Speaker 1: Since our initial release of Ronnie Long story, there have
Speaker 1: been some incredible developments, and this is a re release
Speaker 1: of that story with new content outlining the great news.
Speaker 1: At around on the night of April nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: the fifty four year old widow of a Cannon Mills
Speaker 1: executive was at her home and Conquered, North Carolina when
Speaker 1: a man grabbed her from behind. She fought him, scratching
Speaker 1: her attacker so hard that her nails bent backwards, but
Speaker 1: ultimately he overpowered and raped her. She described her assailant
Speaker 1: as a light skinned black man with no mention of
Speaker 1: facial hair, wearing a dark leather coat and a beanie hat.
Speaker 1: A rape kit was done and the police carefully collected
Speaker 1: a mountain of forensic evidence. Meanwhile, across town, nineteen year
Speaker 1: old Ronnie Long was at home with his mother, on
Speaker 1: the phone with the mother of his own two year
Speaker 1: old son till ten PM. A few days later, Ronnie
Speaker 1: received a court summons for trespassing in the park after hours.
Speaker 1: He was wearing a dark leather coat at the time.
Speaker 1: Police would ask the rape victim to be present in
Speaker 1: court to see if her attacker was present. On the day,
Speaker 1: Ronnie the owner of a dark leather coat, was scheduled
Speaker 1: to appear disguised. She sat in the gallery for two
Speaker 1: hours in Ronnie's presence, only to identify him as her
Speaker 1: attacker when his name was called. The state would present
Speaker 1: a case without any of the collected forensic or biological evidence,
Speaker 1: solely resting their case upon this extremely unorthodox and totally
Speaker 1: unreliable cross racial identification and Ronnie's unscratched leather coat. For that,
Speaker 1: Ronnie has been in prison for forty four years. This
Speaker 1: is wrongful conviction with Jason Flomer, Welcome back to wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: Today's case, will Um. It's going to upset you. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you right now. This is a grotesque injustice
Speaker 1: that was inflicted and is still being inflicted on an
Speaker 1: amazing man named Ronnie Long. And we're hoping to hear
Speaker 1: from Ronnie during the recording. We'll be calling in from
Speaker 1: prison where he has been since nineteen seventies six for
Speaker 1: a crime he didn't commit. In this time of COVID,
Speaker 1: there's all sorts of complications, so we're going to try
Speaker 1: to make it work with us now as well is
Speaker 1: Jamie Law. Jamie is an attorney at Duke University's Wrongful
Speaker 1: Convictions Clinic. And Jamie, thank you for joining us on
Speaker 1: the show. Thank you for having me. I'm want to
Speaker 1: do something unusual here. I actually want to start at
Speaker 1: the end. We we almost ever do that. But there's
Speaker 1: a quote from a judge named James Wynn, who's a
Speaker 1: circuit court judge in the fourth District Court. So this
Speaker 1: is a serious guy. And Judge Wynn said, and I quote,
Speaker 1: prosecutors clearly had evidence that any defense counsel in the world,
Speaker 1: not only in but in the history of this country
Speaker 1: would have wanted or needed, and which should have been supplied,
Speaker 1: and yet we did not provide it. He goes on
Speaker 1: to say, what is it about us that we want
Speaker 1: to prosecute and keep people in jail when we know
Speaker 1: evidence may exist that might lead to a different conclusion.
Speaker 1: Why is that so offensive to us now that we
Speaker 1: want to protect illegal activity from forty four years ago?
Speaker 1: What's the harm of looking at the new evidence? He said?
Speaker 1: When did justice leave the process? So we let our
Speaker 1: rules blind us to what we all can see. Wow. Well,
Speaker 1: during the course of argument, it made us optimistic that
Speaker 1: after forty four years, um end maybe near to the
Speaker 1: injustice that occurred in Ronnie's case. It's been an incredible
Speaker 1: difficult journey through the courts to get his case to
Speaker 1: where it was. On May seven of this year, you
Speaker 1: said we'll start at the end, and the end at
Speaker 1: this point in time was an argument on May seven
Speaker 1: in front of the full four Circuit Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: which is fifteen active judges, all have been appointed by
Speaker 1: a President judge when was making that quote in response
Speaker 1: to arguments from the State of North Carolina that more
Speaker 1: or less was asking the court to disregard all the
Speaker 1: evidence that is now known about in this case that
Speaker 1: was hid from Ronnie at the time of his trial
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy six. And Judge win also discussed sort
Speaker 1: of the circumstances of nineteen seventy six and the conditions
Speaker 1: of black males, particularly in the South in nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: and how they were wrongfully convicted in great numbers. So
Speaker 1: at the moment Judge Wynn offered his viewpoints during the
Speaker 1: course of the stakes argument, we knew that we had
Speaker 1: succeeded in conveying to the court the seriousness and the
Speaker 1: magnitude of the injustice that occurred in Ronnie's case has promised.
Speaker 1: We got a phone call from Ronnie, and I must
Speaker 1: warn you that there was a poor connection with the prison.
Speaker 1: So ron is a little hard to hear. But what
Speaker 1: he has to say needs to be heard, so please
Speaker 1: bear with us. You know how to play paid call.
Speaker 1: You will not be charged for this call. This call
Speaker 1: is from and in mad End album Le Correctional Institution.
