Speaker 1: On September six, three teenagers from Chicago, Jared Adams, Dmitri Henley,
Speaker 1: and Rovan Hill, took a trip to the University of
Speaker 1: Wisconsin Whitewater for a party. While trying to meet up
Speaker 1: with their friends, a student named Sean Demaine invited the
Speaker 1: guys into his dorm room to use his phone, where
Speaker 1: they ended up hanging out with the man's friends and
Speaker 1: meeting two girls who will refer to as the accuser
Speaker 1: and her roommate. After some flirting, the two young white
Speaker 1: women invited the three young black men back to their
Speaker 1: own dorm room, and the group slowly trickled up to
Speaker 1: the room. When the roommate finally arrived, the accuser was
Speaker 1: performing oral sex on one of the young men on
Speaker 1: the roommate's bed. Enraged, the roommate called the accuser was
Speaker 1: slut and ran out of the room. The accuser ran
Speaker 1: after her roommate, who went into a friend's room and
Speaker 1: locked the door. When her apology was rebuffed, the accuser
Speaker 1: returned to the room and continued the sexual encounter. Later on,
Speaker 1: the group all went outside to the smoking area, where
Speaker 1: they reconnected with John Demain, joked around, and went home.
Speaker 1: It all seemed like a consensual coming of age experience
Speaker 1: until it wasn't. Three months later, the criminal legal system
Speaker 1: and the racism that has always plagued our country came
Speaker 1: to claim three more victims, and in typical fashion, money
Speaker 1: and arbitrary procedural bars made for three radically different outcomes
Speaker 1: for these three young men, two of whom spent nearly
Speaker 1: a decade each behind bars. This is Wrongful Conviction with
Speaker 1: Jason Flom. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom.
Speaker 1: That's me. I'm I'm your host, and I am particularly
Speaker 1: excited today, even honored because we have such an incredible
Speaker 1: group of guests. First of all, Keith Finley is on
Speaker 1: the show, and Keith is a well, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it like it is. He's a legend in the
Speaker 1: innocence community, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School,
Speaker 1: former president of the Innocence Network, which is an affiliation
Speaker 1: of nearly seventy innocence organizations throughout the world, co founder
Speaker 1: of the Wisconsin Innocence Project. You may know him from
Speaker 1: Making a Murderer as well. Keith, all I could say
Speaker 1: is I'm really honored that you're here. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: I'm really glad to be with you here. And so
Speaker 1: with us today are two guys I'm proud to call
Speaker 1: my friends, both of whom are roughly convicted of a
Speaker 1: crime that never happened. So, first of all, Jared Adams,
Speaker 1: your journey post exoneration has been nothing short of remarkable.
Speaker 1: Jared has been an attorney with the Innocence Project, He's
Speaker 1: now in private practice, he's an author, He's been on
Speaker 1: TV a bunch of times. Jared, I'm so sorry for
Speaker 1: what you went through, but I'm glad you're here. Thank you. Jason.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you have him be on And with him
Speaker 1: is Dmitri Henley. Dmitri was convicted of the same crime
Speaker 1: that Jared was convicted of, again as a crime that
Speaker 1: didn't happen, and Dmitri still has not gotten justice, and
Speaker 1: we're going to get into that. So I appreciate you
Speaker 1: being here, Dmitri. Al right, thanks for having me. So
Speaker 1: before we get into this story, Jared and Dmitri, where
Speaker 1: did you grow up and how is your life in
Speaker 1: a nutshell? Before this this insane saga began. So we
Speaker 1: grew up South side of Chicago and attended the same
Speaker 1: high school a little bit outside of Chicago and the suburbs,
Speaker 1: and you know, we met through passing, but we knew
Speaker 1: with each other and then working at the same summer
Speaker 1: job and started to hang out together. So Jared take
Speaker 1: us back to the day in question. It's September six
Speaker 1: and Dmitria a third friend, rovol Hill. You guys headed
Speaker 1: up to the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater to go to
Speaker 1: a party. You know, just doing like normal stuff that
Speaker 1: kids all over the country are doing basically every day, right, So,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just it. The neighborhoods in which we
Speaker 1: Dmitri grew up in are extremely rough, and you know,
Speaker 1: we weren't in games doing drive by shooting each other.
Speaker 1: That's just not what we were into. Each one of
Speaker 1: us came from backgrounds and families where our families were
Speaker 1: active in our lives. You know, where are you going
Speaker 1: what you're doing? So how we got there was this.
