Speaker 1: In July nineteen ninety one in North Philadelphia, two drug
Speaker 1: houses on the same street were futing and two young
Speaker 1: men were fatally shot. According to witnesses, the assailants were
Speaker 1: known as Chuito and Papadito, but arrest warrants were issued
Speaker 1: for two men who did not go by those names,
Speaker 1: Falo Garcia and Pedro Renoso. Moreover, Pedro Renoso had been
Speaker 1: in the Dominican Republic since ten days before the shooting,
Speaker 1: yet upon his return to the US nearly three years later,
Speaker 1: he was arrested, tried, and convicted with the help of
Speaker 1: two witnesses who were willing to testify that Pedro was
Speaker 1: Popadito and fellow Garcia was some guy named Marciano. So
Speaker 1: where's Chuito not serving life in prison? This is wramful Conviction.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen to this
Speaker 1: and all the Lava for Good podcasts one week early
Speaker 1: and ad free by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction, where we've
Speaker 1: got a Philadelphia story that literally makes me insane. This
Speaker 1: story involves a man named Pedro Renoso from the Dominican Republic,
Speaker 1: and it's a story that we began covering with now,
Speaker 1: this back before the pandemic, and in fact, some of
Speaker 1: this audio represents the last in person interviews we did
Speaker 1: in March twenty twenty. So joining us now is Pedro's attorney,
Speaker 1: Craig Cooley. Craig, welcome.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you've talked about Paedro's case. It's truth or
Speaker 2: shadury and fiction, and this is a case that exemplifies
Speaker 2: that point.
Speaker 1: It really does. This murder occurred in Philadelphia while Pedro
Speaker 1: was undeniably in the Dominican Republic. Again, all of this
Speaker 1: while police were actually aware of the real killer. But
Speaker 1: somehow Pedro, still all these years later, is calling in
Speaker 1: from a Pennsylvania correctional facility and at Pedro, thank you
Speaker 1: for calling in.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ay, I appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 1: So Pedro chose to speak in Spanish for our interviews,
Speaker 1: so our workaround was to have his wife Evelyn translate
Speaker 1: and our producer Connor Hall recorded the translation in English. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the live translation process shortened what was already a tight
Speaker 1: time slot, so we focused on the heavier stuff with
Speaker 1: Pedro and had to lean on Craig a little bit
Speaker 1: to hear how Pedro's story began.
Speaker 2: I was born in the Dominican Republic in the late
Speaker 2: seventies early eighties. He came to the US with the
Speaker 2: intent of gaining citizenship, and by nineteen ninety one he
Speaker 2: had obtained a temporary visa. Based on my conversations with
Speaker 2: him and other family members, he was doing odd jobs
Speaker 2: and doing something at the quote unquote drug house on
Speaker 2: Darien Street.
Speaker 1: Pedro worked at thirty forty two North Darien Street, which
Speaker 1: was owned by a heavy set Dominican guy named Desio,
Speaker 1: and he ran the spot with Rafael Bidal aka Tuito,
Speaker 1: and that house was involved in an ongoing dispute with
Speaker 1: the drug house across the street at thirty forty five
Speaker 1: North Darien, which was operated by a Puerto Rican family, Juanino,
Speaker 1: his wife Marisol Torres Cologne, whose brother, by the way,
Speaker 1: was one of the victims, Carlos Torres, followed by seventeen
Speaker 1: year old Charles Rivera.
Speaker 3: I knew Carlos Torres for about a week, but I
Speaker 3: have no idea who the other person was.
Speaker 1: I never knew the other person, but before this dispute
Speaker 1: came to that terrible end. Pedro's family back in the
Speaker 1: Dominican Republic requested that he and his newborn son, Juan Alexander,
Speaker 1: returned to the dr and they arrived on July thirteenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety one, ten full days before the crime.
Speaker 3: I went to visit my mother, who was sick, very sick,
Speaker 3: and I stayed there until she died in nineteen ninety three.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety.
Speaker 3: Four, I had tried to come back, and that's when
Speaker 3: I ran into this.
Speaker 1: So this being the aftermath of the inter drug House dispute,
Speaker 1: and there's evidence in the homicide files or h files
Speaker 1: that Craig Coolly obtained since twenty nineteen that the police
Speaker 1: were well aware of this dispute, particularly from an interview
Speaker 1: with a man named Marcus James.
Speaker 2: James explained how he had gone to the Dominican drug
Speaker 2: House on July twentieth, nineteen ninety one, to purchase cocaine.
Speaker 2: While at the drug house, James encountered this heavyset Dominican
Speaker 2: who quote ran the drug operation end quote. James didn't
Speaker 2: know this Dominican's name, but said, quote you can't miss
Speaker 2: him end quote, because this Dominican weigh between two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty and three hundred pounds. James Moever said, this
Speaker 2: Dominican asked him, James, if he'd seen Charles Rivier I e.
Speaker 2: The Puerto Rican because Rivier owed him ten thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: This witness is telling the cops like, this is what happened.
Speaker 2: There was a hit placed on Riviera because he supposedly
Speaker 2: ripped off ten grand and cast and drugs. JES file
Speaker 2: and the DA file both contained evidence that Carlos Torres
Speaker 2: and his brother in law Juan Andino, had also stolen
Speaker 2: drugs from the Dominican right on and married to Marisol.
Speaker 2: Both files also contained evidence that Charles Rivere, Carlos Torres,
Speaker 2: andjan Andeno had an ongoing dispute with the Dominicans and
Speaker 2: that they shot at the Dominicans, particularly Tweto, in the
Speaker 2: days leading up to this shooting. So there's this back
Speaker 2: and forth.
