Speaker 1: On June and around four am, at a bodega in
Speaker 1: the Bronx, a male customer bought beer and a year
Speaker 1: old woman bought cigarettes. It's unclear whether they knew one another.
Speaker 1: The store clerk said that the woman willingly got into
Speaker 1: the mail customers blue and white sedan. However, according to
Speaker 1: the woman, she was abducted upon leaving the store. Then
Speaker 1: she was dragged into a park, raped, sodomized, and robbed
Speaker 1: before chasing the man down and getting her money back. Then,
Speaker 1: while waiting for a cab, the same man dragged her
Speaker 1: into an abandoned building where he again assaulted her, but
Speaker 1: this time he cut her face with a razor blade,
Speaker 1: blinding her in her left eye and threatening to kill
Speaker 1: her if she went to the police. When she awoke,
Speaker 1: she called first responders and went to the hospital, where
Speaker 1: she underwent surgery and a rape kit. Police showed her
Speaker 1: a mugshot book and she chose the picture of a
Speaker 1: man named Alan Newton. The store clerk identified Allan as
Speaker 1: well from a photo array, But on the night of
Speaker 1: the crime, Alan had stayed with his fiance's family and queens,
Speaker 1: all of whom had said that no one had left
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night. Curiously, no sorology was
Speaker 1: presented at trial, only two very shaky ideas from the
Speaker 1: witness and the victim, who could not agree on whether
Speaker 1: the victim knew her assailant or not. Advances in DNA
Speaker 1: testing would be all that Alan needed to eventually disprove
Speaker 1: his accusers, but only if the police could be bothered
Speaker 1: to locate the rape kid right where it had always
Speaker 1: been for twenty two long years. This is Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction today. Well, this is long
Speaker 1: overdue because ever since I started doing this podcast back
Speaker 1: in two thousands at six Team, I've thought a lot
Speaker 1: about this case of the man you're about to hear
Speaker 1: from in person, Alan Newton, and I don't know why
Speaker 1: we haven't gotten around to it till now, but I'm
Speaker 1: so glad we're gonna do it today because this is
Speaker 1: a story that needs to be heard, and it's a
Speaker 1: hard one to hear, by the way, and I'm very,
Speaker 1: very excited and honored to have you here today, Alan Newton,
Speaker 1: Welcome to Ron for Conviction. Thank you, Jason. Definitely appreciate
Speaker 1: what you guys doing as far as getting our story
Speaker 1: out there. So let's go back before this happened, and
Speaker 1: before you were exposed to the worst of our criminal
Speaker 1: legal system has to offer. Your life was was pretty good, right,
Speaker 1: fairly decent. I was working, had graduated high school, and
Speaker 1: in my mind, you know, back in Liver my best
Speaker 1: life and appear when to go to college in a
Speaker 1: couple of years is and that's ad and every young
Speaker 1: guy just living my life. I mean, you're working for
Speaker 1: the New York Telephone Company, obviously a name that doesn't
Speaker 1: exist anymore, but New York Telephone Company for people who
Speaker 1: remember that far back, was a big company in New
Speaker 1: York obviously, and you were going to hip hop dad's
Speaker 1: parties in the Bronx, which was again like that was
Speaker 1: the popular thing to do back then. And if I
Speaker 1: understand correctly, you were also engaged at the time, right, Yes, Um,
Speaker 1: I was living in the brons my fiancee was living
Speaker 1: in Queens, so I was working in Manhattan. So I
Speaker 1: was basically traveling around New York City through the bows
Speaker 1: and parties, just making your way, right like any other
Speaker 1: twenty three year old guy would be doing at the time.
