Speaker 1: On June twenty third, nineteen eighty four, at around four am,
Speaker 1: at a bodega in the Bronx, a male customer bought
Speaker 1: beer and a twenty five year old woman bought cigarettes.
Speaker 1: It's unclear whether they knew one another. The store clerk
Speaker 1: said that the woman willingly got into the male customer's
Speaker 1: blue and white sedan. However, according to the woman, she
Speaker 1: was abducted upon leaving the store. Then she was dragged
Speaker 1: into a park, raped, sodomized, and robbed before chasing the
Speaker 1: man down and getting her money back. Then, while waiting
Speaker 1: for a cab, the same man dragged her into an
Speaker 1: abandoned building where he again assaulted her, but this time
Speaker 1: he cut her face with a razor blade, blinding her
Speaker 1: in her left eye and threatening to kill her if
Speaker 1: she went to the police. When she awoke, she called
Speaker 1: first responders and went to the hospital, where she underwent
Speaker 1: surgery and a rape kit. Police showed her a mugshot
Speaker 1: book and she chose the picture of a man named
Speaker 1: Alan Newton. The store clerk identified Alan as well from
Speaker 1: a photo array, but on the night of the crime,
Speaker 1: Alan had stayed with his fiance's family in Queens, all
Speaker 1: of whom had said that no one had left in
Speaker 1: the middle of the night. Curiously, no zerology was presented
Speaker 1: at trial, only two very shaky IDAs from the witness
Speaker 1: and the victim, who could not agree on whether the
Speaker 1: victim knew her assailant or not. Advances in DNA testing
Speaker 1: would be all that Allan needed to eventually disprove his accusers,
Speaker 1: but only if the police could be bothered to locate
Speaker 1: the rape kit right where it had always been for
Speaker 1: twenty two long years. This is Wrongful Conviction. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Wrongful Conviction today. Well, this is long overdue because
Speaker 1: ever since I started doing this podcast back in two
Speaker 1: thousand and six, team, I've thought a lot about this
Speaker 1: case of the man you're about to hear from in person,
Speaker 1: Alan Newton, and I don't know why we haven't gotten
Speaker 1: around to it till now, but I'm so glad we're
Speaker 1: going to do it today because this is a story
Speaker 1: that needs to be heard, and it's a hard one
Speaker 1: to hear, by the way, and I'm very, very excited
Speaker 1: and honored to have you here today, Alan Newton, Welcome
Speaker 1: to Wronful Conviction.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Jason. Definitely appreciate what y'all, guy is doing
Speaker 2: as far as getting our story out there.
Speaker 1: So let's go back before this happened, and before you
Speaker 1: were exposed to the worst that our criminal legal system
Speaker 1: has to offer. Your life was pretty good, right.
Speaker 2: Fairy decent. I was working, had graduated high school, and
Speaker 2: my mind, you know, back in nineteen eighty four, living
Speaker 2: my best life and appearing when to go to college
Speaker 2: in a couple of years is and that's an ordinary
Speaker 2: young guy just living my life.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're working for the New York Telephone Company
Speaker 1: obviously a name that doesn't exist anymore, but New York
Speaker 1: Telephone Company for people who remember that far back, was
Speaker 1: a big company in New York, obviously, and you were
Speaker 1: going to hip hop dance parties in the Bronx, which
Speaker 1: was again like that was the popular thing to do
Speaker 1: back then. And if I understand correctly, you were also
Speaker 1: engaged at the time, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, I was living in the Bronx. My fiance was
Speaker 2: living in Queens, so I was working in Manhattan. So
Speaker 2: I was basically traveling around New York City through the
Speaker 2: bows and parties.
Speaker 1: Just making your way, right like any other twenty three
Speaker 1: year old guy would be doing at the time. And
Speaker 1: so you had one previous incident that I guess put
Speaker 1: you on the radar of the authorities, right, Can you
Speaker 1: tell us about that?
