Speaker 1: On June nineteenth, nineteen eighty eight, Vincent Wright and his
Speaker 1: girlfriend Anssia Johnson were parked outside a one stop convenience
Speaker 1: store in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. While an Assia waited in
Speaker 1: the car, Vincent went behind it to fill the rear
Speaker 1: tire with air. Suddenly, two armed gunmen approached, demanding money.
Speaker 1: Vincent said he didn't have any. Just then another man
Speaker 1: pulled up in a brown Oldsmobile and told the two
Speaker 1: gunmen to take Vincent's car and Thisssy had jumped out
Speaker 1: of the car and the two men sped off, followed
Speaker 1: by the Oldsmobile. Police had no leads and did little
Speaker 1: to investigate until Vincent's brother gave them the license number
Speaker 1: of a brown Oldsmobile he had seen driving around. The
Speaker 1: car belonged to twenty two year old Sidney Holmes, who
Speaker 1: soon became the focus of the investigation, but Sydney denied
Speaker 1: any involvement, claiming to have been over a mile away
Speaker 1: at the time. After viewing two photo arrays, both of
Speaker 1: which contained Sydney's picture, as well as a live lineup
Speaker 1: in which Sydney participated, Vincent identified him as the man
Speaker 1: in the brown car. It seemed to make sense. Why
Speaker 1: would one person be shown in repeated lineups if the
Speaker 1: police didn't think he was guilty? But this is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. Before we even get into
Speaker 1: introductions with YouTube, gentlemen, I just want to give the
Speaker 1: listener a little heads up about the insanity that is
Speaker 1: about to unfold in their headphones. The thing that really
Speaker 1: gets me most about this case is that the prosecution
Speaker 1: initially recommended an eight hundred and twenty five year sentence,
Speaker 1: and even without knowing what you were accused of. I
Speaker 1: just want that to resonate because I can't wrap my
Speaker 1: head around of what kind of a heinous crime would
Speaker 1: warrant such a long sentence. My name is Lauren brad Pacheco,
Speaker 1: and I'm a broadcast journalist and a podcaster of such
Speaker 1: series as Murder in Oregon, Murder in Illinois, and Murder
Speaker 1: in Miami. And I am very honored to be sitting
Speaker 1: in this seat filling in for Jason Flohm. But I'm
Speaker 1: also very honored to be speaking to you too, Sydney Holmes.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Wrongful Conviction, thanks for having us, and also
Speaker 1: joining us today is Brandon sheck Staff, attorney with the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project of Florida.
Speaker 2: Welcome Brandon, Thanks Lauren, it's great to be here.
Speaker 1: Sidney. Can you just tell me a little bit about
Speaker 1: your upbringing and your family.
Speaker 3: Well, I grew it up in a household with two parents.
Speaker 3: I have two sisters. We grew up in a Christian household.
Speaker 3: We know, very loving, family, were very close, all kind
Speaker 3: of functions. Family functions were always coming together Thanksgiving, you know,
Speaker 3: Christmas and all of the other days. The thing with me,
Speaker 3: I was always a book run I'm always, you know,
Speaker 3: a gadget type of guy. You know, I always the intelligent.
Speaker 3: I always want to be the smartest guy in the
Speaker 3: in the room. I was always that kind of guy.
Speaker 1: And Sydney, just take me to who you were at
Speaker 1: the age of twenty two, the year that this happened
Speaker 1: in your life. What were your interests, you know, what
Speaker 1: were your hopes and plans for the future at that age.
Speaker 3: Well, age twenty two, I was working at a hospital
Speaker 3: in which they was going to send me to school
Speaker 3: for a surgic technician. So, you know, I feel like
Speaker 3: my future was bright at that time. I was highly
Speaker 3: into the medical field. I was highly ambitionous, but it
Speaker 3: didn't happen.
Speaker 1: And the irony is you had had two prior incidences
Speaker 1: run ins with the but you had turned your life
Speaker 1: around at that point, correct, Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 3: It was a robbery case that at the same instinct,
Speaker 3: I was taking a coworker home and he went inside
Speaker 3: and committed to crimes without my knowledge, and I was
Speaker 3: charged with the crime as well.
Speaker 1: But as I understand it, you did plead guilty in
Speaker 1: that case, even though you say you had no idea
Speaker 1: the robbery was going on. Were you offered some kind
Speaker 1: of plea deal or were you told that if you
Speaker 1: pled guilty it would make things easier.
Speaker 3: Yes, that was the case.
Speaker 1: So when all of this went down, you were seen
Speaker 1: as a previous prior offender, yes, ma'am. All right, And
Speaker 1: so Brandon, can you just take me to the time
Speaker 1: and the place that we're talking about. This happened in
Speaker 1: Fort Lauderdale, But give me an idea of what the
Speaker 1: scene was in nineteen eighty eight when the crime occurred.
