Speaker 1: In part one of our coverage of John Juker, you
Speaker 1: heard about how a corrupt investigation turned a group of
Speaker 1: friends against one of their own, producing initially three and
Speaker 1: eventually a fourth false and conflicting testimony that led to
Speaker 1: John's arrest and conviction. Now hear about his continuing fight
Speaker 1: for freedom and where the case stands today.
Speaker 2: They're taking thing from me that I'll never get back.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: They took all my twenties and now all my thirties soup,
Speaker 2: and now they're going to start working on the forties
Speaker 2: unless something happens. When I came up States, they automatically
Speaker 2: started trying to go to the Low Library alive. But
Speaker 2: it's hard to even get up out of bed in
Speaker 2: the morning knowing what's being done to you. But you
Speaker 2: want to just try to keep going on at which
Speaker 2: I did, and I try to. I was going to
Speaker 2: the Low Library every day at one point, trying to
Speaker 2: get to know the law. And that's when I saw
Speaker 2: that my prosecutor, NICOLASI is the prescatorial misconduct handbook of
Speaker 2: like a playbook, even though all those things are considered
Speaker 2: the gregious misconduct. And my lawyer, whose name was Lloyd
Speaker 2: Epstein at the time said that that's your major issue
Speaker 2: right here, because there's so much here. This is just
Speaker 2: a case based off of words, and so they had
Speaker 2: to beat their piece with misconduct and pull in every
Speaker 2: dirty move. That because she suppressed evidence more than once
Speaker 2: that we could prove between coursing witnesses, misstating the full record,
Speaker 2: or even misstating the law. She told the jury that
Speaker 2: and this was in my first appeal that what Lornen
Speaker 2: said alone is enough to convict me of fill any murder.
Speaker 2: And that's not really true either, but it's all that
Speaker 2: is moot now because of the recantations. But the major
Speaker 2: one was, besides her polygraph trade, was a whitewashed drug
Speaker 2: program violations documents that they gave us. So they literally
Speaker 2: whitewashed records that they gave us for John of Veto.
Speaker 2: They put him up on a stand and got him
Speaker 2: to say that he wasn't getting anything and didn't want
Speaker 2: anything in return for his testimony, no leniency and no
Speaker 2: benefits at all. Meanwhile, he just fucked up seven or
Speaker 2: eight drug programs and got like all these violations and
Speaker 2: he just got violated like a couple of days before
Speaker 2: he was on the stand up there, but they gave
Speaker 2: us drug program violation reports that didn't have any of
Speaker 2: that stuff on there. And then later when we got
Speaker 2: the case file, we got the real copy of the
Speaker 2: exact same document. It's the same document. It's not a
Speaker 2: different document. It's the exact same If you've pulled them
Speaker 2: up to each other, they are the same document, but
Speaker 2: they have more sentences in them. So somebody just highlighted
Speaker 2: that part presidently and printed it out and gave it
Speaker 2: to us. Then the Supreme Court judges have said for
Speaker 2: years that is huge. That's the major that the jury
Speaker 2: knows the credibility of someone and what their motive is
Speaker 2: for testifying against someone. They just propped them up there
Speaker 2: and made it look like he was just testifying to
Speaker 2: be a good citizen and that he didn't want anything
Speaker 2: in change for his testimony. It was a total wife.
Speaker 2: She even showed up to one of his court appearances
Speaker 2: and made sure he didn't go to jail. That was
Speaker 2: my first appeal of the prospratorial and misconduct stuff. But
Speaker 2: then really those early years were more about my jura
Speaker 2: misconduct issue.
Speaker 1: I understand that one of your friends was with your
Speaker 1: mom and noticed somebody in the jury that he recognized.
Speaker 1: Do I have that right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm pretty sure. It was the day the verdict.
Speaker 2: Someone came in to support me and he saw one
Speaker 2: of the jurors and he was like, holy shit, I
Speaker 2: know this guy from the neighborhood and he hangs out
Speaker 2: at the Wenvil's house, and that's the same place John
Speaker 2: always hangs out. How the fuck does this guy not
Speaker 2: know John or no of John or something? You know, how,
Speaker 2: this is weird.