Speaker 1: We each told our parents we were spending the night
Speaker 1: over each other's house, and we all three went to
Speaker 1: go to this party and pull what is known is
Speaker 1: like all nighter. We would go up to the party,
Speaker 1: party all night, and then afterwards we would hit a
Speaker 1: waffle house and be back home at about seven eight,
Speaker 1: you know, in the morning. Right, we had done it before,
Speaker 1: no issues, no problems at all. And so we go
Speaker 1: to this party and we're looking, you know, for the
Speaker 1: main central party room. But when we got to this campus,
Speaker 1: it was parties in every dorm room. You could go
Speaker 1: to this dorm room, beer pong, this dorm room, people
Speaker 1: smoking weed and rinking. And so we just were kids
Speaker 1: escaping the violence in Chicago going to a party on
Speaker 1: the college campus, like so many other kids do each
Speaker 1: and every day in America. Yes, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people are listening now and going, hey,
Speaker 1: that reminds me. One time I went out, I told
Speaker 1: my parents and I stuck in. And you know, so
Speaker 1: who is Sean Domain? Because you ended up going to
Speaker 1: his room to use the phone? Right, how does that
Speaker 1: play into any of this? So Sean Domain actually saved
Speaker 1: our life, That's who he is, because he was the
Speaker 1: person who you know, unbiased and supported you know, our
Speaker 1: version of events, the truth. And so when we go
Speaker 1: to this college campus again, there's parties everywhere, but we're
Speaker 1: looking for a specific party. So we talked to Sean Domain,
Speaker 1: who was outside in like a smoking area, and just
Speaker 1: so the listeners are understanding, this is so. This is
Speaker 1: before everyone has cell phones. People usually have pages, So
Speaker 1: we went to use his phone. But when we were
Speaker 1: doing it, it was like his room was like party
Speaker 1: central check in. So it was room people who would
Speaker 1: come in, Hey, got what you guys doing. Hey, we're
Speaker 1: getting ready to go here. Hey you gotta beer, you know, Hey,
Speaker 1: we'll be back downstairs a little bit later. We were
Speaker 1: all playing video games in there. So when we're playing
Speaker 1: a video games is when these two young ladies come
Speaker 1: into the dorm room and we're flirting, we're talking, we're laughing,
Speaker 1: everybody's drinking, and eventually we all make our way upstairs
Speaker 1: to our accusers dorm room and we did it like staggered. First,
Speaker 1: Dmitri and Rovan went up and I came up a
Speaker 1: few minutes later, and we were there. We were in
Speaker 1: the room and we had a consensual encounter and this
Speaker 1: young lady's roommate walked in on it, and that's when
Speaker 1: the wheels of a false accusation started to turn. So
Speaker 1: the roommate walks in on you in the midst of
Speaker 1: the sexual encounter and calls the accuser of slot and
Speaker 1: then runs down the hall to a friend storm room. Now,
Speaker 1: at this point, your accuser gets up, goes after the roommate,
Speaker 1: but doesn't say anything at all about being raped or
Speaker 1: assaulted or anything like that, but simply not on the door,
Speaker 1: and says, are you mad at me? The roommate wouldn't
Speaker 1: open the door, And according to a sworn statement I
Speaker 1: have right here, the roommate said, and this is a
Speaker 1: direct quote, I told her to go back to doing
Speaker 1: whatever she was doing, but not on my bed. So
Speaker 1: it's probably fair to say that that might have been
Speaker 1: what made her mad. So the accuser went back to
Speaker 1: the room they shared and continued the sexual encounter. So
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think I'm alone here in being confused,
Speaker 1: Because if an actual assault was taking place, as was alleged,
Speaker 1: why does her roommate call her a slut instead of
Speaker 1: trying to do something to save her or summon help.
Speaker 1: And after chasing her roommate down the hall, why did
Speaker 1: she go back to her room instead of trying to
Speaker 1: escape or again trying to cry out to get someone
Speaker 1: to help her. It doesn't add up. Number One, the
Speaker 1: roommate walks into her room and sees the accuser on
Speaker 1: her bed engaging in what to her looks like consensual
Speaker 1: sexual activity. That's why she calls her a slot and
Speaker 1: runs down the hall. Second point, if it's a rape,
Speaker 1: are these guys gonna let the victim get up and
Speaker 1: leave at her on her own free will? Yet that's
Speaker 1: exactly what she did. Then, if it's a rape, is
Speaker 1: the victim going to say are you mad at me?
Speaker 1: Or she gonna say, hell me, I'm being right? But no,
Speaker 1: she says, are you mad at me? Now? The question
Speaker 1: you asked is what's the explanation as to why she
Speaker 1: walked back to the room. The closest they came to
Speaker 1: an explanation was that she was going to leave, and
Speaker 1: she was walking towards the stairs, which took her past
Speaker 1: the bedroom, but there was a stairwell at the other
Speaker 1: end of the hall. She didn't go that way. She
Speaker 1: walked back towards her room, and in the process she
Speaker 1: walked past the room of the r a who lived
Speaker 1: on the hall, and didn't knock on that door ask
Speaker 1: for help. During the course of the encounter, she got
Speaker 1: a phone call from somebody, and she chatted on the
Speaker 1: phone and giggled. Never said anything about I'm being raped.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just a head scratcher how anyone her
Speaker 1: could have thought this was a sexual assault. And not
Speaker 1: only that, I actually accompanied her walking down to the
Speaker 1: room that the roommate went into, and I was there
Speaker 1: with her while she was standing there trying to talk
Speaker 1: to her through the door, and once she could not
Speaker 1: even get any access and went back to the room.
Speaker 1: I stayed there because I tried to talk her roommate
Speaker 1: out of the room, because we talked a little bit
Speaker 1: when we was in Sean domage room, so I can
Speaker 1: actually hear them in the room, the roommate and the
Speaker 1: residents of that room having a conversation, but they decided
Speaker 1: not to come out, so I went back to the room.
Speaker 1: We engaged in the sexual acts, and then we actually
Speaker 1: went downstairs to the smoking area, and I thank god
Speaker 1: that we all did, because when we went downstairs in
Speaker 1: the smoking area, Sean Domain was outside, and he was
Speaker 1: the one who created the timeline of corroborating our innocence.
