Speaker 1: At around on the night of April nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: the fifty four year old widow of a Cannon Mills
Speaker 1: executive was at her home and Conquered, North Carolina when
Speaker 1: a man grabbed her from behind. She fought him, scratching
Speaker 1: her attacker so hard that her nails bent backwards, but
Speaker 1: ultimately he overpowered and raped her. She described her assailant
Speaker 1: as a light skinned black man with no mention of
Speaker 1: facial hair, wearing a dark leather coat and a beanie hat.
Speaker 1: A rape kit was done and the police carefully collected
Speaker 1: a mountain of forensic evidence. Meanwhile, across town, nineteen year
Speaker 1: old Ronnie Long was at home with his mother, on
Speaker 1: the phone with the mother of his own two year
Speaker 1: old son until ten pm. A few days later, Ronnie
Speaker 1: received a court summons for trespassing in a park after hours.
Speaker 1: He was wearing a dark leather coat at the time.
Speaker 1: Police would ask the rape victim to be present in
Speaker 1: court to see if her attacker was pred and on
Speaker 1: the day Ronnie, the owner of a dark leather coat,
Speaker 1: was scheduled to appear disguised. She sat in the gallery
Speaker 1: for two hours in Ronnie's presence, only to identify him
Speaker 1: as her attacker. When his name was called, the state
Speaker 1: would present a case without any of the collected forensic
Speaker 1: or biological evidence, solely resting their case upon this extremely
Speaker 1: unorthodox and totally unreliable cross racial identification and Ronnie's unscratched
Speaker 1: leather coat. For that, Ronnie has been in prison for
Speaker 1: forty four years. This is wrongful conviction with Jason Flower.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. Today's case, Will Um. It's
Speaker 1: going to upset you know. I'm gonna tell you right now.
Speaker 1: This is a grotesque injustice that was inflicted and is
Speaker 1: still being inflicted on an amazing man named Ronnie Long.
Speaker 1: And we're hoping to hear from Ronnie during the recording.
Speaker 1: We'll be calling in from prison where he has been
Speaker 1: since nineteen seventies six for a crime he didn't commit.
Speaker 1: In this time of COVID, there's all sorts of complications,
Speaker 1: so we're going to try to make it work with
Speaker 1: us now as well is Jamie Law. Jamie is an
Speaker 1: attorney at Duke University's Wrongful Convictions Clinic. And Jamie, thank
Speaker 1: you for joining us on the show. Thank you for
Speaker 1: having me. I'm want to do something unusual here. I
Speaker 1: actually want to start at the end. We we almost
Speaker 1: never do that. But there's a quote from a judge
Speaker 1: named James Winn, who's a circuit court judge in the
Speaker 1: fourth District Court. So this is a serious guy. And
Speaker 1: Judge Wynn said, and I quote, prosecutors clearly had evidence
Speaker 1: that any defense counsel in the world, not only in
Speaker 1: but in the history of this country would have wanted
Speaker 1: or needed, and which should have been supplied, and yet
Speaker 1: we did not provide it. He goes on to say,
Speaker 1: what is it about us that we want to prosecute
Speaker 1: and keep people in jail when we know evidence may
Speaker 1: exist that might lead to a different conclusion. Why is
Speaker 1: that so offensive to us now that we want to
Speaker 1: protect illegal activity from forty four years ago? What's the
Speaker 1: harm of looking at the new evidence? He said? When
Speaker 1: did justice leave the process? So we let our rules
Speaker 1: blind us to what we all can see. Wow. Well,
Speaker 1: during the course of argument, it made us optimistic that
Speaker 1: after forty four years, um end maybe near to the
Speaker 1: injustice that occurred in Ronnie's case. It's been an incredible
Speaker 1: difficult journey through the courts to get his case to
Speaker 1: where it was on May seven of this year, you
Speaker 1: said we'll start at the end, and the end at
Speaker 1: this point in time was an argument on May seven
Speaker 1: in front of the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: which is fifteen active judges, all have been appointed by
Speaker 1: a President. Judge Win was making that quote in response
Speaker 1: to arguments from the State of North Carolina that more
Speaker 1: or less was asking the court to disregard all the
Speaker 1: evidence that is now known about in this case that
Speaker 1: was hid from Rannie at the time of his trial
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy six. And Judge Win also discussed sort
Speaker 1: of the circumstances is of nineteen seventy six and the
Speaker 1: conditions of black males, particularly in the South in nineteen
Speaker 1: six and how they were wrongfully convicted in great numbers.
Speaker 1: So at the moment Judge Wynn offered his viewpoints during
Speaker 1: the course of the stake's argument, we knew that we
Speaker 1: had succeeded in conveying to the court the seriousness and
Speaker 1: the magnitude of the injustice that occurred in Ronnie's case.
Speaker 1: Has promised we got a phone call from Ronnie and
Speaker 1: I must warn you that there was a poor connection
Speaker 1: with the prison. So right is a little hard to hear,
Speaker 1: but what he has to say needs to be heard,
Speaker 1: so please bear with us. You have a prepaid call.
Speaker 1: You will not be charged for this call. This call
Speaker 1: is from and inmate at Albemarle Correctional Institution. This call
Speaker 1: will be monitored and recorded. To accept this call, press
Speaker 1: five now to decline this call. Hang up. Thank you
Speaker 1: for you think link. Hi, Ronnie, thanks for calling me.
