Speaker 1: Our coverage of Pierre Rushing's case originally aired on July eighth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. We will now re release that episode with
Speaker 1: additional content to reflect some exciting new developments. In the
Speaker 1: early morning of April fifteenth, twenty eleven, Duwan Taylor stole
Speaker 1: an iPod for an Oakland drug dealer named c. Two
Speaker 1: of his other customers, Patrick Smith and Robert green gave
Speaker 1: Ce a ride in search of the iPod thief. They
Speaker 1: spotted mister Taylor pulled up next to him, and See
Speaker 1: proceeded to shoot and kill him Over this trivial slight.
Speaker 1: Nearly a week would go by before Robert Green would
Speaker 1: offer cops information and an uncertain description of the shooter.
Speaker 1: A few weeks and several descriptions later, Green would claim
Speaker 1: to have seen s wearing a red hat. A few
Speaker 1: days after that, police would approach Pierre Rushing, a man
Speaker 1: who had never been known as SA but wearing a
Speaker 1: red hat. They'd bring Pierre's juvie photo and his name
Speaker 1: to Robert Green, who went on to identify him as
Speaker 1: the shooter. Despite a solid alibi, no physical evidence whatsoever
Speaker 1: or anything to corroborate Robert Greene's highly questionable identification. Pierre
Speaker 1: Rushing's burgeoning rap career and promising future were stolen by
Speaker 1: Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving fifty
Speaker 1: to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed by
Speaker 1: a drug dealer need See. Patrick Smith has since signed
Speaker 1: affidavits and testified to Pierre's innocence, and another of C's
Speaker 1: customers that night has bravely set a legal name to
Speaker 1: the culprit, and even though mister Rushing did not name See,
Speaker 1: we have censored his name from this episode for mister
Speaker 1: Rushing's safety. Meanwhile, the state of California continues to ignore
Speaker 1: evidence of Pierre's actual innocence and to fight his honest
Speaker 1: attempts to regain his freedom. This is Wrongful Conviction with
Speaker 1: Jason Flamm. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm.
Speaker 1: That's me and today we're going to tell you about
Speaker 1: the case of Pierre Rushing. We'll speak with one of
Speaker 1: his post conviction attorneys, Marvin Lou as well as taking
Speaker 1: a call from Kern Valley Correction in California to hear
Speaker 1: from Pierre himself. This is Global's HELLNK.
Speaker 2: You have a three post call from your version.
Speaker 3: This call Angelo telephone number will be monitored and recruited
Speaker 3: to accept this call soon or.
Speaker 2: Dial five now. Thank you for using Globaltalink.
Speaker 1: Hello, good morning, Good morning. I'm glad you're here. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry you're here under these circumstances, but I'm definitely
Speaker 1: glad you're here. I know we have limited times, so
Speaker 1: let's get right into it. Today's episode, we're going to
Speaker 1: tell the story of the man we have on the
Speaker 1: phone now, Pierre Rushing, who's serving fifty years. The Nightmare
Speaker 1: starts on April fifteen, twenty eleven, at three forty five
Speaker 1: as when there's a murder. But let's go back to
Speaker 1: your childhood, because you had a difficult upbringing and you
Speaker 1: were coming out of that and building a career in
Speaker 1: music when it all went haywire.
Speaker 2: So I grew up in Oakland, California. My father was
Speaker 2: a ascent fee in and out of prison. Smart was
Speaker 2: a digit crack cocaine. So I don't want to say
Speaker 2: like any other Oakland kid, but I mean a lot
Speaker 2: of kids in the in the that grew up in
Speaker 2: the nineties were just product of the our environment. We
Speaker 2: grew up looking at things that we believed to be right,
Speaker 2: so we as we mature, we get to see that
Speaker 2: they were really wrong.
Speaker 1: And how did you get into music?
Speaker 2: My auntie used to work for She switt her name
Speaker 2: with Tracy Rush, and she since passed in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 2: But just being around her, she took me in her wing,
Speaker 2: just taking me to the studio or her as I
Speaker 2: became addicted to you.
Speaker 1: Is it fair to say by twenty eleven things were
Speaker 1: starting to look up for you in terms of possibly
Speaker 1: building a career.
Speaker 2: And yeah, when I was arrested for this face, Actually
Speaker 2: friends of mine has said that the police were looking
Speaker 2: for me for this time, and we all laughed about
Speaker 2: it because everybody knew that I couldn't have done. And
Speaker 2: I have been wrapping and going to the studio, staying assistant,
Speaker 2: shooting videos. And actually when I was arrested, I was
Speaker 2: open up for Bay Area Ledge by the name of
Speaker 2: surname Queen, and we had a big tour van with
Speaker 2: my pictures on and promoting my music and everything. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: it was coming up for me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you were on exactly, You're on your way up,
Speaker 1: and then everything went completely haywire. Now let's turn the
Speaker 1: conversation to Marvin lou. Marvin is a criminal defense attorney
Speaker 1: of some repute and he has been representing Pierre for
Speaker 1: some time. Now, let's just paint a picture of what happened.
