Latest / Wrongful Conviction Podcasts / 510: #510 Jason Flom with Pedro Reynoso

Transcript

510: #510 Jason Flom with Pedro Reynoso · Wrongful Conviction Podcasts

• 00:00:03 Speaker 1: In July nineteen ninety one in North Philadelphia, two drug houses on the same street were futing and two young men were fatally shot. According to witnesses, the assailants were known as Chuito and Papadito, but arrest warrants were issued for two men who did not go by those names, Falo Garcia and Pedro Renoso. Moreover, Pedro Renoso had been in the Dominican Republic since ten days before the shooting, yet upon his return to the US nearly three years later, he was arrested, tried, and convicted with the help of two witnesses who were willing to testify that Pedro was Popadito and fellow Garcia was some guy named Marciano. So where's Chuito not serving life in prison? This is wramful Conviction. You're listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one week early and ad free by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction, where we've got a Philadelphia story that literally makes me insane. This story involves a man named Pedro Renoso from the Dominican Republic, and it's a story that we began covering with now, this back before the pandemic, and in fact, some of this audio represents the last in person interviews we did in March twenty twenty. So joining us now is Pedro's attorney, Craig Cooley. Craig, welcome. 00:01:51 Speaker 2: I appreciate you've talked about Paedro's case. It's truth or shadury and fiction, and this is a case that exemplifies that point. 00:01:59 Speaker 1: It really does. This murder occurred in Philadelphia while Pedro was undeniably in the Dominican Republic. Again, all of this while police were actually aware of the real killer. But somehow Pedro, still all these years later, is calling in from a Pennsylvania correctional facility and at Pedro, thank you for calling in. 00:02:23 Speaker 3: Thank you, Ay, I appreciate you. 00:02:24 Speaker 2: Man. 00:02:25 Speaker 1: So Pedro chose to speak in Spanish for our interviews, so our workaround was to have his wife Evelyn translate and our producer Connor Hall recorded the translation in English. Unfortunately, the live translation process shortened what was already a tight time slot, so we focused on the heavier stuff with Pedro and had to lean on Craig a little bit to hear how Pedro's story began. 00:02:46 Speaker 2: I was born in the Dominican Republic in the late seventies early eighties. He came to the US with the intent of gaining citizenship, and by nineteen ninety one he had obtained a temporary visa. Based on my conversations with him and other family members, he was doing odd jobs and doing something at the quote unquote drug house on Darien Street. 00:03:09 Speaker 1: Pedro worked at thirty forty two North Darien Street, which was owned by a heavy set Dominican guy named Desio, and he ran the spot with Rafael Bidal aka Tuito, and that house was involved in an ongoing dispute with the drug house across the street at thirty forty five North Darien, which was operated by a Puerto Rican family, Juanino, his wife Marisol Torres Cologne, whose brother, by the way, was one of the victims, Carlos Torres, followed by seventeen year old Charles Rivera. 00:03:41 Speaker 3: I knew Carlos Torres for about a week, but I have no idea who the other person was. 00:03:47 Speaker 1: I never knew the other person, but before this dispute came to that terrible end. Pedro's family back in the Dominican Republic requested that he and his newborn son, Juan Alexander, returned to the dr and they arrived on July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one, ten full days before the crime. 00:04:06 Speaker 3: I went to visit my mother, who was sick, very sick, and I stayed there until she died in nineteen ninety three. 00:04:13 Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety. 00:04:14 Speaker 3: Four, I had tried to come back, and that's when I ran into this. 00:04:18 Speaker 1: So this being the aftermath of the inter drug House dispute, and there's evidence in the homicide files or h files that Craig Coolly obtained since twenty nineteen that the police were well aware of this dispute, particularly from an interview with a man named Marcus James. 00:04:36 Speaker 2: James explained how he had gone to the Dominican drug House on July twentieth, nineteen ninety one, to purchase cocaine. While at the drug house, James encountered this heavyset Dominican who quote ran the drug operation end quote. James didn't know this Dominican's name, but said, quote you can't miss him end quote, because this Dominican weigh between two hundred and fifty and three hundred pounds. James Moever said, this Dominican asked him, James, if he'd seen Charles Rivier I e. The Puerto Rican because Rivier owed him ten thousand dollars. This witness is telling the cops like, this is what happened. There was a hit placed on Riviera because he supposedly ripped off ten grand and cast and drugs. JES file and the DA file both contained evidence that Carlos Torres and his brother in law Juan Andino, had also stolen drugs from the Dominican right on and married to Marisol. Both files also contained evidence that Charles Rivere, Carlos Torres, andjan Andeno had an ongoing dispute with the Dominicans and that they shot at the Dominicans, particularly Tweto, in the days leading up to this shooting. So there's this back and forth. 