Speaker 1: So he told my mother, and then your mom puts
Speaker 1: on her literal superhero cape and goes and you gotta
Speaker 1: hearing the audience. Now, you're gonna have to hear this
Speaker 1: to believe it. She's unbelievable. I can't say enough about
Speaker 1: Doreen tried to go.
Speaker 2: Through a private investigator. First, she got ripped. Dolph tried
Speaker 2: multiple private investigators, and she just had to take matters
Speaker 2: into her own hands, and she did. And then I
Speaker 2: think they found out through a barber or something like that,
Speaker 2: exactly where he was from and who he was.
Speaker 3: She watched him for a period of time and eventually
Speaker 3: started communicating with him and they started hanging out. Now,
Speaker 3: of course, she was not known to him to be
Speaker 3: John Jukea's mother, but she recorded her interactions with him.
Speaker 3: They began an ostensible friendship, and after a period of time,
Speaker 3: she started talking about the case, and this guy Alo
Speaker 3: started saying things that would make your jaw drop or
Speaker 3: make you spit out your morning coffee if you're talking
Speaker 3: about due process and having a fair and impartial jury.
Speaker 2: He said that he written newspapers and watched TV all
Speaker 2: about the case, even though the judge won them. I
Speaker 2: think it was like thirteen or fifteen times not to
Speaker 2: and he's that bullshit. He said that he couldn't get
Speaker 2: off of work because his boss really didn't want him
Speaker 2: to take off of curiate duty, but once he told
Speaker 2: them about which case it was, his boss gave him
Speaker 2: off and said, I want to see that fucking kid.
Speaker 2: Fry told him he'll give him off with pay something
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 3: All kinds of things were coming out of this guy's mouth,
Speaker 3: including admitting that he never should have been on the
Speaker 3: jury because he knew some of the people. I've heard
Speaker 3: of this crowd of kids.
Speaker 2: He said that his cousin who also used to hang
Speaker 2: out at a house that I hung out at before,
Speaker 2: and knew those guys, and she thought I was guilty,
Speaker 2: so she told him that I was guilty. He said
Speaker 2: his cousin wouldn't lie to me about something like that.
Speaker 1: Another thing was that.
Speaker 2: He said, which is, guys that I used to hang
Speaker 2: out with used to bully his brother. I didn't even
Speaker 2: recognize the names that he was talking about, but guys
Speaker 2: that I knew or that who knew me used to
Speaker 2: bully his brother. So it was like revenge. He had
Speaker 2: an accident rhyme.
Speaker 3: And he also basically said that he didn't like Jews. Obviously,
Speaker 3: the name Juka sounds like jew but it's very Italian,
Speaker 3: not Jewish.
Speaker 1: He's not even a competent anti semi. He's wrong on
Speaker 1: every conceivable way, morally bankrupt, mentally deficient. Just can't even
Speaker 1: process this.
Speaker 3: And there is that famous cringe inducing interview on twenty
Speaker 3: twenty where when this became public, Jason Alo actually made
Speaker 3: the very ill advised decision to defend himself on TV
Speaker 3: and he was interviewed by Martin Basher if you remember him,
Speaker 3: and you know he was denying a lot of this,
Speaker 3: where Basher's reading the transcript and playing the recording for
Speaker 3: anyone and everyone to hear, and there's just no question
Speaker 3: that the case should have been tossed because of the
Speaker 3: German's conduct.
Speaker 2: He said that pushed your other jurors in to a
Speaker 2: guilty verdict. He even admitted it, and he was pushing
Speaker 2: these other jurors into a guilty person.
