00:00:04
Speaker 1: Hi, It's Connor Hall, the senior producer for Wrongful Conviction, with another update and more behind the scenes insights. And this one is another that we've been involved with for far too long with not enough movement. Pierre Rushing. The first time I'd even heard about him was December twenty nineteen, and by the time I was approved to speak with him on the phone, COVID was in full swing and we were rapidly trying to figure out how to keep the podcast going. But it turned out that remote recording made it way easier to cover more stories and we ended up like nearly doubling our annual output. But I digress Pierre, And I mean we were talking on the phone so much that my wife would just like come into the room and see me on the phone and you'd be like, who are you talking to? Pierre uh Man? You know, And we still talk less. Oh, but you know, every few months or so, he'll give me a ring and I'll see that California prison number that I have saved as him in my phone, and every time there's like a mix of hope and despair, and you know, is he finally calling with that good news? Anyway? I pick up and just in the sound of his voice, I can tell that it's just another Tuesday. So we talk about, you know, what new information he's found out or new strategies that, you know, we could try. For a while, I was trolling everything. The Almada County DA's social media account was posting with hashtag free Pierre Rushing and like when are you gonna do something now? Obviously that wasn't very effective, but you know, there were rallies and protests and Jason went on the Breakfast Club Joe Rogan. Whoever would lend their ear and their platform. There's even a movie Undefeated the wrongful conviction of Pierre Rushing. In this case, it's you know, an Oakland drug dealer named c who killed one of his customers, want Taylor Dwan had allegedly pocketed an iPod from Sea's apartment during a drug deal. So once he figured that out, he went with three others in a car to chase down Dewan and shot him. One of the three in the car, a guy named Robert Green, eventually told the police, who knows why, I mean, maybe he was picked up for something else, but he named the two others in the car while not naming C, and then gave varying descriptions of C over time, like wildly different right. And then two weeks after the murder, Robert Green comes forward again and says, oh, I saw Sea at a BART station wearing a red hat. And around that same time, Pierre Rushing was stopped at a bart station. He tells you about it in the episode, and he was wearing a red hat. And despite not matching any of Robert Green's varying descriptions, Green picked Pierre out of a photo lineup as C. Now, at the time of our initial coverage, the other two named accomplices had already sworn in affidavits that Pierre was not C, and another witness went as far as to name C. Then, by the time of our twenty twenty three coverage, the star witness, Robert Green, had recanted his testimony clearing Pierre's name, so they had nothing left in this case. We thought the Almeda County DA, Pamela Price, might do the right thing, but at that time she was another alleged progressive DA who had become the target of a so called tough on crime recall campaign, so she chose to not rock the vote with an exoneration, but she still got voted out in a twenty twenty four special election. Now since that time, Pierre's team has uncovered even more. They finally were allowed to test crime scene biological evidence, namely the car seat where C sat, as well as cigarette butts said to have belonged to him, all of which cleared Pierre. And I'm gonna guess it would match C if they just knew who he was. Oh wait, it turns out that Pierre's team discovered that a whit and This had named C for investigators before Pierre went to trial, the same name that Pier's team had during our initial coverage. But that report of an alternate suspect that appears to be quite consequential, that was hidden from the defense at trial. You gotta wonder why they'd hide that information. This guy was known to operate out of the building from which this whole saga began. Maybe they were just so far out over their skis and this investigation and prosecution that they just buried it and plodded ahead. Maybe it was tunnel vision. Maybe they actually believed, well, this is inconsequential, Or maybe C was more useful to police on the outside will never know. I understand he went away for something else not too long after, while Pierre is still serving a sentence that most likely belongs to him. And I just want you to keep that in mind, that he's still in there serving someone else's time while you listen to this coverage, some of which is from twenty twenty and then the final segment most of it it's from twenty twenty three. There's even you know, the call to action is outdated because Bamela Price isn't in an office anymore. But I'd like you to renew the effort to reach out to the new DA. We're going to have contact information listed in the episode description, So please keep making noise because here it is twenty twenty six. He's still in there, and I mean, wouldn't it be even more tragic if I was back here again in three more years.

