Speaker 1: In May of nineteen seventy seven, fourteen year old white
Speaker 1: twin sisters Karen and Sharon Sanders allegedly went to help
Speaker 1: their eighteen year old cousin, Keith Laboard, cleaned his house
Speaker 1: in a vols Parish, Louisiana. Years later, Keith Laboard admitted
Speaker 1: to carrying on a sexual relationship with Karen Sanders, but
Speaker 1: back in May of seventy seven, when asked about a
Speaker 1: scratch on his neck, Keith began to spin a narrative
Speaker 1: supported by the twin girls, that led in a well
Speaker 1: tread direction. According to Keith and the twins, they picked
Speaker 1: up a hitchhiking black man who allegedly pulled a gun
Speaker 1: and forced Keith and Karen into the trunk before raping Sharon,
Speaker 1: followed by Karen. Conflicting accounts and descriptions, as well as
Speaker 1: a rape kit that confirmed that Sharon was still a virgin,
Speaker 1: didn't stop the accusation of an alleged black assailant. While
Speaker 1: police officer Robert la Board was out searching for a
Speaker 1: potential culprit on the morning of May nineteen seventy seven,
Speaker 1: his partner Floyd Juno, spot at Vincent Simmons whom he
Speaker 1: knew from previous petty crimes. Despite not matching what we're
Speaker 1: already conflicting descriptions of this imaginary black man, they arrested
Speaker 1: Vincent for the alleged rapes. Both girls and Keith picked
Speaker 1: out the only handcuffed black man in the lineup, and
Speaker 1: when Vincent refused to confess, Officer Robert Laborde shot him
Speaker 1: in the chest. Miraculously, Vincent survived, but only to have
Speaker 1: all evidence, all of it exculpatory withheld from him at trial,
Speaker 1: condemning him to serve one dred years and a goal
Speaker 1: of prison. Vincent's fight against a web of family connections,
Speaker 1: lies and the worst in American racism continues to this
Speaker 1: very day. This is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: I'm Jason Flam. Today's case is so trouble that I
Speaker 1: don't know where to start. But I will tell you
Speaker 1: this before we even get into it, and I introduced
Speaker 1: to you the man himself, Vincent Simmons, who's still incarcerated
Speaker 1: in Angola Penitentiary for over forty four years now for
Speaker 1: a crime he had nothing to do with. I will
Speaker 1: tell you that this case has a toxic mixture of
Speaker 1: small town racism, false accusations, a total lack of evidence,
Speaker 1: a police officer who was closely related to what should
Speaker 1: have been the obvious suspect, who actually shot Mr Simmons
Speaker 1: in the police station when he refused to confess in
Speaker 1: the chest by the way, narrowly missing his heart and
Speaker 1: killing him. Yes, you heard that correctly. And everybody involved
Speaker 1: basically is white, except for Mr Simmons is black. And
Speaker 1: now that's just the freaking beginning. So first of all, Vincent,
Speaker 1: I'm so honored that you're here today to talk to us.
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry that you are where you are, that
Speaker 1: we're talking to you from prison, and I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: soon we'll be having a totally different conversation from the
Speaker 1: free world. So welcome to wrongful conviction. Thank you, We're
Speaker 1: very happy to have you, and we apologize to our
Speaker 1: audience in advance for the audio quality on Vincent's phone.
Speaker 1: It sounds like he's calling us from a time capsule,
Speaker 1: and in many ways he really is. As Angola Penitentiary
Speaker 1: was built on a literal plantation, which couldn't put a
Speaker 1: finer point on what this case is all about. And
Speaker 1: joining us today as a man who you may be
Speaker 1: familiar with from our coverage of Nelson Cruz in Brooklyn
Speaker 1: and Marcus Wiggins in Chicago. Now today he's fighting for
Speaker 1: Vincent's case pro bono, flying back and forth from New
Speaker 1: York to Louisiana. So justin bonus, thanks for coming back
Speaker 1: to wrongful conviction not a problem. Jason's great to be
Speaker 1: on here again as well. So this insane saga goes
Speaker 1: all the way back to nine seven. So Vincent, before
Speaker 1: this happened in your life got turned upside down and
Speaker 1: inside out, what was your life like before the insanity? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was borne in a ball parish, a place called
Speaker 1: man Stilla, Louis. Yeah. When I was living in man Stilla,
Speaker 1: I had had some involvement with all parents share of
Speaker 1: the fault. I was involved with competitive crime. I moved
Speaker 1: to Houston and I got a job and I was
Speaker 1: learned that my father had time and I come back
Speaker 1: to Louis Yeah. I was back for about a month.
