Speaker 1: I came from a beautiful neighborhood. I had a beautiful life.
Speaker 1: I went to sleep because September seventh was the first
Speaker 1: day of my high school year. I was going to
Speaker 1: be a senior.
Speaker 2: At twenty two, I was set to start college.
Speaker 1: I woke up and my life was never the same again.
Speaker 2: Cops came out with guns drawn, and I never saw
Speaker 2: freedom ever since after that.
Speaker 1: It's like roach Mota. Once you get in, you and
Speaker 1: I can't now, this is wrongful conviction with Jason Flummer today,
Speaker 1: I'm honored, and I don't use that word lightly to
Speaker 1: have as our guest, Derek Hamilton. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: Glad you're here. Derek. Your story is extraordinary in so
Speaker 1: many ways, and I don't even know where to begin,
Speaker 1: but I guess we should really take it back to
Speaker 1: the beginning and we'll save the reveal like they do
Speaker 1: in Hollywood, to what you're doing now and what you've
Speaker 1: accomplished in your life over extraordinary obstacles that are almost
Speaker 1: unimaginable obstacles. But let's go back to the beginning and
Speaker 1: talk about how this began. You're a New Yorker born
Speaker 1: and bred like me Brooklyn from Brooklyn. Okay, Brooklyn in
Speaker 1: the house, that's right, all right.
Speaker 2: Bephie Stubbins in neighborhood with violence was know, you know,
Speaker 2: it was very tough housing project. I grew up in
Speaker 2: Lafia Gardens where it was kind of like one block
Speaker 2: with eighty thousand people on it, you know, in a
Speaker 2: housing project. And if you got a basketball, you had
Speaker 2: to go outside and fight for your basketball. If your
Speaker 2: mother father bought your pet sneakers, you had to fight
Speaker 2: for your sneakers. It was very depressant. And every little
Speaker 2: kid wants what the next little kid has, and if
Speaker 2: your family don't has it, avotate to try to take it.
Speaker 2: So it was tough stuff.
Speaker 1: And you had some early scraps with the law. Why
Speaker 1: don't you talk about it?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I was a young kid about sixteen and seventeen
Speaker 2: and got into a life of crime, attempted to rob
Speaker 2: someone with the prison for that. Ultimately I was released
Speaker 2: and I was out. Some older guys had committed robbery
Speaker 2: of a bread truck and actually killed the truck driver.
Speaker 2: I was outside that day when the crime happened.
Speaker 1: Did you see it?
Speaker 2: I seen the action. I actually seen it, and actually
Speaker 2: the guys that asked me to look out for them
Speaker 2: if the cops came, just whistle or something of that sort.
Speaker 2: The next day, walking down the block, the police officers
Speaker 2: picked me up and they don't question me about the crime,
Speaker 2: but they just take a picture of me and asked
Speaker 2: me at my Derek Haunton and I said they knew
Speaker 2: me previously from the incident that I had attempted robbery,
Speaker 2: so I took none of it. I left out the precinct.
Speaker 2: One week later, they arrested me for the murder of
Speaker 2: James Wolf, and it just stunned me because I know
Speaker 2: I didn't kill mister Wolf. I know I wasn't involved
Speaker 2: in the crime. But what I learned is that one
Speaker 2: of the older guys who actually committed the crime, who
Speaker 2: car was identified as the car seen fleeing from the scene,
Speaker 2: was able to convince the police officers that he loaned
Speaker 2: the car to me, a seventeen year old kid with
Speaker 2: no license with anything, and the cops actually believed that story.
Speaker 1: And we've seen this in the number of cases where
Speaker 1: the actual killer is and you could say here being smart, right,
Speaker 1: they know that their way out is dependent on somebody else.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I was from the housing project
Speaker 2: right where the crime happened. He wasn't, so it seemed
Speaker 2: more obvious that I was likely suspect to get But
Speaker 2: in the event, I go to a trial and during
Speaker 2: the course of the trial, my lawyer tells me that
Speaker 2: there's a witness outside in the hallway who called her
Speaker 2: out and explaining to my lawyer that she would refuse
Speaker 2: to testify. Her name was Patricia Lee. She said the
Speaker 2: cops had forced her to go into grand jury and
Speaker 2: identify me as someone she saw outside the housing project
Speaker 2: who spoke to her after the murder happened and said,
Speaker 2: I panicked and I thought I shocked the guy in
Speaker 2: the arm. She said she would refuse to testify. She
Speaker 2: couldn't get up on the stand and tell that lie.
Speaker 2: My lawyer came back in and reported this to the
Speaker 2: court and said to the court there's a witness in
Speaker 2: the hallway that we never knew existed who said this
Speaker 2: to me. And then the court said, well, let's bring
Speaker 2: the witness. And the witness comes in and the prosecutor
Speaker 2: asks for something called a Soroyis hearing in New York,
Speaker 2: and the Sorois hearing is people versus Croys. And what
Speaker 2: this hearing does is that it puts the burden a
Speaker 2: proof on the prosecutor to prove by clean, convincing evidence
Speaker 2: that I waived my right to confront the witness a
Speaker 2: trial if me or someone acting for me made the
Speaker 2: witness of law for refuse to testify. So the judge
Speaker 2: held this Croys hearing, and the witness testified that it
Speaker 2: was the cops who in fact threatened her and made
Speaker 2: her lie to grand jury, that me and nobody acting
Speaker 2: for me ever had any involvement with her whatsoever. In fact,
Speaker 2: we never knew she testified in the grand jury.
Speaker 1: So the judge those hearings are seek right.
