Speaker 1: On April ninth, nineteen ninety seven, sometime before one am,
Speaker 1: two Buffalo police officers were shot, one in the ankle
Speaker 1: while the other was killed. The surviving officer gave a
Speaker 1: description that was echoed by two others, a light skinned
Speaker 1: mail about five to nine in dark clothing. That morning,
Speaker 1: nearly a half mile from the scene, police found some
Speaker 1: personal effects belonging to Jonathan Parker, a local young man
Speaker 1: with a criminal record who was in the middle of
Speaker 1: fighting another case. And even though Jonathan didn't match the description,
Speaker 1: he was identified by three alleged eyewitnesses, while the surviving
Speaker 1: officer would not join them. This is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 2: Hey, y'all, it's Maggie. I'm here to tell you about
Speaker 2: a new show I've been working on for the past
Speaker 2: two years. It's called Graves County and it's an investmentative
Speaker 2: series about the murder of a young mom in Kentucky
Speaker 2: and just how far our legal system will go in
Speaker 2: order to find someone to blame. Here is the trailer
Speaker 2: for Graves County.
Speaker 1: All I know is what I've been told, and that's
Speaker 1: a half truth, is a whole lie.
Speaker 2: For almost a decade, the murder of an eighteen year
Speaker 2: old girl from a small town in Graves County, Kentucky,
Speaker 2: went unsolved until a local homemaker, a journalist, and a
Speaker 2: handful of girls came forward with a story. I'm telling you,
Speaker 2: we know, we know a story that law enforcement used
Speaker 2: to convict six people, and that got the citizen investigator
Speaker 2: on national TV.
Speaker 3: Through sheer persistence and nerve, this Kentucky housewife helped give
Speaker 3: justice to Jessica Current.
Speaker 2: My name is Maggie Freeling. I'm a Pulitzer Prize winning
Speaker 2: journalist producer, and I wouldn't be here if the truth
Speaker 2: were that easy to find.
Speaker 4: I did not know her, and I did not kill her,
Speaker 4: or raid or burn or any of that other stuff
Speaker 4: that y'all said.
Speaker 5: They literally made me say that I took a match
Speaker 5: and struck and threw it on her. They made me
Speaker 5: say that I wore guests on.
Speaker 2: Her from Lava for Good. This is Graves County, a
Speaker 2: show about just how far our legal system will go
Speaker 2: in order to find someone to blame MARKA.
Speaker 4: Y'all gotta work the hell up. Bad things happens to
Speaker 4: good people and small towns.
Speaker 2: Listen to Graves County in the Bone Valley, Feed on
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 2: and to binge the entire season at free, subscribe to
Speaker 2: Lava for Good plus on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction, where we've got a story
Speaker 1: that's been on our radar and living rent free in
Speaker 1: my head since we interviewed Keyante Rix back in the
Speaker 1: summer of twenty twenty, and we've held back on it
Speaker 1: as we were waiting for the case to make its
Speaker 1: way through court. But we can't wait any longer, So
Speaker 1: calling in now from a prison in upstate New York,
Speaker 1: we've got the man himself, Jonathan Parker. Thank you for calling.
Speaker 4: In, Jonathan, no problem, I appreciate you.
Speaker 1: And joining him. We have the paralegal who worked on
Speaker 1: Kanty Rix's case, Carl Deviver, and well, we're going to
Speaker 1: link Kyante's story in the episode description. You have to
Speaker 1: hear it to believe it. Carl, Thanks for being here.
Speaker 5: Thanks for being somebody willing to do something to help Jonathan.
Speaker 1: And Carl didn't start out as a paralegal.
Speaker 5: I had been a police offer shake twenty seven years.
Speaker 5: I didn't like what I saw wrongfully convicted people riding
Speaker 5: away in jail for crime. So I did not commit
Speaker 5: and felt that I should use what energy I have
Speaker 5: to try to seek vindication. So I studied law and
Speaker 5: switched into that.
Speaker 1: Also, we have Jonathan's attorney, Stephen Metcalf. Stephen, thanks for
Speaker 1: being here absolutely. So let's start by hearing about Jonathan's
Speaker 1: childhood in Buffalo. How was it growing up there?
Speaker 4: I grew up on the east side of Buffalo, the Projects,
Speaker 4: about the age of seven or eight years old. About
Speaker 4: the purchase the house which was three blocks away from
Speaker 4: the projects. At the age of about unteen or fourteen,
Speaker 4: I started getting into problems in school. Maybe no disruptive
Speaker 4: in class. I didn't get into too many fights, just
Speaker 4: you know, general things that teenage boys do. So they're
Speaker 4: sitting to was known as Buffalo Alternative School, into more
Speaker 4: trouble and I was placed in a group of homes
Speaker 4: was known as Lincoln Hall from fifteen to sixteen. After
Speaker 4: being released from Lincoln Hall again went to Buffalo Tournative
Speaker 4: High School. Once you do a lot of times, you
Speaker 4: returned to a normal high school of South Park High
Speaker 4: School didn't want to accept me because I was a
Speaker 4: year behind the man and I kind of dropped out
Speaker 4: of high school, at which point I got involved in
Speaker 4: quote unquote the street life.
