00:00:04
Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, it's senior producer Connor Hall with more case updates and behind the scenes insights. And this week we're talking about Charles Brandon Martin and the intersection of two forces in the post conviction litigation world, Brady v. Maryland and the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, otherwise known as EDPUTT. The latter puts restrictions on post conviction proceedings, most notably limiting the power of federal courts to disturb state court rulings to only in cases where the rulings are contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly decided federal law, which can happen in the application of the precedent set in Brady v. Maryland. The landmarks Supreme Court ruling that forbids hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants, prosecutors favor pastime am right anyway, So when a state appellate court is deciding whether a Brady violation has occurred, two standards must be met. Was the evidence of innocence not disclosed to the defense before trial? And would it have made a difference for the verdict? And disputes arise over the subjectivity and human error that can creep into these decisions, so when such disputes are first settled by a state court, the matter can be raised again in federal court, at which point the state court decision can be disturbed only if that ruling is contrary to or an unreasonable application of the standard set out by Brady v. Maryland That no fair minded jurist could rule in the same way in light of the previously undisclosed evidence. So it's an incredibly high standard which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals felt was met in Brandon's case. To refresh you on Brandon's case, without getting too deep into the weeds, we have this gatoray bottle near the scene of an attempted murder, and it's got a mix of duct and medical tapes and opening at either end, some ashes, and some hares, three DNA profiles, one of which was the victims, and none of which were definitively Brandon's. And an investigator opined that it might be a makeshift silencer, just like he had seen in a Steven Segall movie. Not kidding, and without any testing to prove that theory, the state relied on witness testimony instead that Brandon had done an Internet search to learn how to make such a silencer before covering his tracks by getting rid of that computer. But years later it's discovered that the state knew that wasn't the case. They knew Brandon hadn't destroyed the evidence, how because they had it and had done forensic analysis pre trial and determined that no such Internet search had ever occurred with not only that computer, but four others. Yet they presented that false narrative through witness testimony that they knew was a lie. Meanwhile, others have always said that the gatorade bottle was used for smoking weed, So this impedes the witness in question as well as undermine the silencer theory and whether or not this gatorade bottle and subsequent DNA testing had any meaning to the case at all. All that is left in this case after that Brady violation is a ballistics test that said the bullet fragments at the scene could have been produced by firearms made by one of sixteen manufacturers, one of sixteen manufacturers from whom Brandon and who knows who else had purchased firearms. And then there's the alleged motive, which was dispelled by both the victim and Brandon's wife at trial. Lastly, there's a witness who claims that he saw Brandon and a would be co conspirator who got acquitted by the way. This witness said that he saw them making something with a gatorade bottle prior to the shooting, then admitted on the stand that he was testifying this way to protect his sister, who was likely involved. So first a steam appellate court ruled that this was a material Brady violation. Then a higher state court reversed that decision. Brandon's team then filed a federal habeas petition, which received two rulings in their favor before reaching the justices of the United States Supreme Court or maybe one of their lackeys from the Federalist Society, and they ruled that the federal courts misapplied EDBA and that a fair minded jurist could have still come to the same verdict based on the remaining evidence. And I'd like you all to listen to our coverage and decide for yourselves if you think they got it right. That instead of getting a new trial or dismissing his charges altogether, that the state never had to answer for fabricating a false narrative, a false narrative that was even raised during jury instruction. How destruction of evidence can constitute a consciousness of guilt? Does this ruling set a precedent that allows such tactics? It wasn't our system already permissive enough to prosecutors. While we're free to ponder the nature of this system, Brandon and so many others like him are living through it. I recently had a chance to speak with him. I mean, god, he was only free for like ten months. First time I spoke to him in early twenty twenty five, he was still in prison. Shortly after that he was released, awaiting a new trial or maybe even dismissal of charges. Until this ruling, Brandon's next move is filing for parole. Perhaps someone on the board is listening right now, Maybe they can answer these questions.

