Speaker 1: In two thousand and five, Paul Cortes was pursuing his
Speaker 1: theatrical and musical career in New York City while intermittently
Speaker 1: dating twenty one year old Katherine Woods, an aspiring dancer
Speaker 1: from Columbus, Ohio. Catherine also allowed her ex boyfriend David Hahn,
Speaker 1: who struggled financially and with drug addiction, to stay in
Speaker 1: her Manhattan apartment until he got back on his feet.
Speaker 1: On November twenty seventh, two thousand and five, Catherine was
Speaker 1: brutally stabbed to death in her apartment, with police and
Speaker 1: ear witnesses placing the time of the crime between six
Speaker 1: twenty and six twenty five pm. Hawn called nine one
Speaker 1: one at six point fifty pm and named Paul Cortes
Speaker 1: as the murderer when the police arrived. When police found
Speaker 1: one of Paul's fingerprints that they mistakenly believed was impressed
Speaker 1: in blood rather than an old print that had been
Speaker 1: covered by blood, Paul became the prime suspect, even though
Speaker 1: surveillance footage in front of Catherine's building only placed David
Speaker 1: Haun at the seat. Paul was arrested and charged with
Speaker 1: her murder. With Paul's defense failing to question this fingerprint
Speaker 1: or present key exculpatory evidence, including the surveillance footage as
Speaker 1: well as the attacker's DNA from the victim's fingernails and hands.
Speaker 1: Paul was convicted and sentenced to twenty five to life. Well,
Speaker 1: now check in with Paul and his attorney Tony Marie
Speaker 1: Angeli to see where his case stands. This is wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. Today's case is going to
Speaker 1: blow your mind. You know, I thought I had seen
Speaker 1: everything until I heard about the case of Paul Cortes.
Speaker 1: This case it has racism, it has incompetence on official levels,
Speaker 1: it has junk science, but it also has attorneys representing
Speaker 1: the defendant who themselves were committing numerous crimes before, during,
Speaker 1: and probably after the trial. So yeah, sorry, I'm a
Speaker 1: little worked up today, but you will be too by
Speaker 1: the time you finished hearing this episode. This is Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction Behind bars, where today's guest is, of course, Paul Cortes.
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 2: Thank you, Jason. I'm just very grateful for you to
Speaker 2: have me on the show and to be able to
Speaker 2: finally get my story out.
Speaker 1: There and with us today is Tony Marie Angelie of
Speaker 1: the Angelie Law Firm. I hope you're never in trouble,
Speaker 1: but if you are, you should track her down because
Speaker 1: she's a pitbull, and I mean, then the best way,
Speaker 1: Tony Marie. I'm glad you're here, thank.
Speaker 3: You, and I am so happy to be here.
Speaker 1: So, Paul, you came from a poor neighborhood in the Bronx, right,
Speaker 1: What was your childhood like?
Speaker 2: Well, I was just like any normal kid in the Bronx,
Speaker 2: coming from a Puerto Rican family. My mom raised us
Speaker 2: three kids. My father left when I was younger, and
Speaker 2: my mom remarried later on. My mom always pushed academics
Speaker 2: and doing well in school, so I think it was
Speaker 2: around twelve I had tested into private schools and I
Speaker 2: started going to private schools Manhattan for junior high and
Speaker 2: then high school. During that time, I was into sports,
Speaker 2: I was in the theater, I was in the arts.
Speaker 2: I auditioned all of these colleges and I eventually got
Speaker 2: into Boston University and I earned my bachelor's in fine arts.
Speaker 2: I was the first in my family to go to
Speaker 2: college and to graduate. I was in two thousand and
Speaker 2: three when I graduated, and after that, I came back
Speaker 2: to New York to pursue a life in the arts,
Speaker 2: and I was very hopeful at that time for accomplishing
Speaker 2: my dream.
Speaker 1: So now you're auditioning for rent, making your way in
Speaker 1: the city that never sleeps, coming from a background that
Speaker 1: normally most people don't managed to make it to anything
Speaker 1: like their dreams. So what was happening back then? Take
Speaker 1: us back to two thousand and three.
