Speaker 1: East New York is a notoriously tough Brooklyn neighborhood, and in
Speaker 1: the seventies, eighties, and nineties it had an equally corrupt
Speaker 1: local precinct, the seventy five or seventy fifth Precinct, home
Speaker 1: to many of the wrongful convictions of notorious and YPD
Speaker 1: detectives Luis Garcela and Stephen Camill. On March twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety eight, Nelson Cruz was out in the neighborhood
Speaker 1: with some friends celebrating his seventeenth birthday over Chinese food
Speaker 1: when they heard gunshots close by, so close, in fact,
Speaker 1: that they saw the police swoop in immediately to get
Speaker 1: the situation under control. A police officer had seen the
Speaker 1: actual muscle flash of the gun in Eduardo Rodriguez's hand.
Speaker 1: Trevor Vieira, a man in his mid twenties known for stickups,
Speaker 1: was lying dead in the street. Rodriguez was brought in
Speaker 1: for questioning, where Scarcela and Camille turned what should have
Speaker 1: been an open and shutcase into another horrific wrongful conviction
Speaker 1: with the false testimony of a man who didn't even
Speaker 1: know police were unseen to arrest Rodriguez and in spite
Speaker 1: of the testimony of that uniform police officer stating that
Speaker 1: Nelson Cruz was definitely not the shooter, Nelson was convicted
Speaker 1: and sentenced to twenty five years to life, and if
Speaker 1: matters couldn't get any worse, despite a mountain of new
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence, the judge who oversaw his most recent appeal
Speaker 1: suffers now from early onset Alzheimer's, which has impaired her
Speaker 1: ability to follow the case and set Nelson free. This
Speaker 1: is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flopp. Hello.
Speaker 2: This is a.
Speaker 1: Prepaid collect call from an inmate at New York State
Speaker 1: Department of Care and Community Supervision.
Speaker 3: This call is subject to recording and monitoring. To accept charges,
Speaker 3: Press one to refuse charges, Press two.
Speaker 1: Thank you producing, So curis you may start the conversation. Now,
Speaker 1: welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason flamm That's me.
Speaker 1: I'm your host. Today. We have a deeply, deeply troubling
Speaker 1: situation to talk to you about. Today. We're on the
Speaker 1: phone with Nelson Cruz, an innocent man who's been in
Speaker 1: prison for a twenty two years now in New York State,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to introduce now to you an attorney.
Speaker 1: You have a tremendous amount of respect for who I'm
Speaker 1: proud to work with on a day to day basis
Speaker 1: on various cases, including this one. Justin bonus, Welcome to
Speaker 1: wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 3: Good morning, Jason, how are you?
Speaker 1: I'm all right. Thanks, I'm glad to be here with you,
Speaker 1: and most of all, I'm glad to be here with
Speaker 1: the man of the hour, Nelson Cruz. Nelson, I'm sorry
Speaker 1: you have to be here under these circumstances, but I'm
Speaker 1: really glad you're here to tell your story. So welcome
Speaker 1: to wrongful Conviction. I'm on to which prison are you in? Now?
Speaker 4: What Burn Correction? The facility up state New York?
Speaker 1: Can you take us back to that time?
Speaker 4: I was in tenth grade at the time. It was
Speaker 4: a nice night in March twenty eighth, nineteen ninety eight,
Speaker 4: the day for my birthday. Me and like three of
Speaker 4: my friends, we walked around the corner to the Chinese
Speaker 4: restaurant to purchase some food, and me and my friends was,
Speaker 4: you know, laughing and joking like we usually do. We
Speaker 4: stepped outside and shot the fire down the block on
Speaker 4: braffing and picking and when I looked I've seen a
Speaker 4: police officer car that pulled up immediately and was getting
Speaker 4: the area under control, and I've seen that they had
Speaker 4: a Spanish guy on the floor and they was arresting
Speaker 4: the guy. However, about four in the morning, Homicide contacted
Speaker 4: my mom. Told my mother they wanted to interview me
Speaker 4: for the murder, and I was like, how can this be.
Speaker 4: I don't have nothing to do with the situation. So
Speaker 4: my big Weather step, We're going to get an attorney.
Speaker 4: We're going to go down to the priests, and don't
Speaker 4: go down there by yourself, because you know the seventy
Speaker 4: fifth priestst is dirty. I said, fine, And on April third,
Speaker 4: about a turny went to the priests with attorney and
Speaker 4: went to a lineup and I've never seen the scrief again.
Speaker 1: Justin I want to turn to you because this case
Speaker 1: is the definition of an open and shut case. It
Speaker 1: should have never even been anywhere near Nelson or his
Speaker 1: family because they knew from day one exactly who did it.
Speaker 1: Can you explain what I'm talking about here?