Speaker 1: And so you had one previous incident that I guess
Speaker 1: put you on the radar of the authorities, right, Can
Speaker 1: you tell us about that? Um, it was the year
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy nine, two or three months before I
Speaker 1: graduated high school, and I was at a party and
Speaker 1: gotten to fight with another young teenager in my age
Speaker 1: and got a battery charge. And unfortunately it was the
Speaker 1: photographs and the police monk shot books that the victim
Speaker 1: supposedly picked out to connect me to this long food
Speaker 1: conviction of us. Yeah. I mean we've heard that story before,
Speaker 1: whether it's with the John Asia of Alaska's case or
Speaker 1: so many other cases where some minor infraction for which
Speaker 1: somebody in a different zip code probably wouldn't have been
Speaker 1: arrested or charged. But you know, a little high school incident,
Speaker 1: a fight. I'm not saying the fight isn't a serious thing,
Speaker 1: but it was a fight among two teenage boys, which
Speaker 1: happens every day in different cities all over the country,
Speaker 1: and of the time no charges are filed. But you know,
Speaker 1: in the poorer communities, people of color, you can end
Speaker 1: up with the record that could end up with a
Speaker 1: mug shot in a book, that can end up in
Speaker 1: a wrong for conviction. That it happens time and again,
Speaker 1: and that's exactly what happened in this case. And you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right because you know, whole later one on learning
Speaker 1: about the case and all that, the other guy that
Speaker 1: had to fight with wasn't coming to court. So it
Speaker 1: really wasn't anybody foun you know, pushing the case along
Speaker 1: through the justice system, but my ignorance, not knowing better
Speaker 1: and just wanting to move on because I was working
Speaker 1: and losing days at work, you know, coming back and
Speaker 1: forth the court I decided just to take a blead
Speaker 1: and and like you said, on different circumstances and another
Speaker 1: zip colde the case would just like you said, it's
Speaker 1: just a fight between teenagers at a party. And but
Speaker 1: that's not the way the justice system, like the doll
Speaker 1: out punishment when it comes to Southern communities, it's more
Speaker 1: so about putting people through the criminal justice system and
Speaker 1: making sure that they have a record for the rest
Speaker 1: of their lives. So that brings us right up to
Speaker 1: the time of the crime. Now, at four am on June,
Speaker 1: year old woman stopped at a convenience during the bronx
Speaker 1: to buy cigarettes. And there are some conflicts in the
Speaker 1: narrative between the victim and the story clerk that had
Speaker 1: an impact later in the compromised way in which the
Speaker 1: jury decided the case. So back to the night of
Speaker 1: the crime, the store clerk said that the assailant also
Speaker 1: came into the store at that time and bought a
Speaker 1: beer before returning to his car, a blue and white sedan,
Speaker 1: where he was honking his horn for the victim. In
Speaker 1: this case, the store clerk said that the victim went
Speaker 1: to the car voluntarily. The victim, while maintained when she
Speaker 1: exited the store that this other customer, the assailant grabbed
Speaker 1: her from behind, put a box cutter to her throat,
Speaker 1: and threw her into the blue and white sedan and
Speaker 1: it drove off. Now, after a few minutes, the car stalled,
Speaker 1: and when the assailant got out to check the engine,
Speaker 1: allegedly the passenger side door handle was broken off so
Speaker 1: the victim couldn't get out of the car. The assailant
Speaker 1: then dragged her to a nearby park where he orally
Speaker 1: sodomized and raped her and attempted to take her money
Speaker 1: in cigarettes. Yes, she said the guy took her money.
Speaker 1: She says she ran after the guy, and the guy
Speaker 1: gave her money back when she claimed that she asked
Speaker 1: some kids to feed. She she didn't say she was
Speaker 1: going to call a cops at this time anything. She
Speaker 1: says she was waiting for a cab. She said the
Speaker 1: guy came and abducted again. This time he took off
Speaker 1: an abandoned building, raped again, robbed again, and this time
Speaker 1: he cut up In case it wasn't horrible enough, he'd
Speaker 1: cut her face with a razor to prevent her from identifying.
Speaker 1: He actually blinded her in one eye, and he told
Speaker 1: her that if she called the police, he would come
Speaker 1: back and kill her. She saw his back as he
Speaker 1: ran away, and then she passed out. But when she
Speaker 1: came to and regained consciousness, she went to a call box.
Speaker 1: He used to have these police call boxes around the city,
Speaker 1: and she called the police. Let me ask you. She
Speaker 1: described the victim as five seven or five eight hundred
Speaker 1: sixty pounds with a short afro, had a mustache, but
Speaker 1: she said she couldn't tell if he was dark or
Speaker 1: light skinned because it was the middle of the night.
Speaker 1: Obviously was very dark out, and she told the detective
Speaker 1: at the hospital that he was physically large and that
Speaker 1: his name was Willie. Did any of this stuff match up?