Speaker 1: If anyone ever wanted to know what the praise school
Speaker 1: to prison pipeline means, it sounds like Jonathan is the
Speaker 1: living proof of it. During the crack epidemic, no less,
Speaker 1: and this area in East Buffalo, specifically on Gerard Place,
Speaker 1: was an open air drug market which came along with
Speaker 1: extreme poverty and occasional bursts of violence.
Speaker 4: It was a violent period of the city of Buffalo.
Speaker 4: A lot of crime, young men involved in the street life,
Speaker 4: shooting at each other, Southern crack, coquaine, marijuana, things of
Speaker 4: that nature. The police just because they see you on
Speaker 4: the street, young guys know they would pick you up,
Speaker 4: shake you down. And I was long to frequent that neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Well, as we all know, the crack epidemic ushered in
Speaker 1: so called tough on crime policies and politicians and legislation
Speaker 1: that instituted mandatory minimum sentences, funded task forces in the
Speaker 1: so called high traffic areas, and any means necessary attitude
Speaker 1: toward removing anyone they suspected of being involved in drug trafficking.
Speaker 3: Every time I investigator speak to anybody about this, they've
Speaker 3: said the same thing. Jonathan Parker was someone who they
Speaker 3: wanted off the streets by any means. Apparently that meant
Speaker 3: to them at this time, and.
Speaker 1: As we've seen, that could mean framing someone for murder.
Speaker 1: And the first attempt on Jonathan came within January nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety seven murder of a man named Leroy Lewis.
Speaker 3: Listen to this defendant of Pella. Jonathan Parker was convicted
Speaker 3: in the US District Court for the Western District of
Speaker 3: New York of killing Leroy Lewis while engaged in a
Speaker 3: conspiracy to possess with intended distribute crack. On appeal, Parker
Speaker 3: challenges the sufficiency of the government's evidence. The government produced
Speaker 3: no direct or physical evidence establishing Parker as the shooter,
Speaker 3: no eyewitness testimony to the shooting, any statements concerning the
Speaker 3: circumstances of the shooting. No evidence was introduced as the motive,
Speaker 3: no murder weapon was found. The government's evidence was entirely circumstantial.
Speaker 3: It was a statement base upon a statement upon a statement,
Speaker 3: but nothing to tie Jonathan to the murder other than
Speaker 3: lay opinion testimony. Specifically, whether a small bulge in Parker's
Speaker 3: jacket viewed from a distance was a handgun, and hey,
Speaker 3: he looked a little suspicious after the fact. Basically, Jonathan
Speaker 3: got convicted and they didn't have shit.
Speaker 1: So that conviction was overturned in two thousand and two.
Speaker 1: But they had already buried Jonathan with two other sentences,
Speaker 1: only one of which was based in fact, which was
Speaker 1: a weapons possession charge. And the same officers who were
Speaker 1: shot in this case, they were the ones who arrested
Speaker 1: Jonathan and he pleaded guilty.
Speaker 4: Yes, I have played guilty to the weapons possessor's charges.
Speaker 4: You no more than a three and a half to
Speaker 4: nine sentence. I believe it might have been that morning
Speaker 4: from an interview with that with a probation officer to
Speaker 4: do a probation report to prepare it for my centisces.
Speaker 1: So Jonathan had this probation officer's business card in his
Speaker 1: jacket that night, which he wore to a party which
Speaker 1: was about a five minute walk from the crime scene
Speaker 1: in this case, but according to both Jonathan and witnesses
Speaker 1: from the party, he had left his jacket, his hat,
Speaker 1: and his beeper at the party before leaving.
Speaker 4: Actually, I left the resident in a cab with my
Speaker 4: cousin to my home with the attention of returning to
Speaker 4: the resident. I never returned to the residents because I
Speaker 4: was supposed to be meeting up with a young woman.
Speaker 4: So my cousin left and I came to our house
Speaker 4: around the corner from this in a cab. When I'm
Speaker 4: pulling up in a cab, they literally are scolar in
Speaker 4: the neighborhood. She got in the cab and we went
Speaker 4: back to my own.
Speaker 1: By the time he was picking up this young lady
Speaker 1: around one am, the shooting had already occurred near the
Speaker 1: corner of Northampton and East Parade now. According to Officer
Speaker 1: Michael Martinez, at around twelve forty five am, he and
Speaker 1: his partner, Charles Skip McDougall spotted a suspicious individual who
Speaker 1: they believed might have stolen a car.
Speaker 5: They say when they hailed this person that he simply
Speaker 5: opened fire on them, hit the one in the foot,
Speaker 5: and then shot McDougall and killed him.
Speaker 4: Martinez he actually gave the initial description in it. It was
Speaker 4: a light skinned male of proximmand five nine of maybe
Speaker 4: a shade removed from being darve skinned for sure of
Speaker 4: nowhere near five. I'm five six and a half and.
Speaker 1: Officer Martinez knew what Jonathan looked like from prior arrests,
Speaker 1: and we can only presume that he would have interested
Speaker 1: in catching his own shooter. Right. And two more witnesses,
Speaker 1: James Gaines and Event Pryor, agreed this shooter was a
Speaker 1: light skinned guy about five foot nine, and they added
Speaker 1: that he wore dark clothing and white sneakers, and they
Speaker 1: said he had run up East Parade toward Fujuran. So
Speaker 1: police scoured the area looking for someone meeting that description,
Speaker 1: as well as witnesses and evidence. And it appears that
Speaker 1: the narrative about Jonathan may have begun to emerge with
Speaker 1: the discovery of his jacket, hat and beeper, the ones
Speaker 1: that he left at the party.