Speaker 3: This murder happens March twenty eighth, nineteen ninety eight, at
Speaker 3: eleven fifteen at the corner of Bradford and Picking. Two
Speaker 3: cops in a patrol car. Officer William Paietti actually watches
Speaker 3: the man with the ponytail, who we later find out
Speaker 3: is at Wardo Rodriguez firing the gun, sees the muzzle
Speaker 3: flare towards Bradford and Picking, which is where the deceased
Speaker 3: Trevor Vieira was found. Pietti actually arrests at Wardo, Rodriguez
Speaker 3: tells him to drop the gun, and Officer Palmery chases
Speaker 3: a black man. I guess who runs away. These are
Speaker 3: what the two cops say at one one forty five
Speaker 3: in the morning when they're interviewed by none other than
Speaker 3: Detective Lewis Scarcela and Detective Steven Kimmel. And just to
Speaker 3: tell you who those men are, I mean, they're probably
Speaker 3: some of the most storied police officers in the country
Speaker 3: when it comes to wrongful convictions in relation to homicides.
Speaker 3: And Lewis Scarcella with Camill shows up at the scene
Speaker 3: at eleven fifty five. They are totally involved with this case.
Speaker 3: Scarcella and Camille are at the precinct with Rodriguez. Rodriguez
Speaker 3: at around three o'clock in the morning or so actually
Speaker 3: makes a statement. Another witness, William Johnson, who later testifies
Speaker 3: that Nelson wasn't at the scene, He was an eyewitness
Speaker 3: arrested at the scene. He was interviewed, does not indicate
Speaker 3: anything about Nelson Cruz. So the first person to actually
Speaker 3: name Cruise is at Wardo Rodriguez. And then there was
Speaker 3: a third witness. His name is Andre Bellinger, who was
Speaker 3: interviewed at something around three forty five in the morning,
Speaker 3: and he says Nelson as well. Nelson turns himself in
Speaker 3: on April third. He's barely seventeen years old. Mark Brooks
Speaker 3: runs the lineup. He is allegedly the lead investigator out
Speaker 3: of the seventy fifth because Stephen Camill is the lead
Speaker 3: investigator for Brooklyn North. And how you understand the politics
Speaker 3: between Brooklyn North and the local precincts is one detective
Speaker 3: from Brooklyn North would work with a precinct detective. So
Speaker 3: Stephen Camill was the lead partner detective with Mark Brooks
Speaker 3: who was the detective from the seventy fifth precinct, and
Speaker 3: Lewis Scarcella was Stephen Camill's partner from Brooklyn North. You know,
Speaker 3: so what we have happened is a lineup that's conducted,
Speaker 3: and Andre Bellinger is the only witness that comes in to
Speaker 3: view the lineup.
Speaker 1: So little does Nelson know he's going right into the
Speaker 1: eye of the storm. Here, you were living through this
Speaker 1: a tenth greater. I mean, can you take us back
Speaker 1: to what you were thinking and feeling at that time,
Speaker 1: starting on the third when you turn yourself in, Yes, Jason.
Speaker 4: So I'm go into the precinct and I'm sitting down
Speaker 4: just waiting for the detective to go look for us.
Speaker 4: On Philistlana Scarcella, he's on his desk with a seat
Speaker 4: picked up, smoking a cigar. I never forget this. He's
Speaker 4: smoking a cigar and he asks me, Uh, you're not
Speaker 4: scared to be here. I said, no, I wouldn't be here,
Speaker 4: but I committed this murder. He should have head, he said,
Speaker 4: all right. After they got the filler, we went into
Speaker 4: the lineup. I got picked out, of course by Andre Billinger,
Speaker 4: and my attorney's explained to me, listen, don't say nothing
Speaker 4: to the detective. The only thing that you supposed to
Speaker 4: stay to them is your name and address. So they
Speaker 4: kept me in the bullpen for a little while for
Speaker 4: a couple of hours, and they took me out the
Speaker 4: bullpen and then bring me right back into the lineup
Speaker 4: rung and they cuffed me into like the little rails
Speaker 4: inside the lineup rum and start. Seller brings the paper
Speaker 4: into the room and he's telling me, listen, we already
Speaker 4: know what happened. Just sign it and you will be leaving.
Speaker 4: So I tell Scott Seller that I'm not signing anything.
Speaker 4: He gets a little frustrated, So you got your meal,
Speaker 4: trying to play the gut cop. He's telling me, listen,
Speaker 4: just sign it and you'll be walking out. We already
Speaker 4: know what happened. So I tell him again, I'm not
Speaker 4: signing anything. Scott's Feller get a little frustrated, crumble the
Speaker 4: paper and slaps me in the face with this again.
Speaker 4: He's telling me, you know, hostile, just signed the paper,
Speaker 4: you'd be and I'm like, I'm not signing anything. They
Speaker 4: left me in a room for like a half hour.
Speaker 4: They brings me back into the book pen, and about
Speaker 4: maybe like an hour after that, they put me into
Speaker 4: a van. They driving me to us Central Bookman. And
Speaker 4: later on when I get my voluntary disclosure for him,
Speaker 4: I see that they put a DD five report in
Speaker 4: a statement that I made a spontaneous statement. The statement
Speaker 4: s face sensed the fact that I got shot in
Speaker 4: my leg and I shot the guy and ran and
Speaker 4: I'm looking at I'm telling my attorney. I never said
Speaker 4: any of this to these detectives. Number never said any
Speaker 4: of this.
