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 lives of a child
Speaker 1: at the insistence of her criminally vindictive mother. While renting
Speaker 1: a room in Selinas, California, a woman named ruth Ann
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 house else where he still received
Speaker 1: mail and maintained friendships, including with ruth Ann's boyfriend Eric Barton.
Speaker 1: And the landlord Doug do Bell. James would come by
Speaker 1: occasionally to pick up his mail and socialize, as he
Speaker 1: did on August first, nineteen ninety seven, for the Salinas Airshow.
Speaker 1: A few days later, while Landlord Dug do Bell was
Speaker 1: in Las Vegas, James intervened when he saw ruth Anne
Speaker 1: trying to sell Doug's moped. Ruth Anne, who had already
Speaker 1: pawned Doug's TV, threatened James that she would get back
Speaker 1: at him if he ever told Doug. When Doug returned
Speaker 1: for Vegas on August eleventh, James found himself accused of
Speaker 1: stealing Doug's TV, which he firmly denied while reporting the
Speaker 1: story about ruth Anne and the moped. When Eric Barton
Speaker 1: confirmed that ruth Anne was the culprit, James found himself
Speaker 1: accused once again, this time for the alleged August first
Speaker 1: sexual assault of thirteen year old Jamie, during which time
Speaker 1: he allegedly ejaculated on a tan carpet. When confronted with
Speaker 1: the carpet testing negative for seamen, the young girl said
Speaker 1: that her dog must have eaten it. She later changed
Speaker 1: the story to a blue carpet that Dobell confirmed did
Speaker 1: not exist. Despite these glaring red flags that DA used
Speaker 1: Jamie's story and a medical experts testimony that has since
Speaker 1: been characterized as absurd to send James away from thirty
Speaker 1: five years to life. This is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm. Today you're
Speaker 1: going to hear a story that is disturbing in so
Speaker 1: many ways. This story is the story of a man
Speaker 1: who's been in prison for a quarter century for a
Speaker 1: crime that never happened. And it's got so many lies
Speaker 1: in it that you'll you may need a pen and
Speaker 1: paper to keep the lies. I mean, it's just absolutely
Speaker 1: breathtaking the web that was woven in order to not
Speaker 1: only convict but also keep this innocent man in prison
Speaker 1: for this long. The attorney is Ian Graham. He's a
Speaker 1: civil rights attorney with Cravis Graham and Zucker in California. Ian,
Speaker 1: Welcome to Rafel Conviction.
Speaker 2: Thanks Jason. It's a real pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1: And soon you'll be hearing the phone ring and we'll
Speaker 1: be hearing from the man himself. James King will be
Speaker 1: calling in from the California Men's Colony, which is a.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems like sort of a benign name
Speaker 1: for a place that is no place for an innocent
Speaker 1: man to be. Oh, and here we go. We're going
Speaker 1: to our call right now.
Speaker 3: This is Global telling you have a prepaid call from
Speaker 3: an inmate at the California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, California.
Speaker 3: This call and your telephone number will be monitored and recorded.
Speaker 3: To accept this call, say or dial five now. Thank
Speaker 3: you for using Global tail Link.
Speaker 4: Hello James, Hi, how finally get to talk to you.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm so glad you're here too, even though I
Speaker 1: really hate why you're here, or more to the point,
Speaker 1: where you are.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: So tell us a bit about your life growing up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, I grew up in Actually I was born
Speaker 4: in Germany. My dad was in the army for twenty
Speaker 4: five years and we came back to the United States
Speaker 4: when I was like six years old, and then we
Speaker 4: moved to California, and I've been in California all my life.
Speaker 1: So you grew up in a military family. And we've
Speaker 1: spoken with your mom, Lilyan, many times, and it sounds
Speaker 1: like you had a relatively normal life working in the
Speaker 1: moving business until you had a run in with the
Speaker 1: law for burglary. Now that's a serious crime, but when
Speaker 1: you hear the details of it, it was actually a
Speaker 1: bit more benign than it sounds.
Speaker 4: Go only three hundred dollars. So I was mad and
Speaker 4: I shouldn't have done it, and I went in the
Speaker 4: house and took a VCR. When I took it, I
Speaker 4: even call her it, told her I took your VCR
Speaker 4: and she called the police call me. That's how that happened,
Speaker 4: and they got me for burglary. So I had to
Speaker 4: plead guilty to it. I got a year in prison
Speaker 4: for that. That was all it was to it. And
Speaker 4: I should never done that.
Speaker 1: So, okay, you knew this person and they owed you money,
Speaker 1: and you obviously shouldn't have done that. You've acknowledged that
Speaker 1: that was a dumb thing to do. But now you've
Speaker 1: got one strike for burglary.
Speaker 4: But I have no six grids in my life at all, man,
Speaker 4: not even allegations that I'd done anything right.
