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, clean his house
Speaker 1: in a Voles 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 Laboord was out searching for a potential
Speaker 1: culprit on the morning of May twenty third, 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 Leboard 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 hundred years in Angola Prison.
Speaker 1: Vincent's fight against a web of family connections, lies and
Speaker 1: the worst in American racism continues to this very day.
Speaker 1: This is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to wrongful conviction. I'm
Speaker 1: Jason Flopp. Today's case is so troubled that I don't
Speaker 1: know where to start. But I will tell you this
Speaker 1: before we even get into it, and I introduce to
Speaker 1: you the man himself, Vincent Simmons, who's still incarcerated in
Speaker 1: the 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 mister 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 mister Simmons, who's 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.
Speaker 2: Thank you, I haven't me.
Speaker 1: We're very happy to have you, and we apologize to
Speaker 1: our 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. And Gola 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 bonas, thanks for coming back
Speaker 1: to wrongful conviction not.
Speaker 3: A problem, Jason. It's great to be on here again
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 1: So this insane saga goes all the way back to
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy seven. So Vincent, before this happened in your
Speaker 1: life that turned upside down and inside out, what was
Speaker 1: your life like before this insanity?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was born in a ball Paris, a place
Speaker 4: called Mansillah Lewis Air. When I was living in Mansilla,
Speaker 4: I had had some involvement with a ball parent sheriff department.
Speaker 4: I was involved with competitive crime. I moved to Houston
Speaker 4: and I got a job and I was learned to
Speaker 4: test my father at had time, and I come back
Speaker 4: to Lewis the Air. I was back for about a month.
Speaker 4: I was living with my sister or leave you and
Speaker 4: I was on my way to work and I was
Speaker 4: picked up a ball of Paris police, So.
Speaker 1: You were a known entity to a Bowls Parish police
Speaker 1: before heading to Houston for work and returning when your
Speaker 1: father passed away, which made you available to be picked
Speaker 1: up for what allegedly happened to these twin girls on
Speaker 1: May nine, nineteen seventy seven. And the date, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're not even sure of that, because the girls were
Speaker 1: never really clear on a date and time. But the
Speaker 1: narrative that comes out is a sadly familiar American tale,
Speaker 1: a false accusation of a black man by an alleged
Speaker 1: white victim or victims in this case, and the alleged
Speaker 1: crime that took place. The narrative that set this horrible
Speaker 1: in justice against Vincent in motion is this. On May ninth,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy seven, twin sisters Sharon and Karen Sanders allegedly
Speaker 1: went over to the house of their eighteen year old cousin,
Speaker 1: Keith Leboard remember that last name, to help him clean,
Speaker 1: and while driving the sisters home that night, the three
Speaker 1: allegedly stopped for gas when Vincent Simmons allegedly approached and
Speaker 1: asked the Board for a ride home, to which the
Speaker 1: Board supposedly agreed and then the claim is that six
Speaker 1: miles outside of Marksville, on a deserted stretch of Little
Speaker 1: California Road, Vincent allegedly took out a gun, forced Keith
Speaker 1: the Board and Karen into the trunk while he allegedly
Speaker 1: raped Sharon, and then he allegedly put Sharon in the trunk,
Speaker 1: drove on for a bit before retrieving Karen to do
Speaker 1: the same to her. Now, afterwards, Vincent allegedly threatened them
Speaker 1: all before dropping himself off to catch a bus. So
Speaker 1: about two weeks after this alleged incident, May twenty second
Speaker 1: is when this narrative is first reported to the Sheriff's
Speaker 1: office and the investigation, if you can even call it,
Speaker 1: that begins justin take us through this nightmare.
Speaker 3: So there was Karen Sanders, Sharon Sanders, and then Keith
Speaker 3: the Board that were allegedly basically kidnapped, thrown in a trunk.
Speaker 3: The two sisters were raped. That's their story. So on
Speaker 3: May twenty second, John le Board, Keith's father, calls the
Speaker 3: sheriff because Keith's father is the parish assessor. What you
Speaker 3: have to understand about the boards is there's like ten
Speaker 3: thousand of them in a voles Paris. This is a
Speaker 3: very strong family. He calls the chief of police and
Speaker 3: he says that my twin nieces have been raped by
Speaker 3: a black man. That's how this begins. And then the
Speaker 3: girls are brought in. The girls don't know what date
Speaker 3: it happens. The police give them a date, okay. The
Speaker 3: girls provide their initial statements, which weren't turned over a trial.