Speaker 3: And the statement that he attributes to Nelson is the
Speaker 3: same type of language that's in all of these Scarcella
Speaker 3: Incamil cases when you have these quote unquote confessions.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I have to say this before
Speaker 1: I get back to Justin. It sounds to me like
Speaker 1: you did everything right. You did what we always ask
Speaker 1: people to do on the show, don't talk. You didn't
Speaker 1: sign a piece of paper, although it sounded like a
Speaker 1: pretty good offer, like to a kid in tenth grade.
Speaker 1: So you did everything right and the system failed you. Anyway, Justin,
Speaker 1: do you have a theory on how this Rodriguez character
Speaker 1: could have possibly convinced the detectives that I mean, my
Speaker 1: mind goes to a pretty dark place here. But why
Speaker 1: did he finger Nelson?
Speaker 3: The only theory I have is Rodriguez knew who Nelson
Speaker 3: was and he just pinned it on somebody that maybe
Speaker 3: looked more like him. Than anybody else did. But one
Speaker 3: other thing about Edward or Rodriguez, the seventy fifth was
Speaker 3: very familiar with him. He had multiple arrests from the
Speaker 3: seventy fifth robbery I believe in nineteen ninety and then
Speaker 3: a drug conviction in ninety five. He was on parole
Speaker 3: at the time of this murder for that drug conviction
Speaker 3: from ninety five.
Speaker 1: They knew him, and they might have found him to
Speaker 1: be useful, and in this case, they didn't want to
Speaker 1: put him in jail. I mean, that's clear, because they
Speaker 1: could have. They should have. It was their responsibility to
Speaker 1: do so, and instead they decided to pin it on
Speaker 1: an innocent man named Nelson Cruz, which was standard operating
Speaker 1: procedure for them at that time.
Speaker 3: Anyway, the seventy fifth, as Nelson said, is notorious. The
Speaker 3: quote from Michael Race when he was ahead of that
Speaker 3: squad from the early eighties into the early nineties, he
Speaker 3: was involved with seven hundred and fifty homicide investigations and
Speaker 3: only one time did they actually follow the rules. So
Speaker 3: Rodriguez tells them I didn't do it, and they bring
Speaker 3: Andre Bellinger in. He gives them the information that they
Speaker 3: want to hear, and what we know about Andre Bellinger
Speaker 3: is in nineteen eighty one, Andre Bellinger was charged with
Speaker 3: murder and he only does a one and a half
Speaker 3: to three. At the time of Nelson's arrest, Andre Bellinger
Speaker 3: was working with the PAAL, which is the Police Athletic League,
Speaker 3: and he lived only two blocks away from the seventy
Speaker 3: fifth precinct. And what we know from a hearing what
Speaker 3: Detective Brooks testifies to is right before the lineup Scarcel
Speaker 3: and Camille, they're alone with Andre Bellinger.
Speaker 1: So now we have to get to the trial. A
Speaker 1: New York City police officer testified that they had not
Speaker 1: seen Nelson Cruz at the scene. I'm going to read
Speaker 1: the testimony here. Nelson, your lawyer walked the officer through
Speaker 1: what happened. He said, did you see the muzzle flashes
Speaker 1: of the gun. He answers, I saw muzzle flashes, and
Speaker 1: you jumped out of the car almost immediately upon hearing
Speaker 1: the shots. Correct, and the officer says correct, your gun drawn.
Speaker 1: Officer says yes, did you ever see Nelson Cruz on
Speaker 1: the scene. No? Did you ever see Nelson Cruz with
Speaker 1: a nine millimeter handgun in his hand? No, you did
Speaker 1: see Eduardo Rodriguez with a nine millimeter handgun in his hand. Correct. Yes,
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, you were pointing your nine
Speaker 1: milimeter at him. Correct. Officer replies correct, because he had
Speaker 1: a gun in his hand. Correct. Correct. And you were
Speaker 1: screaming at the top of your lungs to drop the gun,
Speaker 1: drop the gun. Correct. Officer replies correct. Now, that is
Speaker 1: some of the most powerful testimony I have ever heard,
Speaker 1: and all of it serves to prove that you could
Speaker 1: not did not commit this crime.
Speaker 4: You know, as you just read the testimony, I remember
Speaker 4: it like yesterday, and I'm still confused, Jason, the only
Speaker 4: one is against me was not like Rodriguez. At Montreal,
Speaker 4: they used Andre Billinger. And when you ask Andre Billinger
Speaker 4: to space, he was there from the beginning to the
Speaker 4: Did you see police on the scene he states no.
Speaker 4: We ask him, did you see anybody get arrested on
Speaker 4: the crowd saying? He states no, so and my mom
Speaker 4: is like, what crowd saying was this guy in?
Speaker 1: How could you be confused as to whether or not
Speaker 1: there were police officers? He wasn't confused. He said there weren't,
Speaker 1: but there were. This is not a thing you could
Speaker 1: mix up like the color of the shirt the guy
Speaker 1: was wearing. You know.
Speaker 3: Bellinger His story is that Nelson gets into it with
Speaker 3: a guy named Shaq, and that Nelson drives his car,
Speaker 3: comes back around and then gets into it with Vieira.