Speaker 1: So this was a non sexual crime. So why did
Speaker 1: I even bring it up? You might be asking yourself. Well,
Speaker 1: at the time, with the newly minted nineteen ninety four
Speaker 1: Crime Bill, what this meant was that you had one
Speaker 1: strike against you, so a second offense would mean doubling
Speaker 1: any sentence. But for now you just got the one
Speaker 1: year sentence. So you get out, go back to the
Speaker 1: moving business doing odd jobs, and you're renting a room
Speaker 1: from a man named Doug Dobell and Selenas, California.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was living in duglam Bill's out for about
Speaker 4: seven months and I moved out and got my own place.
Speaker 4: It was a ninety seventh and I was leaving Alenas
Speaker 4: at the time. When I moved out. I still stay
Speaker 4: friends with Doug and I had to go over her
Speaker 4: and get my meal every day because I did not
Speaker 4: pann my meal switch. I just kept it there at Doug's.
Speaker 1: House, all right. So you were also doing some odd
Speaker 1: jobs for Doug. You two guys had a mutual friend,
Speaker 1: Eric Barton, who was dating a woman who had just
Speaker 1: begun renting a room from Doug. And her name was
Speaker 1: Ruth Ann, a woman who threw her own admission, had
Speaker 1: suffered from manic depression, borderline multiple personality disordered drug addiction,
Speaker 1: all while struggling to support her drug habit and her
Speaker 1: thirteen year old daughter Jamie with the help of welfare
Speaker 1: and prostitution. So now Ian this brings us to the
Speaker 1: summer of nineteen ninety seven at Doug Dobell's house.
Speaker 2: So, in the summer of nineteen ninety seven, there were
Speaker 2: four or five people living there. In addition to Jamie
Speaker 2: and ruth Anne, there was a woman named Bonnie Roman,
Speaker 2: her husband and Bonnie's brother I believe named Eli Roman.
Speaker 2: So on August first, nineteen ninety seven, James goes by
Speaker 2: Dobell's house. I believe it was the day of the
Speaker 2: Salinas Air Show. So he was going over to see Dobell.
Speaker 2: And you know, he knew ruth Ann a little bit,
Speaker 2: and you know, have a few beers for the air show.
Speaker 2: And so he goes into the house and Eric Barton
Speaker 2: is occupied in the bedroom with ruth Ann.
Speaker 4: Ruthan wanted me to go to the store for her
Speaker 4: and get some beer for her. She didn't have a car,
Speaker 4: her car was broke down, so nice to me. When
Speaker 4: I was going to the store, Jamie asked me because
Speaker 4: she'd go and get a soda pop And I say,
Speaker 4: to ask your mother, and her mother sits sure.
Speaker 2: So King goes and gets some beer and comes back
Speaker 2: to the house. Ruth Ann comes out and gets a
Speaker 2: beer out of the fridge, and King's there and Jamie's there,
Speaker 2: no issues, goes back into the bedroom with Barton, and
Speaker 2: you know, the day goes off without a hitch. Over
Speaker 2: the course of the next few days, while Doug Dobell
Speaker 2: was still out of town in Las Vegas, James sees
Speaker 2: ruth Anne trying to sell Dobell's mopead and intervenes and
Speaker 2: stops her and tells her she can't be selling Dobell's property.
Speaker 2: Ruth Anne and James got into a verbal altercation when
Speaker 2: he prevented her from selling the moped.
Speaker 4: I said, excuse me, sir, this is not ruth Dan's moulped.
Speaker 4: This is the owner's moped. And if you buy this,
Speaker 4: you're buying something that is stolen. And that's when ruth
Speaker 4: Dan turned to me, you bastard, if you tell Doug
Speaker 4: about this, she said, if we get if we're getting
Speaker 4: picked it out of here because of you, I will
Speaker 4: pay you back one hundred times over.
