Podcast appearances and mentions of Barry Scheck

Ce projet a été créé aux Etats Unis en 1992. Dans les années 1990, de nouvelles techniques d'analyse de l'ADN commencent à révolutionner les enquêtes criminelles. Et deux avocats new-yorkais, Barry Scheck et Peter Neufeld réalisent que ces outils pourraient aussi être utilisés a posteriori, pour réexaminer les preuves de vieux dossiers judiciaires.Ils fondent alors le Projet Innocence, avec un objectif simple mais ambitieux : utiliser l'ADN pour innocenter les personnes condamnées à tort.Le besoin est immense. Aux États-Unis, le système judiciaire repose fortement sur les témoignages oculaires, les aveux (parfois extorqués), les identifications douteuses ou des expertises scientifiques dépassées. Or, de nombreuses études ont montré que ces éléments sont loin d'être infaillibles.Grâce aux tests ADN, le Projet Innocence a mis en évidence des erreurs judiciaires massives. Selon ses statistiques, depuis sa création, plus de 375 personnes ont été formellement innocentées grâce à ces analyses. Parmi elles, 21 avaient été condamnées à mort.Chaque dossier raconte une tragédie humaine : des années, parfois des décennies passées derrière les barreaux pour des crimes jamais commis.Mais le Projet Innocence ne se limite pas à ces cas spectaculaires. Il a aussi contribué à réformer le système judiciaire. L'association milite pour des pratiques plus rigoureuses :amélioration des procédures d'identification ;enregistrement vidéo des interrogatoires ;contrôle des expertises scientifiques ;préservation systématique des preuves ADN.Le mouvement a essaimé dans le monde entier. Des "Innocence Projects" existent aujourd'hui au Canada, au Royaume-Uni, en Australie, en Europe… En France, l'initiative a inspiré la création de la Clinique juridique de l'Innocence en 2013.Au-delà des chiffres, le Projet Innocence a changé le regard sur la justice. Il a montré qu'aucun système n'est infaillible. Même dans des démocraties avancées, des innocents peuvent être condamnés. Le recours à des outils scientifiques rigoureux — comme l'ADN — est donc essentiel pour garantir un procès équitable.En résumé : en réexaminant les preuves avec des méthodes modernes, le Projet Innocence a permis de libérer des centaines de personnes injustement condamnées. Mais surtout, il a rappelé une vérité fondamentale : en matière de justice, la recherche de la vérité doit toujours primer. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Since releasing the 500th episode of Wrongful Conviction earlier this month, we thought it appropriate to spotlight some episodes from the very first season of Wrongful Conviction. On the afternoon of November 4, 1986, the body of an African-American woman was found lying under a blanket near a busy highway in Brooklyn, NY. She had been strangled to death. A witness told Detective Louis Eppolito that he had been jogging on the day of the crime and had seen a white man and a black woman sitting in a gray car parked by the highway. The man said he then watched the white man walk to the passenger side of the car and pull out a body, lay it on the ground and place a blanket over it. Eppolito learned that Barry Gibbs knew the victim and closed in. Barry was charged and convicted of second-degree murder primarily on the testimony of the jogger who later recanted. Jason Flom, Barry Scheck (Co-Founder of The Innocence Project) and Vanessa Potkin (Director of Special Litigation for The Innocence Project) sit down with Barry Gibbs as he details his unfathomable odyssey. To learn more, visit: https://innocenceproject.org/cases/barry-gibbs/ Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava For Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1. We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dan tracks down Juror Number Six: Ramon Aviles. Ramon remembers the moment when the 84-year-old eyewitness, Dorothy Canady, pointed him out as the shooter. He says he was shocked and that people were laughing. The juror breaks down what he remembers from the deliberation room and ultimately admits he might have made a mistake in voting to convict JJ.Dan starts to wonder if other jurors from JJ's trial would feel the same way. He meets up with a different juror and when she sees Dan, she immediately starts to cry. She says she felt pressured by some of the other jurors to convict JJ because they were sequestered and wanted to go home. More than decade later, she believes she ruined JJ's life.Dan is stunned. He's building a compelling case for JJ's innocence, but there's still one more person he needs to talk to: JJ's alleged accomplice, the man with the duct tape, Derry Daniels. Dan visits Daniels, who refuses to talk to him, but Dan is now certain that JJ did not get a fair trial. He sits down with Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, to talk through the case. Barry explains how eyewitness accounts can be unreliable.This episode was originally published on March 6, 2023.

With an election coming up, crime and punishment are a hot topic. Listen to this specially curated episode of 3 Takeaways as some of the sharpest minds on the subject share their insight. Guests include top legal reform expert, Christina Swarns; former Harvard Law School Dean, Martha Minow; Judge Jed Rakoff; founder of the Innocence Project, Barry Scheck; former New York City Police Commissioner, Bill Bratton; and Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security.

John is joined by Jeffrey Toobin, celebrated author and legal analyst, who reflects on his extensive career in law and legal journalism.  First, Jeffrey describes his legal background, including his clerkship on the Second Circuit which led to his years working for the Independent Counsel investigating the Iran Contra scandal (which led to his first book, Opening Arguments) and his years as an Assistant US Attorney.  He also describes his years writing for the New Yorker and covering the OJ Simpson trial which led to his second book, The Run of His Life.  Jeffrey then explains the writing process that has allowed him to complete nine books so far, including his strategy of writing about topics that have not been covered extensively by other authors, his absolute commitment to write 1,250 words per day for the project he is working on, and his habit of beginning to write each chapter in the middle and only writing the opening of the chapter later.  John and Jeffrey then discuss why books on trials are so popular, including how trials are “perfect dramatic stages” and good trial lawyers are experts in both emphasizing the dramatic elements in stories and making issues interesting and meaningful to non-lawyers.  Finally, John and Jeffrey discuss their favorite books about trial lawyers and personal insights into the most unforgettable lawyers Jeffrey has met including Johnnie Cochran, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

O.J. Simpson was just one in a cast of many unforgettable characters from 'The Trial of the Century' that ended in his acquittal.Kato Kaelin, Judge Lance Ito, Robert Shapiro, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Johnnie Cochran, Christopher Darden, LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman, and Marcia Clark made for a stranger-than-fiction television courtroom drama. And Dan was right in the middle of it, the entire way.Dan recounts his accurate early-on prediction of Simpson's 'not guilty' verdict and where it all went wrong for the LAPD and the prosecution in the case.

For three decades, since its founding in 1992 at Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law, the Innocence Project has led a national effort to exonerate wrongly convicted defendants through scientific advances in DNA technology. That work has led to the exoneration of hundreds of wrongly convicted defendants, some of them on death row. Justin and Geonard interviewed the founders of the Innocence Project, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. 

Built on a foundation of conjecture and best guesses that were never adequately tested according to any valid scientific principles, arson evidence experts have been telling juries for decades that one can definitively determine that a fire was intentionally set is completely wrong. But why, after generations of experts have all been proven wrong, is there still an unwillingness to change? Barry Scheck, Co-Founder of the Innocence Project, discusses Arson Evidence with Josh. Kate Judson, Executive Director of the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, updates Josh Dubin's Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science.  To learn more and get involved, please visit: https://cifsjustice.org/donate/ 2009 Article in The New Yorker by David Grann https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/junk-science Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Barry Scheck put DNA evidence on the map during the O.J. Simpson trial and now runs the amazing Innocence Project.Barry Scheck, a titan of the criminal defense bar, sits down with David Oscar Markus to discuss high profile cases, exonerating the innocent, and the practice of law. He's one of the best and it shows.

Founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, the Innocence Project works to free the innocent, prevent wrongful convictions, and create fair, compassionate, and equitable systems of justice for everyone. Alicia Cepeda Maule is the Innocence Project's first Digital Engagement Director. Since 2015 she led the organization in exponential audience growth, revenue, and advocacy including campaigns that helped stop the execution of Pervis Payne and Rodney Reed. Prior, Alicia worked in digital for President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and msnbc.com. She has a B.A. in Africana Studies from Brown University. Barry Scheck is is a co-founder and director of the Innocence Project as well as a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. He has also served as the president of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in the past and has taught legal ethics, forensic science and trial practice to law students, attorneys and judges. Scheck is a recipient of National Trial Lawyers Lifetime Achievement Award. He has also received New York State Bar Association gold medal.

In 2017, JJ finally gets some good news. After years of denials and setbacks, he would appear before a judge for the first time since his conviction. A new judge would determine whether JJ's rights were violated when the prosecutor at his trial withheld police reports related to his case – reports that, 10 months earlier, had arrived in Dan's mailbox.But the judge ultimately denies JJ's request for a new trial. Dan and JJ are devastated. JJ explores other avenues for getting released. He applies for clemency, but year after year, the governor passes him over. Then, in 2020, the pandemic hits. The world stops. And JJ experiences the pandemic behind bars.

In August of 2021, Governor Andrew Cuomo grants JJ executive clemency. Three weeks later, JJ steps out of Sing Sing a free man. But he wasn't exonerated. In the eyes of the law, he was still a convicted felon. Within the first 24 hours of his release, JJ needs to check in with the parole office. He has a curfew. He has to get permission to travel out of state. As he likes to say, he's freer, but not free.Soon after his release, JJ gets a job at the Frederick Douglass Project. He's invited to give talks, run workshops. His life is focused on connecting people on the outside with those on the inside. And unbelievably, his work leads to a meeting with the President of the United States.

By 2015, JJ had been locked up for nearly 18 years. His mom, Maria, drives to Sing Sing to visit him on his 40th birthday and reflects on how much it hurts to watch him age in prison. In the last decade, JJ has built a rich life in prison in order to survive. He talks about his involvement in the prison's programs, like organizing fundraisers and leading workshops. He was even elected by the prison's population to speak for them when issues came up. He says this work has given him purpose, but it also helps distract him from the trauma of being incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit. While all of this is happening, JJ's older son, Jon, gets into more trouble. He's arrested on charges of burglary. He hides out in a motel room, and Dan goes to check on him there. Dan also follows up on old and new leads in JJ's case. And then one day, he gets a yellow envelope in the mail. 

It's been eight months since Dan's investigation into JJ's case aired on Dateline. When he visits JJ at Sing Sing, JJ is frustrated—he thought he'd be out by now. But the Manhattan DA is looking into his case. In 2010, Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance created a conviction integrity unit focused on investigating claims of innocence. Bob Gottlieb and Celia Gordon, JJ's lawyers, are confident that this unit will determine that he was wrongfully convicted.Meanwhile, Bob and Celia hear from a woman who claims she and a friend know Mustafa: the NYPD's “primary target” for the murder of Al Ward. Dan follows up on this lead and travels to Seattle, where he interviews both women. They tell him their friend Mustafa confessed to killing Al Ward. Dan tracks down this Mustafa, and in a tense interview, tries to determine whether this man is the real killer.

Dan tracks down Juror Number Six: Ramon Aviles. Ramon remembers the moment when the 84-year-old eyewitness, Dorothy Canady, pointed him out as the shooter. He says he was shocked and that people were laughing. The juror breaks down what he remembers from the deliberation room and ultimately admits he might have made a mistake in voting to convict JJ.Dan starts to wonder if other jurors from JJ's trial would feel the same way. He meets up with a different juror and when she sees Dan, she immediately starts to cry. She says she felt pressured by some of the other jurors to convict JJ because they were sequestered and wanted to go home. More than decade later, she believes she ruined JJ's life.Dan is stunned. He's building a compelling case for JJ's innocence, but there's still one more person he needs to talk to: JJ's alleged accomplice, the man with the duct tape, Derry Daniels. Dan visits Daniels, who refuses to talk to him, but Dan is now certain that JJ did not get a fair trial. He sits down with Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, to talk through the case. Barry explains how eyewitness accounts can be unreliable. 

It turns out, back in 1998, just days after the crime, the NYPD had a main suspect for the murder of Al Ward: a man named Mustafa. Dan tries to find out more about Mustafa and understand why this lead was dropped after JJ's name entered the case. He also learns that JJ's legal team had a court-assigned private investigator. Dan tracks down that private investigator, and discovers that he hardly looked into JJ's case. He didn't know about Mustafa and he never interviewed the eyewitnesses to the murder of Al Ward.So Dan decides to do what the private investigator didn't do – investigate JJ's case. In the summer of 2009, Dan finds Augustus Brown, the key witness, the man who first identified JJ. He's incarcerated at the Elmira Correctional Facility in upstate New York. Dan pays him a visit. 

JJ Velazquez claimed he had an alibi: a 74-minute phone call on a landline with his mother, Maria Velazquez, that overlapped with the time of the crime. So Dan visits Maria. She lives in a town in New York on the Hudson River directly across from Sing Sing, the maximum security prison where her son is incarcerated. Maria talks to Dan about JJ's childhood. And she recounts in detail her memory of January 27th, 1998, the day of Al Ward's murder.Meanwhile, Dan is still familiarizing himself with JJ's case file. There are thousands of pages of documents that sit in a box by his desk. He starts to work his way through the trial transcript. Immediately, it's clear to him that the trial was strange. As Dan unpacks what happened in the courtroom, he's left with more questions than answers. Prosecutors say five people identified JJ as the man who killed Al Ward. Dan decides to find them. 

In December of 2002, NBC News Producer Dan Slepian got a letter from a New York State maximum security prison. It was detailed and meticulous, almost like it had been written by a lawyer. It was from a man serving 25 years to life for murder. And it ended with a desperate plea: look into my case.In 1998, Jon-Adrian “JJ” Velazquez was arrested for killing a retired New York City police officer. A year later, he was convicted of second degree murder. But he insisted he didn't do it. Dan was skeptical. Prosecutors said five eyewitnesses had sworn JJ was the killer. Could five people be wrong?So Dan pays JJ a visit. And at the end of it, JJ gives Dan a challenge: prove me guilty.

In December of 2002, NBC News producer Dan Slepian got a letter from a New York state prison. It was detailed and meticulous, almost like it had been written by a lawyer. But it wasn't. It was from a man serving 25 years to life for murder. And it ended with a desperate plea: look into my case.Jon-Adrian “JJ” Velazquez had been convicted of killing a retired New York City police officer, but he insisted he didn't do it. Dan was skeptical. Prosecutors said five eyewitnesses had sworn JJ was the killer. Could five people be wrong?But JJ was adamant about his innocence. He had devoted years to fighting his case, spending hours in the law library, poring over every page of his file. He was confident that if Dan looked into it, he'd see the truth. He even challenged Dan to prove him guilty.So Dan began to dig. What he discovered went far beyond just JJ's case. And 20 years later, it's still unfolding.Letters from Sing Sing tells the story of a man convicted of murder, a journalist, and the letter that changed both of their lives. New episodes drop every Monday through March 27, 2023.

