Speaker 1: Thankfully, many of our guests have been released from prison,
Speaker 1: either before or after our coverage has been released, but
Speaker 1: others have not been so fortunate, including the man whose
Speaker 1: case we'd like to highlight again today, James King. Since
Speaker 1: our initial release of his story, the California Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: while providing no reasoning, denied James's habeas petition after sitting
Speaker 1: on it for a year. His attorney, Ian Graham assures
Speaker 1: us that he will not give up and is now
Speaker 1: seeking clemency for the governor. Luckily, they've got a very
Speaker 1: good man in office, Gavin Newsom, who we hope will
Speaker 1: do what others have lacked the courage and conviction to do.
Speaker 1: Here is his story of how a man's freedom was
Speaker 1: literally stolen away by the provable lies of a child
Speaker 1: at the insistence of her criminally vindictive mother. While renting
Speaker 1: a room in Selina's, California, a woman named ruth Anne
Speaker 1: supported her drug habit and her thirteen year old daughter
Speaker 1: Jamie with welfare and prostitution. James King previously rented a
Speaker 1: room in the same else where he still received mail
Speaker 1: and maintained friendships, including with ruth Anne's boyfriend Eric Barton
Speaker 1: and the landlord Doug Dobell. James would come by occasionally
Speaker 1: to pick up his mail and socialize, as he did
Speaker 1: on August first for the Sealinas Air Show. A few
Speaker 1: days later, while Landlord Doug Dobell was in Las Vegas,
Speaker 1: James intervened when he saw ruth Anne trying to sell
Speaker 1: Doug's moped. Ruth Anne, who had already pawned Doug's TV,
Speaker 1: threatened James that she would get back at him if
Speaker 1: he ever told Doug. When Doug returned for Vegas on
Speaker 1: August eleven, James found himself accused of stealing Doug's TV,
Speaker 1: which he firmly denied while reporting the story about ruth
Speaker 1: Anne and the moped. When Eric Barton confirmed that ruth
Speaker 1: Anne was the culprit, James found himself accused once again,
Speaker 1: this time for the alleged August first sexual assault of
Speaker 1: thirteen year old Jamie, during which time he allegedly ejaculated
Speaker 1: on a tan carpet. When confronted with the carpet testing
Speaker 1: negative for seamen, the young girl said that her dog
Speaker 1: must have eaten it. She later changed the story to
Speaker 1: a blue carpet that Dobell confirmed did not exist despite
Speaker 1: these glaring red flags that d A used Jamie's story
Speaker 1: and a medical experts testimony that has since been characterized
Speaker 1: as absurd to send James away for thirty five years
Speaker 1: to life. This is wrongful conviction with Jason Flom. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom. Today you're gonna
Speaker 1: hear a story that is disturbing in so many ways.
Speaker 1: This story is the story of a man who's been
Speaker 1: in prison for a quarter century for a crime that
Speaker 1: never happened, and it's got so many lies in it
Speaker 1: that you'll you may need a pen and paper to
Speaker 1: keep actualise. I mean, it's just absolutely breathtaking the web
Speaker 1: that was woven in order to not only convict but
Speaker 1: also keep this innocent man in prison for this long.
Speaker 1: The attorney is Ian Graham. He's a civil rights attorney
Speaker 1: with Travis Graham and Zucker in California. Ian, Welcome to
Speaker 1: raval Conviction. Thanks Jason. It's a it's a real pleasure
Speaker 1: to be here. And soon you'll be hearing the phone
Speaker 1: ring and we'll be hearing from the man himself. James
Speaker 1: King will be calling in from the California Men's Colony,
Speaker 1: which is a. I mean, it seems like sort of
Speaker 1: a be nine name for a place that is no
Speaker 1: place for an innocent man to be. And oh and
Speaker 1: and here we go. We're going to our call right now.
Speaker 1: This is Global tell Link. You have a prepaid call
Speaker 1: from and in late at the California Men's Colony, San
Speaker 1: Luis Obispo, California. This call and your telephone number will
Speaker 1: be monitored and recorded. To accept this call, say or
Speaker 1: dial five now. Thank you for using Global till Link. Hello,
Speaker 1: James H. Finally get to talk to you. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: so glad you're here too, even though I really hate
Speaker 1: why you're here, or more to the point where you are.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So tell us a bit about your life
Speaker 1: growing up. Yeah, okay, I grew up in Actually I
Speaker 1: was born in Germany. My dad was in the army
Speaker 1: for twenty five years and we came back to the
Speaker 1: United States when I was like six years old, and
Speaker 1: then we moved to California, and I've been in California
Speaker 1: all my life. So you grew up in a military family.
Speaker 1: And we've spoken with your mom, Lily and many times,
Speaker 1: and it sounds like you had a relatively normal life
Speaker 1: working in the moving business until you had to run
Speaker 1: in with the law for burglary. Now that's a serious crime,
Speaker 1: but when you hear the details of it, it was
Speaker 1: actually a bit more benign than it sounds. Over So
Speaker 1: I was mad and I shouldn't have done it, and
Speaker 1: I went in the house and took a VCR. When
Speaker 1: I took it, I even call here and told her
Speaker 1: I took your VCR and she called the police on me.