Speaker 3: The date was April fifteenth, twenty eleven, and what happened
Speaker 3: was two individuals by the name of Patrick Smith and
Speaker 3: Robert Green. We're doing crack cocaine or the day and
Speaker 3: a half leading up to this young man's killing, and
Speaker 3: Patrick Smith and Robert Green went to an apartment in
Speaker 3: Oakland to purchase more crack cocaine. Patrick Smith was driving,
Speaker 3: Robert Green stayed in the car while Patrick Smith went
Speaker 3: up to the apartment to purchase more drugs. So Patrick
Speaker 3: Smith meets up with his drug dealer. Patrick Smith knows
Speaker 3: him as see the letter c who is the actual
Speaker 3: person responsible for the murder of Dewane Taylor. While Patrick
Speaker 3: Smith was in the apartment, there were several other people present,
Speaker 3: and mister Taylor left the apartment. Shortly after mister Taylor left,
Speaker 3: then sees iPod turned up missing and someone in the
Speaker 3: apartment said that mister Taylor had taken sees iPod. What
Speaker 3: happened next was Patrick Smith the shooter Se and another
Speaker 3: individual who was also charged as a co defendant named
Speaker 3: Andre Morris. They all left the apartment and went and
Speaker 3: got in Patrick Smith's car to go find mister Taylor,
Speaker 3: who had allegedly taken C's iPod. Robert Green was waiting
Speaker 3: in the car, sitting in the front passenger seat. So
Speaker 3: pat Smith drives around the corner. They see mister Taylor
Speaker 3: walking down the street and See or Andre Morris. Pat
Speaker 3: Smith wasn't sure which told him to stop the car.
Speaker 3: C and Andre Morris got out of the car, confronted
Speaker 3: mister Taylor, and Se shot and killed mister Taylor on
Speaker 3: the sidewalk in front of a fast food restaurant. They
Speaker 3: then got back into the car. Pat Smith drove a
Speaker 3: short distance. Both See and mister Morris got out of
Speaker 3: the car and ran away. So that's the factual backdrop
Speaker 3: for this thing.
Speaker 1: Follow along here because Pierre, who were on the phone
Speaker 1: with now had no connection to viction, no knowledge of
Speaker 1: the actual perpetrator, and he was at his grandmother's at
Speaker 1: the time with a young lady named Lauren Richardson. On
Speaker 1: the time and date of the murder. Have you ever
Speaker 1: had a nickname of C for it?
Speaker 2: Never never, I've always went by the name of Stink
Speaker 2: or people from my neighborhoods to call me peace, thank
Speaker 2: being for my first name is Pierre. I have never
Speaker 2: never went by the Namac.
Speaker 1: So what happened? How did you end up getting wrong
Speaker 1: for convicted here?
Speaker 2: Well? One of the past is Robert Green. He goes
Speaker 2: to the police ninety five days after he allegedly see
Speaker 2: this crime, and he tells them that he's seen as
Speaker 2: murdering a guy named see commissed this murder. He gives
Speaker 2: the police multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description
Speaker 2: is five a light skin, one hundred and twenty pounds.
Speaker 2: I haven't been one hundred and twenty pounds since I
Speaker 2: was eighteen years old, let alone at nineteen years old,
Speaker 2: and I'm not light skinned. The second time I believe
Speaker 2: he sees the police, he switches it up again. So
Speaker 2: allegedly he says he sees c on April thirties, which
Speaker 2: would have been fifteen days after the crime, and he
Speaker 2: went back to the police and say, you know what,
Speaker 2: I lied again. I believe he was six foot two,
Speaker 2: brown skin, and they had on red shirt and a
Speaker 2: red hat. I'm not sure what kind of lineup they
Speaker 2: were showinging, but he still couldn't identify who they believed
Speaker 2: to be seen. The police seen an area that he
Speaker 2: said that he had seen seeing. I believe it was
Speaker 2: May third, wearing a red hat, and they stopped me.
Speaker 2: And when they stopped me, they said, what is your name?
Speaker 2: I don't lie to the police. Year Russian is my name?
Speaker 2: I say, hey, we're looking for a guy that beat
Speaker 2: a guy up. I haven't beaten the guy up. And
Speaker 2: then they leave when they take that name back to
Speaker 2: I believe Robert Green, who was at the police station,
Speaker 2: and they show him the picture four days after he's
Speaker 2: seen a guy with a red hat. He said, you
Speaker 2: know what, he had asked me, I'm Bessie. And that's
Speaker 2: how the whole way of his spawn them looking for
Speaker 2: a guy would have red hat four days after Robert
Speaker 2: grig because he's seen this guy and.
Speaker 1: A month after the crime. When they first questioned you,
Speaker 1: they wanted to know what you were doing on the
Speaker 1: day of the crime. But when they were asking you
Speaker 1: this question, it was already five weeks later, right, And
Speaker 1: this is a trick that they you Sometimes you're like
Speaker 1: you're supposed to remember exactly like, I don't ask anybody
Speaker 1: in the audience right now what were you doing. Let's
Speaker 1: go back thirty five days from whatever day you're listening
Speaker 1: to this. Tell me right now what you were doing
Speaker 1: at a particular time on that day, and I'll give
Speaker 1: you a dollar. Because that's impossible, but it is very
Speaker 1: effective because then they can say you lied, because there's
Speaker 1: no way anyone could possibly remember that unless it was
Speaker 1: their birthday or some other like really important day.