Speaker 1: With you. It didn't match up with me. It wasn't
Speaker 1: anything that connected me to the crime. I was in
Speaker 1: Queens that weekend with my fiance, had the tickets stopped
Speaker 1: from going to see Ghostbusters that Saturday, And yeah, wow, Ghostbusters.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm just thinking about that movie was like
Speaker 1: such a huge thing a kid. It was like the
Speaker 1: only thing we were talking about that summer of eighty four,
Speaker 1: which has other implications, specifically that there was no DNA
Speaker 1: testing back in at the hospital. They did do a
Speaker 1: rape kit and sperm was gathered, but without the DNA
Speaker 1: testing that eventually would exonerate you, Allen, all they had
Speaker 1: was rology. So, to the best of your knowledge, did
Speaker 1: they do any testing about blood types at all of
Speaker 1: this evidence that they had collected. Not to my knowledge,
Speaker 1: I didn't find any paperwork. But um, I had to
Speaker 1: believe they had an idea because when I got arrested,
Speaker 1: I went through MIRY because Allen and back then they
Speaker 1: was taking booth from you. But as far as I know,
Speaker 1: they never did any rology testing, even though they had
Speaker 1: my blood type and they had a prology evidence that
Speaker 1: was in the rape kit, so prology testing was standard
Speaker 1: protocol back then in a case like this, if they
Speaker 1: had something to use against you, I'm sure you know
Speaker 1: that they would have. But the only evidence from the
Speaker 1: rape kit that the d A used was that perman
Speaker 1: azoa were present, proving that a sexual interaction had occurred,
Speaker 1: but nothing about blood types, which is very suspicious. And meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the detectives brought their mug book down to the hospital
Speaker 1: and the victim, who had remember just gotten out of
Speaker 1: eye surgery, was shown a dizzying amount of pictures. Who
Speaker 1: knows what was going on during this process as far
Speaker 1: as the suggestive nature of it or the pressure they
Speaker 1: put on her when she was in an extremely fragile state.
Speaker 1: But then eventually she picked out your picture from that
Speaker 1: arrest back in high school. Then they brought a photo
Speaker 1: lineup to the store clerk who also picked you out.
Speaker 1: And even what they the store clook the store books said,
Speaker 1: the reason why she recognized me, this is what she's playing.
Speaker 1: Don't to stand. I was the only guy that came
Speaker 1: into the establishment and the last twelve hours that she
Speaker 1: didn't know. Then again, we don't know how suggestive they
Speaker 1: were being with either of these identifications. And then both
Speaker 1: of them having already seen your picture. It's not surprising
Speaker 1: at all that both women picked you out of a
Speaker 1: live lineup, so you were arrested. But something about this
Speaker 1: idea in the whole situation should have stuck out to
Speaker 1: everyone involved. The clerk maintained that the victim knew the assailant,
Speaker 1: but the victim didn't know you at all, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: did you know the victim not at all? Never seen
Speaker 1: never met her, never knew right. Plus, you had a
Speaker 1: solid alibi. Your fiance and her daughter vouched for you.
Speaker 1: You've got the movie ticket stubs, you had stayed up
Speaker 1: late watching TV with her family and queens before spending
Speaker 1: the night there. I mean, you were in an entirely
Speaker 1: different borough. I wasn't in the Bronx that weekend. I
Speaker 1: was in Queens and bookmen. And it gets even better now.
Speaker 1: When I first got arrested, my fiance said, you know,
Speaker 1: I intended father in law. He wasn't retired correction officer.
Speaker 1: He went to the Bronx District Attorney's office and said, listen,
Speaker 1: I don't know what this case is about, but I
Speaker 1: know this man was at my house and queens and
Speaker 1: they try to ask, well, do we have the key?
Speaker 1: Do he be coming in three four in the morning.