Speaker 1: That's how that happened, and they got me for burglary.
Speaker 1: So I had a pretty guilty to it. I gotta
Speaker 1: here in prison for that. That was all it was
Speaker 1: to it, and I should never done that. So okay,
Speaker 1: you knew this person and they owed you money, and
Speaker 1: you obviously shouldn't have done that. You've acknowledged that that
Speaker 1: was a dumb thing to do. But now you've got
Speaker 1: one strike for burglary. But I have no six crimes
Speaker 1: in my life at all, man, not even allocation that
Speaker 1: I've done anything right. So this was a non sexual crime.
Speaker 1: So why did I even bring it up, you might
Speaker 1: be asking yourself. Well, at the time, with the newly
Speaker 1: minted crime Bill, what this meant was that you had
Speaker 1: one strike against you. So a second offense would mean
Speaker 1: doubling any sentence, but for now you just got the
Speaker 1: one year sentence. So you get out, go back to
Speaker 1: the moving business doing odd jobs, and you're renting a
Speaker 1: room from a man named Doug Doe Bell and Salinas, California. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was living and done the bills out for seven
Speaker 1: months and I moved out and got my old place
Speaker 1: it was, and I was a leaving of Selenis at
Speaker 1: the time. When I moved out, I still stay friends
Speaker 1: with Doug and I had to go there and get
Speaker 1: my mail every day because I did not had my
Speaker 1: mail switch. I just kept it there at dug House,
Speaker 1: all right. So you were also doing some odd jobs
Speaker 1: for Doug. YouTube guys had a mutual friend, Eric Barton,
Speaker 1: who was dating a woman who had just begun renting
Speaker 1: a room from Doug. And her name was Ruth Anne,
Speaker 1: a woman who threw her own admission had suffered from
Speaker 1: manic depression, borderline multiple personality disordered drug addiction, all while
Speaker 1: struggling to support her drug habit and her thirteen year
Speaker 1: old daughter Jamie with the help of welfare and prostitution.
Speaker 1: So now Ian this brings us to the summer of
Speaker 1: nine seven at Doug Dobell's house. So in the summer
Speaker 1: of there were four or five people living there. In
Speaker 1: addition to Jamie and ruth Anne, there was a woman
Speaker 1: named Bonnie Roman, her husband and Bonnie's brother I believe
Speaker 1: named Eli Roman. So in August first seven, James goes
Speaker 1: by Dobell's house. I believe it was the day of
Speaker 1: the Salinas Air Show. So he was going over to
Speaker 1: see Dobell and you know, he knew Ruthan a little bit,
Speaker 1: and you know, have a few beers for the air show.
Speaker 1: And so he goes into the house and Eric Barton
Speaker 1: is occupied in the bedroom with ruth Ruthan wanted me
Speaker 1: to go to the store for her and get some
Speaker 1: beer for her. She didn't have a car, her car
Speaker 1: was broke down, so nice to me. When I was
Speaker 1: going to the store, Jamie asked me because she'd go
Speaker 1: and get a store to pop and I said, he asked,
Speaker 1: your mother said, So King goes and get some beer
Speaker 1: and comes back to the house. Ruthan comes out and
Speaker 1: gets a beer out of the fridge, and King's there
Speaker 1: and Jamie's there, no issues, goes back into the bedroom
Speaker 1: with Barton, and you know, the day goes off without
Speaker 1: a hitch. Over the course of the next a few days,
Speaker 1: while Doug Dobell was still out of town in Las Vegas,
Speaker 1: James sees ruth Anne trying to sell Dobell's mop head
Speaker 1: and intervenes and stops her and tells her she can't
Speaker 1: be selling Dobell's property. Ruth Anne and James got into
Speaker 1: a verbal altercation when he prevented her from selling the
Speaker 1: mop head. Said, excuse me, sir, this is not good.
Speaker 1: Dan is both. This is the owner's moped and if
Speaker 1: you buy this, you're buying something that is stolen. And
Speaker 1: that's when ruth Dan turned to me, you bastard, if
Speaker 1: you tell Dug about this, she said, if we get
Speaker 1: if we get picked it out of here because of you,
Speaker 1: I will pay you back a hundred times over. She had, also,
Speaker 1: by the way, pawned Dobell's television that week when he
Speaker 1: was out of town. So on August eleven, Dobell returns
Speaker 1: from Las Vegas to his house and he notices that
Speaker 1: there's property damaged, his TV. He's missing, and James tells
Speaker 1: Dobell that ruth Anne had pawned the TV and tried
Speaker 1: to sell them moped and this was later confirmed by
Speaker 1: Eric Barton, who had seen ruth and dow this stuff too.