Speaker 2: Right April fifteenth, as you would have it, is my
Speaker 2: father's birthday. So without me even thinking, you say April fifteen, Hey,
Speaker 2: there's nothing I was with my dad. I seen my
Speaker 2: dad on his birthday. Not one time at any trial transcript,
Speaker 2: police evidence Torty's Germany do they ever say where were
Speaker 2: you three forty five a m. So if they say no,
Speaker 2: you weren't with your dad. I also remember that I
Speaker 2: had a traffic shot that day, and they win, chick.
Speaker 2: It showed that I was on the truth of the
Speaker 2: say no not at that time. It took me, i
Speaker 2: believe my attorney, for about a week of jog in
Speaker 2: my memory to figure out where did I sleep at
Speaker 2: three four forty five am That morning, and I've remembered
Speaker 2: it was my grandma. So it was because my mom
Speaker 2: came to me that morning and said, where are you
Speaker 2: going to get your dad for his birthday? That's how
Speaker 2: I was able to put the pieces and a pleazure together.
Speaker 2: But by that time it was trial, so they looked
Speaker 2: at it as if, oh, this is a third alibi. Well, no,
Speaker 2: I've given you everywhere I went from April fifteenth, and
Speaker 2: so that's how they played it, which is very nefarious
Speaker 2: because they see that I was trying to tell them
Speaker 2: everything at.
Speaker 1: The time that this crime was committed at three forty
Speaker 1: five in the morning. Now we know what you were
Speaker 1: doing when you were supposedly out shooting somebody who you
Speaker 1: never knew and don't know and still don't know and
Speaker 1: never will know.
Speaker 2: Well, April fourteenth, I was shooting a video and if
Speaker 2: you go on YouTube right now, the song was called
Speaker 2: you Next, Thank take a Trip. Lauren Richardson was an
Speaker 2: associate of the camera man helped shoot the video. She
Speaker 2: was also my girlfriend April fourteenth, going in table fifteen,
Speaker 2: she came to my randma, talked roughly about nine fund
Speaker 2: tenn'clock and we spent the night we enjoyed each other's company.
Speaker 2: We deal with any other boys from the girlfriend.
Speaker 4: Hello.
Speaker 5: My name is Lauren Richardson. I am an Oakland resident
Speaker 5: and current legal apprentice. I entered the field with a
Speaker 5: lot of motivation from the tragic situation that happened with
Speaker 5: Pierre Rushing. I originally was into video. On April fourteenth,
Speaker 5: Pierre went to shoot a video. It's called take a Trip.
Speaker 5: We were super excited because he has so much support
Speaker 5: from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was a great rapper,
Speaker 5: so when he finally shot the video, we were super excited.
Speaker 5: We went back to his grandmother's house afterwards just to
Speaker 5: kind of recap, and we stayed up all night watching movies, laughing,
Speaker 5: making plans for the future. We you know, did what
Speaker 5: couples do late night, and I left early in the
Speaker 5: morning because I had to take my son to school.
Speaker 5: And it was some weeks after that he kind of disappeared,
Speaker 5: you know, when somebody else found me, it was like,
Speaker 5: you know.
Speaker 3: He's in jail.
Speaker 4: I'm like what.
Speaker 5: Because I was kind of mad, you know, I was.
Speaker 5: I thought he ghosted me, to be honest, So it
Speaker 5: was no way that he could have committed the crime.
Speaker 5: I have never felt as powerless as I felt in
Speaker 5: this situation to express reality and be believed, and you know,
Speaker 5: this huge power structure for them to be able to
Speaker 5: create a false reality, like even with the witness, the
Speaker 5: witness is not a credible witness, nowhere near as credible
Speaker 5: as I am. Because I'm not going to go perjure myself.
Speaker 5: I'm not going to risk my life to keep a
Speaker 5: killer out of jail. So for me to go up
Speaker 5: there in front of all of these people and for
Speaker 5: them to not take my word for it when they
Speaker 5: had no other evidence, it bothers me to this day.
Speaker 5: It's a big part of the motivation for me to
Speaker 5: go into this apprenticeship program because I want to learn
Speaker 5: how to speak up for other people who can't speak
Speaker 5: up for themselves, because this has to stop. They ruined
Speaker 5: an entire family.
Speaker 1: The idea that we in this country can send somebody
Speaker 1: like you, a promising young man with his life ahead
Speaker 1: of him, to fifty years based on the testimony of
Speaker 1: an admitted crackhead it was up for two days or
Speaker 1: changed the story four times, really should make everybody a
Speaker 1: little scared. YEERH, can you tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: about the trial itself. The killing is on camera.
Speaker 2: When I heard they had it on camera, I'm starting
Speaker 2: to kick my feet up and just wait for the
Speaker 2: trial days because I'm like, if it's on camera, I'm
Speaker 2: going on. I never in a million years imagined that
Speaker 2: the camera would be low quality or you really can't
Speaker 2: see anything on the camera. You see a vehicle pull
Speaker 2: up and it's just green, so you can't release anything.
Speaker 2: And I remember my heart just dropping because I knew
Speaker 2: that that was what was supposed to exonerate music. They
Speaker 2: had no evidence, no physical They have the murdered vehicle
Speaker 2: with twelve fingerprints inside the car and say I got
Speaker 2: inten out of that car four times. None of the
Speaker 2: fingerprints mats made. One of the prosecution's witness was a
Speaker 2: lady by the name of the Carli smith Orf. She
Speaker 2: witnessed the crime her and pass men for best friends.