00:05:41 Speaker 1: In fact, both Juan Andino and Marisol Torres Cologne told the police about run ins that they'd had with Twito earlier on the day of the shooting, and Dino said he was hiding in an abandoned house for the cops and Chuito forced him to turn himself in with a three fifty seven magnum and then Chuito came to thirty forty five North area looking for Carlos Torres and his sister Marisol. Didn't get a chance to warn him before he and Charles Rivera were killed just around the corner at around one fifteen pm on July twenty third of nineteen ninety one. And we're going to give you the details of the shooting from the point of view of both the state's star trial witnesses, all right, Sarah Robinson and Sam Wilkerson, as testified to either in post conviction hearings or in front of the Philadelphia Conviction Integrity Units. So let's start with Wilkerson, who saw this from the angle of the victims. 00:06:36 Speaker 2: Wilkerson said Carlos Torres stopped his Toyota on the corner where Wilkerson and others were standing. Charles Riviera was in the front passenger seat. Tours complained about the Dominicans, particularly Tweeto, because Tweto had routed out Torres's brother in law Juan and Dino earlier that morning, which allowed the police department to confiscate many of Jan's guns. 00:06:58 Speaker 1: Now, Robinson and who was across from Wilkerson, Torres, and Rivera, saw Tweto come onto the scene. 00:07:05 Speaker 2: Robinson said. At the time of double murder, Robinson was selling fake bags of marijuana on the corner of Ninth Street and Clearfield Street. While in the corner, a car pulled up alongside her with two brown skinned men in the front seat. She approached the car and offered to sell them fake marijuana, but when she saw Tweedo driving, she backed up and said, quote, oh it's you, end quote and didn't try selling Tweeto anything. She recognized the other car occupant as one of the Dominican drug dealers from the Darren Street house, but didn't know his name. She was certain though it wasn't Pedro Renoso. 00:07:37 Speaker 1: The witnesses described the assailants as clean shaven, while Pedro had a thick mustache at the time. 00:07:43 Speaker 2: Robinson then saw Tweedo's car pulled up alongside Carlos Torres' car, which wasn't far from where she was standing. She saw Tweedo open fire into Carlos Torres' car, killing Charles Rivieria, who was the front passenger seat an Torros, Sam Wilkerson and Sarah robinsonknewhim Tweeto. I don't know if they knew his real his actual name, but you know, the Dominicans who lived in that area from our investigation knew his first name, Rafael Vido. Everybody refers to him as Tweeto, though. 00:08:12 Speaker 1: And Marisol Cologne was still hoping at this point to warn her brother about Tweto. When her children came running down the street screaming that something had happened to their uncle. She ran to Clearfield the ninth, saw that Rivera was already dead, and tried to push her brother back into the car to drive him to the hospital. Instead, the police took both men to Temple University Hospital, where they were pronounced dead. And according to a twenty eleven Alfi David and a twenty eighteenth Philadelphia Inquirer interview, when Marisol returned from the hospital to thirty forty five North Areyan, Tweito was there waiting for her. 00:08:50 Speaker 2: At some point she had this confrontation with Tweeto, and it was at this point when Tweto confessed, I think it's the best word to use to being the guy committed to the double murdered. And she's adamant that she told the detectives like, it's Tweeto and he told me and now on certain terms, that I did you a favor by killing your brother, and. 00:09:11 Speaker 1: Marisau replied, quote, you better kill me too, because I'm going to make sure that you're locked up end quote to which he replied whatever as he left. So it appears that Yuito knew somehow that he'd get away with this. Perhaps he had a special relationship with the police. I mean, after all, he was named in the initial homicide summary along with a man named Papadito. But as the police began compiling a list of names associated with the Dominican drug house, which included Pedro and his co defended fellow Garcia, they obtained arrest warrants, none of which were for Rafael Vidal, as documented in this homicide summary that was buried until twenty nineteen. 