Speaker 4: They say they found in a backyard. So May the
Speaker 4: District Attorney had a witness said that maybe an hour
Speaker 4: or two prior to this incident, that I was in
Speaker 4: a house full of people and then I left out
Speaker 4: of the house, leaving my jacket in that house and
Speaker 4: never returned. The house was located near the corner of
Speaker 4: Fugean and Fillmore, unless they founded in a backyard on
Speaker 4: the next street over from fuge which is oben Well.
Speaker 1: No one has offered information about how these items left
Speaker 1: the house party, but Jonathan's probation officer's business card was
Speaker 1: inside the jacket. At this point, it seems the investigation
Speaker 1: steered away from whoever Officer Martinez, James Gaines, and Yvette
Speaker 1: Fryar had described and focused in on Jonathan, who had
Speaker 1: just pled guilty. The weapons charges and the Leroy Lewis
Speaker 1: charges were still looming.
Speaker 5: I have several cases like that where they say, he's
Speaker 5: a nasty street kid, let's get him off the streets.
Speaker 5: We know he didn't kill Skip, but he's a trouble
Speaker 5: let's get him off the streets.
Speaker 4: I actually remember, ironically, I was sitting in the house
Speaker 4: with one of my cousins and we were watching the
Speaker 4: news when they first booke about the incident, and my
Speaker 4: cousin made it common to the extent of, you know,
Speaker 4: she felt sorry for whoever they ended up picking up
Speaker 4: for this because of the climate of things in Buffalo
Speaker 4: just prior to this, I want to say, maybe within
Speaker 4: a year, so a year and a half half, it
Speaker 4: has so where young black males were still being ended
Speaker 4: plice to call.
Speaker 1: But if they were going to get Jonathan, they needed
Speaker 1: a lot more than just finding his belongings nearly a
Speaker 1: half a mile away from the crime scene. So it
Speaker 1: was at this time that lead investigator Andre Ortiz approached
Speaker 1: another man known to frequent the open air drug market. Now,
Speaker 1: this guy was named Aaron Yarborough, and he was known
Speaker 1: to sell random items, and according to subsequent statements, he
Speaker 1: had told them that he was in the pharmacy on
Speaker 1: Northampton and Fillmore when he heard the gunshots. But something
Speaker 1: which we're going to get into later led him to
Speaker 1: tell a very different story on April tenth.
Speaker 3: This is a statement that he gave to the police
Speaker 3: at the time, and anytime he refers to Parker, he
Speaker 3: calls him Face. Well, I was on the corner of
Speaker 3: Northampton in East Parade when I had seen Face Now.
Speaker 3: I asked him if he wanted to buy a CD player.
Speaker 3: He said yeah, but the price that we talked about
Speaker 3: wasn't going to fulfill. So I went up East Parade.
Speaker 3: We seen Junior sitting in a white Chevy Caprice and
Speaker 3: he agreed to one hundred dollars. So this is a
Speaker 3: CD player and he paid me the money and then
Speaker 3: I went down the street towards Northampton and East Parade
Speaker 3: where I heard some shots when I had seen face
Speaker 3: ran past me holding a gun at his side.
Speaker 4: Soon after that, I've seen my picture on the news
Speaker 4: saying that I was assister. So I got in contact
Speaker 4: with Tourny Paul Hermy, and he didn't have much detail.
Speaker 4: It forged me to turn myself in.
Speaker 6: If I had nothing to high, but I didn't have
Speaker 6: anything now, so I asked him to come pick me
Speaker 6: up and take me to turn myself in. I was
Speaker 6: arrested April eleventh, nineteen ninety.
Speaker 4: Seven, and I've been in prison ever since.
Speaker 3: At approximately twenty fifteen hours on April eighteen, nineteen ninety seven,
Speaker 3: Aaron Yarborough stated that himself and Jonathan Parker were outside
Speaker 3: his uncle's house on Josephine Street when the police raided it.
Speaker 3: Jonathan Parker pointed to officer McDougall and stated, that's the
Speaker 3: guy who arrested me for the gun. I'm going to
Speaker 3: get that motherfucker. So they used Aaron to basically show
Speaker 3: a history or a motive.
Speaker 7: Here.
Speaker 3: April twenty second, Aaron Yarborough was put into a Buffalo
Speaker 3: Hilton Hotel, Room two ten. This is a guy who's
Speaker 3: selling CD players walking down the street now is getting
Speaker 3: put up in a hotel for who knows how long
Speaker 3: to make a very easy statement.
Speaker 1: And that's what we'll find out this It was far
Speaker 1: better treatment than he was originally offered, but a few
Speaker 1: statements from a guy with substance abuse issues is not
Speaker 1: going to cut it. So on April twenty eighth, police
Speaker 1: approached Aaron Lott and his wife Cassandra Salinas, who had
Speaker 1: an encounter with officers MacDougall and Martinez on the night
Speaker 1: of April eighth.
Speaker 7: Ten forty five.
Speaker 3: Aaron Lott is sitting in a parking lot with our
Speaker 3: driver's license while Cassandra's in work. He gets a ticket,
Speaker 3: the car gets impounded. McDougal and Martinez are the officers
Speaker 3: on that ticket and on the impound documentation. Cassandra gets
Speaker 3: out of work at about eleven fifteen. Her and Aaron
Speaker 3: then make their way to the police precinct. Then they
Speaker 3: never actually got the car back that night.