Speaker 1: Just in terms of the relationship between the police and
Speaker 1: the public.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, Broward County, Florida, has a history, and
Speaker 4: it's a well documented history.
Speaker 2: At that time in Fort Lauderdale.
Speaker 4: There were a lot of these types of armed robberies,
Speaker 4: and actually the arrest rate where police made arrests in
Speaker 4: those cases was quite low.
Speaker 2: It was twenty to twenty five percent.
Speaker 4: So there are a large number of these types of
Speaker 4: crimes happening, and you know, not enough police a lot
Speaker 4: of cases, had not a lot to go on, and
Speaker 4: so there are a lot of these unsolved cases. And
Speaker 4: so in those cases, you know, we see shortcuts being taken,
Speaker 4: and definitely we see shortcuts being taken here in Sydney's case,
Speaker 4: and those shortcuts definitely directly led to his wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: And probably contributed significantly to the fact that Broward County
Speaker 1: doesn't have a great track record when it comes to
Speaker 1: wrongful convictions. In fact, according to the National Registry of Exonerations,
Speaker 1: he leads the way in Florida with thirteen out of
Speaker 1: ninety one wrongful convictions.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 4: There's definitely a long history, and of course that history
Speaker 4: affected a lot of folks, and you know, there's ongoing work,
Speaker 4: you know, still with our organization with the State Attorney's
Speaker 4: Office to try to assist individuals that we can identify
Speaker 4: that were affected by that history, and Sydney here in
Speaker 4: this case was definitely one of those folks.
Speaker 1: I think it's also important to note that a lot
Speaker 1: of those wrongful convictions occurred under the watch of Florida's
Speaker 1: longest serving State Attorney, Mike Satz. I believe Satz was
Speaker 1: in office for almost fifty years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's correct. And you know, to mister Satz's credit,
Speaker 4: you know, one of the things that he did on
Speaker 4: the way out was established this Conviction Review Unit, and
Speaker 4: that has continued, the review unit with great support by
Speaker 4: the current State Attorney, mister Harrold Pryor. But yes, it's
Speaker 4: quite unusual, especially in such a large jurisdiction as the
Speaker 4: seventeenth Circuit Broward County, to have someone with that amount
Speaker 4: of power for that long.
Speaker 1: Okay, so now let's talk about the crime. This occurred
Speaker 1: on June nineteenth, nineteen eighty eight, Father's Day. The two victims,
Speaker 1: Vincent Wright and his girlfriend, Anessia Johnson, were outside of
Speaker 1: a convenience store gas station. Anicia was sitting in the
Speaker 1: car and Vincent was putting air in the tires.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so there were there were two perpetrators that were
Speaker 4: armed that came up to them and demanded money, demanded possessions.
Speaker 4: The victims didn't have anything to give them. I think
Speaker 4: the perpetrators were kind of frustrated by that. And you know,
Speaker 4: simultaneous to that, a third person driving a brown Oldsmobile
Speaker 4: kind of came up onto the scene as it's unfolding
Speaker 4: and told the two armed perpetrators, Hey, you just take
Speaker 4: their car. And so the two armed perpetrators stole the
Speaker 4: victim's car and drove off on the scene. And that
Speaker 4: third individual got back into the brown Oldsmobile and also
Speaker 4: drove off from the scene.
Speaker 1: And where were you, Sydney At six thirty pm that
Speaker 1: night when the crime.
Speaker 3: Occurred, I was celebrating Father's Day with my father, friends, neighbors.
Speaker 3: We were riding up and down the street on a
Speaker 3: cold car. So for the whole day I was at
Speaker 3: my parents' house celebrating Father's Day.
Speaker 1: And multiple people were able to confirm that.
Speaker 3: Yes, multiple pier cond term out way of Boss the
Speaker 3: whole day.
Speaker 1: So after the three perpetrators sped off, an Asia called
Speaker 1: the police and when the detective showed up, she told
Speaker 1: him what had happened and described the first two men.
Speaker 1: She wasn't able to describe the man in the brown car.
Speaker 1: At this point, Vincent had already set out with a
Speaker 1: friend to try to chase the stolen car down themselves,
Speaker 1: but Brandon, they didn't have any success, did they.
Speaker 4: Know, so the perpetrators with the stolen car had about
Speaker 4: a five minute head start. Police actually found the stolen
Speaker 4: vehicle the next morning and returned it back to Vincent,
Speaker 4: but essentially police didn't have any leads. They didn't do
Speaker 4: much of any of their own investigation over the next
Speaker 4: few days. But meanwhile, Vincent had gone home that night
Speaker 4: of the crime and had told his brother Milton what
Speaker 4: had happened. Interestingly enough, Milton told Vincent that earlier that
Speaker 4: same day, a group of four people who were also
Speaker 4: in a brown Olsmobile stopped his car in a street
Speaker 4: attempting to carjack him and were actually shooting at him.