00:09:54 Speaker 2: So there's a paragraph that basically says on July twenty third, nine ninety one, they describe what hap and the next sentence it says, quote as a result of investigation two males who identified as Tweeto and Popadito, where a person's responsible for the murders of the two males, and it says, warrants of arrests were issued and Falo Garcia was arrested on July twenty seventh, ninety one. Okay, now, the third sentence says, a male identified as Popadito is presently listed as a fusitives but Falo everybody knew Falo Garcia wasn't tweet him. And more importantly, if you want to divert attention away from tweet him, and you're going through that list and you're like, okay, where's Pedro and somebody says, oh, he left the country, I mean there it is. 00:10:50 Speaker 1: This episode of Wrongful Conviction is proudly sponsored by Erase PTSD. Now every day, countless individuals face the invisible wounds of trauma and PTSD. Your support empowers us to provide life changing treatments like the Stelli Ganglion Block SGB, which inhibits nerve impulses and helps to restore hope, reclaim lives, and save lives after incarceration. Together, we can ensure that those wrongfully convicted receive the care they need to heal and reintegrate into society. Join us in this mission to erase PTSD and uplift our communities visit ERASEPTSD noow dot org. That's erase PTSD now dot org for more information and ways to get involved. Pedro Renoso left the US on July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one, ten days before the crime, and Pedro believes that Tuito may have even stoked interest in him. 00:11:49 Speaker 3: It could have been that Tchuito I knew him. We didn't have a good relationship at the time, since I was in Santa Domingo. They did it as a cover up and distorted the end investigation of the case. That's what I think. 00:12:04 Speaker 1: Initially, the name Tuto was assigned to fellow Garcia, and Pedro was identified as Papadito by Sarah Robinson, who explained herself in twenty twenty one to the Philadelphia CiU. 00:12:15 Speaker 2: Roberson said she had a pre existing relationship with these detectives. They often provided her with money and other rewards, such as drugs confiscated from others. They dropped these items from their car and leave them for her to pick up. In return for these rewards, Robinson signed whatever statements they asked her to sign in different cases. She said this is what she did in Pedro's case. At the time back in nineteen ninety one, she felt no remorse for false identifying Pedro because she didn't like him very much and she was more concerned with her own well being. Robertson said to these detectives she didn't know their real names. She recognized them as either Tom and Jerry or Sarge. 00:12:49 Speaker 1: Sarge. Our listeners may recall from our coverage of Manford Younger's case that Sarge is actually Detective Martin Devlin's nickname and his partner, Chuck Bentham, had retired from Philly to work for Camden County by the time of Manford Younger's two thousand and seven case, But back in nineteen ninety one, Chuck Bentham was the guy signing most of the Philadelphia police reports in Pedro's case, so their presence might explain how the initial homicide summary naming Tuito was buried while the suspects nicknames morphed. Initially, Falo was Tuito and Papadito was a fugitive, but that's not what it says on Palo's arrest report. 00:13:32 Speaker 2: If you go through yhfoul, they identify Falo as Papadido on his arrest report, and then there's a second document in the hvoule. It's the municipal court hearing list. Again it lists his name and there's an alias section it says Papadido. And again those documents, from our understanding, were not provided to Trow Council. And then Falo Garcia's attorney, Trow Council brought a photograph of Pedro to the police department. And then once they had this photograph like this is Papadido. 00:14:08 Speaker 1: Which perhaps they were trying to clear flow from this case, but instead Chuwito was dropped from suspicion altogether. Pedro was once again assigned the role of the fugitive Papadito, and fellow Garcia was dubbed the previously unmentioned Marciano, and Bentham and Devlin had their regular informant, Sarah Robinson, support this twisted narrative. 00:14:33 Speaker 2: Sarah Robinson. She says that she saw AKA Pedro at the drug house on the morning of July twenty sixth, nineteen ninety one, and she says that once they're at the drug house, they stay there all day, right, so like around nine o'clock. So if you take her word of what she's saying in her statement. Pedro was in Philly on July twenty sixth, nineteen ninety one, all day, and that's significant because what happens the next. 00:14:58 Speaker 1: Day, on September twenty seven. Pedro's son was baptized in the Dominican Republic, which posed a great deal of issues for that narrative, like alibi witnesses including a priest, as well as photographs of the event. Now, Pedro also had purchased property in the Dominican Republic around the twentieth leaving a very narrow window in which he could have possibly snuck back into the US and snuck back out completely undetected. Nevertheless, the state was locked in with Sarah Robinson's statement, which we'd later found out really bothered Sam Wilkerson. 00:15:36 Speaker 2: Wilkerson explained how two detectives had detained him and took him to homicide on July thirtieth because he confronted Sarah Robinson on the street as he spoke with two detectives about the fact she'd falsely identified Papaddo as the gunman once a homicide. The detectives not only threatened to charge him with obstructing justice, but they also handcuffed him to a chair, beat him through eminem's at him and didn't give him water. Now the eminem in fact, he threw in the M and m's like, that's a fact that this actually happened, because I would Why would I make that up. When Wilkerson woke up the next morning, July thirty first, he was still handcuffed to the chair. Read the ham written statement. It contained the narrative that ultimately appeared in the July thirty first, nineteen ninety one homicide statement. 