Speaker 1: In two thousand five, Paul Cortes was pursuing his theatrical
Speaker 1: and musical career in New York City while intermittently dating
Speaker 1: twenty one year old Katherine Woods, an aspiring dancer from Columbus, Ohio.
Speaker 1: Catherine also allowed her ex boyfriend David Han, who struggled
Speaker 1: financially and with drug addiction, to stay in her Manhattan
Speaker 1: apartment until he got back on his feet. One November
Speaker 1: two thousand five, Katherine was brutally stabbed to death in
Speaker 1: her apartment, with police and ear witnesses placing the time
Speaker 1: of the crime between six twenty and six pm. Han
Speaker 1: call at six fifty pm and named Paul Cortes as
Speaker 1: the murderer when the police arrived. When police found one
Speaker 1: of Paul's fingerprints that they mistakenly believe was impressed in
Speaker 1: blood rather than an old print that had been covered
Speaker 1: by blood, Paul became the prime suspect, even though surveillance
Speaker 1: footage in front of Katherine's building only placed David Han
Speaker 1: at to see. Paul was arrested and charged with her murder,
Speaker 1: with Paul's defense failing to question this fingerprint or present
Speaker 1: key exculpatory evidence, including the surveillance footage, as well as
Speaker 1: the attackers DNA from the victim's fingernails and hands. Paul
Speaker 1: was convicted and sentenced to to life. Well now check
Speaker 1: in with Paul and his attorney Tony Marie Angelie to
Speaker 1: see where his case stands. This is Wrongful Conviction. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to Wrongful Conviction. Today's case is going to blow
Speaker 1: your mind. You know, I thought I had seen everything
Speaker 1: until I heard about the case of Paul Cortez. This case,
Speaker 1: it has racism, it has incompetence on official levels, it
Speaker 1: has junk science, but it also has attorneys representing the
Speaker 1: defendant who themselves were committing numerous crimes before, during, and
Speaker 1: probably after the trial. So yeah, sorry, I'm a little
Speaker 1: worked up today, but you will be too by the
Speaker 1: time you finished hearing this episode. This is Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 1: behind Bars, where today's guest is, of course, Paul Cortez.
Speaker 1: And Paul. I'm really sorry you're here because of the circumstances,
Speaker 1: but I'm really happy to have you on the air.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jason. And I'm just very grateful for you
Speaker 1: to have me on the show and to be able
Speaker 1: to finally get my story out there and with us
Speaker 1: today is Tony Marie Angelie of the Angelie Law Firm.
Speaker 1: I hope you're never in trouble, but if you are,
Speaker 1: you should track her down because she's a pit bull
Speaker 1: um and I mean then the best way, Tony Marie.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you're here, thank you, and I am so
Speaker 1: happy to be here. So, Paul, you came from a
Speaker 1: poor neighborhood in the Bronx, right, what was your childhood like? Well,
Speaker 1: I was just like any normal kid in the Brown,
Speaker 1: coming from a Puerto Rican family. My mom raised us
Speaker 1: three kids. My father left when I was younger, and
Speaker 1: my mom remarried later on. My mom always pushed academics
Speaker 1: and doing well in school, so I think it was
Speaker 1: around twelve I had tested into private schools and I
Speaker 1: started going in private schools in Manhattan Fort Junior High
Speaker 1: and then high school. During that time, I was in
Speaker 1: the sports, I was in the theater, I was in
Speaker 1: the arts. I auditioned to all of these colleges and
Speaker 1: I eventually got into Lawston University and I earned my
Speaker 1: bachelor's in Fine Arts. I was the first in my
Speaker 1: family to go to college and to graduate. I was
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three when I graduated, and after
Speaker 1: that I came back to New York to pursue a
Speaker 1: life in the arts, and I was very hopeful at
Speaker 1: that time for accomplishing my dream. So now you're auditioning
Speaker 1: for rent, making your way in the city that Never sleeps,