Speaker 1: In fact, both Juan Andino and Marisol Torres Cologne told
Speaker 1: the police about run ins that they'd had with Twito
Speaker 1: earlier on the day of the shooting, and Dino said
Speaker 1: he was hiding in an abandoned house for the cops
Speaker 1: and Chuito forced him to turn himself in with a
Speaker 1: three fifty seven magnum and then Chuito came to thirty
Speaker 1: forty five North area looking for Carlos Torres and his
Speaker 1: sister Marisol. Didn't get a chance to warn him before
Speaker 1: he and Charles Rivera were killed just around the corner
Speaker 1: at around one fifteen pm on July twenty third of
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety one. And we're going to give you the
Speaker 1: details of the shooting from the point of view of
Speaker 1: both the state's star trial witnesses, all right, Sarah Robinson
Speaker 1: and Sam Wilkerson, as testified to either in post conviction
Speaker 1: hearings or in front of the Philadelphia Conviction Integrity Units.
Speaker 1: So let's start with Wilkerson, who saw this from the
Speaker 1: angle of the victims.
Speaker 2: Wilkerson said Carlos Torres stopped his Toyota on the corner
Speaker 2: where Wilkerson and others were standing. Charles Riviera was in
Speaker 2: the front passenger seat. Tours complained about the Dominicans, particularly Tweeto,
Speaker 2: because Tweto had routed out Torres's brother in law Juan
Speaker 2: and Dino earlier that morning, which allowed the police department
Speaker 2: to confiscate many of Jan's guns.
Speaker 1: Now, Robinson and who was across from Wilkerson, Torres, and Rivera,
Speaker 1: saw Tweto come onto the scene.
Speaker 2: Robinson said. At the time of double murder, Robinson was
Speaker 2: selling fake bags of marijuana on the corner of Ninth
Speaker 2: Street and Clearfield Street. While in the corner, a car
Speaker 2: pulled up alongside her with two brown skinned men in
Speaker 2: the front seat. She approached the car and offered to
Speaker 2: sell them fake marijuana, but when she saw Tweedo driving,
Speaker 2: she backed up and said, quote, oh it's you, end
Speaker 2: quote and didn't try selling Tweeto anything. She recognized the
Speaker 2: other car occupant as one of the Dominican drug dealers
Speaker 2: from the Darren Street house, but didn't know his name.
Speaker 2: She was certain though it wasn't Pedro Renoso.
Speaker 1: The witnesses described the assailants as clean shaven, while Pedro
Speaker 1: had a thick mustache at the time.
Speaker 2: Robinson then saw Tweedo's car pulled up alongside Carlos Torres' car,
Speaker 2: which wasn't far from where she was standing. She saw
Speaker 2: Tweedo open fire into Carlos Torres' car, killing Charles Rivieria,
Speaker 2: who was the front passenger seat an Torros, Sam Wilkerson
Speaker 2: and Sarah robinsonknewhim Tweeto. I don't know if they knew
Speaker 2: his real his actual name, but you know, the Dominicans
Speaker 2: who lived in that area from our investigation knew his
Speaker 2: first name, Rafael Vido. Everybody refers to him as Tweeto, though.
Speaker 1: And Marisol Cologne was still hoping at this point to
Speaker 1: warn her brother about Tweto. When her children came running
Speaker 1: down the street screaming that something had happened to their uncle.
Speaker 1: She ran to Clearfield the ninth, saw that Rivera was
Speaker 1: already dead, and tried to push her brother back into
Speaker 1: the car to drive him to the hospital. Instead, the
Speaker 1: police took both men to Temple University Hospital, where they
Speaker 1: were pronounced dead. And according to a twenty eleven Alfi
Speaker 1: David and a twenty eighteenth Philadelphia Inquirer interview, when Marisol
Speaker 1: returned from the hospital to thirty forty five North Areyan,
Speaker 1: Tweito was there waiting for her.
Speaker 2: At some point she had this confrontation with Tweeto, and
Speaker 2: it was at this point when Tweto confessed, I think
Speaker 2: it's the best word to use to being the guy
Speaker 2: committed to the double murdered. And she's adamant that she
Speaker 2: told the detectives like, it's Tweeto and he told me
Speaker 2: and now on certain terms, that I did you a
Speaker 2: favor by killing your brother, and.
Speaker 1: Marisau replied, quote, you better kill me too, because I'm
Speaker 1: going to make sure that you're locked up end quote
Speaker 1: to which he replied whatever as he left. So it
Speaker 1: appears that Yuito knew somehow that he'd get away with this.
Speaker 1: Perhaps he had a special relationship with the police. I mean,
Speaker 1: after all, he was named in the initial homicide summary
Speaker 1: along with a man named Papadito. But as the police
Speaker 1: began compiling a list of names associated with the Dominican
Speaker 1: drug house, which included Pedro and his co defended fellow Garcia,
Speaker 1: they obtained arrest warrants, none of which were for Rafael Vidal,
Speaker 1: as documented in this homicide summary that was buried until
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: So there's a paragraph that basically says on July twenty third,
Speaker 2: nine ninety one, they describe what hap and the next
Speaker 2: sentence it says, quote as a result of investigation two
Speaker 2: males who identified as Tweeto and Popadito, where a person's
Speaker 2: responsible for the murders of the two males, and it says,
Speaker 2: warrants of arrests were issued and Falo Garcia was arrested
Speaker 2: on July twenty seventh, ninety one. Okay, now, the third
Speaker 2: sentence says, a male identified as Popadito is presently listed
Speaker 2: as a fusitives but Falo everybody knew Falo Garcia wasn't
Speaker 2: tweet him. And more importantly, if you want to divert
Speaker 2: attention away from tweet him, and you're going through that
Speaker 2: list and you're like, okay, where's Pedro and somebody says, oh,
Speaker 2: he left the country, I mean there it is.