Speaker 2: So the judge ruled that day that he could not
Speaker 2: allow the prosecutor to use this witness grand jury testimony
Speaker 2: against me as evidence in chief. In fact, he had
Speaker 2: heard not one iota of evidence that me or anybody
Speaker 2: acting for me did anything wrong.
Speaker 1: Right, because the case was hinged on the eyewitness testimony,
Speaker 1: which we know is one of the most powerful things
Speaker 1: in the criminal justice system.
Speaker 2: Absolutely right.
Speaker 1: So now you're feeling like, okay, can I go home now?
Speaker 1: Right day?
Speaker 2: And they drenched for one day, and he said you
Speaker 2: got to tomorrow to come up with something and released
Speaker 2: this guy. We returned to court the next day and
Speaker 2: the judge said his previous ruling the day before troubled
Speaker 2: him all night, that he felt that the only one
Speaker 2: that would benefit from the witness refusal to testify is
Speaker 2: me or somebody acting for me, and that because of that,
Speaker 2: he wouldn't allow the prosecutor to use the grand jury
Speaker 2: testimony against me as evidence in chief and find that
Speaker 2: I weighed my right to confrontation. At that moment, the
Speaker 2: lawyer that I had candas Curt, very nice lady, asked me,
Speaker 2: did I understand what was going on in the proceedings?
Speaker 2: I said somewhat, And she says, kid, it is time
Speaker 2: for you to learn what's going on. And she gave
Speaker 2: me two cases and said you need to read those overnight.
Speaker 2: But in the event, she told the judge that she
Speaker 2: would have to testify and become a witness, and she
Speaker 2: would have to take the stand to explain what the
Speaker 2: witness told her in the hallway, in the bathroom, or
Speaker 2: whatever the conversation happened, and had to, you know, show
Speaker 2: that there's no evidence that me and anybody did anything wrong.
Speaker 2: The judge reopened hearing, my lawyer testified, and he still
Speaker 2: stuck by his decision. I was convicted based on the
Speaker 2: grandjury testimonies of Patricia Lee. I was sentence to twenty
Speaker 2: five years of life in prison for murder I did
Speaker 2: not commit. And five years later the Appel Division second
Speaker 2: apartment in the case ruled that the lower court was wrong,
Speaker 2: that they violated my right to confrontation by admitting the
Speaker 2: grand jury testimony as evidence achieved against me, that I
Speaker 2: never forfeited my right, that there was no evidence whatsoever
Speaker 2: that means need by Tampa, with the witness and every
Speaker 2: verse occasion, we managed it back down for a new trial.
Speaker 1: Anyone listening is gonna be going just like I'm going, Well, okay,
Speaker 1: now you go free. Right, Yes, except that's not what happened.
Speaker 2: Not exactly, because I was somewhat coerced to take a plea,
Speaker 2: an outfit plead, because I started a second trial. When
Speaker 2: the Pel Division reverses, they ordered a new trial. They
Speaker 2: prosecuted and instructed the judge to jury, actually in an
Speaker 2: open insummation, that they should find me guilty of attention
Speaker 2: to murder and the second degree, a crime in which
Speaker 2: I was acquitted of at the first trial.
Speaker 1: Sounds like that with jeopardy, right.
Speaker 2: I spoke to my lawyer about it, and I said,
Speaker 2: I just was acquitted that he brought it to the
Speaker 2: court's attention after the jury stepped out of the room
Speaker 2: and the judge macker was who was at the time
Speaker 2: she deceased, now indicated that well it was a mistake,
Speaker 2: well not giving you a mistrial. Um, yes, the prosecutor
Speaker 2: was wrong, Yes she was acquitted of it. But we're
Speaker 2: going to dispose of this case one way another. And
Speaker 2: my lawyer pulled me to the side and said, look,
Speaker 2: as you see, they're not trying to be fair. And
Speaker 2: you know I had a conviction for a weapon at
Speaker 2: that time as also, so he said, you got five
Speaker 2: years for the weapon. You're not going to run for man.
Speaker 2: You see they trying to railroad you. They're willing to
Speaker 2: give you outfit plead. And for the people that don' understand, well,
Speaker 2: you're United States Supreme Court in Alphit versus North Carolina,
Speaker 2: rendered that a plea can be took where a person
Speaker 2: doesn't have to be allocuted, It doesn't have to talk
Speaker 2: about the underlying factors of the case. You say because
Speaker 2: there's a likelihood I may be convicted, not because I'm guilty.
Speaker 2: I accept the conditions of this plea.
Speaker 1: Right, So you're not admitting guilt, but the government is
Speaker 1: not admitting innocence. Yes, right, So you're basically in like
Speaker 1: a sort of a gray area, so to speak. Right,
Speaker 1: but basically you're allowed. You can go home, yes, which
Speaker 1: is what everybody wants. Yes, but you can never sue
Speaker 1: the government. You cannot sue the state. You cannot. You
Speaker 1: have no recourse, no recourse at all, right, because they
Speaker 1: never admitting that they were wrong. Right, Okay, so now
Speaker 1: you're out, Yeah, I'm out. And what happened? So now
Speaker 1: you're twenty, I'm at.
Speaker 2: That point, probably about twenty three.
Speaker 1: Twenty three back to Bedstock, Yes, back to It's still
Speaker 1: crazy out there.
Speaker 2: Still, it's crazier than when I left. I mean when
Speaker 2: I left in eighty three, the drug game wasn't as
Speaker 2: crack cocaine never was in the community at that time.