Speaker 1: This call will be monitored and recorded. To accept this call,
Speaker 1: Prince Stive now to decline this call. Hang up. Thank
Speaker 1: you for using global tie link. Hi Ronnie, thanks for
Speaker 1: calling me. I know we have a limited time, so
Speaker 1: let's get right into it now. You grew up in
Speaker 1: conquered North Carolina, right, seven brothers and sisters. Can you
Speaker 1: tell me a little bit about your life before all
Speaker 1: of this horrible stuff happened? Pretty sports? When I was
Speaker 1: in how school? Wait, I learned how to leave. That's
Speaker 1: care of work I was doing with my dad. I'll
Speaker 1: go to work with him sometimes big money with young
Speaker 1: still a lot of time with my phone him his model.
Speaker 1: Thank you's a little cool in the game. The game
Speaker 1: when I never treat it with three Now I read
Speaker 1: about this one time before you had your son way
Speaker 1: before the incident that lands you in prison, there was
Speaker 1: an encounter that you once had with some police officers.
Speaker 1: They pulled up on you, harassed you a bit, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know what you're doing around here? Boy type of thing,
Speaker 1: and you responded, isn't this America? Aren't I free to
Speaker 1: walk on this sidewalk? That right? I was coming from
Speaker 1: a girl house? How coming from the girl house one night?
Speaker 1: The area that was in it was only this area,
Speaker 1: so I'll come at all one night, the two white
Speaker 1: cups pull behind me, Ada, what are you coming from?
Speaker 1: What are you doing in this area here? Pally? Did
Speaker 1: you walk side walk here? They took me to me
Speaker 1: to be down, I stated, a pay about to round
Speaker 1: not also came up tops ago. You can leave. I
Speaker 1: just gotta walk up with all all. And that's it
Speaker 1: seems to be how he got to be on the
Speaker 1: radar of the local authorities. And then on the faithful
Speaker 1: day of Sunday six around pm, a wealthy white, fifty
Speaker 1: four year old widow of a Cannon Mills executive was
Speaker 1: burglarized and raped. Awful, awful crime. And Cannon Mills was
Speaker 1: a major employer in the area. And that name is
Speaker 1: going to come to play a big role in this.
Speaker 1: In this story, the victim said that while she was
Speaker 1: preparing food for a beach trip the following day, a
Speaker 1: black man snuck into her home and grabbed her from behind.
Speaker 1: She said the intruder told her that he only had
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes as his friends were waiting for him outside
Speaker 1: like a horror movie, and he proceeded to rape her.
Speaker 1: She later described her attacker as quote yellow looking and
Speaker 1: quote again not blue black, maybe wearing gloves, a beanie hat,
Speaker 1: no mention of any facial hair, and a dark leather coat.
Speaker 1: She also described the violent struggle where she scratched her
Speaker 1: attacker so hard that her fingernails bent backward, which would
Speaker 1: definitely have left the mark on that leather coat. The
Speaker 1: victim said that whenever she tried to move, he would
Speaker 1: slam her head against the ground. Then the phone rang,
Speaker 1: startling the attacker, who gathered his things and left through
Speaker 1: the front door. The victim then rushed over to her
Speaker 1: neighbors naked, where she was able to call the police,
Speaker 1: and they arrived around ten pm. The victim has since
Speaker 1: passed away um, but that being said, she was rushed
Speaker 1: to the hospital for a rape kit and the doctor
Speaker 1: performed all the tests and collected all the biological evidence
Speaker 1: and everything else. What happened next is that Detective Eisenhower
Speaker 1: of the Concord Police Department arrived at the victim's home
Speaker 1: around ten thirty, photographed the house, and began collecting evidence,
Speaker 1: including latent fingerprints, carpet samples, suspect hair paint samples, as
Speaker 1: well as pieces of the victim's clothing and partially burned matches,
Speaker 1: and he later brought them to the State Bureau of
Speaker 1: Investigation office at Raleigh for examination. He also lifted a
Speaker 1: latent shoe print from a column near the porch. Now
Speaker 1: this is important. Later has nothing but the shoe print
Speaker 1: was ever discussed at trial. And before we go any further,
Speaker 1: we need to state clearly that Ronnie had a solid alibi.
Speaker 1: And remember the crime took place at Ronnie at around
Speaker 1: nine thirty. You were at home with your mother, waiting
Speaker 1: on your father to get back with the car so
Speaker 1: you could head out to a party in Charlotte. You
Speaker 1: were on the phone with the mother of your child.
Speaker 1: Your mom hopped on the phone a few times to
Speaker 1: say hello to her grandson. Right, yes, on the phone too.
Speaker 1: But you can't all understand what you say, but he's
Speaker 1: trying to talk and says that he on the phone
Speaker 1: to my mom, was on the phone. I'll stay on
Speaker 1: the phone. I'm gonna stays on the phone, and I'm
Speaker 1: waiting on my dad to come back with your card.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to cross one or two party and shout.
Speaker 1: So Jamie, can you take us back to how Ronnie
Speaker 1: came to be implicated in it and how he could
Speaker 1: have possibly been convicted in spite of no evidence at all,
Speaker 1: none zero. Yeah. Ronnie, very much like other young black
Speaker 1: men in nineteen seventy six and still today, was harassed
Speaker 1: by law enforcement officers. That harassment directly led to what
Speaker 1: ultimately becomes this forty four year old wrongful conviction. On April,
Speaker 1: the victim is assaulted and raped in her home. A
Speaker 1: few days after that, Ronnie receives a trespassing charge at
Speaker 1: the local park that was adjacent to his home when
Speaker 1: he shouldn't have been there, and during that time it
Speaker 1: appears that he was observed wearing a black leather coat.