Speaker 2: She had been in that car a week before. When
Speaker 2: the police forensic pathologists became the call on Avery twenty second,
Speaker 2: they tried to call his fingerprints in that car. Therefore,
Speaker 2: when she testified she hadn't been in the car seven
Speaker 2: days prior to the killing, that means that the car
Speaker 2: couldn't have possibly been wiped down. And if the car
Speaker 2: wasn't wiped down, and you found twelve to fourteenth fingerprints
Speaker 2: in that car, and per Robert Green's testimony, I got
Speaker 2: in and out of that car four times and I
Speaker 2: killed this guy with no gloves. Why don't wear my
Speaker 2: fingerprints on the car. Second, if Robert Greens took the leave,
Speaker 2: why would you ever call me five days light skinned
Speaker 2: one hundred and twenty pounds? Why would you ever change
Speaker 2: it to five teens one hundred and sixty pounds? In
Speaker 2: that preliminary hearing when the judge allowed me to leave
Speaker 2: the court room, they brought Robert Breen in and they said,
Speaker 2: could you please describe to killer? This guy switched it
Speaker 2: up to six to two hundred and twenty pounds. This
Speaker 2: guy's not to be believed. He was addicted to cracking.
Speaker 2: Heroon said he had been up for two days off cracking. Araon,
Speaker 2: I had bitnessie seven time failings. Third, you have to
Speaker 2: call a smith another prosecutions with us. I didn't see him.
Speaker 2: I don't know who that is.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean our standard in this country is
Speaker 1: supposed to be reasonable doubt and this goes way beyond
Speaker 1: that standard.
Speaker 2: I had hope that you know, I would be exaggerated.
Speaker 1: And did you have proper representation?
Speaker 2: Now, I went to a trial with a pub defender
Speaker 2: and I went speedy trial. I was arrested in May,
Speaker 2: I was convicted and all of this, And the reason
Speaker 2: I went speedy truck because I felt like I had
Speaker 2: nothing to hide. I didn't do it, So why would
Speaker 2: I wait? Where I see in my counting people weigh
Speaker 2: four or five years to fight the case because they're
Speaker 2: trying to wait for the better deal. The first day
Speaker 2: a trial, I remember the judge saying something like, hey,
Speaker 2: I know the DA is going to give you a deal.
Speaker 2: She looked to your left, get a deal because I
Speaker 2: know that he's going to give you one. And I
Speaker 2: just remember shaking my head, no, no, no, because why
Speaker 2: would I take time for something if I didn't do it.
Speaker 2: They know I'm not seen, so they want to know
Speaker 2: if what we call in the urban community, if I'm
Speaker 2: going to snitch, I know a lot of seas. That's
Speaker 2: that's the one for two. It's not my job to
Speaker 2: do the police a job for them, you know, So
Speaker 2: if I wasn't there, what do you expect me to
Speaker 2: do or maybe it could have been this guy. Maybe
Speaker 2: it could be this guy. If I do that, I'm
Speaker 2: worse than Robert Green because you were not there and
Speaker 2: they know that and they feed off that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, jailhouse snitches has just sort of become like standard
Speaker 1: operating procedure.
Speaker 2: Correct. It's a nightmare. It's a living nightmare. But that
Speaker 2: was that was the summer of the.
Speaker 1: Tru Yeah, that is a nightmare scenario. So the jury
Speaker 1: goes out when they came back in what was that
Speaker 1: moment like when they actually found you guilty of a
Speaker 1: crime you didn't commit.
Speaker 2: When they came back with it. It was weird because
Speaker 2: the whole trial, I had twenty to thirty people every
Speaker 2: single day of my trial, friends from the neighborhood, family, girlfriend, associates.
Speaker 2: But on that day, nobody was in the courtroom, not
Speaker 2: even the victim's family, nobody from my family. That was
Speaker 2: just like a sense of loneliness, a sense of like
Speaker 2: me against the world, because you're sitting here, convicted me
Speaker 2: for a crime that I didn't commit, and I know
Speaker 2: that you know I didn't commit this crime. And I
Speaker 2: couldn't even look back to the look in the eyes
Speaker 2: of my mother my father and my grandmother, and I
Speaker 2: felt like that was already said for I'm like, why
Speaker 2: wasn't even the victims family like where? It was just
Speaker 2: a feeling that I never want to feel again.
Speaker 1: This episode is underwritten by AIG, a leading global insurance company.
Speaker 1: AIG is committed to corporate social responsibility and is making
Speaker 1: a positive difference in the lives of its employees and
Speaker 1: in the communities where we work and live. In light
Speaker 1: of the compelling need for pro bono legal assistance and
Speaker 1: in recognition of AIG's commitment to criminal and social justice reform,
Speaker 1: the AIG pro Bono Program provides free legal services and
Speaker 1: other support to underrepresented communities and individuals. Marvin, take it
Speaker 1: back to how you first met Pierre or how you
Speaker 1: first became aware of his case, and why you chose
Speaker 1: to get involved in this case. You must get hit
Speaker 1: with cases all the time.
Speaker 3: I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney,
Speaker 3: Stephen Bedrick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court,
Speaker 3: also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State
Speaker 3: Court of Appeal.
Speaker 1: What is the literal interpretation of habeas corpus.
Speaker 3: Habeas corpus means to produce the body in Latin, and
Speaker 3: what that means is that it's an allegation by us
Speaker 3: that Pierre is being unlawfully incarcerated. And once I dug
Speaker 3: into the case and reviewed the evidence in Pierre's case
Speaker 3: and did some investigation of my own, that very much
Speaker 3: turned out to be true.