The case I have for you today is the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, which has been the most requested by our listeners since Paige and I started The Murder Diaries. Honestly we avoided it for a long time, because of the amount of rumors and theories there are about what “really” happened. You can literally spend years going down rabbit holes on some of these arguments, but the thing is, no matter how convincing a theory might be, JonBenét Ramsey's murder remains unsolved to this day, and she deserves to have her story told. And not in the way that the true community has done so over the years, inadvertently immortalizing her as a child beauty queen. When it comes down to it, JonBenét Ramsey was a 6-year-old girl, whose life and future were stolen from her. This is her story. RESOURCES: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder,_Colorado  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey  https://criminalminds.fandom.com/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey  https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/jonbenet-ramsey-house https://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014k.htm https://www.truecrimeedition.com/post/jonbenet-ramsey https://www.biography.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-investigation-timeline  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Smit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_(forensic_scientist)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Scheck  https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2020/11/the-best-arguments-that-burke-did-it-in-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Douglas  https://www.bustle.com/articles/183062-who-is-john-e-douglas-the-jonbenet-ramsey-criminal-profiler-is-still-in-the-spotlight-for  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Spitz Music Used: Walking with the Dead by Maia Wynne Link: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Maiah_Wynne/Live_at_KBOO_for_A_Popcalypse_11012017 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Fretless by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3777-fretless License: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Lobby Time by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3986-lobby-time License: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Ghost Story by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://filmmusic.io/song/3805-ghost-story License: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Our Links: Website: https://themurderdiariespodcast.com/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/themurderdiariespod Buy Us a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/mdiariespod Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/themurderdiariespod/ TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZTdgBwpV1/ Edited by: https://www.landispodcastediting.com/

MSNBC's Ari Melber hosts "The Beat" on Wednesday, September 14 and reports on another Trump insider, "Pillow Guy" Mike Lindell's phone being seized by the FBI. Plus, Innocence Project Co-Founder Barry Scheck joins on DNA evidence, wrongful convictions and criminal justice reform. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, Fmr. ODNI General Counsel Robert Litt and Mother Jones' David Corn join.

Over the last few years...Gregg Popovich has seemingly been on a mission to tarnish his NBA legacy. Over the weekend...Gregg Popovich attended a Social Justice Summit to present an award to Barry Scheck and The Innocence Project. During his speech...Gregg Popovich went off on another one of his woke tangents. We reveal and react to the speech from Gregg Popovich at the Social Justice Summit. We question whether Gregg Popovich believes what he promotes...and discuss how he's lost touch with age both on and off the court.

With all the High-profile instances of law enforcement behaving badly have made the issue of police accountability a priority. Too often abuses of power by the police, whether through excessive force, profiling, stop and frisk or other tactics, even if caught on tape, go unpunished. Therefore this week's conversation will be focus strategies to advocate for change! The Justice for Gerard Movement presents….. TURNING A MOMENT INTO A MOVEMENT! Friday April 22, 2022 6pm EDT So join Jay Love Host, -Attorney Hugo Mack, -Trischè Duckworth, -Alexanderia Hughes -Rev Tia Littlejohn along with our guest: Attorney David Robinson Robinson and Associates P.C. 28145 Greenfield Road Suite 100 Southfield, MI 48073 248-423-7234 248-423-7227 (fax) Topic: Advocating for Police Accountability "Community Accountability" Addressing Harm, Hurt and Healing for Safer Communities pt 3" David A. Robinson was born in Detroit, Michigan. Attorney Robinson worked for the Detroit Police Department both as an officer and an attorney. He served the Detroit Police Department for 13 years, as legal advisor to the department. He also defended officers in civil litigation. As part of his responsibilities, he was required to teach the legal section to recruits in the Detroit Metropolitan Police Academy. During these same years, Attorney Robinson obtained a part-time teaching position at Wayne State University Criminal Justice Department. Attorney David Robinson has litigated in the area of police misconduct for both defense and plaintiffs. He has taken, to settlement or verdict, hundreds of police misconduct matters involving the gamut of wrongful arrests to wrongful deaths at the hands of police officers. He has litigated cases in federal court and circuit courts in the tri-county areas as well as courts in the states of Ohio and Louisiana. David associated with Johnny Cochran, Barry Scheck, and Peter Neufeld (of O.J. Simpson fame), in the wrongful conviction case of Eddie Joe Lloyd, which resulted in a settlement of $4,000,000. This case also resulted in an agreement whereby the City of Detroit conceded that all interrogations and interviews of suspects in serious offenses will be recorded, including police chase cases, accident cases and other police shooting cases not resulting in death. In addition, Attorney Robinson has litigated cases involving the death of pre-trial detainees in Detroit jails which resulted in six and seven figure settlements. The Detroit Jailhouse litigation was instrumental in the closure of the 8th and 9th floors of the DPD lockups. David has also represented citizens who were wrongfully held as witnesses by DPD homicide. These cases were brought under federal civil rights statutes and demonstrated the abject failure of the DPD homicide section to honor the Constitutional rights of Detroit citizens. These cases have resulted in settlements; the most egregious among them was one that involved the wrongful arrest and detention of more than 40 citizens in the investigation of a single homicide. Attorney David Robinson has authored a book on the subject called “You See a Hero, I see a Human Being.” It is available at momentumbooks.com and Amazon. The E-book is available at iTunes. Website: www.davidarobinsonlaw.com www.change.org/Justice4Gerard

Introduction: Caleb O. BrownClark Neily talks to Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Christina Swarns of the Innocence Project on their fight to exonerate the wrongfully convictedAdam Schuster of the Illinois Policy Institute on why public pension reform is important not just for IllinoisMichael Cannon on Health Savings Accounts reforming American health careScott Lincicome on the current availability of rapid take home COVID-19 testsMustafa Akyol on his new book, Why, as a Muslim, I Defend Liberty See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Last week, the Cato Institute gave the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty to The Innocence Project for its work exonerating the wrongly convicted and recommending policy change supporting a better criminal justice system. Cato's Clark Neily sat down with Innocence Project cofounders Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and executive director Christina Swarns at a dinner honoring their achievements advancing human liberty. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Peter Neufeld is a civil rights lawyer and the co-founder of the Innocence Project. During over conversation, Peter talks about how and why he and Barry Scheck created The Innocence Project, the importance of DNA testing in exonerating wrongly convicted citizens, common scientific and procedural errors that have been used to convict defendants, and how our culture might create a more fair and impartial criminal justice system.------------Support this podcast via VenmoSupport this podcast via PayPalSupport this podcast on Patreon------------Show notesLeave a rating on SpotifyLeave a rating on Apple PodcastsFollow Keep Talking on Twitter, Instagram, and FacebookListen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube------------(0:00) Intro(02:52) Peter shares what got him to found the Innocence Project(06:07) What were the issues in society back when Peter started the Innocence Project?(09:31) Peter shares what got him interested in law(12:15) The story behind starting the Innocence Project(18:41) Peter talks about his relationship with the Innocence Project co-founder, Barry Scheck(20:57) Why and how scientists use DNA typing(26:41) Peter's thoughts on the systems that needed to be changed prior to founding the Innocence Project(30:55) How DNA testing was used to exonerate innocent people or to potentially introduce incontrovertible evidence that proved a person's innocence(39:21) Peter talks about the emotional satisfaction he receives through his work. He also lists the first few cases that the Innocence Project took up(46:43) How the Innocence Project accepted cases at its beginning, and how that evolved over the years(51:46) How the Innocence Project has helped society at large(55:01) What are the hurdles to achieving a more just criminal justice system?(01:04:54) How Peter feels about the existing judicial system, and hope for improvement(01:08:24) What are the ways normal people could try to help the Innocence Project(01:14:35) What percentage of the population of convicted criminals, according to Peter, have likely been wrongly convicted?(01:27:48) What's the right attitude to have as a citizen and juror?(01:33:17) Some changes Peter wishes to see in America's criminal justice system

This week is a REAL thought exercise. We examine the death penalty and the ethics/morality of it all. This episode is informative and will definitely challenge you to articulate your own thoughts on the issue. There is no “answer” so to speak, but these are incredibly important points to think about when it comes to the structure of our society.  Charity/Nonprofit:The Innocence Project: founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.  The Innocence Project's mission is to free the staggering number of innocent people who remain incarcerated, and to bring reform to the system responsible for their unjust imprisonment. To learn more and donate please visit innocenceproject.orgBlack Lives Matter: Blacklivesmatter.com Follow us on IG & Twitter@thesospodSubscribe and review on Youtube, iTunes, Spotify, Google, and more....here's to turning meltdowns into magic!