Speaker 3: When they filed a motion to reverse the conviction on
Speaker 3: that issue. The recordings were not authenticated. There are rules
Speaker 3: of evidence in a courtroom. You can't just take someone's
Speaker 3: word for it, and for whatever reason, those recordings were
Speaker 3: not authenticated in the proper way, and so the motion
Speaker 3: was denied on procedural grounds. But the judge who denied
Speaker 3: the motion went farther and said, even if it was proper,
Speaker 3: I would deny it on the merits, because this is,
Speaker 3: you know, an assault on the judicial system for somebody
Speaker 3: to be going after a jur So the criticism was
Speaker 3: actually leveled entirely at Doreen for exposing this, rather than
Speaker 3: the juror who clearly had no business being on the case.
Speaker 2: She didn't do anything wrong, she didn't commit any crimes.
Speaker 2: It was just she dug for the truth that she
Speaker 2: got it, and they didn't like what they found out
Speaker 2: what they heard.
Speaker 3: So I got involved in this in two thousand and
Speaker 3: two twelve was contacted by Doreen John's mother or whose
Speaker 3: some Noah's mother justice because of what she did trying
Speaker 3: to unravel the conviction. When she showed up in my
Speaker 3: office with just stacks of papers, the first piece of
Speaker 3: paper that was on top of this whole pile was
Speaker 3: a transcript in the People of the State of New
Speaker 3: York versus John Avito, not John Juca, And it was
Speaker 3: the court appearance in which a veto had gone to
Speaker 3: court after he started meeting with John's prosecutor. Now, on
Speaker 3: the cover of any transcript, it's gonna list the caption
Speaker 3: of the case, the name of who appears for the
Speaker 3: DA's office, who appears for the defense, that sort of thing,
Speaker 3: and the appearance for the DA on the cover of
Speaker 3: this transcript in June thirteenth of two thousand and five
Speaker 3: was Anna Sega Nicolozzi, who was John's prosecutor. And there
Speaker 3: was no reason why a homicide prosecutor on the biggest
Speaker 3: murder case in New York City would be appearing on
Speaker 3: a mundane, meaningless return on warrant for some mope who
Speaker 3: had a burglary sentence. Because he violated a drug program
Speaker 3: other than the fact he had to be cooperating in
Speaker 3: the murder case, and so I knew within the first
Speaker 3: day I met Doreen that this case was sideways.
Speaker 1: And all of this is happening in the ramp up
Speaker 1: to the historic run of Ken Thompson. It seemed like
Speaker 1: he was really ready to change things for good in Brooklyn.
Speaker 3: There was some story in the press during the election
Speaker 3: in twenty twelve thirteen, because we were in the process
Speaker 3: of trying to get Juca's conviction overturned, and a lot
Speaker 3: of this news about angel di Pietro came out, and
Speaker 3: again the idea that she could be hired by Hines
Speaker 3: as a prosecutor and be Nicolozzi's colleague years later just
Speaker 3: so absurd on his face that he asked me about
Speaker 3: what is all this? In my view, he wanted to
Speaker 3: campaign on Juka. Ironically enough, and maybe it was my
Speaker 3: mistake at the time, but I told him, I don't
Speaker 3: want to talk to you about anything Jukeer related because
Speaker 3: you're probably going to be the next DA And I'm
Speaker 3: telling you right now, I'm going to be coming to
Speaker 3: you to right this wrong. And I look back and
Speaker 3: one of my sins in this case is probably not
Speaker 3: unloading to him because ironically what he would have probably
Speaker 3: done is campaigned on it.
Speaker 1: So Ken Thompson challenges Hines against long Eyes in the primary.
Speaker 1: He wins, and what does Joe Hines do. He's got
Speaker 1: to go to the GOP King's County Executive Committee and
Speaker 1: get the Wilson Pacula waiver to allow him to run
Speaker 1: as a Republican.
Speaker 2: He pulled the sneaky political move and he used that
Speaker 2: card when he needed it. So it was something that
Speaker 2: he was always getting during all of his elections, just
Speaker 2: in case he needed it. But in twenty thirteen he
Speaker 2: actually needed it and used it and ran as Republicans
Speaker 2: to take a second bite at the apple and tried
Speaker 2: to win the race even though he lost the primary.