Speaker 1: What went wrong here?
Speaker 3: I think a number of things went wrong, but most critically,
Speaker 3: there was evidence which could have exonerated Pierre which was
Speaker 3: not introduced. The only witness in the case, Robert Green,
Speaker 3: testified that Pierre was supposedly the person who committed this crime.
Speaker 3: That is the only evidence in the case. And in
Speaker 3: the trial against Pierre, that witness testified that the person
Speaker 3: who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone
Speaker 3: a mirror minutes before shooting the victim. In this case,
Speaker 3: Pierre's phone records were available and that was part of
Speaker 3: the habeas petition and got him a hearing subsequently, and
Speaker 3: those phone records established conclusively that Pierre was not talking
Speaker 3: on his cell pH at the time when the perpetrator was.
Speaker 3: And if those records were introduced, I think that it
Speaker 3: would be a pretty compelling piece of evidence to establish
Speaker 3: that in fact, Pierre is not the person responsible for
Speaker 3: this murder, But they weren't introduced, The jury never heard
Speaker 3: of them.
Speaker 1: What about the fingerprint stuff? How did they manage to
Speaker 1: get around that? That seems like that could have been
Speaker 1: enough on its own. How did he not leave his fingerprints?
Speaker 1: Is he a ghost? Well?
Speaker 3: The fingerprint evidence was introduced by way of a stipulation
Speaker 3: or the evidence technician who actually gathered the latent fingerprints
Speaker 3: from the car that was used in the homicide. That
Speaker 3: witness did not testify. Rather, Pierre's trial attorney chose to
Speaker 3: have that evidence admitted by way of an agreement with
Speaker 3: the prosecutor simply the conclusion that Pierre's fingerprints were not
Speaker 3: in fact recovered from that car, and had that witness
Speaker 3: been called, it would have led to another important piece
Speaker 3: which was not introduced and known to the jury. That
Speaker 3: evidence technician also collected DNA from that car, swabbed all
Speaker 3: of the areas of that car where the killer sat
Speaker 3: just before the murder occurred. In addition, there was a
Speaker 3: cigarette but that was recovered from the floorboard of that car,
Speaker 3: which was also swabbed for DNA. That DNA evidence was
Speaker 3: not tested in time for Pierre's trial, and that was
Speaker 3: also the subject of his subsequent Avias petition. So what
Speaker 3: happened was after we obtained an evidentiary hearing in state
Speaker 3: court to attempt to prove Pierre's innocence. As I started
Speaker 3: reviewing the case materials, I realized that this DNA evidence
Speaker 3: existed which would completely exonerate him, and no one had
Speaker 3: tested it. So there's a procedure under California law that
Speaker 3: allows the convicted individual to ask the court to now
Speaker 3: have that evidence tested because it would prove that he's innocent.
Speaker 3: The government opposed our efforts to have that evidence tested,
Speaker 3: and ultimately the judge in this case refused to allow
Speaker 3: us to test that evidence. I then appealed that refusal,
Speaker 3: and the Court of Appeal refused to allow us to
Speaker 3: test that evidence. Why is it that they wouldn't want
Speaker 3: to have the DNA evidence in the case tested if
Speaker 3: they're so confident that, in fact, he's the perpetrator.
Speaker 1: I never can understand in any case, especially in a
Speaker 1: case as serious as this one, a murder case, why
Speaker 1: they wouldn't want to have every stone turned over and
Speaker 1: have every piece of evidence tested so that they can
Speaker 1: find out not only that in this case, Pierre didn't
Speaker 1: do it, but they can find out who actually did. Marvin,
Speaker 1: Yolanda Washington, and Patrick Smith are pivotal players in this
Speaker 1: whole wrongful conviction. Can you explain their role in what
Speaker 1: went wrong here? Sure?
Speaker 3: Of course, Pat Smith was a charged co defendant in
Speaker 3: the case at the time of Pierre's trial, so he
Speaker 3: did not testify at the trial. He had his fifth
Speaker 3: Amendment right. But after Pierre's trial was long over and
Speaker 3: after Patrick Smith resolved his part of the case for
Speaker 3: accessory after the fact, he then signed an affidavid which
Speaker 3: helped Pierre get an evidentiary hearing. He indicated both in
Speaker 3: his affidavit as well as in his testimony at the
Speaker 3: evidentiary hearing that his drug dealer is a man who
Speaker 3: goes by the name of c and that individual was
Speaker 3: not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing refused to
Speaker 3: name that individual because he was afraid for his life.
Speaker 3: But one of the people who was in that apartment
Speaker 3: was a woman by the name of Yolanda Washington, and
Speaker 3: she also did not testify a trial, but after Pierre
Speaker 3: was convicted, she signed an affidavid under penalty of perjury,
Speaker 3: indicating that she, of course, having been in that apartment,
Speaker 3: knew who C was. She obviously knew who Andre Morris was.
Speaker 3: And what she said in her affid David was that
Speaker 3: Pierre Rushing is not the drug dealer who shot and
Speaker 3: killed mister Taylor. Pierre Rushing is not C. But that's
Speaker 3: not all. Indeed, Yolanda Washington went so far as to
Speaker 3: identify who that person was. Now, before we get into this,
Speaker 3: let me make one thing clear, which is that Pierre
Speaker 3: does not know the identity of the perpetrator of this homicide.