Open Mike has made it to triple-digits! On our landmark, 100th installment, Mike reunites with three former guest exonerees, Aaron Salter, Julie Baumer, and Kenny Wyniemko, as well as two journalists who have been blazing a path to illuminate the wrongful conviction crisis, Kevin Dietz and Bill Proctor. In this groundbreaking centenary episode, our guests reflect on their detestable experiences in the criminal justice system, update us on their current initiatives and whereabouts, and offer us their opinions on the future of the justice reform movement amidst a still-divided political climate. Plus… Mike provides a development on his own plans to dive headfirst into the arena of justice reform. Show Notes  [00:01] Mike Morse: Well first, let me start out by saying thank you for everyone being here. It's a trip down memory lane. Seeing all your faces, Julie and Aaron and Kenny and Bill and Kevin Dietz, celebrating our 100th episode… I didn't think we would get here. When I started the podcast, it was just kind of out of fun. And I wanted to learn, and I wanted to do something because podcasts were all the rage. I never thought we’d get to 100 podcasts. The fact that you guys are here to help me celebrate 100 is very meaningful to me. The fact that my producers just told me that we're over 3 million downloads and listens. That's rare. When I started this podcast, we didn't know which direction fully it was going to go. And when I first met Aaron Salter, Episode 32, and Aaron told me his story, I remember the emotions, I remember the sadness, I remember the shock. Being a lawyer, 28 years handling only civil cases… that this was happening in our justice system was outrageous to me. And then meeting Kenny and Julie and several others, it really did affect me, it really did change me. And at the end of this podcast, I'm going to make an announcement, I'm going to tell you guys something that I haven't told many people. All of your sharing, and courage, and love that you've shown me… and the fact that we are now friends, we talk, we have lunch, we text each other, we help each other — it’s changed my life for the better. And it's meaningful to me, and the fact that it's only been a year and a half that I didn't think this was coming. And then I'm still growing up as an attorney and learning things about the law, which I admit I think is pretty cool. So, I thank Kevin Dietz for introducing me to this stuff, because I was probably your idea to have Aaron on, and introducing me to these amazing people has changed my life. And to be quite honest, it’s changed my family's life. I have three daughters, two of them are in college, and they are watching our episodes. They were both social work, social work, education majors, and now they're talking to me about social justice classes. They're talking to me about law school. And I think it's because of the three of you, and Bill, and others. I wasn't even planning on talking about that, but that's true. I mean, I was sitting with my freshmen last night looking at her classes, and she was looking at social justice and criminal reform and classes like that. It's hard to turn away, it's hard to not want to learn more and hear more. [02:56] MM: So, saying all that, I'm going to start with Aaron Salter. And Aaron, your story is amazing, heartbreaking. Scary that it could happen to such a nice young man who was, you know, won a partial college scholarship on his way to Arkansas. And the fact that this happened to you, I'd like you to tell our listeners and viewers who maybe didn't see Episode 32 a little bit about what happened you starting in 2003?   [05:01] In 2003, Aaron was with his cousin when a drug deal went awry, and his cousin was shot twelve times — and survived. The person who shot Aaron’s cousin shot another person three days later, and Aaron was misidentified as the perpetrator. [05:21] MM: Where were you when you were arrested? You were at a family member's house? [07:21] Aaron Salter: From the very beginning, a female named Joanne Thomas, the deceased’s sister, actually stood up in court and said she knew I didn’t kill her brother, that the person who killed him was a guy named E. Everybody should have been stepping up to be like, “Well, okay, I knew there are holes in this case, I know that testimony is powerful.” There is no way that I should have still gone to prison. Like that should have been a wake-up call for somebody, somewhere to be like, Okay, well, maybe we rushed this. But they didn't do it. [08:26] Kevin Dietz: And then you end up in prison. Did you realize at some point, “Wow, innocent people end up in prison, this happens in real life?” [9:03] KD: What was the key to getting out, what was the turning point? [9:06] AS: Man, the turning point was when my when my federal defender team actually submitted an application to the conviction integrity unit. And when they did that, I was out within like 30 to 60 days. [09:26] MM: Refresh our memories —what was the smoking gun that that the conviction integrity unit, hung their hat on to finally allow you out? [10:35] MM: Prosecution withheld your mugshot from defense until the conviction integrity unit was just able to access it from the evidence room. Why didn’t they want you to have thar? [10:39] AS: Because for one my whole claim was suggestive identification. [10:55] MM: Didn't your height and weight not add up to a witness? Weren't there witness identifications that were skinnier and shorter? [11:50] MM: You were also in prison with the man who actually committed the crime, is that true? [12:53] AS: Absolutely. I was in a prison with him. He wrote a letter to my attorney saying that he’ll be able to help me if I can assign some type of contract to compensate him for a statement. But my attorney ruled his stuff out — you’re basically putting your testimony for hire man, so that's not even credible. We couldn't even use him if we wanted to… but he reached out to my attorney and everything organically. [14:44] MM: One of the biggest things I've learned over the last year and a half is that if you're paroled in Michigan, for a crime you committed, you have all these wonderful benefits. You get money, you get housing, job help, medical…. But if you're exonerated for a crime you didn't commit, you get nothing. You saw a void in this system, and you bought you use your hard-earned money that you got after your lawsuit. And you bought a house so you could put people up. Tell us a little bit about that. [16:09] MM: A lot of us are wearing or have these pins that I'm showing to the camera: Innocence Maintained: Better not Bitter. Can you tell our listeners and viewers what this is? [16:49] MM: Tell us about this app you’ve created for exonerees — how is it going to help people who are wrongfully convicted? [17:43] The app will be revealed on August 15th at an Exoneree Awards ceremony taking place at the Detroit Yacht Club. [18:17] MM: That’s awesome! Save us a table — we’re coming. We're going to turn to Julie Baumer who's sitting to your right. Julie Baumer, Episode 77 on the Open Mike Show. Julie has another really heartbreaking story. She was arrested for doing the right thing, seeking medical help for her for her sick baby nephew. She was convicted with no evidence of any abuse. Just two doctors testifying about Shaken Baby Syndrome, which we now know is junk science. It's such junk science that they’ve changed the name to Abusive Head Trauma. You had a terrible defense attorney, not presenting any evidence in your first trial to help you. And you had the first case at the Michigan Innocence Clinic in Ann Arbor took that did not involve DNA evidence. So, you are kind of a famous person up there. But tell us a little bit about your story. And for the people who have not heard or seen it. [19:43] Julie Baumer: Basically, my younger sister ended up getting pregnant, it was an unplanned pregnancy. With the support of my family, I chose to do an in-family adoption. After Philip was born, he was hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit for about a week. So, we knew that there was going to be some form of complications. We didn't know the extent of it. When he was five weeks old, he basically had a medical breakdown, if you will, because he completely stopped eating. And he just became very lethargic. So of course, I called his pediatrician and, and by direction of his pediatrician, I took him into the ER in Macomb County. The county transferred him down to Children's Hospital where, 24 hours later, he was undergoing brain surgery to relieve pressure in his brain. His brain had swollen. 24 hours after that, I was invited into the sheriff's department to interview. At that point I was I realized that I was a suspect for child abuse. And so immediately, my family and I started our defensive. Initially we went back to the birth, which was traumatic, during which my sister had been given two doses of Pitocin. So, we thought there were some definite issues during the birth. However, several months later, I was formally charged with child abuse first degree. And 18 months later, I was convicted and sentenced to 15 years. [22:06] MM: You actually had two trials… what happened after your first conviction? [22:10] JB: I immediately began the appeal process. After I exhausted all of my appeals by the grace of God, ironically, that same year in 2009, U of M, opened up the non-DNA Innocence Clinic and I was able to get my case heard. I was granted a second trial, where I had several doctors who testified on my behalf that weren't available during my first trial. They clearly stated that there was no crime committed at all. Unfortunately, my nephew had suffered a form of childhood stroke, venous sinus thrombosis. And I was exonerated completely. [23:36] MM: How long were you in prison? [23:45] MM: Thank God you had good attorneys for after the second trial. You’ve been out ten years — can you give us an update on your life? What are you doing these days? [24:09] JB: I've nestled myself into a nice little community where I work as a realtor. And to fill some void and give my part back, I indulged in several service clubs, and do a lot of volunteer work. [24:38] MM: Well, thank you for sharing your story again with us today. All the details, Julie Baumer, Episode 77, on the Open Mike Show. And last but not least, Kenny Wyniemko one of the craziest stories I think anybody could ever hear. We did two episodes on Kenny, 45 and 50. As I'm interviewing more people, getting myself into this world, your story almost checks all the boxes of what could go wrong in one of these types of cases. Starting with, dirty cops, a jailhouse snitch, a corrupt prosecutor, a bad judge. On and on — and that's probably why Netflix did a whole show on you. That's probably why you have this fabulous book that your friend Bob wrote about you, Deliberate Injustice. Kenny, I think about your story all the time, as I do with all the stories. You're also you're wearing your Innocence Project shirt, which will tell us about… For the viewers who have not seen our four plus hours on you, why don't you give us a couple minutes on what happened to you? [26:31] Kenny Wyniemko: Well, first of all, Mike, thank you for the kind words. It's always a pleasure being with you and my fellow exonerees. What happened to me unfortunately, I was arrested in 1994, and charged 10 weeks after this rape happened. And at the time that rape happened, it was a big story in the Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, Macomb Daily, our local paper. And I remember reading about the rape and thinking to myself that, no one should have to go through that. No way. July 14th, 10 weeks later, I was arrested and charged with 15 counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct, one count of Breaking and Entering, and one count of Armed Robbery… [34:41] MM: It’s a good story, and it leads into why you think you were behind bars for so many years. What was your next encounter with the Clinton Township police? [35:19] On July 14th, 1994, Kenny was awoken by a woman in a business suit asking if he was Kenny Wyniemko. When he responded affirmatively, she moved aside, and four police officers rushed into his living room, pinned him down, handcuffed him, and took him to the Macomb County police department to be identified in a lineup. He had no idea what they were talking about, requested to call an attorney, and was denied. Kenny was put in a lineup, but ultimately released from the station. When he returned home to shower, a plain clothes police officer refused to let Kenny in until the police had a search warrant, pulling a gun on Kenny and pointing it at his head. Kenny went to his parents to shower and, upon his return, found that his house had been ransacked by the police and unnecessarily vandalized. The next day, he returned home after going to the grocery store to replace broken items and was met by eight police — some with sawed-off shotguns — who stated he had been identified in the previous day’s lineup and was under arrest. [42:48] MM: As you’re talking, I'm now remembering why we spent so many hours with you — because you're a damn good storyteller. For those of you who are interested, Episodes  45 and 50 have so many twists and turns. For those of you who want to hear more, be sure to check out those episodes. Now, I want to turn to now is your work with Innocence Project. [43:58] KW: Well, this project is responsible for my release! I was still locked up in prison and I happened to see Barry Scheck on Phil Donahue Show talking about how he's working with DNA that would prove someone's guilt or innocence. So, I wrote to him with a packet of the facts surrounding my case, asking for help. About five months later, he wrote back saying that the information sounded serious. However, he had a backlog of about 4,000 cases… that was the bad news. The good news was they were going to open up a private Innocence Project at Cooley Law School in Lansing. I was their first case and they got me out. [45:20] MM: You told me before we started filming today that you were the second person in Michigan and the 129th person in the country to be granted a DNA release? [45:34] KW: In Michigan, we're up to 130, but nationwide, as of last Friday, we’re up to 2,755. It’s still just the tip of the iceberg, and that’s why I’m proud to be part of Proving Innocence with Bill Proctor. There’s no more worthy cause in the world. [46:05] MM: We're hearing about people getting out every week, which is an amazing, amazing thing. I want to turn to Bill Proctor now, who was kind enough to come on Open Mike Episode 51. Bill works tirelessly for wrongfully convicted people. He's a member of the Michigan Broadcasters Hall of Fame, and the founder of Proving Innocence. Today he runs Seeking Justice, currently on the trail of Who Killed Shannon Siders, which is an amazing website… Bill, thank you for coming to the show today. Tell me how you got involved fighting for the wrongfully convicted. [47:00] Bill Proctor: I was lucky enough to have an almost 40-year career in television and was a reporter, anchor. But had a private investigator in 1994 bring me a case out of Port Huron. This was a strange situation where a college student was murdered in broad daylight on a community college in 1986. Well, lots of twists and turns brought the police to a fella named Frederick Thomas Freeman. And Mr. Freeman had the misfortune of dating, for maybe two weeks, the girlfriend/fiancé of the murder victim. While the police looked at his general level of misconduct, that never indicated something so serious as to felony level. He wrote a couple of bad checks, drove a motorcycle without a license, those kinds of silly things. But he was just kind of an arrogant tough guy who thought he was God's gift to women. Bottom line is they put together a case that to this day is the most ridiculous presentation you've ever seen in your life that essentially convicted an innocent man. That was in 1986, for the trial. I took on the case 1994- 95 and was among the first reporters in the state of Michigan to essentially step out in a big way to present an actual innocence claim. The claim was extremely strong with a jailhouse snitch who got rewarded to make statements about what he heard in a jail cell that Freeman allegedly said girls who claimed that he was some sort of ninja master who could levitate himself from one another room to another that kind of thing, throwing stars all this kind of stuff. And the real bottom line was, this was a shot gun murder in broad daylight on the college campus. Freeman, with all of his martial arts prowess, could have snapped this neck quietly and walked away with no problem. That didn't happen. This, we strongly believe today, had to do with drugs, mayoral connection to drug dealers, corruption, and bad actors. What I learned from that case, from a private investigator, is that there are so many elements of a trial that can misrepresent the truth… [50:36] MM: And this person is still sitting in prison today, right? [51:10] BP: The list that you've heard from your guests, the list of the tens of thousands of cases that have been examined by a number of innocence projects around the country, have come down to a very comprehensive, constant evaluation of the problem of wrongful conviction in America. Six, seven, maybe eight specific reasons for all of them…. The list is long. It's difficult, Michael, and yes, the entire country needs to know that this is more than a notion more than a TV show. More than a television series. These are people whose lives and the lives of their families are ruined by bad work in the criminal justice system. [54:03] MM: And from all accounts. Bill, you are helping so many people you're working as a private investigator trying to get people out. I know what good work you do. I've seen it. The new the new case that you're working on is very compelling. Do you want to tell a little bit about that and direct people to that website so they can so we can let the world know what's happening? [58:03] KW: Bill was talking about eyewitness misidentification being a leading cause. It is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. And if you look at the facts, amongst the exonerees, all of us are throughout the country, the eyewitness identification has been proven wrong 78% of the time. 78%. That's scary numbers. [58:56] Mike, Aaron, Julie, Kenny, spend time comparing multiple identical factors that contributed to their wrongful convictions: poor defense attorneys, aggressive prosecuting attorneys, tunnel vision, eyewitness errors, bad forensic science, perjury, and official misconduct. [1:01:18] MM: We’ve done six or seven wrongful exonerees interviews. And the thing that amazes me is the perception of how bitter you all should be. But you have found the spirit to work hard and help others who are left behind in these exact situations. You've started nonprofits, you've been vocal about injustice, you lecture, you help pass laws. So, I want you to all tell me why? Why do you feel the way do you do? How do you keep a positive attitude? And why are you trying to help others? [1:04:54] MM: A key to the future in this fight for justice is awareness, education, breaking down the stigma associated with being an exoneree. Tell me about how your family, friends, and even strangers treated you after you got released from prison. [1:08:04] MM: Bill, I want to ask you — how do we keep the pressure up on those in the justice system to prioritize freeing innocent people over putting people away?   [1:08:23] BP: At this stage in the country, we have a serious problem. Because at one point, you might be able to get everyone elected to a legislature to sit around a table, listen to suggestions, and walk down a road of some reasonable compromise. I'm sorry, Mike, I don't think it's going to happen now. I think the lunatic in the White House for four years, his year before, and his continued effect on this population means that not enough people of reason, open mind, and open hearts will sit at a table and make changes in laws. I just need to remind everybody that what happens in the criminal justice system is essentially a wonderfully written set of laws and rules and processes and procedures. But we forget that people administer those laws. People have human failures. People do things that they're not supposed to do under law, or even in ethical or moral practice. I really don't know where we start, Mike. But everybody should know that. Yes. Not only do wrongful convictions happen, but they can be prevented. And yes, if somebody is telling you and insisting from the very beginning at trial or charges that they didn't do it, every single friend that's possible needs to step up and listen and try to help before the conviction takes place. [1:09:50] MM: You would think that all of the news that's being made about wrongful convictions, and the integrity units, and podcasts like this with 3 million eyeballs on them… that people will start getting the message…. My hope is that if there are people out there who have said things to police that aren't true, that they will come forward and say, “You know what, I might have made a mistake.” And I know that takes courage. And I encourage people to gather that courage because you have beautiful souls who are sitting in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Thousands of people around this country that need the truth to be told. And I want to thank you all again, for being here. I want to thank you for sharing your stories, because I know it's not easy. And I want to tell the three of you that after hearing your stories, and learning from Bill, and watching the movies and reading your books, that the Mike Morse Law Firm has decided to put — lack of a better word — our money where our mouth is, our energy where our mouth is. And we have taken on a case of a man that, I believe, did not get a fair trial on a Shaken Baby Syndrome case. A man who's sitting in prison for life and did not get a fair trial. He had a terrible defense attorney, there was not one expert witness called against eight expert witnesses by the state. And I am working hard with a team of lawyers here at the Mike Morse Law Firm to get this man a new trial. This is probably one of the hardest things that my firm has ever done. I am doing it because of you three. You have encouraged me. Throughout it, Bill, you have helped me, and we've had several conversations about taking cases like this. And because this man did not have the quality attorney that he should have, we are going to fight as hard as we know how to get this man a new trial. We will share more details in the coming months. We are in the midst of it right now, getting the evidence, talking to experts, putting together a brief… I'm nervous about it. You get one shot at a 6500 motion, as you guys all know. And I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful. And I just wanted you guys to hear it first.  [1:13:07] KW: Mike, God bless you. I wish that there were more attorneys like you that take the time to help when you see something wrong. You try to right it. I think that's what all of us do. And the bottom line is — all anybody ever wants when it comes to the justice system is the truth. So, I take my hat off to you. I commend you. May God bless you. [1:13:28] AS: Mike. I just want to say one thing, man. I really respect you for doing that. Because when I was in prison, the only thing I wanted was for somebody to pick up my case and help me. So that's real commendable, man. And it's a lot of work, but I know you can do it. [1:13:50] MM: You know what, Aaron, it wouldn't happen had you not come on my show. Or had you guys not introduced me to Dave Moran up at the Innocence Clinic. So, lots of things happen and wouldn't happen if Kevin Dietz, my good friend, didn't suggest we do these episodes on Open Mike. You know, I feel emotional about it. I'm excited about it. I'm nervous about it. I can't believe that we've done 100 episodes! We have gifts for you all that we're going to give you as well. And thanks again for being here.