Speaker 1: I would live with my sister. O leave you and
Speaker 1: I was on my way to work and I was
Speaker 1: picked up of all Terrish Codine. So you were a
Speaker 1: known entity to a bolds Past police before heading to
Speaker 1: Houston for work and returning when your father asked away,
Speaker 1: which made you available to be picked up for what
Speaker 1: allegedly happened to these twin girls on May nine seven,
Speaker 1: and the date, I mean, we're not even sure of that,
Speaker 1: because the girls were never really clear on a date
Speaker 1: and time. But the narrative that comes out is a
Speaker 1: sadly familiar American tale, a false accusation of a black
Speaker 1: man by an alleged white victim or victims in this case,
Speaker 1: and the alleged crime that took place. The narrative that
Speaker 1: set this horrible and justice against Vincent in motion is this.
Speaker 1: On May nine seven, twin sisters Sharon and Karen Sanders
Speaker 1: allegedly went over to the house of their eighteen year
Speaker 1: old cousin, Keith la Board remember that last name, to
Speaker 1: help him clean, and while driving the sister's home that night,
Speaker 1: the three allegedly stopped for gas when Vincent Simmons allegedly
Speaker 1: approached and asked La Board for a ride home, to
Speaker 1: which the Board supposedly agreed. And then the claim is
Speaker 1: that six miles outside of Marksville, on a deserted stretch
Speaker 1: of Little California Road, Vincent allegedly took out a gun,
Speaker 1: forced Keith la Board and Karen into the trunk while
Speaker 1: he allegedly raped Sharon, and then he allegedly put Sharon
Speaker 1: in the trunk, drove on for a bit before retrieving
Speaker 1: Karen to do the same to her. Now afterwards, Vincent
Speaker 1: allegedly threatened them all before dropping himself off to catch
Speaker 1: a bus. So about two weeks after this alleged incident,
Speaker 1: May is when this narrative is first reported to the
Speaker 1: Sheriff's office and the investigation, if you can even call it,
Speaker 1: that begins justin take us through this nightmare. So there
Speaker 1: was Karen Sanders, Sharon Sanders and then Keith la Board
Speaker 1: that were allegedly basically kidnapped, thrown in a trunk. The
Speaker 1: two sisters were raped. That's their story. So on May,
Speaker 1: John la Board, Keith's father calls the sheriff because Keith's
Speaker 1: father is the parish assessor. What you have to understand
Speaker 1: about the law Boards is there's like ten thousand of
Speaker 1: them in a vols parish. This is a very strong family.
Speaker 1: He calls the chief of police and he says that
Speaker 1: my twin nieces have been raped by a black man.
Speaker 1: That's how this begins. And then the girls are brought in.
Speaker 1: The girls don't know what date it happens. The police
Speaker 1: give them a date, okay. The girls provide their initial statements,
Speaker 1: which weren't turned over at trial. Uh, they weren't turned over.
Speaker 1: They give completely inconsistent statements. Sharon Sanders actually calls the
Speaker 1: suspect the N word over and over again, says all
Speaker 1: blacks look alike, okay, and that's why she wouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to identify him. They don't talk to the boy,
Speaker 1: Keith Laboard until after Vincent has already arrested. Neither of
Speaker 1: these girls give a description that matches Vincent. They say
Speaker 1: short and fat well. Vincent is five nine, one fifty. Again,
Speaker 1: their descriptions conflict. You know, it's just one thing after another,
Speaker 1: and specifically with regard to Karen Sanders, she talks about
Speaker 1: being raped anally orally vaginally. When the doctor looks at
Speaker 1: her after she talks to police, there is no injuries.
Speaker 1: Sharon talks about a thirty minute rape vaginally to the
Speaker 1: point where she bled. She said that she gave her
Speaker 1: panties to her grandmother and they were washed, of course,
Speaker 1: And what's interesting about Sharon is that her hyman was
Speaker 1: intact when she was examined by the doctor in this case,
Speaker 1: So okay, inconsistent statement. It's conflicting descriptions and outright lies
Speaker 1: unsupported by physical reality. And the next day at am
Speaker 1: on Vincent was just walking to work when he was
Speaker 1: picked up off the street, arrested and brought to the station.