Speaker 1: The officer who stopped him recalled that the person who
Speaker 1: was described by the victim had been wearing a dark
Speaker 1: leather coat on the night of April when she gave
Speaker 1: a description to law enforce it, and despite Ronnie not
Speaker 1: matching other very prominent features that were included in her description,
Speaker 1: the officer decided that perhaps he was the individual who
Speaker 1: had assaulted the victim. I mean it was significant the
Speaker 1: disparities between her description of her assailant and Ronnie. She
Speaker 1: described her assailant as a yellow black male. In the
Speaker 1: South at the time, to describe somebody as a yellow
Speaker 1: black male meant a light skinned black person of mixed origin.
Speaker 1: She never mentioned her assailant having facial hair. Ronnie had
Speaker 1: facial hair, and disputed that he had facial hair on
Speaker 1: April nineteen seventy six when she was assaulted. So despite
Speaker 1: him having a different complexion having facial hair, where she
Speaker 1: never described facial hair, he becomes a suspect. Officers then
Speaker 1: go to her home and says, we have reason to
Speaker 1: believe that the individual who had assaulted you will be
Speaker 1: in the courtroom on this date fifteen days later, May
Speaker 1: tenth nine, and we'd like you to come down to
Speaker 1: the courtroom to see if you can identify the person
Speaker 1: who attacked you there. So immediately in her mind she
Speaker 1: thinks they've done some investigation and have identified a likely suspect,
Speaker 1: but all they had done is made the connect um
Speaker 1: to the fact that Ronnie had a black leather coat,
Speaker 1: similar to what she described. The real curious thing with
Speaker 1: respect to law enforcement asking the victim to go to
Speaker 1: the courthouse to try and make identification is they had
Speaker 1: a picture of Long that they could have shown her
Speaker 1: when they went to her and asked her to come
Speaker 1: to the courthouse, And they could have did it in
Speaker 1: a fair procedure, or as fair as these identification procedures
Speaker 1: can be, with the inclusion of fillers to ensure that
Speaker 1: she's selecting him from memory and not because he looks
Speaker 1: most like the attacker or because she's being presented a
Speaker 1: suspect in a very suggestive way. They elected to forego that.
Speaker 1: So she's out to the courthouse dressed in a disguise
Speaker 1: because she's fearful that if her attacker was there, he'd
Speaker 1: recognize her. She describes during her testimony being terrified. She
Speaker 1: six in the courtroom for an hour and a half
Speaker 1: in Long's presence and fails to identify him, and only
Speaker 1: when his name is called and he walks up to
Speaker 1: resolve the trespassing charge, which was dismissed that day. Did
Speaker 1: she say he's the one? But it's telling because we
Speaker 1: later learned during her testimony at trial that there were
Speaker 1: only twelve black males in the courtroom. She quickly eliminated
Speaker 1: several of them because they had afros where they were older.
Speaker 1: She described one as being old and hunched over, and
Speaker 1: she says that he was the only one that looked
Speaker 1: remotely similar to her attacker. And identification evidence is already
Speaker 1: flawed and highlighting reliable, but here you can just take
Speaker 1: her words that she's just picking the person that's most
Speaker 1: likely to be her attacker, that's president in the courtroom,
Speaker 1: so she can in the experience where she's traumatized and terrified,
Speaker 1: so that in essence becomes the only evidence against Long.
Speaker 1: And here we are, forty four years later, trying to
Speaker 1: undo that identification. And I'm glad you brought that up, Jamie,
Speaker 1: because we know the most unreliable eye witness identification as
Speaker 1: cross racial. This fits exactly into that category. And then,
Speaker 1: of course there's still room for it to get worse.
Speaker 1: So Ronnie, take us back to the day that you
Speaker 1: were in court for the misdemeanor trespassing charge when you
Speaker 1: had no idea. You couldn't have had any idea that
Speaker 1: there was a rape victim in the gallery who was
Speaker 1: being led to believe that her attacker was in the
Speaker 1: courtroom that day. And the craziest thing is that you
Speaker 1: two were in each other's presence for nearly two hours
Speaker 1: before she idd you right, yeah, they misdemeanor just passing
Speaker 1: black go downtown. You know I'm sitting there for the
Speaker 1: nun o'clock lived day. When you called my name, I
Speaker 1: stood up. We'll walk down front me and my dad.
Speaker 1: This is when the polony said, when they say that
Speaker 1: she had the same two detectives there was on this
Speaker 1: tape that did on this case the whole time they
Speaker 1: were sitting in the jury box. She's testified that it
Speaker 1: was exact me, twelve black an import room. There's not
Speaker 1: an eat people here looking like me. She's supposed to
Speaker 1: be looking for a young black head that I saw
Speaker 1: this her, but she distinctly stated that she's looked around
Speaker 1: and looked around and looked around it to the trash group,
Speaker 1: and I didn't see nobody. I want you home king
Speaker 1: to think about me, she said. She said in the
Speaker 1: court room there for all on her heads, looking around,
Speaker 1: and she still didn't see anymore the people want. She
Speaker 1: didn't see any one. You'll still said, because of the
Speaker 1: scriptures that she gave the polies with the light skinned
Speaker 1: black man with no hand on his face. I'm sitting
Speaker 1: up in there and you understanding, says god skinned but
Speaker 1: hand on my face. So I didn't ask another the
Speaker 1: description your stun said that she were looking for. That's
Speaker 1: why she couldn't pick me out. When she picked me
Speaker 1: out here, say said. When they called my name, run
Speaker 1: alone or to the front, run alone? Uh, if you
Speaker 1: ain't court I said, yeah, we come down front. And
Speaker 1: that's when she said, she's looking down. She didn't recognize me.