Speaker 2: It was the year in nineteen seventy nine, two three
Speaker 2: months before I graduated high school, and I was at
Speaker 2: a party and got in a fight with another young
Speaker 2: teenager at my age and got a battery charge. And unfortunately,
Speaker 2: it was the photographs and the police mug shot books
Speaker 2: that the victim supposedly picked out to connect me to
Speaker 2: this longful conviction of us.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean we've heard that story before, whether it's
Speaker 1: with the John Asier Velasque's case or so many other
Speaker 1: cases where some minor infraction for which somebody in a
Speaker 1: different zip code probably wouldn't have been arrested or charged.
Speaker 1: But you know, a little high school incident, a fight.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying a fight isn't a serious thing, but
Speaker 1: it was a fight among two teenage boys, which happens
Speaker 1: every day in different cities all over the country, and
Speaker 1: ninety nine percent of the time no charges are filed.
Speaker 1: But you know, in the poorer communities, people of color,
Speaker 1: you can end up with a record that could end
Speaker 1: up with a mugshot in a book that can end
Speaker 1: up in a wrongful conviction, and it happens time and again,
Speaker 1: and that's exactly what happened in this case.
Speaker 2: And you're absolutely right because you know later on on
Speaker 2: learning about the case and all that the other guy
Speaker 2: that had to fight with wasn't coming to court. So
Speaker 2: it really wasn't anybody, you know, pushing the case along
Speaker 2: through the justice system. But in my ignorance, not knowing
Speaker 2: better and just wanting to move on because I was
Speaker 2: working and losing days at work, you know, coming back
Speaker 2: and forth to court, I decided just to take a bleed.
Speaker 2: And like you said, under different circumstances and another zip code,
Speaker 2: the case with it. Just like you said, it's just
Speaker 2: a fight between teenagers at a party. But that's not
Speaker 2: the way the justice system, like the dol out punishment
Speaker 2: when it comes to certain communities, it's more so about
Speaker 2: putting people through the criminal justice system and making sure
Speaker 2: that they have a record for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: So that brings us right up to the time of
Speaker 1: the crime. Now. At four am on June twenty third,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty four, a twenty five year old woman stopped
Speaker 1: at a convenience during the bronze to buy cigarettes, and
Speaker 1: there are some conflicts in the narrative between the victim
Speaker 1: and the store clerk that had an impact later in
Speaker 1: the compromised way in which the jury decided the case.
Speaker 1: So back to the night of the crime, the store
Speaker 1: clerk said that the assailant also came into the store
Speaker 1: at that time and bought a beer before returning to
Speaker 1: his car, a blue and white Sadan, where he was
Speaker 1: honking his horn for the victim. In this case, the
Speaker 1: store clerk said that the victim went to the car voluntarily.
Speaker 1: The victim, while maintained when she exited the store that
Speaker 1: this other customer, the assailant grabbed her from behind, put
Speaker 1: a box cutter to her throat, and threw her into
Speaker 1: the blue and white sedan and it drove off. Now,
Speaker 1: after a few minutes, the car stalled, and when the
Speaker 1: assailant got out to check the engine, allegedly the passenger
Speaker 1: side door handle was broken off so the victim couldn't
Speaker 1: get out of the car. The assailant then dragged her
Speaker 1: to a nearby park where he orally sodomized and raped
Speaker 1: her and attempted to take her money in cigarettes.
Speaker 2: Yes, she said the guy took her money. She says
Speaker 2: she ran after the guy, and the guy gave her
Speaker 2: money back. When she claimed that she asked some kids
Speaker 2: to feed. He didn't say she was going to caught
Speaker 2: a cop at this time anything. She says she was
Speaker 2: waiting for a cab. She said the guy came and
Speaker 2: abducted her again. This time he took her an abandoned building,
Speaker 2: raped her again, robbed again, and this time he'd cut.