Speaker 1: They was like, listen, he don't move like that. It
Speaker 1: wasn't no urgency to try to get to the truth,
Speaker 1: to find out what really happened. And like I said,
Speaker 1: the victims also told the cops this guy named was
Speaker 1: some guy named Willie. Later on I found out that
Speaker 1: the cops was investigating some guy named Willie, and paperworked
Speaker 1: that I was able to get years later, showed that
Speaker 1: they was doing investigation into somebody. A matter of fact,
Speaker 1: there was a series of rapes going on in the
Speaker 1: community and it was fitting a similar description, a similar
Speaker 1: m O. And that just stopped. I mean, it sounds
Speaker 1: like maybe this guy could have been an informant, or
Speaker 1: they were protecting him in some way. I don't know,
Speaker 1: because otherwise, why would anybody want to let a serial
Speaker 1: rapists remain free? It's insane, but that's what happened, and
Speaker 1: I can only speculate because I haven't no idea what
Speaker 1: was going on behind the scenes. And it's crazy when
Speaker 1: you talk about your father in law to be, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a guy you would think would
Speaker 1: have some credibility, you know, in that system especially, and
Speaker 1: they didn't care what he had to say. They didn't
Speaker 1: care what you had to say, didn't care about your fiance.
Speaker 1: In fact, they were aggressively disinterested, no question. They were
Speaker 1: fighting against the truth and they want they said when
Speaker 1: they came to stand. Well, once we focus on Mr Newton,
Speaker 1: everything else ceased in regards to another suspect. And a
Speaker 1: lot of these cases, the person that committed these crimes
Speaker 1: go on to commit multiple crimes. Okay, I'm not caught.
Speaker 1: They don't stop and like check themselves, right. And this
Speaker 1: is a guy who was so depraved that he also
Speaker 1: took a box cutter to her face. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: this is like, this is a person that we should
Speaker 1: all want off the streets, you know, I mean, Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: This episode is underwritten by global law firm Greenberg Traaric.
Speaker 1: Through its pro Boono program, Greenberg Trary leverages it's more
Speaker 1: than lawyers across forty two offices to serve the greater
Speaker 1: good of our communities and provide equal access to justice
Speaker 1: for all in the field of criminal justice. Greenbrig Triary Attorneys,
Speaker 1: having soonerted and Freedom and in Philadelphia, represent numerous individuals
Speaker 1: previously sentenced to life for crimes committed as juveniles and
Speaker 1: resentencing hearings, and received the American part Associations Exceptional Service
Speaker 1: Award for Death Penalty Representation for their work on five
Speaker 1: death penalty cases. GT is reimagining what big law can
Speaker 1: be because a more just world only happens by design.
Speaker 1: They offered me three years, Jason offered me three to
Speaker 1: ten years in a plea deal, and I couldn't take debts,
Speaker 1: made a conscious decision to go to trial and fight
Speaker 1: this all the way through. How long did the trial take?
Speaker 1: Five to six days altogether? So it trially only used
Speaker 1: the rape kit and other biological evidence to determine that
Speaker 1: a sexual act had occurred, but no sterological evidence was presented,
Speaker 1: so we don't know what they found out, if anything,
Speaker 1: at all. And I'd only be speculating to say that
Speaker 1: since they had identifications from the victim and the witness,
Speaker 1: they may have ignored or hidden inconvenient exculpatory evidence like
Speaker 1: if the blood type didn't match Allen. And of course,
Speaker 1: many years later DNA testing absolutely excluded Alan and proved
Speaker 1: that these two misidentifications were just that totally unreliable. And
Speaker 1: that's really all this trial came down to, the two misidentifications.
Speaker 1: They had to line up. They had to line up.
Speaker 1: I was picked out by the victim and this witness.
Speaker 1: But when they both came to court a year later
Speaker 1: and saw me again, neither one of them in this
Speaker 1: lely picked me out in the court, neither one of them.
Speaker 1: And then the district attorney I was on the case
Speaker 1: at the time. The ad A have a discussion with
Speaker 1: the victim and the store clerk, and they both came
Speaker 1: up with an excuse of why I'm now the guy.
Speaker 1: So the only evidence they had was shaky. But somehow
Speaker 1: that was still enough to overcome your defense. What if
Speaker 1: anything was presented in your favor. I mean, not only
Speaker 1: did my fiance testify, her daughter testified. My fiance also
Speaker 1: took a lot of technive tests. He passed it. You know,
Speaker 1: the court wasn't formed, the district attorney wasn't formed about this.