Speaker 3: Bellinger says that Nelson accused Vieira of giving Shack a gun.
Speaker 3: That Nelson just kills Vieira. That's basically Bellinger's story. No
Speaker 3: one else says that, no one And what's interesting is
Speaker 3: Shaq actually came to testify in twenty nineteen and he
Speaker 3: said he never had a fight with Nelson Cruz, so
Speaker 3: that was a made up story. And what corroborates what
Speaker 3: Shaq says is when Andre Bellinger speaks to the conviction
Speaker 3: review Unit in twenty fifteen, says he says he can't
Speaker 3: even remember the incident with Shack, which is the whole
Speaker 3: basis of this altercation. This case is a joke, okay.
Speaker 1: Bellinger was also the least credible witness, not just because
Speaker 1: of his background, but also because Bellinger testified that the
Speaker 1: police told him who to identify. And Bellinger also testified
Speaker 1: that he'd only been able to identify the murder weapon
Speaker 1: as a nine millimeter gun because the police had told
Speaker 1: him that's what it was.
Speaker 3: They didn't know the gun that Rodriguez was arrested with
Speaker 3: was the murder weapon until just before Nelson's trial. And
Speaker 3: this is a common theme in policing from the NYPD
Speaker 3: is they don't do any forensic investigation. Okay, so the
Speaker 3: ballistics from the nine millimeter that Rodriguez has caught with
Speaker 3: matched the shellcasings that murdered Trevor Vieira.
Speaker 4: When the police officer testified states then he didn't see
Speaker 4: me at all. He didn't send me with no gun,
Speaker 4: he stated, who he's being able with the gun. I'm like,
Speaker 4: I'm an go home. And at the end when the
Speaker 4: tribute came back with the guilty murder, just believe it
Speaker 4: and get sentence the twenty out of life. You've got
Speaker 4: the god with the smoking gun. All five shell cases
Speaker 4: match that gun. I still can't believe it.
Speaker 1: This episode is brought to you by Stand Together. Stand
Speaker 1: Together is a philanthropic community dedicated to helping people improve
Speaker 1: their lives. For more than twenty years, Stand Together and
Speaker 1: its partners have been on the front lines of criminal
Speaker 1: justice reform by empowering people to take action, supporting nonprofits
Speaker 1: and working with businesses. Stand Together tackles the root causes
Speaker 1: of problems in our communities and empowers those closest to
Speaker 1: the problems to drive solutions. Solutions like reducing unjust prison
Speaker 1: sentences through the First Step Act, empowering community based programs
Speaker 1: and help people re enter society, and now working to
Speaker 1: bridge divides in our communities. To learn how you may
Speaker 1: get involved, visit Standtogether dot org slash conviction. This episode
Speaker 1: is underwritten by the AIG pro Bono Program. AIG is
Speaker 1: a leading global insurance company, and for over a decade,
Speaker 1: the AIG pro Bono Program has provided thousands of hours
Speaker 1: of free legal services and other support to nonprofit organizations
Speaker 1: and individuals most in need. More recently, the program added
Speaker 1: criminal and social justice reform as a key pillar of
Speaker 1: its mission. Nelson didn't exactly take this lying down. Instead,
Speaker 1: you got busy behind bars, right, I mean tell us
Speaker 1: about the actual innocence crewment.
Speaker 4: Like I said, I was sentence to twenty five years
Speaker 4: to life, and I'll come up to state. Didn't know
Speaker 4: anything about the law, and I'm just setting a little
Speaker 4: library actions for help, and you know, reading a lot
Speaker 4: of statues and trying to familiarize myself. So I ran
Speaker 4: across you know, a lot of good guys and they
Speaker 4: teaching me about the laws. And at the same time,
Speaker 4: I'm trying to gather up my evidence to submit my
Speaker 4: affidavits to the Thought Division. At the time, my director
Speaker 4: pill was pending. But I couldn't because you know, my family,
Speaker 4: we're not rich. We're not rich, We we don't got
Speaker 4: money like that to be hiring private investigator. So I
Speaker 4: had my mother. She was, you know, going into these
Speaker 4: dangerous projects, looking for my friends, looking for people that
Speaker 4: was at the crime scene that night. And with the
Speaker 4: help with my mother, I was getting phone numbers, and
Speaker 4: with the phone numbers, I was contacting people's gathering evidence.
Speaker 4: I had got about maybe two, like two or three
Speaker 4: Afid Davis at first, and then my brother laid on
Speaker 4: we had hire a private investigator to locate these witnesses
Speaker 4: and get Abid Davis from them. And as I'm submitting
Speaker 4: these motions to the court, I'm getting shot down. I'm
Speaker 4: losing hope, but I'm still fighting because I said, listen,
Speaker 4: something one day's son got to give here. I know
Speaker 4: I ain't commited this crime, and to the course of
Speaker 4: the years me being I'm hearing of a guy named Bush,
Speaker 4: which is Derek Hamilton. I don't know if you're familiar
Speaker 4: with him. He's a jail house William And I'm like, wow,
Speaker 4: I got to meet this guy because I heard he's
Speaker 4: a beast with the lord. So I end up meeting
Speaker 4: Derek Hamilton in the law library and we exchanged information
Speaker 4: D five and stuff like that, and I'm explaining to
Speaker 4: him about my case. He reviewed my d D five.