Speaker 2: I had signed with the talent agency and I was
Speaker 2: very excited about that. I went on several auditions and
Speaker 2: I was also doing music on the side as well.
Speaker 2: It was really fun. I was living life to the
Speaker 2: fullest at that time.
Speaker 1: Now here we go to December two thousand and five.
Speaker 1: You are working as a physical trainer and a yoga instructor,
Speaker 1: doing your auditions, completing your solo musical album. And the
Speaker 1: person at the center of this was your on again,
Speaker 1: off again girlfriend. And that woman who was the victim
Speaker 1: in this case is a woman named Katherine Woods.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Katherine was twenty one at a time, and she
Speaker 2: was a really special person and I really cared for her,
Speaker 2: and she had a great relationship. And like any relationships,
Speaker 2: there are ups and downs, but I always cared for her.
Speaker 1: So she was taking voice and dance lessons, working part
Speaker 1: time jobs at a hair salon, was seeing several different men,
Speaker 1: that's her choice, you know, No judgment here, and she
Speaker 1: worked 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 Hahn. 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 2: She was definitely trying to get him out of the apartment,
Speaker 2: and several times where she had asked him to and
Speaker 2: was successful, he would call her depressed and threatening to
Speaker 2: kill himself. And it was kind of a vo little situation.
Speaker 2: She always said that he's like family and that she
Speaker 2: really cares about him. She kept a lot of it
Speaker 2: to herself. She was very private in that sense.
Speaker 1: And then in April two thousand and five, Catherine was
Speaker 1: drugged 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.
Speaker 2: She called me at the club and she asked for help,
Speaker 2: and I hurried down. She was really messed up. She
Speaker 2: could hardly walk, and she didn't want to go back
Speaker 2: to her apartment, so I just brought her to a
Speaker 2: hotel and set her up there and got her to
Speaker 2: go to the hospital because she was worried that she
Speaker 2: might have gotten raped at that time, so being concerned
Speaker 2: about it all I went back and called her parents.
Speaker 2: I thought maybe her parents could talk to her and
Speaker 2: help her out, But she got upset at me because
Speaker 2: that night life was something that she didn't discuss with
Speaker 2: her family.
Speaker 1: And while I think that any reasonable person who cared
Speaker 1: about somebody as you did might do the same thing
Speaker 1: if they were in your shoes, this caused a real
Speaker 1: rift between you two, and when questioned by her father
Speaker 1: about what you had told him, Catherine said that you
Speaker 1: were crazy, that she was not working as a strip
Speaker 1: or involved in anything dangerous. Her dad believed her, and
Speaker 1: she then broke up with you, although several weeks later
Speaker 1: you both reconciled and got back together. So sometime after this,
Speaker 1: you went to Catherine Tobn happened to meet David. Now
Speaker 1: the two of you only met this one time, but
Speaker 1: David had been unaware of your and Catherin's relationship, and
Speaker 1: when he found out, he became very upset, feeling misled.
Speaker 1: And so this now brings us to November twenty seven,
Speaker 1: two thousand and five, when miss Wood was found stabbed
Speaker 1: to death in her Upper East Side apartment. According to
Speaker 1: police reports and ear witness testimony, the attack happened in
Speaker 1: two parts, first around six pm and then finally around
Speaker 1: six twenty three pm with four count of four witnesses
Speaker 1: hearing Catherine screaming and crying. Now, David had initially told
Speaker 1: police that he left the apartment twenty minutes before he
Speaker 1: called nine one one at six fifty pm that evening,
Speaker 1: which would have placed him within the apartment during that
Speaker 1: exact timeframe described by the witnesses, and when police arrived
Speaker 1: on the scene, David immediately named Paul as the killer,
Speaker 1: holding up a 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.
Speaker 4: Well, initially law enforcement had identified David Hahn as the perpetrator.
Speaker 3: Everything that he.
Speaker 4: Said at the time, Looking back now with twenty twenty hindsight,
Speaker 4: it was deceptive, it was inaccurate, and it showed that
Speaker 4: he was a perpetrator. But what happened was law enforcement
Speaker 4: found this bloody fingerprint which they called it, which it
Speaker 4: actually isn't in the apartment, and the focus switched to Paul.