Speaker 2: She had, also, by the way, pawned Dobell's television that
Speaker 2: week when he was out of town. So on August eleventh,
Speaker 2: Dobell returns from Las Vegas to his house and he
Speaker 2: notices that there's property damaged. His TV is missing, and
Speaker 2: James tells Dobell that ruth Anne had pawned the TV
Speaker 2: and tried to sell themed and this was later confirmed
Speaker 2: by Eric Barton, who had seen ruth Anner do this
Speaker 2: stuff too. So Dobell and ruth Anne get into an
Speaker 2: argument about her conduct while she's staying at the house,
Speaker 2: and the next day, ruth Ann comes to Dobell with
Speaker 2: Jamie and tells Dobell that James King has molested and
Speaker 2: tried to rape Jamie. Dobell, who was horrified and actually
Speaker 2: scared that he was going to be himself accused of
Speaker 2: this assault, immediately calls the police and Dobell drives Jamie
Speaker 2: and ruth Anne to the police station for Jamie to
Speaker 2: be interviewed, and on the way to the police station,
Speaker 2: ruth Ann is mad at Dobell because, as Dobell testified,
Speaker 2: he didn't give ruth Anne and Jamie time for them
Speaker 2: to get their stories straight.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is just the beginning, I mean yeah, And
Speaker 1: so she is now grasping at straws because she's angry
Speaker 1: that her scheme was sort of you know interrupted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, but I guess maybe should give just a
Speaker 2: brief background. You know, Jamie's thirteen years old, and this
Speaker 2: is her mother who's working as a prostitute and has
Speaker 2: been a drug addict. And Jamie would later testify that
Speaker 2: she was raped when she was four, and she was
Speaker 2: raped when she was eight, and as you'll see, will
Speaker 2: become relevant later the second time. She also said that
Speaker 2: there was a convenience store involved, and we have fairly
Speaker 2: good evidence that she was also being sexually assaulted at
Speaker 2: this time that we're talking about August of nineteen ninety seven,
Speaker 2: just not by James King. So I have a great
Speaker 2: deal of sympathy for Jamie and her situation. It doesn't
Speaker 2: change the facts that we're going to develop going forward,
Speaker 2: but that's just the circumstances that we're dealing with here.
Speaker 1: So now this awful scenario is starting to grow legs,
Speaker 1: so to speak. Right, Dobell has driven them down to
Speaker 1: the police station. What happened at that interview.
Speaker 2: Jamie was taken into a room separated from her mother
Speaker 2: and interviewed by detectives. She said that on that day
Speaker 2: of August first, when James King came over to the house,
Speaker 2: that he was going to go to the convenience store
Speaker 2: to buy beer, and that because there was no one
Speaker 2: else around, he knocked on the bedroom door, interrupted Barton
Speaker 2: and ruth Anne and asked ruth Anne whether he should
Speaker 2: take Jamie to the store with him or just leave
Speaker 2: her there, and ruth Anne said, yeah, why don't you
Speaker 2: take her? So, she says, she and James drove to
Speaker 2: the liquor store, convenience store, whatever it is. He got beer,
Speaker 2: he bought Jamie a soda, and they're driving back and
Speaker 2: she said that on the way back he pretended to
Speaker 2: get lost and he began touching her thigh into her
Speaker 2: private areas. And then they get back to the house.
Speaker 2: Ruth Ann comes out of the bedroom, she gets a
Speaker 2: beer from the fridge, goes back into the bedroom. She
Speaker 2: sees Jamie. Nothing going on, no problem at that point,
Speaker 2: according to Jamie, James takes her into the garage in
Speaker 2: the house and on top of a piece of carpet
Speaker 2: that's in the garage. Dobell by the ways in the
Speaker 2: carpet business, so there's a fairly large square of carpet
Speaker 2: that she says that he then forced her to orally
Speaker 2: copulate him and that he raped her, and that he
Speaker 2: ejaculated and the seamen went on the carpet. She was
Speaker 2: actually very clear about that. The detectives asked her follow
Speaker 2: up questions to make sure because they would be able
Speaker 2: to then verify the story. So they asked her follow
Speaker 2: up questions and she says, yes, it was a brown
Speaker 2: or tan carpet. She told them where it was in
Speaker 2: the garage. I think initially at least one of them
Speaker 2: was slightly skeptical because for about a few things. Jamie
Speaker 2: had said that the attack had lasted for seventy five minutes,
Speaker 2: which seemed like an exceedingly long time, and there were
Speaker 2: a few other details. So then they went over and
Speaker 2: they interviewed ruth Ann, and ruth Anne said that King
Speaker 2: had never come in and asks if he could take
Speaker 2: Jamie to the store. That had never happened, that when
Speaker 2: she came out of the bedroom, you know, she saw
Speaker 2: Jamie sitting there reading a book, no problem, nothing seemed
Speaker 2: out of order. Then she said that when Jamie told
Speaker 2: her about the incident, she said that King had tried
Speaker 2: to rape her, but not the story that she told
Speaker 2: the police. The detectives then went back in with Jamie
Speaker 2: and said, your mom said that you know, she didn't
Speaker 2: see this and she didn't hear that, and that you
Speaker 2: told her that it was only James had tried something.
Speaker 2: And Jamie said, well, I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 2: why my mom would say that. So there's already a
Speaker 2: discrepancy there. And so then the detectives asked Jamie, well,
Speaker 2: did you tell anybody about what happened to you at
Speaker 2: the time that it happened or in the days afterwards.