Speaker 1: However, it was stated in a report that officer Martinez
Speaker 1: had recognized Lot and Selinas as they passed each other
Speaker 1: on Northampton Street moments before the shooting because they were
Speaker 1: in the same car in which Lot had been ticket earlier.
Speaker 1: This is allegedly how they knew to approach Lot for
Speaker 1: a statement. But as the narrative goes, Aaron and Cassandra,
Speaker 1: as well as a driver passed the scene in a
Speaker 1: Ford Explorer, not a Hyundai Excel, and to top it off,
Speaker 1: the Ford Explorer had tinted windows. It's only discovered many
Speaker 1: years later that Aaron Lott was exchanging testimony for leniency
Speaker 1: in his own charges. You probably saw that coming. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: he gave a statement nineteen days after the crime that
Speaker 1: as they rolled down Northampton, he and Cassandra saw Jonathan
Speaker 1: crossing the street. He yelled yo to the car as
Speaker 1: they passed, and they turned around to witness the shooting
Speaker 1: through the Explorer's back window.
Speaker 5: And the driver of the truck. He was never called.
Speaker 5: We presume that since the cops had no hold on him,
Speaker 5: it wasn't facing anything, they wouldn't testify. It might even
Speaker 5: be a Brady issue. We don't know what he originally
Speaker 5: told the cops. We just know he never testified.
Speaker 4: All the witnesses aged some type of ulterior motive, with
Speaker 4: the exception.
Speaker 5: Of Aaron Lotte's wife. She basically agreed with what said
Speaker 5: the storers lined up very well because it was orchestrated, with.
Speaker 1: The community and media calling for blood, and the context
Speaker 1: of Jonathan's weapon's possession, guilty plea and other pending murder case.
Speaker 1: The district attorney sought the death penalty, and as we
Speaker 1: often see in capital cases, a ton of circumstantial evidence
Speaker 1: is produced to try to ensure a win, but without
Speaker 1: the support of a relatively small amount of consequential direct evidence,
Speaker 1: the circumstantial evidence tends to lose its meaning. For example,
Speaker 1: there was James Gaines and Evette Fryar who echoed Officer
Speaker 1: Martinez's description and confirmed that the assailant ran in the
Speaker 1: direction of where Jonathan's belongings were discovered, granting that evidence
Speaker 1: of validity. And then along came Aaron Yarborough, without the
Speaker 1: critically important context of how his statement came to.
Speaker 4: Be, He said that just prior to this incident that
Speaker 4: he was attempted to sell me. I believe you said
Speaker 4: it was some CDs and I don't even think I
Speaker 4: had seen him that day.
Speaker 1: Yarborough also said that he saw Jonathan running from the
Speaker 1: scene with a gun in the direction of where police
Speaker 1: found his belongings. Again granting a cent of validity to
Speaker 1: that evidence, and then, unbeknownst to the defense, Aaron Lott
Speaker 1: was trading testimony for a time cut when he parroted
Speaker 1: what he'd already said in his statement and the grand
Speaker 1: jury then Cassandra bolstered his credibility with what they claimed
Speaker 1: to see while being driven down Northampton that same night.
Speaker 4: There was the driver, which I'm still confused as to
Speaker 4: why he was never called to testify, other than maybe
Speaker 4: the fact that he wasn't being cooperative like Aaron Yardborough
Speaker 4: and air a.
Speaker 1: Lot, or maybe he didn't actually exist also possible. Then
Speaker 1: the police officer Michael Martinez testified to the narrative of
Speaker 1: the shooting, but would not positively I d Jonathan.
Speaker 5: He wasn't sure that it was Parker. Even on the stands,
Speaker 5: he wouldn't lie and say it was definitely Parker. It
Speaker 5: could have been Parker. So he's he's one of the
Speaker 5: not willing to totally perjure himself cops.
Speaker 1: And Martinez was cross examined with his initial description.
Speaker 4: I was positive I was going to get acquitted. I
Speaker 4: know I have anything to do with it, and how
Speaker 4: already came into the prison system for my other weapon
Speaker 4: possessed his charges. But I was confident I was going
Speaker 4: to be leaving out of that court room to finish
Speaker 4: my censes and eventually be home to my family.
Speaker 1: And maybe he would have, but it seems like his attorney,
Speaker 1: Jim Harrington, didn't want to take that gamble, so in closing,
Speaker 1: he tried a strategy that was not aimed at acquittal.
Speaker 1: In fact, the opposite.
Speaker 5: Harrington was a death penalty attorney, and he said so
Speaker 5: in his affidavit that his job was not so much
Speaker 5: as to acquit Jonathan, but to keep him alive. So
Speaker 5: trying to create sympathy or pity from the jury, He said,
Speaker 5: Jonathan did it, but it was in the spur of
Speaker 5: the moment. He didn't plan on doing it, which is all. Yes,
Speaker 5: he never did it at all.
Speaker 4: I made him very weird that I was innocent of
Speaker 4: this crime. I'm sitting in the courtroom and it was
Speaker 4: only by sheer will that I did act a fool.
Speaker 4: At the time, my defense wasn't a defense geared towards
Speaker 4: guilty innocence. It was geared towards life with death. I've
Speaker 4: got life without the possibility of growl, which is just death.