Speaker 1: So now, Mark, at this point, you're thinking, this is
Speaker 1: your time. You got Ken Thompson in. It's time to
Speaker 1: resolve this once and for awe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the idea here was to convince the incoming administration
Speaker 3: of the Brooklyn Thea's Office that the Hinz crowd got
Speaker 3: this wrong and here's a chance to do right. When
Speaker 3: we did bring the case to the Conviction Review Unit,
Speaker 3: we presented them with all kinds of evidence, including literally hundreds,
Speaker 3: if not thousands, of pages of medical records of John
Speaker 3: Jukeas Senior, who had the strokes that we talked about,
Speaker 3: which meant that the Avido's story couldn't have happened. We
Speaker 3: presented them with the sworn affidavits of the two women
Speaker 3: who were at that jailhouse visit, who denied that conversation
Speaker 3: ever took place. We presented them with overwhelming proof of
Speaker 3: how Angel and Albert clearly testified falsely, and how it
Speaker 3: contradicted what they told the police and contradicted all the
Speaker 3: other available evidence. We presented them with sworn affidavits of
Speaker 3: the residents of Argyle Road who explained how they heard
Speaker 3: the car door, the voice of the young woman, the
Speaker 3: car fleeing the location.
Speaker 1: And while this is in the cru we're talking twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. Amazingly, this is when the recantations start rolling in.
Speaker 1: So in twenty fourteen, Lauren Calciano recanted, and I have
Speaker 1: some excerpts here that I want to share, she said,
Speaker 1: and this is a long quote, So hang in there
Speaker 1: with me, because you have to hear every word of this. Okay,
Speaker 1: here's her quote. I have regretted this testimony since I
Speaker 1: was first pressured to claim this by law enforcement officials.
Speaker 1: I repeatedly told them that he did not have any
Speaker 1: information regarding John's a legend involvement in this crime. Law
Speaker 1: enforcement pressured and frightened me to the point that I
Speaker 1: ultimately relented and told them what they wanted to hear. Specifically,
Speaker 1: I was pressured to admit that John had told me
Speaker 1: that he gave Tony Russell a gun before Tony shot
Speaker 1: and killed Mark Fisher. She goes on to say, law
Speaker 1: enforcement officials suggested that I was involved in the after
Speaker 1: method the crime by telling me that Albert Cleary had
Speaker 1: told them that I removed a gun bag or evidence
Speaker 1: from John's house. Although this was untrue, I recognized the
Speaker 1: seriousness of this claim. Law enforcement officers threatened me with
Speaker 1: jail and told me that I could be charged with
Speaker 1: obstruction and or perjury. Ada Nicolazzi told me that if
Speaker 1: I did not cooperate with her, the police would show
Speaker 1: open my place of employment with a subpoena. Ada Nicolozzi
Speaker 1: referenced a very personal issue between John and me, which
Speaker 1: was discussed only in our private letter she told me,
Speaker 1: you do not want this to come out of trial.
Speaker 1: I interpreted this as a not so subtle threat that
Speaker 1: I would be publicly humiliated by the DA if I
Speaker 1: did not cooperate. Ada Nicolozzi and detectives told me that
Speaker 1: they were aware that my father was in prison and
Speaker 1: that by not cooperating with them, I was quote going
Speaker 1: to make this hard on him and my family. More
Speaker 1: than any other factor, this threat influenced me to testify
Speaker 1: in the manner that they desired. Now, this thing goes
Speaker 1: on for eight full pages, and it completely shreds the
Speaker 1: state's case.