Speaker 1: I know we have limited time, so let's get right
Speaker 1: into it now. You grew up in conquered North Carolina,
Speaker 1: right seven brothers and sisters. Can you tell me a
Speaker 1: little bit about your life before all of this horrible
Speaker 1: stuff happened? Pretty exports. When I was in how school
Speaker 1: went wait to call? I learned how to leave. That's
Speaker 1: work I was doing with my dad. I would go
Speaker 1: to work with him, sometimes make money with you had
Speaker 1: a son. I still a lot of time with my son, him,
Speaker 1: his mother. He's a little of the cool of the game,
Speaker 1: the game when I never street with three. Now I
Speaker 1: read about this one time before you had your son,
Speaker 1: way before the incident that lands you in prison. There
Speaker 1: was an encounter that you once had with some police officers.
Speaker 1: They pulled up on you harassed you a bit, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know what you're doing around here? Boy type of thing,
Speaker 1: And you responded, isn't this America? Aren't I free to
Speaker 1: walk on this sidewalk? That right? I was coming from
Speaker 1: a girl coming from the girl house one night the
Speaker 1: area that was in he was gonna listen like area,
Speaker 1: So I'm coming all one night. The two white cups
Speaker 1: behind me, Ada, what are you coming from? What are
Speaker 1: you doing in this area here? Perically? Did you walk
Speaker 1: side walk here? They took me cost me that we
Speaker 1: down compled me in the rule. I stated about two wow.
Speaker 1: Not also came up tops ago. You can leave. I
Speaker 1: just gotta walk up with all one home. And that's
Speaker 1: it seems to be how he got to be on
Speaker 1: the radar of the local authorities. And then, on the
Speaker 1: faithful day of Sunday, April nine, seventy six, around pm,
Speaker 1: a wealthy white, fifty four year old widow of a
Speaker 1: Cannon Mills executive was burg arized and raped, an awful,
Speaker 1: awful crime. And Canon Mills was a major employer in
Speaker 1: the area, and that name is going to come to
Speaker 1: play a big role in this In this story, the
Speaker 1: victim said that while she was preparing food for a
Speaker 1: beach trip. The following day, a black man snuck into
Speaker 1: her home and grabbed her from behind. She said the
Speaker 1: intruder told her that he only had fifteen minutes as
Speaker 1: his friends were waiting for him outside like a horror movie,
Speaker 1: and he proceeded to rape her. She later described her
Speaker 1: attacker as quote yellow looking and quote again not blue, black,
Speaker 1: maybe wearing gloves, a beanie hat, no mention of any
Speaker 1: facial hair, and a dark leather coat. She also described
Speaker 1: the violent struggle where she scratched her attacker so hard
Speaker 1: that her fingernails bent backward, which would definitely have left
Speaker 1: the mark on the leather coat. The victim said that
Speaker 1: whenever she tried to move, he would slam her head
Speaker 1: against the ground. Then the phone rang, startling the attacker,
Speaker 1: who gathered his things and left through the front door.
Speaker 1: The victim then rushed over to her neighbors naked, where
Speaker 1: she was able to call the police, and they arrived
Speaker 1: around ten pm. The victim has since passed away um,
Speaker 1: but that being said, she was rushed to the hospital
Speaker 1: for a rape kit, and the doctor performed all the
Speaker 1: tests and collected all the biological evidence and everything else.
Speaker 1: What happened next is that Detective Eisenhower of the Concord
Speaker 1: Police Department arrived at the victim's home around ten thirty,
Speaker 1: photographed the house, and began collecting evidence, including latent fingerprints,
Speaker 1: carpet samples, suspect hair paint samples, as well as pieces
Speaker 1: of the victim's clothing and partially burned matches, and he
Speaker 1: later brought them to the State Bureau of Investigation office
Speaker 1: at Raleigh for examination. He also lifted a latent shoe
Speaker 1: print from a column near the porch. Now this is
Speaker 1: important later as nothing but the shoe print was ever
Speaker 1: the discussed at trial. And before we go any further,
Speaker 1: we need to state clearly that Ronnie had a solid alibi.
Speaker 1: And remember the crime took place at Ronnie at around
Speaker 1: nine thirty. You were at home with your mother, waiting
Speaker 1: on your father to get back with the car so
Speaker 1: you could head out to a party in Charlotte. You
Speaker 1: were on the phone with the mother of your child.
Speaker 1: Your mom hopped on the phone a few times to
Speaker 1: say hello to her grandson. Right, Yes, he on the
Speaker 1: phone too, but you can't understand what you say it
Speaker 1: But he's trying to talk and says he on the
Speaker 1: phone to my mom was on the phone. I'll stay
Speaker 1: on the phone. I'm gonna stays on the phone. And uh,
Speaker 1: I'm waiting on my dad to come back with the
Speaker 1: car with my day. I got that car. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to call one or two party show. So Jamie, can
Speaker 1: you take us back to how Ronnie came to be
Speaker 1: implicated in it and how he could have possibly been
Speaker 1: convicted in spite of no evidence of all none, zero. Yeah. Ronnie,
Speaker 1: very much like other young black men in nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: six and still today, was harassed by law enforcement officers.