Speaker 2: I mean that hit my community in a very very
Speaker 2: hard way. It was like being a different community. I mean,
Speaker 2: you came home, there were mothers who were shrung out
Speaker 2: on crack. There was whole families who were shrunk out
Speaker 2: on crack. There was individual now who were drugsars, who
Speaker 2: was running the neighborhood. It was just a different environment.
Speaker 1: This is eighty this is nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 2: My father was killed in Bepe Staveson a year before.
Speaker 2: So I'm coming home with that. I mean, there was
Speaker 2: a lot of different Your father was killed, Yeah, he
Speaker 2: was shouting, killed in stuyvesant On a year before that.
Speaker 2: So I'm coming home with, you know, the idea of
Speaker 2: getting my life back together, getting my family back together.
Speaker 2: I was a mechanic help at the being in garage.
Speaker 2: I'm probably going to prison. And at a young age,
Speaker 2: I used to always work at a gas station on
Speaker 2: Franklin and Clifton and Brooklyn. And the nickname I had
Speaker 2: was Amaco Junior because I love cars so much, and
Speaker 2: I worked with grease monkey type of stuff. So when
Speaker 2: I came home, Benjamin Oliver, my previous employer, gave me
Speaker 2: a job and I was working with him, you know,
Speaker 2: changing all doing little things around the shop.
Speaker 1: So things are looking up.
Speaker 2: I was looking up, and my father left me some
Speaker 2: money to invest a got from his insurance policy to
Speaker 2: invest in beauty shalon. So I opened that in new Haven, Connecticut,
Speaker 2: and I'm moving along with my life. I'm being known
Speaker 2: to me that there was a detective and members of
Speaker 2: the District Attorney's office.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's an interesting combination working on cars
Speaker 1: and doing beauty.
Speaker 2: Right, So you got a little ultimate apparents Unisex alone man.
Speaker 1: You got hairst I got a whole thank on it, Okay,
Speaker 1: thanks of looking up right.
Speaker 2: And you know, i got two children, a six year
Speaker 2: old son and a six year old daughter with a
Speaker 2: tw different woman. So I'm trying to be the best
Speaker 2: father i can, taking them to school, picking them up.
Speaker 2: And I'm being knownst to me that there was some
Speaker 2: individuals and law enforcement who had me on their radar,
Speaker 2: who felt that the system had failed them, who still
Speaker 2: believed that I was guilty for the death of James Wolf,
Speaker 2: the young man that was killed, and there was some
Speaker 2: cops that was very upset about it. In nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: one January of nineteen ninety one, a friend of mine
Speaker 2: by the name of Daniel Cash was shot and killed
Speaker 2: in Brooklyn outside his home in Bepuestaves. Yes, I was
Speaker 2: in New Haven, Connecticut that particular day, having stayed over
Speaker 2: the night before for going away party for a friend
Speaker 2: of mine, got a phone call Eddy Cayton, actually nath
Speaker 2: Daniel's cash child mother received a phone call from a
Speaker 2: mother who indicated him to the cash for shot and
Speaker 2: killed in Brooklyn, and that some detectives that came by
Speaker 2: a house looking for me said this Derek.
Speaker 1: Hid and you weren't there because you weren't connected.
Speaker 2: I was in Connecticut, and you know, I took it
Speaker 2: as just talk. When I first heard that the cows
Speaker 2: was looking for me for this murder, I didn't believe it,
Speaker 2: you know, I said, people just saying that. But my
Speaker 2: mother called me and said, the cops have been at
Speaker 2: my house.
Speaker 1: How long have you been out at this point?
Speaker 2: At this point, I've been out probably probably six months,
Speaker 2: because probably about six months a New York City detective
Speaker 2: by the name of Louis Garseller comes to New Haven, Connecticut,
Speaker 2: in the store that the owner and operated that the
Speaker 2: Bautachelon told you about.
Speaker 1: Now let me stop there for a second. Lewis Carseller
Speaker 1: is infamous, and that's a very nice.
Speaker 2: Way of saying very much so.
Speaker 1: Right. Lewis Garsella is probably responsible for as many or
Speaker 1: more wrongful convictions than any detective in the history of
Speaker 1: this country.
Speaker 2: I believe nine people so far have been as my number.
Speaker 1: Is correct, but there's dozens of cases that have been
Speaker 1: reopened because it's come out that there was I mean,
Speaker 1: for just one example, there were six different murder cases
Speaker 1: where he used the same witness who was a crackhead,
Speaker 1: where he was applying drugs to who he was I mean,
Speaker 1: So this woman was so lucky that she witnessed six
Speaker 1: different murders. I mean, that's impossible, and he was he
Speaker 1: was bribing her, coercing her, probably not the most reliable
Speaker 1: witness ever, and maybe on the fifth one you'd go
Speaker 1: and nobody could get that lucky. I mean. But anyway,
Speaker 1: that's just one example of what he was up to.
Speaker 1: So he was the last guy in the world you
Speaker 1: wanted to be involved with if you were in the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system, because he was going to get a
Speaker 1: conviction and he didn't care whatsoever. That was the facts
Speaker 1: of the case. He was interested in convictions, not truth. Yes, So, okay,
Speaker 1: so Scarcell is looking for you. You didn't know who
Speaker 1: he was though at this point I.
Speaker 2: Didn't know who he was at this point, never heard
Speaker 2: of him. And he walks into the unisextionaland that I
Speaker 2: own kissed me on the side of my face and
Speaker 2: says Lafayette Gardens, motherfucker, excuse my vernacular, and automatically it
Speaker 2: tells me that this guy is from Brooklyn and he
Speaker 2: says that I'm under the rest. At that time, he
Speaker 2: said it was for a parole violation. I mean it
Speaker 2: took me to on the side of my cheek.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, okay, just what Derek, But yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that's like something strange, like he thought he
Speaker 1: was in the movie type of thing.