Speaker 3: She also, in her affidavit, explained how Albert Cleary lied
Speaker 3: and that his testimony was false because I was there
Speaker 3: and he didn't say that either. In other words, what
Speaker 3: I said was not true, but what he said was
Speaker 3: not true either. And she also gave a little insight
Speaker 3: into what ghetto mafia were. Now, she didn't testify to
Speaker 3: what it was because she wasn't asked, but in her
Speaker 3: sworn recantation she said I was around these people during
Speaker 3: this time period. In ghetto mafia is the name of
Speaker 3: a bunch of local kids and knuckleheads, not some sophisticated
Speaker 3: street gang. We also gave them a sworn affidavit from
Speaker 3: if you recall when we talked about Albert Cleary, the
Speaker 3: guy that he said was the boss of the gang
Speaker 3: who had spoken to John about let's catch a body,
Speaker 3: and that's why maybe Mark Fisher was shot. And he
Speaker 3: very calmly explained under oath that I was going to
Speaker 3: college in North Carolina and I was not the leader
Speaker 3: of a gang, and John and I did not discuss
Speaker 3: how to get a body or anything like that.
Speaker 1: And then John Avito recants.
Speaker 3: He did and a Veto was very seriously mentally ill,
Speaker 3: and he was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. We got all
Speaker 3: of his Riker's Island jail records and sure enough, he
Speaker 3: was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who had been taken a
Speaker 3: number of drugs psychotropic drugs, including Sarahquill, and part of
Speaker 3: his symptoms and what Sarahquill treats our people who suffer
Speaker 3: auditory hallucinations, which Avido was. So it turns out that
Speaker 3: the guy who says I overheard a man who can't
Speaker 3: speak ask questions about a murder. You can't make this up,
Speaker 3: had a history of actually hearing voices and seeing snakes
Speaker 3: was another one of his visual hallucinations. We had many
Speaker 3: many meetings with their conviction review unit, including one in
Speaker 3: the summer I want to say a twenty fourteen, which
Speaker 3: was chaired by Ericnzalis, who at the time was not
Speaker 3: the DA. Obviously, Eric was overseeing the process, so he
Speaker 3: knew exactly what was going on here, and they declined
Speaker 3: to overturn the conviction, either on innocence or on any
Speaker 3: constitutional violations. They had Mark Hale call me to tell me,
Speaker 3: I believe the words were that the district Attorney is
Speaker 3: not going to disturb the conviction. I have to be
Speaker 3: honest with you. I was a little surprised for a
Speaker 3: couple of reasons. One because the decision is wrong. But
Speaker 3: I know Ken, and I would have expected that call
Speaker 3: to come from him given what this was. And I
Speaker 3: said that to Mark, and I asked, I'd like to
Speaker 3: hear that from Ken. So I was hoping to get
Speaker 3: in touch with Ken, and instead I got a call
Speaker 3: from Eric, who at the time was you know, the
Speaker 3: number two guy. Eric's a nice guy. We had a
Speaker 3: conversation and I told him I was disappointed that Ken
Speaker 3: couldn't find the time to tell me himself and explain
Speaker 3: his reasoning, and this was in late fourteen, and by
Speaker 3: the first couple of months and fifteen we filed the motion.
Speaker 1: It's just really disappointing is not as strong enough word.
Speaker 1: It's devastating, And even with Ken Thompson in there, they
Speaker 1: just for some reason had some sort of a block
Speaker 1: against doing this.
Speaker 2: The worst part about it for me was that all
Speaker 2: these other guys, they were like when Ken Thompson took over,
Speaker 2: there were twenty five generations and that gave me so
Speaker 2: much hope, and at this point I've almost ceased to
Speaker 2: hope because of what they did to me. Although the
Speaker 2: difference between me and all those other guys is that
Speaker 2: the ada that put them in jail doesn't work there anymore.
Speaker 2: But when it came to me, when Ken Thompson got elected,
Speaker 2: he didn't fire Nicolazi, so she did still work there,
Speaker 2: and they covered for her instead of doing justice like
Speaker 2: they should have. I mean, there was all a pile
Speaker 2: of mountain of evidence that pointed away from me, and
Speaker 2: they just didn't care. They denied me and use what
Speaker 2: we gave them to try to counter me.