00:05:30
Speaker 2: In the early morning of April fifteenth, twenty eleven, Dwan Taylor stole an iPod for an Oakland drug dealer named c. Two of his other customers, Patrick Smith and Robert Green, gave Ce a ride in search of the iPod thief they spotted. Mister Taylor pulled up next to him, and See proceeded to shoot and kill him over this trivial slight. Nearly a week we'ld go by before Robert Green would offer cops information and an uncertain description of the shooter. A few weeks and several descriptions later, Green would claim to have seen c wearing a red hat. A few days after that, police would approach Pierre Rushing, a man who had never been known as Sea, but wearing a red hat. They'd bring Pierre's juvie photo and his name to Robert Green, who went on to identify him as the shooter, despite a solid alibi, no physical evidence whatsoever or anything to corroborate Robert Green's highly questionable identification. Pierre Rushing's burgeoning rap career and promising future were stolen by Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving fifty to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed by a drug dealer named C. Patrick Smith has since signed affidavits and testified to Pierre's innocence, and another of C's customers that night has bravely set a legal name to the culprit, and even though mister Rushing did not name Se, we have censored his name from this episode for mister Rushing's safety. Meanwhile, the state of California and used to ignore evidence of Pierre's actual innocence and to fight his honest attempts to regain his freedom. This is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm. That's me and today we're going to tell you about the case of Pierre Rushing. We'll speak with one of his post conviction attorneys, Marvin Lou as well as taking a call from Kern Valley Correction in California to hear from Pierre himself.

00:07:37
Speaker 3: This is Global tail Lenge.

00:07:38
Speaker 1: You have a free post call from you.

00:07:43
Speaker 2: This call ANGELA telephone number will be monitored and recorded.

00:07:47
Speaker 4: To accept this call, say or.

00:07:49
Speaker 3: Dial five now. Thank you for using Global tail Link.

00:07:55
Speaker 2: Hello, good morning, good morning. I'm glad you're here. I mean, I'm sorry you're here under these circumstances, but I'm definitely glad you're here. And I know we have limited time, so let's get right into it. Today's episode, we're going to tell the story of the man we have on the phone now, Pierre Rushing, who's serving fifty years. The nightmare starts on April fifteen, twenty eleven, at three forty five am, when there's a murder. But let's go back to your childhood, because you had a difficult upbringing and you were coming out of that and building a career in music when it all went haywire.

00:08:28
Speaker 3: So I grew up in Oakland, California. My father was a passentee and then out of prison smug with a dig crack cocaine. So I don't want to say like any other Oakland kid, but I mean a lot lot of kids in the in the that grew up in the nineties were just products of our environment. We grew up looking at things that we believed to be right, so we as we mature, we get to see that they were really wrong.

00:08:51
Speaker 2: And how did you get into music?

00:08:53
Speaker 3: My auntie used to work for Keith Switt her name with Tracy Rush. She since passed in twenty thirteen. But just being around her, she took me in her wing, just taking me to the studio whor her as I became a big contribute.

00:09:08
Speaker 2: Is it fair to say by twenty eleven, things were starting to look up for you in terms of possibly building a career, and yeah.

00:09:16
Speaker 3: When I was arrested for this case, actually friends of mine has said that the police were looking for me for this time, and we all laughed about it because everybody knew that I couldn't have done. And I had been wrapping and going to the studio state assistant shooting videos. And actually when I was arrested, I was open enough for Bay Area Leegen by the name of Saint Quinn, and we had a big black tour van with my pictures on and promoting my music and everything. So, yeah, it was coming up for me.

00:09:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, you were exactly You're on your way up. And then everything went completely haywire. Now let's turn the conversation to Marvin Lou. Marvin is a criminal defense attorney of some repute and he has been representing Pierre for some time. Now, let's just paint a picture of what happened.