Speaker 1: This episode of Wrongful Conviction is proudly sponsored by Erase PTSD.
Speaker 1: Now every day, countless individuals face the invisible wounds of
Speaker 1: trauma and PTSD. Your support empowers us to provide life
Speaker 1: changing treatments like the Stelli Ganglion Block SGB, which inhibits
Speaker 1: nerve impulses and helps to restore hope, reclaim lives, and
Speaker 1: save lives after incarceration. Together, we can ensure that those
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted receive the care they need to heal and
Speaker 1: reintegrate into society. Join us in this mission to erase
Speaker 1: PTSD and uplift our communities visit ERASEPTSD noow dot org.
Speaker 1: That's erase PTSD now dot org for more information and
Speaker 1: ways to get involved. Pedro Renoso left the US on
Speaker 1: July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one, ten days before the crime,
Speaker 1: and Pedro believes that Tuito may have even stoked interest
Speaker 1: in him.
Speaker 3: It could have been that Tchuito I knew him. We
Speaker 3: didn't have a good relationship at the time, since I
Speaker 3: was in Santa Domingo. They did it as a cover
Speaker 3: up and distorted the end investigation of the case. That's
Speaker 3: what I think.
Speaker 1: Initially, the name Tuto was assigned to fellow Garcia, and
Speaker 1: Pedro was identified as Papadito by Sarah Robinson, who explained
Speaker 1: herself in twenty twenty one to the Philadelphia CiU.
Speaker 2: Roberson said she had a pre existing relationship with these detectives.
Speaker 2: They often provided her with money and other rewards, such
Speaker 2: as drugs confiscated from others. They dropped these items from
Speaker 2: their car and leave them for her to pick up.
Speaker 2: In return for these rewards, Robinson signed whatever statements they
Speaker 2: asked her to sign in different cases. She said this
Speaker 2: is what she did in Pedro's case. At the time
Speaker 2: back in nineteen ninety one, she felt no remorse for
Speaker 2: false identifying Pedro because she didn't like him very much
Speaker 2: and she was more concerned with her own well being.
Speaker 2: Robertson said to these detectives she didn't know their real names.
Speaker 2: She recognized them as either Tom and Jerry or Sarge.
Speaker 1: Sarge. Our listeners may recall from our coverage of Manford
Speaker 1: Younger's case that Sarge is actually Detective Martin Devlin's nickname
Speaker 1: and his partner, Chuck Bentham, had retired from Philly to
Speaker 1: work for Camden County by the time of Manford Younger's
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven case, But back in nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 1: Chuck Bentham was the guy signing most of the Philadelphia
Speaker 1: police reports in Pedro's case, so their presence might explain
Speaker 1: how the initial homicide summary naming Tuito was buried while
Speaker 1: the suspects nicknames morphed. Initially, Falo was Tuito and Papadito
Speaker 1: was a fugitive, but that's not what it says on
Speaker 1: Palo's arrest report.
Speaker 2: If you go through yhfoul, they identify Falo as Papadido
Speaker 2: on his arrest report, and then there's a second document
Speaker 2: in the hvoule. It's the municipal court hearing list. Again
Speaker 2: it lists his name and there's an alias section it
Speaker 2: says Papadido. And again those documents, from our understanding, were
Speaker 2: not provided to Trow Council. And then Falo Garcia's attorney,
Speaker 2: Trow Council brought a photograph of Pedro to the police department.
Speaker 2: And then once they had this photograph like this is Papadido.
Speaker 1: Which perhaps they were trying to clear flow from this case,
Speaker 1: but instead Chuwito was dropped from suspicion altogether. Pedro was
Speaker 1: once again assigned the role of the fugitive Papadito, and
Speaker 1: fellow Garcia was dubbed the previously unmentioned Marciano, and Bentham
Speaker 1: and Devlin had their regular informant, Sarah Robinson, support this
Speaker 1: twisted narrative.
Speaker 2: Sarah Robinson. She says that she saw AKA Pedro at
Speaker 2: the drug house on the morning of July twenty sixth,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety one, and she says that once they're at
Speaker 2: the drug house, they stay there all day, right, so
Speaker 2: like around nine o'clock. So if you take her word
Speaker 2: of what she's saying in her statement. Pedro was in
Speaker 2: Philly on July twenty sixth, nineteen ninety one, all day,
Speaker 2: and that's significant because what happens the next.
Speaker 1: Day, on September twenty seven. Pedro's son was baptized in
Speaker 1: the Dominican Republic, which posed a great deal of issues
Speaker 1: for that narrative, like alibi witnesses including a priest, as
Speaker 1: well as photographs of the event. Now, Pedro also had
Speaker 1: purchased property in the Dominican Republic around the twentieth leaving
Speaker 1: a very narrow window in which he could have possibly
Speaker 1: snuck back into the US and snuck back out completely undetected. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: the state was locked in with Sarah Robinson's statement, which
Speaker 1: we'd later found out really bothered Sam Wilkerson.
Speaker 2: Wilkerson explained how two detectives had detained him and took
Speaker 2: him to homicide on July thirtieth because he confronted Sarah
Speaker 2: Robinson on the street as he spoke with two detectives
Speaker 2: about the fact she'd falsely identified Papaddo as the gunman
Speaker 2: once a homicide. The detectives not only threatened to charge
Speaker 2: him with obstructing justice, but they also handcuffed him to
Speaker 2: a chair, beat him through eminem's at him and didn't
Speaker 2: give him water. Now the eminem in fact, he threw
Speaker 2: in the M and m's like, that's a fact that
Speaker 2: this actually happened, because I would Why would I make
Speaker 2: that up. When Wilkerson woke up the next morning, July
Speaker 2: thirty first, he was still handcuffed to the chair. Read
Speaker 2: the ham written statement. It contained the narrative that ultimately
Speaker 2: appeared in the July thirty first, nineteen ninety one homicide statement.