Speaker 1: She's looking down my name. You go, number one. How
Speaker 1: are you gonna sit in the courtroom, you know, says
Speaker 1: a whole hour to head they're living. It ain't a
Speaker 1: twelve blocks in them people sitting there for a whole
Speaker 1: hour and a half. You don't see this young black
Speaker 1: man that you're looking for the reading. You don't see
Speaker 1: it because she's not Yeah he got he got held
Speaker 1: it the court acts. This woman could pot eat the
Speaker 1: part that I told you to pick and run alone.
Speaker 1: See they could have I don't know. That's in the trash.
Speaker 1: They could have. I don't know. The Pacers Foundation is
Speaker 1: a proud supporter of this episode of Ronval Conviction with
Speaker 1: Jason Flam and of the Last Mile organization, which provides
Speaker 1: business and tech training to help incarcerated individuals successfully and
Speaker 1: permanently re enter the workforce. The Pacers Foundation is committed
Speaker 1: to improving the lives of Hoosiers across Indiana, supporting organizations
Speaker 1: that are dedicated primarily to helping young people and students.
Speaker 1: For more information on the work of the Pacers Foundation
Speaker 1: or the Last Mile program, please visit Pacers Foundation dot
Speaker 1: org or the Last Mile dot org. This episode is
Speaker 1: underwritten by Paul Weiss, Rifkin, Horton and Garrison, a leading
Speaker 1: international law firm. Paul Weiss has long had an unwavering
Speaker 1: commitment to providing impactful, pro bono legal assistance to the
Speaker 1: most vulnerable members of our society and in support of
Speaker 1: the public interest, including extensive work in the criminal justice area.
Speaker 1: So the victim makes this shaky identification, tells the detectives,
Speaker 1: but you've got no idea that any of this is
Speaker 1: going on. You're there for this misdemeanor charge, which gets dismissed,
Speaker 1: and then you go home. But that was not the
Speaker 1: last you'd see of law enforcement that day. We went
Speaker 1: home with the ill wake up a while. When Ronnie
Speaker 1: was picked up, he was not told that he was
Speaker 1: suspected of this brain Instead, he arrived at the station
Speaker 1: at PM, was read his rights, and the police claimed
Speaker 1: that they asked permission to search his car, but they hadn't,
Speaker 1: and then they testified to finding gloves, matchbooks, and a
Speaker 1: beanie in the car. Ronnie maintains at the loves her heads,
Speaker 1: but the penie was not. I followed the police downtown.
Speaker 1: I used to drive with gloves on, but when I
Speaker 1: get out of cars my clothes off. I speak to
Speaker 1: my home and my sons. Val I tried to call
Speaker 1: a locked though I got on reflect me of the jacket. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll go there they kill me. I'm on suspecting of
Speaker 1: ripon bager kids. I'll take the keys up and they
Speaker 1: take the keys up in front out to go with
Speaker 1: the same to the kids that there was in the
Speaker 1: court room that morning. Yo, man with all going with
Speaker 1: my keys, bring my keys that killed. They're just want
Speaker 1: to look in your car. You ain't gotten in the
Speaker 1: hide now, but yin gave you permission to look at
Speaker 1: my car either. So they go down look at my car.
Speaker 1: They come back again. They got mom. She took my
Speaker 1: other jacket off of menkid, just the mother stuff. I
Speaker 1: had my glove. They had lime green to barget that
Speaker 1: I had never seen a dead my life. And for
Speaker 1: anyone who doesn't know, it's a bog and I didn't
Speaker 1: know a toboggan is a hat like the one described
Speaker 1: by the victim in this case. So the police come
Speaker 1: back with what they claim to have found in your car.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Ronnie, they say, the guy just got your car.
Speaker 1: If you won't be back when we take some investigation,
Speaker 1: sign your name my head. Got look on the people
Speaker 1: for me to sunda. Sign your name my head. You
Speaker 1: won't beat him. Okay, I love my jacket. Back my
Speaker 1: jacket on my glue. But I don't know who he is.
Speaker 1: But I don't know what my jacket blue. So I
Speaker 1: sund on the tree. Time to sign us to consent
Speaker 1: for So they tricked you in order to make it
Speaker 1: seem like you consented, and that way it would have
Speaker 1: made the search technically legal. They planted the lime green
Speaker 1: hatter Toboggan. Now the police got a live lead to
Speaker 1: bogg And saying that this is the hand of the perpetrator.
Speaker 1: I'm telling how long and then also where that you
Speaker 1: and I ain't never hear that. How long it gets
Speaker 1: the head inside out? It's it's red is looking a
Speaker 1: hand and read his head in the head. You gotta live.
Speaker 1: We read area when I had it, I like to say,
Speaker 1: I definitely help. I got black hand even longer, said
Speaker 1: you see it's mad as night. Yeah, I know what's
Speaker 1: going to be young. The States would never let me
Speaker 1: DNA test that head. I want to have a hand
Speaker 1: DNA dest They didn't. Never, they didn't never would never
Speaker 1: let So we now come to the conclusion that the
Speaker 1: police planted this beanie in the car so that they
Speaker 1: could have another you know, well really know that there
Speaker 1: is no other evidence, so that they could have something
Speaker 1: that they could use against him. And I say something
Speaker 1: they could use against him because remember all of that
Speaker 1: evidence detective Eyes and hard collected from the crime scene. Well,
Speaker 1: if the red hairs that they found in the beanie
Speaker 1: that are clearly not Ronnie's hair, bother you just wait
Speaker 1: because It's about to get way worse again. The crime
Speaker 1: scene evidence comes back from the State Peo of Investigation
Speaker 1: in Raleigh, and none of it matches Ronnie. But since
Speaker 1: the rich white widow of an executive of one of
Speaker 1: the biggest employers in town just ideed him as her
Speaker 1: rapist rather than just doing the right thing, the just thing,
Speaker 1: the evidence never even made it to the prosecutor's office,
Speaker 1: let alone the defense. So the police withheld the evidence
Speaker 1: from both the defense and the prosecution. Let me just
Speaker 1: repeat that the police withheld the evidence not just from
Speaker 1: the defense, but from the prosecution, just in case the
Speaker 1: prosecution might have decided, hey, wait a minute, we got
Speaker 1: the wrong guy. That the police decided to play judge jury,
Speaker 1: and I mean they might as well played executioner, because
Speaker 1: poor Ronnie has been in prison for four four fucking years.