00:10:08
Speaker 5: The date was April fifteenth, twenty eleven, and what happened was two individuals by the name of Patrick Smith and Robert Green. We're doing crack cocaine for the day and a half leading up to this young man's killing. And Patrick Smith and Robert Green went to an apartment in Oakland to purchase more crack cocaine. Patrick Smith was driving. Robert Green stayed in the car while Patrick Smith went up to the apartment to purchase more drugs. So Patrick Smith meets up with his drug dealer. Patrick Smith knows him as see the letter C who is the actual person responsible for the murder of Dewane Taylor. While Patrick Smith was in the apartment, there were several other people present and mister Taylor left the apartment. Shortly after mister Taylor left, then sees iPod turned up missing and someone in the apartment said that mister Taylor had taken sees iPod. What happened next was Patrick Smith, the shooter, SE and another individual who was also charged as a co defendant named Andre Morris. They all left the apartment and went and got in Patrick Smith's car to go find mister Taylor, who had allegedly taken SE's iPod. Robert Green was waiting in the car sitting in the front passenger seat, so pat Smith drives around the corner. They see mister Taylor walking down the street and see or Andre Morris. Pat Smith wasn't sure which told him to stop the car. She and Andre Morris got out of the car, confronted mister Taylor, and s shot and killed mister Taylor on the sidewalk in front of a fast food restaurant. They then got back into the car. Pat Smith drove a short distance. Both See and mister Morris got out of the car and ran away. So that's the factual backdrop for this thing.

00:12:04
Speaker 2: Follow along here because Pierre, who were on the phone with now had no connection to viction, no knowledge of the actual perpetrator, and he was at his grandmother's at the time with a young lady named Lauren Richardson on the time and date of the murder. Have you ever had a nickname of ce before it?

00:12:21
Speaker 3: Never? Never, I've always went by the name of Stink or people from my neighborhoods to call me peace, thank beer. For my first name is Pierre. I have never ever went by the namacy.

00:12:33
Speaker 2: So what happened? How did you end up getting wrongfully convicted here?

00:12:37
Speaker 3: Well, one of the pastors, Robert Greed, he goes to the police n five days after he allegedly seated this time, and he tells them that he's seen as murdered. A guy named Seca missed this murder. He gives the police multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description is five eight, light skinned, one hundred and twenty pounds. I haven't been one hundred and twenty pounds since I was eighteen years old, let alone at nineteen years old. I'm not light skinned. The second time I believe sees the police, he switches it up again. So allegedly he says he sees se on April thirty, which would have been fifteen days after the crime, and he went back to the police and said, you know what, I lied again. I believe he was six foot two, brown skin, and they had on red shirt and a red hat. I'm not sure what kind of lineup they were showing it, but he still couldn't identify who they believed to be seen. The police seen in an area that he said that he had seen seeing. I believe it was May third, wearing a red hat. And they stopped me. And when they stopped me and they said, what is your name? I don't lie to the police. Here, Russian is my man. I say, hey, we're looking for a guy that beat the guy up. I haven't beaten the guy up. And then they leave. When they take that name back to I believe Robert Green, who was at the police station, and they show him a picture four days after he's seen a guy with a red hat. He said, you know what, Yeah, that's me. I'm past see. And that's how the whole way of respond would have red had four days after the Barbara grid Fife seen this guy.

00:14:06
Speaker 2: And a month after the crime. When they first questioned you, they wanted to know what you were doing on the day of the crime. But when they were asking you this question, it was already five weeks later, right, And this is a trick that they use. Sometimes you're like, you're supposed to remember exactly. Like I'll ask anybody in the audience right now, what were you doing. Let's go back thirty five days from whatever day you're listening to this. Tell me right now what you were doing at a particular time on that day, and I'll give you a dollar. Because that's impossible, but it is very effective because then they can say you lied, because there's no way anyone could possibly remember that unless it was their birthday or some other like really important day.

00:14:44
Speaker 3: Right April fifteenth, you would have it is my father's birthday. So without me even thinking you say April fifteen, Hey, there's nothing I was with my dad? I say, my dad on his birthday? Not one time at any trial transcript, Police ADVA Torti's theermory. Do they ever say where were you three forty five a m. So if they said no, you weren't with your dad. I also remember that I had a traffic stop that day and they went chick and it showed that I was untruth for they say no, not at that time. It took me, I believe my attorney, for about a week of jog in my memory to figure out where did I sleep at three forty five a m. That morning? And I remembered it was my grandma. So was because my mom came to me that morning and said, where are you going to get your dad for his birthday? That's how I was. They able to put the pieces of a puzzle together, but by that time it was trial, so they looked at it as if, oh, this is a third alibi. Well, no, I've given you everywhere I went from April fifteenth, and so that's how they played it, which is very nefarious because they see that I was trying to tell them.