Speaker 2: Jamie says, the only person that I told the next
Speaker 2: day was my friend Erica. Erica then says, no, that
Speaker 2: didn't happen. Erica says that she does remember Jamie telling
Speaker 2: her that King had assaulted her, but that happened after
Speaker 2: Dobell had gotten home, So, in other words, it had
Speaker 2: happened sometime after August eleventh, more than ten days after
Speaker 2: the attack. So there were some flags in the story
Speaker 2: just from the beginning here.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of flags, and the story really
Speaker 1: is just getting started, because when you hear what happens
Speaker 1: next and the way these lies start to unravel, it
Speaker 1: would be comical if it wasn't tragic.
Speaker 2: So when the interview concludes, officer Hickman. He goes immediately
Speaker 2: to Dobell's house and Dobell takes him into the garage
Speaker 2: and there is a tan or brown carpet exactly in
Speaker 2: the place that Jamie described it. Dobell tells the officer
Speaker 2: it's been for at least a month, and it's the
Speaker 2: only one that's been in this garage for several months.
Speaker 2: So the officer takes that carpet and they have it
Speaker 2: laboratory tested for semen and it tests negative.
Speaker 3: And just so.
Speaker 2: They're sure, they take two other pieces of carpet, not
Speaker 2: even remotely where Jamie said they were or fitting description,
Speaker 2: but they just wanted to be thorough, so they grabbed
Speaker 2: two other pieces and they test those. They test negative.
Speaker 2: The detectives then went back asked again for Jamie to
Speaker 2: tell the story, and again Jamie tells a story, talks
Speaker 2: about King, he talks about how he ejaculated on the
Speaker 2: tan or brown carpet. So then the officer says, you know,
Speaker 2: we had that carpet tested and it didn't show that
Speaker 2: there was any semen on it. It didn't come back,
Speaker 2: didn't test positive. There was none. And Jamie says, that's
Speaker 2: because my dog ate that part of the carpet.
Speaker 1: That's because my dog ate that part of the.
Speaker 2: Carpet, right, And you know, these are the things that
Speaker 2: a thirteen year old girl might say, which he's caught
Speaker 2: in a line. So the officer says, your dog ate it,
Speaker 2: and she says, well, also, I think my mom may
Speaker 2: have cut it up and maybe then also washed it.
Speaker 2: And the officer says, well, the carpet doesn't look like
Speaker 2: it's damaged in any way. And Jamie didn't have anything
Speaker 2: to say to that. So that is the state of
Speaker 2: 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 DA had that opportunity
Speaker 1: to say, you know what, none of this makes any
Speaker 1: fucking sense. Yeah, so, you know, unless you guys can
Speaker 1: bring me something, you know, some physical evidence. I witnessed testimony,
Speaker 1: some something other than a tangled web of lives from
Speaker 1: a poor child. I'm not going to prosecute this case.
Speaker 1: But that's not what happened.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, they try to build some corroboration and on
Speaker 2: about August I think it was nineteenth or so, almost
Speaker 2: three weeks or so after this alleged attack by King.
Speaker 2: They have the prosecution's medical expert, doctor Valerie Barnes, examined
Speaker 2: Jamie and she says, oh, I saw a red spot
Speaker 2: on Jamie's mouth, and I saw redness in her vagina
Speaker 2: and a cleft on the hymen, and you know, a
Speaker 2: streaking here, and these are consistent with the sexual assault
Speaker 2: as she described it. That's just simply false. It's false.
Speaker 2: And we know it's false because when James King's conviction
Speaker 2: was overturned for the first time, it was overturned because
Speaker 2: his lawyer had failed to call a medical expert to
Speaker 2: rebut that testimony from Valerie Barnes. And if they had
Speaker 2: called a medical expert to rebut that testimony, this is
Speaker 2: a federal judge talking, it would have demonstrated that it
Speaker 2: wasn't true. And we know that because doctors Crawford and Coleman,
Speaker 2: and they are eminently qualified in child' saise sexual assault
Speaker 2: cases and typically testify for the prosecution, reviewed doctor Barnes's
Speaker 2: examination of Jamie and did their own examination of the
Speaker 2: same pictures and everything in Barnes looked at, and they
Speaker 2: concluded that Barnes' findings were medically absurd. To the point
Speaker 2: of showing bias. That none of the injuries or red
Speaker 2: spots that they saw were indicative of an assault that
Speaker 2: happened on August first, or anytime around then. Acute sexual
Speaker 2: assault injuries like that heal within seventy two hours, maybe
Speaker 2: a week at most. They said that what Barnes saw
Speaker 2: were simply normal markings and that there was no cleft
Speaker 2: on a hymen. They could see it clearly. But those
Speaker 2: absurd findings had the benefit for the prosecution of corroborating
Speaker 2: Jamie's story because they said, these are consistent with the assault.
Speaker 2: So there's your corroboration.
Speaker 1: Yeah, nice expert. And before we move on to inevitable
Speaker 1: in this trial, authorities had another opportunity to do the
Speaker 1: right thing here, but it too went completely ignored.