Speaker 1: It was so so crazy, because this thing was out
Speaker 1: of embarrassment. You know, this girl didn't go to the
Speaker 1: police or or anything. She went to a friend and said,
Speaker 1: my roommates making these accusations about me being a slut,
Speaker 1: saying that I was sleeping with these black guys. That
Speaker 1: didn't happen. So before you hear it, I was actually raped.
Speaker 1: It was that friend who went to another friend, and
Speaker 1: that's how the rumors started to circulate, and then investigation started.
Speaker 1: This young lady, through the help of the police, said
Speaker 1: that she walked up to her dorm room and was
Speaker 1: opening the door and before she knew it, two to
Speaker 1: three black guys that she didn't know it was behind her,
Speaker 1: and we just walked our way into her room, cut
Speaker 1: the lights out, and played the music. The accusation wasn't
Speaker 1: that she knew us or that she met us. We
Speaker 1: knew we had been invited up. We knew that after
Speaker 1: the roommate had walked into the room, we had all
Speaker 1: went down in the smoking area where we were with
Speaker 1: Sean Demain again. And so if you're asking the questions
Speaker 1: about how on earth could have incomplete and crazy story
Speaker 1: like this make its way to a conviction and result
Speaker 1: in twenty eight and twenty years, it's because we were
Speaker 1: try as black men raping a white girl, and it
Speaker 1: did not matter with the made sense because of the
Speaker 1: historical depiction of black men and white accuses. And we
Speaker 1: know how that can go. Three young black men from
Speaker 1: Chicago visiting u W Whitewater. It's a fairly rural community
Speaker 1: that's very white, and a lot of these sexual assault
Speaker 1: cases are difficult because he said, she said, But this one,
Speaker 1: in so many respects, it wasn't even he said, she said.
Speaker 1: The accuser's own version of events was actually, in many respects,
Speaker 1: in many important respects, the same as Dmitri and Jared's version,
Speaker 1: in that she candidly admitted understand that no one used
Speaker 1: force against her, no one raised their voice, no one
Speaker 1: threatened her. And so when I read the transcripts of this,
Speaker 1: I was scratching my head and said, well, where's the
Speaker 1: sexual assault? All we see here is that she says
Speaker 1: they engaged in sex. And what made it a sexual
Speaker 1: assault in the prosecution's eyes and in this community's eyes,
Speaker 1: was that she claim that, despite the absence of any
Speaker 1: physical force, despite the absence of any threats, she went
Speaker 1: along with the sexual acts because she was frightened of
Speaker 1: these men. We'll think about it. Why in the world
Speaker 1: would she be frightened of them if they were all
Speaker 1: out of college party together, and they'd been flirting and
Speaker 1: she invited them up to a room. You know, nobody
Speaker 1: was doing anything via unders writing. The only thing that
Speaker 1: I can conjure up in my mind that explains this
Speaker 1: potential fright is that they were black men. You know.
Speaker 1: I was struck also as I was reviewing aspects of
Speaker 1: this horrible story that there was a number of months
Speaker 1: went by before you were arrested, And of course I'm
Speaker 1: talking about December one. But why was that the lapsed
Speaker 1: time in there? This must have been all just disant
Speaker 1: memory at this point, right, Yeah, Yeah, I really can't
Speaker 1: answer what took so long, other than to suggest that,
Speaker 1: I mean, clearly, if it had been an open and
Speaker 1: shut case from the beginning, it wouldn't have taken so long. Clearly,
Speaker 1: the police and prosecutors recognized that there were problems with
Speaker 1: this story, and they took some time to build the
Speaker 1: best case they could. So, unbeknownst to us, Sean Domain
Speaker 1: wrote a three pays handwritten statement saying everything that we're
Speaker 1: saying right now on this podcast. So the police had
Speaker 1: already had that statement and they couldn't explain it. And
Speaker 1: then they went and did a check on the phone records,
Speaker 1: and during the time that we were up there in
Speaker 1: this young lady's room, the phone was ringing. She was
Speaker 1: on the phone talking to friends. So the authorities, instead
Speaker 1: of allowing the evidence to tell them the truth, they
Speaker 1: decided that they were going to make a case and
Speaker 1: basis off of race, and nothing was going to keep
Speaker 1: them from doing that. So leading up to the arrest,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm working as an assistant manager at this
Speaker 1: grocery store and my dad comes by the job and says, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, the police came by the house. They're going
Speaker 1: to come down to the police station to groot you
Speaker 1: out as a suspect and an armed robbery. I said, Dad,
Speaker 1: this is absolutely nuts. I said, I'm not going down there, man,
Speaker 1: because I don't know what they're doing to me. I
Speaker 1: heard stories. I didn't think it was gonna be a
Speaker 1: good idea, but my dad was like, no, I think
Speaker 1: you should go. So make a long story short, at
Speaker 1: the work went down there. My dad went along with me.
Speaker 1: He was sitting on in the lobby. So I'm talking
Speaker 1: to one of the Texas at the time. You know,
Speaker 1: we just want to rule you out, you know, we
Speaker 1: don't want you to get in trouble. When we get
Speaker 1: done asking a few questions, maybe we'll take you downstairs
Speaker 1: and take some pictures. So I said, okay, find no problem.
Speaker 1: So that's what happened, the same thing they did to me.