Speaker 1: So now Robinson and Wilkerson were singing the same tune,
Speaker 1: and fellow Garcia was taken to trial.
Speaker 3: He had a different trial in nineteen ninety two. He's convicted.
Speaker 3: Falo was convicted.
Speaker 1: Oh, he was convicted too, So he's another innocent man
Speaker 1: in prisonment. Correct. Meanwhile, Pedro was unaware of how perilous
Speaker 1: his eventual return to the US might be, as he
Speaker 1: took care of his ailing mother and met a new
Speaker 1: woman in.
Speaker 3: The DR while I was in Santo Domingo. She ended
Speaker 3: up pregnant and I had a daughter with her in
Speaker 3: Santo Domingo for me, And there's a big deal to
Speaker 3: leave my small son and daughter over there without knowing.
Speaker 1: What was waiting for me here. So after his mother
Speaker 1: passed in late nineteen ninety three, he tied up some
Speaker 1: loose ends and planned a return flight to the US.
Speaker 1: But staying outside of the US from nineteen ninety one
Speaker 1: to ninety four violated the terms of his temporary visa
Speaker 1: because he was only supposed to have left for two
Speaker 1: or three weeks at the time, not two or three years.
Speaker 2: So March ninety four he goes to the airport and
Speaker 2: he has an initial ticket, but the American Airlines folks
Speaker 2: are like, no, you don't have the appropriate documents, like
Speaker 2: you've been here for three years, so they wouldn't let
Speaker 2: him board. So, according to Pedro, there were people in
Speaker 2: the DR who knew the immigration policy of the US,
Speaker 2: and they knew there were many Dominicans who had this
Speaker 2: temporary visa. So there are people at the airport in
Speaker 2: the DR that would make money by fabricating passport stamps,
Speaker 2: and so Pedro, according to what he's told us, is
Speaker 2: he met this person at the airport and Pedro tells
Speaker 2: him like, yes, you know, I've been here since July thirteenth,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety one. Now it's March twenty third or twenty fourth,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four. And the fabricator, I call him the fabricator,
Speaker 2: my pleadings. The fabricator knows the Paula goes back to
Speaker 2: the July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one date, says, you have
Speaker 2: to have an exit date two or three weeks after
Speaker 2: that you have to be leaving the DR and back
Speaker 2: into the US. So they pick, of all dates, July
Speaker 2: twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 1: Again, that's the exact date of his son's baptism, which
Speaker 1: was critical to his alibi, not exactly a day that
Speaker 1: you'd expect him to be traveling internationally.
Speaker 2: The fabricator fabricates an exit stamp dated July twenty seventh,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety one. So the fabricator says, it's March twenty third,
Speaker 2: twenty fourth, nineteen ninety four. Let's make a fabricated entry
Speaker 2: stamp into the DR for March tenth, because today's the
Speaker 2: twenty third, twenty fourth, it's only two weeks you're going
Speaker 2: back to the US. It looks like you were owning
Speaker 2: in the DR for two weeks. So those fabricated stamps
Speaker 2: had a purpose, and the purpose was not to get
Speaker 2: away with murder, but to convince the US immigration folks
Speaker 2: that he was in fact in the US from July
Speaker 2: twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one until like March tenth of
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four, so he a can get back into
Speaker 2: the States and b maintained this status he has in
Speaker 2: the US.
Speaker 1: When he arrived at Newark Airport, he was immediately arrested
Speaker 1: and he had to hire an attorney.
Speaker 3: We got a lawyer, and he left me at the
Speaker 3: county jail for nearly two and a half years, telling
Speaker 3: me that the case would never go to trial, but
Speaker 3: that he would pick up the case because he could
Speaker 3: get enough evidence before the trial to say this never happened.
Speaker 1: Pedro's attorney may have been confident in light of the
Speaker 1: passport stamps. Despite the two fabrications of which the attorney
Speaker 1: was unaware, the stamps still exonerated Pedro. Plus the September
Speaker 1: twenty seventh exit stamp from the Dominican Republic was really
Speaker 1: problematic for Sarah Robinson's statement that she'd allegedly seen Pedro
Speaker 1: in Philadelphia on July twenty sixth, nineteen ninety one. So
Speaker 1: the District Attorney's office had to get really creative about
Speaker 1: Pedro's possible James bond Esk travel itinerary to skirt Us customs.
Speaker 2: Based on the Diaos quote, Pedro took a ferry boat narrative.
Speaker 2: After Pedro left the Darren Street drug house at nine
Speaker 2: thirty pm on July twenty sixth, nineteen one, he did
Speaker 2: the following. One traveled to either Philadelphia's airport or Newark's airport.
Speaker 2: Two took a flight to presumably San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: Three.
Speaker 2: Once in San Juan, Pedro left the airport and traveled
Speaker 2: to a boat. Four Pedro then took said boat from
Speaker 2: San Juan to somewhere along the DR's eastern coast, maybe Samana.
Speaker 2: And five. Once in Samanna, Pedro drove to Pimento, the
Speaker 2: town and the DR where his family lives, where he
Speaker 2: arrived in time for his son's late morning early afternoon
Speaker 2: baptism on July twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one. And I
Speaker 2: believe the travel time between Samanna and Pimento is two hours.
Speaker 1: So I suppose it's not impossible but certainly unlikely. I mean,
Speaker 1: he'd need bake and believable ID to get on the
Speaker 1: flight to San Juan. Then flawlessly make every connection, and
Speaker 1: he also had to have made the trip both ways undetected.