Speaker 1: So Dobell and Ruthan get into an argument about her
Speaker 1: conduct while she's staying at the house, and the next day,
Speaker 1: Ruthan comes to Dobell with Jamie and tells Dobell that
Speaker 1: James King has molested and tried to rape Jamie. Dobell,
Speaker 1: who was horrified and actually scared that he was going
Speaker 1: to be himself accused of this assault, immediately calls the
Speaker 1: police and Dobell drives Jamie and Ruthan to the police
Speaker 1: station for Jamie to be interviewed. And on the way
Speaker 1: to the police station, Ruthan is mad at Dobell because,
Speaker 1: as Dobell testified, he didn't give Ruthan and Jamie time
Speaker 1: for them to get their stories straight. Yeah, this is
Speaker 1: just the beginning, I mean, And so she is now
Speaker 1: grasping at straws because she's angry that her scheme was
Speaker 1: sort of you know interrupted. Yeah, well, but I guess
Speaker 1: maybe should give just a brief background. You know, Jamie's
Speaker 1: thirteen years old, and this is her mother who's working
Speaker 1: as a prostitute and has been a drug addict, and
Speaker 1: Jamie would later testify that she was raped when she
Speaker 1: was four, and she was raped when she was eight
Speaker 1: and what as you'll see, will become relevant later a
Speaker 1: second time. She also said that there was a convenience
Speaker 1: store involved, and we have fairly good evidence that she
Speaker 1: was also being sexually assaulted at this time that we're
Speaker 1: talking about August, just not by James King. So I
Speaker 1: have a great deal of sympathy for Jamie and her situation.
Speaker 1: It doesn't change the facts that we're going to develop
Speaker 1: going forward, but that's just the circumstances that we're dealing
Speaker 1: with here. So now this awful scenario is starting to
Speaker 1: grow legs, so to speak. Right to Bell has driven
Speaker 1: them down to the police station. What happened at that interview.
Speaker 1: Jamie was taken into a room separated from her mother
Speaker 1: and interviewed by detectives. She said that on that day
Speaker 1: of August one, when James King came over to the house,
Speaker 1: that he was going to go to the convenience store
Speaker 1: take buy beer, and that because there was no one
Speaker 1: else around, he knocked on the bedroom door, interrupted Barton
Speaker 1: and ruth Anne and asked Ruthan whether he should take
Speaker 1: Jamie to the store with him or just leave her there,
Speaker 1: and and ruth Anne said, yeah, why don't you take her? So,
Speaker 1: she says, she and James drove to the liquor store,
Speaker 1: convenience store, whatever it is. He got beer, he bought
Speaker 1: Jamie a soda, and they're driving back and she said
Speaker 1: that on the way back he pretended to get lost
Speaker 1: and he began touching her thigh into her private areas.
Speaker 1: And then they get back to the house. Ruth Anne
Speaker 1: comes out of the bedroom, she gets a beer from
Speaker 1: the fridge, goes back into the bedroom. She sees Jamie.
Speaker 1: There's nothing going on, no problem at that point. According
Speaker 1: to Jamie, James takes her into the garage in the
Speaker 1: house and on top of a piece of carpet that's
Speaker 1: in the garage. Dobell, by the ways, in the carpet business,
Speaker 1: so there's a fairly large square of carpet that She
Speaker 1: says that he then forced her to orally copulate him,
Speaker 1: and that he raped her, and that he ejaculated and
Speaker 1: the seaman went on the carpet. She was actually very
Speaker 1: clear about that. The detectives asked her follow up questions
Speaker 1: to make sure because they would be able to then
Speaker 1: verify the story. So they asked her follow up questions
Speaker 1: and she says, yes, it was a brown or tan carpet.
Speaker 1: She told them where it wasn't the garage. I think
Speaker 1: initially at least one of them was slightly skeptical because
Speaker 1: for about a few things. Jamie had said that the
Speaker 1: attack had lasted for seventy five minutes, which seemed like
Speaker 1: an exceedingly long time, and there were, you know, a
Speaker 1: few other details. So then they went over and they
Speaker 1: interviewed ruth Ann, and ruth Ann said that King had
Speaker 1: never come in and asked if he could take Jamie
Speaker 1: to the store, that had never happened. That when she
Speaker 1: came out of the bedroom, you know, she saw Jamie
Speaker 1: sitting there reading a book, no problem, and nothing seemed
Speaker 1: out of order. Then she said that when Jamie told
Speaker 1: her about the incident, she said that King had tried
Speaker 1: to rape her, but not the story that she told
Speaker 1: the police. The detectives then went back in with Jamie
Speaker 1: and said, your mom said that, you know, she didn't
Speaker 1: see this and she didn't hear that, and that you
Speaker 1: told her that it was only James had tried something,
Speaker 1: and Jamie said, well, I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 1: why my mom would say that, So there's already a
Speaker 1: discrepancy there. And so then the detectives asked Jamie, well,
Speaker 1: did you tell anybody about what happened to you at
Speaker 1: the time that had happened or in the days afterwards?