Speaker 4: And Milton believed that that same group of folks that
Speaker 4: tried to carjack him were the same people that tried
Speaker 4: to or that did rob Vincent and Anicia earlier that
Speaker 4: same day, and so so Milton decided to take the
Speaker 4: investigation into his own hands. Over the next few days,
Speaker 4: he kind of kept an eye out while he was driving,
Speaker 4: you know, the streets of Fort Lauderdale to see if
Speaker 4: he spotted any brown oldsmobiles.
Speaker 1: He's basically playing citizen detective.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 4: And so he saw one brown oldsmobile, wrote down that
Speaker 4: license plate, sent it to the police. Police ran it
Speaker 4: through their system, and came back and told the right brothers, No,
Speaker 4: actually that's the wrong car. Of course, they're looking for
Speaker 4: three young black male perpetrators. And I can only imagine
Speaker 4: that whatever car that brown Oldsmobile that Milton saw was
Speaker 4: registered to was probably not a young black man.
Speaker 2: And so police said, no, that's not a match.
Speaker 4: But Milton continued to drive around over the next few
Speaker 4: days and at one point was driving behind Sydney's car,
Speaker 4: which was a brown Oldsmobile. So he gave that license
Speaker 4: number to the police. Police saw that it was registered
Speaker 4: to Sydney, who, of course is a young black man.
Speaker 4: And Sydney also had these prior convictions for armed robbery,
Speaker 4: and at that point it's kind of like bingo, here's
Speaker 4: the guy that we're looking for. And from that point forward,
Speaker 4: I would describe police as investigation as tunnel vision.
Speaker 2: Essentially.
Speaker 1: That's pretty incredible when you think of it. I mean,
Speaker 1: what are the chances of Sydney having the same car
Speaker 1: as the perpetrators.
Speaker 4: So that's interesting that you mentioned that, because in our
Speaker 4: post conviction investigation, we consulted with a historian at an
Speaker 4: Oldsmobile museum in Michigan who told us, you know, you're
Speaker 4: not going to believe this, but that car and that
Speaker 4: precise color were the most common car and the most
Speaker 4: common color of the most common car out on the
Speaker 4: streets in the United States at that period of time,
Speaker 4: and so I can only presume that there were hundreds,
Speaker 4: if not thousands, of these, you know, very type of
Speaker 4: brown Oldsmobile driving around the very busy streets of Fort Lauderdale,
Speaker 4: Florida at that time. The reality is is that if
Speaker 4: Milton had been driving behind another brown Oldsmobile register to
Speaker 4: a young black man, then that person might have been
Speaker 4: wrongfully convicted in this case.
Speaker 1: But even by his own description, you know, Sydney's car
Speaker 1: didn't match because what he described was a similar looking
Speaker 1: car but had a blown out circle where the lock
Speaker 1: would have been.
Speaker 4: That's right, Milton is definitely the driving force of this investigation,
Speaker 4: but you know, there were many inconsistencies between the car
Speaker 4: involved in the one stop robbery, the car involved in
Speaker 4: the attempted carjacking of Milton and Sydney's car, and so
Speaker 4: one of the most significant inconsistencies is that the car
Speaker 4: involved in the one stop crime, in the arm robbery
Speaker 4: of Milton was described as having a hole in the
Speaker 4: trunk kind of where the lock would be. It's possible
Speaker 4: that that was a stolen car and so the lock
Speaker 4: was popped out, but Sydney's car didn't have that. Sydney's car,
Speaker 4: the lock in the back was completely intact. There was
Speaker 4: otherwise no hole in the trunk, and the state never
Speaker 4: provided any evidence to suggest that that was ever the
Speaker 4: case with Sydney's car. And so obviously that's a very
Speaker 4: glaring inconsistency between Sydney's car and the perpetrator's car. It
Speaker 4: just didn't match up. And then, of course the physical
Speaker 4: description of the perpetrator didn't match up with Sidney either.
Speaker 1: Yes, let's talk about their physical characteristics. What was the
Speaker 1: description given of the man in the brown car.
Speaker 4: So in his first deposition, Vincent said that the perpetrator
Speaker 4: was five foot six. Vincent said that he himself was
Speaker 4: five foot eight and the perpetrator was shorter. Than he was.
Speaker 4: He described him as one hundred and seventy pounds, kind
Speaker 4: of heavy set. He described him as a little bit overweight,
Speaker 4: and that was not Sydney at the time of the crime.
Speaker 1: Sidney just described to me then, what your height and
Speaker 1: weight was at the time of the crime. When you
Speaker 1: were twenty.
Speaker 3: Two, I was six feet one hundred eighty three pounds.
Speaker 1: She were a tall, skinny guy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, six feet about one eighty three.
Speaker 2: Got it.
Speaker 1: The lead investigator in this case was Detective Robert Campbell,
Speaker 1: and it does seem like he was focused on you
Speaker 1: as the only suspect, despite the fact that the driver
Speaker 1: of the oldsmobile was not even one of the armed robbers. Sydney,
Speaker 1: when did you even get an inkling that the police
Speaker 1: were setting their sights specifically on you?