Speaker 1: So it appears his attorney thought the passport was enough
Speaker 1: to overcome this ridiculous theory since he didn't bother the
Speaker 1: subpoena any of the many alibi witnesses.
Speaker 3: We told them everything. We told them about all the
Speaker 3: witnesses in Santo Domingo. He never subpoened anyone because he
Speaker 3: said it wasn't necessary, because he said the case would
Speaker 3: be closed before getting to trial. But he never called
Speaker 3: any of the witnesses, never subpoened. They came because they
Speaker 3: were part of the family.
Speaker 1: Nevertheless, his family showed up to the July nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: six trial to testify with photographs from the baptism and
Speaker 1: a priest.
Speaker 3: Since my family brought them, the DA asked who subpoenaed you,
Speaker 3: and since they came to favor me, used that against
Speaker 3: me because no one subpoenaed them to court.
Speaker 1: Plus the exit stamp on the same date of the
Speaker 1: baptism didn't do Pedro any favors. Not that Sarah Robinson
Speaker 1: and Sam Wilkerson were that convincing either.
Speaker 3: Sarah Robinson accused me and she had already accused someone else,
Speaker 3: and Samuel Wilkinson, the second witness, couldn't identify me in court.
Speaker 3: The judge had to send him inside, and when he
Speaker 3: came back he accused me, but only after the prosecutor
Speaker 3: pointed at me.
Speaker 1: So Wilkerson needed guidance, while Sarah Robinson had the baggage
Speaker 1: of placing Pedro in Philadelphia on September twenty sixth, which
Speaker 1: then in turn made the state have to sell this
Speaker 1: undetected mission impossible journey from the Dominican Republic to Philly
Speaker 1: and back, all set against Pedro's passport, which placed him
Speaker 1: in the dr during the crime.
Speaker 2: So Pedro used the passport as a defense. But then
Speaker 2: the DA's office had somebody from the ISS, a document
Speaker 2: examiner review the stamps, and she was adamant that, in
Speaker 2: her opinion, the July twenty seventh stamp was fabricated, and
Speaker 2: I think she also believed that the entry stamp on
Speaker 2: March tenth, ninety four was fabricated, having that testimony suggesting
Speaker 2: that why would you fabricate them? This is where Pedro
Speaker 2: douggs hole though, had he been up front with Luis Avino,
Speaker 2: his child attorney, and said look, dude, this is what happened.
Speaker 2: I was in the DR the whole time. Lose a
Speaker 2: good trial attorney when there's a fact that could be
Speaker 2: viewed through two different lenses. One isn't a bad light,
Speaker 2: one isn't a good light. If you're a defense attorney,
Speaker 2: you take control of that right and your opening statement, Like,
Speaker 2: my client fabricated his passport stance, but he did not
Speaker 2: murder these people. That's your first statement in opening statement,
Speaker 2: minimizing any aggravating theme the government can give to those
Speaker 2: fabricated stamps. You've bursted it yourself by saying, yeah, he
Speaker 2: was in the DR the whole time, Like why would
Speaker 2: my client, how could he leave? He was at his
Speaker 2: son's baptism on July twenty, twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 2: That is fabricated. We are admitting that. But here's why
Speaker 2: he fabricated them, because that fabrication was created three years
Speaker 2: later when he was trying to return to the United States,
Speaker 2: because he was in the DR from July thirteenth, ninety
Speaker 2: one to March twenty fourth to ninety four.
Speaker 1: But instead he gambled that the fabricated stamps would go unnoticed.
Speaker 1: He lost that gamble, turning exonerating evidence into a liability,
Speaker 1: leaving the jury asking why are you fabricating passport stamps?
Speaker 3: From what I remember, deliberation lasted three or four days.
Speaker 3: When I was found guilty. At that time my eyes blocked.
Speaker 3: I suddenly couldn't see it. I went blind. I went blind.
Speaker 3: I got very.
Speaker 1: For me.
Speaker 4: That moment was the worst of my life.
Speaker 1: Once convicted of a capital crime and a death penalty,
Speaker 1: State Pedro was faced with a dire sentencing phase.
Speaker 3: I had to defend myself. I took the stand and
Speaker 3: told the lawyer that I wanted to defend my life.
Speaker 3: The lawyer told me not to, but I wanted to
Speaker 3: defend my life. I told him I respect his decisions,
Speaker 3: but I want to defend my life for my kids
Speaker 3: and my family.
Speaker 1: And ultimately they ruled life in prison was at the
Speaker 1: final decision.
Speaker 3: My innocence has kept me a bit calm, But there
Speaker 3: are days and nights in which I don't even know
Speaker 3: where I am. But my innocence is what keeps me calm.
Speaker 3: I've always been a very friendly and compassionate person. When
Speaker 3: I was out in the streets, I like to share
Speaker 3: with people. I like to get to know others. That's
Speaker 3: what keeps me safe in here. I don't get into
Speaker 3: trouble with others, not nosy about what people do, and
Speaker 3: never do anything bad. I've always been like that since
Speaker 3: I was out in the streets.
Speaker 1: And we hope that spirit has continued to serve him
Speaker 1: as this injustice continues to flinger and really shame all
Speaker 1: of us. And Pedro was denied on his direct appeal
Speaker 1: as well as his initial post conviction motions, in which
Speaker 1: the focus was ineffective assistance of trial council considering the
Speaker 1: number of alibi witnesses that were available but not presented. However,
Speaker 1: the post conviction attorney didn't attach the affidavits from these
Speaker 1: alibi witnesses to the filing in nineteen ninety nine two thousand,
Speaker 1: then they were procedurally barred, and then a new attorney
Speaker 1: entered the picture named Michael Farrell.