Speaker 3: They weren't turned over till nineteen ninety three. They give
Speaker 3: completely inconsistent statements. Sharon Sanders actually calls the suspect the
Speaker 3: N word over and over again, says all blacks look alike, okay,
Speaker 3: and that's why she wouldn't be able to identify him.
Speaker 3: They don't talk to the boy, Keith Leboard, until after
Speaker 3: Vincent is already arrested. Neither of these girls give a
Speaker 3: description that matches Vincent. They say short and fat, well,
Speaker 3: Vincent is five to nine fifty. Again, their descriptions conflict.
Speaker 3: You know, it's just one thing after another, and specifically
Speaker 3: with regard to Karen Sanders, she talks about being raped
Speaker 3: anally orally vaginally. When the doctor looks at her after
Speaker 3: she talks to police, there is no injuries. Sharon talks
Speaker 3: about a thirty minute rape vaginally to the point where
Speaker 3: she bled. She said that she gave her panties to
Speaker 3: her grandmother and they were washed, of course. And what's
Speaker 3: interesting about Sharon is that her hymen was intact when
Speaker 3: she was examined by the doctor in this case.
Speaker 1: So okay, inconsistent statements, conflicting descriptions, and outright lies unsupported
Speaker 1: by physical reality. And the next day, at nine to
Speaker 1: twenty am on May twenty third, Vincent was just walking
Speaker 1: to work when he was picked up off the street,
Speaker 1: arrested and brought to the station.
Speaker 3: He was arrested on May twenty third of nineteen seventy
Speaker 3: seven on view for this crime. And what on view
Speaker 3: means is they didn't have a name Vincent Simmons, They
Speaker 3: had no probable cause to arrest him. They saw him
Speaker 3: on the side of the street. When I say they,
Speaker 3: you had mentioned a family member of one of the
Speaker 3: alleged victims, and that was Robert Leboard. And I don't
Speaker 3: know his direct relation to Keith Leboard, but I believe
Speaker 3: it could be a cousin. So really, what you have
Speaker 3: to understand with Vincent is he had a history with
Speaker 3: the Marksville police Department and the Vols Parish Sheriff's office,
Speaker 3: and Floyd Juno was driving with Robert Leboard on the
Speaker 3: Dave Vincent got arrested on May twenty second. And he
Speaker 3: knew Vincent, he knew who he was before, and he
Speaker 3: knew he was a troublemaker. And he's the glue to this.
Speaker 3: He's the person that basically points the finger at Vincent first.
Speaker 1: Right, right, right, And if you have the chance to
Speaker 1: watch one of the documentaries about vincent story, there's the
Speaker 1: farm and Shadows of a Doubt, we'll have them LinkedIn
Speaker 1: the by of course. But in Shadows of a Doubt,
Speaker 1: Floyd Juno described this 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 Leboord, who
Speaker 1: was brought from work, and told them that they were
Speaker 1: going to view a lineup 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 feet 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 subtle 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.
Speaker 4: They claimed that I was identified, and from that point
Speaker 4: they took me into another room and that's when he
Speaker 4: told me that I had to give him a confession,
Speaker 4: and I refused to give a confession. I told him
Speaker 4: that before I confessed to a crime that I didn't do,
Speaker 4: I'll die first. And that's when they hit me. And
Speaker 4: they knocked into the clothes and started kicking me. And
Speaker 4: then when I tried to get up, he kicked me again.
Speaker 4: And then when I did you to chat, I was
Speaker 4: sitting in to get up Robert Loboid, he raised up
Speaker 4: from his seat where he was writing a confession and
Speaker 4: pulled his weapon and shot me.
Speaker 2: He shot me in the check.