Speaker 1: Her in case it wasn't horrible enough, he'd cut her
Speaker 1: face with a razor to prevent her from identifying. He
Speaker 1: actually blinded her in one eye, and he told her
Speaker 1: that if she called the police, he would come back
Speaker 1: and kill her. She saw his back as he ran away,
Speaker 1: and then she passed out. But when she came to
Speaker 1: and regained consciousness, she went to a call box. He
Speaker 1: 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 to seven or five eight,
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty pounds, with a short afro, had
Speaker 1: a mustache, but she said she couldn't tell if he
Speaker 1: was darker light skinned because it was the middle of
Speaker 1: the night. Obviously it was very dark out, and she
Speaker 1: told the detective at the hospital that he was physically
Speaker 1: large and that his name was Willy. Did any of
Speaker 1: this stuff match up with you?
Speaker 2: It didn't match up with me. It wasn't anything that
Speaker 2: connected me to the crime. I was in Queens that
Speaker 2: weekend with my fiance, had the ticket steps from going
Speaker 2: to see Ghostbusters Saturday, and.
Speaker 1: Yeah, wow, Ghostbusters. You know, I'm just thinking about that
Speaker 1: movie was like such a huge thing. It can't It
Speaker 1: was like the only thing we were talking about that
Speaker 1: summer of eighty four, which has other implications, specifically that
Speaker 1: there was no DNA testing back in nineteen eighty four
Speaker 1: at the hospital. They did do a rape kit and
Speaker 1: sperm was gathered, but without the DNA testing that eventually
Speaker 1: would exonerate you. Alan, all they had was zerology. So,
Speaker 1: to the best of your knowledge, did they do any
Speaker 1: testing about blood types at all of this evidence that
Speaker 1: they had collected.
Speaker 2: Not to my knowledge, I didn't find any paperwork. But
Speaker 2: I have to believe they had an idea because when
Speaker 2: I got arrested, I went through Rikers Allen and back
Speaker 2: then they was taking blood from you. But as far
Speaker 2: as I know, they never did any soology testing, even
Speaker 2: though they had my blood type and they had a
Speaker 2: solology evidence that was in the rape kit.
Speaker 1: So soroology testing was standard protocol back then in a
Speaker 1: case like this. If they had something to use against you,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you know that they would have. But the
Speaker 1: only evidence from the rape kit that the DAUS was
Speaker 1: that spermitozoa 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.
Speaker 2: Out, and even what they have the stalk clerk. The
Speaker 2: stalk clerk said the reason why she recognized me. This
Speaker 2: is what she claimed on a stand I was the
Speaker 2: only guy that I came into the establishment and the
Speaker 2: last twelve hours that she didn't know.
Speaker 1: And again we don't know how suggestive they were being
Speaker 1: with either of these identifications, and then both of them
Speaker 1: having already seen your picture. It's not surprising at all
Speaker 1: that both women picked you out of a live lineup,
Speaker 1: so you were arrested. But something about this idea and
Speaker 1: the whole situation should have stuck out to everyone involved.
Speaker 1: The clerk maintained that the victim knew the assailant, but
Speaker 1: the victim didn't know you at all, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: did you know the victim.
Speaker 2: Not at all? Never seen her, never met her, never
Speaker 2: knew right.
Speaker 1: Plus you had a solid alibi. Your fiance and her
Speaker 1: daughter bouch for you. You've got the movie ticket stubs,
Speaker 1: you had stayed up late watching TV with her family
Speaker 1: and Queens before spending the night there. I mean, you
Speaker 1: were in an entirely different borough.
Speaker 2: I wasn't in the brongs that weekend. I was in
Speaker 2: Queens and Bookman. And it gets even better now. When
Speaker 2: I first got arrested, my fiance, you know, intended father
Speaker 2: in law. He was a retired correction officer. He went
Speaker 2: to the Bronx District Attorney's office and said, listen, I
Speaker 2: don't know what this case is about, but I know
Speaker 2: this man was at my house in Queen's and they
Speaker 2: try to ask, well, do we have a key? Do
Speaker 2: he be coming in three four in the morning. They
Speaker 2: was like, listen, he don't move like that. It wasn't
Speaker 2: no urgency to try to get to the truth, to
Speaker 2: find out what really happened. And like I said, the
Speaker 2: victim also told the cops this guy named was some
Speaker 2: guy named Willy. Later on, I found out that the
Speaker 2: cops was investigating some guy named Willy, and paperwork that
Speaker 2: I was able to get years later showed that they
Speaker 2: was doing investigation into somebody. Matter of fact, there was
Speaker 2: a series of rapes going on in the community and
Speaker 2: it was fitting a similar description, a similar mo and
Speaker 2: that just stopped.