Speaker 2: Shortly after the allegations came up and the investigation started going,
Speaker 2: Dobell found Jamie's diary in her room and he turned
Speaker 2: it over to the police. And in that diary, Jamie
Speaker 2: wrote about a man named Eli who she was in
Speaker 2: love with and who did stuff to her. And she
Speaker 2: would write things like do you really love me? Or
Speaker 2: do you just want to do those things to me?
Speaker 2: And this would seem like is Eli Roman, who was
Speaker 2: living in the house and who was in his mid
Speaker 2: to late twenties at the time, And remarkably, she wrote
Speaker 2: about some sort of sexual interaction with Eli on the
Speaker 2: day or within a day of when she accused King.
Speaker 2: So in her diary there's something on August twelfth or
Speaker 2: thirteenth about you know, Eli and you know, doing stuff
Speaker 2: to her. So at trial she's asked about this and
Speaker 2: she denies it all and she says, no, no, I
Speaker 2: just write stuff in there, didn't have anything to do
Speaker 2: with Eli. So you know, it's even a bit richer
Speaker 2: here where you actually have someone who is assaulting her
Speaker 2: who she professes to love in her diary, right.
Speaker 1: Which just adds to the total absurdity of doctor 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?
Speaker 4: Well? At first I had a public defender that lawyer
Speaker 4: never got me an expert dispute all that right.
Speaker 1: So, with no expert to refute and Jamie's testimony, this
Speaker 1: was basically a FATA complay. But there was still some
Speaker 1: hope in that there were so many holes in Jamie's story,
Speaker 1: especially about the carpet where she alleged that James deposited seamen,
Speaker 1: which came up negative every time despite many efforts. Then
Speaker 1: her ridiculous answer about the dog, you know, having eaten
Speaker 1: the carpet, like my dog ate my homework, literally, and
Speaker 1: then it gets even worse. The carpet in her story
Speaker 1: changed colors.
Speaker 2: She switched from her statement about the carpet being tan
Speaker 2: or brown, which she'd said I think three or four
Speaker 2: times at this point leading up to trial, to the
Speaker 2: fact that the carpet was blue. In other words, no, Okay,
Speaker 2: my story before about the dog chewing it, maybe that
Speaker 2: doesn't seem reasonable. So let's just say it's a blue
Speaker 2: carpet and it's a different carpet. Well, Dobell testified that
Speaker 2: there was no blue carpet in the garage, again, Doebell's
Speaker 2: in the carpet business, which is why we're talking about
Speaker 2: carpet in the garage and what he knows about it.
Speaker 2: But he said that months earlier that there was a
Speaker 2: piece of blue carpet in the garage, but that it
Speaker 2: had been out of there for months prior to when
Speaker 2: this assault allegedly occurred, and that the only piece of
Speaker 2: carpet that even remotely matched the description that she's talking about,
Speaker 2: and that was that piece that was taken by the police,
Speaker 2: that the criminalists testified that was laboratory tested and negative
Speaker 2: for semen, and that it would have tested positive if
Speaker 2: there had been any fluids on there. But a jury
Speaker 2: of twelve people, with all the flaws and biases that
Speaker 2: twelve people bring, seeing the testimony of a thirteen year
Speaker 2: old girl accusing this man who has a prior felony,
Speaker 2: non sexual felony on his record, is very compelling testimony.
Speaker 2: It is the testimony of a child talking about the
Speaker 2: abuse they've suffered. And James King is convicted and he
Speaker 2: is sentenced to thirty five years to life in prison.
Speaker 4: It was devastating because I knew I was innocent, that
Speaker 4: I knew that this was all wrong. Man. I couldn't
Speaker 4: believe it. You feel like somebody hit me with the
Speaker 4: two x four right in the face. Man, twenty two
Speaker 4: years old. I never even had an allegation that I
Speaker 4: even touched a girl in a wrong way, and you
Speaker 4: would hap to do me.
Speaker 1: This episode is underwritten by Paul Weiss, Rifkin, Porton and Garrison,
Speaker 1: a leading international law firm. Paul Weiss has long had
Speaker 1: an unwavering commitment to providing impactful, pro bono legal assistance
Speaker 1: to the most vulnerable members of our society and in
Speaker 1: support of the public interest, including extensive work in the
Speaker 1: criminal justice area.
Speaker 4: Going to prison for a sex crime is very rough,
Speaker 4: as dagerous guys in prison don't like that. I have
Speaker 4: been jumped in prison. I have been beat down. See
Speaker 4: what happened. The guy that I was selling up with,
Speaker 4: he went through my vaperwork and found out what I
Speaker 4: was in there for, and he went out in the
Speaker 4: yard and told all the inmates what I was in
Speaker 4: there for. And that's when they jumped me beat me up.