Speaker 3: My car at the time was Readyster. The address I
Speaker 3: was using at that time was my grandmother's resident and
Speaker 3: when they got to tag them rand his number to
Speaker 3: the address, they came into the house and left a
Speaker 3: business card. Satday, I need to contact them, these two detectives,
Speaker 3: in which I did because I have nothing been high,
Speaker 3: I haven't done anything. So I called them and they
Speaker 3: came by questioned me and I actually take a photograph
Speaker 3: to mirect. I didn't think anything was to that. I
Speaker 3: gave him a photograph and that was that. That's the
Speaker 3: first time. The next time I seen them, I was
Speaker 3: being arrested for ann rovit.
Speaker 4: Initially, the victims were shown what we would call mugg book,
Speaker 4: which is essentially just a large book of photographs of
Speaker 4: people who had previously been arrested for similar crimes, and
Speaker 4: neither of the victims made an identification from the mug book.
Speaker 4: Several days later, Sydney's license plate number was given to
Speaker 4: the police, and that is the impetus for him becoming
Speaker 4: a suspect in this case. And so the police created
Speaker 4: a six pack, a photo lineup of six photos, including Sydney's,
Speaker 4: using his booking photo from his prior arrest, from his
Speaker 4: prior conviction in nineteen eighty four, which would have been
Speaker 4: four years before this crime occurred, and neither of the
Speaker 4: victims identified Sidney from that lineup.
Speaker 1: But then, of course the photo that Sidney just talked about,
Speaker 1: the one he freely agreed to give the police, came
Speaker 1: into play exactly.
Speaker 4: And so, as Sidney explained, you know, police came to
Speaker 4: talk to him and he told them, you know, I
Speaker 4: didn't do this. I have nothing to hide. Yes, of course,
Speaker 4: please take a photograph of me, you know, expecting that
Speaker 4: that photograph is going to help a limit him as
Speaker 4: a suspect because he knew that he didn't commit this crime.
Speaker 4: And so a second photo lineup was created using that
Speaker 4: new photograph of Sydney that he agreed to take, and
Speaker 4: five different people than from the filler photos in the
Speaker 4: first lineup. And so Sidney is the only person that
Speaker 4: was shown to the victims multiple times.
Speaker 1: And it should be noted that Detective Campbell was the
Speaker 1: one who administered every one of those lineups.
Speaker 4: The female victim, she did not identify Sidney. She never
Speaker 4: made an identification. In the case Vincent, the male victim,
Speaker 4: he identified Sidney in the second lineup, and that's the
Speaker 4: principal evidence used to convict him and Sidney.
Speaker 1: You know, you were quite willing to assist the detectives
Speaker 1: in their initial investigation, and turns out there wasn't much
Speaker 1: of an investigation because you were arrested on October sixth
Speaker 1: of nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 3: That morning of October sixth, I was sitting at my parents' house,
Speaker 3: actually talking to my father having breakfast at the kitchen table.
Speaker 3: Then you know, to the the same to the technis
Speaker 3: came knocking at the front door, say they had a
Speaker 3: warrant for my arrest armed robbery. They took place at
Speaker 3: this at that station. I'm looking at him saying, for robbery.
Speaker 3: I haven't robbed anyone. So, you know, being the humble
Speaker 3: god I am, you know, the Homer spirit. Okay, I
Speaker 3: complied with law enforcement and I was arrested. You know,
Speaker 3: I can't even put in the words what went through
Speaker 3: my head. I'm saying, why is I being handcuffed? Why
Speaker 3: is I being trout with something? Having done I'm twenty
Speaker 3: two A while, you know, what did I do? I
Speaker 3: was speaceless, go to the kind of jail I'm in
Speaker 3: art trying to figure it, you know. But like I said,
Speaker 3: you know, the resilient person I am. I stayed humble
Speaker 3: through the process, you know, praying that you know, we
Speaker 3: got a lawyer and hoping that the true fights that
Speaker 3: come out. Apparently it didn't.
Speaker 1: So a little over six months later, on April twenty fourth,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine, your trial began. Your defense attorney was
Speaker 1: Mitchell Pole, and the prosecutor was Peter Magrino, So Brandon,
Speaker 1: what did the prosecution present.
Speaker 4: So essentially it's the identification of Sydney by one of
Speaker 4: the two victims, and again that's only after the second
Speaker 4: lineup that he was in, plus whatever stock you want
Speaker 4: to put into his car being similar, although significantly different
Speaker 4: than that of the perpetrator's car that he was driving
Speaker 4: at the crime scene. I think it's also really important
Speaker 4: to note that Milton was critical to the investigation, the
Speaker 4: citizen's investigation that we described, but he was never called
Speaker 4: to testify at mister Holmes's trial, so the jury never
Speaker 4: heard his perspective and precisely what he did and what
Speaker 4: he saw during his own an investigation. And that information
Speaker 4: is critical because it's the exact reason why Sidney became
Speaker 4: a suspect in the first place. And without that citizen investigation,
Speaker 4: without what Milton did, Sidney would never have been a
Speaker 4: suspect in this case. So the jury never heard that.