00:15:45
Speaker 2: Everything at the time that This crime was committed at three forty five in the morning. Now we know what you were doing when you were supposedly out shooting somebody who you never knew and don't know and still don't know and never will know.

00:15:58
Speaker 3: Well, height belfourteenth shooting a video. Thank you go on YouTube right now. The song is called young Stink Take a Trip. Lauren Richerson was associate of the camera man helped shoot the video. She was also my girlfriend April fourteenth, going in table fifteen. She came to my grandma talk roughly about nine forty five round timmy clock, and we spent the night. We enjoy each other's company. We deal with any other boy for their girlfriend.

00:16:31
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Lauren Richardson. I am an Oakland resident and current legal apprentice. I entered the field with a lot of motivation from the tragic situation that happened with Pierre Rushing. I originally was into video. On April fourteenth, Pierre went to shoot a video. It's called take a Trip. We were super excited because he had so much support from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was a great rapper. When he finally shot the video, we were super excited. We went back to his grandmother's house afterwards, just to kind of recap, and we stayed up all night watching movies, laughing, making plans for the future. We you know, did what couples do late night, and I left early in the morning because I had to take my son to school. And it was some weeks after that he kind of disappeared, you know, when somebody else found me and was like, you know, he's in jail. I'm like, what, because I was kind of mad, you know I was. I thought he ghosted me, to be honest, so it was no way that he could have committed the crime. I have never felt as powerless as I felt in this situation to express reality and be believed, and you know, this huge power structure for them to be able to create a false reality, like even with the witness, the witness is not a credible witness, nowhere near as credible as I am. Because I'm not going to go perjure myself. I'm not going to risk my life to keep a killer out of jail. So for me to go up there in front of all of these people and for them to not take my word for it when they had no other evidence. It bothers me to this day. It's a big part of the motivation for me to go into this apprenticeship program because I want to learn how to speak up for other people who can't speak up for themselves, because this has to stop. They ruined an entire family.

00:18:37
Speaker 2: The idea that we in this country can sent in somebody like you, a promising young man with his life ahead of him, to fifty years based on the testimony of an admitted crackhead. It was up for two days or changed the story four times really should make everybody a little scared. Yeah, can you tell us a little bit about the trial itself?

00:18:58
Speaker 3: And killing it on camera. When I heard they had it on camera, I started to kick my feet up and just wait for the trold days because I'm like, if it's on camera, I'm going home. I never in a million years imagined that the camera would be low quality or you really can't see anything on the camera. You see a vehicle pull up and it's just draining, so you can't really see anything. And I remember my heart just dropping because I knew that that was what was supposed to exonerate music. They had no evidence, no corrupt no, no physicals. They have the murder vehicle with twelve fingerprints inside the car, and say I got in and out of that car a four time. None of the fingerprints Mats Mott. One of the prosecution's witness was a lady by the name of the Carls Smith or so. She witnessed the crime her and pass s meth for best friends. She had been in that car a week before when the police forensic pathologists became the call on every twenty second they found to call this fingerprints in that car. Therefore, when she testified she hadn't been in the car seven days prior to the killing, that means that the car couldn't have actually been wiped down. And if the car wasn't wiped down, and you count twelve to fourteenth fingerprints in that car, per Robert Greene's testimony, I got in and out of that car four times, and I killed this guy with no glove. Why don't wear my fingerprints on the car? Second, if Robert greens took the leave, why would you ever call me five day light skinning one hundred and twenty pounds? Why would you ever change it to five ten one hundred and sixty pounds? In that preliminary hearing, when the judge allowed me to leave the court room, they brought Robert Green in. They said, could compleatly describe to kill it. This guy switched it up to six to two hundred and twenty pounds. This guy's not to be believed. It was addicted to cracking. Aroon said he had been up for two days off cracking. Aroon, I hadn't been initially seven times failing. Third, you have to call the smith another prosecutions with us. I didn't see him. I don't know who that is.

00:20:50
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean our standard in this country is supposed to be reasonable doubt, and this goes way beyond that standard.

00:20:57
Speaker 3: I had hoped that, you know, I would I would be exacted.