Speaker 1: I come home one day and there's a card in
Speaker 1: my door and it's from the police and it says
Speaker 1: Robbert ye hamasa. I'm like, no, I know they got
Speaker 1: the rowing guy like, let me let me call living
Speaker 1: before my crazy father see this in this door and
Speaker 1: just go nuts, right. So I called and the guy
Speaker 1: was like, hey, you know this is a TEXTI so
Speaker 1: and so, and you know, we just want you to
Speaker 1: come down and take a picture so we can, you know,
Speaker 1: rule you out of this accusation because you know, we
Speaker 1: know you've never been in trouble and we don't have
Speaker 1: you know, a book and photo or anything like that.
Speaker 1: You know, just come rule yourself out. I'm like, man,
Speaker 1: I'm on my weight. So when I go down there
Speaker 1: and they have a instigator from Wisconsin there, and the
Speaker 1: investigator is asking me all these questions about you know,
Speaker 1: us going to the party, and did you go to
Speaker 1: the party, did you have sex at this party? And
Speaker 1: I'm answering the question straightforward, like I'm like I'm doing now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we had a crazy incident with this girl
Speaker 1: and her roommate were arguing. So they come and arrest
Speaker 1: me for first degree sexual assault, and I'm like, sexual assault,
Speaker 1: Like when did this happen? I wasn't disbelieve. I couldn't believe,
Speaker 1: and being a kid at that time, I'm thinking that
Speaker 1: they're gonna arrest me often go right out here to
Speaker 1: prove my innusies, not be right back to my life.
Speaker 1: Of course, she didn't happen that way. I was gonna
Speaker 1: be charged, along with Dmitri and Rovan with five counts
Speaker 1: of first the resexual assault. I think I was turning eighteen,
Speaker 1: like a couple of months later, and Dmitri had already
Speaker 1: turned eighteen and Rovan was eighteen, So we were all kids,
Speaker 1: Like I remember being so quiet, you know, on that
Speaker 1: intake getting off the bus, going through intake. We wasn't
Speaker 1: in Kansas anymore, you know. So all three of you
Speaker 1: guys were arrested on December one. I'm talking about Ravan
Speaker 1: of course, as the third person arrested, but we haven't
Speaker 1: really talked about him. Keith, if you could explain how
Speaker 1: these paths diverged at this point, right, Because the three
Speaker 1: guys were all accused of the same exact thing in
Speaker 1: the same exact circumstances, but all three ended up with
Speaker 1: completely different outcomes. Yeah, there's exact same conduct, the exact
Speaker 1: same incident, the exact same time, place, circumstance, exact same evidence.
Speaker 1: Everything was identical. But you're exactly right, three very different outcomes,
Speaker 1: which is part of what we've been trying to get
Speaker 1: the legal system to pay attention to. And how did
Speaker 1: that happen? Well, the three of them were charged together.
Speaker 1: They were tried together initially, but the first trial ended
Speaker 1: in a mistrial. The prosecution was apparently expecting a strong
Speaker 1: statement from the accuser coming in about how she was
Speaker 1: forced and all that, and yet when she got up
Speaker 1: on the stand, she acknowledged that there was no force used,
Speaker 1: that no one threatened her, etcetera. And so the prosecutor
Speaker 1: recognized that there was a fatal flaw in the case
Speaker 1: as originally charged, and so the prosecutor moved to amend
Speaker 1: the charges to fit the evidence as it had come
Speaker 1: in from the accuser. And at that point, Gerald Boyle,
Speaker 1: defense attorney for Ravan Hill, just when nuts objected and
Speaker 1: the court agreed that it was unfair to amend the
Speaker 1: charges mid trial like that, after the case had been
Speaker 1: partly presented, after strategies had been locked in and whatnot,
Speaker 1: and so the prosecutor declared a mistrial. A mistrial simply
Speaker 1: means that this trial ends and we're going to do
Speaker 1: it again. But there are some circle stances in which
Speaker 1: a mistrial ends the case for good. And Ravonne Hill's
Speaker 1: lawyer thought that this mistrial was caused by the prosecution's
Speaker 1: own mistakes, and therefore a retrial should be barred. And so,
Speaker 1: as the prosecution set to retry all three of them,
Speaker 1: Ravonne Hill and his attorney sought leave to appeal and
Speaker 1: to stop the retrial from occurring. The prosecution, not wanting
Speaker 1: to wait for that appeal to be concluded, then just
Speaker 1: pulled Dmitri and Garrett's cases away from Ravon's and initiated
Speaker 1: the retrial for them without Ravon. Why Jared and Dimitri's
Speaker 1: lawyers didn't join in that appeal, I have no idea,
Speaker 1: but they didn't didn't stop the appeal, so Dmitri and
Speaker 1: Jared were tried together without Ravon at a second trial
Speaker 1: what's particularly sickening to me is the fact that your
Speaker 1: attorneys called no witnesses at the trial. No freaking witnesses
Speaker 1: here it is your life is at stake. They didn't
Speaker 1: even make an effort on your behalf tell them about
Speaker 1: the no defense theory. Kief. Yeah, so that's actually the
Speaker 1: basis upon which we ultimately succeed in getting Jared's conviction overturn.