Speaker 1: coming from the background that normally most people don't managed
Speaker 1: to make it to anything like their dreams. So what
Speaker 1: was happening back then? Take us back to two thousand
Speaker 1: and three. I had signed with the talent agency and
Speaker 1: I was very excited about that. I went on several
Speaker 1: auditions and I was also doing music on the side
Speaker 1: as well. It was really fun. I was living life
Speaker 1: to the fullest at that time. Now here we go
Speaker 1: to December two thousand and five. You are working as
Speaker 1: a physical trainer and a yoga instructor, doing your auditions,
Speaker 1: completing your solo musical album. And the person at the
Speaker 1: center of this was your on again, off again girlfriend
Speaker 1: and that woman who was the victim in this case
Speaker 1: as a woman named Catherine Woods. Yeah, Catherine was twenty
Speaker 1: one at a time, and she was a really special
Speaker 1: person and I really cared for her and we had
Speaker 1: a great relationship, and like any relationships, there are ups
Speaker 1: and downs, but I always cared for her. So she
Speaker 1: was taking voice and dance lessons, working part time jobs
Speaker 1: at a hair salon, was seeing several different men. That's
Speaker 1: her choice, you know, no judgment here, and she worked
Speaker 1: as a stripper at night under the alias of Ava.
Speaker 1: She had told her parents and friends that she was
Speaker 1: dancing in an off Broadway show as a character named Ava.
Speaker 1: So I mean, again, no judgment here, but it does
Speaker 1: present a complex picture of a person. Then, as fate
Speaker 1: would have it, when she was visiting her family in Columbus, Ohio,
Speaker 1: she met a troubled guy named David han Now. David
Speaker 1: was a guy who had grown up in foster homes
Speaker 1: in Columbus and dropped out of high school. At the
Speaker 1: time he met Catherine, he was unemployed and attempting to
Speaker 1: make it as a rapper, and not too long after
Speaker 1: they met, he moved to New York to live with her.
Speaker 1: He struggled financially and bounced around, couldn't hold the job,
Speaker 1: and she paid most of his bills. But weeks before
Speaker 1: the murder, Catherine had asked David to move out, but
Speaker 1: he struggled with drug so she had recently allowed him
Speaker 1: to move back in and sleep on the couch. Now,
Speaker 1: can you sort of fill in the blanks here, Paul, Well,
Speaker 1: she was definitely trying to get him out of the apartment,
Speaker 1: and several times where she had asked him too and
Speaker 1: was successful, he would call her depressed and threatening to
Speaker 1: kill himself. And it was kind of a vo little situation.
Speaker 1: She always said that he's like family and that she
Speaker 1: really cares about him. She kept a lot of it
Speaker 1: to herself. She was very private in that sense. And
Speaker 1: then in April of two thousand five, Ktsine was drugged
Speaker 1: at one of the strip clubs that she worked at.
Speaker 1: What a nightmare, Paul. Can you tell us what happened
Speaker 1: with that. She called me at the club and she
Speaker 1: asked for help, and I hurried down. She was really
Speaker 1: messed up. She could hardly walk, and she didn't want
Speaker 1: to go back to her apartment. So I just brought
Speaker 1: her to a hotel and set her up there and
Speaker 1: got her to go to the hospital. And because she
Speaker 1: was worried that you might have gotten raped at that time,
Speaker 1: so being concerned about it all, and I went back
Speaker 1: and called her parents, but I thought maybe her parents
Speaker 1: could talk to her and help her out, but she
Speaker 1: got upset at me because that nightlife was something that
Speaker 1: she didn't discussed with her family. And while I think
Speaker 1: that any reasonable person who cared about somebody as you
Speaker 1: did might do the same thing if they were in
Speaker 1: your shoes, this caused a real rift between you two,
Speaker 1: and when questioned by her father about what you had
Speaker 1: told him, Catherine said that you were crazy, that she
Speaker 1: was not working as a strip or involved in anything dangerous.