Speaker 4: By incarcerations. I've had close to thirty years to think
Speaker 4: about it. But when you go back to the initial description,
Speaker 4: you have a police officer, who we know are trained observers,
Speaker 4: who said that the perpetrator in his crime was a
Speaker 4: liceicined bail five nine and these are things that are
Speaker 4: reasonable tryer in fact, when you say, okay, you got
Speaker 4: a young man sitting in the court room in front
Speaker 4: of you who is maybe a shade removed from being
Speaker 4: darb skinned, but three or four shades removed from being licekined.
Speaker 4: And again, like I said, I'm five to six maybe
Speaker 4: five six and a half. Then we go back to
Speaker 4: Latina's being shot on the passenger side of the car,
Speaker 4: but the suspect shooting from the driver side of the car.
Speaker 4: I don't understand how person gets shot in the ankle.
Speaker 4: Then you're saying you found a weapon that's who alleged
Speaker 4: that have been used in this incident at the nine
Speaker 4: milimeter seventeen clock, which is the exact same weapons that
Speaker 4: police officers are issued to carry when they all duty.
Speaker 5: The street version is that McDougal didn't want to be
Speaker 5: dirty anymore. Everybody spoken to says that the cops killed
Speaker 5: Skip because he wanted to go clean and they were
Speaker 5: afraid he'd reveal their antics, so they killed them. Allegedly,
Speaker 5: they took their time getting to the hospital to make
Speaker 5: sure Skip was dead allegedly, but before.
Speaker 1: Carl spoke to anyone, Jonathan did his direct appeal, subsequent appeal,
Speaker 1: and federal havias, which took about twelve years to finally
Speaker 1: all be denied. Twelve long years, during which time the
Speaker 1: lead investigator on this case, Detective Andrea Ortiz, was himself
Speaker 1: arrest in connection with his involvement with a local drug
Speaker 1: trafficking organization headed by an individual named Frankie Johnson.
Speaker 3: Detective or Ties in the Western District of New York
Speaker 3: took a play on a two thousand and four case. Now,
Speaker 3: this plea agreement is ten pages. This was the most
Speaker 3: substantive document that I could find with regards to this case,
Speaker 3: because everything else I searched for was under seal, and
Speaker 3: the plea agreement essentially lays out what he pled to
Speaker 3: fraud and related activity in connection with computers or Tees.
Speaker 1: Agreed to plead guilty to accessing a Justice Department criminal
Speaker 1: database and then sharing that information with this notorious drug
Speaker 1: kingpin Frankie Johnson. Now who knows what it was used for.
Speaker 1: I mean, my mind doesn't go to a good place.
Speaker 3: If he's going to utilize his access as a Buffalo
Speaker 3: police officer and passed that information along to someone who's
Speaker 3: not a police or someone who may be in the streets,
Speaker 3: and that was alleged here.
Speaker 7: There has to be a history there.
Speaker 3: And there's probably a bunch of other things that are
Speaker 3: being exchanged as well. It just so happened to be
Speaker 3: that this is what they caught, or this what was
Speaker 3: on their radar, or this is what they were able
Speaker 3: to say was ultimately past to someone who shouldn't have
Speaker 3: gotten this information. And also, in order for the FEDS
Speaker 3: to take on a case like this, there has to
Speaker 3: be substantial ties to criminal activity that far exceed this
Speaker 3: for this to even become an issue in the Fed world.
Speaker 7: This is a nominal crime that he took a plea to.
Speaker 1: According to his plea deal, he'd either do one year
Speaker 1: in prison, pay a fine, or both. A sweet deal
Speaker 1: when you think about it, for his role in this
Speaker 1: drug organization for which guys like Jonathan may end up
Speaker 1: in and out of prison for life.
Speaker 3: So whatever this guy was able to really work out,
Speaker 3: it seems like it was actually a slap on the wrist.
Speaker 3: The maximum possible sentences are usually just statutory and don't
Speaker 3: actually apply.
Speaker 4: I can't honestly speak accurately to what was going on
Speaker 4: with those officers at the time, but as evidently something
Speaker 4: was going on because I say, aside from the technive
Speaker 4: war piece, there was another police officers and detectives. They
Speaker 4: were also brought up on.
Speaker 1: Corruption charges, which begins to grant a sent of validity
Speaker 1: to that street version of events that Karl was talking about.
Speaker 1: And then Aaron Yarborough came forward to shed even more
Speaker 1: light on the situation.
Speaker 4: Somewhere around twenty twelve, Aaron Yarborough actually ran into a
Speaker 4: family member of mine and was saying that he had
Speaker 4: got sick and he was likely to have long to
Speaker 4: live and he was feeling guilty about what he had
Speaker 4: done and he just wanted to tell the truth about it.
Speaker 5: Aaron Yarborough, who now has passed away, said that he
Speaker 5: was at a drug store nearby and see anything, but
Speaker 5: the cops told him exactly what they wanted him to
Speaker 5: say he saw.
Speaker 3: So Yarborough actually gives a sworn statement wherever. He says
Speaker 3: that testimony that I then offered was false and totally untrue.
Speaker 3: I was told what to say that I had seen.