Speaker 2: He think he's the mafia figure. He has this biggie
Speaker 2: you know, he looks like Joe Pessi, a taller Joe Pessy,
Speaker 2: and I think he took on that character. But if
Speaker 2: you ever see him testify or see his granddaughter, he
Speaker 2: just has that you know, big Italiano Mafio so looking.
Speaker 2: I think he just started playing that role at some point.
Speaker 2: But he came in and kissed me on the cheek,
Speaker 2: arrested me, took me to the Union Avenue station in
Speaker 2: New Haven, Connecticut, and told me there that I was
Speaker 2: being arrested for the definite Daniel Cash that he had
Speaker 2: five woodnantses who couldn't identify me and say I killed
Speaker 2: this young man. I told him I was innocent and that, yes, absolutely,
Speaker 2: that was He said he had five witnesses that disagreed,
Speaker 2: and that he was arresting me for I was transported
Speaker 2: back to Brooklyn and reigned on the indictment pledge not guilty,
Speaker 2: and we began the process. And you know the criminal
Speaker 2: justice system, here we go again, and yes, here we
Speaker 2: go again. The sole witness fuck that accused me of
Speaker 2: the murder came to my lawyer four days after my
Speaker 2: arrest explained to my lawyer that she never saw the crime.
Speaker 1: So there wasn't five witnesses, there was one.
Speaker 2: There was one. There was a single witness who had
Speaker 2: told the cops immediately at the crime scene she didn't
Speaker 2: see it, that she was at the store when she
Speaker 2: came back, her boyfriend was shot and killed. She was
Speaker 2: beat up at the scene the crime. Took to the
Speaker 2: precinct with the technive Scots that have told her that
Speaker 2: if she didn't implicate me in the murder, that she
Speaker 2: herself would go to jail for the crime. She was
Speaker 2: on parole. She had kids too, She had two children,
Speaker 2: and they told us they would lock her up because
Speaker 2: her boyfriend was a felon who had just got out
Speaker 2: of prison himself, and she had no business being with them.
Speaker 2: So they said because you.
Speaker 1: In which case she would lose custody of her cats.
Speaker 2: She would lose custy.
Speaker 1: We see this over and over again with women. It's
Speaker 1: one of the strongest threats that you can make to
Speaker 1: a mother is listen, you're gonna testify the way we
Speaker 1: want to. And they'll probably tell her too, and listen,
Speaker 1: by the way, this guy's a bad guy. If he
Speaker 1: didn't do this, he did some other stuff you're doing
Speaker 1: society favorite. They tell him whatever the hell they want
Speaker 1: to tell him. But mostly the only thing a woman
Speaker 1: in that situation is gonna hear is you're gonna lose
Speaker 1: custody of your kids.
Speaker 2: And what she said was that, you know, it was
Speaker 2: either her or meet in her mind that they told her,
Speaker 2: if you don't say this, you're going to jail, and
Speaker 2: she wasn't going to jail like you said. She had kids,
Speaker 2: so she just went along with the statement. Deskar celebrabate
Speaker 2: it with which indicated that she saw me come to
Speaker 2: the building and some young man passed me a gun
Speaker 2: and I got the gun and I shot down you
Speaker 2: cash shovel times inside the vest of of the building.
Speaker 1: But which doesn't match very well with the original story
Speaker 1: that she gave where she wasn't there when the crime
Speaker 1: was committed, right, so that story changed.
Speaker 2: Yes, nor doesn't match with the science or the ballistics
Speaker 2: evidence in the case. The guy was shot with two
Speaker 2: different weapons and he was shot outside the vessel with
Speaker 2: the building in the street, with an ultimate shot that
Speaker 2: killed him which she never saw, which she was inaccurate
Speaker 2: and saying he was shot in the building by one gun.
Speaker 2: The fact that they learned this before the trial, the
Speaker 2: fact that they knew that her story was totally inaccurate
Speaker 2: with science. No one ever went to her and said, hey,
Speaker 2: you're lying. You know you saw it. How did you
Speaker 2: miss this? They didn't care, And what they actually did
Speaker 2: was force her even though she told them and she
Speaker 2: didn't want to come to the trial to testify. They
Speaker 2: locked it up on the maturity witness order, brought it
Speaker 2: before the judge who was ever rapaport in Brooklyn, and
Speaker 2: told her that she would go to jail, which is
Speaker 2: on the record, if she didn't come in and cooperate
Speaker 2: fully with the prosecutor, not truthfully, but fully, whatever the
Speaker 2: prosecutor tells you to do, that's what you better do.
Speaker 1: Derek. One of the things I find so fascinating. One
Speaker 1: of the reasons I said I was honored to have
Speaker 1: you here is because Derek became a very accomplished jailhouse lawyer.
Speaker 1: If that's I don't know if that's the right way
Speaker 1: of saying it. So in your second stay in prison, right,
Speaker 1: which was twenty one years, so here it is, Derek's
Speaker 1: fifty one years old, spent twenty seven years in prison
Speaker 1: between the two different wrongful convictions. So that's more than
Speaker 1: about sixty percent of your life, yes, in prison, right.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the things that I find
Speaker 1: so inspiring. You said something along the lines of I
Speaker 1: didn't have time to work out and it's funny because
Speaker 1: you look like I mean, he's a big, big strong guy.