Speaker 3: I think something that I really want to bring to
Speaker 3: your attention to her, Jason, is is that technically Vincent
Speaker 3: really should have been charged with kidnapping Keith Laboord. They
Speaker 3: didn't charge him with that. Why, well, you know, I
Speaker 3: think we know why. The other thing is the police
Speaker 3: all said that Vincent attempted to grab the gun of
Speaker 3: one of the officers and the safety was on or
Speaker 3: something like that, ridiculous story. They don't ever charge Vincent
Speaker 3: 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 seventh, both twins testified,
Speaker 1: but neither the alleged kidnapping victim Keith la Boord, nor
Speaker 1: the alleged attempted murder victims the police officers participated. Yeah
Speaker 1: that's yeah, sure, okay. So during her testimony, Sharon is
Speaker 1: asked three consecutive times to identify the man from the crime,
Speaker 1: and this is the twin who states that all black
Speaker 1: people look alike. She doesn't respond until the court steps in,
Speaker 1: and this was when, for the very first time ever,
Speaker 1: she says that the man said his name was Simmons. Now,
Speaker 1: Karen also parroted this statement that the Culport told Keith
Speaker 1: his 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.
Speaker 3: Everyone overlooked that that means that their testimony in the
Speaker 3: preliminary hearing that they knew the man's name, and their
Speaker 3: testimony a trial that they knew the man's name is false.
Speaker 3: That kind of just got glossed over.
Speaker 1: So let's get to the trial, and I'm gonna put
Speaker 1: trial in quotes here. So there's no physical evidence that
Speaker 1: these rapes ever actually happen. Start with that no forensic
Speaker 1: tests were done on the twins' clothing or the car
Speaker 1: in which the alleged rapes occurred, and police reports did
Speaker 1: not include a single lead appointed to Vincent. Doctors didn't
Speaker 1: find any signs of injury on either of the alleged victims,
Speaker 1: including Sharon's intact hymen. She was a virgin who was,
Speaker 1: according to her statement, the victim of a bloody rape,
Speaker 1: which of course is physically impossible. So if you're listening
Speaker 1: to this now and going, well, then there's all this evidence, right,
Speaker 1: How the hell could anyone, even a black man in
Speaker 1: the Deep South in the seventies, how could anyone get
Speaker 1: convicted on the basis of this. Well, it later comes
Speaker 1: out to Vincent and his attorney received exactly none of this.
Speaker 1: They received no discovery in this case. By none, I
Speaker 1: mean zero. What I'm saying is all of that critical
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence that you just heard wasn't revealed to him
Speaker 1: for another sixteen years. His lawyers never even knew about
Speaker 1: the shady lineup with the handcuffs, you know, which was
Speaker 1: obviously done for one reason, so that these alleged victims
Speaker 1: would know who to pick in this imaginary crime. There
Speaker 1: were pictures of that, the inconsistencies and conflicts in the
Speaker 1: initial accounts and assailing descriptions and initial statements. They said
Speaker 1: they didn't know his name, but later testified that he
Speaker 1: had told Keith his name was Simmons. How Karen gave
Speaker 1: 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 3: So they take him the trial and the girls get
Speaker 3: on the witness stand and they say they know his name,
Speaker 3: they say a rape happened, and the defense attorneys don't
Speaker 3: do a great job of poking holes in there because
Speaker 3: they don't have anything to poke holes in. They don't
Speaker 3: have any cross examination material. Okay, they have three witnesses
Speaker 3: that were allegedly with this man for three hours. That's
Speaker 3: a long time to be with somebody. Mistaken identification is
Speaker 3: not really something you can argue when you're around somebody
Speaker 3: for three hours unless you saw the initial statements, right,
Speaker 3: can't really do it. I mean the trials a joke.
Speaker 3: Eddie Knowle, who was the prosecutor, and the district attorney
Speaker 3: and his wife are the ones that tried the case,
Speaker 3: and this was a flim flam show. They actually, on
Speaker 3: occasion during direct examination they would interchange when they thought
Speaker 3: the other one didn't ask enough questions or on cross examine.
Speaker 3: I've never seen that.