00:16:16 Speaker 1: So now Robinson and Wilkerson were singing the same tune, and fellow Garcia was taken to trial. 00:16:22 Speaker 3: He had a different trial in nineteen ninety two. He's convicted. Falo was convicted. 00:16:27 Speaker 1: Oh, he was convicted too, So he's another innocent man in prisonment. Correct. Meanwhile, Pedro was unaware of how perilous his eventual return to the US might be, as he took care of his ailing mother and met a new woman in. 00:16:39 Speaker 3: The DR while I was in Santo Domingo. She ended up pregnant and I had a daughter with her in Santo Domingo for me, And there's a big deal to leave my small son and daughter over there without knowing. 00:16:50 Speaker 1: What was waiting for me here. So after his mother passed in late nineteen ninety three, he tied up some loose ends and planned a return flight to the US. But staying outside of the US from nineteen ninety one to ninety four violated the terms of his temporary visa because he was only supposed to have left for two or three weeks at the time, not two or three years. 00:17:09 Speaker 2: So March ninety four he goes to the airport and he has an initial ticket, but the American Airlines folks are like, no, you don't have the appropriate documents, like you've been here for three years, so they wouldn't let him board. So, according to Pedro, there were people in the DR who knew the immigration policy of the US, and they knew there were many Dominicans who had this temporary visa. So there are people at the airport in the DR that would make money by fabricating passport stamps, and so Pedro, according to what he's told us, is he met this person at the airport and Pedro tells him like, yes, you know, I've been here since July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one. Now it's March twenty third or twenty fourth, nineteen ninety four. And the fabricator, I call him the fabricator, my pleadings. The fabricator knows the Paula goes back to the July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one date, says, you have to have an exit date two or three weeks after that you have to be leaving the DR and back into the US. So they pick, of all dates, July twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one. 00:18:15 Speaker 1: Again, that's the exact date of his son's baptism, which was critical to his alibi, not exactly a day that you'd expect him to be traveling internationally. 00:18:26 Speaker 2: The fabricator fabricates an exit stamp dated July twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one. So the fabricator says, it's March twenty third, twenty fourth, nineteen ninety four. Let's make a fabricated entry stamp into the DR for March tenth, because today's the twenty third, twenty fourth, it's only two weeks you're going back to the US. It looks like you were owning in the DR for two weeks. So those fabricated stamps had a purpose, and the purpose was not to get away with murder, but to convince the US immigration folks that he was in fact in the US from July twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one until like March tenth of nineteen ninety four, so he a can get back into the States and b maintained this status he has in the US. 00:19:14 Speaker 1: When he arrived at Newark Airport, he was immediately arrested and he had to hire an attorney. 00:19:19 Speaker 3: We got a lawyer, and he left me at the county jail for nearly two and a half years, telling me that the case would never go to trial, but that he would pick up the case because he could get enough evidence before the trial to say this never happened. 00:19:33 Speaker 1: Pedro's attorney may have been confident in light of the passport stamps. Despite the two fabrications of which the attorney was unaware, the stamps still exonerated Pedro. Plus the September twenty seventh exit stamp from the Dominican Republic was really problematic for Sarah Robinson's statement that she'd allegedly seen Pedro in Philadelphia on July twenty sixth, nineteen ninety one. So the District Attorney's office had to get really creative about Pedro's possible James bond Esk travel itinerary to skirt Us customs. 00:20:07 Speaker 2: Based on the Diaos quote, Pedro took a ferry boat narrative. After Pedro left the Darren Street drug house at nine thirty pm on July twenty sixth, nineteen one, he did the following. One traveled to either Philadelphia's airport or Newark's airport. Two took a flight to presumably San Juan, Puerto Rico. 00:20:26 Speaker 1: Three. 00:20:27 Speaker 2: Once in San Juan, Pedro left the airport and traveled to a boat. Four Pedro then took said boat from San Juan to somewhere along the DR's eastern coast, maybe Samana. And five. Once in Samanna, Pedro drove to Pimento, the town and the DR where his family lives, where he arrived in time for his son's late morning early afternoon baptism on July twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one. And I believe the travel time between Samanna and Pimento is two hours. 