Speaker 1: I mean he kuy of looks like Mike Tyson honestly,
Speaker 1: But you didn't have time to work out of them.
Speaker 2: Because why, my whole life was spent on getting out.
Speaker 2: I was an avid student of a law library. I
Speaker 2: must spend all my working hours there if I could,
Speaker 2: And when I didn't, you would find me probably in
Speaker 2: the cell reading a book and educate myself on the
Speaker 2: criminal justice system, the processes that take took a convicted
Speaker 2: person to a pill and post previction. I had to
Speaker 2: master that. I mean, if I was able to level
Speaker 2: the playing field, then I had to be the most
Speaker 2: intelligent person in the court. And that was my goal
Speaker 2: to study, to walk in the courtroom, to be able
Speaker 2: to understand the process. And I just read everything they
Speaker 2: had in the law library. I just studied everything.
Speaker 1: But it wasn't just that you had a team, right, Oh,
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 2: Your team came later. But I'll tell you about my
Speaker 2: great team.
Speaker 1: Because I look at it. It was like a law firm
Speaker 1: in prison.
Speaker 2: Right and right it was. It was a very good team.
Speaker 2: In two thousand and nine, I arrived at the Auburn
Speaker 2: Corrections Facility MAXIM maximum security prison. I was in segregation
Speaker 2: at the time. I was a very dark woman of
Speaker 2: mine in conservation because I had began going to the
Speaker 2: parole board in two thousand and nine. And when I
Speaker 2: began going to the parole board, I had a dilemma
Speaker 2: where they wanted you to meet the guilt and I
Speaker 2: couldn't make guilt. And I felt.
Speaker 1: That is a glimma. We see it over and over
Speaker 1: again with guys in your situation who are faced with
Speaker 1: You got to admit guilt if you want to have
Speaker 1: any chance to get out. So, actually, when you have
Speaker 1: a twenty five years a life sentences, it's a life
Speaker 1: sentence unless you're going to admit to a crime that
Speaker 1: you didn't commit. Otherwise it's life because the parole board
Speaker 1: is never going to say, yeah, let this guy go
Speaker 1: unless you come in and go I'm so sorry. I
Speaker 1: never should have done this. I feel guilt, I feel remorse,
Speaker 1: I feel every but it's hard to feel remorse for
Speaker 1: something you didn't do.
Speaker 2: It didn't do. So I'm at this dilemma temps suicide
Speaker 2: if facillity no mercy says I faked the suicide attempt,
Speaker 2: and throw me in a box twenty three hours a
Speaker 2: day and you have one hour with about the size
Speaker 2: of the day in a cage, a dog kennel type
Speaker 2: of cage. If you can imagine, yeah, like TV right,
Speaker 2: and you are I mean, you're just subjected to some
Speaker 2: of the most horrendous treatment in the world because you're
Speaker 2: around a lot of mentally ill prisons that bang and
Speaker 2: throw feces and urine and you're subjected to a very
Speaker 2: degrading time. So I'm there and I get to say
Speaker 2: a letter from a law library because the cops bring
Speaker 2: two books today you're allowed and special housing. And the
Speaker 2: letter says, hey man, I'm glad you're here from a
Speaker 2: god in law library. We waiting for you, you know,
Speaker 2: to get out and we look forward to working for you.
Speaker 2: And it's Dannyrincoar. And when I get out of the box,
Speaker 2: a friend of mine say, hey, Danny.
Speaker 1: Has a group and the group is called.
Speaker 2: Actional Innocence and these guys want you to come work
Speaker 2: with the Law Library and know you're smart, they know
Speaker 2: you know what you're doing, and they need you to
Speaker 2: come out here and lead the group. And at that
Speaker 2: time they have Furnish Baccall, who's another scot seller victim
Speaker 2: who's out now as well, is working as a clerk.
Speaker 2: And I convince Shabaka to come to the Law Library
Speaker 2: and we developed we drain actually the actual instance team
Speaker 2: that Danny has, and we beat for the up. We
Speaker 2: beef it up with knowledge, so.
Speaker 1: It's like a law from like Ring country. Baka on
Speaker 1: Hamilton and he got Richie Vazzario.
Speaker 2: Okay, we got him in there to come with us.
Speaker 2: He was a part of our team. And we got
Speaker 2: a nice team of guys who was serious about their innocence.
Speaker 2: Cal Harris, who ultimately just beat his beat his his
Speaker 2: wife's murdered up the state. He was in prison for
Speaker 2: killing his wife that he didn't do, had three trials
Speaker 2: with Justice honor. He was a part of a team
Speaker 2: and we would get to the law library and we
Speaker 2: would study each other cases, help each other out and
Speaker 2: help people in the population out. But what we would
Speaker 2: do was be the most biggest critic on each other's case.
Speaker 2: And if we thought that there was a question ask
Speaker 2: to a witness credibility, we would bring it up. And
Speaker 2: we thought they was a floor. And what I brought
Speaker 2: to the teams, I said, look, here's the problem I'm
Speaker 2: having is that pr we need to get public relations,
Speaker 2: public media involved in letting society know that we exist.
Speaker 2: And you know, they thought I was crazy at the time.
Speaker 2: I said, I'm gonna get my family to go do
Speaker 2: a rally outside of the Brooklyn Supreme Court. And I
Speaker 2: had a motion at the time, and I sent my
Speaker 2: family down to do a rally and it wound up
Speaker 2: on the front page, well on big page whatever it was,
Speaker 2: in the daily news, and it says inmates would go
Speaker 2: free if the court here is witnesses. And having that
Speaker 2: article around the Dairy News for the AI team was
Speaker 2: a whole different level of organizing. Now Here are guys
Speaker 2: who were downtrodden, who had been beat up by the
Speaker 2: criminal justice system motion denied Tony, and they knew they
Speaker 2: was innocent. There was no doubt that were innocent. There
Speaker 2: was overwhelming evidence in each of our cases to prove that.