Speaker 1: I mean this is um yeah, I mean, just when
Speaker 1: they think I've heard it all, um, and Jamie, you're
Speaker 1: living this day in and day out. Now, I mean,
Speaker 1: what what can you add to that? Because it gets
Speaker 1: worse from there? Right, So, they not only tested this
Speaker 1: evidence and it didn't match long. When it didn't match Long,
Speaker 1: they made the decision that they wouldn't turn it over
Speaker 1: to the defense or the prosecution, which we contending. We
Speaker 1: argued this at the May seventh hearing that we had
Speaker 1: in this case, that there's a possibility that the prosecutor
Speaker 1: could have decided not to go forward with this case
Speaker 1: at all had he known that all the forensic test
Speaker 1: results pointed away from Ronny and towards another suspect. There
Speaker 1: was suspect hair collected brought to Ralie, examined by the
Speaker 1: crime lab, determined by the crime lab to be in
Speaker 1: the parlanks of the lab report of Negroid or Mongolian origin,
Speaker 1: meaning that it came from a person who was either
Speaker 1: Asian or black. And we know that that hair that
Speaker 1: was collected that was suspect hair didn't match along. If
Speaker 1: it didn't match along, then the suspect, the person who
Speaker 1: should have been incarcerated for forty four years. There's the
Speaker 1: evidence of who that person's identity is. And it's remarkable
Speaker 1: in the fact that they believe this would be probative.
Speaker 1: They collected because they thought it would be probative. All
Speaker 1: indications are they did come from the suspect, but when
Speaker 1: it didn't match long they kept it from everybody so
Speaker 1: the prosecutor would go forward on the basis of this
Speaker 1: completely unheard of identification procedure. And I have to tell you, Jason,
Speaker 1: I'm very skeptical whenever any client offers a suggestion that
Speaker 1: evidence may be planted. But as you look at this
Speaker 1: case and what officers did keeping evidence away from the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: it really makes you stopping say, oh, my good, no,
Speaker 1: this is completely consistent with the behaviors of the officers
Speaker 1: in this case. And then when Long says those are
Speaker 1: my gloves, but I've never seen that beanie in my life,
Speaker 1: you think, why would he acknowledge owning one but not
Speaker 1: the other. And the only explanation is because the officers
Speaker 1: in this case set out to ensure Long was convicted.
Speaker 1: That included lying, hiding, and with the beanie, manufacturing evidence
Speaker 1: to ensure that he would spend the rest of his
Speaker 1: life incarcerating convicted for this crime. And for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: the state of North Carolina is just willing to ignore
Speaker 1: that all together and continue to argue that Long is
Speaker 1: guilty of this crime. Crazy right, And there's no evidence
Speaker 1: that he ever owned a beanie, there's no photographs of
Speaker 1: him at a beanie, there's no, nobody knew about any beanie.
Speaker 1: There's also the fact that the victim has fought her
Speaker 1: attacker with all of her strength, and she had scratched
Speaker 1: attacker so hard that her own nails bent back. Do
Speaker 1: you know who, dude, did you take a love of check?
Speaker 1: Did you spread? Did you look at it? I'm on
Speaker 1: a microscope. Ain't know when will you can add that
Speaker 1: stretto media, because yeah, I had my coat look upon
Speaker 1: the microscope. But yet still she's saying, that's the coat,
Speaker 1: that's the jack, that's the perpetrated world. And when those
Speaker 1: sages all meaning when those sects exact, well, there's a
Speaker 1: good explanation for there being no scratches on you, your face,
Speaker 1: your leather coat. It's painfully simple. It's because you weren't
Speaker 1: there that night. But she idd you. They were trying
Speaker 1: to make the square fit the circle, and they were
Speaker 1: willing to bend the rules pen break the rules. They
Speaker 1: planted evidence in your car and tried everything they could
Speaker 1: to make sure that they got a conviction in this case.
Speaker 1: And people were out in the street protesting as well. Right, So,
Speaker 1: but when they arrested you, they offered you a plea deal,
Speaker 1: so they can make all of that public outcry just
Speaker 1: go away. Now they love me, and when they love me,
Speaker 1: or they offered me or seven years three, they offered
Speaker 1: me a seven years three told me that I would
Speaker 1: be back home in three years. And it made it
Speaker 1: explicitly clear that I didn't take the plea if you
Speaker 1: were trying for my life. So I mean, I got
Speaker 1: people in the street in the stream, I got my family,
Speaker 1: I did the street. I got people in the street
Speaker 1: deals that's supportful. I knew exactly what they wanted, and
Speaker 1: they wanted to me to keep beat out to that
Speaker 1: charge so they could put it in on front page.
Speaker 1: Oh let us long to do it. A great job.