Speaker 2: Michael, he was a good trial attorney, but post conviction
Speaker 2: is a different type of law because everything's about deadlines.
Speaker 2: If you don't get something timely, fouge, you're screwed. And
Speaker 2: we talked about how Marischol I gave an AFFI day
Speaker 2: it in twenty eleven and in Pennsylvania at the time,
Speaker 2: they've still changed to thank God. But in Pennsylvania, once
Speaker 2: you say you had new evidence, you had sixty days
Speaker 2: to foul and petition and present that new evidence to
Speaker 2: the court, which is ridiculous because I can get a
Speaker 2: new piece of evidence that might get me to where
Speaker 2: I want to get, but it's not going to get
Speaker 2: me relief. So why am I going to present it
Speaker 2: to the court when I know I'm going to lose.
Speaker 2: But that new piece of evidence might lead me to
Speaker 2: more evidence, so over time I can develop a claim.
Speaker 2: But long story short, Michael Farrell did not present that Affidavid.
Speaker 2: He didn't present Sarah Robinson's AFFI David. It just was
Speaker 2: again a cascade of horribles.
Speaker 1: As we mentioned, Marisol's twenty eleven Affidavid was about her
Speaker 1: run ins with Chiwito before and after the shooting, how
Speaker 1: he admitted it to her, and establishing that Chuito was
Speaker 1: rafae Albadal. Sarah Robinson also gave an affidavid in twenty
Speaker 1: ten where she recanted her trial testimony, said that she
Speaker 1: was incentivized with drugs as well as the detectives making
Speaker 1: some assault charges magically go away. Unfortunately, and that's not
Speaker 1: as strong enough word. Farrell did not filew them in time.
Speaker 1: But Sam Wilkerson was a different story, So he.
Speaker 2: Gave a statement on March first of twenty twelve, and
Speaker 2: then Mike Farrell uses that statement to get a PCRA
Speaker 2: hearing July twelveth of twenty thirteen. Wilkerson testified, Yes, his
Speaker 2: testimony was follos because he knew Pedro was not one
Speaker 2: of the men who did any shooting. Quote Pedro did
Speaker 2: not shoot anybody. And Mike Parall just jumped right into
Speaker 2: the primary issue. Quote were you on that corner at
Speaker 2: the time of the shooting? Answer yes, question did you
Speaker 2: see who shot Popo? And Charlie Chan answer yes? Question
Speaker 2: who wasn't? Answer Tweeto. Mike Farrell confirmed Tweeto's real name
Speaker 2: is Rafie Overdel.
Speaker 1: And then the state called Chuck Bentham in rebuttal. Now,
Speaker 1: remember the homicide file doc that could have impeached Bentham
Speaker 1: were not available until twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: The DA's office calls Bentham and Mike Farrell asked him like,
Speaker 2: what do you know about Tweeto? Now keep in mind
Speaker 2: the very first page of that homicide foul has Tweeto
Speaker 2: identified as one of the two perpetrators, and Bentham's like, ehh,
Speaker 2: they maybe sound familiar. I don't know which is I mean,
Speaker 2: which just drives me up a fucking wall, because there
Speaker 2: are situations where the Philly Police Department will collect excalpatory
Speaker 2: evidence and not give it to the DA's office. Right
Speaker 2: under Brady, that doesn't matter, it's imputed in this case,
Speaker 2: though the DA's office had multiple copies of the homicide
Speaker 2: summary in their own case file.
Speaker 1: Wilkerson also testified about how he was forced into signing
Speaker 1: on to Sarah Robinson's narrative on July thirty first, nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety one, you know, the whole Eminem's or deal, but
Speaker 1: without the homicide file to impeach Bentham. I guess the
Speaker 1: judge found Bentham more credible, denying the motion in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: and then Craig took on the case, filing his federal
Speaker 1: haby in which he tried to admit the alibi evidence
Speaker 1: and witnesses as new evidence.
Speaker 2: So when I got the case in twenty sixteen, and
Speaker 2: I foiled as federal petition, which was thirteen years late,
Speaker 2: and thankfully the federal courts as an actual innocence exception,
Speaker 2: where if your petition is untimely, but you have substantial
Speaker 2: evidence that you are in fact, actually innocent, they'll overlook
Speaker 2: the untimeliness, take jurisdiction of your petition and review it.
Speaker 2: But what the District Court judge said was, well, because
Speaker 2: trow council knew about these witnesses, it's not new evidence.
Speaker 2: So he was defining new evidence as evidence. That's something
Speaker 2: that had to be outside the realm of what trial
Speaker 2: council knew. And there was a great case that had
Speaker 2: just come down from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Speaker 2: that said no new evidence is any evidence that the
Speaker 2: jury didn't hear. And so I convinced the Third Circuit
Speaker 2: in January of nineteen to take the appeal.
Speaker 1: But that wasn't the only avenue of relief at Quigs.
Speaker 2: By late twenty nineteen, Fetterman's doing these commutation hearings.
Speaker 3: I went to the Bord of Partons to try and
Speaker 3: get out that way. I don't know if you know this,
Speaker 3: but I got four unanimous votes and the Attorney General
Speaker 3: held me under advisement.
Speaker 2: Fetterman reached out to me because he learned about Pedro's
Speaker 2: case and so Neilim and I went up to CI
Speaker 2: Phoenix to meet with him to go over everything. And
Speaker 2: it's at that point I was under the impression that
Speaker 2: those passport stamps were legitimate. Fetterman, He's like, they're fabricated,
Speaker 2: and Neilim and I just were like one of those
Speaker 2: fuck moments.