Speaker 1: Her dad believed her, and she then broke up with you,
Speaker 1: although several weeks later you both reckoncil I got back together.
Speaker 1: So some time after this you went to Catherine's home
Speaker 1: and happened to meet David. Now the two of you
Speaker 1: only met this one time, but David had been unaware
Speaker 1: of your in Catherine's relationship, and when he found out,
Speaker 1: he became very upset, feeling misled. And so this now
Speaker 1: brings us to November five, when miss Wood was found
Speaker 1: stabbed to death in her Upper east Side apartment. According
Speaker 1: to police reports and ear witness testimony, the attack happened
Speaker 1: in two parts, first around six pm and then finally
Speaker 1: around six pm, with four counts of four witnesses hearing
Speaker 1: Catherine screaming and crying. Now, David had initially told police
Speaker 1: that he left the apartment twenty minutes before he called
Speaker 1: at six fifty pm that evening, which would have placed
Speaker 1: him within the apartment during that exact time frame described
Speaker 1: by the witnesses, and when police arrived on the scene,
Speaker 1: David immediately named Paul as the killer, holding up a
Speaker 1: CD of Paul's music. I mean, it's unreal, Okay. So
Speaker 1: Tony Marie tell us about the investigation and what was
Speaker 1: it that shifted the focus to Paul and away from David,
Speaker 1: who would have seemed like the obvious suspect. Well, initially,
Speaker 1: law enforcement had identified David Han as a perpetrator and
Speaker 1: rething that he said at the time. Looking back now
Speaker 1: with hindsight, it was deceptive, it was inaccurate, and it
Speaker 1: showed that he was a perpetrator. But what happened was
Speaker 1: law enforcement found this bloody fingerprint which they called it,
Speaker 1: which it actually isn't in the apartment, and the focus
Speaker 1: switched to Paul. Right, And this fingerprint plays such an
Speaker 1: important role throughout this whole story. So investigators found this fingerprint,
Speaker 1: but it didn't match David Haunt and Paul becomes the
Speaker 1: prime suspect. But this fingerprint is actually a latent fingerprint
Speaker 1: and not a patent fingerprint, which is what it was
Speaker 1: incorrectly believed to be. Can you break this down for
Speaker 1: us really quick, Well, anytime we touch a surface, we
Speaker 1: can leave a fingerprint, and that could be from our
Speaker 1: sweat or if something was on our hands, So you
Speaker 1: would leave a print and it would not be made
Speaker 1: from another substance that went on top of event. So
Speaker 1: if you leave a print and then a substance goes
Speaker 1: on top, that's latent. And if the print is made
Speaker 1: of the substance, like they argued at trial, they argued
Speaker 1: that the fingerprint was patent made of blood, which it
Speaker 1: is not. It was latent, pre existing exactly. So the
Speaker 1: fingerprints already there and then the blood ends up on
Speaker 1: top of it. And this makes sense that Paul's fingerprints
Speaker 1: were there, as he and Katherine had been in a
Speaker 1: relationship and he'd been to her home many many times.
Speaker 1: So was there any other evidence at all that pointed
Speaker 1: to Paul. The case against Paul was really founded on
Speaker 1: two or three pieces of evidence, So they had their
Speaker 1: team in there for days documenting this very bloody crime scene.