00:21:00
Speaker 2: And did you have proper representation?

00:21:02
Speaker 3: Now I went to a trial with a posite defender and I went speedy trial. I was arrested in May, I was convicted and all of this. And the reason I went Steed Troup because I feel like I had nothing to add I didn't do it. So why would I wait? Where I see in my counting people wait four or five years to fight the case because they're trying to wait for the better deal. The first day of trial, I remember the judge saying something like, hey, I know the DA is going to give you a deal. She looked to your left, get a deal because I know that he's going to give you one. And I just remember shaking my head. No, no, no, because why would I take time for something if I didn't do it. They know I'm not Sea, so they want to know if what we call in the urban community, I'm going the stench. I know a lot of seas. That's that's the one for two. It's not my job to do. The police are job for them, you know. So if I wasn't there, what if you expect me to do? Or maybe it could have been this guy, Maybe he could be this guy. If I do that, I'm worse than Robert Green because you were not there and they know that. The feet off that.

00:22:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, jail house nitches has just sort of become like standard operating procedure.

00:22:05
Speaker 3: Correct. It's a nightmare, a living nightmare. But that that was the summ of the trial.

00:22:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is a nightmare scenario. So the jury goes out. When they came back in, what was that moment like when they actually found guilty of a crime you didn't commit.

00:22:21
Speaker 3: When they came back with it, it was It was weird because the whole trial, I had twenty to thirty people every single day of my trial, friends from the neighborhood, family, girlfriend, associates. But on that day, nobody was in the cooorroom, not even the victim's family, nobody from my faund That was just like a sense of loneliness, a sense of like me against the world, because you're sitting here convicting me for a crime that I didn't commit. And I know that you know I didn't commit this crime. And I couldn't even look back to look in the eyes of my mother, my father, and my grandmother, and I felt like that was already saving. I'm like, why was even the Baker family? Like? Where was a feeling that I never want to feel again.

00:23:16
Speaker 2: Marvin, take it back to how you first met Pierre or how you first became aware of his case, and why you chose to get involved in this case. You must get hit with cases all the time.

00:23:25
Speaker 5: I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney, Stephen Frederick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court, also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State Court of Appeal.

00:23:38
Speaker 2: What is the literal interpretation of habeas corpus.

00:23:42
Speaker 5: Habeas corpus means to produce the body in Latin, and what that means is that it's an allegation by us that Pierre is being unlawfully incarcerated. And once I dug into the case and reviewed the evidence in Pierre's case and did some investigation on my own, that very much turned out to be true.

00:24:01
Speaker 2: What went wrong here?

00:24:02
Speaker 5: I think a number of things went wrong, but most critically, there was evidence which could have exonerated Pierre which was not introduced. The only witness in the case, Robert Green, testified that Pierre was supposedly the person who committed this crime. That is the only evidence in the case and in the trial against Pierre, that witness testified that the person who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone a mere minute before shooting the victim. In this case, Pierre's phone records were available and that was part of the habeas petition and got him a hearing subsequently, and those phone records established conclusively that Pierre was not talking on his cell phone at the time when the perpetrator was, and if those records were introduced, I think that it would be a pretty compelling piece of evidence to establish that, in fact, Pierre is not the pers responsible for this murder.

00:25:02
Speaker 2: But they weren't introduced.

00:25:03
Speaker 7: The jury never heard of them.

00:25:04
Speaker 2: What about the fingerprint stuff? How did they manage to get around that? That seems like that could have been enough on its own. How did he not leave his fingerprints? Is he a ghost?

00:25:15
Speaker 1: Well?