Speaker 3: He basically says, I did not see Jonathan Parker at
Speaker 3: or near the scene of the murder. I definitely did
Speaker 3: not see Jonathan Parker shoot a Buffalo Police officer. I
Speaker 3: had been around the corner store a block away from
Speaker 3: the shooting when I heard the noise. I looked out
Speaker 3: to see what was happening. I saw many police cars
Speaker 3: going by, so I quickly left the area. Later that evening,
Speaker 3: homicide Detective Andre Ortiz and a bunch of other cops
Speaker 3: captured me. He actually uses the word captured me.
Speaker 5: Detective Ortiese had threatened him that if he didn't lie
Speaker 5: and that he saw Jonathan do the shooting, that he
Speaker 5: would take him out in the cornfields and blow his
Speaker 5: head off.
Speaker 3: He said that he knew the reputation of Detective Ortz.
Speaker 3: He was afraid for his life, so he agreed to
Speaker 3: see whatever they told me to say. At Jonathan Parker's
Speaker 3: murder triumph. Now that Detective Ortiz is no longer a
Speaker 3: Buffalo Police detective and therefore can no longer kill me
Speaker 3: for telling the truth. I am now willing to tell
Speaker 3: the absolute truth.
Speaker 1: By the time Yarboro came clean, Jonathan had connected with
Speaker 1: Keantay Ricks in prison, who put him in contact with
Speaker 1: Carl and Stephen, who began reinvestigating the case and recording
Speaker 1: these affidavits. So they also visited Aaron Lott.
Speaker 5: According to Aaron lott subsequent statement, there was a Ford
Speaker 5: Explorer that had gone by. According to the witnesses, they
Speaker 5: were all the way down to the next life on
Speaker 5: Fillmore when they heard the shots. They didn't see anything.
Speaker 5: Aaron Lott. He was facing federal prison time for drugs.
Speaker 5: The police said, we'll make it go away if you'll
Speaker 5: say you're a block back and saw this whole thing,
Speaker 5: which he did.
Speaker 1: But now we get to how they knew to approach
Speaker 1: Aaron Lott for testimony. Remember, he wasn't in the Hyundai
Speaker 1: Excel that Officer Martinez had seen him in earlier that night.
Speaker 1: He was in this Ford Explorer with tinted windows. It
Speaker 1: appears that Aaron Lott had already been cooperating with the Feds,
Speaker 1: but strangely that wasn't information that was readily available even
Speaker 1: if trial counsel wanted to find it, or anyone else
Speaker 1: for that matter.
Speaker 7: I'm looking for Aaron Lott. Why do I not.
Speaker 3: Find anything in Aaron Lot Because I discovered that he's
Speaker 3: going by his criminal cases Aaron Davis, and I have
Speaker 3: confirmed with the District Attorney's office that Aaron Davis in
Speaker 3: this key is Aaron Lott. And specifically, the plea agreement
Speaker 3: that I received with regards to Aaron Lott pertains to
Speaker 3: a nineteen ninety five Western District case. But on the
Speaker 3: plea there is a actual stamp about his plea agreement
Speaker 3: being in December of nineteen ninety seven. So here's the
Speaker 3: entry of guilt from sometime in nineteen ninety three and
Speaker 3: continuing through September ninety four. Defendant Aaron Davis aka Aaron
Speaker 3: Lott knowingly, intentionally and willfully agree to assist Dexter Hennings
Speaker 3: and others in purchasing, storing, and selling cocaine and cocaine
Speaker 3: based crack in Buffalo, New York and elsewhere in the
Speaker 3: Western District. Forty one grams of cocaine base and one
Speaker 3: hundred and thirty grams of cocaine are the amounts in
Speaker 3: his relevant conduct. Now they were talking about a mandatory
Speaker 3: minimum of five.
Speaker 1: It's the perfect time, actually for me to point out
Speaker 1: the one hundred and one sentencing disparity between crack and
Speaker 1: powder cocaine. Five grams of crack meant a minimum of
Speaker 1: five years, fifty grams carried a minimum of ten years.
Speaker 1: But compared to sentencing for powder cocaine, which was more
Speaker 1: popular in wealthier and wider circles, it would take five
Speaker 1: hundred grams of powder cocaine to trigger the very same
Speaker 1: mandatory five year sentence that someone could get with just
Speaker 1: five grams of crack. Meanwhile, simple possession of even one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty grams of cocaine was just a misdemeanor
Speaker 1: punishable by up to a year in prison. Now, I'll
Speaker 1: let you make your own inferences about why this disparity existed.
Speaker 1: We spoke with Senator Dick Durbin about how he worked
Speaker 1: to correct that disparity with the bill that he proposed,
Speaker 1: which was signed into law in twenty ten. All of
Speaker 1: this fascinating history is on the episode of Righteous Convictions
Speaker 1: where I interviewed Dick Durbin. We're going to link to
Speaker 1: that in the episode description, but back to Aaron Lott.
Speaker 1: It appears that he had cooperated on this nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: five case, yet the plea deal was signed in December
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety seven, and his charges appear to completely ignore
Speaker 1: the trafficking of one hundred and thirty grams of cocaine
Speaker 1: and who knows what else, and instead was focused solely
Speaker 1: on the forty one grams of crack with a minimum
Speaker 1: sentence of five years.