Speaker 1: He was arrested on May twenty three, nineteen seventy seven,
Speaker 1: on view for this crime. And what on view means
Speaker 1: is they didn't have a named Vincent Simmons, They had
Speaker 1: no probable cause to arrest him. They saw him on
Speaker 1: the side of the street. When I say they, you
Speaker 1: had mentioned a family member of one of the alleged victims,
Speaker 1: and that was Robert la Board. And I don't know
Speaker 1: his direct relation to Keith la Board, but I believe
Speaker 1: it could be a cousin. So really, what you have
Speaker 1: to understand with Vincent is he had a history with
Speaker 1: the Marksville Police Department and the Valls Parish Sheriff's office.
Speaker 1: And Floyd Juneau was driving with Robert la Board on
Speaker 1: the day Vincent got arrested on May, and he knew Vincent,
Speaker 1: he knew who he was before, and he knew he
Speaker 1: was a troublemaker. And he's the glue to this. He's
Speaker 1: the person that basically points the finger at Vincent first, right,
Speaker 1: right right. And if you have the chance to watch
Speaker 1: one of the documentaries about Vincent's story, there's the Farm
Speaker 1: and Shadows of a Doubt. We'll have them linked in
Speaker 1: to bio of course. But in Shadows of a Doubt,
Speaker 1: Floyd Juneau described just arrest in much the same way
Speaker 1: that Justin has. So that same morning, the sheriff sent
Speaker 1: deputies for the twins, who were picked up from school
Speaker 1: and brought to the station along with Keith Laboard, who
Speaker 1: was brought from work, and told them that they were
Speaker 1: going to view a line up with the perpetrator in it.
Speaker 1: So officers picked out seven guys for the lineup, one
Speaker 1: of whom was white. Okay, a few others were well
Speaker 1: over six ft tall, but remember the description was of
Speaker 1: this imaginary perpetrator was black, short, and bat right, and
Speaker 1: they placed Vincent in the center. And get this, Vincent
Speaker 1: is the only one who was handcuffed out of all
Speaker 1: of them. I mean, it wasn't like they were trying
Speaker 1: to be subtled. Here right as to who they wanted
Speaker 1: them to identify. So the twins and Keith lo and
Speaker 1: Behold all select Vincent as the perpetrator. They claimed that
Speaker 1: I would identify and from that port they took me
Speaker 1: into another roan and that's when he told me that
Speaker 1: I had to give him a confession, and I refused
Speaker 1: to give a confession. I told him that before I
Speaker 1: confessed to a crime that I didn't do, I'll die for.
Speaker 1: And that's when they hit me. And they knocked into
Speaker 1: the flow and it started kicking me. And then when
Speaker 1: I tried to get up, he kicked me again. And
Speaker 1: then when I did you to chat, I was sitting
Speaker 1: in to get up Robert lo Bold he raised up
Speaker 1: from his seat where he was writing her confession and
Speaker 1: pulled his weapon and shot me. He shot me in
Speaker 1: the chat. I think something that I really want to
Speaker 1: bring to your attention to her, Jason, is is is
Speaker 1: that technically Vincent really should have been charged with kidnapping
Speaker 1: Keith Laboard. They didn't charge him with that. Why, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think we know why. The other thing
Speaker 1: is the police all said that Vincent attempted to grab
Speaker 1: the gun of one of the officers and the safety
Speaker 1: was on or something like that ridiculous story. They don't
Speaker 1: ever charge Vincent with attempted murder of a police officer either,
Speaker 1: And this is weird, right, because it's not like the
Speaker 1: state typically has any issue at all with piling on charges. Right.
Speaker 1: But there were no gun charges here either, as that
Speaker 1: was part of the alleged kidnapping in this case as well.
Speaker 1: So at the preliminary hearing on July seven, both twins testified,
Speaker 1: but neither the alleged kidnapping victim, Keith Laboard, nor the
Speaker 1: alleged attempted murder victims the police officers participated. Yeah that's yeah, sure, okay.
Speaker 1: So during her testimony, Sharon has asked three consecutive times
Speaker 1: to identify the man from the crime, and this is
Speaker 1: the twin who states that all black people look alike.