Speaker 1: I mean, it sounds like maybe this guy could have
Speaker 1: been an informant, or they were protecting him in some way.
Speaker 1: I don't know, because otherwise, why would anybody want to
Speaker 1: let a serial rapist remain free. It's insane, but that's
Speaker 1: what happened, and I can only speculate because I have
Speaker 1: no idea what was going on behind the scenes. And
Speaker 1: it's crazy when you talk about your father in law
Speaker 1: to be, you know. I mean, this is a guy
Speaker 1: you would think would have some credibility, you know, in
Speaker 1: that system especially, And they didn't care what he had
Speaker 1: to say. They didn't care what you had to say,
Speaker 1: they didn't care about your fiance. In fact, they were
Speaker 1: aggressively disinterested, no question. They were fighting against the truth
Speaker 1: and they won.
Speaker 2: They said, when they can't to stand. Well, once we
Speaker 2: focused on mister Newton, everything else ceased in regards to
Speaker 2: another suspect. And a lot of these cases, the person
Speaker 2: that committed these crimes go on to commit multiple crimes. Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm not caught. They don't stop and like check themselves, right.
Speaker 1: And this is a guy who was so depraved that
Speaker 1: he also took a box cutter to her face. I mean,
Speaker 1: like this is like, this is a person that we
Speaker 1: should all want off the streets, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ. This episode is underwritten by global law firm
Speaker 1: Greenberg Traig through its pro bono program. Greenberg Traig leverages
Speaker 1: its more than twenty four hundred lawyers across forty two
Speaker 1: offices to serve the greater good of our communities and
Speaker 1: provide equal access to justice for all in the field
Speaker 1: of criminal justice. Greenberg Triwerg attorneys have exonerated and freedomand
Speaker 1: in Philadelphia represent numerous individuals previously sentenced to life for
Speaker 1: crimes committed as juveniles and resentencing hearings, and received the
Speaker 1: American Bar Association's twenty twenty one Exceptional Service Award for
Speaker 1: Death Penalty Representation for their work on five death penalty cases.
Speaker 1: GT is reimagining what big law can be because a
Speaker 1: more just world only happens by design.
Speaker 2: They offered me three years, Jason, they offered me three
Speaker 2: to ten years in a plea deal, and I couldn't
Speaker 2: take debt saw. I made a constant decision to go
Speaker 2: to trial and fight this all the way through.
Speaker 1: How long did the trial take?
Speaker 2: Five to six days altogether?
Speaker 1: So Trialy only used the rate kit and other biological
Speaker 1: evidence to determine that a sexual act had occurred, but
Speaker 1: no zerological evidence was presented, So we don't know what
Speaker 1: they found out, if anything, at all. And I'd only
Speaker 1: be speculating to say that since they had identifications from
Speaker 1: the victim and the witness, they may have ignored or
Speaker 1: hidden inconvenient exculpatory evidence, like if the blood type didn't
Speaker 1: match Allen, And of course many years later DNA testing
Speaker 1: absolutely excluded Allan and proved that these two misidentifications were
Speaker 1: just that totally unreliable. And that's really all this trial
Speaker 1: came down to. The two misidentifications.
Speaker 2: They had to line up. They had to line up.
Speaker 2: I was picked out by the victim and this witness.
Speaker 2: But when they both came to court a year later
Speaker 2: and saw me again, neither one of them initially picked
Speaker 2: me out in court, neither one of them, and then
Speaker 2: the district attorney I was on the case at the time.
Speaker 2: The ABA had a discussion with the victim and the
Speaker 2: store clerk, and they both came up with an excuse
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: I mean, not only did my fiance testify, her daughter testified.