Speaker 1: And they probably could have done anything they wanted because
Speaker 1: without discovery, they had nothing with which to hold the
Speaker 1: prosecution or any of the witnesses accountable. Then you have
Speaker 1: these racially charged elements, two white twin sisters under age,
Speaker 1: by the way, fourteen years old, a black guy in
Speaker 1: Louisiana in nineteen seventy seven. So they could have said
Speaker 1: that he took them in a spaceship, hit them on
Speaker 1: the head with a toaster oven, 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, harfyed, with their mouths open, hearing about how
Speaker 1: these two young girls were brutalizeding 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.
Speaker 3: Now, I think the biggest thing here that we started
Speaker 3: to uncover as we investigated is that the area that
Speaker 3: Vincent allegedly sees these three at a gas station in
Speaker 3: the middle of Marksville, but then he takes them allegedly
Speaker 3: or tells them to go to a part of a
Speaker 3: Voles parish that's like clan country. So where these alleged
Speaker 3: rapes happen is in the middle of clan country. It's
Speaker 3: not where the black community is. That's what to me
Speaker 3: should have raised alarm bells for everybody, including the white jury.
Speaker 3: This is not believable.
Speaker 1: What was alleged to be a three hour long encounter
Speaker 1: with two twin underage white girls being raped by a
Speaker 1: black man in the middle of clan country. I would
Speaker 1: have sooner bought into the story about Mars and Vincent
Speaker 1: was able to present something in his defense right. His
Speaker 1: attorney called him to the stand where he said that
Speaker 1: he was at a bar on May ninth, and presented
Speaker 1: three alibi witnesses who all dated that he was at
Speaker 1: the bar with them.
Speaker 3: His alibi witnesses, they tried to discredit these people with
Speaker 3: traffic tickets and like petty crimes because they wanted to
Speaker 3: make the alibis look like they were not law abiding citizens,
Speaker 3: even though they basically were. I mean, one of the
Speaker 3: witnesses that testified for Vincent was a business owner, and
Speaker 3: they attacked them using like speeding tickets and parking tickets
Speaker 3: that he received. It was a joke. The trial was
Speaker 3: a joke.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was a joke, but not a funny one though,
Speaker 1: because eleven white people and one black woman on the jury.
Speaker 1: I remember at that time in Louisiana and all the
Speaker 1: way up till twenty eighteen, they didn't need a 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 that
Speaker 1: you were innocent?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah, there was no hope because the way the
Speaker 2: juror was focused, oh what the victims were saying, There
Speaker 2: was no hope of receiving a fan crown. And even
Speaker 2: though I was shot and they seed that I was shout,
Speaker 2: there was no question answer what happened.
Speaker 1: So, Vincent, 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 sentenced you to one hundred
Speaker 1: years in prison?
Speaker 2: Yes? I did.
Speaker 4: When I heard all those yes sold and the juror
Speaker 4: come back and convicted me, even with my alibi with Kevin,
Speaker 4: the juror still believe their lives, and it was amazing
Speaker 4: for me to believe that those people would, yeah, that
Speaker 4: kind of lie to the juror, and the juror believed them.
Speaker 4: When I got dan Gola and they slammed the doors
Speaker 4: behind me, it was like a shot for me. And
Speaker 4: from that moment then I was experiencing nightmares at night.
Speaker 4: When I went to sleep, or tried to go to sleep,
Speaker 4: I would have a nightmare of being shot and beaten
Speaker 4: over and over again. When I got down. Even the
Speaker 4: guys in the tail they already knew what my jarge
Speaker 4: were and I went through mulate experiences. They so I'd
Speaker 4: brought all you ship human weights. You know your torture.
Speaker 4: I've been stalled several times, you know, all the skin
Speaker 4: come off my padley, But I wouldn't report it because
Speaker 4: they would call you a wreck here at several night
Speaker 4: night falls. That was from of all pals, they would
Speaker 4: make it possible for they didn't make the st a
Speaker 4: home the guds He of all pals, they would intentually
Speaker 4: like to report where I would be the sepetrator of
Speaker 4: the night. So from one lock down to another, that's
Speaker 4: what calls me to be locked down and solatarif confined
Speaker 4: in all these years because I was being attacked and
Speaker 4: being transfer it to another lockdown. I've said twenty some
Speaker 4: years in solid confinits and I just got out in
Speaker 4: two thousand nineteen, and that's when I got the call
Speaker 4: from Justin say as you were going take my cakes.