00:25:15
Speaker 5: The fingerprint evidence was introduced by way of a stipulation or the evidence technician who actually gathered the latent fingerprints from the car that was used in the homicide. That witness did not testify. Rather, Pierre's trial attorney chose to have that evidence admitted by way of an agreement with the prosecutor, simply the conclusion that Pierre's fingerprints were not in fact recovered from that car, and had that witness been called, it would have led to another important piece which was not introduced and not known to the jury. That evidence technician also collected DNA from that car, swabbed all of the areas of that car where the killer fat just before the murder occurred. In addition, there was a cigarette but that was recovered from the floorboard of that car, which was also swabbed for DNA. That DNA evidence was not tested in time for Pierre's trial, and that was also the subject of his subsequent avias petition. So what happened was after we obtained an evidentiary hearing in state court to attempt to prove Pierre's innocence, As I started reviewing the case materials, I realized that this DNA evidence existed which would completely exonerate him, and no one had tested it. So there's a procedure under California law that allows the convicted individual to ask the court to now have that evidence tested because it would prove that he's innocent. The government opposed our efforts to have that evidence tested, and ultimately the judge in this case refused to allow it to test that evidence. I then appealed that refusal, and the Court of Appeal refused to allow us to test that evidence. Why is it that they wouldn't want to have the DNA evidence in the case tested if they're so confident that, in fact, he's the perpetrator.

00:27:15
Speaker 2: I never can understand in any case, especially in a case as serious as this one. A murder case. Why they wouldn't want to have every stone turned over and have every piece of evidence tested so that they can find out not only that in this case, Pierre didn't do it, but they could find out who actually did. Marvin, Yolanda Washington, and Patrick Smith are pivotal players in this whole wrongful conviction. Can you explain their role in what went wrong here?

00:27:45
Speaker 7: Sure?

00:27:46
Speaker 5: Of course Pat Smith was a charged co defendant in the case at the time of Pierre's trial, so he did not testify at the trial. He had his fifth Amendment right. But after Pierre's trial was long over and after Patrick Smith was his part of the case for accessory after the fact, he then signed an affidavid which helped Pierre get an evidentiary hearing. He indicated both in his affidavit as well as in his testimony at the evidentiary hearing that his drug dealer is a man who goes by the name of f and that individual was not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing refused to name that individual because he was afraid for his life. But one of the people who was in that apartment was a woman by the name of Yolanda Washington, and she also did not testify a trial, But after Pierre was convicted, she signed an affidavid under penalty of perjury, indicating that she, of course, having been in that apartment, knew who she was. She obviously knew who Andre Morris was. And what she said in her affidavit was that Pierre Rushing is not the drug dealer who shot and killed mister Taylor.

00:29:00
Speaker 7: Rushing is not C.

00:29:02
Speaker 5: But that's not all. Indeed, Yolanda Washington went so far as to identify who that person was. Now, before we get into this, let me make one thing clear, which is that Pierre does not know the identity of the perpetrator of this homicide. Yolanda Washington, in her affidavid did name that individual who goes by the nickname C. In fact, his first name is his name is And of course it would make perfect sense that he would go by the nickname C because his name is Pierre Rushing does not have a cea in his name, and she has never been Pierre's nickname. Because Pierre is not the person responsible for this killing. That affidavit was part of what enabled Pierre to get a hearing in superior court. Unfortunately, Miss Washington was a homeless individual at that time, and my investigator was essentially unable to locate her to get her to testify in court. So I filed emotion essentially asking that her affidavit be considered because she was unavailable, and that request was denied.

00:30:15
Speaker 2: Wow, it's pretty courageous, even after the fact that these two people both were willing to put their own lives at risk to identify someone who they know is a killer, and I think that speaks volumes to the veracity of their statements.

00:30:53
Speaker 3: You have any doubt in my innagmence? How would I use this thing on the points? What person would for DNA testing of the materials that were sought out the vehicle if I wasn't innocent, What yilty man would place for the enhancement of the video if I wasn't innocent, A man going to push for the phone records? Amnis, I think you meant this crime. I have nothing to do with this.

00:31:20
Speaker 2: Crime, Pierre. Last time we spoke Dwan Taylor's actual murderer, the guy known as C now his co conspirator Andre Marris, as well as an accessory after the fact, Patrick Smith, they had both come forward to definitively state that you had absolutely nothing to do with the ones murder and are not, in fact C.

00:31:45
Speaker 1: That's not you.

00:31:46
Speaker 2: You and C are different people, but for their own safety, understandably they would not name C. However, a woman named Yolanda Washington, who was prepared to do just that, she couldn't be located for your ebidentiary here and then Smith and Morris were just explained away. And additionally, your request for DNA testing against items from the car was denied. And you're right, why would a guilty person, what guilty person would be seeking DNA testing on items that might contain their own DNA?