Speaker 1: Right, and this fingerprint plays such an important role throughout
Speaker 1: this whole story. So investigators found this fingerprint, but it
Speaker 1: didn't match David Haunt, and Paul becomes the prime suspect.
Speaker 1: But this fingerprint is actually a latent fingerprint and not
Speaker 1: a patent fingerprint, which is what it was incorrectly believed
Speaker 1: to be. Can you break this down for us real quick.
Speaker 4: Well, anytime we touch a surface, we can leave a fingerprint,
Speaker 4: and that could be from our sweat or if something
Speaker 4: was on our hands, So you would leave a print
Speaker 4: and it would not be made from another substance that
Speaker 4: went on top of So if you leave a print
Speaker 4: and then a substance goes on top, that's latent.
Speaker 3: And if the print is made of the substance.
Speaker 4: Like they argued at trial, they argued that the fingerprint
Speaker 4: was peyton made of blood, which it is not.
Speaker 3: It was latent, preexisting exactly.
Speaker 1: So the fingerprints already there and then the blood ends
Speaker 1: up on top of it. And this makes sense that
Speaker 1: Paul's fingerprints were there, as he and Catherine had been
Speaker 1: in a relationship and he'd been to her home many
Speaker 1: many times. So was there any other evidence at all
Speaker 1: that pointed to Paul.
Speaker 4: The case against Paul was really founded on two or
Speaker 4: three pieces of evidence, so they had their team in
Speaker 4: there for days documenting this very bloody crime scene. It
Speaker 4: was a big fight in there, and that led to
Speaker 4: this fingerprint that was on the wall. The other piece
Speaker 4: of evidence was cell phone records, Paul's cell phone records,
Speaker 4: Catherine's cell phone records, and David Han's cell phone records,
Speaker 4: and the prosecute and the police built a theory that
Speaker 4: Paul was texting and leaving these messages, was this jilted lover,
Speaker 4: and that she was rejecting him. He was full of
Speaker 4: rage and killed this girl. It's not actually supported by
Speaker 4: any of the evidence, but that was their theory.
Speaker 1: Here's where things started spinning out of control in my opinion,
Speaker 1: which is that immediately after the murder, the police leaked
Speaker 1: erroneous information, a false information called what You went to
Speaker 1: the media relating to the investigation, and they ate it up.
Speaker 1: TV news and newspapers were filled with stories with this
Speaker 1: false narrative of a scary, alleged Puerto Rican predator from
Speaker 1: the Bronx taking the life of this sweet, innocent girl
Speaker 1: from the Midwest, and so the media made it about race,
Speaker 1: and one of the stories even cited anonymous police sources
Speaker 1: with reports of an alleged confession letter alleged existence of
Speaker 1: a surveillance video showing Paul leaving the crime scene, which,
Speaker 1: of course all of it was totally false. In fact, fact,
Speaker 1: the exact opposite was true.
Speaker 2: There was a video that proves my innocence, a video
Speaker 2: that shows their original suspect leaving the crime scene thirteen
Speaker 2: minutes after the commission of the crime. And I'm nowhere
Speaker 2: on this video at all, and I'm nowhere on any videos.
Speaker 2: And the cops and the DA's office, they were leaking
Speaker 2: information to the media saying, oh, he was on camera
Speaker 2: around the time of the crime and all of this,
Speaker 2: But they had the video that showed their original suspect
Speaker 2: entering into this scene and coming out thirteen minutes after
Speaker 2: the crime. It's just horrendous.
Speaker 1: This episode is underwritten by AIG, a leading global insurance company.
Speaker 1: AIG 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 AIG's commitment to criminal and social justice reform.