Speaker 3: They knew that there was no way in hell that
Speaker 3: if they denied his review, that there wasn't going to
Speaker 3: be a post conviction motion. So I believe that they
Speaker 3: exploited our petition to gather evidence, to cross examine witnesses
Speaker 3: and use it as discovery. And when Johonavito and Lauren
Speaker 3: Calciano and others at risk to themselves, they're controverting sworn
Speaker 3: testimony with new sworn testimony.
Speaker 1: When they went in to.
Speaker 3: See the conviction Review unit, what the DA did was
Speaker 3: record them, swear them in, make transcripts, and put them
Speaker 3: under oath. When the Brooklyn DA witnesses were interviewed Anne Sega, Nicolozzi, others,
Speaker 3: they weren't sworn. There's no record of their interviews, and
Speaker 3: the report has never been made public. It's never been shared,
Speaker 3: like so many others that they do share. But it's
Speaker 3: as if they viewed the Djuka conviction review as an
Speaker 3: exercise in preparing for a post conviction motion and locking
Speaker 3: down these witnesses to cross examined them if they testify
Speaker 3: for the defense.
Speaker 1: So now, after the cru decided for reasons i'll never understand,
Speaker 1: to pass, you got set up to file a four forty.
Speaker 3: Motion that culminated in a reversal in February of twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got an unanonymous decision this ski should be
Speaker 2: reversed and he should get a new trial. Well, I
Speaker 2: got the reversal of the John of Vito issue and
Speaker 2: the fact that NICOLASI did give him benefits. The DA
Speaker 2: showed up to want a witnesses court hearing and kept
Speaker 2: him from going to jail, and that is leniency in
Speaker 2: a change for cestimony. My jury should have known about that.
Speaker 2: And then I go back down to Rugas Island and
Speaker 2: I sit there for a year.
Speaker 3: And a half when the DA was contemplating a retrial.
Speaker 3: They actually so desperate to get Juka okay that they
Speaker 3: set these detectives up there to interview Russo for one reason.
Speaker 1: They want to.
Speaker 3: Secure his cooperation to testify against John. Now, Antonio Russo
Speaker 3: is the murderer in this case. Everybody knows it.
Speaker 1: They know it.
Speaker 3: Antonio Russo carried a gun, threatened people. Yet when it
Speaker 3: came time to potentially retry the case, they went up
Speaker 3: there for the purpose of trying to flip Russo to
Speaker 3: testify against Juca. And instead, what he tells them is
Speaker 3: I did it alone with my own gun, and that
Speaker 3: was the end of their discussions with Antonio Russo.
Speaker 1: So now you're back at Rikers for a couple months,
Speaker 1: and during the discovery process you discover this recording that
Speaker 1: was made with a guy named Ingram.
Speaker 2: Ada NIKOLASI made a recording in two thousand and five
Speaker 2: before the trial that was recorded, and this was a
Speaker 2: guy who was probably trying to help himself somehow, you know.
Speaker 2: He told them he had information and she said things
Speaker 2: that she didn't want to hear because it did pretty
Speaker 2: much clear me. So they what held it for? I
Speaker 2: think what was it thirteen years?
Speaker 3: This tape was not disclosed prior to trial. It was
Speaker 3: disclosed to me in twenty eighteen and Joseph Ingram was
Speaker 3: in the same cell block as John and traveled to
Speaker 3: Bellevue for medical treatment one day with Antonio Russo and
Speaker 3: him and Russo were on the bus chit chatting, he said.
Speaker 2: Russo admitted he did this alone. I wasn't there. I
Speaker 2: had nothing to do with it, none of that.
Speaker 3: And Russo admitted to Ingram that I tried to get
Speaker 3: John to take the gun after the murder. I went
Speaker 3: to his house and he wouldn't do it. He told
Speaker 3: me leave go no, And this was the exact opposite
Speaker 3: of what the trial evidence was. Again, but Harry says
Speaker 3: John got rid of a gun. Antonio Russo told Joseph
Speaker 3: Ingram John would not take the gun.