00:32:17
Speaker 3: What do you want to.

00:32:17
Speaker 2: Submit your own guilt if you were doing that, if you actually had a guilty conscience. Or why would they try to enhance crime scene video if they knew it was going to point to their guilt. All of this in addition to how flimsy the state's evidence was to begin with the sole witness I'm talking about Robert Green, of course, the whole witness who cooperated with police to avoid being charged as well, whose description of C changed three count them three times, and one of those times Green said that C had worn a red hat again. Robert green knew sy knew just how dangerous he really was, yet he felt quite comfortable identifying you, Pierre, after you were picked up while wearing a red hat.

00:33:00
Speaker 4: They stopped me two days after that description was given, So I guess this quote unquote killer was supposed to have been wearing the same clothes and hat for two days straight. I mean, like it was bananas from the beginning. I've never fit a description of being five to eight light skin, I've never rocked the ball, and haven't been one hundred and twenty pounds since I was ten years old. I mean, it just has been bananas from the game. Nobody can convince me that he thought I was ever the guy in the car with.

00:33:29
Speaker 2: Him, because you weren't. What you were was you were with Lauren that night at your grandmother's house, and her testimony was corroborated by the absence of your fingerprints in the vehicle. Since your episode aired in twenty twenty, your case was picked up from Marvin leu pro bono, by the way, by one of the biggest and baddest law firms in the country, Greenberg Trauig and one of their star attorneys, Jordan Gratzinger has been hard at work. I mean that's an understatement.

00:33:58
Speaker 7: Yeah, he's a beast.

00:34:00
Speaker 4: We have a great investigator by the name of Grant Fine overturning all the stones in the case, getting half a Davis that wouldn't have gotten before, talking to witnesses that hadn't spoken before, and tracked Robert Green down. I was sitting here on my bunk and Jordan grass Singer he sent me a message and he just was saying Robert Green every candidate and I had to look at the message twice take it.

00:34:22
Speaker 7: All in, and I was like, damn.

00:34:24
Speaker 4: I thought it was like some kind of like April Fool's joke or something, and I just immediately dropped his tears. So from what I've been told, it was just like, you know, weighing on his soul. He finally did the right thing. We'll just tell the truth. I mean, I've gotten with anybody in my position of fighting wrong for comvision as asked for. The one and only witness has fully recanted.

00:34:43
Speaker 2: So I'm both well, very happy for you, but also i gotta admit I'm confused. Why am I? Why are we talking to you over a prison phone? It seems like that should have been, it should have resolved the case. You should have walked out the door. And now there's actually literally zero evidence against you. So where does that leave your case.

00:35:04
Speaker 4: We're in court and we're trying to get this case dismissed. Speaking with a progressive da by the name of Pamela Price, and she has eyes on it.

00:35:13
Speaker 7: I don't have the declaration in front of me, but Robert Green.

00:35:17
Speaker 4: Says he knew the whole time that it wasn't me, and it just gave validation and what I've been saying the whole time that I didn't commit this crime and there was no way that I would have or could have committed this crime. As well as one of the guys that were actually convicted after me, Andre Morris, he did a written declaration and said that he was a participant in the killing and that I wasn't with him.

00:35:40
Speaker 3: That was that.

00:35:41
Speaker 7: So we're just waiting and praying for good news very soon.

00:35:44
Speaker 2: Well, let's hope the Pamela Price doesn't just put on the progressive sort of bona FIDE's at election time, right, but that she takes this case as what it is, which is an example of why we need prospersuters with the brains and the heart that we know she possesses. And by the way, it shouldn't take a reform minded prosecutor when we're dealing with actual innocence. Every prosecutor should want to get the innocent guy out and go after the person that actually did it. And this is a guy whose name we know and we know they know, So what is the hold up?

00:36:23
Speaker 7: I believe Pamela Price is under a lot of scrutiny.