Speaker 1: The AIG pro Bono program provides free legal services and
Speaker 1: other support to underrepresented communities and individuals. While Paul awaited
Speaker 1: trial at Riker's Island, his family pulled together their life
Speaker 1: savings to retain Dawn Florio and her colleague Laura Miranda
Speaker 1: to represent Paul at trial. Now, unfortunately, that's not even
Speaker 1: a strong enough word. Unbeknownst to Paul and his family, Florio,
Speaker 1: while she was representing Paul, she was simultaneously under indictment
Speaker 1: by the same prosecutor's office for smuggling drugs into a
Speaker 1: client at Rikers Island. The case against Florio received repeated
Speaker 1: adjournments and the court bile remained sealed to this day.
Speaker 1: But all of this came to light as the trial
Speaker 1: was starting and the trial judge, Judge Berkman, did not
Speaker 1: do a proper conflict inquiry which is called Gomberg inquiry,
Speaker 1: basically telling Paul that they didn't see how it would
Speaker 1: be a problem and inferred he would have to go
Speaker 1: to trial without counsel if he pursued the matter further
Speaker 1: unreal so he would have had to represent himself. I
Speaker 1: mean it's nuts. Okay, So, Paul, you'd been waiting for
Speaker 1: eighteen months at Riker's Island, a notoriously dangerous, chaotic, and
Speaker 1: scary place, and this is how your trial was starting.
Speaker 1: I mean, what was that like?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I basically my lawyers didn't show up for the
Speaker 2: first three days of trial, and it was just a
Speaker 2: mess from the beginning. They seemed ill prepared.
Speaker 1: Well, I think some people in our audience may well
Speaker 1: say themselves, Wait a minute, I thought I heard him
Speaker 1: say that his attorneys didn't show up for the first
Speaker 1: three days of trial. But that can't be true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're right, they didn't show up. I didn't know
Speaker 2: where they were.
Speaker 1: And it's so bad that one of your attorneys was
Speaker 1: held to contempt of court and actually find one thousand
Speaker 1: dollars for not showing up. And when they they did
Speaker 1: show up, they didn't even pretend to make an effort
Speaker 1: to represent you. So, Tony, Marie, the two defense attorneys,
Speaker 1: Florio and Miranda, can you talk about the myriad errors
Speaker 1: that they made during the trial.
Speaker 4: Well, they didn't hire any experts, and they didn't develop
Speaker 4: any of this evidence. They didn't go to the scene,
Speaker 4: they didn't speak to the witnesses. The one thing they
Speaker 4: did do was they contacted a fingerprint expert. I spoke
Speaker 4: to that expert. I got an affid David from him.
Speaker 4: What is chilling is that expert actually told the defense
Speaker 4: that there was a problem with the fingerprint, it looked
Speaker 4: like it was latent, and they should have the sheet
Speaker 4: rock examined and test the medium. So the one direction
Speaker 4: they got they were actually given information as to how
Speaker 4: to disprove this by an expert. They didn't call the expert.
Speaker 4: They didn't do it.
Speaker 1: And we haven't even touched on one of the biggest
Speaker 1: things here, which is the surveillance video that Paul mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: and this is it just blows my mind. On the video,
Speaker 1: you can clearly see David Hahn leaving the apartment at
Speaker 1: six point thirty seven, and there's the time stamp right
Speaker 1: on the video, and that's just thirteen fourteen minutes after
Speaker 1: this brutal murder took place at six twenty three. But
Speaker 1: the defense attorneys didn't show this to the jury because
Speaker 1: it turns out that while they had the video, they
Speaker 1: didn't know this was there because they hadn't even bothered
Speaker 1: to watch the whole video.
Speaker 4: The defense didn't bring it to light, and the prosecutor
Speaker 4: went forward and argued and presented evidence that we now
Speaker 4: know affirmatively was untrue, and we now know affirmatively he
Speaker 4: knew at the time. So it is a profound injustice
Speaker 4: and failing of all the pieces of our system that
Speaker 4: we rely on.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the state presented mostly circumstance 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 when he was ten years old. What world do
Speaker 1: we live in when 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 comic
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 proof that he was a violent guy,
Speaker 1: even though Paul had no history whatsoever. A violence or
Speaker 1: any run ins at all with the law. Here's the thing, obviously,
Speaker 1: whoever was involved in this violent struggle for Catherine's life
Speaker 1: which she ripped out the hair of her attacker and
Speaker 1: clawed him as well, one would say, well, Paul must
Speaker 1: have been covered in scratches or at least had blood
Speaker 1: on him, or you know, maybe even a significant amount
Speaker 1: of blood. But he didn't.