Speaker 3: Yolanda Washington, in her affid David did name that individual
Speaker 3: who goes by the nickname C. In fact, his first
Speaker 3: name is his name is and of course it would
Speaker 3: make perfect sense that he would go by the nickname
Speaker 3: C because his name is Pierre Rushing, does not have
Speaker 3: a sea in his name, and she has never been
Speaker 3: Pierre's nickname. Because Pierre is not the person responsible for
Speaker 3: this killing. That affidavit was part of what enabled Pierre
Speaker 3: to get a hearing in superior court. Unfortunately, Miss Washington
Speaker 3: was a homeless individual at that time, and my investigator
Speaker 3: was essentially unable to locate her to get her to
Speaker 3: testify in court. So I filed a motion essentially asking
Speaker 3: that her affidavit be considered because she was unavailable, and
Speaker 3: that request was denied.
Speaker 1: Wow, it's pretty courageous, even after the fact that these
Speaker 1: two people both were willing to put their own lives
Speaker 1: at risk to identify someone who they know is a killer.
Speaker 1: And I think that speaks volumes to the veracity of
Speaker 1: their statements.
Speaker 2: For me, And I don't mean to say it like
Speaker 2: it's because of the social climate that we have one
Speaker 2: on the United station right now. But growing up, I've
Speaker 2: always thoughts us because I grew up in an agent
Speaker 2: of police. But I just watch how they need those
Speaker 2: that look likely here at these we're talking about a
Speaker 2: guy give a description on April thirty of a red hat,
Speaker 2: and you see me on the DR say, well, hey,
Speaker 2: that's a guy wearing a red hat. Let me stop him.
Speaker 2: And now my whole life is spending in a spider
Speaker 2: with not a thread of physical evidence links me to
Speaker 2: this crime. And if it could happen to me, it
Speaker 2: can't happen to anybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up. I mean,
Speaker 1: we you know, every day there's more information coming out,
Speaker 1: and I'm grateful that the public is starting to have
Speaker 1: really heightened awareness to the fact that black people, it's
Speaker 1: just put it right out there, are so much more
Speaker 1: likely to be victimized by not just police brutality, but
Speaker 1: by wrongful convictions, by wrongful prosecutions, being forced into taking
Speaker 1: plea bargains to things they didn't do. The whole system
Speaker 1: is stacked. Wrongful convictions, though, do happen to people from
Speaker 1: all races all that. Now, these all different creeds, all
Speaker 1: different religions. I mean, we've had people on the show
Speaker 1: from every walk of life.
Speaker 2: I mean, you can take the case of Mayan Ferguson
Speaker 2: in a two thousand and one Columbus, Missouri killing. He
Speaker 2: was wrongfully convicted and he's a white man, you know
Speaker 2: what I mean. Like, wrathful convictions don't have a skin color.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's usually what I'm going through. I witness misidentifications,
Speaker 2: i'm valid, forensic science, false confiicients, you know, police or
Speaker 2: prosecutor misconduct. This is a slew of things on why
Speaker 2: wrathful convictions happened.
Speaker 1: Then there's just laziness too. It's like, oh, we got
Speaker 1: a guy with a red hat good enough, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean? Yeah, yeah, But the idea that the
Speaker 1: justice system at every level, now we see it on
Speaker 1: video of how the system treats people like yourself, like
Speaker 1: George Floyd, like so many others, as expendable, disposable, and
Speaker 1: yet I mean, there are very very real consequences. That's
Speaker 1: why we're on the phone with you from prison now,
Speaker 1: or you and I might be working together on a
Speaker 1: record instead of.
Speaker 2: I'm innocent. If you have any doubt in my innocence,
Speaker 2: I would actually just think on these key points, what
Speaker 2: guilty person would push for DNA testing of the materials
Speaker 2: that were sought out the vehicle if I wasn't innocent,
Speaker 2: What guilty man would push for the enhancement of the
Speaker 2: video if I wasn't innocent, Or man, I'm gonna push
Speaker 2: for the phone records. I'm minister, I didn't commit this crime.
Speaker 2: I have nothing to do with this.
Speaker 1: Crime, Pierre. Last time we spoke Dawan Taylor's actual murderer,
Speaker 1: the guy known as Sea now his co conspirator Andre Marris,
Speaker 1: as well as an accessory after the fact, Patrick Smith,
Speaker 1: they had both come forward to definitively state that you
Speaker 1: had absolutely nothing to do with the ones murder and
Speaker 1: are not in fact C, that's not you. You and
Speaker 1: C are different people, but for their own safety understandably
Speaker 1: they would not name C. However, a woman named Yolanda Washington,
Speaker 1: who was prepared to do just that, she couldn't be
Speaker 1: located for your evidentiary hearing. And then Smith and Morris
Speaker 1: were just explained away. And additionally, your request for DNA
Speaker 1: testing against items from the car was denied. And you're right,
Speaker 1: why would a guilty person, what guilty person would be
Speaker 1: seeking DNA testing on items that might contain their own DNA?
Speaker 1: What do you want to cebmit your own guilt if
Speaker 1: you were doing that, if you actually had a guilty conscience,
Speaker 1: Or why would they try to enhance crime scene video
Speaker 1: if they knew it was going to point to their guilt.