Speaker 1: Was claiming that defense council was constitutionally deficient under the
Speaker 1: sixth Amendment. Both Dmitri and Jared's lawyers got together and
Speaker 1: talked about it and decided they would present what they
Speaker 1: called a no defense defense, which means they were just
Speaker 1: going to rest on the prosecution's case and say, well,
Speaker 1: they didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so we're
Speaker 1: not going to put on anything. And what we argued,
Speaker 1: and what the United States Court of Appeals for the
Speaker 1: Seventh Circuit agreed, was that made absolutely no sense at all,
Speaker 1: because they had a defense. This was entirely consensual, and
Speaker 1: the consensual nature of it was in a very compelling
Speaker 1: way corroborated established by the testimony not only of the
Speaker 1: accuser's roommate, but also by the testimony of Sean Domain,
Speaker 1: and these lawyers never even talked to Sean Domain. So
Speaker 1: let's just go to the moment that had to be
Speaker 1: the worst moment of a lot of worst moments, which is,
Speaker 1: of course, when the jury came back. I remember sitting
Speaker 1: out in the lobby talking to my dad, and my
Speaker 1: dad the type of guy he was. He was a
Speaker 1: very confident guy, you know, but saying my dad, when
Speaker 1: he was reacting and seeing Jared dead, how he was
Speaker 1: reacting when we're talking about really strong men, I mean,
Speaker 1: just out there, very nervous. I couldn't help at that
Speaker 1: moment before we get hurt the verdict, just become very emotional. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I remember both our dads, you know, had to be
Speaker 1: escorted out the courtroom. You know, they just couldn't believe it.
Speaker 1: And when we're found guilty, I just, man, I had
Speaker 1: to say something. So I'm like, this is a lie,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm apologizing to my parents. I'm like, but
Speaker 1: I'm not about to apologize for a rape I didn't commit.
Speaker 1: So they ended up giving me eight more years in
Speaker 1: prison based on that, saying that I wasn't remorseful, and
Speaker 1: I had an outburst, so me and Dmitri were split
Speaker 1: up based on that. I went to a maximum slash
Speaker 1: super maximum. Dimitri because he had twenty years, he was
Speaker 1: like on a track to go to meet imprisoned right away.
Speaker 1: Based on the time in Wisconsin, if you get anything
Speaker 1: over twenty five years, you're basically going to go due
Speaker 1: time with everybody who has twenty five to life. And
Speaker 1: so after we were found guilty, Ravanne hadn't went to
Speaker 1: trial yet. I started to write letters to Ravann's attorney.
Speaker 1: That's when boiling them for the first time interview Sean Domain.
Speaker 1: And when they interviewed Sean Domain, they called them as
Speaker 1: a witness, and Domain was like, look, I wrote a
Speaker 1: three page statement when the officer came and talked to
Speaker 1: me the night after, so I don't know what else
Speaker 1: you guys want. That's how we found out that the
Speaker 1: officer never turned over that three page statement. It was
Speaker 1: never a part of the record when we were going
Speaker 1: to trial. So they proceeded with a retrial against Ravone
Speaker 1: and Ravine having a better lawyer than had been assigned
Speaker 1: to Jared and Dmitri. Ravone's lawyer saw the value of
Speaker 1: Sean Domain as a neutral, independent witness who could both
Speaker 1: corroborate that the girls had been flirting with the boys
Speaker 1: before and had invited them up to their rooms, and
Speaker 1: even more importantly, could establish that after the alleged sexual assault,
Speaker 1: he saw Jared and Dmitri, along with the accuser in
Speaker 1: her roommate, socializing and laughing together in the smoking area
Speaker 1: outside the dorm rooms, which was entirely inconsistent with the
Speaker 1: accuser's version of events and entirely inconsistent with what would
Speaker 1: have happened had they just completed a sexual assault. And so,
Speaker 1: having presented Sean Demain's testimony at his own trial, the
Speaker 1: jury deadlocked, was unable to reach a verdict, and so
Speaker 1: another mistrial was declared and all of the charges and
Speaker 1: were ultimately dismissed against Ravon. I want to say one
Speaker 1: of the roughest days where I really just started to
Speaker 1: fall into a shale was when I found out that
Speaker 1: they dismissed all the charges against Rovan, when they found
Speaker 1: a statement that was with Hale about a police and
Speaker 1: then they decided not to give me and Dmitri new trials.
Speaker 1: That's when I I really was like, if it doesn't
Speaker 1: work that evidence that supports all of your innocence that
Speaker 1: wasn't presented and didn't make his way in your trial.
Speaker 1: If it doesn't work by way of truth, then how
Speaker 1: does the system ever work? I mean, that's really how
Speaker 1: I felt. I'm like I thought, I thought, Okay, maybe
Speaker 1: now that they have this statement, they know and they
Speaker 1: all apologized and we will come home. Never happened like that.
Speaker 1: And I remember, you know, my cellmate I was locked up,
Speaker 1: old white guy. You know, he was the one who
Speaker 1: encouraged me to pick up the PM and start to write.
Speaker 1: And essentially it was if you're gonna go down, go
Speaker 1: down swinging. And I started to write everyone that I
Speaker 1: could think of, and both me and Dmitri were writing
Speaker 1: the Innocence Project and everybody we could trying to figure
Speaker 1: out how could we get help. I was at the
Speaker 1: time co directing the Wisconsin Innocence Projects, a clinical program
Speaker 1: and which law students handle real cases under faculty supervision.