Speaker 1: So always you only got Holland and gether and going
Speaker 1: three then going, But I knew I couldn't do that
Speaker 1: to called number one, my dad said, and it really
Speaker 1: so so you did something, you didn't do it? I
Speaker 1: turned down to So I will fix it, topsta. I
Speaker 1: wish it the serious way to do. He took me
Speaker 1: the same year see stay in North Canomoboisilky. But then
Speaker 1: we get to the trial itself, and this is gonna
Speaker 1: shock exactly no one. This is an all white jury
Speaker 1: conquered North Carolina. The jury was handpicked by the Cabas
Speaker 1: County Sheriff. And get this, three of the members of
Speaker 1: the jury worked for Cannon Mills. And you'll remember that
Speaker 1: the victims husband worked at Cannon Mills as well. So
Speaker 1: the jury chairperson at the time created a master list
Speaker 1: of jurors. To get us summons for jury duty, you
Speaker 1: had to be on that list. And prior to Long's trial,
Speaker 1: he brought that list of mass the jurors first to
Speaker 1: the sheriff and allowed the sheriff to strike through any
Speaker 1: person on that list that the sheriff deemed unfit for
Speaker 1: jury duty. He then brought the list to the conquered
Speaker 1: police department, and testimony is that the chief of police
Speaker 1: and some of his deputies sat there and did the same.
Speaker 1: So law enforcement, the very people who investigated this case,
Speaker 1: end up lying about this case. About the evidence collected
Speaker 1: in this case, played a role in the selection of
Speaker 1: the jurors who ultimately found Mr. Long guilty. And in
Speaker 1: this trial, every single witness that testified for the State
Speaker 1: of North Carolina was white. Every single witness that testified
Speaker 1: on behalf of Ronnie Long to demonstrate his innocence, to
Speaker 1: prove his alibi, to show that he was nowhere near
Speaker 1: the victim's home on the night this attack occurred. Was black,
Speaker 1: and by selecting an all white jury in segregated Concord,
Speaker 1: North Carolina in nine, ultimately what we had was a
Speaker 1: circumstance where the jurors were being asked to decide between
Speaker 1: finding their neighbors truthful or finding the people from the
Speaker 1: other side of the tracks, the black side of town.
Speaker 1: They would have had to find them truthful over the
Speaker 1: officers who were their neighbors, who are the people who
Speaker 1: lived in their community, their side of town. That's what
Speaker 1: it would have taken to find Long not guilty. And
Speaker 1: of course we all know how it played out. And
Speaker 1: this courtroom, there was a racially divided court with blacks
Speaker 1: on one side and whites on the other um And
Speaker 1: of course, now the really awful result, but predictable result
Speaker 1: of this sham trial was that on October first, nine,
Speaker 1: with his whole life in front of him, Ronnie Long
Speaker 1: was convicted and sentenced to two life terms. His mother
Speaker 1: fainted and a riot nearly ensued. Um Long himself has
Speaker 1: called his conviction a quote modernized lynching. Sanctioned by law.
Speaker 1: When they found me guilty, they started in the court room.
Speaker 1: I started, my molester, she said to ham Me. She
Speaker 1: grabbing up a bill, said who will make it up
Speaker 1: to fronto Jellis holds it. They're right there. Get that.
Speaker 1: I wanted to Ronnie tonight and listen to this. So
Speaker 1: after Long's conviction, concord bubbled over with fury. The next day,
Speaker 1: hundreds of protesters descended on the city's downtown, staging a
Speaker 1: demonstration in front of the courthouse, and for days fifty
Speaker 1: or more police officers in full riot gear stationed themselves
Speaker 1: at a nearby park, and the police chief warned protesters
Speaker 1: violence would be met with force. So I mean nothing
Speaker 1: has changed. And the and the bravery, the courage of
Speaker 1: these people who protested, putting themselves in grave danger from
Speaker 1: the same police force that had just framed their friend,
Speaker 1: their neighbor, their fellow human. I had spoke with his
Speaker 1: trial counsel, Jim Fuller prior to the May seventh arguments,
Speaker 1: and he said, Jamie, I've only been maced one time
Speaker 1: in my life, and it was after the verdict when
Speaker 1: outbursts occurred in the courtroom and law enforcement decided to
Speaker 1: clear out all the supporters of Long, and he said
Speaker 1: officers were beating a young man and he tried to
Speaker 1: pull the officers away, and they turned and sprayed him
Speaker 1: Long's trial attorney in the face with mace. Nothing has changed. Um,
Speaker 1: it's really uh, it's really hard to you know. It's
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm trying to be optimistic, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think we are on the verge of change, and
Speaker 1: but it's it's remarkable how much things are as they
Speaker 1: were forty four years later. See post conviction lidication history.
Speaker 1: Can you walk us through that, Jamie, because it's quite
Speaker 1: extraordinary in and of itself. It's been a long process.
Speaker 1: So it began in the nineties. After he was convicted.
Speaker 1: He filed his first what we call here in North
Speaker 1: Carolina motions for Appropriate Relief. They're the post conviction review
Speaker 1: petitions that initiate uh post conviction proceedings, and it was
Speaker 1: related to the jury he was ruled against or in
Speaker 1: the course of those proceedings. That was then appealed in
Speaker 1: federal court, arguing the same things, that he didn't commit
Speaker 1: the crime and that his trial was unfair, in part
Speaker 1: because of the way in which the jury was seated
Speaker 1: and he was ruled against in federal court. Over the years,
Speaker 1: he tried to get people to help him, and then
Speaker 1: in two thousand five, the Innocence Project at the University
Speaker 1: of North Carolina took interest in the case, and the
Speaker 1: present litigation began. They found an attorney to work with Ronnie.