This week, Jeff Meacham is thinking about LEGEND, which is not something that even Jeff Meacham likes to think about; the gang debates the perks and perils of fame, and comes damn close to thinking about the needs of others, but only for a moment; Creator of ONE DAY AT A TIME Gloria Calderón Kellitt remembers her days working for Cameron Crowe, the great Snapple Incident, and the day that Tom Cruise whispered in her ear. Follow Gloria on Twitter: @everythingloria And on Instagram: @gloriakellett Gloria also mentioned the great work of Operation Pedro Pan. Check it out! And though we discussed helping the world for a briefer time than we discussed Tom’s favorite Snapple flavor, we thought we’d memorialize it here: Leonardo Dicaprio Foundation supports projects around the world that build climate resiliency, protect vulnerable wildlife, and restore balance to threatened ecosystems and communities. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. For the last two years, Joel has raised money for Covenant House through the NY Stage & Screen annual Sleepout. Covenant House is committed to helping find housing, support and education for the over 4 million homeless youth in this country. With your help, we can help them get off the street and look towards a brighter future.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Almost thirty years ago, Barry Scheck and his colleagues at the Innocence Project ushered in a new era of criminal justice reform with their pioneering work in DNA analysis. This week, Barry sits down with Tali to discuss his latest vision for using science to increase public safety: bringing big data to police reform. This podcast is paid for by New Yorkers for Tali. To learn more about Tali's campaign for Manhattan DA, please visit http://taliforda.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

ATTORNEY TODD ESS – Top Five Reasons that Prompt Board of Nursing to Launch Investigation Against Nurses Attorney Todd Ess's passion for justice began when he enrolled in the Criminal Defense Clinic at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. There, he became one of the first law students in Indiana to join Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld's nationally recognized Innocence Project by representing Larry Mayes, then an inmate at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Indiana. He is proud to be apart of the Innocence Project that has helped free hundreds of wrongfully convicted inmates, including many on death row. Since 2001, he has represented clients whose charges ranged from simple misdemeanors to complex felonies. In 2004, he trained at the National Criminal Defense College in Macon, Georgia. Today, he continues his mission to seek justice for each and every client. Currently, Attorney Ess works with Lorie Brown at Brown Law Office. Although attorney Ess is practicing in Indiana and what he discussed pertain to Indiana's BRN rules and regulations, the general information may be relevant to all nurses. Make sure to check with your state to verify and comply with the state's rules and regulations. In this special episode, Attorney Ess discussed the top five common reasons that could prompt investigation by the Board of Nursing against nurses. He will also discuss strategies to prevent them and review the process of the discipline. If you have specific questions for Attorney Todd Ess, please visit www.yournurseattorney.com or you could contact the law office directly at 317-465-1065. This podcast is for general information only and is not intended for medical or legal advice or endorsement of any product or services are a substitute for any adequate training research compliance with established protocols, federal state, or local rules, the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed by the hosts or guests, speakers, or their personal opinions, and not by the opinions of statements of any other organization, agency, employer, or company. Please join us on this unique journey and be part of the movement that will empower healthcare, consumers, and providers to advocate for patients and for themselves, because your voices matter, please subscribe, follow. Join us for a weekly episode. For more information, please visit www.WorldOfNP.com We will see you in our next episode. This podcast is also available in video on YouTube under the World Of NP Podcast as well as other podcast platforms as noted below: Anchor https://anchor.fm/worldofnppodcast Breaker https://www.breaker.audio/world-of-np-podcast Google Podcast https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8yYjNiMzNlOC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw== Pocket Casts --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/worldofnppodcast/message

At age seventeen, Jeffrey Deskovic was wrongfully sentenced to life in prison for the rape and murder of a classmate. Authorities knew his DNA did not match that of the actual perpetrator – who would later murder another young woman and mother of two. Nevertheless, they colluded to convict and keep Jeff behind bars for the next 16 years. After his exoneration and release, Jeff successfully sued the responsible parties, and used a substantial portion of the compensation to start The Deskovic Foundation — a non-profit that overturns wrongful convictions and challenges the policies that enable them. Check out this riveting episode of Open Mike to learn more about Jeff’s post-prison life as a lawyer, the Amazon Prime documentary about his case, and how this traumatizing ordeal helped him find his true vocation. Show Notes [00:13] Jeffrey’s bio and background [01:10] Jeff, you were a sixteen-year-old high school student and you were arrested for rape and murder — can you tell us what that was like? [01:36] What kind of kid were you? [02:14] Why do you think the police targeted you? [02:32] Jeff didn’t necessarily fit in at school, so some students referred police to him. When Jeff was emotional over the untimely murder of a classmate, the police misinterpreted that as a sign of guilt. A psychological profile conducted by the NYPD also draw similarities between Jeff’s personal attributes and that of a potential perpetrator. [03:49] The way you describe those three things… that could have been anybody! There’s no way you could have committed this crime, but I’m reading about a confession you gave while in custody. Tell us about that. [06:42] After a polygraph and interrogating a terrified Jeff for 6.5-7 hours, police eventually broke Jeff into making a false confession. [06:51] Did they say you failed the polygraph? [07:55] After the fact, did you get readouts of this test that showed you came up clean? [08:18] So you were arrested after you gave this nonsensical confession? [08:38] You’re an intelligent guy, you went to law school, you’re now helping others in similar positions. Looking back on that confession, can you shed some light on how easy it is to be coerced into giving a false conviction? [09:55] Was this all on video tape? [10:15] Are there now laws in most states that confessions must be videotaped? [10:32] For the sake of time, you had a public defender, were tried by a jury, and convicted… how bad was your public defender? [12:40] There was some misconduct by a medical examiner, can you give us some details on that? [13:07] Six months after an initial examination, the medical examiner claimed to have remembered he found evidence the deceased victim was “promiscuous” in an attempt to help the prosecutor explain why DNA found at the scene didn’t match Jeff’s. [13:40] Was there prosecutorial misconduct other than that? [14:24] You had a pretty famous prosecutor, yes? [15:37] How long was the jury trial? You’re incarcerated the whole time? [16:04] Did you recant the confession right away and tell your family and lawyer? [16:59] So, you’re tried as an adult, convicted at sixteen-years-old, and sentenced for seventeen to twenty-five years? [17:28] You’re seventeen, you go to prison, are in solitary confinement for twenty-eight days at one point… how horrible was that? Was that the worst part of the experience? [18:32] Being in prison at seventeen years old… and with staff passing around pamphlets to let everyone know you’re this horrible sex offender… that had to have been the scariest thing in the whole world! [19:21] How did you get Barry Scheck and The Innocence Project to take a look at your case? [20:06] Tell us about the DNA. It’s a little bit confusing… Your DNA wasn’t on the scene… what was the new evidence that was presented? [21:15] After technological advancements in DNA testing that allowed for more specificity, it became apparent the DNA belonged to Stephen Cunningham, who had also killed and raped another person. He eventually admitted to the crime Jeff had been accused of. [21:51] In the Amazon Prime Documentary, Conviction, you talk at length about getting that news. What was that experience like? [24:54] The feeling of being released — how do you describe that? [25:28] How was your family? Did they coalesce and reengage with you after all this? [26:58] Jeff had infrequent visitors throughout his prison time, other than his mother who would visit every six months. He was putting ads in the local Sacramento newspaper for pen pals because he was so lonely and bored. He did find a pen pal who provided him moral support and kept him from going over the edge of loneliness. [27:51] It sounds like your family basically abandoned you… but you get out of prison, your wrongful conviction case gets a financial settlement, and then you decide to go to law school? [28:25] It took five years to obtain his settlement, during which Jeff struggled to find employment, housing, building social situations… but he was doing advocacy work in the meantime, and obtained scholarships to help him finish his education. Once he got his settlement, he used the funds to start the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice to help others who are wrongfully convicted and pursue policy changes. As of October 26, 2020, Jeff was officially admitted to the Bar. [30:02] How did you like law school? [32:15] You started this amazing foundation, the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice and have so far freed nine different people who were wrongfully convicted for different reasons, which is AMAZING. You’re using your settlement money to help others… I’m blown away by you. Thank you for what you’re doing for these people, selflessly. What is it about you that is compelling you to do this? [35:17] Jeff is able to remain free of angry and bitterness because he’s already lost so much of his life and doesn’t see any point in not enjoying what he has left. [35:44] It’s truly amazing. And you’re not only helping nine or ten clients, you’re pushing for policy change. What kind of traction have you gotten there? [36:01] Advocacy efforts helped pass a New York state law making video recording mandatory during interrogations, as well as ID reform and DNA database expansion. [38:15] What kind of team do you have working with you and so many initiatives? [40:46] It’s unbelievable. When people hear these stories, one thing they always ask about is immunity. Where are we in this country in holding bad judges, prosecutors, and cops accountable for their dirty tactics in wrongfully convicting people. Is there any movement forward? [44:01] How is your life these days? How is Jeffrey Deskovic doing now? [45:16] You mentioned chess… did you like The Queen’s Gambit? [45:39] What is the Queen’s Gambit, do you use it in your move? [46:12] Jeff normally opens with the French Defence, rather than the Queen’s Gambit. [46:27] Thank you for all the work you do and thank you for appearing on Open Mike. I hope everyone watching spreads word of your advocacy, and donates to your cause. Congratulations on becoming a lawyer, I know you’ll do amazing things. [47:19] Share this episode, check out the documentary Conviction on Amazon Prime, donate some money if you can. Thank you for watching and supporting Open Mike!

The Context of White Supremacy welcomes F. Lee Bailey. One of the most renown litigators in U.S. history, Bailey notoriously won acquittals for the "Boston Strangler" and Dr. Sam Sheppard. The case he is most often is associated with is the 1995 "Trial of the Century," The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. Bailey is known as the architect of Simpson's "Dream Team" defense strategy. Alongside Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro, Barry Scheck, Gerald Uleman and Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., F. Lee Bailey helped demolish the prosecution's case, which was highlighted by the evisceration of Mark Fuhrman. We'll ask Bailey about how White people have treated over the 25 years since the the acquittal. We'll get Bailey's views on the 2016 FX series, which depicted OJ as a no-doubt killer, as well as Jeffrey Toobin's bestseller - which The C.O.W.S. Book Club is reading currently. #DreamTeam INVEST in The COWS – http://paypal.me/TheCOWS Cash App: https://cash.app/$TheCOWS CALL IN NUMBER: 720.716.7300 CODE: 564943#

Wednesday, December 23rd 8:00PM Eastern/ 5:00PM Pacific The Context of White Supremacy welcomes F. Lee Bailey. One of the most renown litigators in U.S. history, Bailey notoriously won acquittals for the "Boston Strangler" and Dr. Sam Sheppard. The case he is most often is associated with is the 1995 "Trial of the Century," The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. Bailey is known as the architect of Simpson's "Dream Team" defense strategy. Alongside Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro, Barry Scheck, Gerald Uleman and Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., F. Lee Bailey helped demolish the prosecution's case, which was highlighted by the evisceration of Mark Fuhrman. We'll ask Bailey about how White people have treated over the 25 years since the the acquittal. We'll get Bailey's views on the 2016 FX series, which depicted OJ as a no-doubt killer, as well as Jeffrey Toobin's bestseller - which The C.O.W.S. Book Club is reading currently. #PenisesOnZoom #ThePeopleVOJSimpson INVEST in The COWS – paypal.me/TheCOWS The C.O.W.S. Cash App: http://Cash.App/$TheCOWS The C.O.W.S. Radio Program is specifically engineered for black & non-white listeners - Victims of White Supremacy. The purpose of this program is to provide Victims of White Supremacy with constructive information and suggestions on how to counter Racist Woman & Racist Man. TUNE IN! Phone: 1-720-716-7300 - Access Code 564943# Hit star *6 & 1 to enter caller cue

Wednesday, December 23rd 8:00PM Eastern/ 5:00PM Pacific The Context of White Supremacy welcomes F. Lee Bailey. One of the most renown litigators in U.S. history, Bailey notoriously won acquittals for the "Boston Strangler" and Dr. Sam Sheppard. The case he is most often is associated with is the 1995 "Trial of the Century," The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. Bailey is known as the architect of Simpson's "Dream Team" defense strategy. Alongside Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro, Barry Scheck, Gerald Uleman and Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., F. Lee Bailey helped demolish the prosecution's case, which was highlighted by the evisceration of Mark Fuhrman. We'll ask Bailey about how White people have treated over the 25 years since the the acquittal. We'll get Bailey's views on the 2016 FX series, which depicted OJ as a no-doubt killer, as well as Jeffrey Toobin's bestseller - which The C.O.W.S. Book Club is reading currently. #PenisesOnZoom #ThePeopleVOJSimpson INVEST in The COWS – paypal.me/TheCOWS The C.O.W.S. Cash App: http://Cash.App/$TheCOWS The C.O.W.S. Radio Program is specifically engineered for black & non-white listeners - Victims of White Supremacy. The purpose of this program is to provide Victims of White Supremacy with constructive information and suggestions on how to counter Racist Woman & Racist Man. TUNE IN! Phone: 1-720-716-7300 - Access Code 564943# Hit star *6 & 1 to enter caller cue

Born in Israel, raised in Orange County, California, Miki Tal first practiced law as a Deputy District Attorney New York City's Bronx County Courthouse. She served a stint as a law clerk in the Alameda County DA's Office, worked as a Deputy DA in Napa County, and served as a Public Defender in Santa Cruz. She now practices criminal law in Alameda County, Federal Court, and throughout Northern California.From Miki's website: Miki is a former prosecutor and public defender who has successfully defended thousands of clients accused of breaking the law including DUI's, drug cases, domestic violence, assaults, homicides, fraud, robberies and gun charges. Miki practices criminal defense in all counties in California, handling misdemeanors, felonies and juvenile cases. Miki is an aggressive trial attorney who tries all types of cases. She handles the toughest cases and has won the respect of judges and prosecutors alike for her tenacious and intelligent defense of her clients. Miki graduated from U.C. Berkeley and Cardozo Law School in New York City. While in law school, she worked for Barry Scheck's Innocence Project to overturn wrongful convictions using DNA evidence. Miki has a passion and talent for battling the police and prosecutors in criminal cases. This is the reason why she only handles criminal cases.lovethylawyer.comA transcript of this podcast is easily available at lovethylawyer.com.Go to Blog for transcript lists.Miki Talhttps://www.mikitalesq.com/ Louis Goodman www.louisgoodman.com louisgoodman2010@gmail.com 510.582.9090 Musical theme by Joel Katz, Seaside Recording, Maui Technical support: Bryan Matheson, Skyline Studios, Oakland We'd love to hear from you. Send us an email at louisgoodman2010@gmail.com. Please subscribe and listen. Then tell us who you want to hear and what areas of interest you’d like us to cover. Please rate us and review us on Apple Podcasts.

Welcome back! It’s Episode 10 of Smoke Til It’s Gone Or Die! This week Patty starts us off with the mysterious death of Azaria Chamberlain and the infamous wrongful conviction of Lindy Chamberlain. If there’s anything we know about Australia, it’s that the wildlife can be dangerous. There’s Dingos out there and they’re snatching your babies up. Hide your kids, hide your wife. And don’t forget the nappies. In a blaze of glory, Rylee and Patty reach their lowest peak yet and roll up a second one for Rylee’s case. Rylee dives into René Descartes, the philosopher who famously wrote, “I think, therefore I am.” But in the most predictable way, this tale of philosophy and conspiracy of murder is mostly a coverup for Rylee to tell us all about one of their favorite historical Lesbian Storylines™. In reference to Patty’s case please research and donate to The Innocence Project at https://www.innocenceproject.org/ The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. As fires on the West Coast of the U.S. continue to rage, we ask you to donate to Wildfire Relief. You can do so at https://www.redcross.org/, and by choosing “Western Wildfires” in the dropdown menu. Please also read the following article from the Marshall Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization that seeks to create and sustain a sense of national urgency about the U.S. criminal justice system. In this article, the Marshall Project outlines the reality that incarcerated people are being put on the front lines of fighting the forest fires, for little or no pay, without having the ability to use that experience to work as a firefighter once reintegrated into society. Read the article here: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/09/02/the-former-prisonersfighting-california-s-wildfires Donate to the Marshall Project here: https://www.themarshallproject.org/donate Thanks for listening! If you’re as stoned as we are by the end of this episode, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to our little podcast on your favorite streaming platform. You can find us on Instagram @stgdpocast, our email is stgdpodcast@gmail.com, and you can become a patron at patreon.com/stgdpodcast. Tell your friends about us! Under Massachusetts’ Chapter 94G and California’s Proposition 64 Bills it is legal for us two assholes to possess and consume MaryJane, medically known as cannabis, in our respective states. We do NOT condone the illegal consumption, possession, or sale of cannabis in places it’s not supposed to be smoked, man handled, or acquired from a legal dispensary. But we DO condone what the awesome humans at Marijuana Policy Project are doing to support legislation at the state and federal level to decriminalize cannabis across the country, and advocate for those who have been incarcerated for cannabis possession. Visit mpp.org for more details. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stgdpodcast/support

Perry Lott is another victim of incorrigible police practices in Ada, Oklahoma. He was charged and convicted of rape in 1987, despite having an alibi. The main evidence against him was that the victim "thought" she recognized him. Perry Lott himself, along with private investigator Shaun Hittle and Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck, discuss the pervasive influence of police misconduct in Ada at the time of his arrest and the suffering Perry endured as a result. Even though Perry was wrongfully incarcerated, he accepted a sentence modification of “time served” in order to regain his life, a deal with the courts that would allow his release from prison but not legally declare his innocence. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Karl Fontenot was convicted for the 1984 murder of Denice Harraway in Ada, Oklahoma. In 2018 Netflix released the documentary ‘The Innocent Man’ based on John Grisham’s only nonfiction book that detailed the crime and, further, the corruption in Ada. One year after the doc’s premiere, Karl was released on bond. Currently, his fate rests in the hands of the prosecutor who has yet to declare whether or not he intends to retry Karl. If Karl loses in a retrial, he will be sent back to prison. Barry Scheck, the co-founder of the Innocence Project, John Grisham, and journalist A.C. Shilton, discuss the false confession that landed Karl in prison and his eventual release after 35 years. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Josh Dubin sits down with Barry Scheck, Co-Founder of the Innocence Project to discuss Arson Evidence. Built on a foundation of conjecture and best guesses that were never adequately tested and confirmed according to any valid scientific principles, what Arson Evidence experts and prosecutors have been telling juries for decades, that one can definitively determine that a fire was intentionally set, is completely wrong. But why, after generations of experts have all been proven wrong, is there still an unwillingness to change? Learn more and get involved. 2009 Article in The New Yorker by David Grann https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire http://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co No1 and PRX.