Speaker 1: It was a big fight in there, and that led
Speaker 1: to this fingerprint that was on the wall. The other
Speaker 1: piece of evidence was cell phone records, Paul's cell phone records,
Speaker 1: Katherine's cell phone records, and David Hans cell phone records,
Speaker 1: and the prosecution Shin and the police built a theory
Speaker 1: that Paul was texting and leaving these messages, was this
Speaker 1: jilted lover, and that she was rejecting him, and he
Speaker 1: was full of rage and killed this girl. It's not
Speaker 1: actually supported by any of the evidence, but that was
Speaker 1: their theory. Here's where things started spinning out of control
Speaker 1: in my opinion, which is that immediately after the murder,
Speaker 1: the police leaked erroneous information, the false information called what
Speaker 1: you Want to the media relating to the investigation, and
Speaker 1: they aid it up. TV news and newspapers were filled
Speaker 1: with stories with this false narrative of a scary, alleged
Speaker 1: Puerto Rican predator from the Bronx taking the life of
Speaker 1: this sweet, innocent girl from the Midwest, and so the
Speaker 1: media made it about race and one of the stories
Speaker 1: even cited anonymous police sources with reports of an alleged
Speaker 1: confession letter, alleged existence of a surveillance video showing Paul
Speaker 1: leaving the crime scene, which, of course all of it
Speaker 1: was totally false. In act, the exact opposite was true.
Speaker 1: There was a video that proves my innocence, video that
Speaker 1: shows their original suspect leaving the crime scene thirteen minutes
Speaker 1: after the commission of the crime. And I'm nowhere on
Speaker 1: this video at all, and I'm nowhere on any videos.
Speaker 1: And the cops and the d a's office, they were
Speaker 1: leaking information to the media saying, oh, he was on
Speaker 1: camera around the time of the crime and all of this,
Speaker 1: But they had the video that showed the original suspect
Speaker 1: entering into this scene and coming out thirteen minutes after
Speaker 1: the crime. It's just horrendous. This episode is underwritten by
Speaker 1: A i G, a leading global insurance company. A i
Speaker 1: G is committed to corporate social responsibility and is making
Speaker 1: a positive difference in the lives of its employees and
Speaker 1: in the communities where we work and live. In light
Speaker 1: of the compelling need for pro bono legal assistance, and
Speaker 1: in recognition of A I g's commitment to criminal and
Speaker 1: social justice reform, the A i G pro Bono Program
Speaker 1: provides free legal services and other support to underrepresented communities
Speaker 1: and individuals. While Paul awaited trial at Riker's Island, his
Speaker 1: family pulled together their life savings to retain Dawn Florio
Speaker 1: and her colleague Laura Miranda to represent paula trial. Now, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: that's not even a strong enough for it. Unbeknownst to
Speaker 1: Paul and his family, Florio, while she was representing Paul,
Speaker 1: she was simultaneously under indictment by the same prosecutor's office
Speaker 1: for smuggling drugs into a client at Rikers Island. The
Speaker 1: case against Florio received repeated adjournments at the court. File
Speaker 1: remains sealed to this day. But all of this came
Speaker 1: to light as the trial was starting and the trial judge,
Speaker 1: Judge Berkman, did not do a proper conflict inquiry, which
Speaker 1: is called Gomberg inquiry, basically telling Paul that they didn't
Speaker 1: see how it would be a problem and inferred he
Speaker 1: would have to go to trial without counsel if he
Speaker 1: pursued the matter further. Unreal so he would have had
Speaker 1: to represent himself. I mean, it's not okay. So, Paul,
Speaker 1: you've been waiting for eighteen months at Riker's Island, a
Speaker 1: notoriously dangerous, chaotic and scary place. And this is how
Speaker 1: your trial was starting. I mean, what was that like. Yeah, basically,
Speaker 1: my lawyers didn't show up for the first three days
Speaker 1: of trial, and it was just a mess. From the beginning.
Speaker 1: They seemed prepared. No, I think some people in our
Speaker 1: audience may well say themselves. Wait a minute, I thought
Speaker 1: I heard him say that his attorneys didn't show up
Speaker 1: for the first three days of trial. But that can't
Speaker 1: be true. Yeah, you're right, they didn't show up. I
Speaker 1: didn't know where they were. And it's so bad that
Speaker 1: one of your attorneys was held to contempt of court
Speaker 1: and actually find a thousand dollars for not showing up.