Speaker 1: That harassment directly led to what ultimately becomes this forty
Speaker 1: four year old wrongful conviction. On April, the victim is
Speaker 1: assaulted and raped in her home. A few days after that,
Speaker 1: Ronnie receives a trespassing charge at the local park that
Speaker 1: was adjacent to his home when he shouldn't have been there,
Speaker 1: and during that time it appears that he was observed
Speaker 1: wearing a black leather coat. The officer who stopped him
Speaker 1: recalled that the person who was described by the victim
Speaker 1: had been wearing a dark leather coat on the night
Speaker 1: of April when she gave a description to law enforcement,
Speaker 1: and despite Ronnie not matching other very prominent features that
Speaker 1: were included in her description, the officer decided that perhaps
Speaker 1: he was the individual who had assault at the victim.
Speaker 1: I mean it was significant the disparities between her description
Speaker 1: of her assailant and Ronnie. She described her assailant as
Speaker 1: a yellow black male. In the South at the time,
Speaker 1: to describe somebody as a yellow black male meant a
Speaker 1: light skinned black person of mixed origin. She never mentioned
Speaker 1: her assailant having facial hair. Ronnie had facial hair, and
Speaker 1: disputed that he had facial hair on April nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: six when she was assaulted. So despite him having a
Speaker 1: different complexion having facial hair, where she never described facial hair,
Speaker 1: he becomes a suspect. Officers then go to her home
Speaker 1: and says, we have reason to believe that the individual
Speaker 1: who had assaulted you will be in the courtroom on
Speaker 1: this date fifteen days later, May tenth, nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: and we'd like you to come down to the courtroom
Speaker 1: to see if you can identify the person who attacked
Speaker 1: you there. So immediately in her mind she thinks they've
Speaker 1: done some investigation and have identified a likely suspect, But
Speaker 1: all they had done is made the connect um to
Speaker 1: the fact that Ronnie had a black leather coat, similar
Speaker 1: to what she described. The real curious thing with respect
Speaker 1: to law enforcement asking the victim to go to the
Speaker 1: courthouse to try and make an identification is they had
Speaker 1: a picture of Long that they could have shown her
Speaker 1: when they went to her and asked her to come
Speaker 1: to the courthouse, And they could have did it in
Speaker 1: a fair procedure, or as fair as these identification procedures
Speaker 1: can be, with the inclusion of fillers to ensure that
Speaker 1: she's selecting him from memory and not because he looks
Speaker 1: most like the attacker or because she's being presented a
Speaker 1: suspect in a very suggestive way. They elected to forego that.
Speaker 1: So she's brought to the courthouse dressed in a disguise
Speaker 1: because she's fearful that if her attacker was there, he'd
Speaker 1: recognize her. She describes during her testimony being terror fied.
Speaker 1: She six in the courtroom for an hour and a
Speaker 1: half being Long's presence and fails to identify him, and
Speaker 1: only when his name is called and he walks up
Speaker 1: to resolve the trespassing charge, which was dismissed that day.
Speaker 1: Did she say he's the one? But it's telling because
Speaker 1: we later learned during her testimony at trial that there
Speaker 1: were only twelve black males in the courtroom. She quickly
Speaker 1: eliminated several of them because they had afros where they
Speaker 1: were older. She described one as being old and hunched over,
Speaker 1: and she says that he was the only one that
Speaker 1: looked remotely similar to her attacker. And identification evidence is
Speaker 1: already flawed and highlighting reliable, but here you can just
Speaker 1: take her words that she's just picking the person that's
Speaker 1: most likely to be her attacker that's present in the courtroom,
Speaker 1: so she can in the experience where she's traumatized and terrified,
Speaker 1: so that in essence becomes the only think seeking. So long,
Speaker 1: and here we are, forty four years later, trying to
Speaker 1: undo that identification. And I'm glad you brought that up, Jamie,
Speaker 1: because we know the most unreliable eye witness identification as
Speaker 1: cross racial. This fits exactly into that category. And then,
Speaker 1: of course there's still room for it to get worse.
Speaker 1: So Ronnie, take us back to the day that you
Speaker 1: were in court for the misdemeanor trespassing charge when you
Speaker 1: had no idea. You couldn't have had any idea that
Speaker 1: there was a rape victim in the gallery who was
Speaker 1: being led to believe that her attacker was in the
Speaker 1: courtroom that day. And the craziest thing is that you
Speaker 1: two were in each other's presence for nearly two hours
Speaker 1: before she idd you right, Yeah, they misdemeanor just passing.
Speaker 1: So I go downtown cloth when you call my name,
Speaker 1: must do it up. We'll walk down for me and
Speaker 1: my day. When say when they say that she had
Speaker 1: the same two detectives there was on this case that's
Speaker 1: been on this case the whole time they were sitting
Speaker 1: in the jury box, she test a father that it
Speaker 1: was it's got me twelve black. It's important. There's not
Speaker 1: an easy people here looking like me. She's supposed to
Speaker 1: be looking for a young black head that I sawed her,
Speaker 1: but she distinctly stated that she's looked around and looked
Speaker 1: around and looked around it to the trash group, and
Speaker 1: I didn't see nobody. I want you to hold you
Speaker 1: to think about me, she says. She said in the
Speaker 1: court room, then for who I on her heads looking
Speaker 1: around and she still see anymore the people want. She
Speaker 1: didn't see anyone, your sin said, because of the scriptures
Speaker 1: that she gave the podies with the light skinned black
Speaker 1: man with no hand on his face. I'm shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been there, and you unerstanding the goad skinned but hand
Speaker 1: on my face. So I didn't match another the description
Speaker 1: your ston saying that she were looking for. That's why
Speaker 1: she couldn't pick me out. But you picked me out here,
Speaker 1: say said, when they called my name and run alone
Speaker 1: to the front, right alone, if you an court, I said, yeah,
Speaker 1: you come down front. That's when she said, she's looking now.