Founder of the Innocence Project Barry Scheck, answers all questions related to wrongful convictions. Barry Scheck has freed hundreds of wrongfully convicted people from jail, many of whom spent decades in jail for crimes they didn’t commit. Wrongful convictions are not an aberration but a result of the way the system is designed. What can we do to reduce wrongful convictions and free innocent people from jail? Tune in to find out. Also check out the Netflix series The Innocence Files, which is based on Barry Scheck and his work.

In the final episode of Season 1 Andrea is joined by Wade Days, Keith Bruce and Juan Branch where they have a very candid conversation about the BLM Movement and how they're each doing. No stone is left unturned and they get real about growing up Black, they're own experiences with the Police, defunding the police, the Cancel Culture, being in interracial relationships & how the current climate has impacted their conversations, All Lives Matter vs. Black Lives Matter and so much more ... Date and Debate is a proud ally of Black Lives Matter and will be making a $50.00 donation this month to the Innocence Project - The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.If you enjoyed the episode please don't forget to rate and review. Date and Debate will be back with a Series month in two weeks!

Since 1992, the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law has work to exonerate the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and criminal justice reform. Now, the new Netflix docuseries, "The Innocence Files" gives viewers with a glimpse of the work that goes into correcting an injustice. Innocence Project co-founder and co-director of Barry Scheck joins "CBS This Morning" national correspondent to discuss what he hopes viewers learn from the nine-part series.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Since 1992, the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law has work to exonerate the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and criminal justice reform. Now, the new Netflix docuseries, "The Innocence Files" gives viewers with a glimpse of the work that goes into correcting an injustice. Innocence Project co-founder and co-director of Barry Scheck joins "CBS This Morning" national correspondent to discuss what he hopes viewers learn from the nine-part series.

Director Roger Ross Williams and Barry Scheck, co-founder of The Innocence Project, discuss the new Netflix docuseries, “The Innocence Files,” which shines a light on the untold personal stories behind eight cases of wrongful convictions.

On May 5, 1993 three eight year old boys, Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore, were playing their neighborhood when they never returned home. The next day their naked bodies would be found in a place called Robin Hood Hills. A community rattled by an atrocious crime would look furiously for the perpetrators to be held accountable. The investigation, trial, and conviction of Jessie Misskelley Jr., Jason Baldwin, and Damien Echols, would continue to be debated today, when three teenage boys would become the West Memphis Three. Welcome to season two of Sispicion! Organization Spotlight: The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. For more information visit their website at www.innocenceproject.org. Research Sources: "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills," "Paradise Lost 2: Revelations," "Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory" Directors: Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky "West of Memphis" Directed by Amy J. Berg https://www.investigationdiscovery.com/crimefeed/murder/the-west-memphis-three-case-an-evolving-story-of-doubt-misinformation https://www.oxygen.com/crime-time/then-now-the-west-memphis-three https://the-line-up.com/west-memphis-three-where-are-they-now

How does Seth Miller, someone that grew up in a sheltered suburban life, become the Executive Director of the Innocence Project of Florida standing up for marginalized people in our society?With no real direction as a kid, Seth enrolled at Penn State University where he eventually made the decision to come to FSU's College of Law. In his senior year at Penn State and into his years at FSU, Seth's goals had began to evolve. Seth's life would change in January 2003 when Barry Scheck visited FSU's College of Law to launch the Florida Innocence Initiative.

“A man who would not be broken. Not by more than 40 years of solitary in Angola (the Alcatraz of the south in Louisiana) not by maddening injustice in courts, not by beatings, isolation, or loneliness.” Barry Scheck, The Innocence Project. Released after 43 years, for a crime he says he did not commit, Albert Woodfox is the longest-standing solitary confinement prisoner in the U.S. He shares his remarkable story…growing up in poverty in Louisiana, survival in prison, and how he is advocating to seek prison reform, along with his co-counsel, Carine Williams. On this compelling episode of “The Literary Life with Mitchell Kaplan.” This conversation was recorded at Books & Books in Coral Gables, Florida. Host: Mitchell Kaplan Producer: Carmen Lucas Editor:  Lit Hub Radio Links:  https://booksandbooks.com/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/books/review-solitary-albert-woodfox.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/books/review/albert-woodfox-solitary.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/us/on-tortuous-road-to-freedom-angola-three-inmate-albert-woodfox-bides-his-time.html Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our guests today are local attorneys Tommy Guilbeau and Jim Lambert who both believe that Louisiana should outlaw the death penalty. Along with fellow attorney, Paul Hebert, they will be speaking on behalf of the Friends of the Humanities at the Hilliard Art Museum’s Lunch and Learn Series on April 5, 2019, at noon, in conjunction with the exhibition entitled:  Slavery, The Prison Industrial Complex. Note: this event is not a debate or discussion of the morality or legality of the death penalty, but rather an opportunity to provide information and insight to those present.  Attendance is free and you will need to bring your own brown bag lunch. Both Jim and Tommy work directly with persons who have been accused or convicted of committing crimes.  Tommy Guilbeau is a prominent criminal lawyer who has handled seven death penalty cases. He personally witnessed the execution of one of his clients, Dalton Prejean. Tommy is knowledgeable about death row, application of the death penalty and where Louisiana stands today on the death sentence. Jim Lambert has been involved with Kairos Prison Ministry at Angola since 2001. Kairos Prison Ministry’s mission is to "share the transforming love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ to impact the hearts and lives of incarcerated persons and their families, so as to assist them in becoming loving and productive citizens of their communities". While Angola has welcomed Kairos for 25 years, it was only in February 2018 that the Louisiana Department of Corrections allowed inmates on Death Row at Angola to be exposed to the loving message of Kairos. Jim has been meeting with ten Death Row inmates on a spiritual basis at Angola on behalf of Kairos since last February. All Death Row inmates have been there for more than twenty years. Jim shared that the men are not what you'd think: they are intellectual, affable and sociable...his initial expectations were turned upside down as he's gotten to know the men. In Louisiana there are 19 different ways you can be sentenced to death for the killing of another human being: in the great majority of the cases, the perpetrators act in the heat of passion or were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Guilbeau stated that less than 1% of murderers recommit any crimes and as an example mentioned the number of "lifer" inmates that work at the Governors Mansion because they are the best and safest inmates to have around. Who is on Death Row? Mostly people of color populate Death Row and statistics show that one in four cases are reversible, according to The Innocence Project. This group, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. Inadequate counsel and prosecutorial misconduct can result in erroneous convictions that disproportionately affect those who do not have adequate resources to pursue justice. In Louisiana, 69 people are on Death Row, which is a smaller and separate facility contained within the larger complex of Angola. The building is modern and manned by elite security personnel. It has no air conditioning by design, which has generated great controversy. The inmates live in "tiers" in separate 6-by 8-foot cells, and the prisoners can now visit with each other for two hours. In the past, the inmates only had one hour outside of their cells, but a successful lawsuit on the issue of Death Row's cruel and unusual punishment opened up their opportunity to have interactions with others. It has been years since anyone has been executed in Louisiana due to the inability to access the lethal injection drug.  Only one person has been executed since 2000, and that person voluntarily abandoned all of his appeals and was administered the lethal injection in 2010. Louisiana is among the 30 states in the U. S. that allow the death penalty.  In Oregon, Pennsylvania, and California,

This week on Up To 90, we talk Louise Woodward – a 19-year-old British au pair who in 1997 was convicted of the involuntary manslaughter of eight-month-old Matthew Eappen while he was in her care in his home in Newton, Massachusetts, in the United States. The case provoked entrenched responses on both sides as the defense argued against the prosecution’s insistence that this was a clear case of Shaken Baby Syndrome and posited that Matthew’s death was the result of older, accidental injuries. Cultural norms were called into question, working mothers were vilified, au-pair agencies were exposed as being grossly exploitative and negligent in failing to train their employees, neuropathologists came to loggerheads with emergency physicians, the British ‘stiff upper lip’ came under scrutiny and Woodward herself drew attention for her seemingly strange reactions and responses on the stand-particularly in relation to the question on which her life was to pivot: did she in fact hurt Matty? Second only to that of OJ Simpson (whose defense lawyer Barry Scheck also represented Louise Woodward), this case gained notoriety around the world as TV audiences around the world tuned in daily to follow the trial of Louise Woodward with a near morbid fascination. We talk heartbreaking tragedy, violence, protests, judicial u-turns, risky strategies and what befell various parties in the years following the infamous 1997 murder trial.

Rob Morrow is a multi-Emmy and Golden Globe nominated actor, writer, and director with an established career in television, film, and theater spanning over three decades. Rob shot to stardom with his portrayal of New York doctor gone‐to Alaska, Joel Fleischman, on the hit television series, "Northern Exposure," garnering him three Golden Globe and two Emmy Award nominations. He played the iconic role of Don Eppes on the hit CBS drama, "Numb3rs," which ran for six seasons. Morrow's film credits include starring in Robert Redford's Oscar-nominated film "Quiz Show," Albert Brooks' comedy "Mother," Bruce Beresford's "Last Dance" opposite Sharon Stone, and "Into My Heart." Currently, Rob can be seen on ABC’s new hit show "Designated Survivor." He was recently on the critically acclaimed FX mini-series, "The People Vs. OJ Simpson," portraying defense attorney Barry Scheck, and on Showtime's new series "Billions," playing Counselor to the Attorney General, Adam Degiulio. He will be seen opposite Queen Latifah, Betsy Brandt and Marin Ireland in the Lifetime TV movie, "Flint." Rob is an accomplished singer and guitarist. He plays all around Los Angeles with his band which features his musical collaborator Carlos Calvo. They have also toured New York, Maine, and Nevada.

Hosts Amy McQuire and Martin Hodgson hear from the founder of the Innocence Project and world famous lawyer Barry Scheck. They detail three enormous failures in the trial of Kevin Henry that could have led to his wrongful conviction. Finally they use Mr Scheck's checklist that helps determine if a wrongful conviction is possible, the results are clear!

S2E8: From Prison to Proclaiming Justice: The Wrongful Conviction of Jason Baldwin At 16 years old, Jason Baldwin along with Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley – known as the West Memphis Three – was convicted in 1994 of killing three 8-year-old boys in West Memphis, AK. There was no DNA linking the WM3 to the crime, and some of the DNA found at the crime scene even seemed to implicate the stepfather of one of the victims. The case gained national attention soon after the teenagers' arrests when word was leaked that the murders were committed as part of a satanic ritual. A key prosecution witness in the second trial was a self-proclaimed cult expert who stated that the murders bore "trappings" of the occult. This testimony, combined with testimony about books Damien Echols read and some of his writings, plus evidence that he and Jason Baldwin liked heavy-metal music and several black t-shirts were found in Jason’s closet, helped to convict the two teenagers. Jason received life without parole; Echols was sentenced to death, and Misskelley was sentenced to 40 years. After serving more than 17 years in prison, all three of the WM3 took the Alford Plea, which meant that the state of Arkansas admitted no wrongdoing. After being released, Jason Baldwin executive produced the 2014 film about his tragic saga, Devil’s Knot. He is joined by the co-founder of the Innocence Project, Barry Scheck. wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom is a production of Lava For Good Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1 and PRX.

The Innocence Project has freed 1000’s of people serving time in prison for crimes they did not commit. Thousands. People who were misidentified by eyewitnesses, or were manipulated into false confessions, or were the victims of unreliable forensic science. Barry Scheck is the co-founder of The Innocence Project, and in this episode he talks about the developments in science that led him and his colleagues to believe that DNA testing could reduce wrongful convictions and transform the criminal justice system. He also discusses some of the very high profile clients he’s represented during his career, including OJ Simpson, Hedda Nussbaum and Abner Louima. And he reveals how his unusual childhood, with a tap dancing father and a speed skating mother, led him on his life’s path as a seeker of justice. Music in this episode from www.gosoundtrack.com.

Over the last two decades no criminal defense lawyer in America has had a more profound impact on advancing the rights of the convicted than has Barry Scheck. In 1992, when DNA testing was still in its infancy, Scheck, along with his colleague Peter Neufeld, founded The Innocence Project, which has since figured prominently in the release of hundreds of prison inmates. Scheck also achieved lasting fame for defending O.J. Simpson when the former football star was charged with murder. Scheck spoke with California Lawyer contributing editor Martin Lasden about his extraordinary career and the controversies surrounding it. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 28615]

Over the last two decades no criminal defense lawyer in America has had a more profound impact on advancing the rights of the convicted than has Barry Scheck. In 1992, when DNA testing was still in its infancy, Scheck, along with his colleague Peter Neufeld, founded The Innocence Project, which has since figured prominently in the release of hundreds of prison inmates. Scheck also achieved lasting fame for defending O.J. Simpson when the former football star was charged with murder. Scheck spoke with California Lawyer contributing editor Martin Lasden about his extraordinary career and the controversies surrounding it. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 28615]

Coast to Coast, hosted by Attorneys and Law.com bloggers, J. Craig Williams and Robert Ambrogi, looks at how DNA is being used in many cases to prove previously convicted people innocent of crimes for which many have served decades in jail. You'll hear about the Innocence Project, a non-profit legal clinic founded by Barry Scheck, of O.J. Simpson trial fame and his partner, Peter Neufeld, which has freed 172 wrongly convicted men and women. Joining us is Attorney Robert N. Feldman, partner at the Boston firm, Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP, and one of the founders of the New England Innocence Project. Is there a downside? Also joining us is Attorney Josh Marquis, District Attorney of Clatsop County in Oregon and Vice President of the National District Attorneys Association as well as a frequest guest on national radio and TV discussing criminal justice. Its a discussion you won't want to miss!