00:36:26
Speaker 4: She's cleaning up Alameda County, and she's being took to town by some as being too soft on crime. And really there's all type of guys walking around here in three strikes and weed and all type of just craziness. She's by the book, and by her being by the book, it's making her seem as if she's soft on crime if you don't have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. She's not taking it into some that that seems if she's soft on krime in my instance, as far as my habeas petition, I haven't heard from Pamela Price, and Jordan hasn't either. She's aware of the situation, she's aware of the Joe Rogan podcast, She's aware of the Wrongful Provision podcast, She's aware of the Breakfast Club interview, and she still hasn't responded to Jordan Grassinger, and she's supposed to file some kind of rebuttal to my release. I'm not sure where we're at. We're close to justice, but I still feel like they're trying to hold on to something that they know is wrong, because why are they not talking to us?

00:37:24
Speaker 7: Why are they following the rebuddle? What are you rebudding?

00:37:27
Speaker 4: You have every single person that was in the vehicle except to kill her yourself, that has done sworn declarations and given testimony that I did not comment the crime. Everybody has said, wrong guy. There is no physical or tangible or corroborating evidence that goes with this case.

00:37:45
Speaker 7: What are you rebudding?

00:37:47
Speaker 2: I don't get it either. I mean, are they going to say we don't find Robert Green's recantation credible? And if so, was he then credible before when he was facing accessory after the fact doing all kinds of drugs. And don't forget he changed the description of c three times, a guy who he knew to be capable of murder, yet he was brave enough to identify you a man who did not fit any one of his multiple descriptions. You know, it's hard not to think that maybe he thought that you were the type of guy who wouldn't come after him, which leads us to believe that you were not a dangerous guy in the first place, never were, and never will be. I mean, this conviction happened well over a decade before Pam Price was elected. She could fix this. It wouldn't reflect badly on her or her office, because after all, it was one of her predecessors that made these mistakes.

00:38:37
Speaker 4: It was a lady but the name of Nancy O'Malley. So I understand she has a lot to go on. But it's like Jordan says, there is no case in Alamina County that is as compelling in an innocence claim as mine.

00:38:51
Speaker 2: So is there anything our audience can do to help? Is there a petition to sign? At a very minimum, I.

00:38:56
Speaker 4: Think we're past signing a petition. I believe that we have to do a CEP Newton shiit. We have to agitate, we have to call, we have to email, we have to show up unannounced to the d DA's office. Some might say that that's hurtful. Sitting in jail for twelve years with a fifty to life sentence is hurtful. Duwan Taylor's family deserves justice like this is not justice. So I would ask that a call Family Prices office and ask for justice for Perre Russian.

00:39:24
Speaker 2: All right, this is all hands on deck, people, We can we can do this. We put out the original coverage three and a half bucking years ago. All right, so we're gonna post her office's number, her email, her snail mail address, all of it in the bio. And remember, be respectful when you call. It doesn't help anyone in order. Does she deserve Everyone deserves to be treated ris respect in that office whoever answers the phone, So please keep that in mind, but do call, write, email, whatever. And with that we're going to move on to closing arguments, where I thank you Pierre for calling in once again again. You know you're in our thoughts here at Rafel Conviction more often than you know. And now I'm just going to sit back and listen to anything else you want to say.

00:40:09
Speaker 7: I would just like to speak directly to her.

00:40:11
Speaker 1: Yeah, go for it.

00:40:12
Speaker 4: Pamela Price, Robert Green get his declaration in February when he lied on me. They instantly put a word out the same day. That's tooking longer to exonerate me than it took to convict me.

00:40:24
Speaker 7: There's no evidence in this case.

00:40:26
Speaker 4: Rely on your common sense, Rely on your expertise and the Civil Rights Arena. Rely on your intelligence. I didn't commit this crime. You know I didn't commit this crime. Every mind of second that passes by is an injustice.

00:40:39
Speaker 7: I could be your son. I could be your little brother. I could be your nephew.

00:40:43
Speaker 4: I do not deserve to continue to sit here while you and your office place politics. I have a family to get to. My little sister was murdered in twenty eighteen. My niece has no mother, she has no father.

00:40:57
Speaker 7: She needs me.

00:40:58
Speaker 4: My family needs me. My mother needs me, my father needs me. The community needs me. I have a story. I can stop a lot with my story. I'm asking you to please step up and do the right thing. Give Jordan Grassen your a call, and please do the right thing.

00:41:21
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 ed 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 Warnis, and Jeff Cleiber. 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 the production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.

00:41:57
Speaker 1: We've 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 love of for Good