Speaker 4: That happened to got to combate and I still got
Speaker 4: to deal with it. You got to watch yourself in here.
Speaker 4: Twenty four years I've been in here for nothing. My mother,
Speaker 4: she's ninety years old, and I just don't want her
Speaker 4: to die. Why I'm in prison. It's going to carry
Speaker 4: me up then, you know, because I'm really close to
Speaker 4: my mom and I just wanted to be out there
Speaker 4: with her, and here I'm in here for nothing, you know,
Speaker 4: and it's really eat me up through a man.
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 nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety eight, ninety nine, all the way till two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, when finally he got to the federal habeas petition. Right.
Speaker 2: Yes, and it is very hard to get even a
Speaker 2: federal court to hear you on the merits of your claim.
Speaker 2: It's even harder to win on the merits of your claim.
Speaker 2: But his federal habeas petition made it through all of
Speaker 2: the procedural barriers and the federal district judge ended up
Speaker 2: granting his habeas petition on the claim of ineffective assistance
Speaker 2: of counsel, basically saying his trial lawyer was ineffective for
Speaker 2: failing to call a medical expert who could have rebutted
Speaker 2: the testimony of doctor Valerie Barnes that Jamie had injuries
Speaker 2: consistent with an assault by King. And she granted that
Speaker 2: because the two doctors, Crawford and Coleman, had provided not
Speaker 2: only a declarations, but witness testimony about what they saw
Speaker 2: and about how wrong doctor Barnes was. So this judge
Speaker 2: grants the ineffective assistance a council, And in making that finding,
Speaker 2: this judge looked at Jamie's testimony and noted the serious
Speaker 2: gaps and contradictions in her testimony, the statement about the
Speaker 2: carpet and how it tested negative and then she said
Speaker 2: the dog ate it, and then she changed and said
Speaker 2: the carpet was blue. And all these things were noted
Speaker 2: by the federal judge overturning his conviction.
Speaker 1: I mean, and this is so long ago. This was
Speaker 1: making me so sick. This is twelve long years ago,
Speaker 1: and it should have ended there, but the DA decided
Speaker 1: to retry mister King, charging him with three counts of
Speaker 1: aggravated sexual assaults on a child and lude conduct with
Speaker 1: a child, all of which he of course still pled
Speaker 1: not guilty. And prior to the retrial this is important,
Speaker 1: the prosecution offered him a deal, a plea.
Speaker 2: He was presented with an option, will throw out the rape,
Speaker 2: will throw out the oral cop If you just plead
Speaker 2: to one count of lude conduct, you'll walk out a
Speaker 2: freeman time served, you are free to go. You can
Speaker 2: be back with your mother. And he turned it down.
Speaker 2: No guilty person offered the chance to walk out of
Speaker 2: prison or face retrial would say, fuck you, I'm innocent.
Speaker 2: Retry me.
Speaker 1: And he did that, and Jamie informed the prosecution that
Speaker 1: she didn't object to the plea deal, but mister King,
Speaker 1: that's amazing, I mean, that's so. But mister King rejected it,
Speaker 1: maintaining his complete innocence.
Speaker 2: And so they retried him. You know, the wrinkle here
Speaker 2: that really stands out to me is that leading up
Speaker 2: to the trial, some DA investigators did a few interviews
Speaker 2: with Jamie, and in these interviews, Jamie accused King of
Speaker 2: also sexually assaulting her in the living room in the
Speaker 2: house and the prosecutors started sort of following up on it,
Speaker 2: and then she admits, no, that's a lie. It was
Speaker 2: actually Eli Roman that made me do that. So she
Speaker 2: lying here again in twenty ten, so that was leading
Speaker 2: up to the trial. So she goes into the courtroom
Speaker 2: again and she tells the story again, and doctor Barnes says,
Speaker 2: you know, does her thing again.
Speaker 1: Her testimony remained consistent from the first trial, even though
Speaker 1: she'd been called out by these renowned esteemed doctors. Right,
Speaker 1: doctor James Crawford Jakubiak, who has received a Distinguished Service
Speaker 1: Award from the Sexual Assault Investigator Association with California two
Speaker 1: thousand and three. Since nineteen ninety four, had been listed
Speaker 1: on the Best Doctors in America ninety percent of the
Speaker 1: cases he testified, and he pressified for the prosecution. And
Speaker 1: then there's doctor Lee Coleman, a psychiatrist with a specialty
Speaker 1: in sexual abuse cases, who also testified and agreed with
Speaker 1: doctor Carr. It's really is a mystery how he was
Speaker 1: able to be convicted wrongly a second time.
Speaker 2: Just simply on the testimony of Jamie and doctor Barnes.
Speaker 2: Even though his conviction was overturned by a federal court.