Speaker 1: She ain't recognized me. She's looking down my name. You go,
Speaker 1: number one, How are you gonna sit in the court room.
Speaker 1: You know there's a whole hour to head. They were
Speaker 1: living a twelve blacks in them people sitting there for
Speaker 1: a whole hour and a half. You don't see this
Speaker 1: young black man that you're looking for. The really you
Speaker 1: don't see it because she's not Yeah, he got hell
Speaker 1: on the the court. Actually this woman could depot eat
Speaker 1: the part. But that I told you to pick and
Speaker 1: run alone, she said, they could have I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's in a trench they could have. I don't know.
Speaker 1: So the victim makes this shaky identification, tells the detectives.
Speaker 1: But you've got no idea that any of this is
Speaker 1: going on. You're there for this misdemeanor charge, which gets dismissed,
Speaker 1: and then you go home. But that was not the
Speaker 1: last you'd see of law enforcement that day. We went
Speaker 1: home with the suite. I'll wake up two hours later
Speaker 1: my mom don the Morning League. When Ronnie was picked up,
Speaker 1: he was not told that he was suspected of this rain. Instead,
Speaker 1: he arrived at the station at six pm, was read
Speaker 1: his rights, and the police claimed that they asked permission
Speaker 1: to search his car, but they hadn't, and then they
Speaker 1: testified to finding gloves, matchbooks, and a beanie in the car.
Speaker 1: Ronnie maintains that the gloves were his, but the beanie
Speaker 1: was not. I'll follow a downtown. I used to drive
Speaker 1: with close. But when I get out of all, I
Speaker 1: speaking my food my son val I tried to call
Speaker 1: a locked though. I gotta reflect me of the jacket. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm going there, they kill me. I'm a suspection of
Speaker 1: ripon Vergerkis. I'll take the keys up and they take
Speaker 1: the keys up and run out to go with the
Speaker 1: same to the kids that they was in the court
Speaker 1: room that morning. Yo, man with at going with my
Speaker 1: chees bring kees kill. They're just going to look in
Speaker 1: your car. You ain't gotten in the hide now, but
Speaker 1: you gave you permission to look at my car either.
Speaker 1: So they go down look at my car. They come
Speaker 1: back again. They got mom. She took my other jacket
Speaker 1: off of me. The maids the mother stuff. They had
Speaker 1: my glue. They had a lime green to bargain that
Speaker 1: I had never seen the day in my life. And
Speaker 1: for anyone who doesn't know, it's a boggain, I didn't know.
Speaker 1: A toboggan is a hat like the one described by
Speaker 1: the victim in this case. So the police come back
Speaker 1: with what they claimed to have found in your car.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Ronnie, they said, you guy just got your car.
Speaker 1: If you won't be ye back when we did complete
Speaker 1: the investigations, sign your name my heads. You gotta looks
Speaker 1: on the people for me to sign. To make say,
Speaker 1: sign your name my head. You won't eat behind mthing. Okay,
Speaker 1: I I what my jacket back my jacket. I don't
Speaker 1: want my glue, But I don't know who he is,
Speaker 1: but I don't know what my jacket blue. So I
Speaker 1: sund out the treeple come to sign out as a
Speaker 1: consent for the search car. So they tricked you in
Speaker 1: order to make it seem like you consented, and that
Speaker 1: way it would have made the search technically legal. They
Speaker 1: planted the lime green and pattered toboggan. Now the police
Speaker 1: gotta lives read the bogging court saying that this is
Speaker 1: the half of the perpectray of word. I'm telling my
Speaker 1: log and then I was don't wear that to you,
Speaker 1: and I ain't ever hear that. That ain't gonna head.
Speaker 1: My log is get the hat inside out. It's it's red.
Speaker 1: Is looking at it? Really sad? You gotta live area
Speaker 1: when I hate it like I got black long a
Speaker 1: man as night. Yeah, I know what's to be. The
Speaker 1: States would never let me DNA, just that I won't NAT.
Speaker 1: They didn't never, they didn't never. So we now come
Speaker 1: to the conclusion that the police planted this beanie in
Speaker 1: the car so that they could have another you know,
Speaker 1: well really another there is no other evidence, so that
Speaker 1: they could have something that they could use against him.
Speaker 1: And I say something they could use against him, because
Speaker 1: remember all of that evidence Detective eising Hard collected from
Speaker 1: the crime scene. Well if the red hairs that they
Speaker 1: found in the beanie that are clearly not Ronnie's hair,
Speaker 1: bother you just wait, because it's about to get way
Speaker 1: worse again. The crime scene evidence comes back from the
Speaker 1: state you have of investigation in Raleigh, and none of
Speaker 1: it matches Ronnie. But since the rich white widow of
Speaker 1: an executive of one of the biggest employers in town
Speaker 1: just ideed him as her rapist rather than just doing
Speaker 1: the right thing, the just thing, the evidence never even
Speaker 1: made it to the prosecutor's office, let alone the defense.