Speaker 3: Now the talk of community or house confinement, there is
Speaker 3: this understanding that he is going to get time towards
Speaker 3: his sentence by not officially going in. And here's what
Speaker 3: it's based on. Check this out. There is a paragraph
Speaker 3: entitled cooperation Paragraph eighteen. Defendant has already cooperated and will
Speaker 3: continue to cooperate with the government by providing complete and
Speaker 3: truthful information regards arding his knowledge of any and all
Speaker 3: criminal activity, whether undertaken by himself or others. So they
Speaker 3: sprinkled all this stuff in there, And what do you
Speaker 3: think he's doing during this time? During this time he
Speaker 3: is cooperating on Jonathan Parker's case.
Speaker 1: In the next paragraph, it stated that the FEDS would
Speaker 1: give him credit against his sentence for cooperation with state
Speaker 1: and local authorities. As well, and in federal sentence and
Speaker 1: guidelines they have numerical levels that correspond to time ranges
Speaker 1: for specific charges. After his first cooperation, he was at
Speaker 1: level twenty five with a minimum of sixty to seventy
Speaker 1: one months on a community confinement.
Speaker 7: All right, So they got him at a level twenty five.
Speaker 3: And essentially it's saying, if you provide additional assistance. Now
Speaker 3: we're talking about ninety seven grand jury testimony, we'll knock
Speaker 3: it down five levels. You know, we'll talk about thirty
Speaker 3: three to forty one months. But if you provide additional assistance,
Speaker 3: you get another two levels knocked down at eighteen, which
Speaker 3: provides for a sentence of twenty seven to thirty three
Speaker 3: months of incarceration.
Speaker 1: So by cooperating in Jonathan's case, he was able to
Speaker 1: chip away to level eighteen, meaning just two years in
Speaker 1: change on community confinement, with the opportunity to chip away
Speaker 1: even more with further cooperation, and the deal got even
Speaker 1: sweeter for mister Aaron Lott.
Speaker 3: Moving on paragraph twenty, in exchange for defendans flee of
Speaker 3: guild and cooperation is set forth, he will not be
Speaker 3: prosecuted by the Office of the United States attorney for
Speaker 3: the Western District for any other federal criminal offenses. I mean,
Speaker 3: in that world, that is huge. Check this out now,
Speaker 3: paragraph twenty one. The government will move the court at
Speaker 3: sentencing provided to guidelines five K one point one. I
Speaker 3: don't know if you know what a five K one
Speaker 3: point one is, but it's a downward departure that submitted
Speaker 3: in a letter format that basically says you have provided
Speaker 3: the government substantral assistance. And it essentially is and can
Speaker 3: be considered as good as a get out of jail
Speaker 3: free card without question. It is amazing what a five
Speaker 3: K one letter will do.
Speaker 1: So Aaron Lott was in a position to be a
Speaker 1: serial testifier, which not only would have been very useful
Speaker 1: to trial counsel, but alternatively anyone else who Aaron Lott
Speaker 1: may have cooperated against, falsely or otherwise. Which makes me
Speaker 1: wonder again about what information Detective Ortiz might have accessed
Speaker 1: and shared that got the Feds pissed off enough to
Speaker 1: prosecute him. Either way, Jonathan now had Yarborough Lot and
Speaker 1: by association Cassandra Salinis, this was powerful evidence of innocence,
Speaker 1: and then Jonathan's case got another boost in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: when the Supreme Court ruled in McCoy versus Louisiana, affirming
Speaker 1: that a defendant has the right to choose their own defense,
Speaker 1: which for him meant that his attorney violated his rights
Speaker 1: by conceiving guilt in closing arguments. So Carl added that
Speaker 1: to a new for forty.
Speaker 5: Motion, I had four issues. Issue one was based on McCoy.
Speaker 5: Issue two, McCoy is retroactive because at that point under
Speaker 5: Montgomery and Welch they had held it to be retroactive.
Speaker 5: Third was newly discovered evidence, basically Aaron Yacht and Aaron
Speaker 5: Yarborough's testimony. And the fourth issue actual innocence. I did
Speaker 5: that because under federal law, a claim of actual innocence
Speaker 5: cannot be time barred. I had plenty of affidavits from Harrington,
Speaker 5: from Aaron Loss, from Aaron Yarborough, and from the lead
Speaker 5: death penalty lawyer in Rochester explaining why Harrington said what
Speaker 5: he did because his job was not to quit Jonathan,
Speaker 5: but to keep him alive. So originally the four forty
Speaker 5: lead off was McCoy. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court subsequently claimed
Speaker 5: that McCoy will not apply retroactively. Too many people were
Speaker 5: getting out, so that issue went out.
Speaker 1: So an amended four to forty was submitted in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two based on all this new evidence and the
Speaker 1: actual illness it's claim.
Speaker 3: I was having status conferences with the court and trying
Speaker 3: to push for an evidentiary hearing, and I got everybody
Speaker 3: to agree that a hearing was warranted. Then the assigned
Speaker 3: assistant district attorney who was on the case, I believe
Speaker 3: he was fired. He was no longer on the case.
Speaker 3: A new set of district attorneys came on the case,
Speaker 3: and they immediately contacted the court and said that the
Speaker 3: district attorney's office has changed their stance on whether or
Speaker 3: not and entry hearing was warranted. I then as for
Speaker 3: another status conference. At that court appearance, we actually both
Speaker 3: I mean I addressed the court at least twice. Carl
Speaker 3: was working with Attorney Goldstein. He addressed the court and
Speaker 3: the people's position was to essentially attack the credibility of
Speaker 3: the recantations. And I continued to push for a hearing,
Speaker 3: and at one point the judge said that he would
Speaker 3: have a decision in thirty days.