00:05:39
Speaker 2: On October twenty seventh, two thousand and eight, a pregnant woman named Jody Lynn Torek answered a knot at her front door and survived a gunshot, but tragically, her pregnancy was terminated and police found what they believed to be a makeshift silencer in her home. Then theorized that one of the potential bothers. A married man named Charles Brandon Martin had constructed the alleged silencer and arranged the attack, despite a bunch of holes in this theory, including that this alleged silencer may have actually been a bomb. One alleged witness claimed that Brandon had searched the Internet for ways to construct the silencer before disposing of the computer, sending him away for life. This is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to wrongful conviction, where we're going to go to Maryland, just outside of DC, where a pregnant woman survived a gunshot wound that ended her pregnancy, and then a tangled web of lovers, law enforcement and various ulterior motives led to the prosecution of not one but two innocent men, while other compelling suspect were ignored, and one of the two men caught up in that miserable web joins us from a Maryland correction facility, Charles Brandon Martin, but he just goes by Brandon, So Brandon, welcome to ronfel conviction.

00:07:13
Speaker 3: I appreciate you having me.

00:07:14
Speaker 2: And joining him to help tell this harrowing story. His attorney, Elizabeth Frianzoso, who goes by Beth and will represent him along with Donna Ferriman at a new trial if the state ever stops delaying it. So Beth, welcome, thank you for having us. And while this case is really more of a Maryland story, Brandon's story began in DC and it revolved heavily around basketball.

00:07:39
Speaker 3: I grew up in the DC area. I went to Tomatha High School, finished up the Saint Stephen Saint AGAs High School in Alexandria. Before college, i've studied social science and ath apology and sociology. The University of Pittsburgh unished Johnstown and I started coaching and in basketball, and actually when I was in college, started coaching at the high school at ten in the summers. Then I had got a job at Alleghany College in Pittsburgh. So I actually didn't move to Maryland until two thousand and four with my ex wife, who was my girlfriend at the times when I had the head coaching job at the college and Southern Maryland. Right after my first son was born.

00:08:17
Speaker 2: The two young parents moved back to be closer to their support systems understandably, and then they got married and it wasn't long before their second child was born, and it appears that Brandon enjoyed fatherhood.

00:08:28
Speaker 3: With the job I had and everything, I was able to make my schedule around the kids, and so I was basically the primary caregiver for our kids while I was there. I mean, I spent more hours for day with the kids than anybody, from the second they woke up all the way through the night time. But that's the most important thing to me with those kids. I mean, that's the hardest part for me right now, is being away from the kids.

00:08:47
Speaker 2: As time went by, the marital arrangement changed and Brandon moved out, but they both remained committed to amicably co parenting.

00:08:54
Speaker 4: He and his wife had separated, Pad Moore of just a co parenting roommate type thing. His wife was aware that he'd had relationships with other women, go somewhere else in the evening, and he'd come home, go to the kids sports games, and participate with the kids. He was always a really active dad to.

00:09:11
Speaker 3: Try to keep everything the same for the kids since they were still young. I would get back to the house in the morning before they woke up so that they didn't notice anything different, which explained me and my ex wife. We knew what the situation was.

00:09:25
Speaker 2: And while living within this new arrangement, Brandon had three more kids, including another son with his wife, but staying single it was just a better fit for him setting a casual expectation with any of his intimate partners, which included three women at the time of this incident, Sherry Carter, Maggie McFadden, and the victim in this case, Jody Lynn Torrick.

00:09:47
Speaker 3: They tried to make it sound like I was in committed relationships with all these people, and you know, with Jody, we probably had only been around each other probably eight times.

00:09:56
Speaker 4: She was actually dating someone else by the name of Emmanuel, and they were actually more boyfriend girlfriend. Jody became pregnant. It was uncertain who the father was, and Brandon was very respectful of her making whatever decision that she wanted to, which could include either having an abortion or keeping the baby, and he agreed that if the baby was his, he would support the baby. I think Emmanuel was not thrilled that she was pregnant and didn't know who the father was, so the state tried to paint this out to Brandon being angry that she was pregnant and wanting to kill her so that way he wouldn't have to pay child support, but it simply wasn't true not to mention that there was a whole host of other people that did have some type of motive.