Speaker 1: So the police withheld the evidence from both the defense
Speaker 1: and the prosecution. Let me just repeat that, the police
Speaker 1: withheld the evidence not just from the defense, but from
Speaker 1: the prosecution, just in case the prosecution might have decided, hey,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, we got the wrong guy. That the
Speaker 1: police decided to play judge jury, and I mean they
Speaker 1: might as well played executioner, because poor Ronnie has been
Speaker 1: in prison for forty four fucking years. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is um yeah, I mean, just when I think I've
Speaker 1: heard it all, Um, and Jamie, you're living this day
Speaker 1: in and day out. Now, I mean, what what can
Speaker 1: you add to that, because it gets worse from there. Right, So,
Speaker 1: they not only tested this evidence and it didn't match Long.
Speaker 1: When it didn't match Long, they made the decision that
Speaker 1: they wouldn't turn it over to the defense or the prosecution,
Speaker 1: which we contending. We argued this at the May seventh
Speaker 1: hearing that we had in this case, that there's a
Speaker 1: possibility that the prosecutor could have decided not to go
Speaker 1: forward with this case at all had he known that
Speaker 1: all the forensic test results pointed away from Ronny and
Speaker 1: towards another suspect. There was suspect hair collected brought to Ralie,
Speaker 1: examined by the crime lab, determined by the crime lab
Speaker 1: to be in the parlanks of the lab report of
Speaker 1: Negroid or Mongolian origin, meaning that it came from a
Speaker 1: person who was either Asian or black. And we know
Speaker 1: that that hair that was collected, those suspect hair didn't
Speaker 1: match long. If it didn't match along, then the suspect,
Speaker 1: the person who should have been incarcerated for forty four years.
Speaker 1: There's the evidence of who that person's identity is. And
Speaker 1: it's remarkable in the fact that they believe this would
Speaker 1: be probative. They collected because they thought it would be probative.
Speaker 1: All indications are they did come from the suspect, but
Speaker 1: when it didn't match Long, they kept it from everybody,
Speaker 1: so the prosecutor would go forward on the basis of
Speaker 1: this completely unheard of identification procedure. And I have to
Speaker 1: tell you, Jason, I'm very skeptical whenever any client offers
Speaker 1: a suggestion that evidence may be planted. But as you
Speaker 1: look at this case and what officers did keeping evidence
Speaker 1: away from the prosecutor, it really makes you stop and say, oh,
Speaker 1: my goodness, this is completely consistent with the behaviors of
Speaker 1: the officers in this case. And then when Long says,
Speaker 1: those are my gloves, but I've never seen that beanie
Speaker 1: in my life. Do you think why would he acknowledge
Speaker 1: owning one but not the other. And the only explanation
Speaker 1: is because the officers in this case set out to
Speaker 1: ensure Long was convicted. That included lying, hiding, and with
Speaker 1: the beanie, manufacturing evidence to ensure that he would spend
Speaker 1: the rest of his life incarcerating convicted for this crime.
Speaker 1: And for whatever reason, the state of North Carolina is
Speaker 1: just willing to ignore that all together and continue to
Speaker 1: argue that Long is guilty of this crime. Crazy right,
Speaker 1: And there's no evidence that he ever owned a beanie.
Speaker 1: There's no photographs of him at a beanie, there's no
Speaker 1: nobody knew about any beanie. There's also the fact that
Speaker 1: the victim has fought her attacker um with with all
Speaker 1: of her strength, and she had scratched the attacker so
Speaker 1: hard that her own nails bent back. You know, did
Speaker 1: you take a love of check, did you spread did
Speaker 1: you look at it a mom a microscope? You know,
Speaker 1: when will you can sing that stresco media, because yeah,
Speaker 1: my coat look upon the microscope. But yet still she says,
Speaker 1: that's the coat, that's the jack, that's the perpetrated world.
Speaker 1: And when those sage all mean and when no pet exact, well,
Speaker 1: there's a good explanation for there being no scratches on you,
Speaker 1: your face, your leather coat. It's painfully simple. It's because
Speaker 1: you weren't there that night. But she idd you. They
Speaker 1: were trying to make the square fit the circle, and
Speaker 1: they were willing to bend the rules pen break the rules.
Speaker 1: They planted evidence in your car and tried everything they
Speaker 1: could to make sure that they got a conviction in
Speaker 1: this case, and people were out in the street protesting
Speaker 1: as well. Right, So when they arrested you, they offered
Speaker 1: you a plea deal so they could make all of
Speaker 1: that public outcry just go away. Now they love me,
Speaker 1: or when they love me, or they're offered me or
Speaker 1: seven years three. They offered me a seven years three,
Speaker 1: told me that I would be back home and three.
Speaker 1: And it made it explicively clear that if I didn't
Speaker 1: take the plea, if you were trying me for my life.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I got people in the street, did
Speaker 1: the stream, I got my family, I did the street.
Speaker 1: I got people in the street deals. Theresa is supportful.
Speaker 1: I knew exactly what they wanted. Man. They wanted me
Speaker 1: to keep keet out to that charge so they could
Speaker 1: put it in on front page. Oh let us long
Speaker 1: past a great job. So I always you only got
Speaker 1: holler and yether and throwing bag then you're going. But
Speaker 1: I knew I couldn't do that to cause number one,
Speaker 1: my dad said, I didn't raise yuh say you did something?