Speaker 1: That attorney did all the work necessary to uncover not
Speaker 1: just the lies, but the evidence that was withheld from
Speaker 1: Long at the time of his trial, and they went
Speaker 1: into state court and held an evidentiary hearing where the
Speaker 1: judgtured testimony related to the withholding of this evidence. That's
Speaker 1: a real interesting proceeding because the prosecutor, the individual who
Speaker 1: tried running along back in nineteen seventy six, took the
Speaker 1: stand in testified for Long that he didn't have copies
Speaker 1: of these reports. He didn't know that this testing was done.
Speaker 1: Had he known that it was done, he would have
Speaker 1: required that had been turned over. He also talked about
Speaker 1: a sexual assault kit that we haven't even talked about,
Speaker 1: that they collected one from the victim and then it
Speaker 1: subsequently disappeared. Yeah, so he testified for long, but despite
Speaker 1: all that, the judging State court ruled against Long. And
Speaker 1: found that he hadn't proven that his rights were violated.
Speaker 1: The case then went to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: There are seven justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: One set out the decision, and as a result, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court split three three. So TI went to the state.
Speaker 1: Ronnie's conviction was upheld and he was still incarcerated. It
Speaker 1: then went to an organization in North Carolina called the
Speaker 1: North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission. They reviewed the case and
Speaker 1: their focused was trying to find the sexual assault kit
Speaker 1: that was collected and disappeared. They did not find it,
Speaker 1: but they actually discovered that in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: During the course of those proceedings, officers light again by
Speaker 1: saying that they had no physical evidence remaining in the case.
Speaker 1: In their custody winning fact, they had all the latent
Speaker 1: fingerprints that had been collected from the crime scene. That's
Speaker 1: when I got involved and the other attorneys I worked
Speaker 1: with at the Wrongful Convictions Clinic, we worked to file
Speaker 1: another habeas petition on Ronnie's behalf. It was dismissed because
Speaker 1: the district court said that we had failed to bring
Speaker 1: the fingerprint related evidence in state court. Prior to filing
Speaker 1: our habeas petition. Of course, it would have been brought
Speaker 1: in state court had it not been hit during the
Speaker 1: time that the state post conviction litigation was ongoing. Now
Speaker 1: we appealed that dismissal. The Fourth Circuit reversed and sent
Speaker 1: it back to the District Court. Then the District Court
Speaker 1: once again unted a dismissal on behalf of the state.
Speaker 1: The district Court said that while we had shown that
Speaker 1: evidence was withheld, that it was favorable too Long, but
Speaker 1: that the state court was reasonable in determining that the
Speaker 1: evidence was immaterial to the outcome of his trial. So
Speaker 1: it was dismissed again, and we appealed that decision, which
Speaker 1: came in July of The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: heard oral arguments in May of twenty nineteen. A panel
Speaker 1: entered a decision two to one saying that Long had
Speaker 1: failed to demonstrate the materiality of the evidence of the
Speaker 1: state court again was reasonable. That decision came down in
Speaker 1: January of We then asked for full court review called
Speaker 1: a petition for rehearing embunk and what that triggers is
Speaker 1: that full fifteen judge review of the case. The Court
Speaker 1: agreed to hear it while sitting in bunk, and that's
Speaker 1: the argument we had in May seven. So it's been
Speaker 1: it's been a long fight to get to the point
Speaker 1: where we know that the judges are at least, you know,
Speaker 1: seeing the injustices here that we saw as evidence by
Speaker 1: the statement of Judge wind during the course of those
Speaker 1: oral arguments, Judge Winn said, quote, prosecutors clearly had evidence
Speaker 1: that any defense counsel in the world, not only in
Speaker 1: six but in the history of this country would have
Speaker 1: wanted or needed, and which should have been supplied, and
Speaker 1: yet we did not provide it. What is it about
Speaker 1: us that we want to prosecute and keep people in
Speaker 1: jail when we know evidence may exist that might lead
Speaker 1: to a different outcome. Why is that so offensive to
Speaker 1: us now that we want to protect illegal activity from
Speaker 1: forty four years ago? End quote? And of course he
Speaker 1: was referring to the illegal activity on the part of
Speaker 1: law enforcement in this case. So the fifteen judge panel
Speaker 1: for the on Bound Carry in the Fourth Circuit heard
Speaker 1: Rynie's case in May, and finally in August they voted
Speaker 1: nine to six in Ronnie's favor to reverse the dismissal
Speaker 1: of his petition. Then the U. S District Court granted
Speaker 1: Ronnie's habeas writ setting him free on August after forty
Speaker 1: four long years, and the very next day, the Cabras
Speaker 1: County District Attorney dismissed the charges. I mean, I will
Speaker 1: never forget watching the live stream of your release. It
Speaker 1: was really emotional for me, so I can't imagine what
Speaker 1: it must have been like for you. I'm sitting on
Speaker 1: my bunk side going to meet him as they are
Speaker 1: harry up. They brought to them clothed right now. I said, man,
Speaker 1: what's this? When we go on the court, he said, nah, Man,
Speaker 1: they told me release you just that quick. When that
Speaker 1: man told me they're your clue. Right now, the wife
Speaker 1: is out there waiting on you. I come listen. If
Speaker 1: you look down him and shoot, my shoes ain't tired.