00:10:39
Speaker 2: And this appears to have included one of Brandon's other intimate partners, Maggie McFadden, who had allegedly threatened other women with gun violence, including Sharry Carter, which brings us to October twenty seventh, two thousand and eight, when Jody Lyn Torrik was at home talking to a friend on the phone.

00:10:56
Speaker 4: She was two months pregnant at the time. Talking on the phone to her friend around three o'clock in the afternoon, and someone knocked on her front door saying they were a salesman, and then she ended the call. Blair tried to call her back a few times, Jody never picked up the phone, so she got worried and she called Jody's roommate, Jessica. Jody also worked for Jessica. Blair requested that Jessica leave work and check on Jody. So Jessica finds Jody lying there unconscious with a gunshot wound, and she calls nine to one one. The police come to the scene. At that point, Jody's lying in the doorway, She's still breathing, and she was hospitalized for quite some time for serious injuries.

00:11:39
Speaker 2: A three eighty caliber bullet and casing were collected from where she was found, and then across the living room from there police found a curious looking Gatorie bottle. The mouth was wrapped in layers of duct tape and medical tape which formed a rectangular opening, and then on the bottom there was a hole covered an ash and soot, and the lead detective from ann Arundel County, Richard Allman, thought that that was a makeshift silencer.

00:12:08
Speaker 4: There was no expert testimony whatsoever about gatorade bottles or other bottles being made into silencers. Detective Richard Alvin testified it reminded him of a makeshift silencer he'd seen in a steven Sagall movie.

00:12:21
Speaker 2: But rather than ordering chemical analysis to prove that theory, it just became an accepted fact, and there were a few hairs stuck in the tape and the contraption was saved for DNA testing and hair microscopy. Meanwhile, they spoke with Jody's roommate, Jessica Higgs.

00:12:38
Speaker 4: During the interview, Jessica used the very crass racist language. She used the N word and stated she did not like black people, that she didn't like that Jody had black men in and out of the house, and that she didn't like or didn't trust Brandon because he's black. She basically came up with this unfounded, baseless theory that all it must have been Brandon because he was in some way pissed off that she was pregnant and didn't want to have an abortion.

00:13:05
Speaker 2: The police theorized that this married man wanted Jody dead to hide his infidelity and potential extramarital child. So Anne Arundel County police coordinated with Charles County to pay a visit to Brandon and his wife.

00:13:21
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, the next day they were accusing me when I was at home with the kids and I see a shruck parked in front of my driveway, like blocking my driveway, tended windows, and I actually ended up calling the police because I'm afraid I'm at home with the kids and I'm thinking somebody wants to try to rob me something. They said they were going to send someone over, which clearly they didn't because they knew who it was and so the original interaction with them was when I found out that she had actually been shot.

00:14:07
Speaker 2: Without knowing the time of the shooting, Brandon told them where he was the day before, at Maggie macfadden's house speaking with her brother Frank Bradley about rehab from about one point thirty to four point thirty PM, thereby making him unavailable for him to have shot Jody.

00:14:24
Speaker 3: And then in the meantime, the police were actually speaking to my wife at the time, and they made her meet them at like a mattress warehouse or something like that on the way home from her job. So they had her basically alone talking to her, and so I'm trying to call her and can't reach her. They wouldn't let her pick the phone up when I'm calling now.

00:14:43
Speaker 2: Unaware of the marital arrangement that upended their theory, they may have hoped to upset her with the news of an extra marital affair and child, perhaps gaining the state's witness, but to no avail. They were told about Brandon's other intimate partners, which brought them to Sherry Carter, as well as Maggie McFadden and her brothers Frank, Dennis and Michael Bradley, all of whom corroborated Brandon's alibi. But instead of rethinking their theory in the face of this new evidence, they persisted with Brandon while trying to again aggravate his wife.

00:15:12
Speaker 3: When they had originally asked about searching the house and searching the car and all that stuff, we didn't have any issue with that. That was fine, But instead of going on the schedule that we had agreed upon, they waited until they knew I was going to be gone from the work, and they came over the house when she was there with the kids, and so just trying to upset her, messing the house up, slashing bags open that could have just been unzipped, and just making a mess of the place, doing the best they could to try to upset her in any way, hoping that I had done something and she was going to fell on me, but there was nothing to do.