Speaker 2: My fiance also took a lot of detective tests, see
Speaker 2: passed it. You know, the court was informed, the district
Speaker 2: attorney was informed about this. And unlike you see on
Speaker 2: CSI or one of these other law and order shows
Speaker 2: where okay, somebody passed a lot of detective tests. Let's
Speaker 2: try to do a little more research. The only thing
Speaker 2: the judge did he turned to my fiance while she
Speaker 2: was on the stand and said, listen, if you say
Speaker 2: anything about that lie of detective tests, I'm gonna hold
Speaker 2: 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 nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty four, polygraph results were still admissible in court. So
Speaker 1: it's interesting and confusing that this judge seemed keen on
Speaker 1: keeping that information from the jury, which brings us to
Speaker 1: this very odd verdict. You were acquitted of all the
Speaker 1: charges stemming from the incident at the park, but convicted
Speaker 1: of the charges related to the victim's attack in the
Speaker 1: abandoned building, which I had to read that like three
Speaker 1: times because I was like, but wait a minute, it
Speaker 1: was known at the time directly from the victim that
Speaker 1: it was the same person.
Speaker 2: Correct, So.
Speaker 1: Can you I mean, that's a great question. I just
Speaker 1: helped me out here because I don't understand I.
Speaker 2: Got to answer for that. Remember, now, the victim and
Speaker 2: the clerk had different testimony in regards to how the
Speaker 2: victim got into the car. The victim says she was abducted.
Speaker 2: The clerk says she randomly walked into the call. So
Speaker 2: the jury submided is that these two people knew each other.
Speaker 2: And then to hear what the jury told my lawyer
Speaker 2: about why they made that decision, it was like, oh, yeah, well,
Speaker 2: they called the girl a liar about being abducted coming
Speaker 2: out the store. They went with the store clerk's testimony
Speaker 2: that she walked into the car on her own, which
Speaker 2: means they were saying the girl and the guy was together.
Speaker 2: But we believed something went wrong after the park, so
Speaker 2: they believed the victim when she says she got assaulted
Speaker 2: in the building, but they thought she was lying about
Speaker 2: the park and that came out because she got cut.
Speaker 2: If this woman did not get cut, I truly believed
Speaker 2: I wouldn't got convicted because they attitude was, well, this
Speaker 2: was a consensual relationship, even though that wasn't the testimony
Speaker 2: outside of what the clerk said about the guy beeping
Speaker 2: the horn and the victim walking into the car. So
Speaker 2: that's called to be pugnant verdict because it's the same victim,
Speaker 2: it's the same evidence, and a judge legally don't supposed
Speaker 2: to allow because it's inconsistent.
Speaker 1: I mean, the jury was presented with this conflicting evidence,
Speaker 1: and maybe in the interest of public safety or so,
Speaker 1: they thought, they were very willing to come up with
Speaker 1: their own narrative of the events to come to this verdict,
Speaker 1: which of course isn't what they're supposed to do. They'd
Speaker 1: accepted the store clerk's testimony, in effect, calling the victim's
Speaker 1: testimony 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 attacker when talking to the police and fingered you
Speaker 1: in his place. On the other hand, if the store
Speaker 1: clerk was wrong, maybe she was abducted by a stranger.
Speaker 1: But then the jury should have believed her about both assaults.
Speaker 2: They just chose to believe half of the victim's story
Speaker 2: about the building, and we don't believe what happened in
Speaker 2: the park. And they said, well, we're going to go
Speaker 2: with the store clerk because supposedly she's an independent witness.
Speaker 2: But it was also testimony from the victim herself, now
Speaker 2: that she had got assaulted about less than a month
Speaker 2: before by an ex boyfriend. So it was a lot
Speaker 2: of things that came out. But I also believed the
Speaker 2: judge played a big part in my trial because the
Speaker 2: ADA in my case was kind of new, fresh out
Speaker 2: of law school. You know, she wasn't up the park
Speaker 2: when it came to trying to question witnesses. The judge
Speaker 2: was taken over across examination and direct examination. It was
Speaker 2: like you're supposed to be, you know, the arbitrator, not
Speaker 2: make the case for the ADA. Unfortunately passed away before
Speaker 2: my case got overturned, because I would have really liked
Speaker 2: 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?