In this episode of Bloody Angola, Woody Overton and Jim Chapman tell you some stories you will have to hear to believe regarding inmate of Louisiana State Penitentiary who were sentenced to DEATH ROW getting exonerated after DNA evidence or other substantiating evidence cleared them of their crime and saved them from getting the needle.#DeathSentence #DNA #InnocenceProject #BloodyAngola #PodcastFULL TRANSCRIPTJim: Hey, everyone. And welcome back to another edition of Bloody-Woody: -Angola.Jim: A podcast 142 years in the making. Woody: The complete story of America's bloodiest prison. Jim: And I'm Jim Chapman. Woody: And I'm Woody Overton. Jim: And we're going back to our roots, Woody Overton.Woody: Right back inside the wire. Jim: Back inside the wire. Just when you thought we got out. Just coming back here. Woody: Yep. [crosstalk] They made me come back in. Jim: That's right. Look, we talk a lot on this show about the advancement, especially DNA, something you've worked with in the past many times. Woody: Yeah. This is a huge testament to DNA. When I started, it was really coming in its own. Now it's so much more advanced. I remember putting rushes on murder cases, and it taken six months to get the results back. Jim: That's crazy. Even back, we talked about Sean Vincent Gillis, and that was really probably one of the first times they were ever able to really rush something to the point where it really helped because you had to get that serial killer off the street. Woody: Derrick Todd Lee too. Still, even the rush back then took a long time. Not like it is now. Jim: Right. Woody: You know what? I'm totally for it. And let me do this real quick. I want to give a shout out to all our patrons. We love and appreciate each and every one of y'all. We love all you listeners, and bloody shooting to the top of the charts. It's because y'all are listening, liking and sharing. Please continue to do so. And we love y'all very much. Back to the DNA, it's just come leaps and bounds that continue to change every day. We always tell you Bloody Angola is going to be different, and this is different. You would think, oh, hard ass like me, lock everybody up, I don't believe in that. I believe if you're innocent you're innocent. Jim: If you're guilty, lock them up.Woody: If you're guilty, you- [crosstalk] Jim: Don't wait [crosstalk] Woody: [crosstalk] -you'll pay hella jail. Jim: [laughs] Hella jail, that's right. We did want to preface this episode with some of these guys were exonerated from DNA. Some of them, it was other reasons. And we're going to get into that. The intriguing thing about today's episode is many of these guys that we're going to tell you about were actually serving in death row. They've been sentenced to death. Woody: Today, we're going to be talking about people or convicts who were exonerated and released from Bloody Angola.Jim: Yes. We want to kind of start this off. I'm just going to tell you about the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck, y'all, familiar with him through OJ. It was basically formed to assist incarcerated individuals who could be proven innocent, primarily through DNA testing. Although sometimes they find so many holes in a case, they'll pick up a case where there's so many problems that they take that case on and look for exonerations in those cases. The average prison sentence before they'll take on a case is 14 years before their exoneration or release. And so, it's a process, even with those guys, but we're going to them to it. Woody: They don't just take anybody, right? Jim: Yeah. Woody: One of the ones I can tell you about if-- ready to get started?Jim: I'm ready. Woody: Is John Thompson. John Thompson was from Orleans Parish. I'll just read you some of the facts of the case, some of the highlights, and what ultimately ended up happening. Shortly after midnight on December 6th, 1984, Raymond Liuzza was shot several times in the course of an armed robbery just around the corner from his New Orleans, Louisiana apartment. When the cops arrived, they found Liuzza laying on the ground, but he was still conscious. He told them he was robbed and shot by an African American male and then took him to hospital and he died. On December 8th, responded to tip, the police arrested two men in connection with the crime. John Thompson and Kevin Freeman. Photos of the two men were published in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and soon afterwards, police received a call from a family that had been carjacked several months earlier, claiming that Thompson looked like the person who had robbed them. Thompson was charged with the murder. Meanwhile, Freeman agreed to testify against Thompson in the murder trial, and in return, prosecutors charged him only with being an accessory to the murder. He was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. We're talking about Freeman, y'all. The world-famous New Orleans district attorney, Harry Connick, Sr,, not Junior, that's his son, the singer and actor, decided to try Thompson for the carjacking case first, knowing that a conviction could be used against him in the murder trial. Based primarily on the eyewitness testimony of the three carjacking victims, all of whom were minors, Thompson was convicted on April 4, 1985, and sentenced to 49 years in prison. That is for the carjacking. Y'all, always told you that eyewitness testimony is the worst testimony there is, but doesn't mean it's not true. At his murder trial, held shortly thereafter, the prosecution demonstrated that Thompson had at one time been in possession of both the murder weapon and a ring taken from Liuzza's finger. Thompson decided not to testify in his own defense because if he did, his felony carjacking charge would have been admissible to the jury. As a result, he was unable to tell the jury that Freeman had sold him the murder weapon and the ring. Freeman, the main witness for the prosecution, claimed that he and Thompson had robbed Liuzza together and that Thompson had shot him. This testimony was contradicted by the statements of eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen only one man running from the scene of the crime. Richard Perkins, who had originally called in the tip implicating Thompson and Freeman, also testified for the prosecution, claiming that he had heard Thompson make incriminating remarks. Thompson was found guilty and sentenced to death on May 8th, 1985. Fast forward a whole bunch of years, y'all, and events took a dramatic turn in April 1999, 30 days before scheduled execution, an investigator discovered that there was a blood stain from the robber on the clothing of one of the carjacking victims and that this evidence had never been disclosed to the defense. It's Brady, y'all. If they had it, they got to give it up. The prosecutor had ordered testing to determine the blood type of the stain, and in fact, they had rushed the test. But when the blood type was determined-- I guess this was before DNA. Blood type was determined and was different from Thompson's. They concealed it. Defense attorneys then obtained an affidavit Michael Rielhmann, a former district attorney, who said that five years earlier, in 1994, Gerry Deegan, one of Thompson's prosecutors, admitted on his deathbed that the blood evidence was intentionally suppressed and that he left a report about it on the desk of James Williams, the lead prosecutor. Williams denied ever seeing the report. Defense attorneys also learned that Perkins, the witness who testified that Thompson had admitted the murder, had received $15,000 from the Liuzza family as a reward. When this evidence was presented to the trial judge, he granted a stay of execution and dismissed Thompson's carjacking conviction, but he denied Thompson's motion for a new trial on the Liuzza murder. In 2001, however, he reduced Thompson's death sentence to life in prison without parole. Jim: Wow. Woody: Pretty crazy, right? Jim: Very crazy. Woody: In July of 2002, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal overturned Thompson's murder conviction and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the false robbery conviction obtained by deliberate government misconduct had deprived Thompson of his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf at the murder trial. Y'all, I'm not against that. I mean, give him a new trial, if it was messed up. At the second trial, Thompson was able to explain that he purchased the murder weapon from Freeman, and the defense called several new witnesses who claimed to have seen only one man fleeing the scene of the murder. They said that the man did not look like Thompson, but did resemble Freeman who, in the meantime, had been killed in a shootout with a security guard. On May 8, 2003, a jury acquitted Thompson after deliberating for 35 minutes, and he was released from prison the same day. Y'all, 35 minutes is for conviction? That's outstanding. But for exoneration, I mean, that's unbelievable. It normally takes hours--[crosstalk]  Jim: They were pretty convinced. Woody: Yeah, they want to make sure. In 2008, Thompson won a $14 million civil suit against the District Attorney's Office. That judgment was reversed by the US Supreme Court in March 2011 on the grounds that the misconduct in the case was not the result of a deliberate policy or systematic indifference by the New Orleans DA's Office. He got $330,000 in state compensation. But you know what? That's a long time to be on death row, and you didn't do it. Jim: He's a good example of someone that it wasn't necessarily DNA evidence that exonerated him, but it was the facts of the case. Woody: I have heard this case before, and actually, I think it's pretty well documented-Jim: Thank you.Woody: -but what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. But you know what the sad thing is? In 2017, Thompson died of a heart attack at age 55. Jim: Yeah, man. And you nailed it when you're talking about those bloodstains. Back when he was convicted, it was '85. There was no DNA. Woody: I think it was like '92 when the first time it was used successfully. Even then, most prosecutors thought it was junk science. So, it had to be used over and over again successfully and tested and tested and tested and it grew to what it is today. Jim: That's right. Let me tell you about another case out of death row in Angola that was actually-- Woody: That place you don't want to go.Jim: No, you don't want to go there. But was actually reversed over DNA, and that is the case of Ryan Matthews. So, Matthews was 16 years old, y'all, at the time he was sentenced-- or arrested rather, and was 17 when he was sentenced to death for shooting of Tommy Vanhoose, who was a convenience store owner in Bridge City, Louisiana. You familiar with Bridge City? Woody: Yeah. That's where the juvenile prison used to be. Jim: There you go. So, in April of 1997, a man wearing a ski mask entered the store and demanded money. When Vanhoose refused, the perpetrator shot him four times and fled, taking off his mask and diving into the passenger seat of a window of an awaiting car. Several eyewitnesses viewed the perpetrator's flight. One woman was in her car and watched the perpetrator run from the store, fire shots into her direction, and leap in the car. So, these guys were hightailing it. They done shot somebody four times. When she was later showed a photographic array, which is like a six pack, y'all, she tentatively identified Matthews as the assailant. By the time of the trial, she was sure that Matthews was the gunman. Two other witnesses in the same car watched as the perpetrator shed his mask, gloves, and shirt as he fled. The driver claimed to have seen the perpetrator's face in his rearview mirror while he was being shot at and trying to block the escape. The witness and his passenger were brought to a show-up hours later. The driver identified Matthews. His passenger was unable to make an identification.As per our previous case, identifications not very reliable now.Ryan Matthews and Travis Hayes, both 17 at the time, were stopped several hours after the crime because the car they were riding in resembled the description of the getaway car. They were arrested and Hayes was then questioned for over six hours. His initial statements to investigators, Hayes claimed that he and Matthews were not in the area where the crime occurred. Hayes eventually confessed that he was the driver of the getaway car. He stated that Matthews went into the store, shots went off and Matthews ran out and got into the car. Both boys were described as borderline intellectually disabled. In 1999, based mainly on identifications, Matthews was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.Woody: There you go. Jim: Hayes was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Matthews had maintained his innocence since the arrest. The defense presented evidence that forensic testing of the mask excluded both Matthews and Hayes. A defense expert also testified the car the two boys were driving, the reason they were stopped, could not have been a getaway car because the passenger side window that Matthews allegedly jumped through was inoperable and could not be rolled down. How do you get around that? I don't know, but they did. Other witnesses to the crime described the shooter as being much shorter than Matthews as well, which that's not necessarily that reliable. Height is hard to determine. Woody: You can put four people in the room and four people may get the different height and weight or whatever on. If it's a correct identification, basically you can bring them back two weeks later and they can still pick out the facial features.Jim: That's right. So, y'all ready to hear how this person got exonerated? Well, DNA testing in another murder case proved to be the keys to proving Matthews' innocence, another murder occurring shortly after Vanhoose's death in the same area. A local resident named Rondell Love was arrested. He pled guilty, and Love bragged to other inmates that he also killed Vanhoose. And that happens, y'all, you'd be surprised. Woody: Street cred. Jim: This got back to Matthews' attorneys, I'm sure, through Matthews, and they began to investigate Love. DNA test results from the second murder were compared to the results from the Matthews' conviction, indicating that Love had been wearing the mask that was left behind in the Vanhoose's murder. Testing on the mask, gloves and shirt had already excluded Matthews and Hayes, but they became conclusive after Love's profile was included. Woody: There you go. Jim: So somehow, even though they were excluded from all that DNA in the first trial, there was no one to necessarily pin it on. So, it got pinned on them. Well, you can't get around it when someone else's profile shows up. Over a year after this information was discovered, he was granted a new trial. He wasn't released. He was just granted a new trial. But he did eventually get released. The new trial, he was found not guilty and became the 14th death row inmate in the United States proven innocent by post-conviction DNA testing. Woody: That's crazy.Jim: After two more years of legal battles, you'd think he'd get out right away?Woody: They got to make sure. Jim: Yeah. Travis Hayes was released in December 2006 and exonerated in January of 2007. You may think that someone in this position, they must have got a ton of money. I mean, you sentenced to death, for Christ's sake. He received $252,000 in state compensation and another $133,000 from the federal courts. To tell you how resilient this cat is, in 2019, Matthews graduated from Texas University with his bachelor's degree. Woody: Cool. Jim: I get chills from that because, man, look--Woody: They were going to kill him.Jim: They were going to kill him. Woody: I get it, not to get into death penalty arguments, whatever, but I'm telling you this I'm glad John Thompson got off death row, and I'm glad he got off a death row, but I promise you, there's some monsters up there deserve to be there.Jim: Oh, there's no doubt about it.Woody: Don't deserve [crosstalk] to breathe. Jim: Well, it's like you always say, just make sure you get it right. That's the important thing.Woody: Yeah, that's it. If you're going to do it, do it right. Especially when you're talking about taking somebody's life. That's why they have the appeals process the last 20 plus years before they kill them. Let's talk about Glenn Ford. Glenn Ford from up in Caddo, that's where Hugo Holland-- Jim: That's right. Caddo--[crosstalk]  Woody: He was another one, y'all, sentenced to death. He was convicted in 1984. But let me tell you about it. On November 5th, 1983, a 56-year-old Isadore Rozeman, a jeweler and watchmaker, was found shot to death in his shop in Shreveport, Louisiana. His pockets were pulled, and items were missing from the store. One of the first people to be questioned was 34-year-old Glenn Ford, an affable man who did yard work for Rozeman. Ford denied being involved in the crime, though he admitted he had been near the store at some point earlier in the day and witnesses told police they saw him near the store. In February 1984, items from Rozeman's store turned up in a pawnshop and a handwriting analyst said that Ford had signed the pawn slips. Marvella Brown told police that her boyfriend, Jake Robinson, Jake's brother, Henry, and Ford were at her house on the day of the crime and left together after Ford asked "if they were going." Brown said Ford was carrying a brown paper bag. When the men returned later that day, Ford was carrying a