Speaker 1: When you didn't do it, I turned down to peep,
Speaker 1: So I was fishing to est I was serious way
Speaker 1: people he took me the same year see the norcom
Speaker 1: Abouts stilty. But then we get to the trial itself,
Speaker 1: and this is gonna shock exactly no one. But the
Speaker 1: jury was all white. Let me just say that again.
Speaker 1: This is an all white jury conquered North Carolina six.
Speaker 1: The jury was handpicked by the Cabas County sheriff. And
Speaker 1: get this, three of the members of the jury worked
Speaker 1: for Cannon Mills. And you'll remember that the victims husband
Speaker 1: worked at Cannon Mills as well. So the jury chairperson
Speaker 1: at the time created a master list of jurors. To
Speaker 1: get us somethings for jury duty, you had to be
Speaker 1: on that list. And prior to Long's trial, he brought
Speaker 1: that list of master jurors first to the sheriff and
Speaker 1: allowed the sheriff to strike through any person on that
Speaker 1: list that the sheriff deemed unfit for jury duty. He
Speaker 1: then brought the list to the conquered police department, and
Speaker 1: testimony is that the chief of police and some of
Speaker 1: his deputies sat there and did the same. So law enforcement,
Speaker 1: the very people who investigated this case, end up lying
Speaker 1: about this case. About the evidence collected in this case,
Speaker 1: played a role in the selection of the jurors who
Speaker 1: ultimately found Mr. Long guilty. And in this trial, every
Speaker 1: single witness that testified for the State of North Carolina
Speaker 1: was white. Every single witness that testified on behalf of
Speaker 1: Ronnie Long to demonstrate his innocence, to prove his alibi,
Speaker 1: to show that he was nowhere near the victim's home
Speaker 1: on the night this attack occurred, was black. And by
Speaker 1: selecting an all white jury in segregated Concord, North Carolina
Speaker 1: in ninety ultimately what we had was a circumstance where
Speaker 1: the jurors were being asked to decide between finding their
Speaker 1: neighbors truthful or finding the people from the other side
Speaker 1: of the tracks, the black side of town. They would
Speaker 1: have had to find them truthful over the officers who
Speaker 1: were their neighbors, who are the people who lived in
Speaker 1: their community, their side of town. That's what it would
Speaker 1: have taken to find Long not guilty. And of course
Speaker 1: we all know how it played out, and this courtroom,
Speaker 1: there was a racially divided court with blacks on one
Speaker 1: side and whites on the other um And of course,
Speaker 1: now the really awful result, but predictable result of this
Speaker 1: sham trial was that on October first nine, with his
Speaker 1: whole life in front of him, Ronnie Long was convicted
Speaker 1: and sentenced to to life terms. His mother fainted, and
Speaker 1: a riot nearly ensued. Um Long himself has called his
Speaker 1: conviction a quote modernized lynching sanctioned by law. When they
Speaker 1: found me guilty, they started fighting in the cool room.
Speaker 1: They started fighting. Man. I started to I started my molester,
Speaker 1: she said to me. She grabbing up a bill, looked
Speaker 1: at She said, you would make it up to fronto
Speaker 1: Jos holds me. Luck, they're right there. Get that, man.
Speaker 1: I wanted to Ronnie tonight and listen to this. So
Speaker 1: after Long's conviction, concord bubbled over with fury. The next day,
Speaker 1: hundreds of protesters descended on the city's downtown, staging a
Speaker 1: demonstration in front of the courthouse, and for days fifty
Speaker 1: or more police officers in full riot gear stationed themselves
Speaker 1: at a nearby park, and the at least chief warned
Speaker 1: protesters that violence would be met with force. So I
Speaker 1: mean nothing has changed. And that and the bravery, the
Speaker 1: courage of these people who protested, putting themselves in grave
Speaker 1: danger from the same police force that had just framed
Speaker 1: their friend, their neighbor, their fellow human. I had spoke
Speaker 1: with his trial counsel, Jim Fuller prior to the May
Speaker 1: seventh arguments, and he said, Jamie, I've only been maced
Speaker 1: one time in my life. And it was after the
Speaker 1: verdict when outbursts occurred in the courtroom and law enforcement
Speaker 1: decided to clear out all the supporters of Long. And
Speaker 1: he said officers were beating a young man and he
Speaker 1: tried to pull the officers away, and they turned and
Speaker 1: sprayed him Long's trial attorney in the face with mace.
Speaker 1: Nothing has changed. Um, it's really uh, it's really hard
Speaker 1: to you know, it's I mean, I'm trying to be optimistic,
Speaker 1: and you know, I think we are on the verge
Speaker 1: of change, and but it's it's remarkable how much things
Speaker 1: are as they were forty four years later. The post
Speaker 1: conviction litigation history. Can you walk us through that, Jamie,
Speaker 1: because it's quite extraordinary in and of itself. It's been
Speaker 1: a long process. So it began in the nineties. After
Speaker 1: he was convicted. He filed his first what we call
Speaker 1: here in North Carolina motions for appropriate Relief. They're the
Speaker 1: post conviction review petitions that initiate uh post conviction proceedings,
Speaker 1: and it was related to the jury. He was ruled
Speaker 1: against during the course of those proceedings. That was then
Speaker 1: appealed in federal court, arguing the same things, that he
Speaker 1: didn't commit the crime and that his trial was unfair
Speaker 1: in part because of the way in which the jury
Speaker 1: was seated, and he was ruled against in federal court.