Speaker 1: She doesn't respond until the court steps in, and this
Speaker 1: was when, for the very first time ever, she says
Speaker 1: that the man said his name was Simmons. Now, Karen
Speaker 1: also parrotted this statement that the culprit told Keith his
Speaker 1: name was Simmons. But then in the same preliminary hearing,
Speaker 1: when asked why it took two weeks to come forward
Speaker 1: with this story. Karen testified that quote, we couldn't go
Speaker 1: to the cops because we didn't know his name, unquote,
Speaker 1: So which one is it? Karen, right, which is it?
Speaker 1: Because both of those things can't be true. Everyone overlooked that.
Speaker 1: That means that their testimony in the preliminary hearing that
Speaker 1: they knew the man's name, and their testimony at trial
Speaker 1: that they knew the man's name is false. That kind
Speaker 1: of just got glossed over. So let's get to the trial,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna put trial in quote here it too.
Speaker 1: So there's no physical evidence that these rapes ever actually happened.
Speaker 1: Start with that. No forensic tests were done on the twins, clothing,
Speaker 1: or the car in which the alleged rapes occurred, and
Speaker 1: police reports did not include a single lead depointed to Vincent.
Speaker 1: Doctors didn't find any signs of injury on either of
Speaker 1: the alleged victims, including Sharon's intact him. And she was
Speaker 1: a virgin who was, according to her statement, the victim
Speaker 1: of a bloody rape, which of course is physically impossible.
Speaker 1: So if you're listening to this now and going, well,
Speaker 1: then there's all this evidence, right, how the hell could anyone,
Speaker 1: even a black man in the Deep South in the seventies,
Speaker 1: how could anyone get convicted on the basis of this. Well,
Speaker 1: it later comes out with Vincent and his attorney received
Speaker 1: exactly none of this. They received no discovery in this case,
Speaker 1: but not I mean zero. What I'm saying is all
Speaker 1: of that critical exculpatory evidence that you just heard wasn't
Speaker 1: revealed to him for another sixteen years. His lawyers never
Speaker 1: even knew about the shady lineup with the handcuffs, you know,
Speaker 1: which was obviously done for one reason, so that these
Speaker 1: alleged victims would know who to pick in this imaginary crime.
Speaker 1: There were pictures of that, the inconsistencies and conflicts in
Speaker 1: the initial accounts and assailant descriptions and initial statements. They
Speaker 1: said they didn't know his name, but later testified that
Speaker 1: he had told Keith his name was Simmons. How Karen
Speaker 1: gave a clue to that discrepancy in her preliminary hearing testimony,
Speaker 1: all of it. So the fix was in. So justin,
Speaker 1: can you take us through what happened at this sham trial?
Speaker 1: So they take him to trial and the girls get
Speaker 1: on the witness stand and they say they know his name,
Speaker 1: they say a rape happened, and the defense attorneys don't
Speaker 1: do a great job of poking holes in there because
Speaker 1: they don't have anything to poke holes in. They don't
Speaker 1: have any cross examination material. Okay, they have three witnesses
Speaker 1: that were allegedly with this man for three hours. That's
Speaker 1: a long time to be with somebody. Mistaken identification is
Speaker 1: not really something you can argue when you're around somebody
Speaker 1: for three hours unless you saw the initial statements, right,
Speaker 1: I can't really do it. I mean the trials a joke.
Speaker 1: Eddie Nole, who was the prosecutor, and the district attorney
Speaker 1: and his wife are the ones that tried the case,
Speaker 1: and this was a flam flam show. They actually, on
Speaker 1: occasion during direct examination they would interchange when they thought
Speaker 1: the other one didn't ask enough questions, or on cross examine.
Speaker 1: I've never seen that, and they probably could have done
Speaker 1: anything they wanted because without discovery, they had nothing with
Speaker 1: which to hold the prosecution or any of the witnesses accountable.