00:20:55 Speaker 1: So I suppose it's not impossible but certainly unlikely. I mean, he'd need bake and believable ID to get on the flight to San Juan. Then flawlessly make every connection, and he also had to have made the trip both ways undetected. So it appears his attorney thought the passport was enough to overcome this ridiculous theory since he didn't bother the subpoena any of the many alibi witnesses. 00:21:27 Speaker 3: We told them everything. We told them about all the witnesses in Santo Domingo. He never subpoened anyone because he said it wasn't necessary, because he said the case would be closed before getting to trial. But he never called any of the witnesses, never subpoened. They came because they were part of the family. 00:21:46 Speaker 1: Nevertheless, his family showed up to the July nineteen ninety six trial to testify with photographs from the baptism and a priest. 00:21:53 Speaker 3: Since my family brought them, the DA asked who subpoenaed you, and since they came to favor me, used that against me because no one subpoenaed them to court. 00:22:03 Speaker 1: Plus the exit stamp on the same date of the baptism didn't do Pedro any favors. Not that Sarah Robinson and Sam Wilkerson were that convincing either. 00:22:12 Speaker 3: Sarah Robinson accused me and she had already accused someone else, and Samuel Wilkinson, the second witness, couldn't identify me in court. The judge had to send him inside, and when he came back he accused me, but only after the prosecutor pointed at me. 00:22:28 Speaker 1: So Wilkerson needed guidance, while Sarah Robinson had the baggage of placing Pedro in Philadelphia on September twenty sixth, which then in turn made the state have to sell this undetected mission impossible journey from the Dominican Republic to Philly and back, all set against Pedro's passport, which placed him in the dr during the crime. 00:22:50 Speaker 2: So Pedro used the passport as a defense. But then the DA's office had somebody from the ISS, a document examiner review the stamps, and she was adamant that, in her opinion, the July twenty seventh stamp was fabricated, and I think she also believed that the entry stamp on March tenth, ninety four was fabricated, having that testimony suggesting that why would you fabricate them? This is where Pedro douggs hole though, had he been up front with Luis Avino, his child attorney, and said look, dude, this is what happened. I was in the DR the whole time. Lose a good trial attorney when there's a fact that could be viewed through two different lenses. One isn't a bad light, one isn't a good light. If you're a defense attorney, you take control of that right and your opening statement, Like, my client fabricated his passport stance, but he did not murder these people. That's your first statement in opening statement, minimizing any aggravating theme the government can give to those fabricated stamps. You've bursted it yourself by saying, yeah, he was in the DR the whole time, Like why would my client, how could he leave? He was at his son's baptism on July twenty, twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one. That is fabricated. We are admitting that. But here's why he fabricated them, because that fabrication was created three years later when he was trying to return to the United States, because he was in the DR from July thirteenth, ninety one to March twenty fourth to ninety four. 00:24:14 Speaker 1: But instead he gambled that the fabricated stamps would go unnoticed. He lost that gamble, turning exonerating evidence into a liability, leaving the jury asking why are you fabricating passport stamps? 00:24:29 Speaker 3: From what I remember, deliberation lasted three or four days. When I was found guilty. At that time my eyes blocked. I suddenly couldn't see it. I went blind. I went blind. I got very. 00:24:50 Speaker 1: For me. 00:24:50 Speaker 4: That moment was the worst of my life. 00:25:10 Speaker 1: Once convicted of a capital crime and a death penalty, State Pedro was faced with a dire sentencing phase. 00:25:17 Speaker 3: I had to defend myself. I took the stand and told the lawyer that I wanted to defend my life. The lawyer told me not to, but I wanted to defend my life. I told him I respect his decisions, but I want to defend my life for my kids and my family. 00:25:35 Speaker 1: And ultimately they ruled life in prison was at the final decision. 00:25:40 Speaker 3: My innocence has kept me a bit calm, But there are days and nights in which I don't even know where I am. But my innocence is what keeps me calm. I've always been a very friendly and compassionate person. When I was out in the streets, I like to share with people. I like to get to know others. That's what keeps me safe in here. I don't get into trouble with others, not nosy about what people do, and never do anything bad. I've always been like that since I was out in the streets. 00:26:12 Speaker 1: And we hope that spirit has continued to serve him as this injustice continues to flinger and really shame all of us. And Pedro was denied on his direct appeal as well as his initial post conviction motions, in which the focus was ineffective assistance of trial council considering the number of alibi witnesses that were available but not presented. However, the post conviction attorney didn't attach the affidavits from these alibi witnesses to the filing in nineteen ninety nine two thousand, then they were procedurally barred, and then a new attorney entered the picture named Michael Farrell. 