Speaker 4: He sees that scart seller name is in the bottom
Speaker 4: and he's like, wow, this guy's in my case. He
Speaker 4: loud on me on my case and he's fighting Actual
Speaker 4: editing the same thing. So we leave Shawongong. We end
Speaker 4: up in Auburn. When we go to Auburn Correction Facility again,
Speaker 4: I'm in Laura Liveburn and I meet Shabaka Shabacca's there.
Speaker 4: A guy by the name of Danny Ringkolng there also
Speaker 4: fighting innocent and Derek ended up a rising. That's when
Speaker 4: he came up with the name Actual Edison Team AI Team.
Speaker 4: And what we was doing was like one day we
Speaker 4: will work on my case, the next day we will
Speaker 4: work on Derek case. Like that, we'll take turns on
Speaker 4: each other case and Derek telling me, what the dude
Speaker 4: right over here, right over here, do this, do that.
Speaker 4: And at the same time I see telling me what
Speaker 4: to do. I'm learning. And basically what I was doing
Speaker 4: was lawyer shopping. I'm somemn in a big package with
Speaker 4: all my evidence, with my AFFID Davis, my DD five
Speaker 4: crime scene sketches that I drew, trying to get some
Speaker 4: help from the outside. I wrote every actually innocent project.
Speaker 4: I wrote governors, I wrote the President, I wrote everywhere Jason,
Speaker 4: anywhere you can think of, I wrote. And at this
Speaker 4: time Derek ended up going home in twenty eleven. So
Speaker 4: Derek always told me, listen, I'm not gonna forget about you.
Speaker 4: Once I'm making home, I'm near. I got you. I'm
Speaker 4: not gonna forget And I don't heard that so many
Speaker 4: times Jason being in here that you know, guys tell
Speaker 4: you listen, they're gonna go home do this, and guys
Speaker 4: just go home and live their life. So I'm like, wow, now,
Speaker 4: I hope Deryck don't do this to me, you know.
Speaker 4: And Derek went home and kept his word. Jason. He
Speaker 4: put justin on my case and from there we gathered
Speaker 4: more evidence, and I'm well not today.
Speaker 1: Derek has been on the show, Danny ring kon Tobacca, Shakur.
Speaker 1: I mean, all these people are people I know well,
Speaker 1: and I've talked often about the awesome power that you
Speaker 1: guys collectively manifested, all of whom had been through the
Speaker 1: same experience at the hands of the same people, and
Speaker 1: setting up basically a law firm inside the laws of
Speaker 1: the prison. You know, call it whatever you want. Shakur, Cruz, Hamilton,
Speaker 1: and Ringcone. I could see it on a letterhead, and
Speaker 1: hopefully someday you guys will actually form a law firm
Speaker 1: on the outside, because I think you guys would be
Speaker 1: incredible together. Derek, when he was on wrongful Conviction, I
Speaker 1: was like, oh my god, this is like interviewing a
Speaker 1: yeah law professor. I mean, this guy is on fire,
Speaker 1: so knowledgeable.
Speaker 3: That is my mentor. By the way, Derek, we call
Speaker 3: him mom Google Legal. Give him a fact and he'll
Speaker 3: give you a case.
Speaker 1: And Nelson, you should know it's Derek, but it's not
Speaker 1: just Derek. I mean all of us are just super
Speaker 1: committed to seeing you get home and get on with
Speaker 1: your life.
Speaker 3: So Nelson litigated his case, he filed an emotion of vacant,
Speaker 3: he filed an appeal and got shot down at every
Speaker 3: turn over the past twenty years. And so the hearing
Speaker 3: that we were finally granted in twenty nineteen, and the
Speaker 3: evidence that we presented was it was quite astounding. I mean, obviously,
Speaker 3: we called Officer Paietti and again who said that he
Speaker 3: did not see Nelson Cruz at the scene before, after,
Speaker 3: or during the crime. We called William Harden who was
Speaker 3: across the street watched the ponytailed man kill his friend.
Speaker 3: He knew Trevor Vieira and did not see Nelson Cruz there.
Speaker 3: He saw the police pull up at the scene. And
Speaker 3: then we called William Johnson, who was the other man
Speaker 3: that was arrested at the scene, and he testified that
Speaker 3: he knew Nelson Cruz and he did not see Nelson
Speaker 3: Cruz at the scene. I mean, those are three eye witnesses.
