore.
Speaker 2: Hope is all you got, That's all that's going to
Speaker 2: keep you going. Don't lose it.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Kleibern, and Kevin Wartis,
Speaker 1: with research by Lyla Robinson. The music in this production
Speaker 1: was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
Speaker 1: all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
Speaker 1: TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason flam Raeful Conviction is
Speaker 1: a production of Lava for Good podcast and association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one