Speaker 4: You know, Milton is looking for what happens to be
Speaker 4: the most common car in the United States at that time,
Speaker 4: and you're just kind of going about his day keeping
Speaker 4: an eye out looking for that car, and the jury
Speaker 4: never heard from him. And the only thing that put
Speaker 4: Sidney in the crosshairs here is that he has, you know,
Speaker 4: that type of car, and he's a young black man
Speaker 4: with the prior arm robbery convictions, and so again that
Speaker 4: kind of totality of the factors just leads police into
Speaker 4: tunnel vision that he must have been the person who
Speaker 4: committed this crime.
Speaker 1: I'd also want to know that this identification was the
Speaker 1: result of planting Sydney's image in Vincent's mind in the
Speaker 1: first photo array in which he was not identified, followed
Speaker 1: by an identification in the second after the seed had
Speaker 1: been planted. Nevertheless, that was the state's case. So what
Speaker 1: did the defense present?
Speaker 4: So the defense's case was that this was a misidentification,
Speaker 4: that essentially the state got the wrong guy, and to
Speaker 4: bolster that misidentification defense, the defense presented several alibi witnesses that,
Speaker 4: like Sidney said, he was at this Father's Day cookout
Speaker 4: and because he was there, he could not have committed
Speaker 4: this crime at the one stop. And so essentially what
Speaker 4: it boils down to is you have on the state side,
Speaker 4: the one identification from Vincent. Again that happened only after
Speaker 4: the second time that he was shown a photo of Sydney.
Speaker 4: And on the defensive side, you have, I believe, four
Speaker 4: alibi witnesses who came into court and testified that Sydney
Speaker 4: was at the father's did cookout at his parents' house,
Speaker 4: and therefore could not have committed this crime. And so
Speaker 4: you know, the jury chose the state's evidence, the victim's
Speaker 4: identification in court over the alibi witnesses who said that
Speaker 4: Sydney couldn't have possibly been at the crime scene.
Speaker 1: Sydney. Can you just take me to what it was
Speaker 1: like to sit inside that courtroom?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it was agony. You know, I thought
Speaker 3: sure that I was going to be going home that
Speaker 3: day because of lack of evidence, you know, and the
Speaker 3: alibi witness and alab people's uh standing on the standing
Speaker 3: total jerum wear my wayabouts. But when they deliberated, you know,
Speaker 3: came back with it gives a verdict. You know, I
Speaker 3: was completely and giving them four hundred er sentence at
Speaker 3: age of twenty two, I was just devastating, you know
Speaker 3: what a while, you know, and then I have a
Speaker 3: six month old child. I had a daughter that was
Speaker 3: six months so all that was taking away. So I
Speaker 3: seen none of the childhood. She was two days from
Speaker 3: being seven months old when I got arrested. I've been
Speaker 3: in prisonbe thirty four years. My life is just, you know,
Speaker 3: just a snappery my eye. It was gone for something
Speaker 3: I haven't done. So how can I feel I was
Speaker 3: feeling empty? I was, I was devastated, you know. So
Speaker 3: I don't know, It's just it was just a day
Speaker 3: that I would never forget. But to day I just
Speaker 3: want to move on from.
Speaker 1: So Sidney was not ever accused of being one of
Speaker 1: the guys involved in an armed robbery. He's accused of
Speaker 1: being a guy who drives by and says, hey, you
Speaker 1: should take that car, and then drives away. And based
Speaker 1: on that, prosecution recommends eight hundred and twenty five years,
Speaker 1: and he gets sentenced to four hundred.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's correct. Four hundred was a compromise. The prosecutor
Speaker 4: asks for eight hundred and twenty five years. The defense
Speaker 4: attorney came back and said, well, forty years would be
Speaker 4: a sufficient sentence, that.
Speaker 2: Would be an effective life term.
Speaker 4: And the judge said, well, perhaps eight hundred and twenty
Speaker 4: five is too many years. I can only presume that
Speaker 4: he landed on four hundred because it's somewhere in the
Speaker 4: middle of forty and eight hundred and twenty five, and
Speaker 4: that's the sentence that Sydney got, four hundred years. And
Speaker 4: so I think a lot of people are thinking, well,
Speaker 4: why four hundred, eight hundred and twenty five. These are
Speaker 4: just kind of arbitrary numbers. But really what it boils
Speaker 4: down to is, at that time in Florida, a life
Speaker 4: sentence would have made Sydney eligible for parole after twenty
Speaker 4: five years. A term of years sentence, a four hundred
Speaker 4: years sentence would mean that he would have to serve
Speaker 4: out that number of years and he was not eligible
Speaker 4: for parole. I know Sidney has said this multiple times,
Speaker 4: but only God can serve four hundred years, right, No
Speaker 4: man can serve four hundred years. So essentially that's the
Speaker 4: workaround to make Sydney not eligible for parole. He would
Speaker 4: never get out of prison.