00:15:41
Speaker 2: In addition to information, they may have been looking for a three eighty caliber pistol or some other incriminating evidence, but all they turned up was a text exchange between Brandon and Jodie.

00:15:52
Speaker 4: If you look at the text messages, it just says what time do you work? To which she responded, I'm off. Brandon said hello at five level, which was two hours after the shooting. He sent another message, I got some stuff with the kids to about seven o'clock, so any time later, how much did you need, suggesting that they had talked over the phone or something, So why they suggested that was in some way nefarious or him trying to ascertain if she was home alone. In fact, it suggests one that they were just having a normal conversation about him providing her something that she needed and scheduling it. And the fact that he was completely clueless as to the fact that she'd been shot because he's texting her two hours after.

00:16:35
Speaker 2: Yet inexplicably, this was later present at as evidence of guilt. Meanwhile, a month out from the shooting, Jody regained consciousness, but she had no memory of the shooting, and she couldn't identify the shooter.

00:16:47
Speaker 4: She could remember I think what happened up to the day of the shooting in her life generally, and she gained her memory for future events, but did not remember anything about being shot.

00:16:58
Speaker 3: Well, they interviewed Jody when she first got home. He let them know that I've never asked her to get a hors. I think she said he never told me to do anything associated with it. Then they come the trial still saying that was going on when she actually told them that before.

00:17:14
Speaker 2: So they chose to ignore the victim and Brandon's wife about the motive or lack thereof, as well as his corroborated alibi, and they obtained a warrant to collect strands of Brandon's hair for comparison to the gatorade bottle. Again, no testing was done to determine if this crazy Stephen Sigall movie silence or theory held any water. I mean, my first thought was that this contraption was found outside of the immediate crime scene, and it sounds like a let's face, it sounds like a homemade bomb.

00:17:43
Speaker 3: I think he might be pretty spot on there.

00:17:46
Speaker 4: And that also, I guess what would explain why there may have been some burnt residue in it. That's what happens to marijuana when you smoke it. Also, whither it would have been a little bit of a tape around it, and there was a multiple DNA profile not ruling out out either Jody or Brandon. And I think the fact that Jody's and Brandon's and who knows who else is might have been on it because it was a mixed profile would be consistent with that being what this gatorade bottle was used for. And so essentially that there's nothing about the DNA that would suggest that he did anything nefarious with this gatorade bottle. But yet, because Detective Albin had seen this interesting steven Sagall movie, he decided to make that the theory of the state's case that it was a silencer.

00:18:29
Speaker 2: So with Jessica Biggs theory which had been debunked by Jody and Brandon's wife, followed by an innocuous text exchange, and then Brandon's hair found on what was probably a bond considering Jody wasn't excluded either. I mean, how many shooting victims handle the silencer that's used on them. Nevertheless, they arrested Brandon.

00:18:54
Speaker 3: It was a surprise. I was actually on my way taking the kids to practice when we would hit into the car, getting the kids in the car, and they pull up with all the police and all this stuff in arrestment.

00:19:04
Speaker 2: He was arrested on March thirtieth, two thousand and nine, then bonded out, which started a fight over pre trialed attention that tied up his lawyers and had Brandon in and out of jail while they worked to build support for the silencer theory, starting with Sharry Carter.

00:19:18
Speaker 4: Brandon had a computer because he was a coach at the College of Southern Maryland, so he had his work laptop at home, and she got upset with him and made up a story that he was searching all these things on the computer about making silencers out of bottles, and then she testified the computer had been destroyed, and the police testimony was such that they did not have the computer.

00:19:43
Speaker 2: But we later found out that they definitely fucking did, and that a forensic search of this particular computer and others belonging to Brandon had disproved Scherry's story. And in light of that tidbit, do we believe that other potentially exculpatory evidence was just simply somehow lost.