Speaker 1: Forty four years wrongfully convicted, and twenty seven of those
Speaker 1: were in solitary confinement because of constant assaults from other
Speaker 1: prisoners who also found ways to believe the childish, nonsensicalize
Speaker 1: that these three backwards, redneck low lifes told to cover
Speaker 1: up their dirty, disgusting little incest secret. And I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to say except that I'm absolutely amazed
Speaker 1: at your courage and your strength to persevere and just
Speaker 1: even be here at all, after all you've gone through, Vincent,
Speaker 1: you are a living miracle. So justin we know that
Speaker 1: the post conviction litigation start almost immediately back in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy eight, and it went about as well as the
Speaker 1: trial did. But Vincent finally got a break of sorts
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety three. Can you talk us through that.
Speaker 3: Nineteen ninety three, Vincent files a man Damus and somebody
Speaker 3: in the DA's office copies the whole file. That's how
Speaker 3: Vincent gets his file. That's when he first gets the discovery.
Speaker 3: And then Vincent got a letter from his lawyer in
Speaker 3: ninety eight saying that we've never seen these documents before.
Speaker 3: You know, and by the way, that lawyer in ninety eight,
Speaker 3: I think he was a judge by that point, I mean,
Speaker 3: these are credible people that came forward and said that
Speaker 3: they had never seen these documents before.
Speaker 1: Right, this is the discovery with the details that we
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier. That if Vincent's trial attorney would have had
Speaker 1: this at the trial in nineteen seventy seven, and of
Speaker 1: course it was totally illegal for them not to share it,
Speaker 1: but if they had had this discovery, it's very possible
Speaker 1: that even that jury could have come to the right conclusion.
Speaker 1: So in addition to that, more exculpatory evidence has developed
Speaker 1: over time. Meanwhile, Vincent has denied parole again and again
Speaker 1: and again and again. The sisters showed up at the
Speaker 1: parole hearings and said all sorts of awful racist things.
Speaker 1: I remember seeing this on the video and hearing about
Speaker 1: it on one occasion where one of the three members
Speaker 1: of the pro board was a black gentleman, and one
Speaker 1: of the sisters actually said in the parole hearing that
Speaker 1: she wouldn't feel safe alone in the room with him.
Speaker 1: And I'm talking about the guy who was on the
Speaker 1: parole board, the black guy on the parle board. Am
Speaker 1: I actually right about that?
Speaker 3: You are? You cannot make this sub So.
Speaker 1: Now we're all the way at October twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: justin you've now joined Vincent's team, and Vincent has applied
Speaker 1: for post conviction based on several two process violations and
Speaker 1: newly discovered evidence which shows that the alleged rape was
Speaker 1: a total fabrication, and that part of the new evidence
Speaker 1: that was presented is from a family member of the
Speaker 1: alleged victims themselves. Right, So can you tell us about that?
Speaker 3: Essentially, we have a family member of the the Boards
Speaker 3: coming forward with a detailed statement about an admission that
Speaker 3: Keith gave her. I think it was in twenty eleven,
Speaker 3: twenty twelve, And actually what happened forty four years ago
Speaker 3: was she was there when Keith came into her mother's
Speaker 3: house and he had a scratch on his neck. And
Speaker 3: it appears is that Keith is the first one that
Speaker 3: drops the story that gets Vincent thrown in prison, which
Speaker 3: is that you know, he gave a black man a
Speaker 3: ride home with the girls and the black man scratched
Speaker 3: his neck, throw him in the trunk, and rape the
Speaker 3: two girls. See the problem with that, though, is if
Speaker 3: you talk to this witness, she knows Keith Leboard. He's
Speaker 3: a total psycho. Keith also, I believe I said twenty eleven,
Speaker 3: twenty twelve, he admits that there was no black man.
Speaker 3: We actually have Facebook messages between Keith Leboard's first cousin
Speaker 3: and Karen, where Karen admitted that Keith le Board raped her.
Speaker 3: Now you have to understand this same cousin, Keith le
Speaker 3: Board actually admitted that he had what he termed to
Speaker 3: be consensual sex with Karen and threw Sharon in the trunk.