Speaker 1: But the new trial was never actualized. For now they
Speaker 1: didn't have to contend with this evidence. In June twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: the New York Court of Appeals reinstated the conviction that
Speaker 1: you had reversed in twenty eighteen, and John went back
Speaker 1: to state prison.
Speaker 2: The New York State Court of Appeals authored a decision
Speaker 2: that is so absurd defined logic, and it was obvious
Speaker 2: by the decision that they didn't know the facts of
Speaker 2: the case.
Speaker 3: Although they agreed with us that Nicolazzi suppressed evidence, they
Speaker 3: argued it was not material to the outcome of trial,
Speaker 3: which is reasoning, which is mind boggling, given that Nicolozzi's
Speaker 3: whole summation, as I told you earlier, was about how
Speaker 3: critical a witness A. Vito was, and how credible he was,
Speaker 3: and how altruistic he was, and how he established the
Speaker 3: real theory of what happened. And one would think that
Speaker 3: if the defense had known the full story about his credibility,
Speaker 3: and demolished him as it should have been that would
Speaker 3: somehow have impacted the significance of his testimony. But in
Speaker 3: the five to one opinion against us, they argued it
Speaker 3: wasn't material because a veto had been impeached about other things.
Speaker 3: And it was Judge Rivera, in a very lengthy descent,
Speaker 3: who explained why that reasoning was flawed and why his
Speaker 3: credibility on this particular issue is so important, and why
Speaker 3: the behavior of the trial prosecutor was intended to mislead
Speaker 3: the judge, the jury and defense. You don't usually see
Speaker 3: a judge of the Court of Appeals call out a
Speaker 3: prosecutor and essentially say you engaged in deliberate misconduct in
Speaker 3: violation of your ethical responsibilities. But again in Brooklyn, what's
Speaker 3: for dinner? Nobody cares.
Speaker 1: They do care, it seems though, about bending over backwards
Speaker 1: and doing mental gymnastics to maintain this inexplicable wrongful conviction,
Speaker 1: which it seems they did when you were able to
Speaker 1: get a hearing on this Brady material, this recording that
Speaker 1: was made with a guy named Ingram in front of
Speaker 1: Justice Danny Chun.
Speaker 3: Now, I have sworn statements and there's been sworn testimony
Speaker 3: from Russo's lawyer and from Sam Gregory that they didn't
Speaker 3: get this evidence and they would have remembered it if
Speaker 3: they did. And then we had testimony from Nicolotzi who said,
Speaker 3: I can't say whether I did or didn't, but if
Speaker 3: I did, it wasn't on purpose, but I probably did.
Speaker 3: And this was litigated a couple of years ago in
Speaker 3: front of Justice Chun, who found that the DA probably
Speaker 3: disclosed it, notwithstanding the fact that they explained why this
Speaker 3: would have been significant evidence and steps they would have
Speaker 3: taken had they known about it back then. But nevertheless,
Speaker 3: Justice Chun found that we did not satisfy our burden
Speaker 3: that it wasn't disclosed. And I just respectfully because I
Speaker 3: like him personally, but the ruling on that case is
Speaker 3: just flat out one hundred percent wrong.
Speaker 1: So that's where this is at. What can any of
Speaker 1: us do?
Speaker 2: The help Writing to the governor is probably best right now,
Speaker 2: because I really don't see myself getting justice in Brooklyn
Speaker 2: in these with these judges and with this DA, so
Speaker 2: I need to get a special prosecutor appointed, and the
Speaker 2: only one who can do that for me is the governor.
Speaker 2: That's my next motion. I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm going to link your website and Instagram
Speaker 1: account to keep our audience abreast of all future developments
Speaker 1: and action steps, as well as if they wanted to
Speaker 1: learn more about your case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we've got briefs, transcripts, exhibits. One thing we definitely
Speaker 3: believe in is shining a bright light on this and with.