Speaker 1: All of this in addition to how flimsy the state's
Speaker 1: evidence was to begin with the sole witness I'm talking
Speaker 1: about Robert Green, of course, the sole witness who cooperated
Speaker 1: with police to avoid being charged as well, whose description
Speaker 1: of C changed three count up three times, and one
Speaker 1: of those times Green said that she had worn a
Speaker 1: red hat. Again, Robert Green, Newcy knew just how dangerous
Speaker 1: he really was, yet he felt quite comfortable identifying you, Pierre,
Speaker 1: after you were picked up while wearing a red hat.
Speaker 6: Keep in mind they stopped me two days after that
Speaker 6: description was given, so I guess this quote unquote killer
Speaker 6: was supposed to have been wearing the same clothes and
Speaker 6: hat for two days straight. I mean, like it was
Speaker 6: bananas from the beginning. I've never fitted description of being
Speaker 6: five to eight light skinned. I've never rocked the ball.
Speaker 6: It haven't been one hundred and twenty pounds since I
Speaker 6: was ten years old.
Speaker 4: I mean, it just has been bananas from the game.
Speaker 6: Nobody can convince me that he thought I was ever
Speaker 6: the guy in the car.
Speaker 1: With him, because you weren't. What you were was you
Speaker 1: were with Lauren that night at your grandmother's house, and
Speaker 1: her testimony was corroborated by the absence of your fingerprints
Speaker 1: in the vehicle. Since your episode aired in your case
Speaker 1: was picked up from Marvin lou pro bono, by the way,
Speaker 1: by one of the biggest and baddest law firms in
Speaker 1: the country, Greenberg Trauick, and one of their star attorneys,
Speaker 1: Jordan Gratzinger, has been hard at work. I mean that's
Speaker 1: an understatement.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he's a beast. We have a great investigator by
Speaker 6: the name of Grant Fine overturning all the stones in
Speaker 6: the case, getting half a Davis that wasn't gotten before,
Speaker 6: talking to witnesses that hadn't spoken before, and tracked Robert
Speaker 6: Green down. I was sitting here on my bunk and
Speaker 6: Jordan Grassinger he sent me a message and he just
Speaker 6: was saying Robert green every candidate and I had to
Speaker 6: look at the message twice take.
Speaker 4: It all in, and I was like, damn, Like I
Speaker 4: thought it was.
Speaker 6: Like some kind of like April Fool's joke or something,
Speaker 6: and I just immediately dropped his tears. So from what
Speaker 6: I've been told, it was just like you know, weighing
Speaker 6: on his soul. He finally did the right thing, would
Speaker 6: just tell the truth. I mean, I've gotten with anybody
Speaker 6: in my position of fighting Roun Forkovision as asked for
Speaker 6: the one and only witness has fully recanted.
Speaker 1: So I'm both well, very happy for you, but also
Speaker 1: i gotta admit I'm confused. Why am I? Why are
Speaker 1: we talking to you over a prison phone. It seems
Speaker 1: like that should have been it should have resolved the case,
Speaker 1: you should have walked out the door. And now there's
Speaker 1: actually literally zero evidence against you. So where does that
Speaker 1: leave your case.
Speaker 6: We're in court and we're trying to get this case dismissed.
Speaker 6: Speaking with a progressive da by the name of Pamela Price,
Speaker 6: and she has eyes on it. I don't have the
Speaker 6: declaration in front of me, but Robert Green says he
Speaker 6: knew the whole time that it wasn't me, and it
Speaker 6: just gave validation and what I've been saying the whole
Speaker 6: time that I didn't commit this crime and there was
Speaker 6: no way that I would have or could have committed
Speaker 6: this crime. As well as one of the guys that
Speaker 6: were actually convicted after me, Andre Morris, he did a
Speaker 6: written declaration and said that he was a participant in
Speaker 6: the killing and that I wasn't with him.
Speaker 4: That was that. So we're just waiting in praying for
Speaker 4: good news very soon.
Speaker 1: Well, let's hope that Pamela Price doesn't just put on
Speaker 1: the progressive sort of bona fides at election time, right,
Speaker 1: but that she takes this case as what it is,
Speaker 1: which is an example of why we need prosecutors with
Speaker 1: the brains and the heart that we know she possesses.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it shouldn't take a reform minded
Speaker 1: prosecutor when we're dealing with actual innocence. Every prosecutor should
Speaker 1: want to get the innocent guy out and go after
Speaker 1: the person that actually did it. And this is a
Speaker 1: guy whose name we know and we know they know,
Speaker 1: So what is the hold up?
Speaker 4: I believe Pamela Price is under a lot of scrutiny.
Speaker 6: She's cleaning up Alameda County, and she's being took to
Speaker 6: town by some as being too soft on crime. And
Speaker 6: really there's all type of guys walking around here in
Speaker 6: three strikes and weed and all type of just craziness.
Speaker 6: She's by the book, and by her being by the
Speaker 6: books making her seem as if she's soft on krime
Speaker 6: if you don't have enough evidence to convict beyond a
Speaker 6: reasonable doubt, she's not taking it into some that seems
Speaker 6: if she's soft on krin In my instance, as far
Speaker 6: as my habeas petition, I haven't heard from him uch
Speaker 6: Price and Jordan hasn't either.
Speaker 4: She's aware of the situation.