Speaker 1: Did they ever before it even got to court, did
Speaker 1: they ever offer you some kind of a deal if
Speaker 1: you could give them the names of the two armed assailants?
Speaker 3: They offered a deal. Well, why would I take a
Speaker 3: deal for something I haven't done. No, I'm not taking
Speaker 3: a deal because I haven't did anything I'm an anathent.
Speaker 1: Man, and how can you name two people you have
Speaker 1: no eye idea, I.
Speaker 3: Don't know who they are.
Speaker 4: If I can just elaborate on At Sidney's sentencing after
Speaker 4: he was convicted, the prosecutor said to the judge at sentencing,
Speaker 4: and I'm looking at the quote right now, I would
Speaker 4: point out that this defendant was given the opportunity to
Speaker 4: carry the keys to the prison in his back pocket
Speaker 4: because of the factual circumstances surrounding the robbery. And what
Speaker 4: he's referring to is precisely, Lauren, what you just said
Speaker 4: is that Sidney was given an opportunity to take a plea,
Speaker 4: to plead to a crime that he did not commit,
Speaker 4: in exchange for giving up the two other perpetrators. And
Speaker 4: of course, if you didn't commit a crime, how could
Speaker 4: you possibly know who those other two perpetrators were. He
Speaker 4: maintained his innocence throughout and therefore he got punished when
Speaker 4: it came to sentencing with this very harsh sentence.
Speaker 1: Sidney, you were in prison for thirty four years. Can
Speaker 1: you just take me to what your day to day
Speaker 1: was like?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I spent a lot of time in low life.
Speaker 3: They're trying to research, trying to find, you know, a
Speaker 3: way to become free, you know, get this charge of
Speaker 3: me something I didn't do. But in the meantime, why
Speaker 3: outside of that, I educated myself. I read a lot.
Speaker 3: I love to read. I educated my self computer skills.
Speaker 3: I got a social degree in theology. I learned coul
Speaker 3: their art skills, I learned counseling skills. I would drug
Speaker 3: abuse skills. Day to day, I just kept myself busy,
Speaker 3: reading a lot, studying a lot, always you know, by
Speaker 3: you know, scriptures. I did a lot just to keep
Speaker 3: myself afloat. Giving up wasn't an option, and my parents
Speaker 3: and my family member, they weren't going to allow me
Speaker 3: to ever give up. You know, all the faith that
Speaker 3: we have. I was always going to fight until I
Speaker 3: stopped breathing.
Speaker 1: And unfortunately it was a long fight, decades long. You
Speaker 1: filed appeals for post conviction relief several times and all
Speaker 1: were denied. What was the turning point.
Speaker 3: Well, twenty seventeen, I would let's take write our application
Speaker 3: to the end. Surprise of Florida, and you know, they
Speaker 3: have a screening process. You know, they have to a
Speaker 3: lot of cases, they have to go through I also
Speaker 3: applied to the CRU and then between them and they
Speaker 3: collaborated with each other.
Speaker 1: And that was the Broward County Conviction Review Unit, headed
Speaker 1: up by Assistant State Attorney Ariel dembie Berger Brandon. When
Speaker 1: you started working with the CRU on Sydney's case, what
Speaker 1: stood out to you? What were the biggest red flags.
Speaker 4: In Sydney's case. Unfortunately, just like one read of the
Speaker 4: trial transcripts, they aren't very long, and there were all
Speaker 4: these holes, these things that didn't make sense. It's like,
Speaker 4: how did this person even become a suspect in the
Speaker 4: first place. It's not until you really dig into the
Speaker 4: police reports, the depositions, and the discovery that's kind of
Speaker 4: behind the scenes that the jury isn't always privy to.
Speaker 4: When you get down to the bottom of the facts.
Speaker 4: In Sydney's case, the facts overwhelmingly speak of discrepancies rather
Speaker 4: than corroboration of guilt. And so when you see the
Speaker 4: specific facts in Sydney's case and how they just don't
Speaker 4: line up right, Nothing added up. And that's not even
Speaker 4: taking into consideration Sidney's alibi. This crime happened on Father's Day,
Speaker 4: and he was at a Father's Day gathering that had many,
Speaker 4: many people that corroborated that either through trial testimony and
Speaker 4: or deposition testimony. No physical evidence, no other corroborating witness identifications.
Speaker 4: All that the state had in this case was one
Speaker 4: eyewitness identification.
Speaker 1: And as we talked about earlier, that eyewitness identification was
Speaker 1: obviously tainted. What did you learn when you dug deeper
Speaker 1: into that process.