Speaker 1: That we go to closing arguments. This, of course, is
Speaker 1: the part of the show where I'm going to put
Speaker 1: my microphone down, leave my headphones on, kick back in
Speaker 1: my chair, close my eyes, and just take a couple
Speaker 1: of deep breaths because I need it after this, and
Speaker 1: listen to anything else you guys want to share. So Mark,
Speaker 1: what if you take it from here and then hand
Speaker 1: the mic off to John. And John you have the
Speaker 1: last word, and you know my last word is I
Speaker 1: just wish you all the best, and I hope we
Speaker 1: see you back in the free world home with your
Speaker 1: family where you belong, really really soon.
Speaker 3: We are always investigating, gathering and doing things as I
Speaker 3: said these John, his mother, his family, his supporters. Sometimes
Speaker 3: they fade out of the public eye a little bit,
Speaker 3: but we're always getting ready to fight, and we are
Speaker 3: still looking into certain things, which, as I said, I
Speaker 3: think will at some point lead us back. They want
Speaker 3: us to be gone, but we're not going anywhere. I
Speaker 3: know that. You know, in the eyes of the Brooklyn
Speaker 3: DA at this point, they just wish we would go
Speaker 3: away and fade away, and he would do his time
Speaker 3: and Doreen would stop fighting. And why did they get
Speaker 3: better row to help them? How can he fall for
Speaker 3: this nonsense?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 3: I know that's kind of how they perceive my involvement
Speaker 3: of this, and they couldn't be more wrong. I believe
Speaker 3: in this one hundred percent. I have no doubt that
Speaker 3: John was wrongfully convicted. I have confidence in his actual innocence.
Speaker 3: I believe to my core that he didn't commit this crime,
Speaker 3: and that's after reviewing all the evidence. And I certainly
Speaker 3: believe and know, based on my review of the evidence
Speaker 3: of the law that his rights were violated several different ways,
Speaker 3: and that this was not a trial. What happened in
Speaker 3: two thousand and five, it was a railroading. It was
Speaker 3: just Brooklyn style justice in the Charles Hines administration, and
Speaker 3: those skeletons are still there. It's not so far past
Speaker 3: where people are going to be willing to forget about it,
Speaker 3: and certainly we aren't, and we're not going anywhere.
Speaker 2: It's just been too much suffering for too long.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's wrong on top of wrong, on top of injustice
Speaker 2: on top of injustices, but an ongoing tragedy. This is
Speaker 2: not only am I being affected, but my family is
Speaker 2: being crushed from this. It took my youth from me
Speaker 2: and all the experiences I would have had it, and
Speaker 2: I feel like a financial burden on my family too.
Speaker 2: I can anchor around the neck, and my mother's getting
Speaker 2: older now. I'm afraid she. I pray every day that
Speaker 2: she could come home while she's still alive, and she
Speaker 2: makes it. And they took all that time away from
Speaker 2: me that I was supposed to have with her. And
Speaker 2: being in prison wrongfully is much different than being here
Speaker 2: for something you actually did. That's what me and a
Speaker 2: lot of these other guys have already been on your
Speaker 2: show have in common, I think, is them we understand
Speaker 2: what it feels like. That's why I feel it's not
Speaker 2: a kinship with them, some of them who I even
Speaker 2: never met, Because when you're here for something you actually did,
Speaker 2: I see it. These other guys, they get into a
Speaker 2: routine and they just say they accept it. But when
Speaker 2: you hear wrongfully, it's impossible for you to accept. You
Speaker 2: just really can't accept it, So every day it becomes torture.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction Special thanks to
Speaker 1: our amazing production team Connor Hall, Annie Chelsea, Jeff Clyburn,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Watis, with research by Lyla Robinson. The music
Speaker 1: in this production was supplied by three time Oscar nominated
Speaker 1: composer Jay Ralph To follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
Speaker 1: all three platforms, you can also follow on TikTok and
Speaker 1: Instagram at its Jason Flamm. That's its Jason Flamm. Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in
Speaker 1: association with Signal Company Number one