Speaker 2: But we were being treated, as you know, as if we
Speaker 2: didn't exist, that we didn't count, that the law didn't
Speaker 2: apply to us, because society thought we were bad people,
Speaker 2: that we wasn't human beings who deserve to be treated fair.
Speaker 2: And when that article came out, it showed the team
Speaker 2: how much power we have if we can organize our
Speaker 2: families or in society to make noise. And we did that.
Speaker 1: So now you're organizing insight and outside.
Speaker 2: All right, So what we decided to strategize why to
Speaker 2: contact Lonnie Sorry, who was a PR guy that worked
Speaker 2: through the Marty tanklerf case. I reached out to Lonnie
Speaker 2: and I sent them five hundred dollars, and I said, Lonnie,
Speaker 2: look it's all I got man, and guy's my commentsary money. Hey,
Speaker 2: I need the eight but we need you. And my
Speaker 2: wife called Lonnie and said, Lonnie, well, Derek says you're
Speaker 2: organizing a rally outside the city hall. And he says,
Speaker 2: I didn't tell Derek I was organized in a rally
Speaker 2: outside city Hall. And then I said, have everybody family
Speaker 2: called him. So Lonnie was getting a phone calls from all
Speaker 2: our families and friends, and he told my wife, what
Speaker 2: are Derek doing to me? He got people calling me
Speaker 2: saying I'm giving a rally. But he was convinced to
Speaker 2: give the rally and it was our first one. We
Speaker 2: was all in prison. Lonnie went out there with our
Speaker 2: family about fifty people, and we was able to see
Speaker 2: the pitches and see the news and the way he
Speaker 2: made of it, and he empowered us, let us know
Speaker 2: that you know, people did care about the wrong he
Speaker 2: convicted because we was on the steps of city Hall
Speaker 2: and had a nice turnout. So that began us really
Speaker 2: high in a sense of power, noring what we can
Speaker 2: do with with just you know, our families and educating
Speaker 2: people on what's happening to us? So I mean doing
Speaker 2: that process. I began to write lawyers asking for help.
Speaker 2: Lonnie was helping me. He was very much an advocate
Speaker 2: of mind at this time, helping me. And Jonathan Ellistein
Speaker 2: from Elstein and Grossman began wrote me back and said
Speaker 2: that he was sickened about what happened to me, being
Speaker 2: a lawyer for seventeen years. Think he said. He said
Speaker 2: that he was really troubled how the course was strong,
Speaker 2: my evidence of instance in the garbage, and he said,
Speaker 2: I think you should go to the media with this.
Speaker 2: And I sent them a check for fifteen hundred dollars
Speaker 2: and said this is all I got left. Would you
Speaker 2: be my lawyer? Said, I'm sending you your check back
Speaker 2: because I can't take your money. Your emotion is immaculate.
Speaker 2: But what I will do is write a friende to
Speaker 2: the court brief and asks to court the grant you
Speaker 2: hearing on your evidence of innocent said.
Speaker 1: Your emotion is immaculate. Yes, you must have felt pretty
Speaker 1: good about that I did. I did? And what kind
Speaker 1: of education did you have before this? G. D.
Speaker 2: Blackstone School of Law, even the college courses they had,
Speaker 2: You know, I just couldn't see myself spending all my
Speaker 2: work when I was in college when I had to
Speaker 2: actually learn law, and it wasn't teaching law courses there,
Speaker 2: so I had no interest in going to college. I
Speaker 2: had to be in the law library. But and at
Speaker 2: that point, when mister Elistein wrote me back, I felt great.
Speaker 2: And the judge denied my motion. He found that there
Speaker 2: was a law of court and jurisdiction that he couldn't
Speaker 2: overturn the previous judges who denied previous four forties and
Speaker 2: three thirty point thirty, So he was kind in the
Speaker 2: buying that he would not reverse conviction. At that point,
Speaker 2: Jonathan Nelstein became my attorney. He said that he would
Speaker 2: file leave to the Tell Division on my behalf free
Speaker 2: of charge, and he also decided to write a letter
Speaker 2: to the Parole boar on my behalf. And he wrote
Speaker 2: a very touching letter to the parole Board and basically
Speaker 2: told the parole board that society has no interest and
Speaker 2: keep an innocent man in prison. So he said, this
Speaker 2: man is not a risk of society because he's innocent,
Speaker 2: and he outlined all the evidents that we had to
Speaker 2: prove that I was innocent, and he basically invited them
Speaker 2: to take a look. The parole board released me based
Speaker 2: on a letter, amongst other things, and wished me good
Speaker 2: luck and prove my innocence. This is what year we in,
Speaker 2: twenty eleven, December.
Speaker 1: Twenty eleven, So you'd been in for twenty one years
Speaker 1: on the second wrongful conviction at this point, right, a
Speaker 1: total of twenty seven. Yeah, there's only three cases I
Speaker 1: know of in the hundreds of exonerations that we've had
Speaker 1: Innocence Project and other projects where there's been somebody who's
Speaker 1: been wrongfully convicted twice, there's only three.
Speaker 2: So I'm home and I'm busting my butt to find
Speaker 2: a job. Contact Scott brut Snyd. I'm a previous lawyers. Hit,
Speaker 2: I'm home. You know, I got a para legal degree
Speaker 2: and I think post conviction is the place to go.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of guys left in it as innocent.