Speaker 2: I mean, when you're telling the truth, you believe in
Speaker 2: your heart, it's gonna stand up. You believe it's enough.
Speaker 2: It came as a real shot. I wanted to prove
Speaker 2: my innocence and say, hey, I got the wrong guy here.
Speaker 2: You know, this can't go on. And I didn't think
Speaker 2: it was gonna last twenty two years. And I mean
Speaker 2: I didn't think I was gonna get convicted either. So
Speaker 2: the first thing I did once I got of state,
Speaker 2: the first motion I put in the post say motion
Speaker 2: was trying to get psylology testing. That's the first motion
Speaker 2: I put in. I wanted to try to get that
Speaker 2: rape kit and try to test it, you know, and
Speaker 2: this was pre DNA. I just want to test it
Speaker 2: for blood typing. Judge Einstein all through the years when
Speaker 2: I was founding motions on my behalf, he just he
Speaker 2: would shoot me down. He just disregarded all my motions.
Speaker 2: Even I was trying to find the rape kit and
Speaker 2: presenting you know, the republic verdict, everything got dismissed. And
Speaker 2: it was hard, man, you know, it was rough. I
Speaker 2: lost both my parents in there, and ooh, things that
Speaker 2: you know that I lost I could never get back.
Speaker 2: But I had my family and they was, you know,
Speaker 2: always there for me. And so having that support and
Speaker 2: had to keep fighting though until I got it right though,
Speaker 2: until they realized they made a mistake.
Speaker 1: And that took unfortunately way too long, as it usually
Speaker 1: does in these cases.
Speaker 2: Ten years after I got convicted, New York State passed
Speaker 2: the DNA law. I was one of the first people
Speaker 2: to put in the motion as far as trying to
Speaker 2: get testing.
Speaker 1: On August sixteenth, nineteen ninety four, that was the first
Speaker 1: time that you requested the post conviction DNA testing, but
Speaker 1: the court denied your request because they said the kit
Speaker 1: could not be located.
Speaker 2: Because I was going to pro say, the courts allotted
Speaker 2: DA's office to indicate, well, we can't find it. We
Speaker 2: did a search, we can't find it. And so my
Speaker 2: one true hope of proving my innocence in my mind
Speaker 2: didn't exist anymore, you know, was gone Vanitho.
Speaker 1: And that had to be a terrible blow, right, you.
Speaker 2: Know, I was almost broken though in you know, no
Speaker 2: chance of getting out I got to do all this
Speaker 2: time unless I go say I did something I didn't
Speaker 2: do to try to make parlole. And I had spoke
Speaker 2: with you know, my brother about it, my family, and
Speaker 2: I was like, hey, I may have to go take
Speaker 2: a program here and say I did this crime just
Speaker 2: to have consideration, not for release consideration. And my family
Speaker 2: was like, nah, you're not doing that. I was like,
Speaker 2: I'm doing this time. They was like no, we all
Speaker 2: doing this time with you.
Speaker 1: That sounds like a pretty dark time. But fortunately this
Speaker 1: whole situation turned around and this is the good stuff.
Speaker 1: So what happened next?
Speaker 2: So now, ten years after that, when Innocon's Project come
Speaker 2: on a case, Vanessa Popkin reached out to the Browns
Speaker 2: County District Attorney's office and the ADA decided, Okay, you know,
Speaker 2: we're gonna look for it now because we have an
Speaker 2: attorney acting us. The relationships the Innocence Project had with
Speaker 2: the district attorney offices made it possible. I mean, the
Speaker 2: courts couldn't make the DA's office look for it.
Speaker 1: In November two thousand and five, the kit was found
Speaker 1: after a physical search of the evidence barrels at the
Speaker 1: Pearson Place Queen's warehouse, which means the rape kit was
Speaker 1: found in the same barrel that was indicated on the
Speaker 1: evidence voucher, which is to say, it was where it
Speaker 1: was supposed to be and where it had almost certainly
Speaker 1: been all those years that they had been saying they
Speaker 1: couldn't find it. It was right there.
Speaker 2: Now it was supposed to go back to the Bronx.