Speaker 1: And when they did show up, they didn't even pretend
Speaker 1: to make an effort to represent you. So, Tony Marie,
Speaker 1: the two defense attorneys, Florio and Miranda, can you talk
Speaker 1: about the myriad errors that they made during the trial. Well,
Speaker 1: they didn't hire any experts, and they didn't develop any
Speaker 1: of this evidence. They didn't go to the scene, they
Speaker 1: didn't speak to the witnesses. The one thing they did
Speaker 1: do was they contacted a fingerprint expert. I spoke to
Speaker 1: that expert. I got an affid David from him. What
Speaker 1: is chilling is that expert actually told the defense that
Speaker 1: there was a problem with the fingerprint, it looked like
Speaker 1: it was latent, and they should have the sheet rock
Speaker 1: examined and test the medium. So the one direction they
Speaker 1: got they were actually given information as to how to
Speaker 1: disprove this by an expert. They didn't call the expert.
Speaker 1: They didn't do it. And we haven't even touched on
Speaker 1: one of the biggest things here, which is the surveillance
Speaker 1: video that Paul mentioned earlier, and this is it just
Speaker 1: blows my mind. On the video, you can clearly see
Speaker 1: David Hahn leaving the apartment at six thirty seven, and
Speaker 1: there's the time stamp right on the video, and that's
Speaker 1: just thirteen fourteen minutes after this brutal murder took place
Speaker 1: at But the defense attorneys didn't show this to the
Speaker 1: jury because it turns out that while they had the video,
Speaker 1: they didn't know this was there because they hadn't even
Speaker 1: bothered to watch the whole video. The defense didn't bring
Speaker 1: it to light, and the prosecutor went forward and argued
Speaker 1: and presented evidence that we now know affirmatively was untrue
Speaker 1: and we now know affirmatively he knew at the time.
Speaker 1: So it is a profound injustice and failing of all
Speaker 1: the pieces of our system that we rely on. Okay,
Speaker 1: So the state presented mostly circumstance to evidence like the
Speaker 1: high volume of calls you mentioned, and the only physical
Speaker 1: evidence presented was the latent fingerprint, which we've talked about.
Speaker 1: But the state also presented what they described as evidence
Speaker 1: but can only really be described as somewhere between ridiculous
Speaker 1: and ludicrous. I'm talking about Paul's diary entries dating back
Speaker 1: to what he was ten years old. What world do
Speaker 1: we live in? But this is allowed to be admitted.
Speaker 1: They also submitted lyrics to a song that Paul co
Speaker 1: wrote with his fellow band member and a childhood comment
Speaker 1: drawing of a teenage mutant Ninja turtle holding a sword. Wow,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is as bad as the West Memphis
Speaker 1: three in that sense. And this was brought into the
Speaker 1: trial as supposed it proof that he was a violent guy,
Speaker 1: even though Paul had no history whatsoever of violence or
Speaker 1: any run ins at all with the law. And here's
Speaker 1: the thing, obviously, whoever was involved in this violent struggle
Speaker 1: for Katherine's life and which she ripped out the hair
Speaker 1: of her attacker and clawed him as well. One would say, well,
Speaker 1: Paul must have been covered in scratches or at least
Speaker 1: had blood on him, or you know, maybe even a
Speaker 1: significant amount of blood, But he didn't. First of all,
Speaker 1: that testimony came out at trial by the forensic experts
Speaker 1: called by the police that the person would be covered
Speaker 1: in blood. What didn't come out at trial was the
Speaker 1: cleanup that took place. There was crystal violet all in
Speaker 1: the tub, so the perpetrator not only was covered in blood,
Speaker 1: but cleaned up in that apartment before they left. We
Speaker 1: know from the video footage that his Internet time stamped
Speaker 1: proven to be accurate that David Han walked out of
Speaker 1: that apartment thirteen minutes after the homicide occurred. What the
Speaker 1: prosecutor did, which was just incredibly inappropriate in my opinion
Speaker 1: and rises to the level of misconduct, is then argue
Speaker 1: to the jury and closing knowingly untrue assertions that David
Speaker 1: Han left the apartment at six o'clock before the homicide occurred,
Speaker 1: leaving this window of forty minutes for Paul Cortes who
Speaker 1: have gone in and committed homicide. That he didn't commit.