Speaker 3: So that's why Sharon Hymen is attack as Keith threw
Speaker 3: her in the trunk because she didn't want to have
Speaker 3: sex with him. But he definitely had sex with Karen. Now,
Speaker 3: Karen says that it was a rape. Keith says it
Speaker 3: was consensual sex. But at the time of the alleged
Speaker 3: sexual act, Keith was an adult, Karen was a minor.
Speaker 3: You know. Then we have an investigative report from our
Speaker 3: investigator who spoke to Karen, where Karen said she might
Speaker 3: have made a mistake, that she doesn't want to testify
Speaker 3: again in this case.
Speaker 1: This is even worse than I originally thought, which I
Speaker 1: didn't think was possible. So where are we now? What
Speaker 1: in the world is it going to take to bring
Speaker 1: Vincent home?
Speaker 3: Where are we right now? We filed the motion to
Speaker 3: vacate the conviction, a post conviction relief motion in October
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty. I mean, there's Affidavid's newly discovered evidence.
Speaker 3: There's scientific reports in here, identification experts, doctors, obviously the
Speaker 3: previous discovery that wasn't turned over when the motion was
Speaker 3: initially filed. Carrie Sprool was the judge that was overseeing
Speaker 3: the motion and Charles Riddle was the district attorney, and
Speaker 3: essentially what happened is in March of twenty twenty one,
Speaker 3: I got my hands on a document where Carrie Sprool
Speaker 3: admitted that he represented Keith Leboard's daughter in a previous
Speaker 3: I don't know if it was a custody case or
Speaker 3: a family court case. And so we had a hearing
Speaker 3: to recuse Carrie Sprool, and in that hearing to recuse
Speaker 3: Harry Sprool, Kerrie Sprool not only admitted that he had
Speaker 3: represented Keith the Board's daughter, but also that he had
Speaker 3: a close relationship with keithle Board since I guess almost childhood,
Speaker 3: and actually hired Keith the Board to work on construction
Speaker 3: projects in his house, so he had a long standing
Speaker 3: relationship with Keith the Board and his family. And then
Speaker 3: after that is when we had the motion to recuse
Speaker 3: the District Attorney's office where we took testimony from Vincent's
Speaker 3: trial attorney, Mike Kelly, where Mike Kelly testified at the
Speaker 3: hearing that the defense received no discovery, not a single document.
Speaker 3: They didn't know there was a lineup, they didn't know
Speaker 3: that there was original statements made, they didn't know anything.
Speaker 3: We took testimony from a civil rights activist, Alan Holmes,
Speaker 3: who heard Charles Riddle admit that Mike Kelly didn't receive discovery,
Speaker 3: and then we took testimony from Charles Riddle himself, and
Speaker 3: Charles Riddle admitted that he believed Mike Kelly when Mike
Speaker 3: Kelly to testified that they didn't have any of the
Speaker 3: discovery in this case. That caused Judge Bennett to recuse
Speaker 3: Charles Riddle because Charles Riddle refused to consent to give
Speaker 3: Vincent Simmons a new trial. Essentially that Riddle was basically
Speaker 3: condoning a constitutional violation. Right he knew that there was
Speaker 3: a violation and refused to remedy it. And a prosecutor
Speaker 3: has a duty to act fair and and partial, and
Speaker 3: his duties are based upon the Constitution. He has to
Speaker 3: be fair to the accused, and when there's a due
Speaker 3: process violation like there is in this case, the only
Speaker 3: way he can remedy that is by giving Vincent another trial,
Speaker 3: and he refused to do it. We now have an
Speaker 3: Attorney General's office that's taken over. They're trying to vacate
Speaker 3: the recusal of Charles Riddle. They're basically trying to delay
Speaker 3: this as best as they can. No one wants to
Speaker 3: give Vincent any relief here, and that's where we are
Speaker 3: right now. We're in front of the Supreme Court battling
Speaker 3: it out over the motion to recuse a district attorney,
Speaker 3: and I'm in the process of filing something to try
Speaker 3: to compel the court to do the right thing here.
Speaker 1: So before we go to the closing of the show,
Speaker 1: is there something that our listeners can do, Hopefully they're
Speaker 1: going to be inspired to take action. What would you
Speaker 1: recommend that they do to help Vincent or just to
Speaker 1: help in general.