Speaker 1: And unlike you see on C S I or one
Speaker 1: of these other law and order shows, where okay, somebody
Speaker 1: passed a lot of tective tests, let's try to do
Speaker 1: a little more research. The only thing the judge did
Speaker 1: he turned to my fiance while she was on the
Speaker 1: stand and said, listen, if you say anything about that
Speaker 1: lot of detective tests, I'm gonna hold you in contempt,
Speaker 1: right and obviously lie. Detective test results are inadmissible because
Speaker 1: the testing is super were subjective, but back in polygraph
Speaker 1: results were still admissible in court. So it's interesting and
Speaker 1: confusing that this judge seemed keen on keeping that information
Speaker 1: from the jury, which brings us to this very odd verdict.
Speaker 1: You were acquitted of all the charges stemming from the
Speaker 1: incident at the park, but convicted of the charges related
Speaker 1: to the victim's attack in the abandoned building, which I
Speaker 1: had to read that like three times because I was like,
Speaker 1: but wait a minute, it was known at the time
Speaker 1: directly from the victim that it was the same person.
Speaker 1: So can you I mean, that's a great question. Just
Speaker 1: helped me out here because I don't understand I gotta
Speaker 1: answer for that. Remember, now, the victim and the clerk
Speaker 1: had different testimony in the gods to how the victim
Speaker 1: got into the car. The victim says she was abducted.
Speaker 1: The clerk says she wentomly walked into the car. So
Speaker 1: the jury subbi as that these two people knew each other.
Speaker 1: And then to hear what the jury told my lawyer
Speaker 1: about why they made that decision. It was like, oh, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: they called the girl a liar about being abducted coming
Speaker 1: out the store. They went with the store clerks testimony
Speaker 1: that she walked into the car on her own, which
Speaker 1: me they were saying the girl and the guy was together,
Speaker 1: but we believe something went wrong after the park. So
Speaker 1: they believed the victim when she says she got assaulted
Speaker 1: in the building, but they thought she was lying about
Speaker 1: the park and that came out because she got cut.
Speaker 1: If this woman did not get cut, I truly believe
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have got convicted because their attitude was, well,
Speaker 1: this was a consensual relationship, even though that wasn't the
Speaker 1: testimony outside of what the clerks said about the guy
Speaker 1: beeping the horn and the victim walking into the car.
Speaker 1: So that's called to be pugnant verdict because it's the
Speaker 1: same victim, it's the same evidence, and a judge legally
Speaker 1: don't supposed to allow because it's inconsistent. I mean, the
Speaker 1: jury was presented with this conflicting evidence, and maybe in
Speaker 1: the interest of public safety or so they thought, they
Speaker 1: were very willing to come up with their own narrative
Speaker 1: of the events to come to this verdict, which of
Speaker 1: course isn't what they're supposed to do. It. They accepted
Speaker 1: the store clerks testimony, in effect calling the victims testimony
Speaker 1: about not knowing her attacker. They called that a lie. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: it was undisputed that she didn't know you at all,
Speaker 1: yet she identified you anyway. That means if the store
Speaker 1: clerk was right, the victim must have been protecting her
Speaker 1: actual attack or when talking to the police and fingered
Speaker 1: you in his place. On the other hand, if the
Speaker 1: store clerk was wrong, maybe she was abducted by a stranger,
Speaker 1: But then the jury should have believed her about both assaults.
Speaker 1: They just chose to believe half of the victim's story
Speaker 1: about the building, and we don't believe what happened in
Speaker 1: the park. And they said, well, we're gonna go with
Speaker 1: the store clerk because supposedly she's an independent witness. But
Speaker 1: it was also testimony from the victim ofself now that
Speaker 1: she got assaulted about less than a month before by
Speaker 1: an ex boyfriend. So it was a lot of things
Speaker 1: that came out. But I also believe the judge played
Speaker 1: a big part in my trial because the A d
Speaker 1: A in my case was kind of new, fresh out
Speaker 1: of law school. You know, she wasn't up to par
Speaker 1: when it came to trying to question witnesses. The judge
Speaker 1: was taken over across examination and to direct the examination.
Speaker 1: It was like you're supposed to be, you know, the arbitrator,
Speaker 1: not make the case for the A d A. Unfortunately
Speaker 1: passed away before my case got overturned, because I would
Speaker 1: have really liked to show him that I was really innocent.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that would have been satisfying. Considering what you're
Speaker 1: telling us now and also what we know this judge
Speaker 1: had already said to your fiance. By being held in contempt,
Speaker 1: it sounds like he was really, for all intents and purposes,
Speaker 1: just another prosecutor, like an adjunct prosecutor, which obviously totally
Speaker 1: tilts the scale, and not in your favor at all.