Speaker 1: And we received these letters from both Dimitri and Jarrett
Speaker 1: asking for help and describing what had happened, and just
Speaker 1: by happenstance, we got to Dmitri's letter first, and so
Speaker 1: I gave it to my students to do an analysis
Speaker 1: of the case, and they came back and they said,
Speaker 1: this case is outrageous, this guy is innocent. We've got
Speaker 1: to do something about it. And so we looked at it,
Speaker 1: and we realized that he had appealed through the state
Speaker 1: court system and had lost, which meant that federal Habeas
Speaker 1: corpus review was the next place to look. The problem is,
Speaker 1: we realized that under President Bill Clinton, Congress passed and
Speaker 1: Clinton signed into law something known as the Anti Terrorism
Speaker 1: and Effective Death Penalty Act. The acronym is called EDPA,
Speaker 1: which made it much more difficult to obtain federal Habeas
Speaker 1: corpus relief. And one of the ways it made it
Speaker 1: much more difficult was that it imposed a one year
Speaker 1: statute of limitations, and by the time we were able
Speaker 1: to review Dimitri's case, his one year had elapsed. He
Speaker 1: was procedurally barred from going into federal habeas. But the
Speaker 1: student said, but you know, his co defendant also wrote.
Speaker 1: Jared Adams also wrote, and by pure happenstance, Jarrett and
Speaker 1: Dmitri's state court appeals had been handled separately, and Jarrett's
Speaker 1: appeal had been decided a short time later than Dmitri's,
Speaker 1: which means his one year statue limitations was a little
Speaker 1: bit later, and by the time we were able to
Speaker 1: review Jared's case, he still had about a week left
Speaker 1: before his statue limitations expired. And so my students said, look,
Speaker 1: we gotta do something. We've got to file this federal habeas.
Speaker 1: They drafted the habeas. We filed it just before the
Speaker 1: expiration of the one year deadline and just got it
Speaker 1: in under the window, and we're able to then proceed
Speaker 1: with litigating that claim. We were denied relief in the
Speaker 1: District court in Milwaukee. We appealed to the United States
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the three
Speaker 1: judge panel unanimously agreed that Jared's conviction was invalid. They
Speaker 1: hated the conviction in June two thousand and six, and
Speaker 1: he was finally released from custody in January of two
Speaker 1: thousand and seven. This is how we wind up with
Speaker 1: three completely different outcomes. Ravine Hill never convicted, Jared's convicted
Speaker 1: and serves the better part of a decade in prison,
Speaker 1: but then his conviction is vacated, so he's exonerated, and
Speaker 1: Dmitri exact same case, exact same facts, remains convicted of
Speaker 1: that crime to this day. Yeah, I mean, it has
Speaker 1: to live his life with that sort of scarlet letter
Speaker 1: or you know, that stigma for no reason whatsoever. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you is it is one of the
Speaker 1: great sadnesses of my career that we have not been
Speaker 1: able to correct this injustice for Dmitri. I want to say,
Speaker 1: my dad actually passed six months before I got out,
Speaker 1: and it was one of the things I wanted him
Speaker 1: to share, that moment that man I told you someday
Speaker 1: I was going to make it here. I wanted him
Speaker 1: to at least be a part of that moment, and
Speaker 1: he wasn't. So after Jared was exonerated, we were still
Speaker 1: struggling with what had happened to Dimitri and said this
Speaker 1: can't be justice. And so we thought, well, what in
Speaker 1: the world can we do. We said, you know, there
Speaker 1: is a longstanding doctrine in Wisconsin law that says that
Speaker 1: circuit courts have the inherent authority to grant a new
Speaker 1: trial in the interest of justice. It's just a broad,
Speaker 1: discretionary grant of authority. And we said, well, if the
Speaker 1: interests of justice ever called for a new trial, this
Speaker 1: is the case where it calls for so we filed
Speaker 1: a motion on behalf of Dmitri then went back to
Speaker 1: the same judge who presided over the conviction and said, look,
Speaker 1: this can't be justice in America. To have these wildly
Speaker 1: desparate outcomes on the same facts and a federal appellate
Speaker 1: ruling saying that these guys have been denied the right
Speaker 1: to the effective assistance of counsel. This can't be right.
Speaker 1: And the trial judge agreed and said, in the interest
Speaker 1: of justice, I can't let this conviction stand, and she
Speaker 1: reversed Dmitri's conviction, to my great dismay, for reasons that
Speaker 1: I still can't fathom. The state chose to appeal that decision,
Speaker 1: and I'm thinking to myself at the time, on what
Speaker 1: basis this is a discretionary judgment. Discretionary judgments are almost
Speaker 1: bulletproof on appeal because the very nature of discretion is
Speaker 1: the judge can do it or cannot do it. It's
Speaker 1: up to the judge. And what they actually just chose
Speaker 1: to appeal on was to challenge whether the judge even
Speaker 1: had the legal authority to grant a neutral in the
Speaker 1: interest of justice at all. It went up to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and we have now an extremely conservative, very
Speaker 1: pro prosecution Supreme Court, and they seize that opportunity, and
Speaker 1: in Dimitri's case, they change aged the law and ruled
Speaker 1: that circuit courts do not have the authority to grant
Speaker 1: a new trial and the interest of justice, they took
Speaker 1: that authority away and thereby reinstated Dmitri's conviction in what
Speaker 1: I see as one of the really sad moments in
Speaker 1: Wisconsin history. So we tried another tack, and we went
Speaker 1: back to the same trial court judge again and said,
Speaker 1: all right, you can't keep the conviction, but you can
Speaker 1: modify the sentence, and so please modified dmitri sentence to
Speaker 1: time served so that at least he can get out
Speaker 1: of prison, and to the judge's great credit, she did that,
Speaker 1: which is why Dmitri was ultimately set free. But he
Speaker 1: remains convicted of a sexual assault and must register as
Speaker 1: a sex offender and bear all the burdens that go
Speaker 1: with being a convicted of felon and a convicted sex offender,
Speaker 1: and ultimately he was freed after how much time, almost
Speaker 1: two years. I must say also that in these two
Speaker 1: cases of Jared and Dmitri, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: heroes at the end of the to day, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: let's not forget the law student who managed to catch
Speaker 1: this before it fell through the cracks. And of course
Speaker 1: you and your whole team at the Wisconsin Innocence Project.