Speaker 2: It never went back to the Bronx. They didn't come
Speaker 2: to pick it up after the trial. And what happened.
Speaker 2: You know, evidence that's not reclaim is sent to piercing
Speaker 2: place in Queens and like you said, it was indicated
Speaker 2: on the voucher that it was sent somewhere else. Now
Speaker 2: this is the tricky part. If it had got sent
Speaker 2: back to the Bronx, there's a possibility I wouldn't have
Speaker 2: been here. Because the Bronx was losing and destroying stuff,
Speaker 2: Queens Warehouse was bigger, so they was able to maintain property.
Speaker 2: Even though they got property in there for fifty years,
Speaker 2: they was able to maintained it. So technically it wasn't
Speaker 2: where was supposed to be, but it was where it
Speaker 2: was indicated to be.
Speaker 1: So in April two thousand and six, FSA Forensic Scize
Speaker 1: Associates attained a full DNA profile from the Daglan cervical swabs.
Speaker 1: The reference samples were collected from you Allen and FSA
Speaker 1: and the Bronx DA's office confirmed the DNA drum roll, please,
Speaker 1: here we go. The DNA conclusively excluded you as the
Speaker 1: source of the sperm are covered from the victim. Immediately
Speaker 1: after the rape, justice finally prevailed. It was delayed, but
Speaker 1: not denied. It was delayed for twenty two years, and
Speaker 1: on July sixth of two thousand and six, you walked
Speaker 1: out of a Bronx courthouse after the instance project and
Speaker 1: the Bronx County DA's office filed a joint motion to
Speaker 1: vacate your conviction. I remember this because we were all celebrating.
Speaker 1: What was that moment like for you?
Speaker 2: I was heaving. I was. I was like being born
Speaker 2: in an I didn't see it coming. I was almost
Speaker 2: prepared just do the whole forty. That was the attitude
Speaker 2: I had, because the pre parole board told me I
Speaker 2: have no chance unless I take responsibility. And so I
Speaker 2: couldn't see it. And I mean I was walked around
Speaker 2: like a zombie. I was just you know, being led
Speaker 2: by my family and you know, I mean the lights
Speaker 2: and it was the best moment in my life, you know,
Speaker 2: like getting convicted, you know, twenty two years prior to that,
Speaker 2: I didn't see that curveball coming. I didn't really see
Speaker 2: this curveball coming too, because they told me the evidence
Speaker 2: was gone. So when they found it, you know, it
Speaker 2: was like, if it's not tampered with, I know, I'm okay.
Speaker 2: Let me interject one thing real quick. If it was
Speaker 2: up to the city, I would have never got exonerated.
Speaker 2: We found out during the civil trial the ocmme's office,
Speaker 2: when they was doing the testing and they was contaminating
Speaker 2: they own samples, they was not able to come up
Speaker 2: with a result whether that was my DNA or not
Speaker 2: because the sample that they had they was contaminating it.
Speaker 2: So whether it's being done deliberately or you know, just
Speaker 2: in competence, it's still being done. And if you can't
Speaker 2: get access to independent testing, which is what the Innocence
Speaker 2: Project was able to do, instead of relying on just
Speaker 2: the ocme's office, you're in a catch twenty two situation
Speaker 2: because you can only believe the sworn documents that they
Speaker 2: submit to the court. It's the same way when I
Speaker 2: was fouling my motions pro say all those years, they
Speaker 2: were swearing to the court that they did a search
Speaker 2: and can't find the evidence.
Speaker 1: It's terrifying, I mean, it's scary. Enough to think it
Speaker 1: could get lost. Like even when your evidence was sitting
Speaker 1: in that warehouse, there could have been a flood, right,
Speaker 1: there could have been anything, and you would be doomed.
Speaker 2: But it wasn't. So when Live six came and they
Speaker 2: cut a brother loose, like I said, it was like
Speaker 2: my born day. That's like my second birthday now and
Speaker 2: I look forward to that day and I cherish it.