Speaker 4: We had two separate eyewitness identification experts and everything relevant
Speaker 4: to Sydney's identification, and they both identified double digit issues
Speaker 4: pertaining to the identification, both the victim's ability to perceive
Speaker 4: the event at the convenience store, but then also the
Speaker 4: way that the lineup was composed and administered by the police.
Speaker 4: They came back with very similar reports citing very similar
Speaker 4: issues that have contributed to hundreds and hundreds of people
Speaker 4: being exonerated based on eyewitness identification evidence across the country.
Speaker 4: There was no identification of Sydney made by either of
Speaker 4: the victims in the first lineup, and so what's problematic
Speaker 4: in the second lineup where Sidney was identified by one
Speaker 4: of the two victims, is that Sidney was the only
Speaker 4: person that's in both lineups. Because of the way that
Speaker 4: the lineup is composed, this one photo visa via the
Speaker 4: other five sticks out to them, and so it could
Speaker 4: be an in cater to them that police are signaling
Speaker 4: and drawing their attention into that photo, and in this case,
Speaker 4: that photo was Sydney's photo.
Speaker 1: I thought it was really interesting to the during the
Speaker 1: reinvestigation that you interviewed Vincent Wright and Anicia Johnson, who
Speaker 1: were the original victims of this crime.
Speaker 4: I think Miss Johnson and mister Ray were very forthcoming
Speaker 4: in the information that they provided to us. They were
Speaker 4: quite honestly astonished that Sidney, irrespective of whether he committed
Speaker 4: the crime, that he was still in prison for this,
Speaker 4: and we appreciated their willingness to speak to us and
Speaker 4: provide that kind of context to us to understand from
Speaker 4: their perspective what happened.
Speaker 1: So on March ninth, twenty twenty three, the Innocence Project
Speaker 1: of Florida and the Conviction Review Unit presented all of
Speaker 1: their findings and filed emotion for post conviction relief. And
Speaker 1: then Sidney, while you were waiting for your hearing to
Speaker 1: come up, you get some really great news from television
Speaker 1: of all places.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what happened was ab By eleven thirty, they came
Speaker 3: and told me the judge want to see me. So
Speaker 3: I kind of baffled. Why would I judge want to
Speaker 3: see me? I know the hearings on Thursday. But they
Speaker 3: took me downstairs to see the judge. But then they
Speaker 3: say eleven third was too early because the hearing is
Speaker 3: set for two o'clock. So they took me back to
Speaker 3: the cell and I went and laid down on Then
Speaker 3: I heard the guys shower. Hey, I think I see
Speaker 3: your picture on TV. So I'm saying, why have my
Speaker 3: pictures on TV? Why? You know? I didn't even see it.
Speaker 3: It came out. It wasn't there. So I called my sister.
Speaker 3: Then when I called my sister, I asked what is
Speaker 3: going on? Then she just w was start crying on
Speaker 3: the phone, and then I went right to I was
Speaker 3: in Courtina at two o'clock to be released.
Speaker 1: And so on March thirteenth, twenty twenty three, you walked
Speaker 1: out of prison a free man. What did that feel like?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know, I can't even know what to say.
Speaker 3: I was in tears, you know it. It was kind
Speaker 3: of a bittersweet because you know, my father wasn't there.
Speaker 3: You know, he died four years ago, so other than that,
Speaker 3: that was only a bittersweet part of it, you know,
Speaker 3: being released that he wasn't there to see this happen. No,
Speaker 3: I'm still really you know, it's only been thirty five
Speaker 3: days I've been home, so I'm still trying to grab
Speaker 3: to you know, it's still unbelievable. I am free after thirty.
Speaker 1: Four years Brandon, as Sydney told us, he'd been working
Speaker 1: on his appeals for a long time without success before
Speaker 1: connecting with you and the cru What do you think
Speaker 1: was the magic ingredient this third time around?
Speaker 4: Well, the magic ingredient, ironically, is the current state of
Speaker 4: the State Attorney's Office in Broward County. You have Ril
Speaker 4: Demie Berger and her staff at the Conviction Review Unit,
Speaker 4: and you have the elected State Attorney, Harold Pryor, who
Speaker 4: are truly seeking justice. I think that that is the difference.
Speaker 4: They have an open mind and they follow the evidence,
Speaker 4: and that's what they did in Sydney's case.
Speaker 1: What's next for you, Sydney, what are your hopes and
Speaker 1: plans for the future.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I'm still working though things I always want,
Speaker 3: like I have culinary skills and the food truck is
Speaker 3: emine that I you know, roughly one day that might happen.
Speaker 3: But you know, like I say, take capitally, take finance.
Speaker 3: You know, it's a process. So whatever, just try to
Speaker 3: keep brand opportunity to come.
Speaker 1: Just take it and Brandon, I understand that under Florida law,
Speaker 1: Sydney is unfortunately not even eligible for compensation from the
Speaker 1: state because he had those prior convictions we talked about
Speaker 1: in the beginning of this episode.