00:20:02
Speaker 4: They lost street camera footage that would have showed if Brandon had driven towards Jodie's house that day, or for that matter, specifically who drove toward the house that day. They lost part of a recording of a police interview in which Maggie's brother Michael Bradley basically endorsed brandon sallibi, which directly conflicted with Michael Bradley's trial testimony.

00:20:25
Speaker 2: During his initial interview, Michael Bradley corroborated Brandon's alibi statement that he was at their house on the afternoon of the shooting, but in November two thousand and nine, in exchange for immunity and other favors, Michael Bradley changed that story, adding in a new name, Jerry Burks.

00:20:45
Speaker 4: Bradley testified that it was him, Frank, Jerry Burks, Brandon. They were smoking marijuana in the house. He was intoxicated, that he saw Frank take medical tape to the kitchen. He saw Brandon and Frank go up to Maggie McFadden's room, Frank coming down and retrieving a gatorade bottle, and then Brandon and Jerry Burkes left the house.

00:21:07
Speaker 2: Bradley said they left around two pm, and then the pair allegedly returned and asked Frank to discard of a bag. But where did this Jerry Burke's guy come from.

00:21:18
Speaker 3: He was a friend of Maggie's brother, and I believe a friend of Maggie, and just my feeling of it is that he sort of was in the same situation as me where they're alleged he did something that he probably didn't actually do.

00:21:33
Speaker 4: I think that they were hoping in some way that Jerry would turn on Brandon, but he didn't.

00:21:37
Speaker 2: And we'll get into Michael Bradley's reasons for throwing Jerry Burkes under the bus in a bit. But they used his statement and Jerry Carter's lives to bring Jerry Burkes into the fold. But Burkes called their bluff refusing to give a statement about how Brandon allegedly hired him to shoot Jody using this alleged silencer.

00:21:57
Speaker 4: He maintained his innocence, he was trying by a jury, he was acquitted, And it really does seem that after Jerry was found not guilty, they really ramped up the prosecution of Brandon. The judge didn't even allow the fact that Jerry was acquitted to be heard by the jury in Brandon's case.

00:22:16
Speaker 2: By this time, Brandon had been re arrested on a false assault allegation, and even that same judge didn't find the charge credible.

00:22:24
Speaker 3: They had a witness basically lie and say that I had assaulted them. Now it came up doing a hearing that it was a false statement, and the judge explained that even though I don't believe that it occurred, I'm going to hold you because trial is two weeks away. Then the trial gets postponed for a good deal of time, and they still kept me in there.

00:22:43
Speaker 2: Trial was postponed until April twenty ten. Meanwhile, the media was regurgitating whatever the state fed them.

00:22:50
Speaker 3: They asked the possible jurors, who has read or seen anything about this case on tvor in the newspapers, because they're trying to out by every single person stands up, you know, so right then you're like okay. And the issue with that is that the way the media is used by the police and the States is that they'll go to the media and they'll say that this person was the rest of goodness and this and so on the news in the newspaper, they'll put your face in there and said you allegedly did this, and no one's listening to the allegedly, and no one is thinking about the fact that it might not be true. And so everybody stands up, and the next part of the vaivier is asking them that they can still be fair and impartial, so everybody sits back down.

00:23:35
Speaker 2: TROLD began on April twenty seven, twenty ten, with the victim, Jody Lynn Toros.

00:23:40
Speaker 4: She testified that she did not remember anything as far as what happened on that day, that she and Brandon had a sexual relationship, and that she was pregnant, and she also had a relationship with another man named Emmanuel, and that she was uncertain who the father was, and that she and Brandon had some discussions about abortion and she told him that she wished to keep her baby, and there was no testimony that he in any way was threatening to her or anything of the like, but.

00:24:11
Speaker 2: The state doesn't have to prove motive. And they also presented the innocuous text thread with a straight base and said that it was evidence of guilt. And then they moved on to the alleged silencer, you know, the bong silencer theory, and they put on medical experts that tied Brandon's DNA to this gatorade bottle. The first one testified that one hair was human, the other was from a cat, and then an expert in mitochondrial DNA, doctor Terry Melton, took the stand.