different bag and had a gun in his waistband. Jake Robinson also was carrying a gun. Brown said Jake showed her a bag containing watches and rings. That is suspicious.Ford, along with Jake and Henry Robinson and a fourth man, George Starks, were charged with capital murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery in February 1984. November 1984, Ford went to trial. And Ford was represented by two appointed defense attorneys, neither of whom had ever handled a criminal trial, and one of whom had never handled a criminal case of any sort. That's kind of bad. Jim: Yeah. That's not the attorneys I want to represent--Woody: Right. When you're on trial for your life. Jim: Oh, my God. Woody: If you're in Livingston Parish, you want Jasper Brock handling your business. [crosstalk]  Jim: Yeah. This is a death penalty trial. Woody: If you're anywhere else over on that side of Louisiana, you want Thomas Davenport out of Alexandria to handle it, because that's what they do. These guys had never even handled a case like this. Jim: It's crazy. Woody: Anyway, Brown fell apart on the witness stand and said on cross-examination that detectives had fabricated her responses and she had lied in her testimony. She said she had been shot in the head earlier in her life and the bullet was never removed causing difficulty with thinking and hearing. Jim: Makes sense.Woody: Several witnesses testified that they saw Ford near the victim's store on the day of the shooting, but no one testified that they saw the crime. A gunshot residue expert testified for the prosecution that after Ford had voluntarily come in for questioning, he recovered gunshot residue on Ford's hands. A fingerprint analyst said he lifted a single fingerprint from a paper bag found at the scene. He said that the print contained a “whorl” type pattern and that Ford had such a pattern, while the Robinson Brothers did not. Dr. George McCormick, Caddo Parish coroner, testified that he had analyzed the scene of the crime, including the position of Rozeman's body and a duffel bag found next to the body with a bullet hole in it. McCormick said he concluded that the victim was shot by someone who held the gun in his left hand. Ford is left-handed and the Robinsons are right-handed. Not looking good for Ford.Jim: No, not at all. Woody: McCormick also said that Rozeman had been dead for as long as two hours by the time the body was discovered, a time when witnesses said they saw Ford near the store. Ford testified on his own behalf, which most of them don't, but he testified and denied his involvement in the crime. He admitted selling items to the pawn shop, but said he'd got them from the Robinson brothers.On December 5th, 1984, the jury convicted Ford of capital murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Following the jury's recommendation, Ford was sentenced to death on February 26th, 1985. After Ford was convicted and sentenced, the prosecution dismissed the charges against the Robinson Brothers and Starks. Jim: Let me just say this, okay, the inexperience of the lawyers that you mentioned is glaring when they allowed him to testify in his own defense in a death penalty case. Holy crap.Woody: I don't know when they changed the law, but I know Jasper Brock in Livingston Parish-- [crosstalk] Jim: Yeah. Jasper Brock would say, "He ain't talking." [chuckles] Woody: And I know Thomas Davenport, they're certified in death penalty cases. You have to actually get certified to defend somebody in death penalty cases now.Jim: Yeah. Probably, this case caused it.Woody: Probably one of them I mean, they should've known this shit was going to get done the way--[crosstalk] Jim: That's crazy. Woody: Still, I believe everybody has the right to a fair trial. Ford goes to death row. His appeals were unsuccessful until 2000 when the Louisiana Supreme Court ordered a hearing on post-conviction petition for a new trial filed by the Capital Post Conviction Project of Louisiana. At the hearing in 2004, a defense expert testified that McCormick's attempt to reconstruct the crime had no connection to known facts and were speculation at best, and I agree with that, they're talking about the coroner. You can't tell somebody's left-handed from a bullet hole and a duffel bag. Anyway, another defense expert said that the gunshot residue evidence was meaningless because it was gathered more than a day after the crime and that Ford could have easily picked up the residue merely by being in a police station where such residue is extremely common.Another defense expert said that the prosecution's fingerprint expert misidentified the fingerprint on the paper bag, and it could have been left by the Robinson Brothers. All very, very true. Ford's lawyers at the trial testified that they were very inexperienced in criminal cases. Jim: Even the lawyers. Woody: [crosstalk] -Jasper and Thomas Davenport. And had no training in capital defense. If I was Ford, I'd be raising hell. I'm like, "You got me two guys that are wet behind the ears. Give me a pro."Jim: Crazy, man. Woody: Jasper Brock or Thomas Davenport. They're even saying that he deserves--Jim: Yeah. They go on the stand and say, "Yeah, we pretty--" [crosstalk] Woody: One of the lawyers who specialized in oil and gas law had never tried a case to a jury, either civil or criminal. That's like my brothers. One's a tax lawyer and one's a maritime lawyer. They've never been inside a courtroom. The extent of his prior criminal work was handling two guilty pleas. That's easy enough. The other lawyer, who was out of law school less than two years and was working at an insurance firm handling personal injury cases. Both said they were unaware they could seek court funding for defense experts, shocker, and didn't hire any because they couldn't afford to pay out of their own pockets. Both were unaware of how to subpoena witnesses from out of state. So, Ford's family members, who lived in California, did not testify for Ford at the guilt or punishment phase of the trial. The defense presented numerous police reports that had never been disclosed to the defense.The report showed that Shreveport Police had received two tips from informants implicating only Jake and Henry Robinson in the robbery and murder. Other police reports showed that some detectives had falsely testified at Ford's trial about statements Ford made during his interrogation. Testimony that the prosecution should have realized was false, the defense claimed. Moreover, other police reports that were withheld from the defense contained conflicting statements by Marvella Brown and by the witnesses who said that they saw Ford near the store at the time of the crime. Reports could have been used to impeach the witness testimony at trial. Jim: Wow. Woody: But still, the post-conviction motion was denied. In 2012, the Caddo Parish District Attorney's Office began reinvesting the case, and in 2013, disclosed that an informant told authorities that Jake Robinson had admitted shooting Rozeman.Jim: Oh, wow.Woody: So, the honorable and right thing to do, in March 2014, the prosecution filed a motion to vacate Ford's conviction and death sentence in light of the newly discovered evidence from the informant. On March 11th, 2014, a judge vacated Ford's convictions, and the prosecution dismissed their charges, and Ford was then released. Jim: How about that? Woody: Even after all that, they'd fallen so hard in the second trial, etc. They came forward-- I think, you know what? I don't know if Hugo Holland was still the prosecutor up there at the end. I'll have to look it up. Maybe I'll ask him. He just messaged me last night. But that's an honorable thing to do. But in March 2015, a Caddo Parish district judge denied Ford's request for state compensation. Judge ruled that Ford knew the robbery was going to happen, did not try to stop it, that he attempted to destroy evidence by selling items taken robbery, and that he tried to find buyers for the murder weapon. Unfortunately, in June of 2015, Ford died of lung cancer. Jim: Yeah, that's a good kind of segue for a second, Woody, just to talk about, look, not all the guys we're going to tell you about today are Citizens of the Year. Some of them definitely committed some crimes or may have withheld some evidence, like in this case. But that's a long jump from being sentenced to death for a murder you didn't commit. Woody: Look, we have our legal process for a reason. A lot of my cases are bad cases where the witnesses are like really shady people or they're criminals themselves. Well, guess what? A lot of these crimes don't happen with a bunch of choir boys. You know what I mean? You're not running with choir boys when you're going to murder somebody and steal the jury. Jim: You're going to put them to death--Woody: But having two inexperienced attorneys and all the other stuff and the guy saying about-- whatever, that's not enough to kill somebody.Jim: That's right. We're going to give you a two for one right here. And you're not going to believe this. Woody: Let me tell you real quick, I know I keep talking about [unintelligible 00:31:23]. I don't know if this is-- we'll have to get him on. This part, he's a part of this Innocence Project, but I don't think it's the same one. Barry Scheck is another one. He got a guy off a death row. Jim: Wow. He'd be great to sit down and talk to.Woody: He got a guy off a death row. He told me about the case, and I was like, "Holy shit." But I think it was out of Missouri. He's in all federal courts and everywhere else, Thomas Davenport, but he believes everybody deserves a criminal defense. And I agree with that. If you're a cop and you got it right, you got them right. Don't sentence them to death, don't send them away for life on some bullshit. Jim: That's right. We're going to tell you about Michael Graham and Albert Burrell. Now, both of these gentlemen were sentenced to death back in 1986.Woody: I was 16 years old. Jim: That was a long time ago. Long time ago. On the night of August 31, 1986, 65-year-old William Delton Frost and his 60-year-old invalid wife, Callie, were fatally shot in their two-room home in Downsville, Louisiana, which is almost like a plantation area of Louisiana, very rural. The front door had been smashed in and police believed the motive was robbery because Frost didn't trust banks and was believed to keep cash in a suitcase in his home. A lot of older people, especially in those times, they didn't put money in the bank. They put money everywhere but the bank. The shots appeared to have been fired through a window and their bodies were discovered a couple of days later.Now, six weeks after the murders, in October of 1986, Janet Burrell told police that she had met with her ex-husband on the night of the crime and that he had $2,700 in $100 bills and blood on his boots. That don't look good. She said he admitted firing the shots and she saw Frost's wallet on the front seat of his car. Wow. That's dead to rights. So, Burrell was arrested within the hour. Not long after, Kenneth St. Clair, another witness, told police that he had come to Louisiana with Michael Graham to find construction work. St. Clair told police that on the night of the crime, Graham and Burrell left the trailer where Graham was living near St. Clair about 8:30 PM returned, Graham had blood on him, St. Clair said. Now, you've got another person seeing that blood. At the time, Graham was in the Union Parish Jail on forgery charges for stealing a checkbook from a woman who hired him in St. Clair to do some work and then cashing about $300 worth of checks. Woody: Like you said, everybody in these stories aren't angels. Jim: Yeah. On October of 1986, Graham and Burrell were each indicted on two counts of murder. Two days later, Graham's cellmate, Olan Brantly, told authorities that Graham had admitted he and Burrell committed the crime [crosstalk] [chuckles] that's it. And that Burrell had fired the fatal shot. So, Graham goes on trial in 1987 in the Union Parish Courthouse. The state's key witnesses were Janet Burrell, who we told you about, and Brantly, we also told you about. So, they got him dead to rights although police reports said that Frost's wallet was recovered in his home. A deputy testified that he believed Burrell had returned to the Frost home and put the wallet back because he suspected his wife had seen it the night they met. Woody: That makes a lot of sense, right? Jim: Yeah. Woody: Why wouldn't you just throw it the fuck out-- [crosstalk] Jim: Yeah, that's a stretch and a half right there.Woody: If you go back to the murder scene to put the wallet back, you got to think, "My wife might have seen it." Jim: [chuckles] Yeah. You're dumping it in the ditch or something. You're not putting it back. Another witness, 14-year-old Amy Opiel, who had spent the night of the crime with the St. Clair Family testified that she saw Graham Burrell sitting on the couch of a trailer with a suitcase and stacks of money. So, Graham was convicted on March 22nd, 1987, and sentenced to death. Burrell went on trial in August of '87, and he was also convicted and sentenced to death on pretty much the same evidence as Graham. Five months after Burrell was convicted, Janet Burrell, who by then was remarried to Burrell's brother James, I told you this was a good one, recanted her testimony, Woody Overton. She said she lied because she wanted to get custody of their child, which had been awarded to Albert Burrell prior to the murders. That's called motive to lie. So, the Louisiana Supreme Court, they grant--Woody: That's cold hearted.Jim: Yeah, that's cold.Woody: [crosstalk] Jim: That's as cold as you can get.Woody: How shitty of a mom does she have to be for the dad to get custody in the state of Louisiana? That's a rare deal. Jim: Well, somewhere along the line, her conscience weighed on her and she admitted she lied. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted Albert Burrell a hearing. A hearing. But at the hearing, Janet Burrell changed her testimony back, she's figuring it out, "Uh-oh. I might get in trouble for this," to her original story. The motion for a new trial was denied. Eventually, the conviction and death sentence got upheld by the Louisiana State Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Graham, don't forget about him, his case was also sent back for a hearing in motion for a new trial because of all this going on. His lawyers, they continued to get extension after extension, and they began to cover new evidence. By 1995, Janet Burrell shows up again. She says, "I'm going to recant my testimony again."Woody: She's unreliable now. Jim: Yeah. The crazy thing was, the execution date was in August of '96, she recants it in 1995. The lawyers, closer it gets to that execution date, they're 24 hours a day trying to get you a stay. 17 days away from his death, Burrell's lawyer obtains a stay. In 1998, Amy Opiel shows up again and recants her testimony, claiming she was pressured to lie and that it was St. Clair she saw with blood on his clothes and counting money. It wasn't Burrell. Okay, so Graham, he finally gets a hearing in 2000 where lawyers present all these recanted statements, as well as evidence that prosecutors failed to turn over, exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence, including that Brantly had cut a deal with prosecutors on a pending charge, and then he was taking medication to control his mood swings. So, Brantly had a little bit of an anger problem, probably. On March 4th of 2000, Graham was granted a new trial after the Third Judicial District judge, Cynthia Woodard, ruled that prosecutors have misled the jury and failed to turn over exculpatory evidence. Woody, what is exculpatory evidence? Woody: Anything that could possibly make the jury find them not guilty.Jim: Yeah. On December 28th of 2000, they dismissed charges against Graham, and he was released from prison. This is a man that was 17 days from getting the needle. Woody: From executing.Jim: Yes. On January 2nd, you may wonder, "What about Burrell?" January 2nd of 2001, charges against Burrell were dismissed and he was released. Now, in 2016, a state appeals court upheld a lower court ruling denying Graham and Burrell compensation from the state of Louisiana. Burrell and Graham filed a federal lawsuit, but a jury ruled against them.Woody: They never solved the crime now. That's a cold case.Jim: Cold case. And here's the interesting thing. You may wonder why they're denying this money. Woody: It's hard. It's almost impossible to get a nickel for being wrongfully convicted.Jim: Exactly. Especially when you don't have DNA evidence to back it up, because basically that was so many inaccurate statements, but it didn't necessarily mean you didn't do it. It just means the people that said you did it were lying.Woody: A lot of times, if they have find gross negligence, they have to prove that DA actually did what they said that you did or whatever. Jim: That's it. Woody: Really, people don't really care about people that are exonerated, basically in paying--Jim: Those are two for one right there for you. Woody: A lot of states have a set amount. If you get exonerated, it's just whatever, which is crazy. There's no amount of money worth being on death row. In Angola, much less on death row. Jim: Yeah, the guy that was the singer that we did the episode. Woody: Yeah, Archie. Jim: How can you give that guy enough money? Woody: You can't. Jim: And he was exonerated on DNA evidence. He did not do it. Woody: You cannot give him enough.Jim: You can't give him