Speaker 3: We called two alibi witnesses, Ralph Johnson, and the only
Speaker 3: questions that the DA had for Ralph Johnson was did
Speaker 3: he eat his Chinese food or not that night. That's
Speaker 3: how solid Ralph Johnson was on the witness stand. Another
Speaker 3: alibi witness Bonnie Cooper, who was at the time Andre
Speaker 3: Bellinger's mistress, testified that Andre Bellinger admitted to her he
Speaker 3: never saw the crime. Christopher Cooper, Bonnie Cooper's son, who
Speaker 3: was playing basketball with Andre Bellinger that night. Chris Cooper,
Speaker 3: testified that Bellinger couldn't have seen it because the shooting
Speaker 3: had already happened by the time they get there. We
Speaker 3: also called Ja Salpeter, who was a private investigator who
Speaker 3: interviewed Andre Bellinger, and he asked, Andre Bellinger, why didn't
Speaker 3: you mention the police or Edward O. Rodriguez? And Bellinger
Speaker 3: told j. Salpeter that the police never told him that
Speaker 3: Rodriguez or the police were at the scene, I mean.
Speaker 3: And we called Jermaine Fraser, the man Shack who Bellinger
Speaker 3: said started this whole thing off, and Shaq testified that
Speaker 3: he never pulled a gun out on Nelson, that there
Speaker 3: was never a dispute that night, that that's all false.
Speaker 3: Of course, we called Scarcella and Camill and you know,
Speaker 3: Scarcela has amnesia. He can remember what he was wearing
Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy three, but when you ask him about
Speaker 3: the case that you're talking about now, he can't remember anything,
Speaker 3: but Mark Brooks puts him in Camill right with Andre
Speaker 3: Bellinger before the lineup. I mean, this was such a
Speaker 3: bad blowout that April twelfth, twenty nineteen, I made an
Speaker 3: oral argument and also on paper to release Nelson on bail,
Speaker 3: which is astounding in the middle of a post conviction hearing.
Speaker 3: It was going that bad that I said in the
Speaker 3: interest of justice that this court should release him, and
Speaker 3: Judge Simpson on that day said that Louis Scarcela was
Speaker 3: totally involved with this case, Andre Bellinger was unreliable, and
Speaker 3: that Chris and Bonnie Cooper she found to be reliable witnesses.
Speaker 3: That was April. By August, she was in another place.
Speaker 4: You know, God bless Chanda what happened. But I knew
Speaker 4: something strange was going on. While she was deciding over
Speaker 4: my hearing, Jason, she was, you know, moving funny. You know,
Speaker 4: she would be given credit to certain amount witnesses testimony,
Speaker 4: and then later on when Justin highlights it to her,
Speaker 4: it's like she's lost. Jason's like she don't know, like
Speaker 4: what happened a couple of days ago. And at the
Speaker 4: end when I went to the decision on August twenty ninth
Speaker 4: when she's an my motion, Jason, I was like Lois,
Speaker 4: but we found out that, you know, she was mentally
Speaker 4: ill with al Zamas. Has she been in her right
Speaker 4: state of mind, I would have been home already.
Speaker 1: You know, there's no question. You know, Nelson is referring
Speaker 1: to a very respected judge from the Brooklyn Supreme Court
Speaker 1: who was known for her willingness to vacate wrongful convictions.
Speaker 1: Her name which is Shandiah Simpson, and she had ordered
Speaker 1: due trials previously for other men who had been also
Speaker 1: framed by Louis Scarcella. Listen to this quote. In the
Speaker 1: case of someone named Hargrove, Judge Simpson had this to
Speaker 1: say specifically about Scarcella. The pattern and practice of Scarcella's conduct,
Speaker 1: which manifests a disregard for rules, law and the truth,
Speaker 1: undermines our judicial system and gives cause for a new
Speaker 1: review of the evidence. I mean, she just called it
Speaker 1: out like it was, and here it is again right
Speaker 1: in front of her. But the craziest twist of fate,
Speaker 1: it was that this poor woman who's not an old
Speaker 1: lady r she was in her young fifties. She had
Speaker 1: early on set Ali Alzheimer's and she just literally lost
Speaker 1: the plot.
Speaker 3: When I was listening to her decision on August twenty nineteen,
Speaker 3: the first decision she read off, I argued orally, she
Speaker 3: left the bench totally abruptly. A court officer came out
Speaker 3: and told us to come back after lunch, And when
Speaker 3: she came back out after lunch, she read off another decision,
Speaker 3: which I was left wondering what hearing that she sat through.
Speaker 3: Her decision is based on an erroneous understanding of what
Speaker 3: we put forward. I mean, it's that we presented EDWARDO.
Speaker 3: Rodriguez as our witness for a self defense claim, which
Speaker 3: we never took that position. We always took the position
Speaker 3: at Edward Rodriguez was the killer. The prosecutor put Edward
Speaker 3: Rodriguez on the witness stand, so she misstated that, I mean,
Speaker 3: there's video of it.
Speaker 5: The present and hearing, and this decision falls on the
Speaker 5: following Rodriguez testified and his hearing that the Vistom fired
Speaker 5: the first shot at Cruise and then Cruise shot back
Speaker 5: in self defense. The defense claims both that Rodriguez is
Speaker 5: unreliable and at the same time asks that the court
Speaker 5: find his testimony supports a claim of self defense, and
Speaker 5: that this.
Speaker 3: Constitutes new evidence.
Speaker 5: For this reason, the motion must be denied.
Speaker 6: You want to say.
Speaker 2: Something never claimed that Rodriguez was newly discovered evidence claimed
Speaker 2: that Rodriguez was unreliable from day one.
Speaker 6: Well, they put him on.
Speaker 3: That's the revidence.
Speaker 2: They put evidence on that contradicted the only evidence that
Speaker 2: was at trial, which is Andre Balinger.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: One witness who says the police told him who did it?
Speaker 3: Who says the police told them what weapon was used?
Speaker 3: Who even testifies that the police told him that Cruz
Speaker 3: was in the lineup. How reliable is that witness?
Speaker 2: And then we hear from a witness, the witness that
Speaker 2: is the first person.
Speaker 6: Who points to Nulson Cruz he has at guard, Agriguez
Speaker 6: has a motive to lie, and then fifteen years later
Speaker 6: says it self defense.
Speaker 3: We don't take his position. That's evidence that day put
Speaker 3: before the court.
Speaker 2: We're gonna believe that on the day of his birthday
Speaker 2: he kills somebody.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, in cases like this, the law doesn't really protect
Speaker 3: a seventeen year old. I make my point that Rodriguez
Speaker 3: wasn't our witness, and she pulls everybody up to the
Speaker 3: bench schedules a reargument, she never provides a written decision,
Speaker 3: and tells us to come back in December of twenty nineteen.
Speaker 3: You do twelve sixteen, be back on twelve. That's a Monday.
Speaker 1: I've shared this video with the district attorney myself. I
Speaker 1: like Eric personally, I do have a lot of respect
Speaker 1: for him. I'm completely confused as to why this case
Speaker 1: has been ignored.
Speaker 4: When I came back from court last year, you know,
Speaker 4: I pulled down my tite right and I started writing
Speaker 4: and numerous letters to Evergon, to people under him, and
Speaker 4: never received a response.
Speaker 1: There's a very powerful quote where you said in a
Speaker 1: letter to Eric Gonzalis, I know, deep in my heart
Speaker 1: something went wrong at my hearing. I know me reaching
Speaker 1: out to you may not be the proper way to
Speaker 1: go about it, but I truly need help in this
Speaker 1: matter and feel that you have the power to step
Speaker 1: in and conduct an investigation. And of course, a year
Speaker 1: after the hearing, in early August twenty twenty, it was
Speaker 1: confirmed that Judge Simpson had early on said Alzheimer's and
Speaker 1: she retired.
Speaker 4: You know, they should be ashame of what they're doing
Speaker 4: with me. Something went wrong Domnis proceed and something was
Speaker 4: wrong with the judge, and you got the power of
Speaker 4: the empathene. You got to see all you you to do,
Speaker 4: which you know, I think ever since Kenneth Thompson died,
Speaker 4: they not following what Kenneth Thompson was doing.
Speaker 1: So justin a reargument was granted. It's tragic what happened
Speaker 1: for Judge Sandaiah Simpson. What the fuck happens now?
Speaker 3: So, in a normal course, the judge will issue a
Speaker 3: written decision, the court will enter the decision. She granted
Speaker 3: the motion to reargue, which is very, very very rare.
Speaker 3: She never issues a written decision. The court doesn't even
Speaker 3: enter this decision, which is what has to be done.
Speaker 3: So almost a year goes by and in August of
Speaker 3: twenty twenty, we find out that Judge Simpson has been
Speaker 3: diagnosed with Alzheimer's. So then Judge Demik, the administrative judge,
Speaker 3: assigns Raymond L. Rodriguez to the case. So we file
Speaker 3: the reargument and Judge Rodriguez told us that he wouldn't
Speaker 3: hear any of these filings, that the only thing that
Speaker 3: was in front of him was Judge Simpson's competency during
Speaker 3: the hearing and when she rendered her decision.
Speaker 1: Right, but which decision, the initial denial of the motion
Speaker 1: to vacate or the decision to grant a reargument.
Speaker 3: You bring up a phenomenal point. This is a very
Speaker 3: confusing procedural history. He tells us in January of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one that the motion to reargue was taken off
Speaker 3: the calendar. He was not going to hear it. The
Speaker 3: only thing he ruled on is her oral decision denying
Speaker 3: the motion to vacate, the conviction and the motion to vacate.
Speaker 3: Her decision based upon her competency. He basically says that
Speaker 3: I'm not going to deal with the fact that she
Speaker 3: granted reargument, which I don't know how he does that
Speaker 3: she already granted it. And then on March first, twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one, Judge Raymond Rodriguez determined that she was competent
Speaker 3: and upheld her oral decision to deny Nelson Cruz's motion
Speaker 3: to vacate. And it's very interesting because in our motion
Speaker 3: to vacate Judge Simpson's decision that we filed back on
Speaker 3: August of twenty twenty, we had an affidavit from an
Speaker 3: investigator that spoke to her husband. We also had a
Speaker 3: pro public article where the husband spoke and said that
Speaker 3: he had noticed that Judge Simpson's mental health had been
Speaker 3: slipping as far back as the summer of twenty eighteen,
Speaker 3: which is almost a year before Nelson Cruz's actual hearing,
Speaker 3: let alone the decision. So Judge Rodriguez said that all
Speaker 3: of that information was speculative and said, I see how
Speaker 3: she could come to her decision. There's a reasonable basis
Speaker 3: for her decision. I don't know how he comes to
Speaker 3: that decision because he's not a doctor, and to be frank,
Speaker 3: I mean, he's not a mind reader. So Judge Rodriguez's decision,
Speaker 3: we filing leave to appeal. We're also filing a motion
Speaker 3: to compel a written decision from the Supreme Court because
Speaker 3: it's our position that Judge Simpson's oral decision wasn't effectively
Speaker 3: a decision. It was never filed it, it was never signed
Speaker 3: off on by her, and how could she sign off
Speaker 3: on it. Two days after she was in court and
Speaker 3: rendered that decision, she went on medically because she was
Speaker 3: suffering from Alzheimer's.
Speaker 1: So justin this case is just fucking outrageous, And I
Speaker 1: know a lot of our listeners are going to want
Speaker 1: to do something after they hear this. So what kind
Speaker 1: of action cand of just a regular person take.
Speaker 3: We set up a petition on change dot org. They
Speaker 3: can sign off on the petition and prayerfully the Brooklyn
Speaker 3: DA's office and the judges in Brooklyn will see people
Speaker 3: signing off on this petition.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a link in the bio. You
Speaker 1: can take an action that will add up to making
Speaker 1: a difference and getting the attention to this awful case
Speaker 1: that it deserves. And now this is the part of
Speaker 1: the show that we call closing arguments, and this is
Speaker 1: where I first of all, thank both of you for
Speaker 1: being here. Justin Bonus criminal defense attorney and Nelson Cruz
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted from behind bars. Thank you both for being here.
Speaker 1: And now I'm going to turn my microphone off and
Speaker 1: listen to each of you share your final thoughts on
Speaker 1: whatever you want to talk about. And so let's leave
Speaker 1: the best for last, of course, that's Nelson Cruz. And
Speaker 1: first over to you Justin for closing arguments.
Speaker 3: I just want to make it clear to everybody that
Speaker 3: this is a disgrace. The Mountains of Evidence show that
Speaker 3: this man is innocent, and the DA's office says the
Speaker 3: ability to interview our witnesses, our witnesses were consistent in
Speaker 3: the conviction review process. Their witnesses weren't consistent. And believe me,
Speaker 3: they treated our witnesses differently than they treated their witnesses.
Speaker 3: And this is just it's disgraceful. Andre Bellinger came in
Speaker 3: in twenty nineteen and he said his trial testimony was truthful.
Speaker 3: He maintained his trial testimony, which is that they told
Speaker 3: him what type of gun was used. They told him
Speaker 3: that it was Nelson Cruz. They told him ed WARDO
Speaker 3: Rodriguez wasn't reliable. They told him they needed him because
Speaker 3: EDWARDO Rodriguez wasn't reliable. They told him that Nelson Cruz
Speaker 3: was going to be in the lineup. This is the
Speaker 3: only piece of evidence that convicted Nelson Cruz. I don't
Speaker 3: really know if I have to say anything more other
Speaker 3: than you heard what I said about what was presented
Speaker 3: at the hearing. And that's without saying that Scarcella and
Speaker 3: Stephen Camill were involved in this case. To top it off,
Speaker 3: they were involved. If ever, there was a case that
Speaker 3: was presented in court where clear and convincing evidence was
Speaker 3: presented that a man was actually innocent. It was Nelson
Speaker 3: Cruz's case.
Speaker 1: Nelson, over to you for the last word.
Speaker 4: Thank you who first will Jason sharing my stories in
Speaker 4: the air, and like my attorney, Justin bon has just said,
Speaker 4: right now, I'm just hoping we all the you know,
Speaker 4: the amount of evidence that I have shown the I
Speaker 4: commit this clown in the next day, the next few weeks,
Speaker 4: or the next month's coming, I'll be exonerated. I'm just
Speaker 4: you know, praying to get out of here. Enough is enough.
Speaker 4: You know, I don't suffer it a lot in here.
Speaker 4: I don't lost my parents since I've been incarcerated. It's
Speaker 4: been all for me. It's been all for me.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 4: Sometimes I gets frustrated and you know, I lose hope,
Speaker 4: but I'll fight against it. I'm move forward. I'm move forward.
Speaker 4: And you know, once again, thank you, Jason. I appreciate
Speaker 4: you and you know everyone that's listening. I hope I
Speaker 4: heard my story. Yeah, yeah, hearing it from me directly,
Speaker 4: and that's what's been going on with me for almost
Speaker 4: twenty three years.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to wrongful conviction with Jason flamm.
Speaker 1: Please support your local innocence projects and go to the
Speaker 1: link in our bio to see how you can help.
Speaker 1: I'd like to thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff
Speaker 1: Cliburn and Kevin Wardis. The music on the show, as always,
Speaker 1: is by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be
Speaker 1: sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast. Wrongful Conviction with Jason
Speaker 1: Flahm is a production of Law Up for Good Podcasts
Speaker 1: and association with Signal Company Number one