00:24:42
Speaker 4: Doctor Terry Melton testified, what mitochondrial DNA could show that someone is from the same maternal lineage, but it can never say for sure that this hair absolutely for sure came from this person. Doctor Melton testified she could rule out ninety nine point ninety four percent of North Americans, and during cross examination she acknowledged that left roughly one hundred and eighty thousand Americans and thirty thousand people in Maryland with that same mitochondrial DNA profile.

00:25:10
Speaker 2: So in plain English, it's a big fat nothing burger.

00:25:15
Speaker 4: And they called Sarah Chenoweth, the forensic chemist who testified about DNA and said it included DNA from at least three individuals, which also would be consistent with it being a bong. It says at least one male and one female. She did roll out three other people submitted for comparison, didn't roll out Brandon, didn't rule out Jody. Plus, we're not suggesting that his DNA necessarily wasn't on the bottle that they all used as a bong. But even if there was a hair that could have possibly been Brandon's, well, when people pass around a bong, their hair might get on it. So I don't think that's really neither here nor there, So that was it. There was no expert testimony about silencers, how they're constructed. They could have tested it trying to figure what was that little bit of ash in the bottom was at marijuana or was it gunshot? Resident they didn't bother to do it because they didn't seem to think it was important.

00:26:07
Speaker 2: The state hired three biological evidence experts to testify about a contraption that they hadn't even proved was involved with the shooting. Instead, they relied on Sherry Carter and Michael Bradley, the latter of whom Michael told his news story about Jerry Burks, but he kind of fell apart on cross examination.

00:26:26
Speaker 4: On cross examination, he was questioned about the fact that he received immunity from prosecution from Jody Tourok's shooting in exchange for his testimony, and that he also received a benefit in his obstruction of justice charges in New Jersey, and he admitted that those charges stemmed from him lying to the police. So he's a person who's approven liar to the point where he actually was charged with obstruction because of it. And then he admitted he only testified because Maggie McFadden asked him to because she was involved in the attempted murder.

00:27:00
Speaker 2: Yes, Bradley testified that his sister directly asked him for protection because she was involved. And then the state's other star witness, Sherry Carter, also implicated Maggie McFadden.

00:27:13
Speaker 4: Cherry testified that Maggie McFadden was threatening Sherry, among others, on social media, was emailing her employer, and that Maggie actually made a statement that she had someone shot and the description of that statement sounded an awful lot like she was talking about Jodi. She also had made comments that she liked to fight and beat people up, and she had shot people before. She was so volatile the state decided not even to call her as a witness.

00:27:43
Speaker 2: The state then found themselves trying to throw the court off of Maggie McFadden's scent.

00:27:49
Speaker 4: It was completely just twisted. It was backwards, basically saying that the McFadden theory was far fetched because her aggressive behavior would draw attention to her as a suspect, and it was not logical that someone who's that flamboyantly aggressive would have been responsible for trying to shoot someone mm hmm.

00:28:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, but this wasn't Maggie McFadden's trial, and that's not all that Sherry Carter said.

00:28:16
Speaker 4: Cherry testified that she'd been in a relationship with Brandon for three years, that he had a computer at his house, and that it was his work computer from the College of Southern Maryland, and it had a lot of restrictive settings, so he wouldn't be able to modify system files or download software without an administrator password. And so she then testifies that we did this, and he did that, and he looked up silencers, and then he said he got rid of the computer because they'd looked up so many crazy things on the internet in her apartment that if it got searched, he didn't want it found. So she says that, and she said she'd seen Brandon with a handgun in September and October, and her testimony was unimpeached.

00:28:56
Speaker 2: And had Brandon's trial attorney known that this computer was not only in the state's possession, but also that it had been forensically analyzed and no such searches had been detected, then he too would have known that Sharry Carter had perjured herself and that the state knowingly had presented false evidence, but without that knowledge well trial counsel they did the best they could.