Speaker 1: We're gonna link in the bio to Wisconsin Innocnce Project. Jarrett.
Speaker 1: Of course there's you and Dmitri, who are you know,
Speaker 1: just sort of pillars of strength and just courageous people
Speaker 1: who I think so many of us are inspired by.
Speaker 1: And anyone who's new to this cause wants to know
Speaker 1: two things. One is, if a prosecutor framed somebody, do
Speaker 1: they face any consequences? And we both know that the
Speaker 1: answer is almost a hundred percent of the time, no,
Speaker 1: none whatsoever. And then they want to know people will
Speaker 1: tell me, please tell me the person who went through
Speaker 1: this got compensation. And in your case, either one of
Speaker 1: you guys got compensation, which is I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it's nuts. I mean, and Jay said, listen, you know
Speaker 1: so gay compensation. Dmitri still has it on his record. Right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you a quote Thurgood Marshall said that
Speaker 1: sometimes you gotta just do what is right and let
Speaker 1: the law catch up. And that's exactly the reason why
Speaker 1: I came home to get this degree to become an attorney,
Speaker 1: because I felt like this couldn't just be Jared Adams
Speaker 1: Dmitri Henley roleefully convicted. Conviction reversed the end I needed
Speaker 1: to carry on to be able to get to this
Speaker 1: point where not only do I have the experience of
Speaker 1: going through it, but now I'm gaining the experience and
Speaker 1: I'm blessing the clients that I come across by helping
Speaker 1: them get through it. No, and amen to that. It's
Speaker 1: it's it really is inspiring to see you out there
Speaker 1: fighting a good fight and channeling this awful, just nightmare
Speaker 1: that you went through into something so positive. So now, Jared,
Speaker 1: you're an attorney of offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: I think you have a book coming out on top
Speaker 1: of everything else, which I'm I'm really excited to read.
Speaker 1: It's called Redeeming Justice. Jared, if you could just tell
Speaker 1: us a little bit about the book, right, So, it
Speaker 1: talks about my journey because what I didn't want people
Speaker 1: to think is that I got here alone. Because I
Speaker 1: didn't get here alone. I had to help with the community.
Speaker 1: I had to help and to support even of Dmitria
Speaker 1: while going through do years of law school. Me and
Speaker 1: Dmitri supported each other as well and Keith Finley the
Speaker 1: Wisconsin innis project Life After Justice. If you want to
Speaker 1: go and support the work support Life After Justice Support
Speaker 1: Center for Forensic Science, which I am part of the
Speaker 1: board SIFTS along with Keith Finley. SIFTS as an organization
Speaker 1: that make sure we hold people accountable in terms of
Speaker 1: forensic evidence and how it's being used in the ways
Speaker 1: in which it should and shouldn't be used. That's important
Speaker 1: to people's innocence as well. There are so many ways
Speaker 1: to get involved, including holding lawmakers and legislators responsible for
Speaker 1: laws such as that book which Keith spoke about, which
Speaker 1: is currently keeping Dmitri with this record. There are ways
Speaker 1: for us together to help and to right the wrongs
Speaker 1: that have been created by bad legislation. Use your voice,
Speaker 1: it is key. So we're gonna have a link to
Speaker 1: the book and the others bio as well as a
Speaker 1: link for people who want to find out more and
Speaker 1: get involved with the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences Support.
Speaker 1: Click the link in the bio. We need you Now
Speaker 1: we turn to the closing of the show, which of
Speaker 1: course is called closing Arguments. First of all, I thank
Speaker 1: each of you again from the bottom of my heart
Speaker 1: for being here, taking your time and sharing your stories.
Speaker 1: Jarrett just an amazing guy man, and it's great to
Speaker 1: have you here. Of course, Dmitri Henley, thanks again for sharing.
Speaker 1: I know it's not easy to share your story, but
Speaker 1: it's important. And Keith Finley, you know when I grow up,
Speaker 1: I want to be you. So what can I say?
Speaker 1: And now the closing arguments works like this, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: turn my microphone off and leave each of yours on
Speaker 1: for you to share any final thoughts that you want.
Speaker 1: You can say nothing or everything or anything in between.