Speaker 1: So at this point did you expect the jury would
Speaker 1: see past the nonsense? I mean, when you're telling the truth,
Speaker 1: you believe in your heart it's gonna stand up you.
Speaker 1: You believe it's enough. It came as a real shot.
Speaker 1: I wanted to prove my innocence and say, hey, I
Speaker 1: got the wrong guy here, you know this, this can't
Speaker 1: go on. And I didn't think it was gonna last
Speaker 1: twenty two years. And I mean I didn't think I
Speaker 1: was gonna get convicted either. So the first thing I
Speaker 1: did once I got up state, the Falce motion I
Speaker 1: put in the post say motion was trying to get
Speaker 1: podology tested. That's the first motion I put it. I
Speaker 1: want to try to get that great kit and try
Speaker 1: to test it, you know, and this was pre DNA.
Speaker 1: I just want to test it for blood typing. Judge
Speaker 1: Weinstein or through the years when I was founding motions
Speaker 1: on my behalf, he just he would shoot me down.
Speaker 1: He just disregarded all my emotions. Even I was trying
Speaker 1: to find the rat kit and presenting you know, the
Speaker 1: Republican verdict, everything got dismissed. And it was hard, man,
Speaker 1: you know, it was rough. I lost both my parents
Speaker 1: in there, and whose things that you know that I
Speaker 1: lost I could never get back. But I had my
Speaker 1: family and they was, you know, always there for me,
Speaker 1: and so having that support and had to keep fighting
Speaker 1: though until I got it right though, until they realized
Speaker 1: they made a mistake. And that took unfortunately way too
Speaker 1: long as it usually does in these cases. Ten years
Speaker 1: after I got convicted, New York State passed the DNA law.
Speaker 1: I was one of the first people to put in
Speaker 1: the motion as far as trying to get tested. Unger
Speaker 1: sixteenth and eighteen eighty before that was the first time
Speaker 1: that you requested the post conviction DNA testing. But the
Speaker 1: court denied your request because they said the kid could
Speaker 1: not be located. Because I was going to say, the
Speaker 1: courts allotted d A's office to indicate, well, we can't
Speaker 1: find it. We did a search, we can't find it.
Speaker 1: And so my one true hope of proving my innocence
Speaker 1: and my mind didn't exist anymore. You know, it was
Speaker 1: gone beneato, and that had to be a terrible blow, right,
Speaker 1: you know. I was almost broken though, and you know,
Speaker 1: no chance of getting out I got to do all
Speaker 1: this time unless I go say I did something I
Speaker 1: didn't do to try to make prolole. And I spoke
Speaker 1: with you know, my brother about it, my family, and
Speaker 1: I was like, hey, I may have to go take
Speaker 1: a program here and say I did this crime just
Speaker 1: to have consideration, not for releast consideration. And my family
Speaker 1: was like, no, you're you're not doing that I was like,
Speaker 1: I'm doing this time. It was like, no, we're all
Speaker 1: doing this time with you. That sounds like a pretty
Speaker 1: dark time. But fortunately this whole situation turned around and
Speaker 1: this is the good stuff. So what happened next? So
Speaker 1: now ten years after that, when innocens brought to come
Speaker 1: on in case, Vanessa Popkin reached out to the Bronze
Speaker 1: County District Attorney's office and the a d A decided, Okay,
Speaker 1: you know, we're gonna look for it now because we
Speaker 1: have an attorney acts in us. The relationships the Innocence
Speaker 1: Project had with the district attorney offices made it possible.
Speaker 1: I mean, the courts couldn't make the d a's office
Speaker 1: look for it. In November two thousand and five, the
Speaker 1: kit was found after a physical search of the evidence
Speaker 1: barrels at the Pearson Place Queen's warehouse, which means the
Speaker 1: rape kit was found in the same barrel that was
Speaker 1: indicated on the evidence voucher, which is to say, it
Speaker 1: was where it was supposed to be and where he
Speaker 1: had almost certainly been all those years that they had
Speaker 1: been saying they couldn't find it. It was right there
Speaker 1: now it was supposed to go back to the Bronx.