00:29:20
Speaker 4: A lot of the case was made on cross examination. Basically, the argument was that the bottle was not a silencer, but it was a boon that the DNA did not indicate that he had any role in constructing a silencer or anything like that, and that Jody's DNA was found on it again that would corroborate the idea of it being a boonk and that the state's theory about the silencer failed to explain the presence of Jody's DNA. But there was also a lot of references to who else might have had a motive. Here you have Emmanuel Quarterly, who's the other boyfriend of Jody. Then you have Maggie McFadden who was all over the place threatening people, confessing to shootings, alluding that it was Jody, and the fact that she's directing her brothers what to do and how to talk to the police. And then Maggie McFadden's friend Steve Burnett, lied to the police about his whereabouts and was never able to explain what he was doing.

00:30:14
Speaker 2: Plus, Brandon's wife testified about their arrangement and how she knew that he had children with other women, So he would not have been motivated to kill Jody for keeping the baby.

00:30:24
Speaker 4: Without this whole computer thing trying to tie him up to this bong that they claim was a silencer, and have no forensic evidence whatsoever. They really didn't have anything of a case. The only couple witnesses they had were really alternate suspects. Sherry Carter. This was, I would say, the butt four witness. That was not for this witness, he wouldn't have been convicted. And she testified the computer had been destroyed. The jury instruction, I'll read it verbatim. You have heard evidence that the defendant removed a computer from the house of Sherry Carter. Concealment of evidence is not enough by itself to establish guilt, but may be considered as evidence of guilt. Concealment of evidence may be motivated by a variety of factors, some of which are fully consistent with innocence. You must first decide whether the defendant concealed any evidence in this case. If you find that the defendant concealed evidence in this case, then you must decide whether that conduct shows a consciousness of guilt. Crucially, this instruction allowed the jury to infer guilt from Brandon's alleged decision to get rid of the laptop due to search history, and the only basis for the instruction was Sherry Carter's testimony. So essentially the instruction was that if he concealed evidence that could be used as consciousness of guilt.

00:31:43
Speaker 3: You know, I don't have a criminal records. I've never been through anything like this, and.

00:31:47
Speaker 5: So you still have some faith consystem that if you didn't do something, you're not going to Even with all the stuff that state was trying to make up going brown, no one that took the thing actually.

00:31:59
Speaker 3: Said I did. So I did still have hope. I didn't think that it was going to end up the way it did. So they simply at North France, which is the highest security level prison in Maryland, which is actually I believe it was the Ultra Max or something like that. I think they have a superstructure show about the prison, which this is like a one on once they would call it twenty three and one when you're in yourself about twenty three hours a day, and so yeah, so I've been up here basically ever since the prison being what it is, there's things that are normalized here that should not be normal. I don't even remember the amount of people that's been killed stuff in here anymore. People being murdered in here is not even spoke about it. It's like it's something that people say in passion now because it happened so often, Like the man who was murdered by the Russian authors that was caught on the body camera recently, people and outrage about it, which they should be, but that happens daily like that. It just because it finally was gone video.

00:33:12
Speaker 2: And of course he's talking about Robert Brooks, the man who was murdered on video, brutally murdered by a group of New York State Correction officers. Now, Robert, what can we say? Rest in peace? And to his point, from what we hear during these interviews, that kind of thing is all too common behind the walls, and that makes post conviction litigation all that more urgent because every day is life and death. And Brandon tapped into his scholastic background in the law library.

00:33:50
Speaker 3: The only thing I really do is read the law, read the Bible, and once I got confident in my legal abilities, as far as filing briefs and things of that nature. In the past seven years, I think I've helped about twenty guys get positive results in cases with all this that that's them going home, getting admitted in the drug program, getting time cut, finding information similar to mine.

00:34:13
Speaker 2: So let's get back to Brandon's case.

00:34:15
Speaker 3: I had filed a public information next, and once I finally got the police file, was when I found the information about the computer. In fact, it was on page four because I'm up all night doing legal work, and so i had my lighte on and I'm flipping the page and I saw it, and I'm just I started talking to myself. Really, I'm like, oh, this is what I've been talking about all along.

00:34:35
Speaker 4: The state had not only the computer, but they also had the analysis of the computers that was done by the state's computer experts, which concluded that these searches had not been done on these computers, and that was not disclosed to the defense. So it completely proves that Sherry was lying and they deliberately presented false evidence. Then they had the jury instructed that he was the one that hid the evidence.