Speaker 4: That's what the state statute says, is called the Clean
Speaker 4: Hands Provision as it it's now essentially says that if
Speaker 4: you have a prior felony conviction, you're not eligible for
Speaker 4: compensation in a subsequent wrongful conviction, matter how much time
Speaker 4: or whatever the circumstances are for that wrongful conviction. You know,
Speaker 4: the data says that if you have a prior conviction
Speaker 4: of any kind, you're fifty percent more likely to subsequently
Speaker 4: be convicted for a crime that you didn't commit in
Speaker 4: a later case. There's a bill pending in the Florida
Speaker 4: legislature right now that would eradicate that requirement, if you will,
Speaker 4: and the Instence Project of Florida is working to fix
Speaker 4: that to make people like Sidney who have prior convictions
Speaker 4: eligible for compensation for the wrongful conviction cases.
Speaker 1: Well, I understand that the IPF has started a go
Speaker 1: Fundme page for Sydney. We'll have a link to that
Speaker 1: on our bio page for our listeners who'd like to
Speaker 1: help Sydney get a new start. Who knows, maybe start
Speaker 1: up capital for that food truck. And now at the
Speaker 1: end of every podcast, we have what's called closing arguments,
Speaker 1: just your final thoughts, whatever you'd like to say to listeners. Brandon,
Speaker 1: why don't you start and then go to Sydney to
Speaker 1: close things out.
Speaker 4: Wrongful convictions absolutely happen. It takes a lot of diligence
Speaker 4: to overturn them. It takes a lot of seeking the truth,
Speaker 4: seeking facts. And in Sydney's case, it was clear from
Speaker 4: the very beginning that he was innocent, what he told
Speaker 4: everyone all along, and the system got it wrong thirty
Speaker 4: four years ago. And there's no amount of effort, no
Speaker 4: amount of money, that can get him that time back
Speaker 4: with his family, with his daughter, with his mother and
Speaker 4: father and sister. But the State Attorney's office in this
Speaker 4: case ultimately did the right thing. They ultimately pursued justice.
Speaker 4: They themselves sought the facts and the truth, and with
Speaker 4: a lot of diligence and hard work, they saw that
Speaker 4: Sydney was in fact telling the truth all along, that
Speaker 4: he was innocent. And I really do commend the work
Speaker 4: that State Attorney's offices are doing across the country to
Speaker 4: realize when they got things wrong in the past, to
Speaker 4: take accountability for that, and to do whatever it takes
Speaker 4: to rectify the situation so that people like Sydney can
Speaker 4: come home to their families and live the rest of
Speaker 4: their life in freedom.
Speaker 3: Well, like I say, I can't say it enough, that
Speaker 3: fantastic job. Like I say to say that you know
Speaker 3: the new current state attorney, it's entire staff mis Bergier
Speaker 3: and also Brandon Jeth Miller and the whole staff of
Speaker 3: the Innocent Project. But a close statement is that throughout
Speaker 3: this process, I will always tell the person you can
Speaker 3: never give up hope. It's always the chance. It's always
Speaker 3: a slim hope, a chance of anything in life that
Speaker 3: we does. It was a hard fault. I was twenty two,
Speaker 3: But I'm not mad with a justice system. I can't
Speaker 3: be mad because you know that's something that's needed in
Speaker 3: our country, you know it is if it weren't with
Speaker 3: justice system. But I think it's broken. But I think
Speaker 3: we're on the right track. That we got prosecuted throughout
Speaker 3: the country and justices throughout the country that they trying
Speaker 3: to make changees other states that you got organizations, innocent projects.
Speaker 3: You know, they're doing a lot of hard work to
Speaker 3: try to reclify some of these things that's going on
Speaker 3: in our great state of Florida. It's so much that
Speaker 3: need to be done. But like I say, I'm just
Speaker 3: so grateful that I had the opportunity to be free.
Speaker 3: It was a long road. My thing is to help
Speaker 3: help people to overcome the things that I went through,
Speaker 3: and I hope I can be some kind of light
Speaker 3: and I own it for them, for the youth as well,
Speaker 3: because it's needed in our country.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your guest
Speaker 1: host Lauren Bright Pitchecko. I'd like to thank executive producers
Speaker 1: Jason Flahm and Kevin Wardis for inviting me to be here.
Speaker 1: Special thanks also to our wonderful production team Connor Hall,
Speaker 1: Annie Chelsea, Lyla Robinson, and Jeff Cliburn. The music in
Speaker 1: this production comes from three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, as well as Lava for Good on all
Speaker 1: three platforms. Be online at Lauren Bright Pacheco, and you
Speaker 1: can find my podcasts Murder and Oregon, Murder and Illinois,
Speaker 1: and my latest Murder Miami wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
Speaker 1: in association with Signal Company Number one