Speaker 1: Over the years, he tried to get people to help him,
Speaker 1: and then in two thousand five, the Innocence Project at
Speaker 1: the University of North Carolina took interest in the case,
Speaker 1: and the present litigation began. They found an attorney to
Speaker 1: work with Ronnie. That attorney did all the work necessary
Speaker 1: to uncover not just the lies, but the evidence that
Speaker 1: was withheld from long at the time of his trial,
Speaker 1: and they went into state court and held an evidentiary
Speaker 1: hearing where the judgured testimony related to the withholding of
Speaker 1: this evidence. That's a real interesting proceeding because the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: the individual who tried running along back in nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: took the stand and testified for long that he didn't
Speaker 1: have copies of these reports. He didn't know that this
Speaker 1: testing was done. Had he known that it was done,
Speaker 1: he would have required that had been turned over. He
Speaker 1: also talked about a sexual assault kit that we haven't
Speaker 1: even talked about, that they collected one from the victim
Speaker 1: and then it subsequently disappeared. Yeah, so he testified for
Speaker 1: long but despite all that, the judging state court ruled
Speaker 1: against long and found that he hadn't proven that his
Speaker 1: rights were violated. The case then went to the North
Speaker 1: Carolina Supreme Court. There are seven justices on the North
Speaker 1: Carolina Supreme Court. One set out the decision, and as
Speaker 1: a result, the Supreme Court split three three. So TI
Speaker 1: went to the state. Ronnie's conviction was upheld and he
Speaker 1: was still incarcerated. It then went to an organization in
Speaker 1: North Carolina called the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, and
Speaker 1: they reviewed the case and their focus was trying to
Speaker 1: find the sexual assault kit that was collected and disappeared.
Speaker 1: They did not find it, but they actually discovered that
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight. During the course of those proceedings,
Speaker 1: officers light again by saying that they had no physical
Speaker 1: evidence remaining in the case. In their custody winning fact,
Speaker 1: they had all the latent fingerprints that had been collected
Speaker 1: from the crime scene. That's when I got involved, and
Speaker 1: as you're reacting to how just atrocious and an affront
Speaker 1: to justice this case is. I had the same initial
Speaker 1: reaction the other attorneys I work with at the Wrongful
Speaker 1: Convictions Clinic. We worked to file another habeas petition on
Speaker 1: Ronnie's behalf. It was dismissed because the district court said
Speaker 1: that we had failed to bring the fingerprint related evidence
Speaker 1: in state court prior to filing our habeas petition. Of course,
Speaker 1: it would have been brought in state court had it
Speaker 1: not been hit during the time that the state post
Speaker 1: conviction litigation was ongoing. We appealed that dismissal. The Fourth
Speaker 1: Circuit reversed and sent it back to the district court.
Speaker 1: Then the district Court once again granted a dismissal on
Speaker 1: behalf of the state. The district court said that while
Speaker 1: we had shown that evidence was withheld, that it was
Speaker 1: favorable too long, but that the state court was reasonable
Speaker 1: in determining that the evidence was immaterial to the outcome
Speaker 1: of his trial. So it was dismissed again, and we
Speaker 1: appealed that decision, which came in July of the Fourth
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments. In May of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, a panel entered a decision two to one
Speaker 1: saying that Long had failed to demonstrate the materiality of
Speaker 1: the evidence of the State court again was reasonable. That
Speaker 1: decision came down in January of We then asked for
Speaker 1: full court review, called a petition for rehearing in Bunk.
Speaker 1: And what that triggers is that full fifteen judge review
Speaker 1: of the case. The court agreed to hear it while
Speaker 1: sitting in Bunk. And that's the argument we had in
Speaker 1: on May seven. So it's been it's been a long
Speaker 1: fight to get to the point where we know that
Speaker 1: the judges are at least, you know, seeing the injustices
Speaker 1: here that we saw as evidence by the statement of
Speaker 1: Judge Wind during the course of those oral arguments. And
Speaker 1: so here we are ending where we started with the
Speaker 1: words of Judge Winn expressing his frustration over how this
Speaker 1: happened to Ronnie amongst so many others. I hope you
Speaker 1: all feel that same frustration and anger right now, Judge
Speaker 1: Winn said, quote, prosecutors clearly had evidence that any defense
Speaker 1: counsel in the world, not only in ninety six, but
Speaker 1: in the history of this country would have wanted or
Speaker 1: needed and which should have been supplied, and yet we
Speaker 1: did not provide it. What is it about us that
Speaker 1: we want to prosecute and keep people in jail when
Speaker 1: we know evidence may exist that might lead to a
Speaker 1: different outcome. Why is that so offensive to us now
Speaker 1: that we want to protect illegal activity from forty four
Speaker 1: years ago? End quote? And of course he was referring
Speaker 1: to the illegal activity on the part of law enforcement
Speaker 1: in this case. Quote what's the harm of looking at
Speaker 1: the new evidence? He said? When did justice leave the process?
Speaker 1: So we let our rules blind us to what we
Speaker 1: all can see? End quote. You know the fact that
Speaker 1: the the cops took all the evidence from the crime
Speaker 1: scene and never turned it over alone, that should be it.