Speaker 2: We should work in these cases, and we started working.
Speaker 2: My wife contacts me one day and say she gets
Speaker 2: an email. We'll share emails, and some investigat or detective
Speaker 2: contacted it and said they wanted to get in touch
Speaker 2: with you. I said, I'm going to Canada now, I'm
Speaker 2: out of here. What do you mean they want to
Speaker 2: get in touch with me? I don't want to speak
Speaker 2: to nobody, but didn't want to talk to me about
Speaker 2: now me. I'm thinking that. So I'm scared and I
Speaker 2: call a guy and he says, no, I work for
Speaker 2: a lawyer, a boy the name of p Assessment. He says, uh,
Speaker 2: Pierre wants to speak to you about Louis Scott Seller.
Speaker 2: And I says, okay, what do you want to meet
Speaker 2: me at? He says, up in the bronx by the courthouse.
Speaker 2: I go up and meet this guy. And you know,
Speaker 2: I looks up, you know, I'm across the street, you know,
Speaker 2: checking it out the scenario seeing me first, and I
Speaker 2: see a guy and I called. He picks up the phone,
Speaker 2: so I'm on my waist is when I'm over here waiting.
Speaker 2: He looks like a hipster, you know, he got a
Speaker 2: trench coat on. I said, well, you don't too much
Speaker 2: look like a cop because he got you know, hippie
Speaker 2: kind of looked with him. Said maybe I can trust
Speaker 2: this guy. So I'll go over and introduce myself. And
Speaker 2: he tells me that he has a prison inmate who
Speaker 2: will be released in two weeks and that the DA's
Speaker 2: office in King's County agreed that Lewis Scott Teller framed
Speaker 2: this guy. And for me, it's like wow, like somebody
Speaker 2: was finally able to establish that this cop has been
Speaker 2: doing the things we've been arguing for a long time.
Speaker 2: While I say we, I am thinking about Chabaka, Alvin, Jeannette,
Speaker 2: Robert Hill, Jarard Austin, all these guys, Nelson Cruz, these
Speaker 2: guys who I know that he framed personally know that
Speaker 2: he's framed, and I'm saying, wow, we have an opportunity.
Speaker 2: So in the course of this, he asked me about
Speaker 2: my case and I said, I have a lawyer, but
Speaker 2: I introduced him to Jeanette Hill in Austin, who he
Speaker 2: has gotten zonerated as of now they've been as HONERATD
Speaker 2: And I tell him about those guys in Teresa goldmanz
Speaker 2: how Scar Seller used hunting six different homicides and he
Speaker 2: was surprised to even hear that because he didn't know
Speaker 2: about that at the time. And he says, okay, well,
Speaker 2: I can't tell you the name of my client that's
Speaker 2: going to be released, but in two weeks they're gonna
Speaker 2: release and please you know, contact me again. In two
Speaker 2: weeks David rant was released. The first guy who was
Speaker 2: ever able to establish the scar seller had told the
Speaker 2: witness to pick out the guy with the hook nose,
Speaker 2: which was how he identified Ranta and then established what
Speaker 2: we've been saying, that this is the tactics and the
Speaker 2: strategy this cop used to convict innocent people. So after
Speaker 2: having learned this and David Ranta's release, I run into
Speaker 2: a reporter by the name of Francis Robus from a
Speaker 2: New York Times and Robus is investigating Julio Assevedo case
Speaker 2: and she calling us to learn more about Acevedo. Acevedo
Speaker 2: was a guy that was accused of killing the real
Speaker 2: fifty he sent originally who fifty cent got his name from.
Speaker 2: And I got Acevedo out of prison on the four
Speaker 2: to forty motion got his judgment vacated and released because
Speaker 2: he was kidnapped by drug dealers made to kill the
Speaker 2: fifty cent It was under duress, and once the judge
Speaker 2: charged the jury, if he can prove he did it underressed,
Speaker 2: they had to find him not guilty. I got the evidence,
Speaker 2: got the guy to prison. So Robers wanted to know
Speaker 2: who was Assevedo, and he had a car accident in Brooklyn.
Speaker 2: Three ascetic jews had died. His face was all over
Speaker 2: the news recently at that time. And I got him
Speaker 2: to surrender himself, come in and deal with the case,
Speaker 2: don't run, because it wasn't his best interest. And she
Speaker 2: asked what Why would he be afraid of the cops.
Speaker 2: Why would this guy be so afraid of the cops.
Speaker 2: And I said, look, here's a guy that was arrested
Speaker 2: proviows he told the cops the truth, how he was kidnapped,
Speaker 2: Pistolhooper made the committed murder. They didn't believe him. He
Speaker 2: spent ten years in prison. Had I not got him,
Speaker 2: might he probably would have still been there? I said,
Speaker 2: is a guy that's a fright me. I'm a guy,
Speaker 2: big guy, but I'm afraid of the cops. Cops framed
Speaker 2: me twice.
Speaker 1: And you would be afraid of the cops if they
Speaker 1: frame you once? I mean absolutely.
Speaker 2: And I said, look, I was just informed by a
Speaker 2: lawyer that in two weeks the cop that framed me
Speaker 2: and others is for the first time going to be
Speaker 2: revealed as being that type of cop. I said, if
Speaker 2: it happens. Get in touch with me. I'll give you
Speaker 2: the evidence to establish that there's others. And we made
Speaker 2: a deal, and in two weeks Ranter was released. I
Speaker 2: got a call from Francis Rovers and says, hey, you
Speaker 2: got that evidence that you was just talking basically, And
Speaker 2: I introduced her to Jeanette and she she did a
Speaker 2: very good investigation, and the New York Times got the
Speaker 2: King's County Die's officer on the charles Es then to
Speaker 2: agree to look at fifty five of scar Seller cases
Speaker 2: fifty five at that time.