Speaker 1: It never went back to the Bronx. They didn't come
Speaker 1: to pick it up after the trial. And what happened.
Speaker 1: You know, evidence that's not reclaimed is sent to piercing
Speaker 1: place in Queens and like you said, it was indicated
Speaker 1: on the voucher that it was set somewhere else. Now
Speaker 1: this is the this is the tricky part. If it
Speaker 1: had got sent back to the Bronx, there's a possibility
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been here. Because the Bronx was losing
Speaker 1: and destroying stuff. Queen's warehouse was bigger, so they was
Speaker 1: able to maintain property. Even though they got property in
Speaker 1: there for fifty years, they was able to maintained So
Speaker 1: technically it wasn't what was supposed to be, but it
Speaker 1: was wild was indicated to be so. In April two
Speaker 1: thousand and six, F s A Forensic Science Associates attained
Speaker 1: a full DNA profile from the Dagelan cervical swabs. The
Speaker 1: reference samples were collected from you, Allen, and F s
Speaker 1: A and the Bronx d AS office confirmed the d
Speaker 1: n A. Drum roll please, here we go. The d
Speaker 1: n A conclusively excluded you as the source of the
Speaker 1: sperm recovered from the victim. Immediately after the rape, justice
Speaker 1: finally prevailed. It was delayed, but not denied. It was
Speaker 1: delayed for twenty two years, and on July six of
Speaker 1: two thousand and six, you walked out of a Bronx
Speaker 1: courthouse after the instance project and the Bronx County t
Speaker 1: A's office filed the joint motion to vacate your conviction.
Speaker 1: I remember this because we were all celebrating. What was
Speaker 1: that moment like for you? I was heaving, I was
Speaker 1: I was being I was like being born again. I
Speaker 1: didn't see it coming. I was almost prepared just do
Speaker 1: the whole forty. That was the attitude I had, because
Speaker 1: the pre parole board told me I have no chance
Speaker 1: unless I take responsibility, and so I couldn't see it.
Speaker 1: And I mean I was walked around like a zombie.
Speaker 1: I was just you know, being led by my family
Speaker 1: and you know, I mean the lights and it's the
Speaker 1: It was the best moment in my life, you know,
Speaker 1: like getting convicted. You know, twenty two years prior to that,
Speaker 1: I didn't see that curveball coming. I didn't really see
Speaker 1: this curveball coming too, because they told me the evidence
Speaker 1: was gone. So when they found it, you know, it
Speaker 1: was like, if it's not tampered with, I know, I'm okay.
Speaker 1: Let me interject one thing real quick. If it was
Speaker 1: up to the city, I would have never got exonerated.
Speaker 1: We found out during a civil trial the o c
Speaker 1: m e's office when they were doing the testing and
Speaker 1: they was contaminating their own samples, they was not able
Speaker 1: to come up with a result whether that was my
Speaker 1: DNA or not because the sample that they had they
Speaker 1: was contaminating it. So whether it's being done deliberately or
Speaker 1: you know, just in competence, it's still being done. And
Speaker 1: if you can't get access to independent testing, which is
Speaker 1: what the Innocence Project was able to do, instead of
Speaker 1: relying on just the o c m S Office, you're
Speaker 1: in a catch swaying to the situation because you can
Speaker 1: only believe the sworn documents that they submit to the court.
Speaker 1: It's the same way when I was following my motions,
Speaker 1: po say, all those years they were swearing to the
Speaker 1: court that they did a search and can't find the evidence.
Speaker 1: It's terrifying. I mean, it's scary enough to think you
Speaker 1: could get lost, Like even when your evidence was sitting
Speaker 1: in that warehouse. They could have been a flood, right,
Speaker 1: there could have been anything and you would be doomed.
Speaker 1: But it wasn't. So when Lost six came and they
Speaker 1: cut a brother loose, like I said, it was like
Speaker 1: my born day and that's like my second birthday now
Speaker 1: and I look forward to that day and I chellship
Speaker 1: I appreciate life so much more now because I realized
Speaker 1: how quick we can have the snatched away from us,
Speaker 1: just you know, on somebody's accusation, somebody's claim, and you
Speaker 1: know how we really don't have any rights because that'shally
Speaker 1: came down to. You know, you're guilty until you prove
Speaker 1: your innocence. That's the way to the system is now.