Speaker 3: I would recommend that they write Judge William Bennett the
Speaker 3: Attorney General's office, and that they write the Governor of Louisiana,
Speaker 3: and that they write the District Attorney of a vols Paris,
Speaker 3: Charles Riddle. These are all people that have the ability
Speaker 3: to concede. I mean, Vincent would love a retrial because
Speaker 3: the retrial is not going to happen because it didn't happen.
Speaker 3: Vincent has a page on the Friends and Family of
Speaker 3: the Wrongfully Convicted, which is an organization that Derek Hamilton started,
Speaker 3: and then he also has a change dot Org web
Speaker 3: page as well.
Speaker 1: We're going to put everything in the episode bio for
Speaker 1: everybody to do what they can. And I've gotten to
Speaker 1: know the governor of Louisiana over the years. I think
Speaker 1: he's a good man, and I think he's a fair man,
Speaker 1: and I believe if he was made aware of this
Speaker 1: that he will feel inspired to take the action that
Speaker 1: the local authorities are still to this day unwilling to take.
Speaker 1: So with that, we now turn to the closing of
Speaker 1: our show, and it works like this. It's called closing arguments.
Speaker 1: First of all, I thank you Justin Bonus again for
Speaker 1: being here sharing you know, your frustration and your thoughts
Speaker 1: on this case. And of course, Vincent Simmons, stay strong.
Speaker 1: You know there's a lot of good people out here
Speaker 1: that care about you. I'm one of them. And as
Speaker 1: though I speak for our whole wrongful conviction community when
Speaker 1: we say we're rooting for you, a lot of people
Speaker 1: praying for you and hopefully help is a red around
Speaker 1: the corner. So now the end of our show works
Speaker 1: like this. I turned my microphone off, I leave both
Speaker 1: of your guys on, and I turn it over first
Speaker 1: to Justin for his final thoughts. Whatever he wants to say.
Speaker 1: And then, of course, Vincent, we're going to save the
Speaker 1: best for last, all due respect to you, justin Vincent
Speaker 1: is the man 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, a kickback
Speaker 1: of my chair and just listen.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, I just want to start off by saying,
Speaker 3: what's right in front of the court right now is
Speaker 3: probably the most egregious Brady violation in the history of
Speaker 3: the United States, because I've never seen a case where
Speaker 3: no discovery was turned over and almost all of the
Speaker 3: discovery is exculpatory that the DA's office in a Vols
Speaker 3: Parish has admitted that they believed that Vincent Simmons' defense
Speaker 3: attorney that he didn't receive discovery in this case. The
Speaker 3: only way you can remedy that situation is by a
Speaker 3: new trial, and they are refusing to give him a
Speaker 3: new trial. It should start there because the evidence that
Speaker 3: wasn't turned over is what proves that Vincent Simmons didn't
Speaker 3: commit this crime. This guy didn't commit this crime. He
Speaker 3: was railroaded, he was legally lynched, and he's been in
Speaker 3: prison for almost forty five years. It's a disgrace. This
Speaker 3: is simple. They could give him a new trial right now,
Speaker 3: but they know that they can't retry him because the
Speaker 3: people that testified against him will never testify against him
Speaker 3: again because they lied. All of the evidence that wasn't
Speaker 3: disclosed proves that they lied. I took this case because
Speaker 3: my wife said I have to take this case because
Speaker 3: that's how much she believed he was innocent. But I
Speaker 3: believe he will be victorious because he is innocent and
Speaker 3: every single shred of the evidence shows it. And that's
Speaker 3: all I have to say.
Speaker 2: I say, God is the light of uncovers all, so
Speaker 2: I have faith it does and I have faith. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 2: God have to put justice molds in my life. In
Speaker 2: this face, just going to grant us this.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. Please support your
Speaker 1: local innocence organizations and go to the links in our
Speaker 1: bio to see how you can help. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburn,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wardis. The music on this show, as always
Speaker 1: is by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 2: Be sure to.
Speaker 1: Follow us on Instagram at wrongful Conviction, on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 2: Podcast.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
Speaker 1: and association with Signal Company Number one