Speaker 2: I appreciate life so much more now because I realized
Speaker 2: how quick we can have it snatched away from us,
Speaker 2: just you know, on somebody's accusation, somebody's claim, and you
Speaker 2: know how we really don't have any rights because that's
Speaker 2: what it came down to. You know, you're guilty until
Speaker 2: you prove your innocence. That's the way the system is now.
Speaker 2: So it was you know, bittersweet too at the end
Speaker 2: of the day because I had lost so much, like
Speaker 2: I said, both my parents. So it was bittersweet.
Speaker 1: Forty five years old, you released out into the world.
Speaker 1: No job. Ir fiance had moved on. I mean, I
Speaker 1: 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 roll and get it
Speaker 1: bes business administration, right. I remember meeting you back around
Speaker 1: that time, and we 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 ate it. Of course,
Speaker 1: you filed civil rights lawsuit and were awarded a lot
Speaker 1: of money. I don't think there's any amount of money
Speaker 1: that would be enough to justify the suffering that you
Speaker 1: went through and your family went through. But the fact
Speaker 1: is it's nice to see. I mean, unfortunately most exigneries
Speaker 1: never get any compensation. It makes me happy to see
Speaker 1: when somebody like you does at least get that monetary
Speaker 1: reward so you can, you know, do the things that
Speaker 1: you want to do.
Speaker 2: And I'll get back though, and I try to help
Speaker 2: that the exonves try to go out there and talk
Speaker 2: about this issue because I could stay in my you know,
Speaker 2: man cave and you know, stay depressed and stay focused
Speaker 2: on the last forty years of my life. But it's
Speaker 2: more about you know, letting people know there's something beat
Speaker 2: out there and we could make things better. But we
Speaker 2: all have to you know, stay you know, vigilant and
Speaker 2: trying to make this possible.
Speaker 1: And I'm glad you're out there doing it. Everything you're doing,
Speaker 1: it's so important. People need to hear from you. You're
Speaker 1: including right here, right now on this podcast. So now
Speaker 1: getting towards the closing of the show, it's called closing arguments,
Speaker 1: and it works like this. I'm gonna first of all,
Speaker 1: thank you again for being here and for being such
Speaker 1: a beacon of hope and for sharing your story. And
Speaker 1: then I'm going to kick back in my chair, turn
Speaker 1: off my microphone, leave my headphones on, and just listen
Speaker 1: for anything else you want to share with me and
Speaker 1: our audience.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jason. I appreciate you guys and being able
Speaker 2: to tell this story. It's a blessing because I think
Speaker 2: this is, you know, one subject that all sane minds
Speaker 2: think alike. We should not have innocent people being wrong
Speaker 2: fee convicted and locked up for anything. If there's any
Speaker 2: chance and any shred of evidence that proved us, I think,
Speaker 2: you know, we should move mountains to exonerate, you know,
Speaker 2: men and women, because you have a lot more woman
Speaker 2: now that's being wrongfully convicted also. And and like I said,
Speaker 2: I think this is one thing that you know, we
Speaker 2: all agree about. But we just have to be diligent
Speaker 2: and always reminding, you know, public officials that this is
Speaker 2: a subject that affects each and every one of us,
Speaker 2: and each time the opportunity arises, we must help people
Speaker 2: in these situations, you know, while they in prison trying
Speaker 2: to prove their innocence, and definitely when we come home,
Speaker 2: because like you said, I had to hit the ground
Speaker 2: running because it wasn't nothing there for me. I had
Speaker 2: a lot of help, fortunately, and unfortunately, a lot of
Speaker 2: my you know, felt exonneries don't have that type of help,
Speaker 2: you know, whether it's you know where they got exalivated
Speaker 2: or you know, their family or friends situation. It's so
Speaker 2: important that you know, we all as a society try
Speaker 2: to not only prevent this from happening in the future,
Speaker 2: but when it does, make every opportunity to make these
Speaker 2: people hold again, you know, make advite they can't go
Speaker 2: back and obtain what they lost, but moving forward we
Speaker 2: 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 Cliburn, and Kevin Wartis,
Speaker 1: with research by Lyla 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 Flahm. Ravel Conviction is
Speaker 1: the production of Lava for Good podcast and association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one