Speaker 1: Fifty five people. I mean, when you think you know
Speaker 1: and everything is it's so hard to imagine. I mean,
Speaker 1: even what one person could go through, but fifty five
Speaker 1: is such a huge number. Yes, one person could cause
Speaker 1: that much destruction and damage to so many people's lives.
Speaker 2: Ironians identification, false confessions, fail to turn over discovery. This
Speaker 2: is our criminal justice system, man. When you deal with
Speaker 2: the ones that we can fix, like Ironians identifications, there
Speaker 2: have been studies that you know about and I know
Speaker 2: about that says that we can fix Eronianus identifications by
Speaker 2: having something called double blind lineups. Well, the cops doesn't
Speaker 2: know who the suspect is, so there's no fear that
Speaker 2: they will sugges to pick out number three or pick
Speaker 2: out the guy with the hook nose.
Speaker 1: I want to go back that for a seconds. I'm
Speaker 1: glad you brought that up. So the Supreme Court actually
Speaker 1: took on this issue. Yes, and I'm reading from a
Speaker 1: book I consider like the Bible. It's just called Convicting
Speaker 1: the Innocent by Brandon Garrett. Shout out to him, Shout out, Brandon. So.
Speaker 1: In Manson versus Breathway, a case involving a prison custodian Naemanson,
Speaker 1: not the famous serial, the US Supreme Court noted the
Speaker 1: dangers of suggestive identification procedures. The Court had long recognized
Speaker 1: quote the vagaries of eyewitness identification where the annals quote
Speaker 1: the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of
Speaker 1: mistake and identification. And in that decision, the Court affirmed
Speaker 1: that the due process clause of the Constitution, which everybody's
Speaker 1: familiar with, embraces the right to be free from unduly
Speaker 1: suggestive eyewitness identification procedures. Okay, now we're on the right track,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Supremes. Right, Okay, such as showing the eyewitness
Speaker 1: a single photograph of the suspect or telling the witness
Speaker 1: whom to identify in a lineup, yes, which we know
Speaker 1: has happened over and over again, including in some ways
Speaker 1: in your case.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: However, and this is where it all falls apart. However,
Speaker 1: the Court and Manson, in the same rule added a
Speaker 1: caveat that undercut the power of that holding, because they
Speaker 1: found that even if the police engage in suggestive procedures
Speaker 1: so potentially suggestive that they violate due process, the identification
Speaker 1: may still be admitted at trial if it is otherwise
Speaker 1: quote reliable. Yes, I mean that is just I mean okay,
Speaker 1: So so they said you can't do this, but it's
Speaker 1: okay if you do.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Basically that's what they said, right, yes.
Speaker 2: Yes, basically because who determines reliability number one? And they
Speaker 2: didn't set for for tests to determine the reliability. But
Speaker 2: they says, if there's an independent source. So now what
Speaker 2: they do is they instruct the witness, Hey, hey, you've
Speaker 2: seen a guy before, right, it was seen before. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I've seen him once or twice in the supermarket with
Speaker 2: his mother, and they make that the independent source. However,
Speaker 2: if the person could have identified you, then when the
Speaker 2: cops first accident who committed the crime. He should have said, Hey,
Speaker 2: a guy that I saw on the supermarket with his mother,
Speaker 2: you know, was a guy that committed his crime. That's
Speaker 2: the problem. A lot of times when they say something suggestive,
Speaker 2: they allow them to use a reason that they believe
Speaker 2: is reliable that no reasonable person would find to be.
Speaker 1: Liiable, which they can invent. And we all know, so
Speaker 1: basically that that's a that's a ruling that has to
Speaker 1: be amended. Yes, because it's so, it's so, it's really
Speaker 1: such a terrible missed opportunity where the Supreme Court recognized
Speaker 1: this problem that has been responsible for so many wrongful convictions,
Speaker 1: including yours. Yes, but then they undercut their own decision
Speaker 1: and made it basically toothless and meaningless. Yes, and so
Speaker 1: so then we wind up in the situation that we're in.
Speaker 2: I think that the audience should work on with us
Speaker 2: putting prosecutors in office to understand the dangers of wrong
Speaker 2: for conviction. In Brooklyn, we had a prosecutor run on
Speaker 2: that platform. We need you know what I mean, shout
Speaker 2: out to him. One of the best there ever was
Speaker 2: twenty something wrong for convictions and overturns. Yes, over turn
Speaker 2: in two years. We need prosecutors who are willing to
Speaker 2: understand that a part of their job, a part of
Speaker 2: their role, it's quasi jd issue, you know, candid to
Speaker 2: the court, fitess to the queues. And we get that,
Speaker 2: then we can change the system all around the country.
Speaker 2: We just need prosecutors who just don't believe in locking
Speaker 2: them up, throwing the key away, but in justice.
Speaker 1: Don't forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcast. It really helps. And I'm a proud
Speaker 1: donor to the Innocence Project and I really hope you'll
Speaker 1: join me in supporting this very important cause and helping
Speaker 1: to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocenceproject dot org
Speaker 1: to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like
Speaker 1: to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis.
Speaker 1: The music in the show is by three time OSCAR
Speaker 1: nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Speaker 1: Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm is a production of Lava
Speaker 1: for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number one