00:35:01
Speaker 3: So the very next morning I called Justin Brown to let him know what I filed in there and when we started filing it from there, that was in twenty sixteen.

00:35:09
Speaker 2: They also discovered Michael Bradley's initial interview in which he corroborated Brandon's alibi, as well as that they at one point had had video of the road leading up to Jody's home which could have identified the actual killer, but mysteriously it somehow went missing.

00:35:26
Speaker 4: So there were so many things that were exculpatory that the jury should have heard about but didn't hear about, and instead were fed this false bill of lies about silencers and computer searches and destruction of evidence that not only wasn't true, but the opposite was true. It was the government that was hiding the evidence and they did it to secure this false conviction against Brandon, and Justin Brown, who was Brandon's attorney at that time, did an excellent job presenting it. At the post conviction level. Judge Silkworth granted the post conviction relief based up upon your Brady violation, which the court concluded that it was significant enough to vacate the conviction and remand for a new trial.

00:36:07
Speaker 2: And since twenty sixteen, the state has tied them up on appeal rather than allow the new trial to go forward. And in that time, Beth and Donna Fairman, as well as a team from the powerhouse law firm Scadden, have fought to maintain that twenty sixteen new trial motion all the way to most recently the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

00:36:28
Speaker 4: At that level, Brandon was represented by some excellent lawyers from Scadden who did an outstanding job, and basically a three judge panel concluded that he's entitled to a new trial. And so that's where we are right now. I am looking forward to representing him at his trial or Donna Fairman, and I think that he has waited way too long for justice to happen here.

00:36:55
Speaker 2: So here we are in February twenty twenty five, as the state has a few more delay tactics to still try, because, after all, what the hell are they going to present at a new trial? Michael Bradley, Sherry Carter, I mean, multiple DNA profiles found on a bond, maybe, I mean I can't with this shit. But before I actually lose my shit, let's go to closing arguments, where, first of all, I want to thank both of you for joining us today. So now I'm going to turn off my microphone, leave my headphones on and kick back in my chair and just listen to anything else you want to share. So Elizabeth, you go first. Then just sort of hand the microphone off the brand and he'll take us off into the sunset.

00:37:41
Speaker 4: I think that he has been the victim of a grievous injustice, that the system has failed him time and time again. I am, however, grateful to the courts that saw things as they should have and granted him a new trial, and I feel confident that jury hearing actual evidence rather than evidence that was manufactured twisted around, we'll see that he's an innocent man and we'll find him not guilty when he goes to.

00:38:09
Speaker 3: Tryal thank you for having us on here and giving us the opportunity to have this conversation, because with how everything has gone here, you see that the way that things that are spoken about from one point of view are not necessarily what it really is, and so you have so many lies and false things that will put into the trial. You know, Yeah, people I know on the street that don't know the truth about the situation and will repeat stuff that's on the news because they don't understand that the news is just getting stuff from the police, and so you have stuff going to family members, kids, all of that stuff that are being said that clearly aren't true, and there's no way for these people to get in the actual information. So I do believe that this is a very important outlet. And for me clearly sitting in here, I understand that this isn't what I want to be here, but I also know that certain positive things still occur. What you have to look for, you have to understand what is wanted from you, what is needed from you, And so that's why, like I said earlier, I try to help in any way I can with anyone because you never know why God has allowed you to be in a certain situation. But if you don't try to do the things that he wants to do, then there's no positive that's going to come from it, and then you're just looking at everything from such a negative point of view. And so I know that at some point, when it's the proper time, I'll be out of here. But while I'm in here, I'm going to continue to try to help people because I've always done that, and so just try to keep the positive mindset while continuing to fight for great really for justice, for the truth. My kids, my family, They're the most important thing to you, and so to be able to get home to them and give the in person support that I should have been able to give to them their whole lives up and locked up for the most part of their whole lives, and so I just pray that happened soon.

00:40:04
Speaker 2: 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 It's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.

00:40:40
Speaker 1: 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