Speaker 1: Jamie says, the only person that I told the next
Speaker 1: day was my friend Erica. Erica then says, no, that
Speaker 1: didn't happen. Erica says that she does remember Jamie telling
Speaker 1: her that King had assaulted her, but that happened after
Speaker 1: Dobell had gotten home, So, in other words, it had
Speaker 1: happened sometime after August eleven, more than ten days after
Speaker 1: the attack. So there were some flags in the story.
Speaker 1: Just just from the beginning here, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of flags, and the story really is just getting started,
Speaker 1: because when you hear what happens next and the way
Speaker 1: these lies start to unravel, it would be comical if
Speaker 1: it wasn't tragic. So when the interview concludes, Officer Hickman,
Speaker 1: he goes immediately to Dobell's house and Dobell takes him
Speaker 1: into the garage and there is a tan or brown
Speaker 1: carpet exactly in the place that Jamie described it. Dobell
Speaker 1: tells the officer's benefit at least a month, and it's
Speaker 1: the only one that's been in this garage for several months.
Speaker 1: So the officer takes that carpet and they have it
Speaker 1: laboratory tested for semen and it tests negative. And just
Speaker 1: so they're sure, they take two other pieces of carpet,
Speaker 1: not even remotely where Jamie said they were or fitting description,
Speaker 1: but they just want to be thorough, so they grabbed
Speaker 1: two other pieces and they test those. They test negative.
Speaker 1: The detectives then went back asked again for Jamie to
Speaker 1: tell the story, and again Jamie tells the story, talks
Speaker 1: about King, It talks about how he ejaculated on the
Speaker 1: tan or brown carpet. So then the officer says, you know,
Speaker 1: we had that carpet tested and it didn't show that
Speaker 1: there was any semen on it. It didn't come back,
Speaker 1: didn't test positive. There was none. And Jamie says, that's
Speaker 1: because my dog ate that part of the carpet. That's
Speaker 1: because my dog ate that part of the carpet, right,
Speaker 1: And and you know, these are the things that a
Speaker 1: thirteen year old girl might say, which is caught in
Speaker 1: a lot. So the officer says, you're dog ate it,
Speaker 1: and she says, well, also, I think my mom may
Speaker 1: have cut it up and maybe then also washed it.
Speaker 1: And the officer says, well, the carpet doesn't look like
Speaker 1: it's damaged in any way. And Jamie didn't have anything
Speaker 1: to say to that. So that is the state of
Speaker 1: the evidence that was turned over to the District Attorney's office.
Speaker 1: This is where it should have ended, right, Yes, this
Speaker 1: was a moment right where the d A had that
Speaker 1: opportunity to say, you know what, none of this makes
Speaker 1: any fucking sense. So, you know, unless you guys can
Speaker 1: bring me something, you know, some physical evidence, eyewitness testimony,
Speaker 1: some something other than a tangled web of lies from
Speaker 1: a poor child, I'm not can prosecute this case. But
Speaker 1: that's not what happened. Yeah, well, they tried to build
Speaker 1: some corroboration and on about August I think it was
Speaker 1: nineteenth or so, almost three weeks or so after this
Speaker 1: alleged attack by King, they have the prosecution's medical expert,
Speaker 1: Dr Valerie Barnes, examined Jamie and she says, oh, I
Speaker 1: saw a red spot on Jamie's mouth and I saw
Speaker 1: redness in her vagina and a cleft on the himen
Speaker 1: and you know streaking here, and these are consistent with
Speaker 1: the sexual assault as she described it. That's just simply false.
Speaker 1: It's false. And we know it's false because when James
Speaker 1: King's conviction was overturned for the first time, it was
Speaker 1: overturned because his lawyer had failed to call a medical
Speaker 1: expert to rebut that testimony from Valerie Barnes. And if
Speaker 1: they had called a medical expert to rebut that testimony,
Speaker 1: this is a federal judge talking, it would have demonstrated
Speaker 1: that it wasn't true. And we know that because doctors
Speaker 1: Crawford and Coleman, and they are eminently qualified in child's
Speaker 1: actual assault cases and and typically testify for the prosecution,
Speaker 1: reviewed Dr Barnes's examination of Jamie and did their own
Speaker 1: examination of the same pictures and everything in Barnes looked at,
Speaker 1: and they concluded that Barn's findings were medically absurd to
Speaker 1: the point of showing bias, that none of the injuries
Speaker 1: or red spots that they saw were indicative of an
Speaker 1: assault that happened on August one or any time around then.
Speaker 1: Acute sexual assault injuries like that, heal within seventy two hours,
Speaker 1: maybe a week at most. They said that what Barnes
Speaker 1: saw we're simply normal markings, and that there was no
Speaker 1: cleft on a hymen. They could see it clearly. But
Speaker 1: those absurd findings had the benefit for the prosecution of
Speaker 1: corroborating Jamie's story because they said, these are consistent with
Speaker 1: the assault. So there's your corroboration. Yeah, nice expert. And
Speaker 1: before we move on to the inevitable in this trial,
Speaker 1: authorities had another opportunity to do the right thing here,
Speaker 1: but it too went completely ignored. Shortly after the allegations
Speaker 1: came up and the investigation started going, Dobell found Jamie's
Speaker 1: diary in her room and he turned it over to
Speaker 1: the police. And in that diary, Jamie wrote about a
Speaker 1: man named Eli who she was in love with and
Speaker 1: who did stuff to her. And she would write things
Speaker 1: like do you really love me? Or do you just
Speaker 1: want to do those things to me? And this would
Speaker 1: seem like is Eli Roman who was living in the
Speaker 1: house and who was in his mid to late twenties
Speaker 1: at the time, And remarkably, she wrote about some sort
Speaker 1: of sexual interaction with Eli. On the day or within
Speaker 1: a day of when she accused King. So in her
Speaker 1: diary there's something on August twelve or thirteen about you
Speaker 1: know Eli and you know, doing stuff to her. So
Speaker 1: at trial she's asked about this us and she denies
Speaker 1: it all and she says, no, no, I just write
Speaker 1: stuff in there. It didn't have anything to do with
Speaker 1: with Eli. So you know, it's even it's even a
Speaker 1: bit richer here where you actually have someone who is
Speaker 1: assaulting her, who she professes to love in her diary, right,
Speaker 1: which just adds to the total absurdity of Dr Barnes
Speaker 1: examining Jamie nearly three weeks after this alleged August first incident,
Speaker 1: when acute injuries like that would heal within just over
Speaker 1: seventy two hours, and then testified about those findings at trial,
Speaker 1: attributing them to the alleged August first incident, when Jamie's
Speaker 1: diary clearly indicates that statutory rape happened within days of
Speaker 1: this examination. So, James, did you hire a lawyer and
Speaker 1: what exactly did your lawyer do? Well, at first, I
Speaker 1: had a public offender. That lawyer never got me an
Speaker 1: expert dispute all that, right, So with no expert to
Speaker 1: refute and Jamie's testimony. This was basically a fatal complex,
Speaker 1: But there was still some hope in that there were
Speaker 1: so many holes in Jamie's story, especially about the carpet
Speaker 1: where she alleged that James deposited seamen, which came up
Speaker 1: negative every time despite many efforts. Then her ridiculous answer
Speaker 1: about the dog, you know, having eaten the carpets, like
Speaker 1: my dog ate my homework, literally, and then it gets
Speaker 1: even worse. The carpet in her story changed colors. She
Speaker 1: switched from her statement about the carpet being tan or brown,
Speaker 1: which she had said I think three or four times
Speaker 1: at this point leading up the trial, to the fact
Speaker 1: that the carpet was blue. In other words, no, Okay,
Speaker 1: my story before about the dog chewing it, maybe that
Speaker 1: doesn't seem reasonable. So let's just say it's a blue carpet,
Speaker 1: and it's a different carpet. Well, Dobell testified that there
Speaker 1: was no blue carpet in the garage. There Again, Dobell's
Speaker 1: in the carpet business, which is why we're talking about
Speaker 1: carpet in the garage and what he knows about it.
Speaker 1: But he said that months earlier, that there was a
Speaker 1: piece of blue carpet in the garage, but that it
Speaker 1: had been out of there for months prior to when
Speaker 1: this assault collegedly occurred, and that the only piece of
Speaker 1: carpet that even remotely matched the description that she's talking about,
Speaker 1: and that was that piece that was taken by the police,
Speaker 1: that the criminalists testified that was laboratory tested and negative
Speaker 1: for semen, and that it would have tested positive if
Speaker 1: there had been any fluids on there. But a jury
Speaker 1: of twelve people, with all the flaws and biases that
Speaker 1: twelve people bring, seeing the testimony of a thirteen year
Speaker 1: old girl accusing this man who has a prior felony,
Speaker 1: non sexual felony on his record, is very compelling testimony.
Speaker 1: The testimony of a child talking about the abuse they've suffered,
Speaker 1: and James King is convicted and he is sentenced to
Speaker 1: thirty five years to life in prison. They was devastated
Speaker 1: because I knew I was innocent, and I knew that
Speaker 1: this was all wrong. Man. I couldn't believe it. I
Speaker 1: feel like somebody hit me with the two by four
Speaker 1: right in the face many two years old, and I
Speaker 1: never even had an allegation that I even touched a
Speaker 1: girl in a wrong way and and if they would
Speaker 1: have to do me. This episode is underwritten by Paul Weiss, Rifkin,
Speaker 1: Horton and Garrison, a leading international law firm. Paul Weiss
Speaker 1: has long had an unwavering commitment to providing impactful, pro
Speaker 1: bono legal assistance to the most vulnerable members of our
Speaker 1: society and in support of the public interest, including extensive
Speaker 1: work in the criminal justice area. Going to prison for
Speaker 1: a sex crimes very rough as dangerous. Guys in prison
Speaker 1: don't like that. I have been jumped in prison. I
Speaker 1: have been eight down. See what happened. The guy that
Speaker 1: I was selling up with, he went through my paperwork
Speaker 1: and found out what I was in there for. And
Speaker 1: he went out of the yard and told all the
Speaker 1: inmates when I was in there for. And that's when
Speaker 1: they jumped me, beat me up. That happened. I've got
Speaker 1: to convey and I still gotta deal with you. You
Speaker 1: gotta watch yourself in here twenty or four years. I've
Speaker 1: been here for nothing. My mother she's she's ninety years old,
Speaker 1: and I just don't want her to die in prison.
Speaker 1: It's gonna it's gonna carry me up man, you know,
Speaker 1: because I'm really close to my mom and I just
Speaker 1: wanted to be out there with her, and here I'm
Speaker 1: in here for nothing, you know, and it's really uprove bad.
Speaker 1: I know. James. We've spoken to your mom several times,
Speaker 1: received many letters from her, and we promised her that
Speaker 1: we do all we possibly can to make a difference
Speaker 1: for you, which is one of the reasons why we're
Speaker 1: here right now talking about it, shining a light on
Speaker 1: this horrible injustice. So Ian tell us what happened in
Speaker 1: post conviction. His early appeals were repeatedly denied through nine
Speaker 1: all the way until two thousand nine, when finally he
Speaker 1: got to the federal habeas petition. Right, yes, and it
Speaker 1: is very hard to get even a federal court to
Speaker 1: hear you on the merits of your claim. It's even
Speaker 1: harder to win on the merits of your claim. But
Speaker 1: his federal habeas petition made it through all of the
Speaker 1: procedural barriers, and the federal district judge ended up granting
Speaker 1: his habeas petition on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
Speaker 1: basically saying his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to
Speaker 1: call a medical expert who could have rebutted the testimony
Speaker 1: of doctor Valerie Barnes that Jamie had injuries consistent with
Speaker 1: an assault by King. And she granted that because the
Speaker 1: two doctors, Crawford and Coleman, had provided not only declarations
Speaker 1: but witness testimony about what they saw and about how
Speaker 1: wrong Dr Barnes was. So this judge grants the ineffective
Speaker 1: assistance a counsel. And in making that finding, this judge
Speaker 1: looked at Jamie's testimony and noted the serious gaps and
Speaker 1: contradictions in her testimony, the statement about the carpet and
Speaker 1: how it tested negative, and then she said the dog
Speaker 1: ate it, and then she changed and said the carpet
Speaker 1: was blue. And all these things were noted by the
Speaker 1: federal judge overturning his conviction. I mean, and this is
Speaker 1: so long ago. This just making me so sick. This
Speaker 1: is twelve long years ago, and it should have ended there,
Speaker 1: but the d A decided to retry Mr King, charging
Speaker 1: him with three counts of aggravated sexual assaults on a
Speaker 1: child and lewd conduct with a child, all of which
Speaker 1: he of course still pled not guilty, And prior to
Speaker 1: the retrial, this is important. The prosecution offered him a deal,
Speaker 1: a plead. He was presented with an option, will throw
Speaker 1: out the rape, will throw out the oral cop If
Speaker 1: you just plead to one count of lewd conduct, you'll
Speaker 1: walk out a freeman time served, you are free to go.
Speaker 1: You can be back with your mother. And he turned
Speaker 1: it down. No guilty person offered the chance to walk
Speaker 1: out of prison or face retrial would say fuck you,
Speaker 1: I'm innocent. Retrying me, and he did that, and Jamie
Speaker 1: informed the prosecution that she didn't object to the plea deal.
Speaker 1: But Mr King, that's amazing, I mean, that's so. But
Speaker 1: Mr King rejected it, maintaining his complete innocence, and so
Speaker 1: they retried him. You know, the wrinkle here that that
Speaker 1: really stands out to me is that leading up to
Speaker 1: the trial, some d A investigators did a few interviews
Speaker 1: with Jamie, and in these interviews, Jamie accused King of
Speaker 1: also sexually assaulting her in the living room in the house,
Speaker 1: and the prosecutors sort of sort of following up on it,
Speaker 1: and then she admits, no, that's a lie. It was
Speaker 1: actually Eli Roman that made me do that. So she
Speaker 1: lying here again in two thousand ten, So that was
Speaker 1: leading up to the trial. So she goes into the
Speaker 1: courtroom again and she tells the story again, and Dr
Speaker 1: Barnes says, you know, does her thing again. Her testimony
Speaker 1: remained consistent from the first trial, even though she'd been
Speaker 1: called out by these renowned esteemed doctors. Right doctor James
Speaker 1: Crawford Jakubiak, who has received a Distinguished Service Award from
Speaker 1: the Sexual Assault Investigator Association with California two thousand three,
Speaker 1: since been listed on the Best Doctors in America. Of
Speaker 1: the cases he testified and he pressedified for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: And then there's Dr Lee Coleman, a psychiatrist with a
Speaker 1: specialty in sexual abuse cases, who also testified and agreed
Speaker 1: with Dr It's it's it's really is a mystery how
Speaker 1: he was able to be convicted wrongly a second time,
Speaker 1: just simply on the testimony of Jamie and Dr Barnes.
Speaker 1: Even though his conviction was overturned by a federal court,
Speaker 1: and even though the federal judge made all those findings
Speaker 1: about the holes and the evidence and the unbelievability of
Speaker 1: Jamie's story, James King got retried and he got sentenced
Speaker 1: again to thirty five years to life. And once again
Speaker 1: the appellate process gears start turning. He has his direct
Speaker 1: appeal in the California Court of Appeal habeas petitions and
Speaker 1: those are denied. But once again, actually he filed a
Speaker 1: pro per which means without a lawyer, basically by himself.
Speaker 1: He chicken scratched out of federal habeas petition because he
Speaker 1: didn't have counsel at the time. And this time they
Speaker 1: denied it because the doctors testified at trial, and so
Speaker 1: even though they had serious doubts about Jamie's credibility, you know,
Speaker 1: the federal court said, we're not here to relitigate, you know,
Speaker 1: who we believe and who we don't believe. That's not
Speaker 1: our role. That's a jury's role. So our hands are tied,
Speaker 1: and we're going to deny your federal district habeas petition.
Speaker 1: And then in my firm was contacted by James and
Speaker 1: his mother, Lilian. You know, the first thing that we
Speaker 1: do is start reading. You know, we get the trial
Speaker 1: transcripts and we look at the direct appeal briefs and
Speaker 1: the habeas petitions and the court's rulings. This is one
Speaker 1: of those things where you you feel your stomach turning
Speaker 1: it's hard to believe that this case has happened the
Speaker 1: way it's happened, and that James is once again in
Speaker 1: prison serving thirty five years to life based on the
Speaker 1: state of the evidence in this case. If you talk
Speaker 1: to any of the lawyers that have represented James throughout
Speaker 1: this saga, each one of them, we'll tell you the
Speaker 1: same thing, that this is a man who is innocent,
Speaker 1: and they believe it as much as they've ever believed
Speaker 1: any case they've ever had. When you're in this field,
Speaker 1: you see a lot of cases of a lot of
Speaker 1: people saying they didn't do it, and maybe some of
Speaker 1: them you agree with. Maybe some of them say, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if they didn't do it, but they
Speaker 1: constitutional rights were violated at trial, and there are very
Speaker 1: few that you would bet your eyeballs that they're actually innocent.
Speaker 1: And this is a case that every lawyer who's touched it,
Speaker 1: aside from a prosecutor, would tell you that. And I
Speaker 1: tell you that after we got involved in the case,
Speaker 1: what we saw was that the issue of false evidence
Speaker 1: had never been raised. And our view of the evidence
Speaker 1: and of the law is that the testimony that Jamie
Speaker 1: gave that the rug was now blue is false. It's
Speaker 1: demonstratly false, and the testimony of Valorie Barnes is false.
Speaker 1: To eminently qualified doctors have said it's false, and they've
Speaker 1: said it's absurd. They've said that the things that Dr
Speaker 1: Barnes testified too, but a cleft on the hymen and
Speaker 1: things of that nature, simply we're not there, did not exist.
Speaker 1: Her findings are absurd. So we file the habeas petition
Speaker 1: alleging false evidence introduced to trial and ineffective assistance of
Speaker 1: his appellate council for failure to raise that issue. The
Speaker 1: Superior Court actually requested some informal briefing on the issue,
Speaker 1: and what the District Attorney's office came back with was, well,
Speaker 1: we're just saying that there's a disagreement amongst experts. Dr
Speaker 1: Barnes's testimony isn't false. She testified to what she saw,
Speaker 1: and then Crawford and Coleman testified to their findings and
Speaker 1: the jury made their determination, so you can't say that
Speaker 1: that's false. And regarding the blue carpet, they said, well,
Speaker 1: Jamie was just mistaken about whether the carpet was blue
Speaker 1: or tan, and that explains everything. And we submitted to
Speaker 1: reply brief saying basically, all that's clearly bullshit. You know,
Speaker 1: look at this, look at the transcripts. You know he's innocent.