Speaker 1: But this isn't a deal breaker, like we said earlier.
Speaker 1: When the story behind the fabrications is understood, they're no
Speaker 1: longer a liability. Meanwhile, Neelam Sangi from the Pennsylvania Innocence Project,
Speaker 1: along with Craig, not only asked Patron for an explanation,
Speaker 1: but they also hired an expert to look into the
Speaker 1: fabricated stamps.
Speaker 2: Neil and I were able to talk to Tom Griffin, an
Speaker 2: experienced immigration attorney who knows the immigration policies even back
Speaker 2: in the eighties, and have him go through other documents,
Speaker 2: immigration documents and explain to us why Pedro would get
Speaker 2: the fabricated exit stamp from the DR on July twenty seventh,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety one, and then why he would get a
Speaker 2: fabricated entry stamp to the DR on March tenth and
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four.
Speaker 1: While they were investigating Pedro's passport. Larry Krasner had been
Speaker 1: elected DA in Philadelphia and he formed their Conviction Integrity
Speaker 1: Unit under Patricia Cummings. They accepted Pedro's case for reinvestigation
Speaker 1: and Tom Gato was assigned the case, and importantly, he
Speaker 1: handed over the homicide file, which contained many illuminating documents
Speaker 1: that exhibited how the nicknames had morphed over time, as
Speaker 1: well as the document that named Tuito and Papadito, the
Speaker 1: homicide summary.
Speaker 2: They had multiple copies of it, because when we went
Speaker 2: to the ja's office and looked at that other stuff,
Speaker 2: I goh, here's another copy of the homicide summary. Oh,
Speaker 2: another one and another one, and copies of Phlo Garcia's
Speaker 2: a rest report identifying him as Papadido. And none of
Speaker 2: this was ever disclosed either a trial or during the
Speaker 2: PCA proceedings back in like twenty ten to twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: So they poured over these previously hidden documents as well
Speaker 1: as heard testimony from witnesses, starting with the Cadre of
Speaker 1: alibi witnesses from the DR.
Speaker 2: So in August of twenty twenty, neilm was able to
Speaker 2: get all the family in the DR into one room
Speaker 2: and we did zoom interviews with Patricia Cummings and Tom Gaeta.
Speaker 2: Were these individuals. All these individuals said, yes, he never left.
Speaker 2: He came in on this date and he never left.
Speaker 2: So we even provided them with live testimony or live
Speaker 2: statements explaining what the documents and the photographic evidence already proved.
Speaker 1: Right there were tons of photographs of the baptism, and importantly,
Speaker 1: Pedro had a thick mustache at the time, while the
Speaker 1: assailant had always been described as clean shaven. Then they
Speaker 1: moved on to the eyewitnesses. By this time Marisol had
Speaker 1: passed way, but Sam Wilkerson and Sarah Robinson told their
Speaker 1: stories about Bentham and Devlin and how they had both
Speaker 1: initially identified Chiuwito but were either coerced or incentivized to lie.
Speaker 1: But the CiU hit a snag on the passport stamps.
Speaker 2: It's frustrating because there is an easy and reasonable explanation
Speaker 2: for these dates and why he would do what he did.
Speaker 2: This went on from like August of twenty twenty to augusta,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one, I think January of twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: Mike Garmisa is named the new head of the CiU.
Speaker 2: I like Mike. We had a call with Mike. Mike's
Speaker 2: just like, yeah, we don't see what you see. So
Speaker 2: we're just going to send it over to the FED
Speaker 2: lit like the Federal Habeas unit at the DA's office.
Speaker 1: So, after seeing all of the exculpatory evidence alibi witnesses, dates,
Speaker 1: witness recantations, as well as the police coercion and misconduct
Speaker 1: that led to the wall statements, not to mention the
Speaker 1: Brady material, the CiU chose to get stuck on Pedro's
Speaker 1: fabricated passport stamps and the reasonable story of maintaining his
Speaker 1: immigration status while taking care of his sick mother, so
Speaker 1: they resumed the federal habeas proceedings.
Speaker 2: There's two primary federal claims. You know, trial counsel was
Speaker 2: ineffective for not presenting more alibi witnesses only two alibi
Speaker 2: witnesses testified, and the other one, the more significant one
Speaker 2: I believe at this point, is the Brady claim of
Speaker 2: all the suppressed evidence regarding Tweeto and documents identifying Phalo
Speaker 2: Garcia as papadido.
Speaker 1: In addition to that, there's also the procedural argument about
Speaker 1: what constitutes new evidence and whether or not. The federal
Speaker 1: court can assume jurisdiction over that as new evidence under
Speaker 1: the actual innocent standard, and that is a high standard
Speaker 1: that no juror would vote to convict.
Speaker 2: To win a Brady claim, you simply have to prove
Speaker 2: one one juror. You know, it's reason Papa would have
Speaker 2: impacted their vote. Here, it's all of them collectively would
Speaker 2: say we're not buying what you're selling. We're going to
Speaker 2: quit them. And I think we meet that, but it's
Speaker 2: a hard standard.
Speaker 1: Then there's the actual claims and evidence themselves, and with
Speaker 1: a homicide file, there's so much more support for his claims.
Speaker 2: I filed one hundred and eighty page supplemental amended Federal
Speaker 2: HAB's petition July fifth of twenty twenty two, and then
Speaker 2: the DA's office files a twenty five page response. They're
Speaker 2: putting up a fight, but they're not putting up a fight.