Speaker 1: Then you have these racially charged elements to white twin
Speaker 1: sisters underage, by the way, fourteen years old, a black
Speaker 1: guy in Louisiana in so they could have said that
Speaker 1: he took them in a spaceship, hit them on the
Speaker 1: head with a toaster of it, and then they went
Speaker 1: and visited, you know, talking penguins on Mars. I mean,
Speaker 1: they could have said anything. And I could actually picture
Speaker 1: in my mind the jury just sort of sitting there,
Speaker 1: you know, horrified with their mouths open, hearing about how
Speaker 1: the two young girls were brutalizing. You know, these these
Speaker 1: poor little girls. It's hard to turn away from that
Speaker 1: kind of testimony. But there were some very significant things
Speaker 1: that still should have sowed serious doubts in the minds
Speaker 1: of these jurors. Now, I think the biggest thing here
Speaker 1: that we started to uncover as we investigated is that
Speaker 1: the area that Vincent allegedly sees these three at a
Speaker 1: gas station in the middle of Marksville, but then he
Speaker 1: takes him allegedly or tells them to go to a
Speaker 1: part of a Vols parish that's like clan country. So
Speaker 1: where these alleged rapes happen is in the middle of
Speaker 1: clan country. It's not where the black community is. That's
Speaker 1: what to me should have raised alarm bells for everybody,
Speaker 1: including the white jury. This is not believable. What was
Speaker 1: alleged to be a three hour long encounter with two
Speaker 1: twin underage white girls being raped by a black man
Speaker 1: in the middle of Clan country. I would have sooner
Speaker 1: bought into the story about Mars and Vincent was able
Speaker 1: to present something in his defense right. His attorney called
Speaker 1: him to the stand where he said that he was
Speaker 1: at a bar on May night and presented three alibi
Speaker 1: witnesses who all dated that he was at the bar
Speaker 1: with them. His alibi witnesses, they tried to discredit these
Speaker 1: people with traffic tickets and like petty crimes because they
Speaker 1: wanted to make the alibis look like they were not
Speaker 1: law abiding citizens, even though they basically were. I mean,
Speaker 1: one of the witnesses that testified for Vincent was a
Speaker 1: business owner, and they attacked them using like speeding tickets
Speaker 1: and parking tickets that he received. It was a joke.
Speaker 1: The trial was a joke. Yeah, it was a joke,
Speaker 1: but not not a funny one though, because eleven white
Speaker 1: people and one black woman on the jury. I remember
Speaker 1: at that time in Louisiana and all the way up
Speaker 1: till two thousand and eighteen, they didn't need the unanimous
Speaker 1: verdict to convict. It was one of the ways that
Speaker 1: they disenfranchised black folks. You only needed ten of the
Speaker 1: twelve members on the jury to vote guilty. So black
Speaker 1: woman or not, let's just call it like it is.
Speaker 1: There was no hope in hell for Vincent. And so
Speaker 1: there you are, still trying to heal from a gunshot
Speaker 1: wound to the chest at close range and watching this
Speaker 1: ridiculous trial. Did you still have any hope that they
Speaker 1: would see the discrepancies in this crazy narrative and se
Speaker 1: that you were innocent? Oh? Yeah, that was no hope
Speaker 1: because the way that was focused, Oh what the victims
Speaker 1: were saying, there was no hope of the receiving a
Speaker 1: fair crown. And even though I was shot, the ad
Speaker 1: that was there was no question answer what happened. So, Vince,
Speaker 1: at that moment, a lot had happened to you already.
Speaker 1: But I have to think this would be the worst
Speaker 1: moment of anybody's life to be wrongfully convicted of a
Speaker 1: crime they didn't commit. Do you remember that moment when
Speaker 1: they declared you guilty and sentency to a hundred years
Speaker 1: in prison? Yes? I did. When I heard all those
Speaker 1: lives and the juror come back and convicted. Even with
Speaker 1: my alibi, the jurist believe their lies, and it was
Speaker 1: amazing for me to believe that those people would. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they kind of lied to the jury, and the jury
Speaker 1: believed that. When I got dam golden and they slammed
Speaker 1: the doors behind me, it was like a shot to me.
Speaker 1: And from that moment then I was experiencing nightmares at night.
Speaker 1: When I went to sleep, I tried to go to sleep,
Speaker 1: I would have a nightmare as a being shot and
Speaker 1: beating over and over again. When I got there. Given
Speaker 1: the guys in the tail, they already knew what my
Speaker 1: job was and I went to mulate experiences. They told
Speaker 1: I brought all you ship human ways. You know you
Speaker 1: taught U. I've been called several times, you know all
Speaker 1: the skin come over my father, but I wouldn't report
Speaker 1: it because they would call your retire At several night nights,
Speaker 1: balls that were from of all pass they would make
Speaker 1: it possible for they didn't make it got a home.