00:26:48 Speaker 2: Michael, he was a good trial attorney, but post conviction is a different type of law because everything's about deadlines. If you don't get something timely, fouge, you're screwed. And we talked about how Marischol I gave an AFFI day it in twenty eleven and in Pennsylvania at the time, they've still changed to thank God. But in Pennsylvania, once you say you had new evidence, you had sixty days to foul and petition and present that new evidence to the court, which is ridiculous because I can get a new piece of evidence that might get me to where I want to get, but it's not going to get me relief. So why am I going to present it to the court when I know I'm going to lose. But that new piece of evidence might lead me to more evidence, so over time I can develop a claim. But long story short, Michael Farrell did not present that Affidavid. He didn't present Sarah Robinson's AFFI David. It just was again a cascade of horribles. 00:27:41 Speaker 1: As we mentioned, Marisol's twenty eleven Affidavid was about her run ins with Chiwito before and after the shooting, how he admitted it to her, and establishing that Chuito was rafae Albadal. Sarah Robinson also gave an affidavid in twenty ten where she recanted her trial testimony, said that she was incentivized with drugs as well as the detectives making some assault charges magically go away. Unfortunately, and that's not as strong enough word. Farrell did not filew them in time. But Sam Wilkerson was a different story, So he. 00:28:17 Speaker 2: Gave a statement on March first of twenty twelve, and then Mike Farrell uses that statement to get a PCRA hearing July twelveth of twenty thirteen. Wilkerson testified, Yes, his testimony was follos because he knew Pedro was not one of the men who did any shooting. Quote Pedro did not shoot anybody. And Mike Parall just jumped right into the primary issue. Quote were you on that corner at the time of the shooting? Answer yes, question did you see who shot Popo? And Charlie Chan answer yes? Question who wasn't? Answer Tweeto. Mike Farrell confirmed Tweeto's real name is Rafie Overdel. 00:28:53 Speaker 1: And then the state called Chuck Bentham in rebuttal. Now, remember the homicide file doc that could have impeached Bentham were not available until twenty nineteen. 00:29:01 Speaker 2: The DA's office calls Bentham and Mike Farrell asked him like, what do you know about Tweeto? Now keep in mind the very first page of that homicide foul has Tweeto identified as one of the two perpetrators, and Bentham's like, ehh, they maybe sound familiar. I don't know which is I mean, which just drives me up a fucking wall, because there are situations where the Philly Police Department will collect excalpatory evidence and not give it to the DA's office. Right under Brady, that doesn't matter, it's imputed in this case, though the DA's office had multiple copies of the homicide summary in their own case file. 00:29:39 Speaker 1: Wilkerson also testified about how he was forced into signing on to Sarah Robinson's narrative on July thirty first, nineteen ninety one, you know, the whole Eminem's or deal, but without the homicide file to impeach Bentham. I guess the judge found Bentham more credible, denying the motion in twenty fourteen, and then Craig took on the case, filing his federal haby in which he tried to admit the alibi evidence and witnesses as new evidence. 00:30:05 Speaker 2: So when I got the case in twenty sixteen, and I foiled as federal petition, which was thirteen years late, and thankfully the federal courts as an actual innocence exception, where if your petition is untimely, but you have substantial evidence that you are in fact, actually innocent, they'll overlook the untimeliness, take jurisdiction of your petition and review it. But what the District Court judge said was, well, because trow council knew about these witnesses, it's not new evidence. So he was defining new evidence as evidence. That's something that had to be outside the realm of what trial council knew. And there was a great case that had just come down from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that said no new evidence is any evidence that the jury didn't hear. And so I convinced the Third Circuit in January of nineteen to take the appeal. 00:30:57 Speaker 1: But that wasn't the only avenue of relief at Quigs. 00:31:00 Speaker 2: By late twenty nineteen, Fetterman's doing these commutation hearings. 00:31:04 Speaker 3: I went to the Bord of Partons to try and get out that way. I don't know if you know this, but I got four unanimous votes and the Attorney General held me under advisement. 00:31:13 Speaker 2: Fetterman reached out to me because he learned about Pedro's case and so Neilim and I went up to CI Phoenix to meet with him to go over everything. And it's at that point I was under the impression that those passport stamps were legitimate. Fetterman, He's like, they're fabricated, and Neilim and I just were like one of those fuck moments. 