Speaker 1: So it was you know, bitter sweet too at the
Speaker 1: end of the day because I had lost so much,
Speaker 1: like I said, both my parents. So it was a
Speaker 1: bitter sweet Forty five years old, you're released out into
Speaker 1: the world, no job. Your fiance had moved on. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't blame her after twenty two years, but you know,
Speaker 1: you hit the ground running anyway. Scholarship from the Third
Speaker 1: Good Marshal Fund enabled you to enroll and get it
Speaker 1: be as business administration. Right. I remember meeting you back
Speaker 1: around that time, and you started working as a youth mentor,
Speaker 1: started dating, even water skiing in the Caribbean, eventually right
Speaker 1: and graduating in two thousand and NATed. Of course, you
Speaker 1: filed civil rights lawsuit and were awarded a lot of money.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any amount of money that would
Speaker 1: be enough to justify the suffering that you went through
Speaker 1: and your family went through. But the fact is it's
Speaker 1: nice to see. I mean, unfortunately most exonorees never get
Speaker 1: any compensation. It makes me happy to see when somebody
Speaker 1: like you does at least get that monetary rewards so
Speaker 1: you can, you know, do the things that you want
Speaker 1: to do. And I get back though, and I try
Speaker 1: to help that the exonovies try to go out there
Speaker 1: and talk about this issue because I could stay at
Speaker 1: my you know, man cave and you know, stay depressed
Speaker 1: and stay focused on the last forty years of my life.
Speaker 1: But it's more about, you know, letting people know there's
Speaker 1: something better out there and and we could make things better,
Speaker 1: but we all have to you know, stay you know,
Speaker 1: vigilant and trying to make this possible. And I'm glad
Speaker 1: you're out there doing everything you're doing. It's so important
Speaker 1: that people need to hear from you. You're including right here,
Speaker 1: right now on this podcast. Should now getting towards the
Speaker 1: closing of the show, It's called closing arguments, and it
Speaker 1: works like this. I'm gonna first of all, thank you
Speaker 1: again for being here and for being such a beacon
Speaker 1: of hope and for sharing your story. And then I'm
Speaker 1: going to kick back in my chair, turn off my
Speaker 1: microphone and leave my headphones on and just listen for
Speaker 1: anything else you want to share with me in our audience.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jason H. I appreciate you guys and being
Speaker 1: able to tell the story. It's a blessing because I think, um,
Speaker 1: this is you know, one subject that all sane minds
Speaker 1: think alike. We should not have innocent people being wrong
Speaker 1: fee convicted and locked up for anything. And if there's
Speaker 1: any chance in any shred of evidence that proved us,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, we should move mountains to to
Speaker 1: exonerate you know, men and women, because you have a
Speaker 1: lot more women now that's being wrongfully convicted also. And
Speaker 1: and like I said, I think this is one thing
Speaker 1: that you know, we all agree about, but we just
Speaker 1: have to be diligent and always reminding, you know, public
Speaker 1: officials that this is a subject that affects each and
Speaker 1: every one of us, and each time the opportunity arises,
Speaker 1: we must help people in these situations, you know, while
Speaker 1: they imprisoned, trying to prove their innocence, and definitely when
Speaker 1: we come home, because like you said, I had to
Speaker 1: hit the ground running because it wasn't nothing there for me.
Speaker 1: I had a lot of help, fortunately, and unfortunately, a
Speaker 1: lot of my you know, for Alexander Rees don't at
Speaker 1: that type of help. You know, whether it's you know,
Speaker 1: whether they got exonerated or you know, the family or
Speaker 1: friends situation. It's so important that you know, we all
Speaker 1: as a society try to not only prevent this from
Speaker 1: happening in the future, but when it does, make every
Speaker 1: opportunity to make these people hold again, you know, make
Speaker 1: it right. They can't go back and obtain what they lost,
Speaker 1: but moving forward we can all make life better for us.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburne, and Kevin Wardis,
Speaker 1: with research by Lila Robinson. The music in this production
Speaker 1: was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
Speaker 1: all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
Speaker 1: TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason flam Raleval Conviction is
Speaker 1: the production of Lava for Good podcasts in association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one