Speaker 1: You the gods heard from of all pry they would
Speaker 1: intentionally I could repot where I would be the repetrator
Speaker 1: of the night. So from one laddob to another. That's
Speaker 1: what called me to be locked down, and it controd
Speaker 1: and all these years because I was being attacked and
Speaker 1: being transfer to another lot said twenty some years and
Speaker 1: solid confed. And I just got out in uh two thousands,
Speaker 1: and that's where I got the call from Boston. See
Speaker 1: as you would take my case, forty four years wrongfully convicted,
Speaker 1: and twenty seven of those were in solitary confinement because
Speaker 1: of constant assaults from other prisoners who also found ways
Speaker 1: to believe the childish nonsensicalized that these three backwoods, redneck
Speaker 1: low life told to cover up their dirty, disgusting little
Speaker 1: incest secret. And I don't even know what to say
Speaker 1: except that I'm absolutely amazed at your courage and strength
Speaker 1: to persevere and just even be here at all. After
Speaker 1: all you've gone through, Vincent, you are a living miracle. Suggested.
Speaker 1: We know that the post conviction litigation started almost immediately
Speaker 1: back in nineteen seventy eight, and it went about as
Speaker 1: well as the trial did. But Vincent finally got a
Speaker 1: break of sorts in can you talk us through that?
Speaker 1: Vincent files a man Damis and somebody in the d
Speaker 1: a's office copies the whole file. That's how Vincent gets
Speaker 1: his file. That's when he first gets the discovery. And
Speaker 1: then Vincent got a letter from his lawyer in ninety
Speaker 1: eight saying that we've never seen these documents before. You know,
Speaker 1: and by the way, that lawyer in night, I think
Speaker 1: he was a judge by that point. I mean, these
Speaker 1: are credible people that came forward and said that they
Speaker 1: had never seen these documents before. Right, this is the
Speaker 1: discovery with the details that we mentioned earlier. That if
Speaker 1: Vincent's trial attorney would have had this at the trial
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy seven, and of course it was totally
Speaker 1: illegal for them not to share it, but if they
Speaker 1: had had this discovery, it's very possible that even that
Speaker 1: jury could have come to the right conclusion. So, in
Speaker 1: addition to that, more exculpatory evidence has developed over time. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Vincent is denied parole again and again and again and again.
Speaker 1: The sisters showed up at the parole hearings and said
Speaker 1: all sorts of awful racist things. I remember seeing this
Speaker 1: on the video and hearing about it. In one occasion
Speaker 1: where one of the three members of the pro board
Speaker 1: was a black gentleman and one of the sisters actually
Speaker 1: said in the parole hearing that she wouldn't feel safe
Speaker 1: alone in the room with him. And I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the guy who was on the parole board, the black
Speaker 1: guy in the pro board. Am I actually right about that?
Speaker 1: You are? You cannot make this up? So now we're
Speaker 1: all the way at October and Justin you've now joined
Speaker 1: Vincent's team, and Vincent has applied for post conviction leave
Speaker 1: based on several to process violations and newly discovered evidence
Speaker 1: which shows that the alleged rape was a total fabrication,
Speaker 1: and that part of the new evidence that was presented
Speaker 1: is from a family member of the alleged victims themselves, right,
Speaker 1: So can you tell us about that? Essentially, we have
Speaker 1: a family member of the LA board's coming forward with
Speaker 1: a detailed statement about an admission that Keith gave her.
Speaker 1: I think it was in two thousand and eleven, two
Speaker 1: thousand twelve, And actually what happened forty four years ago
Speaker 1: was she was there when Keith came into her mother's
Speaker 1: house and he had a scratch on his neck. And
Speaker 1: it appears is that Keith is the first one that
Speaker 1: drops the story that gets Vincent thrown in prison, which
Speaker 1: is that you know, he gave a black man a
Speaker 1: ride home with the girls and the black man scratched
Speaker 1: his neck, threw him in the trunk, and raped the
Speaker 1: two girls. See the problem with that, though, if you
Speaker 1: talk to this witness, she knows Keith the board. He's
Speaker 1: a total psycho. Keith also, I believe I said two
Speaker 1: thousand eleven, two thousand twelve, he admits did that there
Speaker 1: was no black man. We actually have Facebook messages between
Speaker 1: Keith Laborde's first cousin and Karen were Karen admitted that
Speaker 1: Keith Labord raped her. Now you have to understand this
Speaker 1: same cousin, Keith Laborde actually admitted that he had what
Speaker 1: he termed to be consensual sex with Karen and through
Speaker 1: Sharon in the trunk. So that's why Sharon's hyman is
Speaker 1: intact as Key threw her in the trunk because she
Speaker 1: didn't want to have sex with him. But he definitely
Speaker 1: had sex with Karen. Now Karen says that it was
Speaker 1: a rape. He says it was consensual sex. But at
Speaker 1: the time of the alleged sexual act, Keith was an adult,
Speaker 1: Karen was a miner. You know. Then we have an
Speaker 1: investigative report from our investigator who spoke to Karen, where
Speaker 1: Karen said she might have made a mistake that she
Speaker 1: doesn't want to testify again in this case. This is
Speaker 1: even worse than I originally thought, which I didn't think
Speaker 1: was possible. So where are we now? What in the
Speaker 1: world is it going to take to bring Vincent home?