Speaker 1: My socks is in my back. I walked out on
Speaker 1: my wife birthday. You're talking about me late. Meant to
Speaker 1: walk out that gate after for the four years and
Speaker 1: turn around and look at it. I told myself when
Speaker 1: I looked at it, I would never ever go behind
Speaker 1: another ball, another lock and key. They would never ever
Speaker 1: lock me up again. Yeah, you're fucking a right about that.
Speaker 1: I mean, so what did you do with the rest
Speaker 1: of the day. I mean, it was your wife, Ashley's birthday,
Speaker 1: as fate would have it, on top of everything else,
Speaker 1: So a pretty nice gift for her, was you? I mean,
Speaker 1: can you walk us through that magical day? Talk to
Speaker 1: the media? Oh, kis mar this is Nehew kiss my wife.
Speaker 1: They have been about ninety days since I've seen that
Speaker 1: because of the COVID thing. Man, So me and my lawyers,
Speaker 1: my wife, a couple of friends with the restaurant State
Speaker 1: Bocar own in cheese. Wasn't spin of anything? Man, game
Speaker 1: and man always men. I'm sitting around, we're talking, matt
Speaker 1: a the doulation being able man to breed. Yeah, breathing
Speaker 1: free air after an amount of time that is incomprehensible
Speaker 1: to any of us riding. I can't express how happy
Speaker 1: I am for you. And not long after your release,
Speaker 1: you filed for a pardon of innocence from Governor Cooper,
Speaker 1: who agreed to it in December, and in March you
Speaker 1: restive state compensation, which amounts to it's actually shockingly low,
Speaker 1: but nothing and nothing would ever be enough. It works
Speaker 1: out to about seventeen thousand dollars a year, which feels
Speaker 1: like a bit of a slap in the face. But
Speaker 1: there's really nothing. There's no amount that could replace all
Speaker 1: of that lost time. You can't get it back. I
Speaker 1: can't go back to May Tim not consid So I mean,
Speaker 1: what can they give me? I would, though, like understand why.
Speaker 1: I mean, what type of person, what type of mentality?
Speaker 1: New heir? We know you send an innocent person to
Speaker 1: the gas change. Yeah, there's there's no answer to how
Speaker 1: someone could do that and just go home and sleep
Speaker 1: at night. And I mean, it doesn't make any sense
Speaker 1: to me and never will. Is there anything though that
Speaker 1: our audience can do to help you or any of
Speaker 1: the things you're trying to achieve? Yeah? Yeah, since I've
Speaker 1: been out man struggle, I gotta go fund me paid man,
Speaker 1: whatever it is you can help me with. I want
Speaker 1: you to know that I appreciate this. Yeah. Well, we'll
Speaker 1: definitely have that link to our bio, so please if
Speaker 1: you can scroll down and click the link and get involved, listen.
Speaker 1: I want to let you know man that I appreciate
Speaker 1: having a platform for me to speak farm Jason. I
Speaker 1: want to thank you in your network. Man, y'all stay
Speaker 1: and saying for what you did for me and my calls. Yeah, Ronnie, look,
Speaker 1: I mean when I heard about your situation, all of
Speaker 1: us here at ron Conviction Podcast we had to do
Speaker 1: whatever we could. You know, there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: that helped. I'm honored that we were a part of
Speaker 1: helping you to win your freedom, and I hope we
Speaker 1: stay friends for a long long time. I know we will.
Speaker 1: So now we turn to the closing of our show.
Speaker 1: First of all, I just want to thank you, Ronnie
Speaker 1: for your courage, your strength, your grace. And now I'm
Speaker 1: gonna turn my microphone off, leave my headphones on, kick
Speaker 1: back in my chair, close my eyes and just listen
Speaker 1: to whatever you want to share with me and our audience. Man,
Speaker 1: it's look at what they free to put me in
Speaker 1: that sale. And my mind started racing. And the only
Speaker 1: thing that I could keep telling myself, well, you got
Speaker 1: to be strong, you got to be strong. You got
Speaker 1: me strong, got me strong. I took him. Built on
Speaker 1: the fact that, man, I knew they had been a deal.
Speaker 1: I built on the fact that then it was kind
Speaker 1: of Lize in my family name, It was kind of
Speaker 1: lies in my lane did a lit on me. When
Speaker 1: I say that a lied on me, man, I'm talking
Speaker 1: about corruption, corruption, a lie. Only man, don't put me
Speaker 1: in the penitentiary. And I knew that I could not
Speaker 1: let them get away with this ship. Be strong, Be strong,
Speaker 1: be strong, health, faith, health, faith, and no that you
Speaker 1: could overcome any obstacle, any barrier, any hurdles in life
Speaker 1: if you apply yourself the mind. When they say the
Speaker 1: man is the terrible thing in the way, being bullshit,
Speaker 1: it is you sit around for fortful years and not
Speaker 1: do anything to utilize your mythic capacity. Next day, you know, man,
Speaker 1: you understand saying you walk around on psychotic drugs and
Speaker 1: everything because you cannot deal with the tension and the stress.
Speaker 1: This hell. It's hard, I'm telling you. But your mind
Speaker 1: is the key in your heart. It's your determination. Thank
Speaker 1: you for listening to Ron Fucking Action with Jason Flom.
Speaker 1: Please support your local innocence projects and go to the
Speaker 1: link in our bio to see how you can help.
Speaker 1: I'd like to thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff
Speaker 1: Clyburne and Kevin Warness. The music on the show, as
Speaker 1: always is by three time Oscar nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 1: and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast. Wrongful Conviction with
Speaker 1: Jason Flam is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
Speaker 1: in association with Signal Company Number one