Speaker 2: It's the James Bond argument that he was capable of
Speaker 2: entering and entering multiple countries undetected. My argument, and I
Speaker 2: made this in my pleadings, is Okham's razor. What's easier
Speaker 2: to believe. There's two narratives. One is the one I
Speaker 2: just presented you. Right, He's in the DR the whole time,
Speaker 2: and these are why he fabricated these stamps. The other
Speaker 2: one is the das is that we flew into the
Speaker 2: DR on July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one. He somehow gets
Speaker 2: back to Philadelphia through two countries customs, the DR in
Speaker 2: the US undetected, right, So he has to be back
Speaker 2: in phil July twenty third, then commit the murder, and
Speaker 2: then leave Philadelphia July twenty sixth, nineteen one. So you're
Speaker 2: leaving one country entering another undetected where he's at his
Speaker 2: son's baptism on July twenty seventh in the DR.
Speaker 1: All within the tight time frame as per Sarah Robinson's
Speaker 1: now recanted statement.
Speaker 2: So what's easier to believe Aukin's Razor would say, well,
Speaker 2: obviously it's the first one he's been down there. We
Speaker 2: have all these documents, photographs, birth certificates, and an experienced
Speaker 2: immigration attorney explaining the dates and why they're significant. And
Speaker 2: what is there to corroborate the DA's narrative, like he's
Speaker 2: like James Bond.
Speaker 1: And remember he only has to be James Bond to
Speaker 1: satisfy statement Sarah Robinson now maintains came from two disgraced
Speaker 1: Philadelphia detectives. I mean, these guys are notorious. They're in
Speaker 1: the cases of many of our guests, Tony Wright, Jimmy Dennis,
Speaker 1: Walter Ogrod, Troy Coleman, Manford Younger, and of course Pedro Renoso.
Speaker 1: So where is the case at now.
Speaker 2: It's in front of a magistrate judge right now. Because
Speaker 2: in the Eastern District, once you file federal habi's petition,
Speaker 2: the district court will assign a magistrate judge to review
Speaker 2: the petition into draft and file what's called a report
Speaker 2: and recommendation. And it sounds just like what it is.
Speaker 2: It's a report of the case and it's a recommendation
Speaker 2: to the district court as to what the district court
Speaker 2: should do regarding each claim or the petition in general,
Speaker 2: like say, the magistrate judge and a report recommendation saying no,
Speaker 2: it's untimely, you didn't meet the actual inison standard for
Speaker 2: these reasons. The losing side can file objections to the
Speaker 2: report recommendation and then the district court would decide what
Speaker 2: to do. And for the most part, whatever happens in
Speaker 2: the report recommendation is ultimately adopted into a final order
Speaker 2: by the district Court.
Speaker 1: Well, let's hope the magistrate judge sees what we see.
Speaker 1: So what can our audience do to help.
Speaker 2: Just spread the word or donate to other innocence projects
Speaker 2: that do this work. People need representation, so donate to
Speaker 2: the innocence projects local or national, and so people like
Speaker 2: Pedro can have attorneys.
Speaker 1: And with that, we're going to go to closing arguments.
Speaker 1: And this is my favorite part of the show. It's
Speaker 1: where I first thank you Craig Pedro for sharing this. Pedro,
Speaker 1: You're a hero to all of us. So now I'm
Speaker 1: going to turn my microphone off and hand it over
Speaker 1: to Craig for any final thoughts you want to share.
Speaker 1: And then Craig, you just handed off the microphone over
Speaker 1: to Pedro and he'll take us off into the sunset.
Speaker 2: I just end on the Oakham's razor principle, like, what's
Speaker 2: there's two narratives here, and the simplest narrative is usually
Speaker 2: the correct narrative, and that narrative is Pedro Renoso flew
Speaker 2: into the dr on July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one. Stay
Speaker 2: there till March twenty fourth, nineteen ninety four, and while returning,
Speaker 2: he figured out he needed to fabricate two passport stamps
Speaker 2: to maintain his visa status in the US. He wasn't
Speaker 2: doing it so cover up a double murder, because we
Speaker 2: have substantial evidence that places him in the DR all
Speaker 2: those years. So that's the straightforward narrative. The other narrative
Speaker 2: is he enters the DR July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 2: and he somehow returns to Philadelphia by July twenty second,
Speaker 2: because the murder's on July twenty third, So I was
Speaker 2: leaving the DR, entering the US undetected, leaving the US,
Speaker 2: coming back into the DR undetected, and that's how he's
Speaker 2: at his son's baptism on July twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 2: But again, this begs this question, if he's so good
Speaker 2: at entering and exiting these countries in nineteen ninety one undetected,
Speaker 2: why didn't he just go undetected in March of nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety four. Those are your two narratives. Let the audience
Speaker 2: figure out which one's the slumpest one to believe.
Speaker 3: I want to live with my family in tranquility. I
Speaker 3: want to make up for lost time. I want to
Speaker 3: take care of my health above all, and spend time
Speaker 3: with my grandkids. I want to thank you for this
Speaker 3: and I would love to meet you in the future
Speaker 3: so I can give you a hug and thank you
Speaker 3: in person.
Speaker 1: I want to stick in English. No, thank you and
Speaker 1: thank you every one and with you, and this is modest.
Speaker 1: God bless you all. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: You can listen to this and all the Lava for
Speaker 1: Good podcasts one week early and ad free by subscribing
Speaker 1: to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want
Speaker 1: to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink,
Speaker 1: as well as my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis,
Speaker 1: and Jeff Cliber. The music in this production was supplied
Speaker 1: by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure
Speaker 1: to follow us across all social media platforms at Lava
Speaker 1: for Good and at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow
Speaker 1: me on Instagram at its Jason flamm. Ralful Conviction is
Speaker 1: a production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 3: We have worked hard to ensure that All facts reported
Speaker 3: in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed
Speaker 3: by the individuals featured in this show are their own
Speaker 3: and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good