00:31:33 Speaker 1: But this isn't a deal breaker, like we said earlier. When the story behind the fabrications is understood, they're no longer a liability. Meanwhile, Neelam Sangi from the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, along with Craig, not only asked Patron for an explanation, but they also hired an expert to look into the fabricated stamps. 00:31:51 Speaker 2: Neil and I were able to talk to Tom Griffin, an experienced immigration attorney who knows the immigration policies even back in the eighties, and have him go through other documents, immigration documents and explain to us why Pedro would get the fabricated exit stamp from the DR on July twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one, and then why he would get a fabricated entry stamp to the DR on March tenth and nineteen ninety four. 00:32:19 Speaker 1: While they were investigating Pedro's passport. Larry Krasner had been elected DA in Philadelphia and he formed their Conviction Integrity Unit under Patricia Cummings. They accepted Pedro's case for reinvestigation and Tom Gato was assigned the case, and importantly, he handed over the homicide file, which contained many illuminating documents that exhibited how the nicknames had morphed over time, as well as the document that named Tuito and Papadito, the homicide summary. 00:32:46 Speaker 2: They had multiple copies of it, because when we went to the ja's office and looked at that other stuff, I goh, here's another copy of the homicide summary. Oh, another one and another one, and copies of Phlo Garcia's a rest report identifying him as Papadido. And none of this was ever disclosed either a trial or during the PCA proceedings back in like twenty ten to twenty fourteen. 00:33:07 Speaker 1: So they poured over these previously hidden documents as well as heard testimony from witnesses, starting with the Cadre of alibi witnesses from the DR. 00:33:16 Speaker 2: So in August of twenty twenty, neilm was able to get all the family in the DR into one room and we did zoom interviews with Patricia Cummings and Tom Gaeta. Were these individuals. All these individuals said, yes, he never left. He came in on this date and he never left. So we even provided them with live testimony or live statements explaining what the documents and the photographic evidence already proved. 00:33:46 Speaker 1: Right there were tons of photographs of the baptism, and importantly, Pedro had a thick mustache at the time, while the assailant had always been described as clean shaven. Then they moved on to the eyewitnesses. By this time Marisol had passed way, but Sam Wilkerson and Sarah Robinson told their stories about Bentham and Devlin and how they had both initially identified Chiuwito but were either coerced or incentivized to lie. But the CiU hit a snag on the passport stamps. 00:34:15 Speaker 2: It's frustrating because there is an easy and reasonable explanation for these dates and why he would do what he did. This went on from like August of twenty twenty to augusta, twenty twenty one, I think January of twenty twenty two. Mike Garmisa is named the new head of the CiU. I like Mike. We had a call with Mike. Mike's just like, yeah, we don't see what you see. So we're just going to send it over to the FED lit like the Federal Habeas unit at the DA's office. 00:34:42 Speaker 1: So, after seeing all of the exculpatory evidence alibi witnesses, dates, witness recantations, as well as the police coercion and misconduct that led to the wall statements, not to mention the Brady material, the CiU chose to get stuck on Pedro's fabricated passport stamps and the reasonable story of maintaining his immigration status while taking care of his sick mother, so they resumed the federal habeas proceedings. 00:35:10 Speaker 2: There's two primary federal claims. You know, trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting more alibi witnesses only two alibi witnesses testified, and the other one, the more significant one I believe at this point, is the Brady claim of all the suppressed evidence regarding Tweeto and documents identifying Phalo Garcia as papadido. 00:35:28 Speaker 1: In addition to that, there's also the procedural argument about what constitutes new evidence and whether or not. The federal court can assume jurisdiction over that as new evidence under the actual innocent standard, and that is a high standard that no juror would vote to convict. 00:35:44 Speaker 2: To win a Brady claim, you simply have to prove one one juror. You know, it's reason Papa would have impacted their vote. Here, it's all of them collectively would say we're not buying what you're selling. We're going to quit them. And I think we meet that, but it's a hard standard. 00:35:59 Speaker 1: Then there's the actual claims and evidence themselves, and with a homicide file, there's so much more support for his claims. 