Speaker 1: They knew it wasn't him from the beginning. It just
Speaker 1: hurts my heart to think of this life, this this
Speaker 1: this poor fucking guy. Since we recorded this podcast with
Speaker 1: Jamie and Ronnie, I read a quote from Ronnie's mother
Speaker 1: saying that she is just waiting. Is a quote from her,
Speaker 1: just waiting on Ronnie to get out. God let me
Speaker 1: live to see him get out of there. End quote.
Speaker 1: Since Ronnie's grandmother, his two sisters, and his father have
Speaker 1: all passed and unfortunately they were joined by his mother
Speaker 1: on July eleven, Rest in Peace. The family asked Jamie
Speaker 1: to speak at the funeral about Ronnie's case. Ronnie still
Speaker 1: has his wife, Ashley Long waiting for him. She started
Speaker 1: a petition on change dot org that I've already signed,
Speaker 1: asking Governor Cooper to commute ronnie sentence. I hope you'll
Speaker 1: join me. There's a link in the episode description. Just
Speaker 1: scroll down, click and let's bring him home. Now through
Speaker 1: the episode as it was previously recorded. Now it comes
Speaker 1: to the closing of the show, which of course I
Speaker 1: call closing arguments. This is where Jamie, I thank you
Speaker 1: again for being here. Ronnie, thank you for calling in.
Speaker 1: And now I'm going to turn off my microphone and
Speaker 1: leave my headphones on and just listen. Jamie, thank you.
Speaker 1: Jason Um. What I would add is the listeners here,
Speaker 1: I'm sure have heard about cases that involve hiding exculpatory evidence. Separately,
Speaker 1: They've heard of cases involving misconduct and potential lies told
Speaker 1: on the witness stand, cases involving racial injustice. And here
Speaker 1: we have everything together in one We have the original
Speaker 1: trial prosecutor test fine on behalf of the defense, acknowledging
Speaker 1: that materials were not only hidden from the defense but
Speaker 1: from him as well. We have evidence pointing to another
Speaker 1: individual as the perpetrator. We have evidence of misconducting wise
Speaker 1: from officers, and despite all that, forty four years later,
Speaker 1: Ronnie Long six in a prison in North Carolina. I
Speaker 1: ask everybody listening to this to seize this particular moment
Speaker 1: that we are living through in history by taking one
Speaker 1: action among what I hope is many, to help Ronnie
Speaker 1: achieve justice in his freedom. To do that, I hope
Speaker 1: not only that you'll go to change dot org and
Speaker 1: sign the petition, but also contact the Governor of North Carolina,
Speaker 1: Roy Cooper. His email is Roy dot Cooper CEO P
Speaker 1: E R at NC dot gov and tell him to
Speaker 1: free Ronnie Long now, because while we prove his innocence
Speaker 1: in court, which we plan to do, the governor can
Speaker 1: make this injustice right tomorrow by commuting long sentence to
Speaker 1: time served and letting him walk free. And it's forty
Speaker 1: four years past due for that to occur. And I
Speaker 1: hope you all will send a message to the governor
Speaker 1: that if he truly believes that black lives matter, that
Speaker 1: lives matter, that he would use his executive authority to
Speaker 1: see that Long goes free, not next week, not next month,
Speaker 1: that Ronnie needs to be free. Now, thank you, Jason, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and thank you Jamie. And I'm going to just jump
Speaker 1: in for one more minute and say that if anyone
Speaker 1: here knows someone who knows, the governor, direct outreach can
Speaker 1: be a game changer. So thank you very much, Jamie,
Speaker 1: and now I'm gonna turn it over to our featured guests.
Speaker 1: Ronnie Long, you know, I appreciate the platform that you appreciate,
Speaker 1: and you'll let me tell my stuf. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of people don't say. They still don't know who am.
Speaker 1: A lot of people youselve heard of me, but they
Speaker 1: don't know the circumstances behind the chase. I appreciate what
Speaker 1: you did from me or what you're doing for me,
Speaker 1: and hopefully one day understands And it's four circuit compectancies.
Speaker 1: I chose every thing you have standard I'm saying here, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the evidence stare against but no more than the eyewitness
Speaker 1: or gonification. Yeah, all the flaws and they know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. They knew they had the right man. If
Speaker 1: they knew they had the right man, then why did
Speaker 1: they pick about ourselves to suchet if they think they
Speaker 1: had the right man nstance? And why did they would
Speaker 1: hold sixty physical ever that day just about the d
Speaker 1: if any of that ever has had a point to
Speaker 1: rule with me, and they would have put off that
Speaker 1: evidence to court. They know that they had they had
Speaker 1: the wrong man. They know that I wouldn't know him personally,
Speaker 1: a solid and worn but yeah, still just still put
Speaker 1: me the other game, gave me his life ship us
Speaker 1: not a done for it for years he regardless of
Speaker 1: understands here the world or not, I'd beat us case
Speaker 1: down whatever. I don't feel supportful view of that line,
Speaker 1: don't forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. 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 Innocence Project dot
Speaker 1: org to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd
Speaker 1: like to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wardis.
Speaker 1: The music on the show is by three time Oscar
Speaker 1: nomind 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 Flam is a production of Lava
Speaker 1: for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number one