Speaker 1: Where are we right now? We filed the motion to
Speaker 1: vacate the conviction of post conviction relief motion in October
Speaker 1: of I mean, there's Affidavid's newly discovered evidence, there's scientific
Speaker 1: reports and here identification experts, doctors, obviously the previous discovery
Speaker 1: that wasn't turned over when the motion was initially filed.
Speaker 1: Carry Sproul was the judge that was overseeing the motion,
Speaker 1: and Charles Riddle was the district attorney. And essentially what
Speaker 1: happened is in March of one, I got my hands
Speaker 1: on a document where Carry Sprul admitted that he represented
Speaker 1: Keith Laborde's daughter in a previous I don't know if
Speaker 1: it was a custody case or a family court case.
Speaker 1: And so we had a hearing to recuse carry Sprul,
Speaker 1: and in that hearing to recuse Verry Sprool Kerry Sprool
Speaker 1: not only admitted that he had represented keith La Board's daughter,
Speaker 1: but also that he had a close relationship with keith
Speaker 1: La Board since I guess almost childhood and actually hired
Speaker 1: keith La Board to work on construction projects in his house,
Speaker 1: so he had a longstanding relationship with keith La Board
Speaker 1: and his family. And then after that is when we
Speaker 1: had the motion to recuse the District Attorney's office where
Speaker 1: we took testimony from Vincent's trial attorney, Mike Kelly were
Speaker 1: Mike Kelly testified at the hearing that the defense received
Speaker 1: no discovery, not a single document. They didn't know there
Speaker 1: was a lineup, they didn't know that there was original
Speaker 1: statements made, they didn't know anything. We took testimony from
Speaker 1: a civil rights activist, Alan Holmes, who heard Charles Riddle
Speaker 1: admit that Mike Kelly didn't receive discovery, and then we
Speaker 1: took testimony from Charles Riddle himself, and Charles Riddle admitted
Speaker 1: that he believed Mike Kelly when Mike Kelly tell stified
Speaker 1: that they didn't have any of the discovery in this case.
Speaker 1: That caused Judge Bennett to recuse Charles Riddle because Charles
Speaker 1: Riddle refused to consent to give Vincent Simmons a new trial.
Speaker 1: Essentially that Riddle was basically condoning a constitutional violation. Right
Speaker 1: he knew that there was a violation and refused to
Speaker 1: remedy it. And a prosecutor has a duty to act
Speaker 1: fair and impartial, and his duties are based upon the Constitution.
Speaker 1: He has to be fair to the accused, and when
Speaker 1: there's a due process violation like there is in this case,
Speaker 1: the only way he can remedy that is by giving
Speaker 1: Vincent another trial, and he refused to do it. We
Speaker 1: now have an Attorney General's office that's taken over there
Speaker 1: trying to vacate the recusal of Charles Riddle. They're basically
Speaker 1: trying to delay this as best as they can. No
Speaker 1: one wants to give Vincent any relief here, and that's
Speaker 1: where we are right now. We're in front of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court battling it out over the motion to recuse
Speaker 1: the district Attorney. And I'm in the process of filing
Speaker 1: something to try to compel the court to do the
Speaker 1: right thing here. So before we go to the closing
Speaker 1: of the show, is there something that our listeners can
Speaker 1: do hopefully they're going to be inspired to take action.