enough. So, why are you putting a ceiling on it? Because every situation is different. Someone like that, you can't give them enough, but Goddang, you need to give them millions. Woody: They should never have to work or do anything.Jim: Period. Woody: Y'all, we will tell you another one, and this one is a rape and a murder. It's the case of Damon Thibodeaux, which is a good, strong Cajun name. And another Louisiana man that was sentenced to death row at Bloody Angola. On July 19th, 1996, at around 05:15 PM, 14-year-old Crystal Champagne left her apartment in Marrero, Louisiana, to walk to a nearby supermarket. When she didn't return home as expected, her mother went looking for her. At around 6:45 PM, her father and 21-year-old stepcousin, Damon Thibodeaux, also went out to look for her, as did several neighbors. The search continued until the following afternoon, when friends of the family heard that a girl who looked like Crystal had been seen walking on the levee. Y'all, if you're not from South Louisiana, levees are manmade walls that hold back the rivers or the bayous or whatever. Said Crystal been seen walking on the levee in previous evening. Not long after, Champagne's body was found near the levee. She was partially naked and had been strangled with a wire.Before the girl's body was found, JPSO investigators began interviewing people who had been with Champagne before she disappeared. An officer was interviewing Thibodeaux, who had been at the Champagne's home when Crystal left for the store. When he was informed that her body had been found, a homicide detective then took over the questioning. Thibodeaux initially said he knew nothing about the murder. He agreed to a polygraph test, which police said indicated deception regarding the girl's death. Uh-oh. Jim: And you being a former polygrapher--Woody: I'm still a polygrapher, actually-- it's just so hard. Basically, at that point, the polygraph is an interrogation tool. It's hard to clear somebody who's accused of murder if you're not good as fuck like me.Jim: [laughs] Woody: No, seriously. You got to set the questions, the questions that they lied to, their response has to be stronger than, "Did you rape and murder this girl?" Well, fuck you, you're in the hot seat. You're looking at a death penalty. It's hard to do. So, they failed him, whoever it was, I don't know who it was. They failed him on the polygraph, which, let me tell you, the polygraph is a long process, but it's basically made to break people down if they're guilty. And it's five or six hours. But I always said a good homicide interrogation doesn't even begin until after five or six hours. That's when you really start to get in that ass. Eventually, after nine hours of questioning, Thibodeaux said that he had raped and murdered Crystal. He was arrested and charged with both crimes. After he was allowed to eat and rest, Thibodeaux quickly recanted his confession, but was ignored. At Thibodeaux's 1997 trial, the prosecution built its case around his confession to the rape and murder. Dr. Fraser MacKenzie of the JPSO Coroner's Office, who performed autopsy on Crystal, testified the girl had been strangled to death and had injuries to her right eye and forehead consistent with getting hit by a bat or a rock. He noted bruises on the girl's buttocks, which he said indicated a struggle. He estimated Crystal had been dead about 24 hours before she was found. Separately, Dr. Lamar Lee, a professor of entomology at Louisiana State University, testified about the insect samples taken from Crystal's body. He said flies will lay eggs on a carcass within a couple of hours after death but will not lay eggs after dark. He said that the eggs were laid before nightfall--Jim: That's true?Woody: Yes. Jim: [crosstalk] as hell.Woody: Came out of the body farm originally out of Tennessee, but I didn't if they used maggots and the generation of flies, and they could tell you how long a body's been down like almost within 15 minutes. Jim: Damn.Woody: On July 19th, 1996, and calculated the age of the fly larvae or the maggots at between 24 and 28 hours old. They eat until they turn and fly, die and have more babies in cycle. There was no physical evidence linking Thibodeaux to the crimes, and though Crystal was found undressed, they found no semen on her body and no other physical evidence that she had been raped. A police officer testified that the semen could have been eaten by maggots. I guess.A week after the crime, detectives questioned two women they found walking on the levee. Both said they saw a man pacing and acting nervously on the evening of the murder. Both women picked a photo of Thibodeaux from a photographic lineup, and both identified him at the trial. Thibodeaux's attorney argued that detectives coerced the confession and suggested facts of the crime to him during their interrogation. On October 3rd, 1997, a jury convicted Thibodeaux of first-degree murder and rape. He was sentenced to death.Jim: Oh, my God.Woody: It's another one of our boys going up to death row.Jim: Death row. Woody: So, fast forward ten more years, in 2007, the JPSO district attorney's office agreed to reinvestigate the case with the Innocence Project and other lawyers who volunteered to work on the case. Now, DNA testing as well as other forensic testing was performed, and investigators interviewed numerous witnesses. The investigation revealed that the women who identified Thibodeaux as the man they had seen pacing near the crime scene had seen Thibodeaux's photo in the news media before police showed them the photo line-up. Moreover, the date of the sighting turned out to be the date after the body was found, when Thibodeaux was already locked up.Jim: That could be a problem. Woody: Right. Well, you know what, you got to give props to JPSO DA's office for even trying to reopen and look at this, because most of them are like, "Fuck you. I [crosstalk] conviction."Jim: Yeah, you did it. Woody: And he's on the death row. But extensive DNA testing on items recovered from the scene of the crime failed to detect any trace of biological material connecting Thibodeaux to the murder. Tests also showed that despite Thibodeaux's confession to rape, Crystal had not been sexually assaulted. And DNA testing on the cord used to strangle Crystal identified a male DNA profile that did not belong to Thibodeaux.Jim: Uh-oh.Woody: Well, doesn't totally excuse him. It could have been anything. Somebody else could have held the cord, and Thibodeaux could have been wearing gloves, we don't know. But the reinvestigation established firmly that Thibodeaux's confession was false. He claimed to have raped Champagne when in fact, no rape occurred. He said he strangled her with a gray speaker wire he took from his car, when in fact she was strangled with a red cord that had been tied to a tree near the crime scene. The prosecution consults an expert in false confessions who concluded that the confession was the result of police pressure, exhaustion, psychological vulnerability, and fear of the death penalty.Jim: Wow. Woody: Yeah. I mean, it can happen, y'all. I hope every day that I didn't get the juice from somebody on the wrong level, and I don't think I did. Anyway, on September 29th, 2012, he was released from death row. Thibodeaux later filed a federal civil rights lawsuit that was put on hold in January 2017. Like most of our guys, he died in August of 2021.Jim: Wow. Woody: But you know what? I know false confessions do happen. It's a real deal.Jim: Yeah. You'll confess to anything if you're tired enough.Woody: You had your ass [unintelligible 00:49:06].Jim: Yeah. Woody: [laughs] -eight, nine hours not eating, I mean, you're going to get the needle, da, da, da. It might have been, "Help me help you. You tell us what happened, we're going to tell that you cooperated." But the fact that he confesses and then they give him some food and he's like, [crosstalk]Jim: Yeah. All right, we're going to give, y'all, one more today. We're going to tell you about a guy that definitely did not do it, was exonerated by DNA evidence, and that is Mr. Rickey Johnson. I saved this one for last today because he was in prison a long time for a rape he didn't commit. Matter of fact, he was in prison 25 years. Woody: That would suck. Jim: Yeah. One day in prison for something you didn't do, it sucks. All right, imagine 25 years. Let me tell you about the crime. In the early morning hours of July 12th, 1982, a 22-year-old woman awoke in her Northwest Louisiana home to find a man holding a gun to her head.Woody: Wow. Jim: The man raped the woman twice, stayed at her house for four hours. He told her his name was Marcus Johnson, and he mentioned several details. He claimed they were about his life. He claimed to be looking for an ex-girlfriend of his from Many, Louisiana. He said he was on probation. He was from Leesville, Louisiana. He even said he had relatives in the town of Natchitoches and Monroe. The weird thing is, he raped this chick twice and then he starts telling her his life story. It's almost like he felt like, "Now, we have a connection." Woody: Yeah, I got this special nut dumping connection.Jim: Yeah. What do you think the victim did? Woody: Pillow talk. Jim: She reports the rape the next morning, and at which point she told police her attacker was an African American man. He was between 5'6" and 5'8", and he weighed about 140 pounds. He had facial hair and a scarf tied around his head. A detective from the Sabine Parish Sheriff's Department contacted the Leesville Sheriff's Department to ask if they had a man named Marcus Johnson on file. There was no record of Marcus Johnson, but Leesville officers did tell detectives about Rickey Johnson. They said, "Well, we got another Johnson here. His name is Rickey. He's African American," and he was on probation for a traffic violation, a misdemeanor. Rickey matched some of the details that the lady provided of the perpetrator. He was from Leesville, he did have a child with a woman in Many, and he had relatives in Natchitoches and Monroe. So, he becomes a suspect. Nothing wrong with that. Police showed the victim a six pack, but it was actually only three pictures in this one. So, we're going to call it a three pack. Woody: Three pack. Jim: Yeah. It had Johnson's photo, which was at the center. Woody: I don't know how you get away with that.Jim: That picture was eight years old, and it was in the center. That's important. Mentally, you go to the center picture first. The victim told police that she had ample time to see the perpetrator's face and she identified Johnson as a perpetrator, even though he had a prominent gold tooth, which was never part of her description of the attacker. If a guy rapes you or a girl rapes you and they have a gold tooth, you're probably going to mention they had a gold tooth. Woody: You mentioned facial hair and everything else, and the gold tooth would stand out. Jim: Two days later, what do you think they do? They go arrest Rickey Johnson and they don't even investigate any other suspects at this time. They think they got their man. Johnson asserts his innocence. He says, "I didn't do any of this crap." Six days later, they conduct an in-person lineup with five individuals. Again, Johnson, they put in the center. And again, the victim identifies him as the assailant. The lineup was not presented at Johnson's trial because it was ruled inadmissible since Johnson did not have an attorney present at the lineup. I mean, it happens. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Tests at the Shreveport Crime Lab determined that evidence collected from the victim at the hospital included sperm and serological testing that showed Johnson and 35% of the African American population could have been the contributor. So, that's basically no evidence. Too many people. Woody: Too many people are-- [crosstalk] African American. Jim: 35% of the entire population. Johnson was charged with aggravated sexual assault and tried before a jury in Sabine Parish, Louisiana. The victim identified him at trial saying she was positive. Woody: Game over.Jim: Positive that was him, and there was no question in her mind. She said the apartment was dark until about 15 minutes before he left. Prosecutors presented the victim's photo ID of Johnson and the serological evidence that his blood type matched the blood type of the perpetrator as determined--Woody: Back then, they didn't have DNA. They could give you blood types, basically. Jim: That's it. So, long story short, he gets convicted by the jury and he's sentenced to life without parole. Woody: Bloody Angola.Jim: Bloody Angola, baby, that's where you're going. So, Johnson contacts the Innocence Project at the suggestion of a guy named Calvin Willis, who was also a fellow inmate at Louisiana State Penitentiary. Willis was exonerated in 2003 after the Innocence Project secured DNA testing that proved his innocence. He basically called his boy and said, "If you really didn't do this, I got some people you need to talk to." Now, in late 2007, that DNA testing was performed on the sperm from the perpetrator of the crime. Remember, we said they had sperm. And the results proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Johnson could not have been the attacker.Woody: Wow. Jim: This is the first DNA exoneration using the new technology with DNA at this time called Mini-STR, which allows labs to accurately test degraded or extremely small samples. First time. [crosstalk] In January 2008, they do what anybody would do, they took that DNA profile and now they have a database in 2008.Woody: CODIS.Jim: Uh-oh. Woody: They got somebody else.Jim: They got a hit, Woody Overton. And John McNeal, who was already in prison serving a life sentence for rape committed in 1983 in the same apartment complex incidentally as the crime for which Johnson was convicted.Woody: How the hell do you not investigate that?Jim: It's crazy, ain't it? He's already in prison for that rape committed in the same complex. And so basically, they offer their apologies. After 25 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, Rickey Johnson was released and exonerated in 2008 after 25 years in prison. The state of Louisiana later awarded him $245,000 in compensation. That ain't even close to what he needed. Woody: Did Johnson go beat that other guy's ass? [crosstalk] Jim: [chuckles] That's a good question. I couldn't find the answer to that. I'm sure he wanted to. Woody: [crosstalk] -find, you could. Jim: He would've got some inmate justice. Woody: Yeah. "Bitch, you knew I've been here all this time for this," and you know they all know what they're down for. Jim: Oh, yeah.Woody: You get your David Constance been in there lying, saying, "My wife put me up, but not on rape charge."Jim: No. Woody: [crosstalk] Jim: In the same apartment complex.Woody: No doubt. That is crazy. Jim: It's freaking nuts. You would think that guy's already serving another life sentence. Why not just come clean and say, "I raped that girl"? Yeah, that's exactly right. Woody: Even convicts don't like rapists. Jim: That's right. Woody: Especially kid rapers and all that. Jim: That's right. So, long story short, he got $245,000 from the state of Louisiana. A federal wrongful conviction lawsuit was settled confidentially in 2011. So, he did get some money federally. Doesn't say how much. [crosstalk] Look, we hope y'all enjoyed these. Woody: We got to do more of these. Jim: Oh, yeah.Woody: These cases you find, criminal mind is always fascinating to me, but this shit is--Jim: Love it. Woody: Hey, we're all about the Gerald Bordelon getting executed for raping and killing Courtney LeBlanc. We're all about--[crosstalk] Almost every one of these, except for Rickey Johnson was on death row. Jim: Yeah, something. There's been actually, for those of you out there that are playing trivia games, there's been 11 people released from Angola alone from death row based off of either DNA evidence or strong evidence to force an exoneration. Woody: I get that why people are against it. They say, "Oh, you kill one wrong, it's too many, shut it down." You haven't sat across the table or looked at the dead bodies and shit that I've looked at and looked in the face of evil. But hey, I'm a champion, and would go on-- As you know Jim, after my law enforcement career, I went on and defended people that were innocent, that I believe they were innocent. So, it is what it is. We're not totally one sided, but hell or jail or freedom. Jim: That's it. Woody: It's another great episode. Jim: Yeah. We loved it. Thank you, patrons, couldn't do it without you. Woody: Yes. Jim: If you're not a patron member, go join Patreon. We may do some of these just for patron members. Woody: Patrons get commercial-free, early release episodes and locked up episodes, which we probably have more locked up for Bloody Angola than I have locked up for Real Life Real Crime, so a bunch of them. All different kinds of stories. So, y'all go check it out. You can go to patreon.com and type in "Bloody Angola."Jim: Yep. /bloodyangolapodcast will pull you right to it. We appreciate it. We love each and every one of you. And until next time-Woody: I'm Woody Overton.Jim: And I'm Jim Chapman, your host of Bloody-Woody: Angola.Jim: A podcast 142 years in the making. Woody: The Complete Story of America's Bloodiest Prison.Jim and Woody: Peace. [Bloody Angola theme]Our Sponsors:* Check out Factor and use my code bloodyangola50 for a great deal: https://www.factor75.com/ Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy