Latest / Wrongful Conviction / #581 Jason Flom with Pierre Rushing

Transcript

#581 Jason Flom with Pierre Rushing · Wrongful Conviction

0:04
Speaker 1: Hi, It's Connor Hall, the senior producer for Wrongful Conviction,
0:07
Speaker 1: with another update and more behind the scenes insights. And
0:11
Speaker 1: this one is another that we've been involved with for
0:15
Speaker 1: far too long with not enough movement. Pierre Rushing. The
0:22
Speaker 1: first time I'd even heard about him was December twenty nineteen,
0:25
Speaker 1: and by the time I was approved to speak with
0:27
Speaker 1: him on the phone, COVID was in full swing and
0:30
Speaker 1: we were rapidly trying to figure out how to keep
0:33
Speaker 1: the podcast going. But it turned out that remote recording
0:37
Speaker 1: made it way easier to cover more stories and we
0:40
Speaker 1: ended up like nearly doubling our annual output. But I
0:44
Speaker 1: digress Pierre, And I mean we were talking on the
0:48
Speaker 1: phone so much that my wife would just like come
0:51
Speaker 1: into the room and see me on the phone and
0:52
Speaker 1: you'd be like, who are you talking to? Pierre uh Man?
0:57
Speaker 1: You know, And we still talk less. Oh, but you know,
1:01
Speaker 1: every few months or so, he'll give me a ring
1:03
Speaker 1: and I'll see that California prison number that I have
1:06
Speaker 1: saved as him in my phone, and every time there's
1:09
Speaker 1: like a mix of hope and despair, and you know,
1:12
Speaker 1: is he finally calling with that good news? Anyway? I
1:16
Speaker 1: pick up and just in the sound of his voice,
1:20
Speaker 1: I can tell that it's just another Tuesday. So we
1:22
Speaker 1: talk about, you know, what new information he's found out
1:26
Speaker 1: or new strategies that, you know, we could try. For
1:29
Speaker 1: a while, I was trolling everything. The Almada County DA's
1:32
Speaker 1: social media account was posting with hashtag free Pierre Rushing
1:36
Speaker 1: and like when are you gonna do something now? Obviously
1:39
Speaker 1: that wasn't very effective, but you know, there were rallies
1:42
Speaker 1: and protests and Jason went on the Breakfast Club Joe Rogan.
1:46
Speaker 1: Whoever would lend their ear and their platform. There's even
1:50
Speaker 1: a movie Undefeated the wrongful conviction of Pierre Rushing. In
1:54
Speaker 1: this case, it's you know, an Oakland drug dealer named
1:57
Speaker 1: c who killed one of his customers, want Taylor Dwan
2:01
Speaker 1: had allegedly pocketed an iPod from Sea's apartment during a
2:05
Speaker 1: drug deal. So once he figured that out, he went
2:08
Speaker 1: with three others in a car to chase down Dewan
2:11
Speaker 1: and shot him. One of the three in the car,
2:14
Speaker 1: a guy named Robert Green, eventually told the police, who
2:17
Speaker 1: knows why, I mean, maybe he was picked up for
2:19
Speaker 1: something else, but he named the two others in the
2:22
Speaker 1: car while not naming C, and then gave varying descriptions
2:26
Speaker 1: of C over time, like wildly different right. And then
2:30
Speaker 1: two weeks after the murder, Robert Green comes forward again
2:33
Speaker 1: and says, oh, I saw Sea at a BART station
2:35
Speaker 1: wearing a red hat. And around that same time, Pierre
2:37
Speaker 1: Rushing was stopped at a bart station. He tells you
2:40
Speaker 1: about it in the episode, and he was wearing a
2:42
Speaker 1: red hat. And despite not matching any of Robert Green's
2:46
Speaker 1: varying descriptions, Green picked Pierre out of a photo lineup
2:52
Speaker 1: as C. Now, at the time of our initial coverage,
2:55
Speaker 1: the other two named accomplices had already sworn in affidavits
2:59
Speaker 1: that Pierre was not C, and another witness went as
3:02
Speaker 1: far as to name C. Then, by the time of
3:06
Speaker 1: our twenty twenty three coverage, the star witness, Robert Green,
3:09
Speaker 1: had recanted his testimony clearing Pierre's name, so they had
3:13
Speaker 1: nothing left in this case. We thought the Almeda County DA,
3:17
Speaker 1: Pamela Price, might do the right thing, but at that
3:19
Speaker 1: time she was another alleged progressive DA who had become
3:24
Speaker 1: the target of a so called tough on crime recall campaign,
3:28
Speaker 1: so she chose to not rock the vote with an exoneration,
3:32
Speaker 1: but she still got voted out in a twenty twenty
3:35
Speaker 1: four special election. Now since that time, Pierre's team has
3:39
Speaker 1: uncovered even more. They finally were allowed to test crime
3:42
Speaker 1: scene biological evidence, namely the car seat where C sat,
3:46
Speaker 1: as well as cigarette butts said to have belonged to him,
3:49
Speaker 1: all of which cleared Pierre. And I'm gonna guess it
3:53
Speaker 1: would match C if they just knew who he was.
3:56
Speaker 1: Oh wait, it turns out that Pierre's team discovered that
3:59
Speaker 1: a whit and This had named C for investigators before
4:03
Speaker 1: Pierre went to trial, the same name that Pier's team
4:06
Speaker 1: had during our initial coverage. But that report of an
4:10
Speaker 1: alternate suspect that appears to be quite consequential, that was
4:13
Speaker 1: hidden from the defense at trial. You gotta wonder why
4:16
Speaker 1: they'd hide that information. This guy was known to operate
4:19
Speaker 1: out of the building from which this whole saga began.
4:22
Speaker 1: Maybe they were just so far out over their skis
4:25
Speaker 1: and this investigation and prosecution that they just buried it
4:28
Speaker 1: and plodded ahead. Maybe it was tunnel vision. Maybe they
4:31
Speaker 1: actually believed, well, this is inconsequential, Or maybe C was
4:35
Speaker 1: more useful to police on the outside will never know.
4:40
Speaker 1: I understand he went away for something else not too
4:42
Speaker 1: long after, while Pierre is still serving a sentence that
4:48
Speaker 1: most likely belongs to him. And I just want you
4:51
Speaker 1: to keep that in mind, that he's still in there
4:54
Speaker 1: serving someone else's time while you listen to this coverage,
4:57
Speaker 1: some of which is from twenty twenty and then the
5:00
Speaker 1: final segment most of it it's from twenty twenty three.
5:02
Speaker 1: There's even you know, the call to action is outdated
5:05
Speaker 1: because Bamela Price isn't in an office anymore. But I'd
5:08
Speaker 1: like you to renew the effort to reach out to
5:12
Speaker 1: the new DA. We're going to have contact information listed
5:15
Speaker 1: in the episode description, So please keep making noise because
5:19
Speaker 1: here it is twenty twenty six. He's still in there,
5:22
Speaker 1: and I mean, wouldn't it be even more tragic if
5:24
Speaker 1: I was back here again in three more years.
5:30
Speaker 2: In the early morning of April fifteenth, twenty eleven, Dwan
5:34
Speaker 2: Taylor stole an iPod for an Oakland drug dealer named c.
5:37
Speaker 2: Two of his other customers, Patrick Smith and Robert Green,
5:41
Speaker 2: gave Ce a ride in search of the iPod thief
5:44
Speaker 2: they spotted. Mister Taylor pulled up next to him, and
5:47
Speaker 2: See proceeded to shoot and kill him over this trivial slight.
5:51
Speaker 2: Nearly a week we'ld go by before Robert Green would
5:54
Speaker 2: offer cops information and an uncertain description of the shooter.
5:57
Speaker 2: A few weeks and several descriptions later, Green would claim
6:01
Speaker 2: to have seen c wearing a red hat. A few
6:04
Speaker 2: days after that, police would approach Pierre Rushing, a man
6:07
Speaker 2: who had never been known as Sea, but wearing a
6:09
Speaker 2: red hat. They'd bring Pierre's juvie photo and his name
6:13
Speaker 2: to Robert Green, who went on to identify him as
6:16
Speaker 2: the shooter, despite a solid alibi, no physical evidence whatsoever
6:21
Speaker 2: or anything to corroborate Robert Green's highly questionable identification. Pierre
6:27
Speaker 2: Rushing's burgeoning rap career and promising future were stolen by
6:31
Speaker 2: Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving fifty
6:36
Speaker 2: to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed by
6:39
Speaker 2: a drug dealer named C. Patrick Smith has since signed
6:42
Speaker 2: affidavits and testified to Pierre's innocence, and another of C's
6:46
Speaker 2: customers that night has bravely set a legal name to
6:50
Speaker 2: the culprit, and even though mister Rushing did not name Se,
6:53
Speaker 2: we have censored his name from this episode for mister
6:56
Speaker 2: Rushing's safety. Meanwhile, the state of California and used to
7:00
Speaker 2: ignore evidence of Pierre's actual innocence and to fight his
7:04
Speaker 2: honest attempts to regain his freedom. This is Wrongful Conviction
7:09
Speaker 2: with Jason Flamm. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm.
7:23
Speaker 2: That's me and today we're going to tell you about
7:26
Speaker 2: the case of Pierre Rushing. We'll speak with one of
7:28
Speaker 2: his post conviction attorneys, Marvin Lou as well as taking
7:31
Speaker 2: a call from Kern Valley Correction in California to hear
7:35
Speaker 2: from Pierre himself.
7:37
Speaker 3: This is Global tail Lenge.
7:38
Speaker 1: You have a free post call from you.
7:43
Speaker 2: This call ANGELA telephone number will be monitored and recorded.
7:47
Speaker 4: To accept this call, say or.
7:49
Speaker 3: Dial five now. Thank you for using Global tail Link.
7:55
Speaker 2: Hello, good morning, good morning. I'm glad you're here. I mean,
8:00
Speaker 2: I'm sorry you're here under these circumstances, but I'm definitely
8:03
Speaker 2: glad you're here. And I know we have limited time,
8:05
Speaker 2: so let's get right into it. Today's episode, we're going
8:08
Speaker 2: to tell the story of the man we have on
8:10
Speaker 2: the phone now, Pierre Rushing, who's serving fifty years. The
8:14
Speaker 2: nightmare starts on April fifteen, twenty eleven, at three forty
8:17
Speaker 2: five am, when there's a murder. But let's go back
8:21
Speaker 2: to your childhood, because you had a difficult upbringing and
8:24
Speaker 2: you were coming out of that and building a career
8:26
Speaker 2: in music when it all went haywire.
8:28
Speaker 3: So I grew up in Oakland, California. My father was
8:30
Speaker 3: a passentee and then out of prison smug with a
8:34
Speaker 3: dig crack cocaine. So I don't want to say like
8:37
Speaker 3: any other Oakland kid, but I mean a lot lot
8:40
Speaker 3: of kids in the in the that grew up in
8:42
Speaker 3: the nineties were just products of our environment. We grew
8:46
Speaker 3: up looking at things that we believed to be right,
8:48
Speaker 3: so we as we mature, we get to see that
8:50
Speaker 3: they were really wrong.
8:51
Speaker 2: And how did you get into music?
8:53
Speaker 3: My auntie used to work for Keith Switt her name
8:56
Speaker 3: with Tracy Rush. She since passed in twenty thirteen. But
9:00
Speaker 3: just being around her, she took me in her wing,
9:03
Speaker 3: just taking me to the studio whor her as I
9:05
Speaker 3: became a big contribute.
9:08
Speaker 2: Is it fair to say by twenty eleven, things were
9:11
Speaker 2: starting to look up for you in terms of possibly
9:14
Speaker 2: building a career, and yeah.
9:16
Speaker 3: When I was arrested for this case, actually friends of
9:20
Speaker 3: mine has said that the police were looking for me
9:23
Speaker 3: for this time, and we all laughed about it because
9:25
Speaker 3: everybody knew that I couldn't have done. And I had
9:27
Speaker 3: been wrapping and going to the studio state assistant shooting videos.
9:32
Speaker 3: And actually when I was arrested, I was open enough
9:34
Speaker 3: for Bay Area Leegen by the name of Saint Quinn,
9:37
Speaker 3: and we had a big black tour van with my
9:41
Speaker 3: pictures on and promoting my music and everything. So, yeah,
9:45
Speaker 3: it was coming up for me.
9:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, you were exactly You're on your way up. And
9:48
Speaker 2: then everything went completely haywire. Now let's turn the conversation
9:57
Speaker 2: to Marvin Lou. Marvin is a criminal defense attorney of
10:01
Speaker 2: some repute and he has been representing Pierre for some time. Now,
10:06
Speaker 2: let's just paint a picture of what happened.
10:08
Speaker 5: The date was April fifteenth, twenty eleven, and what happened
10:12
Speaker 5: was two individuals by the name of Patrick Smith and
10:15
Speaker 5: Robert Green. We're doing crack cocaine for the day and
10:18
Speaker 5: a half leading up to this young man's killing. And
10:22
Speaker 5: Patrick Smith and Robert Green went to an apartment in
10:25
Speaker 5: Oakland to purchase more crack cocaine. Patrick Smith was driving.
10:30
Speaker 5: Robert Green stayed in the car while Patrick Smith went
10:33
Speaker 5: up to the apartment to purchase more drugs. So Patrick
10:38
Speaker 5: Smith meets up with his drug dealer. Patrick Smith knows
10:41
Speaker 5: him as see the letter C who is the actual
10:44
Speaker 5: person responsible for the murder of Dewane Taylor. While Patrick
10:49
Speaker 5: Smith was in the apartment, there were several other people
10:52
Speaker 5: present and mister Taylor left the apartment. Shortly after mister
10:57
Speaker 5: Taylor left, then sees iPod turned up missing and someone
11:02
Speaker 5: in the apartment said that mister Taylor had taken sees iPod.
11:08
Speaker 5: What happened next was Patrick Smith, the shooter, SE and
11:13
Speaker 5: another individual who was also charged as a co defendant
11:16
Speaker 5: named Andre Morris. They all left the apartment and went
11:19
Speaker 5: and got in Patrick Smith's car to go find mister Taylor,
11:23
Speaker 5: who had allegedly taken SE's iPod. Robert Green was waiting
11:28
Speaker 5: in the car sitting in the front passenger seat, so
11:31
Speaker 5: pat Smith drives around the corner. They see mister Taylor
11:35
Speaker 5: walking down the street and see or Andre Morris. Pat
11:39
Speaker 5: Smith wasn't sure which told him to stop the car.
11:42
Speaker 5: She and Andre Morris got out of the car, confronted
11:46
Speaker 5: mister Taylor, and s shot and killed mister Taylor on
11:50
Speaker 5: the sidewalk in front of a fast food restaurant. They
11:53
Speaker 5: then got back into the car. Pat Smith drove a
11:56
Speaker 5: short distance. Both See and mister Morris got out of
11:59
Speaker 5: the car and ran away. So that's the factual backdrop
12:03
Speaker 5: for this thing.
12:04
Speaker 2: Follow along here because Pierre, who were on the phone
12:07
Speaker 2: with now had no connection to viction, no knowledge of
12:10
Speaker 2: the actual perpetrator, and he was at his grandmother's at
12:13
Speaker 2: the time with a young lady named Lauren Richardson on
12:16
Speaker 2: the time and date of the murder. Have you ever
12:19
Speaker 2: had a nickname of ce before it?
12:21
Speaker 3: Never? Never, I've always went by the name of Stink
12:25
Speaker 3: or people from my neighborhoods to call me peace, thank beer.
12:28
Speaker 3: For my first name is Pierre. I have never ever
12:31
Speaker 3: went by the namacy.
12:33
Speaker 2: So what happened? How did you end up getting wrongfully
12:37
Speaker 2: convicted here?
12:37
Speaker 3: Well, one of the pastors, Robert Greed, he goes to
12:40
Speaker 3: the police n five days after he allegedly seated this time,
12:44
Speaker 3: and he tells them that he's seen as murdered. A
12:46
Speaker 3: guy named Seca missed this murder. He gives the police
12:50
Speaker 3: multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description is five eight,
12:53
Speaker 3: light skinned, one hundred and twenty pounds. I haven't been
12:56
Speaker 3: one hundred and twenty pounds since I was eighteen years old,
12:58
Speaker 3: let alone at nineteen years old. I'm not light skinned.
13:01
Speaker 3: The second time I believe sees the police, he switches
13:04
Speaker 3: it up again. So allegedly he says he sees se
13:08
Speaker 3: on April thirty, which would have been fifteen days after
13:11
Speaker 3: the crime, and he went back to the police and said,
13:13
Speaker 3: you know what, I lied again. I believe he was
13:16
Speaker 3: six foot two, brown skin, and they had on red
13:20
Speaker 3: shirt and a red hat. I'm not sure what kind
13:23
Speaker 3: of lineup they were showing it, but he still couldn't
13:25
Speaker 3: identify who they believed to be seen. The police seen
13:29
Speaker 3: in an area that he said that he had seen seeing.
13:33
Speaker 3: I believe it was May third, wearing a red hat.
13:37
Speaker 3: And they stopped me. And when they stopped me and
13:39
Speaker 3: they said, what is your name? I don't lie to
13:40
Speaker 3: the police. Here, Russian is my man. I say, hey,
13:43
Speaker 3: we're looking for a guy that beat the guy up.
13:45
Speaker 3: I haven't beaten the guy up. And then they leave.
13:48
Speaker 3: When they take that name back to I believe Robert Green,
13:52
Speaker 3: who was at the police station, and they show him
13:54
Speaker 3: a picture four days after he's seen a guy with
13:56
Speaker 3: a red hat. He said, you know what, Yeah, that's me.
13:58
Speaker 3: I'm past see. And that's how the whole way of
14:00
Speaker 3: respond would have red had four days after the Barbara
14:04
Speaker 3: grid Fife seen this guy.
14:06
Speaker 2: And a month after the crime. When they first questioned you,
14:10
Speaker 2: they wanted to know what you were doing on the
14:12
Speaker 2: day of the crime. But when they were asking you
14:13
Speaker 2: this question, it was already five weeks later, right, And
14:17
Speaker 2: this is a trick that they use. Sometimes you're like,
14:20
Speaker 2: you're supposed to remember exactly. Like I'll ask anybody in
14:22
Speaker 2: the audience right now, what were you doing. Let's go
14:25
Speaker 2: back thirty five days from whatever day you're listening to this.
14:28
Speaker 2: Tell me right now what you were doing at a
14:30
Speaker 2: particular time on that day, and I'll give you a dollar.
14:33
Speaker 2: Because that's impossible, but it is very effective because then
14:36
Speaker 2: they can say you lied, because there's no way anyone
14:39
Speaker 2: could possibly remember that unless it was their birthday or
14:42
Speaker 2: some other like really important day.
14:44
Speaker 3: Right April fifteenth, you would have it is my father's birthday.
14:48
Speaker 3: So without me even thinking you say April fifteen, Hey,
14:50
Speaker 3: there's nothing I was with my dad? I say, my
14:52
Speaker 3: dad on his birthday? Not one time at any trial transcript,
14:57
Speaker 3: Police ADVA Torti's theermory. Do they ever say where were
14:59
Speaker 3: you three forty five a m. So if they said no,
15:03
Speaker 3: you weren't with your dad. I also remember that I
15:05
Speaker 3: had a traffic stop that day and they went chick
15:08
Speaker 3: and it showed that I was untruth for they say no,
15:10
Speaker 3: not at that time. It took me, I believe my attorney,
15:14
Speaker 3: for about a week of jog in my memory to
15:16
Speaker 3: figure out where did I sleep at three forty five
15:18
Speaker 3: a m. That morning? And I remembered it was my grandma.
15:22
Speaker 3: So was because my mom came to me that morning
15:24
Speaker 3: and said, where are you going to get your dad
15:26
Speaker 3: for his birthday? That's how I was. They able to
15:28
Speaker 3: put the pieces of a puzzle together, but by that
15:30
Speaker 3: time it was trial, so they looked at it as if, oh,
15:35
Speaker 3: this is a third alibi. Well, no, I've given you
15:37
Speaker 3: everywhere I went from April fifteenth, and so that's how
15:41
Speaker 3: they played it, which is very nefarious because they see
15:44
Speaker 3: that I was trying to tell them.
15:45
Speaker 2: Everything at the time that This crime was committed at
15:49
Speaker 2: three forty five in the morning. Now we know what
15:51
Speaker 2: you were doing when you were supposedly out shooting somebody
15:54
Speaker 2: who you never knew and don't know and still don't
15:57
Speaker 2: know and never will know.
15:58
Speaker 3: Well, height belfourteenth shooting a video. Thank you go on
16:01
Speaker 3: YouTube right now. The song is called young Stink Take
16:04
Speaker 3: a Trip. Lauren Richerson was associate of the camera man
16:08
Speaker 3: helped shoot the video. She was also my girlfriend April fourteenth,
16:16
Speaker 3: going in table fifteen. She came to my grandma talk
16:19
Speaker 3: roughly about nine forty five round timmy clock, and we
16:22
Speaker 3: spent the night. We enjoy each other's company. We deal
16:26
Speaker 3: with any other boy for their girlfriend.
16:31
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Lauren Richardson. I am an Oakland
16:34
Speaker 6: resident and current legal apprentice. I entered the field with
16:40
Speaker 6: a lot of motivation from the tragic situation that happened
16:43
Speaker 6: with Pierre Rushing. I originally was into video. On April fourteenth,
16:49
Speaker 6: Pierre went to shoot a video. It's called take a Trip.
16:52
Speaker 6: We were super excited because he had so much support
16:56
Speaker 6: from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was a great rapper.
17:00
Speaker 6: When he finally shot the video, we were super excited.
17:02
Speaker 6: We went back to his grandmother's house afterwards, just to
17:05
Speaker 6: kind of recap, and we stayed up all night watching movies, laughing,
17:10
Speaker 6: making plans for the future. We you know, did what
17:13
Speaker 6: couples do late night, and I left early in the
17:16
Speaker 6: morning because I had to take my son to school.
17:18
Speaker 6: And it was some weeks after that he kind of disappeared,
17:23
Speaker 6: you know, when somebody else found me and was like,
17:27
Speaker 6: you know, he's in jail. I'm like, what, because I
17:31
Speaker 6: was kind of mad, you know I was. I thought
17:34
Speaker 6: he ghosted me, to be honest, so it was no
17:38
Speaker 6: way that he could have committed the crime. I have
17:41
Speaker 6: never felt as powerless as I felt in this situation
17:48
Speaker 6: to express reality and be believed, and you know, this
17:54
Speaker 6: huge power structure for them to be able to create
17:57
Speaker 6: a false reality, like even with the witness, the witness
18:00
Speaker 6: is not a credible witness, nowhere near as credible as
18:03
Speaker 6: I am. Because I'm not going to go perjure myself.
18:06
Speaker 6: I'm not going to risk my life to keep a
18:08
Speaker 6: killer out of jail. So for me to go up
18:11
Speaker 6: there in front of all of these people and for
18:14
Speaker 6: them to not take my word for it when they
18:16
Speaker 6: had no other evidence. It bothers me to this day.
18:19
Speaker 6: It's a big part of the motivation for me to
18:21
Speaker 6: go into this apprenticeship program because I want to learn
18:26
Speaker 6: how to speak up for other people who can't speak
18:29
Speaker 6: up for themselves, because this has to stop. They ruined
18:31
Speaker 6: an entire family.
18:37
Speaker 2: The idea that we in this country can sent in
18:39
Speaker 2: somebody like you, a promising young man with his life
18:43
Speaker 2: ahead of him, to fifty years based on the testimony
18:46
Speaker 2: of an admitted crackhead. It was up for two days
18:48
Speaker 2: or changed the story four times really should make everybody
18:52
Speaker 2: a little scared. Yeah, can you tell us a little
18:56
Speaker 2: bit about the trial itself?
18:58
Speaker 3: And killing it on camera. When I heard they had
19:01
Speaker 3: it on camera, I started to kick my feet up
19:03
Speaker 3: and just wait for the trold days because I'm like,
19:05
Speaker 3: if it's on camera, I'm going home. I never in
19:08
Speaker 3: a million years imagined that the camera would be low
19:11
Speaker 3: quality or you really can't see anything on the camera.
19:15
Speaker 3: You see a vehicle pull up and it's just draining,
19:18
Speaker 3: so you can't really see anything. And I remember my
19:21
Speaker 3: heart just dropping because I knew that that was what
19:25
Speaker 3: was supposed to exonerate music. They had no evidence, no
19:29
Speaker 3: corrupt no, no physicals. They have the murder vehicle with
19:32
Speaker 3: twelve fingerprints inside the car, and say I got in
19:36
Speaker 3: and out of that car a four time. None of
19:37
Speaker 3: the fingerprints Mats Mott. One of the prosecution's witness was
19:40
Speaker 3: a lady by the name of the Carls Smith or so.
19:42
Speaker 3: She witnessed the crime her and pass s meth for
19:44
Speaker 3: best friends. She had been in that car a week
19:46
Speaker 3: before when the police forensic pathologists became the call on
19:50
Speaker 3: every twenty second they found to call this fingerprints in
19:52
Speaker 3: that car. Therefore, when she testified she hadn't been in
19:55
Speaker 3: the car seven days prior to the killing, that means
19:59
Speaker 3: that the car couldn't have actually been wiped down. And
20:01
Speaker 3: if the car wasn't wiped down, and you count twelve
20:03
Speaker 3: to fourteenth fingerprints in that car, per Robert Greene's testimony,
20:07
Speaker 3: I got in and out of that car four times,
20:09
Speaker 3: and I killed this guy with no glove. Why don't
20:11
Speaker 3: wear my fingerprints on the car? Second, if Robert greens
20:15
Speaker 3: took the leave, why would you ever call me five
20:18
Speaker 3: day light skinning one hundred and twenty pounds? Why would
20:20
Speaker 3: you ever change it to five ten one hundred and
20:23
Speaker 3: sixty pounds? In that preliminary hearing, when the judge allowed
20:26
Speaker 3: me to leave the court room, they brought Robert Green in.
20:28
Speaker 3: They said, could compleatly describe to kill it. This guy
20:31
Speaker 3: switched it up to six to two hundred and twenty pounds.
20:34
Speaker 3: This guy's not to be believed. It was addicted to cracking.
20:37
Speaker 3: Aroon said he had been up for two days off cracking. Aroon,
20:41
Speaker 3: I hadn't been initially seven times failing. Third, you have
20:45
Speaker 3: to call the smith another prosecutions with us. I didn't
20:48
Speaker 3: see him. I don't know who that is.
20:50
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean our standard in this country is
20:52
Speaker 2: supposed to be reasonable doubt, and this goes way beyond
20:56
Speaker 2: that standard.
20:57
Speaker 3: I had hoped that, you know, I would I would
20:59
Speaker 3: be exacted.
21:00
Speaker 2: And did you have proper representation?
21:02
Speaker 3: Now I went to a trial with a posite defender
21:04
Speaker 3: and I went speedy trial. I was arrested in May,
21:07
Speaker 3: I was convicted and all of this. And the reason
21:09
Speaker 3: I went Steed Troup because I feel like I had
21:11
Speaker 3: nothing to add I didn't do it. So why would
21:14
Speaker 3: I wait? Where I see in my counting people wait
21:16
Speaker 3: four or five years to fight the case because they're
21:18
Speaker 3: trying to wait for the better deal. The first day
21:20
Speaker 3: of trial, I remember the judge saying something like, hey,
21:24
Speaker 3: I know the DA is going to give you a deal.
21:25
Speaker 3: She looked to your left, get a deal because I
21:27
Speaker 3: know that he's going to give you one. And I
21:29
Speaker 3: just remember shaking my head. No, no, no, because why
21:32
Speaker 3: would I take time for something if I didn't do it.
21:35
Speaker 3: They know I'm not Sea, so they want to know
21:37
Speaker 3: if what we call in the urban community, I'm going
21:39
Speaker 3: the stench. I know a lot of seas. That's that's
21:42
Speaker 3: the one for two. It's not my job to do.
21:45
Speaker 3: The police are job for them, you know. So if
21:48
Speaker 3: I wasn't there, what if you expect me to do?
21:50
Speaker 3: Or maybe it could have been this guy, Maybe he
21:52
Speaker 3: could be this guy. If I do that, I'm worse
21:53
Speaker 3: than Robert Green because you were not there and they
21:58
Speaker 3: know that. The feet off that.
22:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, jail house nitches has just sort of become like
22:03
Speaker 2: standard operating procedure.
22:05
Speaker 3: Correct. It's a nightmare, a living nightmare. But that that
22:09
Speaker 3: was the summ of the trial.
22:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is a nightmare scenario. So the jury goes out.
22:13
Speaker 2: When they came back in, what was that moment like
22:17
Speaker 2: when they actually found guilty of a crime you didn't commit.
22:21
Speaker 3: When they came back with it, it was It was
22:24
Speaker 3: weird because the whole trial, I had twenty to thirty
22:28
Speaker 3: people every single day of my trial, friends from the neighborhood, family, girlfriend, associates.
22:34
Speaker 3: But on that day, nobody was in the cooorroom, not
22:38
Speaker 3: even the victim's family, nobody from my faund That was
22:42
Speaker 3: just like a sense of loneliness, a sense of like
22:45
Speaker 3: me against the world, because you're sitting here convicting me
22:47
Speaker 3: for a crime that I didn't commit. And I know
22:50
Speaker 3: that you know I didn't commit this crime. And I
22:52
Speaker 3: couldn't even look back to look in the eyes of
22:55
Speaker 3: my mother, my father, and my grandmother, and I felt
22:57
Speaker 3: like that was already saving. I'm like, why was even
23:00
Speaker 3: the Baker family? Like? Where was a feeling that I
23:05
Speaker 3: never want to feel again.
23:16
Speaker 2: Marvin, take it back to how you first met Pierre
23:19
Speaker 2: or how you first became aware of his case, and
23:21
Speaker 2: why you chose to get involved in this case. You
23:23
Speaker 2: must get hit with cases all the time.
23:25
Speaker 5: I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney,
23:29
Speaker 5: Stephen Frederick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court,
23:34
Speaker 5: also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State
23:37
Speaker 5: Court of Appeal.
23:38
Speaker 2: What is the literal interpretation of habeas corpus.
23:42
Speaker 5: Habeas corpus means to produce the body in Latin, and
23:46
Speaker 5: what that means is that it's an allegation by us
23:49
Speaker 5: that Pierre is being unlawfully incarcerated. And once I dug
23:53
Speaker 5: into the case and reviewed the evidence in Pierre's case
23:56
Speaker 5: and did some investigation on my own, that very much
24:00
Speaker 5: turned out to be true.
24:01
Speaker 2: What went wrong here?
24:02
Speaker 5: I think a number of things went wrong, but most critically,
24:05
Speaker 5: there was evidence which could have exonerated Pierre which was
24:10
Speaker 5: not introduced. The only witness in the case, Robert Green,
24:14
Speaker 5: testified that Pierre was supposedly the person who committed this crime.
24:19
Speaker 5: That is the only evidence in the case and in
24:21
Speaker 5: the trial against Pierre, that witness testified that the person
24:25
Speaker 5: who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone
24:29
Speaker 5: a mere minute before shooting the victim. In this case,
24:33
Speaker 5: Pierre's phone records were available and that was part of
24:37
Speaker 5: the habeas petition and got him a hearing subsequently, and
24:41
Speaker 5: those phone records established conclusively that Pierre was not talking
24:46
Speaker 5: on his cell phone at the time when the perpetrator was,
24:50
Speaker 5: and if those records were introduced, I think that it
24:54
Speaker 5: would be a pretty compelling piece of evidence to establish that,
24:57
Speaker 5: in fact, Pierre is not the pers responsible for this murder.
25:02
Speaker 2: But they weren't introduced.
25:03
Speaker 7: The jury never heard of them.
25:04
Speaker 2: What about the fingerprint stuff? How did they manage to
25:07
Speaker 2: get around that? That seems like that could have been
25:11
Speaker 2: enough on its own. How did he not leave his fingerprints?
25:14
Speaker 2: Is he a ghost?
25:15
Speaker 1: Well?
25:15
Speaker 5: The fingerprint evidence was introduced by way of a stipulation
25:19
Speaker 5: or the evidence technician who actually gathered the latent fingerprints
25:23
Speaker 5: from the car that was used in the homicide. That
25:26
Speaker 5: witness did not testify. Rather, Pierre's trial attorney chose to
25:31
Speaker 5: have that evidence admitted by way of an agreement with
25:34
Speaker 5: the prosecutor, simply the conclusion that Pierre's fingerprints were not
25:38
Speaker 5: in fact recovered from that car, and had that witness
25:41
Speaker 5: been called, it would have led to another important piece
25:45
Speaker 5: which was not introduced and not known to the jury.
25:48
Speaker 5: That evidence technician also collected DNA from that car, swabbed
25:53
Speaker 5: all of the areas of that car where the killer
25:58
Speaker 5: fat just before the murder occurred. In addition, there was
26:03
Speaker 5: a cigarette but that was recovered from the floorboard of
26:08
Speaker 5: that car, which was also swabbed for DNA. That DNA
26:13
Speaker 5: evidence was not tested in time for Pierre's trial, and
26:17
Speaker 5: that was also the subject of his subsequent avias petition.
26:22
Speaker 5: So what happened was after we obtained an evidentiary hearing
26:26
Speaker 5: in state court to attempt to prove Pierre's innocence, As
26:30
Speaker 5: I started reviewing the case materials, I realized that this
26:33
Speaker 5: DNA evidence existed which would completely exonerate him, and no
26:37
Speaker 5: one had tested it. So there's a procedure under California
26:42
Speaker 5: law that allows the convicted individual to ask the court
26:46
Speaker 5: to now have that evidence tested because it would prove
26:49
Speaker 5: that he's innocent. The government opposed our efforts to have
26:53
Speaker 5: that evidence tested, and ultimately the judge in this case
26:58
Speaker 5: refused to allow it to test that evidence. I then
27:01
Speaker 5: appealed that refusal, and the Court of Appeal refused to
27:05
Speaker 5: allow us to test that evidence. Why is it that
27:08
Speaker 5: they wouldn't want to have the DNA evidence in the
27:11
Speaker 5: case tested if they're so confident that, in fact, he's
27:14
Speaker 5: the perpetrator.
27:15
Speaker 2: I never can understand in any case, especially in a
27:18
Speaker 2: case as serious as this one. A murder case. Why
27:21
Speaker 2: they wouldn't want to have every stone turned over and
27:26
Speaker 2: have every piece of evidence tested so that they can
27:28
Speaker 2: find out not only that in this case, Pierre didn't
27:31
Speaker 2: do it, but they could find out who actually did. Marvin,
27:35
Speaker 2: Yolanda Washington, and Patrick Smith are pivotal players in this
27:39
Speaker 2: whole wrongful conviction. Can you explain their role in what
27:43
Speaker 2: went wrong here?
27:45
Speaker 7: Sure?
27:46
Speaker 5: Of course Pat Smith was a charged co defendant in
27:49
Speaker 5: the case at the time of Pierre's trial, so he
27:52
Speaker 5: did not testify at the trial. He had his fifth
27:54
Speaker 5: Amendment right. But after Pierre's trial was long over and
27:58
Speaker 5: after Patrick Smith was his part of the case for
28:02
Speaker 5: accessory after the fact, he then signed an affidavid which
28:06
Speaker 5: helped Pierre get an evidentiary hearing. He indicated both in
28:10
Speaker 5: his affidavit as well as in his testimony at the
28:12
Speaker 5: evidentiary hearing that his drug dealer is a man who
28:17
Speaker 5: goes by the name of f and that individual was
28:21
Speaker 5: not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing refused to
28:25
Speaker 5: name that individual because he was afraid for his life.
28:29
Speaker 5: But one of the people who was in that apartment
28:32
Speaker 5: was a woman by the name of Yolanda Washington, and
28:35
Speaker 5: she also did not testify a trial, But after Pierre
28:38
Speaker 5: was convicted, she signed an affidavid under penalty of perjury,
28:42
Speaker 5: indicating that she, of course, having been in that apartment,
28:46
Speaker 5: knew who she was. She obviously knew who Andre Morris was.
28:51
Speaker 5: And what she said in her affidavit was that Pierre
28:54
Speaker 5: Rushing is not the drug dealer who shot and killed
28:58
Speaker 5: mister Taylor.
29:00
Speaker 7: Rushing is not C.
29:02
Speaker 5: But that's not all. Indeed, Yolanda Washington went so far
29:06
Speaker 5: as to identify who that person was. Now, before we
29:10
Speaker 5: get into this, let me make one thing clear, which
29:13
Speaker 5: is that Pierre does not know the identity of the
29:17
Speaker 5: perpetrator of this homicide. Yolanda Washington, in her affidavid did
29:22
Speaker 5: name that individual who goes by the nickname C. In fact,
29:26
Speaker 5: his first name is his name is And of course
29:31
Speaker 5: it would make perfect sense that he would go by
29:33
Speaker 5: the nickname C because his name is Pierre Rushing does
29:38
Speaker 5: not have a cea in his name, and she has
29:41
Speaker 5: never been Pierre's nickname. Because Pierre is not the person
29:45
Speaker 5: responsible for this killing. That affidavit was part of what
29:50
Speaker 5: enabled Pierre to get a hearing in superior court. Unfortunately,
29:54
Speaker 5: Miss Washington was a homeless individual at that time, and
29:59
Speaker 5: my investigator was essentially unable to locate her to get
30:03
Speaker 5: her to testify in court. So I filed emotion essentially
30:06
Speaker 5: asking that her affidavit be considered because she was unavailable,
30:11
Speaker 5: and that request was denied.
30:15
Speaker 2: Wow, it's pretty courageous, even after the fact that these
30:21
Speaker 2: two people both were willing to put their own lives
30:24
Speaker 2: at risk to identify someone who they know is a killer,
30:28
Speaker 2: and I think that speaks volumes to the veracity of
30:33
Speaker 2: their statements.
30:53
Speaker 3: You have any doubt in my innagmence? How would I
30:55
Speaker 3: use this thing on the points? What person would for
31:00
Speaker 3: DNA testing of the materials that were sought out the
31:03
Speaker 3: vehicle if I wasn't innocent, What yilty man would place
31:07
Speaker 3: for the enhancement of the video if I wasn't innocent,
31:12
Speaker 3: A man going to push for the phone records? Amnis,
31:17
Speaker 3: I think you meant this crime. I have nothing to
31:19
Speaker 3: do with this.
31:20
Speaker 2: Crime, Pierre. Last time we spoke Dwan Taylor's actual murderer,
31:29
Speaker 2: the guy known as C now his co conspirator Andre Marris,
31:33
Speaker 2: as well as an accessory after the fact, Patrick Smith,
31:36
Speaker 2: they had both come forward to definitively state that you
31:39
Speaker 2: had absolutely nothing to do with the ones murder and
31:43
Speaker 2: are not, in fact C.
31:45
Speaker 1: That's not you.
31:46
Speaker 2: You and C are different people, but for their own safety,
31:50
Speaker 2: understandably they would not name C. However, a woman named
31:54
Speaker 2: Yolanda Washington, who was prepared to do just that, she
31:57
Speaker 2: couldn't be located for your ebidentiary here and then Smith
32:01
Speaker 2: and Morris were just explained away. And additionally, your request
32:05
Speaker 2: for DNA testing against items from the car was denied.
32:08
Speaker 2: And you're right, why would a guilty person, what guilty
32:12
Speaker 2: person would be seeking DNA testing on items that might
32:15
Speaker 2: contain their own DNA?
32:17
Speaker 3: What do you want to.
32:17
Speaker 2: Submit your own guilt if you were doing that, if
32:19
Speaker 2: you actually had a guilty conscience. Or why would they
32:22
Speaker 2: try to enhance crime scene video if they knew it
32:25
Speaker 2: was going to point to their guilt. All of this
32:28
Speaker 2: in addition to how flimsy the state's evidence was to
32:31
Speaker 2: begin with the sole witness I'm talking about Robert Green,
32:35
Speaker 2: of course, the whole witness who cooperated with police to
32:38
Speaker 2: avoid being charged as well, whose description of C changed
32:42
Speaker 2: three count them three times, and one of those times
32:45
Speaker 2: Green said that C had worn a red hat again.
32:49
Speaker 2: Robert green knew sy knew just how dangerous he really was,
32:53
Speaker 2: yet he felt quite comfortable identifying you, Pierre, after you
32:57
Speaker 2: were picked up while wearing a red hat.
33:00
Speaker 4: They stopped me two days after that description was given,
33:03
Speaker 4: So I guess this quote unquote killer was supposed to
33:06
Speaker 4: have been wearing the same clothes and hat for two
33:08
Speaker 4: days straight. I mean, like it was bananas from the beginning.
33:12
Speaker 4: I've never fit a description of being five to eight
33:14
Speaker 4: light skin, I've never rocked the ball, and haven't been
33:17
Speaker 4: one hundred and twenty pounds since I was ten years old.
33:21
Speaker 4: I mean, it just has been bananas from the game.
33:23
Speaker 4: Nobody can convince me that he thought I was ever
33:27
Speaker 4: the guy in the car with.
33:29
Speaker 2: Him, because you weren't. What you were was you were
33:33
Speaker 2: with Lauren that night at your grandmother's house, and her
33:36
Speaker 2: testimony was corroborated by the absence of your fingerprints in
33:40
Speaker 2: the vehicle. Since your episode aired in twenty twenty, your
33:43
Speaker 2: case was picked up from Marvin leu pro bono, by
33:46
Speaker 2: the way, by one of the biggest and baddest law
33:49
Speaker 2: firms in the country, Greenberg Trauig and one of their
33:52
Speaker 2: star attorneys, Jordan Gratzinger has been hard at work. I
33:56
Speaker 2: mean that's an understatement.
33:58
Speaker 7: Yeah, he's a beast.
34:00
Speaker 4: We have a great investigator by the name of Grant
34:03
Speaker 4: Fine overturning all the stones in the case, getting half
34:06
Speaker 4: a Davis that wouldn't have gotten before, talking to witnesses
34:09
Speaker 4: that hadn't spoken before, and tracked Robert Green down. I
34:13
Speaker 4: was sitting here on my bunk and Jordan grass Singer
34:16
Speaker 4: he sent me a message and he just was saying
34:18
Speaker 4: Robert Green every candidate and I had to look at
34:20
Speaker 4: the message twice take it.
34:22
Speaker 7: All in, and I was like, damn.
34:24
Speaker 4: I thought it was like some kind of like April
34:25
Speaker 4: Fool's joke or something, and I just immediately dropped his tears.
34:28
Speaker 4: So from what I've been told, it was just like,
34:31
Speaker 4: you know, weighing on his soul. He finally did the
34:33
Speaker 4: right thing. We'll just tell the truth. I mean, I've
34:36
Speaker 4: gotten with anybody in my position of fighting wrong for
34:39
Speaker 4: comvision as asked for. The one and only witness has
34:41
Speaker 4: fully recanted.
34:43
Speaker 2: So I'm both well, very happy for you, but also
34:47
Speaker 2: i gotta admit I'm confused. Why am I? Why are
34:50
Speaker 2: we talking to you over a prison phone? It seems
34:53
Speaker 2: like that should have been, it should have resolved the case.
34:55
Speaker 2: You should have walked out the door. And now there's
34:59
Speaker 2: actually literally zero evidence against you. So where does that
35:03
Speaker 2: leave your case.
35:04
Speaker 4: We're in court and we're trying to get this case dismissed.
35:08
Speaker 4: Speaking with a progressive da by the name of Pamela Price,
35:12
Speaker 4: and she has eyes on it.
35:13
Speaker 7: I don't have the declaration in front of me, but
35:17
Speaker 7: Robert Green.
35:17
Speaker 4: Says he knew the whole time that it wasn't me,
35:19
Speaker 4: and it just gave validation and what I've been saying
35:22
Speaker 4: the whole time that I didn't commit this crime and
35:24
Speaker 4: there was no way that I would have or could
35:27
Speaker 4: have committed this crime. As well as one of the
35:30
Speaker 4: guys that were actually convicted after me, Andre Morris, he
35:34
Speaker 4: did a written declaration and said that he was a
35:37
Speaker 4: participant in the killing and that I wasn't with him.
35:40
Speaker 3: That was that.
35:41
Speaker 7: So we're just waiting and praying for good news very soon.
35:44
Speaker 2: Well, let's hope the Pamela Price doesn't just put on
35:49
Speaker 2: the progressive sort of bona FIDE's at election time, right,
35:53
Speaker 2: but that she takes this case as what it is,
35:56
Speaker 2: which is an example of why we need prospersuters with
36:00
Speaker 2: the brains and the heart that we know she possesses.
36:03
Speaker 2: And by the way, it shouldn't take a reform minded
36:06
Speaker 2: prosecutor when we're dealing with actual innocence. Every prosecutor should
36:10
Speaker 2: want to get the innocent guy out and go after
36:14
Speaker 2: the person that actually did it. And this is a
36:16
Speaker 2: guy whose name we know and we know they know,
36:20
Speaker 2: So what is the hold up?
36:23
Speaker 7: I believe Pamela Price is under a lot of scrutiny.
36:26
Speaker 4: She's cleaning up Alameda County, and she's being took to town
36:31
Speaker 4: by some as being too soft on crime. And really
36:34
Speaker 4: there's all type of guys walking around here in three
36:36
Speaker 4: strikes and weed and all type of just craziness. She's
36:40
Speaker 4: by the book, and by her being by the book,
36:43
Speaker 4: it's making her seem as if she's soft on crime
36:45
Speaker 4: if you don't have enough evidence to convict beyond a
36:48
Speaker 4: reasonable doubt. She's not taking it into some that that
36:52
Speaker 4: seems if she's soft on krime in my instance, as
36:55
Speaker 4: far as my habeas petition, I haven't heard from Pamela Price,
36:59
Speaker 4: and Jordan hasn't either. She's aware of the situation, she's
37:03
Speaker 4: aware of the Joe Rogan podcast, She's aware of the
37:05
Speaker 4: Wrongful Provision podcast, She's aware of the Breakfast Club interview,
37:09
Speaker 4: and she still hasn't responded to Jordan Grassinger, and she's
37:12
Speaker 4: supposed to file some kind of rebuttal to my release.
37:15
Speaker 4: I'm not sure where we're at. We're close to justice,
37:17
Speaker 4: but I still feel like they're trying to hold on
37:20
Speaker 4: to something that they know is wrong, because why are
37:23
Speaker 4: they not talking to us?
37:24
Speaker 7: Why are they following the rebuddle? What are you rebudding?
37:27
Speaker 4: You have every single person that was in the vehicle
37:30
Speaker 4: except to kill her yourself, that has done sworn declarations
37:33
Speaker 4: and given testimony that I did not comment the crime.
37:37
Speaker 4: Everybody has said, wrong guy. There is no physical or
37:41
Speaker 4: tangible or corroborating evidence that goes with this case.
37:45
Speaker 7: What are you rebudding?
37:47
Speaker 2: I don't get it either. I mean, are they going
37:48
Speaker 2: to say we don't find Robert Green's recantation credible? And
37:53
Speaker 2: if so, was he then credible before when he was
37:56
Speaker 2: facing accessory after the fact doing all kinds of drugs.
38:01
Speaker 2: And don't forget he changed the description of c three times,
38:04
Speaker 2: a guy who he knew to be capable of murder,
38:07
Speaker 2: yet he was brave enough to identify you a man
38:11
Speaker 2: who did not fit any one of his multiple descriptions.
38:14
Speaker 2: You know, it's hard not to think that maybe he
38:16
Speaker 2: thought that you were the type of guy who wouldn't
38:18
Speaker 2: come after him, which leads us to believe that you
38:20
Speaker 2: were not a dangerous guy in the first place, never were,
38:23
Speaker 2: and never will be. I mean, this conviction happened well
38:26
Speaker 2: over a decade before Pam Price was elected. She could
38:29
Speaker 2: fix this. It wouldn't reflect badly on her or her office,
38:33
Speaker 2: because after all, it was one of her predecessors that
38:36
Speaker 2: made these mistakes.
38:37
Speaker 4: It was a lady but the name of Nancy O'Malley.
38:40
Speaker 4: So I understand she has a lot to go on.
38:42
Speaker 4: But it's like Jordan says, there is no case in
38:46
Speaker 4: Alamina County that is as compelling in an innocence claim
38:50
Speaker 4: as mine.
38:51
Speaker 2: So is there anything our audience can do to help?
38:53
Speaker 2: Is there a petition to sign? At a very minimum, I.
38:56
Speaker 4: Think we're past signing a petition. I believe that we
38:59
Speaker 4: have to do a CEP Newton shiit. We have to agitate,
39:03
Speaker 4: we have to call, we have to email, we have
39:05
Speaker 4: to show up unannounced to the d DA's office. Some
39:08
Speaker 4: might say that that's hurtful. Sitting in jail for twelve
39:12
Speaker 4: years with a fifty to life sentence is hurtful. Duwan
39:14
Speaker 4: Taylor's family deserves justice like this is not justice. So
39:18
Speaker 4: I would ask that a call Family Prices office and
39:22
Speaker 4: ask for justice for Perre Russian.
39:24
Speaker 2: All right, this is all hands on deck, people, We
39:26
Speaker 2: can we can do this. We put out the original
39:30
Speaker 2: coverage three and a half bucking years ago. All right,
39:33
Speaker 2: so we're gonna post her office's number, her email, her
39:37
Speaker 2: snail mail address, all of it in the bio. And remember,
39:40
Speaker 2: be respectful when you call. It doesn't help anyone in order.
39:44
Speaker 2: Does she deserve Everyone deserves to be treated ris respect
39:47
Speaker 2: in that office whoever answers the phone, So please keep
39:49
Speaker 2: that in mind, but do call, write, email, whatever. And
39:53
Speaker 2: with that we're going to move on to closing arguments,
39:56
Speaker 2: where I thank you Pierre for calling in once again again.
40:00
Speaker 2: You know you're in our thoughts here at Rafel Conviction
40:03
Speaker 2: more often than you know. And now I'm just going
40:05
Speaker 2: to sit back and listen to anything else you want
40:08
Speaker 2: to say.
40:09
Speaker 7: I would just like to speak directly to her.
40:11
Speaker 1: Yeah, go for it.
40:12
Speaker 4: Pamela Price, Robert Green get his declaration in February when
40:16
Speaker 4: he lied on me. They instantly put a word out
40:19
Speaker 4: the same day. That's tooking longer to exonerate me than
40:22
Speaker 4: it took to convict me.
40:24
Speaker 7: There's no evidence in this case.
40:26
Speaker 4: Rely on your common sense, Rely on your expertise and
40:29
Speaker 4: the Civil Rights Arena. Rely on your intelligence. I didn't
40:32
Speaker 4: commit this crime. You know I didn't commit this crime.
40:35
Speaker 4: Every mind of second that passes by is an injustice.
40:39
Speaker 7: I could be your son. I could be your little brother.
40:41
Speaker 7: I could be your nephew.
40:43
Speaker 4: I do not deserve to continue to sit here while
40:48
Speaker 4: you and your office place politics. I have a family
40:51
Speaker 4: to get to. My little sister was murdered in twenty eighteen.
40:54
Speaker 4: My niece has no mother, she has no father.
40:57
Speaker 7: She needs me.
40:58
Speaker 4: My family needs me. My mother needs me, my father
41:01
Speaker 4: needs me. The community needs me. I have a story.
41:05
Speaker 4: I can stop a lot with my story. I'm asking
41:09
Speaker 4: you to please step up and do the right thing.
41:11
Speaker 4: Give Jordan Grassen your a call, and please do the
41:14
Speaker 4: right thing.
41:21
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
41:23
Speaker 2: to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
41:26
Speaker 2: week early and ed free by subscribing to Lava for
41:29
Speaker 2: Good plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our
41:31
Speaker 2: production team Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well as
41:35
Speaker 2: my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Warnis, and Jeff Cleiber.
41:39
Speaker 2: The music in this production was supplied by three time
41:41
Speaker 2: OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us
41:44
Speaker 2: across all social media platforms at Lava for Good and
41:47
Speaker 2: at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on Instagram
41:50
Speaker 2: at It's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is the production of
41:53
Speaker 2: Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.
41:57
Speaker 1: We've worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in
41:59
Speaker 1: this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by
42:02
Speaker 1: the individuals featured in this show are their own and
42:04
Speaker 1: do not necessarily reflect those of love of for Good