Speaker 1: What would you recommend that they do to help Vincent
Speaker 1: or just to help in general. I would recommend that
Speaker 1: they write Judge William Bennett the Attorney General's office, and
Speaker 1: that they write the Governor of Louisiana, and that they
Speaker 1: write the District Attorney of a v Alls Paris, Charles Riddle.
Speaker 1: These are all people that have the ability to concede.
Speaker 1: I mean, Vincent would love a retrial because the retrial
Speaker 1: is not going to happen because it didn't happen. Vincent
Speaker 1: has a page on the Friends and Family of the
Speaker 1: Wrongfully Convicted, which is an organization that Derrick Hamilton's started,
Speaker 1: and then he also has a change dot org web
Speaker 1: page as well. We're gonna put everything in the episode
Speaker 1: O bio for everybody to do what they can. And
Speaker 1: I've gotten to know the Governor of Louisiana over the years.
Speaker 1: I think he's a good man, and I think he's
Speaker 1: a fair man, and I believe if he was made
Speaker 1: aware of this, that he will feel inspired to take
Speaker 1: the action that the local authorities are still to this
Speaker 1: day unwilling to take. So with that, we now turned
Speaker 1: to the closing of our show, and it works like this.
Speaker 1: It's called closing arguments. First of all, I thank you
Speaker 1: Justin bonus again for being here sharing you know, your
Speaker 1: frustration and your thoughts on this case. And of course
Speaker 1: Vincent Simmons stay strong. You know there's a lot of
Speaker 1: good people out here that care about you. I'm one
Speaker 1: of them, and so I speak for our whole wrongful
Speaker 1: conviction community when we say we're rooting for you, A
Speaker 1: lot of people praying for you and hopefully help is
Speaker 1: a red around the corner. So now the end of
Speaker 1: our show works like this. I turned my microphone off,
Speaker 1: I leave both of your guys on, and I turn
Speaker 1: it over first to Justin for his final thoughts whatever
Speaker 1: he wants to say, and then of course Vincent, we're
Speaker 1: gonna say the best for last all due respect to you, Justin.
Speaker 1: Vincent is demand of the hour. And then Vincent, you
Speaker 1: could just say whatever you want about whatever you want. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm now going to turn my microphone off and kick
Speaker 1: back in my chair and just listen. Okay, Well, I
Speaker 1: just want to start off by saying what's right in
Speaker 1: front of the court right now is probably the most
Speaker 1: egregious Brady violation in the history of the United States,
Speaker 1: because I've never seen a case where no discovery was
Speaker 1: turned over and almost all of the discovery is exculpatory
Speaker 1: that the d A's office in a Vols Parish has
Speaker 1: admitted that they believed if Vincent Simmons' defense attorney that
Speaker 1: he didn't receive discovery in this case. The only way
Speaker 1: you can remedy that situation is by a new trial,
Speaker 1: and they are refusing to give him a new trial.
Speaker 1: It should start there because the evidence that wasn't turned
Speaker 1: over is what proves that Vincent Simmons didn't commit this crime.
Speaker 1: This guy didn't commit this crime. He was railroaded, he
Speaker 1: was legally lynched, and he's been in prison for almost
Speaker 1: forty five years. It's a disgrace. This is simple. They
Speaker 1: could give him a new trial right now, but they
Speaker 1: know that they can't retry him because the people that
Speaker 1: testified against him will never testify against him again because
Speaker 1: they lied. All of the evidence that wasn't disclosed proves
Speaker 1: that they lied. I took this case because my wife
Speaker 1: said I have to take this case because that's how
Speaker 1: much she believed he was innocent. But I believe he
Speaker 1: will be victorious because he is innocent and every single
Speaker 1: shred of the evidence shows him. And that's all I
Speaker 1: have to Second, I say, God, and the length uncovered.
Speaker 1: So I have faith and I have yes. God have
Speaker 1: put in justice in my life and in this face
Speaker 1: that is going to grant us justice. A thank you
Speaker 1: for listening to Wrongful Conviction. Please support your local innocence
Speaker 1: organizations and go to the links in our bio to
Speaker 1: see how you can help. I'd like to thank our
Speaker 1: production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne and Kevin Wardis.
Speaker 1: The music on this show, as always, is by three
Speaker 1: time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow
Speaker 1: us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Twitter at wrong Conviction,
Speaker 1: and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast. Wrongful Conviction is
Speaker 1: a production of Lava for Good Podcast in association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one