00:36:08 Speaker 2: I filed one hundred and eighty page supplemental amended Federal HAB's petition July fifth of twenty twenty two, and then the DA's office files a twenty five page response. They're putting up a fight, but they're not putting up a fight. It's the James Bond argument that he was capable of entering and entering multiple countries undetected. My argument, and I made this in my pleadings, is Okham's razor. What's easier to believe. There's two narratives. One is the one I just presented you. Right, He's in the DR the whole time, and these are why he fabricated these stamps. The other one is the das is that we flew into the DR on July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one. He somehow gets back to Philadelphia through two countries customs, the DR in the US undetected, right, So he has to be back in phil July twenty third, then commit the murder, and then leave Philadelphia July twenty sixth, nineteen one. So you're leaving one country entering another undetected where he's at his son's baptism on July twenty seventh in the DR. 00:37:14 Speaker 1: All within the tight time frame as per Sarah Robinson's now recanted statement. 00:37:19 Speaker 2: So what's easier to believe Aukin's Razor would say, well, obviously it's the first one he's been down there. We have all these documents, photographs, birth certificates, and an experienced immigration attorney explaining the dates and why they're significant. And what is there to corroborate the DA's narrative, like he's like James Bond. 00:37:37 Speaker 1: And remember he only has to be James Bond to satisfy statement Sarah Robinson now maintains came from two disgraced Philadelphia detectives. I mean, these guys are notorious. They're in the cases of many of our guests, Tony Wright, Jimmy Dennis, Walter Ogrod, Troy Coleman, Manford Younger, and of course Pedro Renoso. So where is the case at now. 00:38:01 Speaker 2: It's in front of a magistrate judge right now. Because in the Eastern District, once you file federal habi's petition, the district court will assign a magistrate judge to review the petition into draft and file what's called a report and recommendation. And it sounds just like what it is. It's a report of the case and it's a recommendation to the district court as to what the district court should do regarding each claim or the petition in general, like say, the magistrate judge and a report recommendation saying no, it's untimely, you didn't meet the actual inison standard for these reasons. The losing side can file objections to the report recommendation and then the district court would decide what to do. And for the most part, whatever happens in the report recommendation is ultimately adopted into a final order by the district Court. 00:38:50 Speaker 1: Well, let's hope the magistrate judge sees what we see. So what can our audience do to help. 00:38:57 Speaker 2: Just spread the word or donate to other innocence projects that do this work. People need representation, so donate to the innocence projects local or national, and so people like Pedro can have attorneys. 00:39:11 Speaker 1: And with that, we're going to go to closing arguments. And this is my favorite part of the show. It's where I first thank you Craig Pedro for sharing this. Pedro, You're a hero to all of us. So now I'm going to turn my microphone off and hand it over to Craig for any final thoughts you want to share. And then Craig, you just handed off the microphone over to Pedro and he'll take us off into the sunset. 00:39:35 Speaker 2: I just end on the Oakham's razor principle, like, what's there's two narratives here, and the simplest narrative is usually the correct narrative, and that narrative is Pedro Renoso flew into the dr on July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one. Stay there till March twenty fourth, nineteen ninety four, and while returning, he figured out he needed to fabricate two passport stamps to maintain his visa status in the US. He wasn't doing it so cover up a double murder, because we have substantial evidence that places him in the DR all those years. So that's the straightforward narrative. The other narrative is he enters the DR July thirteenth, nineteen ninety one, and he somehow returns to Philadelphia by July twenty second, because the murder's on July twenty third, So I was leaving the DR, entering the US undetected, leaving the US, coming back into the DR undetected, and that's how he's at his son's baptism on July twenty seventh, nineteen ninety one. But again, this begs this question, if he's so good at entering and exiting these countries in nineteen ninety one undetected, why didn't he just go undetected in March of nineteen ninety four. Those are your two narratives. Let the audience figure out which one's the slumpest one to believe. 00:40:57 Speaker 3: I want to live with my family in tranquility. I want to make up for lost time. I want to take care of my health above all, and spend time with my grandkids. I want to thank you for this and I would love to meet you in the future so I can give you a hug and thank you in person. 00:41:17 Speaker 1: I want to stick in English. No, thank you and thank you every one and with you, and this is modest. God bless you all. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one week early and ad free by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well as my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and Jeff Cliber. The music in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us across all social media platforms at Lava for Good and at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on Instagram at its Jason flamm. Ralful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One. 00:42:06 Speaker 3: 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