Speaker 1: This evidence was false. And the Superior Court, not unsurprisingly
Speaker 1: unfortunately denied the habeas petition. We filed in the California
Speaker 1: Court of Appeal and it was denied, and so then
Speaker 1: we filed the habeas ptition in the California Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: This is our last forum here. And if this is denied,
Speaker 1: he's already filed a federal habeas petition proper by himself,
Speaker 1: so we can't just go back to federal court and
Speaker 1: knock on their door again. And I am deeply worried
Speaker 1: that if the California Supreme Court denies this habeas petition,
Speaker 1: that our only avenue at that point is to petition
Speaker 1: the governor's office for clemency or commutation, which is a
Speaker 1: difficult case to make when you have allegations like these. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's always a long shot, but it's also always worth
Speaker 1: a try. And the good news is that you have
Speaker 1: a great governor in California and his team, who I
Speaker 1: gotten to know are are really terrific people. We are
Speaker 1: going to sort of change dot org petition that we
Speaker 1: would love for people who have heard about this case
Speaker 1: and who agree that James King should not spend any
Speaker 1: more time in prison than that he's an innocent man,
Speaker 1: would go to the link and read more about the
Speaker 1: case and voice your support. I completely innocent of this crime,
Speaker 1: and I just think you to please people, can you
Speaker 1: please sign my petition and will of course link to
Speaker 1: that in the bio. So um, please do go to
Speaker 1: the bio sign the petition. There will be other information
Speaker 1: as well. And now you know, we go to the
Speaker 1: part of the show that we call closing arguments. First
Speaker 1: of all, I thank you for being with us, and
Speaker 1: of course, James, you know what can I say except
Speaker 1: for the entire human race, hos you an apology and
Speaker 1: so much more? And I hope that we're able to
Speaker 1: see you free in the not too distant future. So
Speaker 1: and now closing arguments, I leave your microphones on, turn
Speaker 1: mine off, kick back in my chair with my headphones
Speaker 1: on and just listen for anything you want to say.
Speaker 1: Let's start with you Ian and save Mr King. To
Speaker 1: close out the show. James King, he is innocent. I
Speaker 1: think any fair minded person looking at the facts of
Speaker 1: this case and the history of this case, would agree
Speaker 1: with there is an innocent man who has served twenty
Speaker 1: four years and he didn't do it. He's innocent. I
Speaker 1: don't fault Jamie. The circumstances of her life leading up
Speaker 1: to this were horrible. She was, in my view, being
Speaker 1: assaulted at that time, but by somebody else, by somebody
Speaker 1: that she professed to love. When it came to accusing somebody,
Speaker 1: she was able to accuse James King of conduct that
Speaker 1: someone else had done to her. These cases require evidence.
Speaker 1: You cannot simply take the word of one person. They
Speaker 1: require corroboration, and when there's no physical evidence, When there's
Speaker 1: no corroboration, that should be a red flag. And then
Speaker 1: when the evidence comes back and it's it contradicts allegations,
Speaker 1: that should be an even bigger red flag. And then
Speaker 1: when those contradictions are absurd, that the dog ate the
Speaker 1: evidence that the carpet magically switched colors, that James King
Speaker 1: did this stuff to me, A wait a minute, sorry,
Speaker 1: it was actually Eli Roman who did that stuff to me.
Speaker 1: That should be a stop sign. It shouldn't happen at
Speaker 1: that point. No one should have their life put in
Speaker 1: jeopardy and let's not sugarcoated. I mean this is it's
Speaker 1: a death sentence. James King is going to die in
Speaker 1: prison unless his conviction is overturned, his sentence is commuted.
Speaker 1: He's not going to get out. He's sixty six years
Speaker 1: old now and he's not in great health. His mother's
Speaker 1: name is Lilian, she's in her mid eighties and she
Speaker 1: is in rapidly declining health. His one hope is to
Speaker 1: get out before she died. Her one hope is to
Speaker 1: see her son again outside of prison. It's this is
Speaker 1: the kind of case that, um, you know, makes you
Speaker 1: question what you're doing as a lawyer, if what you're
Speaker 1: doing has any value. If we lose, if its conviction
Speaker 1: isn't overturned, have I failed? If we lose, James King
Speaker 1: dies in prison, mother dies without ever seeing her son
Speaker 1: outside of prison again, and you know I will have failed,
Speaker 1: James now over you God. I'm just I'm just just
Speaker 1: just begging if somebody who pleased to skelp me this
Speaker 1: just girl, man, they aided me because I am the
Speaker 1: one who got to be evicted. Because see they had
Speaker 1: no word to go. They were living on the streets.
Speaker 1: They hadn't made and I came along and I took
Speaker 1: it away summer. It was just what we did resent
Speaker 1: only man, That's why they get this. I'm just prayed
Speaker 1: that somebody would please took a look at my agency,
Speaker 1: the evidence that I'm totally innocent of this crime. She
Speaker 1: thanks you so much what you're doing for me. She
Speaker 1: is so happy to hear this, what you guys are
Speaker 1: doing now for me. She's so happy. And I want
Speaker 1: you to know this that I want you to know
Speaker 1: one thing, this never happened. This never happened. Then, thank
Speaker 1: you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank
Speaker 1: our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburn, and Kevin Wardis.
Speaker 1: With research by Lila Robinson. The music in this production
Speaker 1: was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
Speaker 1: all three platforms. You can also follow me on both
Speaker 1: TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason flam Rale. For Conviction
Speaker 1: is the production of Lava for Good. Podcasts in association
Speaker 1: with signal Company number one h