Speaker 1: That's how this conviction happened. So, Tony Marie, if you
Speaker 1: had been able to represent Paul at the original trial,
Speaker 1: and I know you probably wish you could go back
Speaker 1: in time and do that, how would things have gone differently?
Speaker 1: I think if you play the video and watch it
Speaker 1: and see someone else leaving the scene after the homicide,
Speaker 1: that is key, and you show that to the journey,
Speaker 1: that would have changed the day. The forensic evidence, for instance,
Speaker 1: there were hairs found in Catherine's hand, hairs with the
Speaker 1: roots attached. The only tests that were done on those
Speaker 1: hairs were by the prosecution comparing it to Paul. He's excluded.
Speaker 1: Why not test those hairs? Why not go forward with
Speaker 1: that type of investigation. It's a homicide, Go to the scene,
Speaker 1: speak to the witnesses. The failings are just monumental. I
Speaker 1: did never expected that I would be convicted. I just
Speaker 1: believe that the truth would prevail, and that's why I
Speaker 1: took the stand and I tried to be as forthcoming
Speaker 1: as I could understand. I completely expected that they would
Speaker 1: have quit me because they would know that what I
Speaker 1: was saying was the truth. So here we have it.
Speaker 1: No evidence presented by the defense, phony evidence presented by
Speaker 1: the prosecutors, and the results are a foregone conclusion. And
Speaker 1: now the worst moment comes. You get convicted, right then
Speaker 1: you get taken away. So tell us about that. I
Speaker 1: mean from Rikers, I guess it couldn't get worse, could it.
Speaker 1: It did, and at a certain points throughout this incarceration
Speaker 1: it has. When I heard the guilty verdict, it was
Speaker 1: just a complete shock to me. I didn't expected this
Speaker 1: life that I've been living for the past sixteen years
Speaker 1: as an innocent man in prison, and all the terrible
Speaker 1: things I've witnessed throughout the sixteen years, all the tragedies.
Speaker 1: It was definitely the hardest time of my life. I
Speaker 1: went to my first prison, which was all burned Correctional facility,
Speaker 1: which is a disciplinary jail. It's probably one of the
Speaker 1: most violent prisons at the time, multiple stabbing every day,
Speaker 1: people meeting each other up getting violence. So I'm just
Speaker 1: trying to stay safe, trying to write the case during
Speaker 1: that time. I mean, with everything that's gone on, there
Speaker 1: are definitely waves even today of me just being so
Speaker 1: crazy mad at everything about life, about how unfair everything is.
Speaker 1: But you know, that just makes a person bitter, and
Speaker 1: we just have to continue in the best way we
Speaker 1: can to be good people and help people in the
Speaker 1: situations that we're in. And that's what I've been trying
Speaker 1: to do. I've always saw this as a test, and
Speaker 1: if I can pass this test, and if I can
Speaker 1: come out of this a better person, not to someone
Speaker 1: who survived this, but someone who's overcommon zone, who has
Speaker 1: contributed throughout this ordeal to try to help others who
Speaker 1: have been even less fortunate than I. I guess I
Speaker 1: hold on to the fact that there are people like
Speaker 1: Tony Marie, people like yourself, people like my family and
Speaker 1: my friends who know that I am innocent, and they
Speaker 1: believe in my innocence and they haven't and they don't
Speaker 1: give up on me. And knowing that has been something
Speaker 1: that has really given me hope through all of this,
Speaker 1: and it has made me the person that I am.
Speaker 1: Tony Marie, how did this case first land on your desk?
Speaker 1: And what was it about this that made you decide
Speaker 1: to devote yourself pro bono by the way, for years
Speaker 1: to this man, Paul Cortez Well. I was contacted by
Speaker 1: some of Paul's ardent supporters in the fall of two
Speaker 1: thousand fifteen, and I ordered the file, and when I
Speaker 1: opened it up in January six, I did what any
Speaker 1: thinking lawyer might do. I put the video in. And
Speaker 1: when I put the video in and I saw David
Speaker 1: Han leaving after that homicide had occurred, I couldn't get involved.
Speaker 1: Upon seeing that, I worked up the case. I contacted,
Speaker 1: you know, eleven different experts on crime scenes and the
Speaker 1: cell phone records, the cell site records which show where
Speaker 1: Paul is, which is actually not at the apartment, went
Speaker 1: through every slip of paper in this case, and what
Speaker 1: came over and over and over again was more and
Speaker 1: more and more information showing how innocent he is. And honestly,
Speaker 1: it was all there all along. It was in the file.
Speaker 1: So these lawyers bad enough not showing up, but then
Speaker 1: not introducing the evidence that was in their files and
Speaker 1: then claiming later on that they didn't even know that
Speaker 1: it was there. The real consequence of that is that
Speaker 1: now you can't introduce that evidence as new evidence because
Speaker 1: it was there the whole time. So now Paul is
Speaker 1: stuck with a much more difficult legally speaking task of
Speaker 1: proving ineffective assistance of counsel. Although in this case, it
Speaker 1: seems like that should be open and shut. One would
Speaker 1: think that this should be pretty straightforward when we look
Speaker 1: at all the malfeasance and all the incompetence and everything else,
Speaker 1: and the evidence itself. So how has it unbound thus far?
Speaker 1: In terms of the post conviction litigation? There was appeals
Speaker 1: of the conviction itself and some rulings that suggested that
Speaker 1: there should be a four forty, which in New York
Speaker 1: is where you go back and say, hey, we want
Speaker 1: to put everything on the record and fix this. There's
Speaker 1: some issues, the failings of the defense and failing to
Speaker 1: just do basic investigation to speak to the witnesses. I
Speaker 1: did do that motion, and stunningly it was denied. But
Speaker 1: now it's in front of a federal judge, judge free
Speaker 1: and in New York, and it's been a long way.
Speaker 1: Paul has been very unlucky in many ways, as our
Speaker 1: motion was submitted prior to COVID, so there's been a
Speaker 1: halt there. But we're hopeful, and as a lawyer, I
Speaker 1: have to believe that when you put this type of
Speaker 1: evidence in front of a judge and show this kind
Speaker 1: of injustice, that the judge is going to correct it.
Speaker 1: I do believe that, however you slice it, this is
Speaker 1: ineffective assistance of counsel, and this is actual innocence, and
Speaker 1: we should be successful in federal court. And I'm relying
Speaker 1: on the judge to do the right thing. Order hearing
Speaker 1: dismiss this order a new trial. It's so clear that
Speaker 1: he did not commit this crime. And so, Paul, for
Speaker 1: the people who are listening right now and feeling this
Speaker 1: mixture the same one that I feel of anger and
Speaker 1: just just rage at the wrongdoing in this case and
Speaker 1: the desire to help to do something to move this forward,
Speaker 1: what would you like them to do? Is there a
Speaker 1: website you want people to go to, or is there
Speaker 1: a change dot org petition or anything like that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there is a change dot org petition. One of them
Speaker 1: is a petition for clemency. And then the other thing
Speaker 1: is a website. It's www dot Free Paul Cortez dot
Speaker 1: com and people can visit that side to see everything
Speaker 1: more in detail, everything about the case. Well, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have all of the links in the bio in the episode,
Speaker 1: So please wherever you are, unless you're driving, in which case,
Speaker 1: wait till you stop, but go click on those links
Speaker 1: because your voice matters and you can help us, help
Speaker 1: Paul and bring him home where he belongs. I would
Speaker 1: also suggest too that if you are a New Yorker,
Speaker 1: to contact your state assembly member, your state senator in
Speaker 1: your district and let them know how you feel and
Speaker 1: have them try to advocate as well. I've always found
Speaker 1: that the state senators and state assembly men are more
Speaker 1: receptive than you would think, and it's a lot easier
Speaker 1: for them to reach the ear of the governor then
Speaker 1: it is for us, just normal people. That's a very
Speaker 1: good suggestion. And Paul, we have a tradition here of
Speaker 1: closing the show in a particularly type of way. It's
Speaker 1: my favorite part of the show, and I think that's
Speaker 1: probably true for most of our audience. It's called closing arguments.