Speaker 4: First of all, that testimony came out at trial by
Speaker 4: the forensic experts called by the police that the person
Speaker 4: would be covered in blood. What didn't come out at
Speaker 4: trial was the cleanup that took place. There was crystal
Speaker 4: violet all in the tub, so the perpetrator not only
Speaker 4: was covered in blood, but cleaned up in that apartment
Speaker 4: before they left. We know from the video footage that
Speaker 4: his Internet timestamped proven to be accurate, that David Hahn
Speaker 4: walked out of that apartment thirteen minutes after the homicide occurred.
Speaker 4: What the prosecutor did, which was just incredibly inappropriate in
Speaker 4: my opinion and rises to the level of the misconduct,
Speaker 4: is then argue to the jury inclosing knowingly untrue assertions
Speaker 4: that David Hahn left the apartment at six o'clock before
Speaker 4: the homicide occurred, leaving this window of forty minutes for
Speaker 4: Paul Cortes to have gone in and committed a homicide
Speaker 4: that he didn't commit.
Speaker 3: That's how this conviction happened.
Speaker 1: So, Tony Marie, if you had been able to represent
Speaker 1: Paul at the original trial, and I know you probably
Speaker 1: wish you could go back in time and do that,
Speaker 1: how would things have gone differently?
Speaker 4: I think if you play the video and watch it
Speaker 4: and see someone else leaving the scene after the homicide,
Speaker 4: that is key, and you show that to the jury,
Speaker 4: that would have changed the day. The forensic evidence, for instance,
Speaker 4: there were hairs found in Catherine's hand, hairs with the
Speaker 4: roots attached. The only tests that were done on those
Speaker 4: hairs were by the prosecution comparing it to Paul.
Speaker 3: He's excluded. Why not test those hairs?
Speaker 4: Why not go forward with that type of investigation. It's
Speaker 4: a homicide, Go to the scene, speak to the witnesses.
Speaker 4: The failings are just monumental.
Speaker 2: I did never expected that I would be convicted. I
Speaker 2: just believe that the truth would prevail, and that's why
Speaker 2: I took the stand and I tried to be as
Speaker 2: forthcoming as I could understand. I completely expected that they
Speaker 2: would have quit me because they would know that what
Speaker 2: I was saying was the truth.
Speaker 1: So here we have it. No evidence presented by the defense,
Speaker 1: phony evidence presented by the prosecutors, and the results are
Speaker 1: a foregone conclusion. And now the worst moment comes. You
Speaker 1: get convicted, right then you get taken away. So tell
Speaker 1: us about that, I mean from Rikers, I guess it
Speaker 1: couldn't get worse, could it.
Speaker 2: It did, and at a certain points throughout this incarceration
Speaker 2: it has. When I heard the guilty verdict, it was
Speaker 2: just a complete shock to me. I hadn't expected this
Speaker 2: life that I've been living for the past sixteen years
Speaker 2: as an innocent man in prison, and all the terrible
Speaker 2: things I've witnessed throughout these sixteen years, all the tragedies.
Speaker 2: It was definitely the hardest time of my life. I
Speaker 2: went to my first prison, which was all burned correctional facility,
Speaker 2: which is a disciplinary jail. It's probably one of the
Speaker 2: most violent prisons at the time, multiple stabbings every day,
Speaker 2: people meeting each other off gang violence. So I'm just
Speaker 2: trying to stay safe, trying to write the case during
Speaker 2: that time. I mean with everything that's gone on. There
Speaker 2: are definitely waves even today of me just being so
Speaker 2: crazy mad at everything about life, about how unfair everything is.