Speaker 1: So let's finish the way we started. Professor, why don't
Speaker 1: you go first? And then Jarrett and Dmitri? Yeah. Thanks, Well, First,
Speaker 1: let me start by saying thanks to Dmitri and Jrrit
Speaker 1: for being who they are and for having strength that
Speaker 1: they have shown to endure all this and to keep
Speaker 1: up the fight. It's not over. I don't know if
Speaker 1: I could have done what you've done as i Jason.
Speaker 1: I gotta say thank you to you for giving them
Speaker 1: a voice, for giving us a voice for getting the
Speaker 1: word out there, for all you've done to support the movement.
Speaker 1: It's just vitally important what you're doing here as well.
Speaker 1: And I guess the only other thing I'd say right
Speaker 1: now is this case is just a reminder of so
Speaker 1: many of the things that are wrong with our criminal
Speaker 1: justice system, beginning with the baked in racism that I
Speaker 1: think is just undeniable in a case like this, to
Speaker 1: the problems with the way counsel is assigned to people
Speaker 1: who can afford to hire their own lawyers, To as
Speaker 1: we've seen so strongly here, all of the barriers that legislatures, Congress,
Speaker 1: and the courts have erected to achieving justice on behalf
Speaker 1: of the wrongly convicted. We've got a lot of systemic
Speaker 1: reform we've got to engage in. That's why programs like
Speaker 1: this and the work of people like Jared Dmitriy is
Speaker 1: so important. Man. Thank you, Keith thinking Jason, you know,
Speaker 1: when when we were reached out to do this, I
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure that all three of us was
Speaker 1: on because we are all three connected, you know, including Rovan.
Speaker 1: I mean, what many people don't know about Rovan is
Speaker 1: this after Roman's charges were dismissed. Rovann went to the Army,
Speaker 1: and and the Army has his own experiences, both negative
Speaker 1: and positive as well. So it's like he had never
Speaker 1: talked about going to the army. He wanted to escape
Speaker 1: and never ever be in a situation like this again.
Speaker 1: And that's for ever changed his personality as well. And
Speaker 1: so to have going through all of this, three different people,
Speaker 1: three different outcomes, you know, I decided to write this
Speaker 1: book about the journey and about the work that I'm
Speaker 1: doing now and about being able to work alongside of
Speaker 1: Keith now and to work and try to figure out
Speaker 1: how do we finally get finality injustice for Dmitri's case.
Speaker 1: And the book focuses on what it was like for
Speaker 1: me and Dmitri going through it and to to have
Speaker 1: the opportunity now to speak about it. You know, ever
Speaker 1: been compensated and I didn't get it done. I got out,
Speaker 1: and I bust my butt to get to where I am.
Speaker 1: But I believe in sending the elevator back down, which
Speaker 1: is why, no matter you know, how or where my
Speaker 1: career you know, leads me, I most certainly won't forget
Speaker 1: those who helped me on my journey Keith Finley, the
Speaker 1: Wisconsin Insistence Project, and also those who are part of
Speaker 1: my journey, Dmitri and Jason. I can't thank you enough.
Speaker 1: I mean this, this is a huge platform and what
Speaker 1: it does I don't I hope you know this is
Speaker 1: this for many people, me and Dmitri included. This platform
Speaker 1: gives people for the very first time to be the
Speaker 1: author of their own story because for so long, the
Speaker 1: police reports and the false narratives within them have become
Speaker 1: the facts of the case. And now because of this platform,
Speaker 1: the record could be set straight. You know, Jason, you
Speaker 1: guys are the only podcast that would have me, Keith
Speaker 1: and Dmitri telling the story together. And and I thank
Speaker 1: you guys for that opportunity. I want people to go
Speaker 1: out by the book and support Life Out the Justice,
Speaker 1: a nonprofit and also sifts the Center for for an
Speaker 1: a Contegrity. Thank you guys again. I really appreciate you.
Speaker 1: Keith Man, you know, you guys got me to who
Speaker 1: I am right now, and I'm very appreciative of that.
Speaker 1: Thank you again. Think Wisconsin Instance Project, you know, as
Speaker 1: well as Jerry. You know, Jared's my brother forever man
Speaker 1: and I'm definitely grateful for him reaching back, and I
Speaker 1: agree that what he said. Jason, you know, we appreciate
Speaker 1: the opportunity for you giving us the platform to actually
Speaker 1: getting our side of the story out there. What I
Speaker 1: can't say, you know, talking about this is just like
Speaker 1: opening old wounds. You know, this is a story that
Speaker 1: I live. It's difficult, it has been difficult. But my
Speaker 1: whole point of view from the day I got out,
Speaker 1: even when I went in, you know, was to have
Speaker 1: some hope and I'm gonna make the best of the
Speaker 1: situation regardless of what I was going through. I do
Speaker 1: look forward to the day that my name is finally cleared.
Speaker 1: But you know, until then, I'm going to continue to
Speaker 1: live the best life I can and continue to fight.
Speaker 1: But what if I had to work with so again,
Speaker 1: I think everyone for the opportunity. Thank you for listening
Speaker 1: to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom. Please support your local
Speaker 1: innocence organizations and go to the links in our bio
Speaker 1: now to see how you can help. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our amazing production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wardis. The music on this show, as always
Speaker 1: is by three Time Oscar nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be
Speaker 1: sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast. Wrongful Conviction with Jason
Speaker 1: Flam is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in
Speaker 1: association with Sigma Company Number one