Speaker 1: First of all, I thank you again for being here
Speaker 1: and sharing your story. I know it's not easy, and
Speaker 1: just for being the beacon of light that you are.
Speaker 1: And then what happens is I turned my microphone off
Speaker 1: and leave yours on, and then I'll just kick back
Speaker 1: in my chair with my headphones on and just listen
Speaker 1: for any other thoughts that you want to share. Of course,
Speaker 1: as we always do, We're going to save Paul for last,
Speaker 1: because we're here for you, Paul. But first I want
Speaker 1: to turn over to you, Tony, for any thoughts you
Speaker 1: want to share that we haven't already covered. Well, I
Speaker 1: just want to say something about Paul. I just want
Speaker 1: to say what an inspiring person he is. That he
Speaker 1: has kept the attitude and the faith and that I
Speaker 1: think a lot of that comes from the kind of
Speaker 1: person he is, but also from the support he gets.
Speaker 1: So I'm just grateful the support of this podcast of you, Jason,
Speaker 1: and would encourage people to continue to give that support
Speaker 1: because it makes a difference, and I'm hoping that it
Speaker 1: will also perhaps put additional pressure forth in order to
Speaker 1: set him free as he should be. And now over
Speaker 1: to you. I have been incarcerated for sixteen years for
Speaker 1: come I didn't commit. I have been fighting since they
Speaker 1: want to prove my innocence to the court system. I
Speaker 1: haven't given up, and it is a terrible injustice, not
Speaker 1: only for me and my family, but it's also been
Speaker 1: a terrible injustice for Catherine and for her family. I'm
Speaker 1: so grateful that I have people in my life that
Speaker 1: do care about me and that are willing to spend
Speaker 1: so much time and energy and effort and heartache and
Speaker 1: tears and pain to support me and continue to fight
Speaker 1: with me for justice. And maybe there's someone listening out there,
Speaker 1: someone who's dealing with an injustice, someone who's dealing with
Speaker 1: an addiction of loneliness, some kind of isolation. My message
Speaker 1: to you is just don't give up, continue to fight,
Speaker 1: continue to believe. Just know there are people who care
Speaker 1: about you. There is a better way than what you're
Speaker 1: living through right now. Just keep continuing on. I guess
Speaker 1: that is my message for everyone. And I firmly believe
Speaker 1: that justice will be served and I will be exonerated
Speaker 1: one day. I don't know when that day is going
Speaker 1: to be, but keep praying for it to happen soon.
Speaker 1: I just thank you, I think everyone that the Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction podcast who works behind the scenes, and especially my friends,
Speaker 1: my family, and Tony Murray, my amazing lawyer who is
Speaker 1: so bright and intelligent and really my champion. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wardis. With research by Lila Robinson. The music
Speaker 1: in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
Speaker 1: composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and
Speaker 1: on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava
Speaker 1: for Good. On all three platforms, you can also follow
Speaker 1: me on both TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason Flom.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
Speaker 1: in association with Signal Company Number one