Speaker 2: And even though the federal judge made all those findings
Speaker 2: about the holes and the evidence and the unbelievability of
Speaker 2: Jamie's story, James King got retried and he got sentenced
Speaker 2: again to thirty five years to life, and once again
Speaker 2: the appellate process gears start turning. He has his direct
Speaker 2: appeal in the California Court of Appeal habeas petitions and
Speaker 2: those are denied once again. Actually, he filed a pro
Speaker 2: per which means without a lawyer, basically by himself. He
Speaker 2: chicken scratched out a federal habeas petition because he didn't
Speaker 2: have counsel at the time. And this time they denied
Speaker 2: it because the doctors testified at trial, and so even
Speaker 2: though they had serious doubts about Jamie's credibility, you know,
Speaker 2: the federal court said, we're not here to relitigate, you know,
Speaker 2: who we believe and who we don't believe. That's not
Speaker 2: our role. That's a jury's role. So our hands are
Speaker 2: tied and we're going to deny your federal district habeas petition.
Speaker 2: And then in twenty seventeen, my firm was contacted by
Speaker 2: James and his mother, Lilian. You know, the first thing
Speaker 2: that we do is start reading, you know, we get
Speaker 2: the trial transcripts and we look at the direct appeal
Speaker 2: briefs and the habeas petitions and the court's rulings. This
Speaker 2: is one of those things where you feel your stomach turning.
Speaker 2: It's hard to believe that this case has happened the
Speaker 2: way it's happened, and that James is once again in
Speaker 2: prison serving thirty five years to life based on the
Speaker 2: state of the evidence in this case. If you talk
Speaker 2: to any of the lawyers that have represented James throughout
Speaker 2: this saga, each one of them will tell you the
Speaker 2: same thing, that this is a man who is innocent,
Speaker 2: and they believe it as much as they've ever believed
Speaker 2: any case they've ever had. When you're in this field,
Speaker 2: you see a lot of cases of a lot of
Speaker 2: people saying they didn't do it, and maybe some of
Speaker 2: them you agree with. Maybe some of them say, well,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if they didn't do it, but their
Speaker 2: constitutional rights were violated at trial, and there are very
Speaker 2: few that you would bet your eyeballs that they're factually innocent.
Speaker 2: And this is a case that every lawyer who's touched it,
Speaker 2: aside from a prosecutor would tell you that, and I'd
Speaker 2: tell you that. After we got involved in the case,
Speaker 2: what we saw was that the issue of false evidence
Speaker 2: had never been raised. And our view of the evidence
Speaker 2: and of the law is that the testimony that Jamie
Speaker 2: gave that the rug was now blue is false. It's
Speaker 2: demonstratively false, and the testimony of Valerie Barnes is false.
Speaker 2: To eminently qualified doctors have said it's false, and they've
Speaker 2: said it's absurd. They've said that the things that doctor
Speaker 2: Barnes testified to but a cleft on the highmen and
Speaker 2: things of that nature simply were not there, did not exist.
Speaker 2: Her findings are absurd. So we file the habeas petition
Speaker 2: alleging false evidence introduced at trial and the ineffective assistance
Speaker 2: of his appellate counsel for failure to raise that issue.
Speaker 2: The Superior Court actually requested some informal briefing on the issue,
Speaker 2: and what the District Attorney's office came back with was, well,
Speaker 2: we're just saying that there's a disagreement amongst experts. Doctor
Speaker 2: Barnes's testimony isn't false. She testified to what she saw.
Speaker 2: And then Crawford and Coleman testified to their findings and
Speaker 2: the jury made their determinations, so you can't say that
Speaker 2: that's false. And regarding the blue carpet, they said, well,
Speaker 2: Jamie was just mistaken about whether the carpet was blue
Speaker 2: or tan, and that explains everything. And we submitted a
Speaker 2: reply brief saying basically, all that's clearly bullshit. You know,
Speaker 2: look at this, look at the transcripts. You know he's innocent.
Speaker 2: This evidence was false, and the Superior Court, not unsurprisingly
Speaker 2: unfortunately denied the habeas petition. We filed in the California
Speaker 2: Court of Appeal and it was denied, and so then
Speaker 2: we filed hayeyastetition in the California Supreme Court. This is
Speaker 2: our last forum here. And if this is denied, he's
Speaker 2: already filed a federal habeast petition pro per by himself,
Speaker 2: so we can't just go back to federal court and
Speaker 2: knock on their door again. And I am deeply worried
Speaker 2: that if the California Supreme Court denies this habeas petition,
Speaker 2: that our only avenue at that point is to petition
Speaker 2: the governor's office for clemency or commutation, which is a
Speaker 2: difficult case to make when you have allegations like these.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's always a long shot, but it's also always
Speaker 1: worth to try. And the good news is that you
Speaker 1: have a great governor in California and his team, who
Speaker 1: I've gotten to know are really terrific people.