Speaker 7: Whether or not we could have an evident your hearing.
Speaker 3: That was at the end of twenty twenty two, so
Speaker 3: we are now going on thirty days turning into three years.
Speaker 3: At first, my position was, let's not rock the boat
Speaker 3: because I could force a decision, but enforcing a decision
Speaker 3: that's going to land us in a pellet world for
Speaker 3: the next couple of years. I submitted a bunch of
Speaker 3: different subpoenas I kept pushing this issue that I want
Speaker 3: people to testify, and I am told that a decision
Speaker 3: will be issued in the month of October of this year.
Speaker 1: And we understand that they have a massed witnesses that
Speaker 1: will corroborate the recantations as well as support for the
Speaker 1: alternate theory, but they can always use more help.
Speaker 4: I'm asking for anybody who as any information in regards
Speaker 4: to this matter and a murder officer child Skip McDowell
Speaker 4: to please contact Carl Deviver, Stephen A. Metcalf, anybody who
Speaker 4: you feel can hear what needs to be her for
Speaker 4: you to say what needs to be said.
Speaker 1: We're going to link contact information in the episode description.
Speaker 1: Please go there, check it out, and take whatever action
Speaker 1: you're capable of. And in the meantime, we await Judge
Speaker 1: by NACI's decision on the evidentiary hearing. Let's hope for
Speaker 1: a good one, and with that we'll go to closing arguments,
Speaker 1: where I think you guys, from the bottom of my heart,
Speaker 1: especially you Jonathan, for sharing courageously sharing your story. And
Speaker 1: now I'm going to kick back in my chair with
Speaker 1: my headphones on and my eye clothes on, my microphone off,
Speaker 1: and just listen to anything else you guys have to say. Steven,
Speaker 1: you go first, and then hand the microphone off to
Speaker 1: Carl and then Jonathan will take us off into the sunset.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think to summarize this with what we
Speaker 3: spoke about tonight is if it doesn't fit, it just
Speaker 3: there's a reason it doesn't fit.
Speaker 7: Aaron Yarborough is ultimately.
Speaker 3: Trying to sell CD players on the street, yet he
Speaker 3: becomes one of the government's first witnesses. The guy gets
Speaker 3: thrown into the Hilton. He's living his best life at
Speaker 3: this point, giving statements to substantiate the investigation throughout the
Speaker 3: course of this time. Then you have Aaron Lott and Cassandra.
Speaker 3: Aaron Lott happens to be a player or drug dealer
Speaker 3: in the streets at this time, has so much to
Speaker 3: gain from providing information against Jonathan Parker, and in order
Speaker 3: to do that, he had the rope Cassandra into it.
Speaker 3: Does ultimately me and them look more credible. And ultimately
Speaker 3: you take this mixed bag of various different characters, potentially
Speaker 3: two of them crackheads, one of them a nice crack dealer.
Speaker 3: You mix it all up, and you got the witnesses
Speaker 3: they needed to put the gun in Jonathan Parker's hand.
Speaker 3: It's just nobody actually looked at it and told the
Speaker 3: additional story or the other side of the story. The
Speaker 3: streets have spoken about this, The streets keep speaking about this,
Speaker 3: and the thirty years that the streets have spoke about that,
Speaker 3: we're looking to actually tell that real side of that
Speaker 3: story and seek justice for Jonathan. And I'm confident that
Speaker 3: all you got to do is give me a hearing
Speaker 3: and I can blow Jonathan Parker's case out of the
Speaker 3: water where no appellate division would ever even question it,
Speaker 3: and it would just be another repeat of Jonathan Parker
Speaker 3: case with no evidence whatsoever to justify a conviction.
Speaker 5: They know Jonathan was innocent, but they had a dead
Speaker 5: cop and newspaper screaming for a perpetrator, and they thought
Speaker 5: that Parker is a nasty street kid. Let's get him
Speaker 5: off the streets. We know he didn't kill Skip, but
Speaker 5: he's a trouble Let's get him off the streets. I'm
Speaker 5: glad to say that somebody is finally willing to do
Speaker 5: something to get an innocent man, a framed man, out
Speaker 5: of jail.
Speaker 4: Well, there's obviously that the evidence in this case shows
Speaker 4: that I didn't commit this crime. And as I've said,
Speaker 4: I've professed my innocence from the day I turned myself
Speaker 4: into the very second where you're hearing this broadcast. So
Speaker 4: I just asked the justice to be served. We say
Speaker 4: we have a justice system, that the justice system is
Speaker 4: supposed to be equal to everyone. This is justice system
Speaker 4: was not equal to me in these circumstances surrounding this case.
Speaker 4: So now is the time to correct what needs to
Speaker 4: be corrected, and hopefully the truth will come to the
Speaker 4: light and I will be set free.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
Speaker 1: to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
Speaker 1: week early and ad free by subscribing to Lava for
Speaker 1: Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our
Speaker 1: production team, Connor Hall, and Kathleen Fink, as well as
Speaker 1: my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and Jeff Cleiber.
Speaker 1: The music in this production was supplied by three time
Speaker 1: OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us
Speaker 1: across all social media platforms at Lava for Good and
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on Instagram
Speaker 1: at It's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 7: We've worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in
Speaker 7: this show are accurate.
Speaker 1: The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in
Speaker 1: this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect
Speaker 1: those of Lava for Good.