Speaker 2: But you know, that just makes a person bitter, and
Speaker 2: we just have to continue in the best way we
Speaker 2: can to be good people and help people in the
Speaker 2: situations that we're in. And that's what I've been trying
Speaker 2: to do. I've always saw this as a test, and
Speaker 2: if I can pass this test, and if I can
Speaker 2: come out of this as a better person, not just someone
Speaker 2: who survived this, but someone who's overcome and zone who
Speaker 2: has contributed throughout this ordeal to try to help others
Speaker 2: who have been even less fortunate than I. I guess
Speaker 2: I hold on to the fact that there are people
Speaker 2: like Tony Marie, people like yourself, people like my family
Speaker 2: and my friends who know that I am innocent and
Speaker 2: they believe in my innocence and they haven't and they
Speaker 2: don't give up on me. And knowing that has been
Speaker 2: something that has really given me hope throughout all of this,
Speaker 2: and it has made me the person that I am.
Speaker 1: Tony Marie, how did this case first land on your
Speaker 1: desk and what was it about this that made you
Speaker 1: decide to devote yourself pro bono, by the way, for
Speaker 1: years to this man, Paul Cortes.
Speaker 4: Well, I was contacted by some of Paul's ardent supporters
Speaker 4: in the fall of twenty fifteen, and I ordered the file.
Speaker 3: And when I opened it up in.
Speaker 4: January of two sixteenth, I did what any thinking lawyer
Speaker 4: might do. I put the video in. And when I
Speaker 4: put the video in and I saw David Hahn leaving
Speaker 4: after that homicide had occurred, I couldn't but get involved.
Speaker 4: Upon seeing that, I worked up the case. I contacted,
Speaker 4: you know, eleven different experts on crime scenes and the
Speaker 4: cell phone records, the cell site records which show where
Speaker 4: Paul is, which is actually not at the apartment, went
Speaker 4: through every slip of paper in this case, and what
Speaker 4: came over and over and over again was more and
Speaker 4: more and more information showing how innocent he is. And honestly,
Speaker 4: 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 the 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 incompetents and everything else,
Speaker 1: and the evidence itself. So how has it unblound thus far?
Speaker 1: In terms of the post conviction litigation, there.
Speaker 4: Was appeals of the conviction itself and some rulings that
Speaker 4: suggested that there should be a four forty, which in
Speaker 4: New York is where you'd go back and say, hey,
Speaker 4: we want to put everything on the record and fix this.
Speaker 4: There's some issues the failings of the defense in failing
Speaker 4: to just do basic investigation to speak to the witnesses.
Speaker 4: I did do that motion, and stunningly it was denied.
Speaker 4: But now it's in front of a federal judge, Judge Freeman,
Speaker 4: in New York, and it's been a long way. Paul
Speaker 4: has been very unlucky in many ways. As our emotion
Speaker 4: was submitted prior to COVID, so there's been a halt there,
Speaker 4: but we're hopeful, and as a lawyer, I have to
Speaker 4: believe that when you put this type of evidence in
Speaker 4: front of a judge and show this kind of injustice,
Speaker 4: that the judge is going to correct it. I do
Speaker 4: believe that, however you slice it, this is in effective
Speaker 4: assistance of counsel and this is actual innocence, and we
Speaker 4: should be successful in federal court. And I'm relying on
Speaker 4: the judge to do the right thing, order a hearing,
Speaker 4: dismiss this, order a new trial. It's so clear that
Speaker 4: he did not commit this crime.
Speaker 1: And so, Paul, for the people who are listening right
Speaker 1: now and feeling this mixture the same one that I
Speaker 1: feel of anger and just rage at the wrongdoing in
Speaker 1: this case and the desire to help to do something
Speaker 1: to move this forward, what would you like them to do?
Speaker 1: Is there a website you want people to go to,
Speaker 1: or is there a change dot org petition or anything
Speaker 1: like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there is a change dot org petition. One of
Speaker 2: them is a petition for clemency. And then the other
Speaker 2: thing is the website. It's www dot Freepaulcortes dot com
Speaker 2: and people can visit that site to see everything more
Speaker 2: in detail and everything about the case.
Speaker 1: Well, we're going to have all of the links in
Speaker 1: the bio in the episode, So please wherever you are,
Speaker 1: unless you're driving, in which case wait till you stop,
Speaker 1: but go click on those links because your voice matters
Speaker 1: and you can help us, help Paul and bring him
Speaker 1: home where he belongs.
Speaker 2: I would also suggest too, that if you are a
Speaker 2: New Yorker, to contact your state assembly member, your state
Speaker 2: senator in your district and let them know how you
Speaker 2: feel and have them try to advocate as well. I've
Speaker 2: always found that these state senators and state assemblymen are
Speaker 2: more receptive than you would think, and it's a lot
Speaker 2: easier for them to reach the ear of the governor
Speaker 2: than it is for us just normal people.
Speaker 1: Oh that's a very good suggestion. And Paul, we have
Speaker 1: a tradition here of closing the show in a particularly
Speaker 1: type of way. It's my favorite part of the show,
Speaker 1: and I think that's probably true for most of our audience.
Speaker 1: It's called closing arguments. First of all, I thank you
Speaker 1: again for being here and sharing your story. I know
Speaker 1: it's not easy, and just for being the beacon of
Speaker 1: light that you are. And then what happens is I
Speaker 1: turn my microphone off and leave yours on, and then
Speaker 1: I'll just kick back in my chair with my headphones
Speaker 1: on and just listen for any other thoughts that you
Speaker 1: want to share. Of course, as we always do, we're
Speaker 1: going to save Paul for last, because we're here for you, Paul.
Speaker 1: But first I want to turn over to you, Tony,
Speaker 1: for any thoughts you want to share that we haven't
Speaker 1: already covered.
Speaker 4: Well, I just want to say something about Paul. I
Speaker 4: just want to say what an inspiring person he is.
Speaker 4: Is that he has kept the attitude and the faith
Speaker 4: and that I think a lot of that comes from
Speaker 4: the kind of person he is, but also from the
Speaker 4: support he gets. So I'm just grateful the support of
Speaker 4: this podcast of you, Jason, and would encourage.
Speaker 3: People to continue to give that support because it makes
Speaker 3: a difference, and I'm hoping that it will also perhaps
Speaker 3: put additional pressure forth in order to set him free
Speaker 3: as he should be.
Speaker 1: And now all over to you.
Speaker 2: I have been incarcerated for sixteen years for crimut and
Speaker 2: commit I have been fighting since day one to prove
Speaker 2: my innocence to the court system. I haven't given up,
Speaker 2: and it is a terrible injustice not only for me
Speaker 2: and my family, but it's also been a terrible injustice
Speaker 2: for Catherine and for her family. I'm so grateful that
Speaker 2: I have people in my life that do care about
Speaker 2: me and that are willing to spend so much time
Speaker 2: and energy and effort and heartache and tears and pain
Speaker 2: to support me and continue to fight with me for justice.
Speaker 2: And maybe there's someone listening out there, someone who's dealing
Speaker 2: with an injustice, someone who's dealing with an addiction and loneliness,
Speaker 2: some kind of isolation. My message to you is just
Speaker 2: don't give up, continue to fight, continue to believe. Just
Speaker 2: know there are people who care about you. There is
Speaker 2: a better way than what you're living through right now.
Speaker 2: Just keep continuing on. I guess that is my message
Speaker 2: for everyone. I firmly believe that justice will be served
Speaker 2: and I will be exonerated one day. I don't know
Speaker 2: when that day is going to be, but keep praying
Speaker 2: for it to happen soon. I just thank you. I
Speaker 2: thank everyone that the Wrongful Conviction podcast will work behind
Speaker 2: the scenes, and especially my friends, my family, and Tony Murrie,
Speaker 2: my amazing lawyer who is so bright and intelligent and
Speaker 2: really in my champion.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd
Speaker 1: like to thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden,
Speaker 1: Jeff Cleiburn, and Kevin Wardis with research by Lyla Robinson.
Speaker 1: The music in this production was supplied by three time
Speaker 1: OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us
Speaker 1: on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast,
Speaker 1: and on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at
Speaker 1: Lava for Good. On all three platforms, you can also
Speaker 1: follow me on both TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason Flam.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcast
Speaker 1: and association with Signal Company Number one