Speaker 2: We are going to sort of change dot org petition
Speaker 2: that we would love for people who have heard about
Speaker 2: this case and who agree that James King should not
Speaker 2: spend any more time in prison than that he's an
Speaker 2: innocent man. Would go to the link and read more
Speaker 2: about the case and voice your support.
Speaker 4: Once you see the evidence of se completely innocent of
Speaker 4: this crime. And I just thank you to please people,
Speaker 4: can you please sign my petition and.
Speaker 1: We'll of course link to that in the bio, So
Speaker 1: please do go to the bio sign the petition. There
Speaker 1: will be other information as well. And now you know,
Speaker 1: we go to the part of the show that we
Speaker 1: call closing arguments. First of all, I thank you for
Speaker 1: being with us, and of course, James, you know what
Speaker 1: can I say except for the entire human race owes
Speaker 1: you an apology and so much more, and I hope
Speaker 1: that we're able to see you free in the not
Speaker 1: too distant future. So and now closing arguments. I leave
Speaker 1: your microphones on, turn mine off, kick back in my
Speaker 1: chair with my headphones on, and just listen for anything
Speaker 1: you want to say. Let's start with you, Ian and
Speaker 1: save mister King. To close out the show.
Speaker 2: James King is innocent. I think any fair minded person
Speaker 2: looking at the facts of this case and the history
Speaker 2: of this case would agree with there is an innocent
Speaker 2: man who has served twenty four years and he didn't
Speaker 2: do it. He's innocent. I don't fault Jamie. The circumstances
Speaker 2: of her life leading up to this were horrible. She was,
Speaker 2: in my view, being assaulted at that time, but by
Speaker 2: somebody else, by somebody that she professed to love. When
Speaker 2: it came to accusing somebody, she was able to accuse
Speaker 2: James King of conduct that someone else had done to her.
Speaker 2: These cases require evidence. You cannot simply take the word
Speaker 2: of one person. They require corroboration, and when there's no
Speaker 2: physical evidence, When there's no corroboration, that should be a
Speaker 2: red flag. And then when the evidence comes back and
Speaker 2: it contradicts allegations, that should be an even bigger red flag.
Speaker 2: And then when those contradictions are absurd, that the dog
Speaker 2: ate the evidence that the carpet magically switched colors, that
Speaker 2: James King did this stuff to me. Oh wait a minute, sorry,
Speaker 2: it was actually Eli Roman who did that stuff to me.
Speaker 2: That should be a stop sign. It shouldn't happen at
Speaker 2: that point. No one should have their life put in jeopardy.
Speaker 2: And let's not sugarcoated. I mean this is it's a
Speaker 2: death sentence. James King is going to die in prison
Speaker 2: unless his conviction is overturned, his sentence is commuted. He's
Speaker 2: not going to get out. He's sixty six years old now,
Speaker 2: and he's not in great health. His mother's name is Lilian,
Speaker 2: she's in her mid eighties and she is in rapidly
Speaker 2: declining health. His one hope is to get out before
Speaker 2: she died, and her one hope is to see her
Speaker 2: son again outside of Prison's this is the kind of
Speaker 2: case that you know, makes you question what you're doing
Speaker 2: as a lawyer, if what you're doing has any value.
Speaker 2: If we lose, if his conviction isn't overturned, have I failed?
Speaker 2: If we lose, James King dies in prison, his mother
Speaker 2: dies without ever seeing her son outside of prison again,
Speaker 2: and you know I will have failed.
Speaker 1: James Now, over you.
Speaker 2: God.
Speaker 4: I'm just I'm just just just begging that somebody will
Speaker 4: please just help me. Just girl. Man, they hated me
Speaker 4: because I am the one who got to be victed.
Speaker 4: To see, they had nowhere to go. They were living
Speaker 4: on the streets. They hadn't made there, and I came
Speaker 4: along and I took it away from her. It was nothing,
Speaker 4: but we did refigiling, man, That's why they did this.
Speaker 4: I just pray that somebody will please. You can look
Speaker 4: at my patiency, the evidence that I'm totally innocent of
Speaker 4: this crime. My mom, she thanks you so much what
Speaker 4: you're doing for me. She is so happy to hear this,
Speaker 4: what you guys are doing now for me. She's so happy.
Speaker 4: And I want you to know this that I want
Speaker 4: you to know one thing, this never happened. This never happened. Man.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Clibern, and Kevin Wartis.
Speaker 1: With research by Lyla Robinson. The music in this production
Speaker 1: was supplied by three time Oscar nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
Speaker 1: all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
Speaker 1: TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason flam Ravel. Conviction is
Speaker 1: the production of Lava for Good podcasts and association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one