Speaker 6: She's aware of the Joe Rogan podcast, She's aware of
Speaker 6: the Wrong for Provision podcast. She's aware of the Breakfast
Speaker 6: Club interview, and she still hasn't responded to Jordan Grassinger,
Speaker 6: and she's supposed to file some kind of rebuttal to
Speaker 6: my release. I'm not sure where we're at. We're close
Speaker 6: to justice, but I still feel like they're trying to
Speaker 6: hold on to something that they know is wrong, because
Speaker 6: why are they not talking to us? Why are they
Speaker 6: following the rebubdle? What are you rebudding? You have every
Speaker 6: single person that was in the vehicle except to kill
Speaker 6: her yourself, that has done sworn declarations and given testimony
Speaker 6: that I did not comment the crime. Everybody has said
Speaker 6: wrong guy. There is no physical or tangible or corrob
Speaker 6: rating evidence that goes with this case.
Speaker 4: What are you rebudding?
Speaker 1: I don't get it either. I mean, are they going
Speaker 1: to say we don't find Robert Green's recantation credible? And
Speaker 1: if so, was he then credible before when he was
Speaker 1: facing accessory after the fact doing all kinds of drugs.
Speaker 1: And don't forget he changed the description of c three times,
Speaker 1: a guy who he knew to be capable of murder,
Speaker 1: yet he was brave enough to identify you, a man
Speaker 1: who did not fit any one of his multiple descriptions.
Speaker 1: You know, it's hard not to think that maybe he
Speaker 1: thought that you were the type of guy who wouldn't
Speaker 1: come after him, which leads us to believe that you
Speaker 1: were not a dangerous guy in the first place, never were,
Speaker 1: and never will be. I mean, this conviction happened well
Speaker 1: over a decade before Pam Price was elected. She could
Speaker 1: fix this. It wouldn't reflect badly on her or her office,
Speaker 1: because after all, it was one of her predecessors that
Speaker 1: made these mistakes.
Speaker 6: It was a lady but the name of Nancy O'Malley,
Speaker 6: So I understand she has a lot to go on.
Speaker 6: It's like Jordan says, there is no case in Alameda
Speaker 6: County that is as compelling in an innocence claim as mine.
Speaker 1: So is there anything our audience can do to help?
Speaker 1: Is there a petition to sign? At a very minimum, I.
Speaker 6: Think we're past signing a petition. I believe that we
Speaker 6: have to do as Heep Newton said. We have to agitate,
Speaker 6: we have to call, we have to email, we have
Speaker 6: to show up unannounced to the DA's office. Some might
Speaker 6: say that's hurtful. Sitting in jail for twelve years with
Speaker 6: a fifty to life sentence is hurtful. Dwan Taylor's family
Speaker 6: deserves justice like this is not justice, So I would
Speaker 6: ask that they call Family Prices office and ask for
Speaker 6: justice for Pierre Russian.
Speaker 1: All right, this is all hands on deck, people. We
Speaker 1: can we can do this. We put out the original
Speaker 1: coverage three and a half bucking years ago. All right,
Speaker 1: So we're gonna post her office's number, her email, her
Speaker 1: snail mail address, all of it in the bio, and remember,
Speaker 1: be respectful when you call. Doesn't help anyone in or
Speaker 1: does she deserve Everyone deserves to be treated with respect
Speaker 1: in that office. Whoever answers the phone, So please keep
Speaker 1: that in mind, but do call, write, email, whatever. And
Speaker 1: with that we're going to move on to closing arguments,
Speaker 1: where I think you Pierre for calling in once again.
Speaker 1: You know you're in our thoughts here at rofuel conviction
Speaker 1: more often than you know. And now I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: sit back and listen to anything else you want to say.
Speaker 4: I would just like to speak directly to her. Yeah,
Speaker 4: go for it, Pamela Price.
Speaker 6: Robert Green get his declaration in February when he lied
Speaker 6: on me, they inastially put a warrant out the same day.
Speaker 6: That's tooking longer to exonerate me than it took to
Speaker 6: convict me.
Speaker 4: There's no evidence in this case.
Speaker 6: Rely on your common sense, Rely on your your expertise
Speaker 6: and the Civil Rights Arena. Rely on your intelligence. I
Speaker 6: didn't commit this crime. You know I didn't commit this crime.
Speaker 6: Every milli second that passes by is an injustice. I
Speaker 6: could be your son, I could be your little brother.
Speaker 6: I could be your I do not deserve to continue
Speaker 6: to sit here while you and your office place politics.
Speaker 6: I have a family to get to. My little sister
Speaker 6: was murdered in twenty eighteen. My niece has no mother,
Speaker 6: she has no father. She needs My family needs me.
Speaker 6: My mother needs me, my father needs me. The community
Speaker 6: needs me. I have a story. I can stop a
Speaker 6: lot with my story. I'm asking you to please step
Speaker 6: up and do the right thing. Give Jordan Grassen your
Speaker 6: a call, and please do the right thing.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
Speaker 1: to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
Speaker 1: week early by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our production team, Cutter
Speaker 1: Hall and Kathleen Fake, as well as my fellow executive
Speaker 1: producers Jeff Kepler, Kevin Warnis, and Jeff Cliber. The music
Speaker 1: in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
Speaker 1: composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us across all
Speaker 1: social media platforms at Lava for Good and at Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: You can also follow me on Instagram at it's Jason Vlaum.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcasts
Speaker 1: in association with Signal Company Number one