00:00:00
Speaker 1: What you're about to hear is an update to an episode we recorded with Christine Bunch in 2020. Christine spent 17 long, miserable years in prison after she was wrongfully convicted of setting a fire that killed her three-year-old son, Anthony. A conviction that was based on junk fire science and evidence that was later shown to be both false and misleading. Now, since getting out, Christine has... Well, she's turned tragedy into triumph. She's devoted her life to making sure that other innocent people don't suffer the same way that she did. She's been advocating for compensation for exonerees. She's helped to train law enforcement. She's supported people coming home from prison. And she's worked alongside innocence organizations across the country. And now she's taking that work even further. Earlier this year, Christine became the first ever director of the Indiana Innocence Project, an organization that she actually helped create. That's right. The same woman who once had to fight for almost two decades to convince the justice system of her own actual innocence is now leading an organization dedicated to finding innocent people still behind bars, bringing them home, and helping them to rebuild their lives. A true hero's journey. And now, Here's my conversation with Christine Bunch. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom.

00:01:36
Speaker 2: That's me, of course. And today you're going to hear a story that's as heartbreaking and tragic as it was preventable. And it's a remarkable look inside the systemic flaws as well as human errors that lead to wrongful convictions. And in this particular case, we're going to be telling the story and hearing the story of one of my absolute favorite human beings, a personal hero of mine who is doing amazing, amazing things in the world right now, today and every day. And so I am thrilled and honored to have with us on the show today, Christine Bunch.

00:02:12
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I'm happy to be here.

00:02:14
Speaker 2: And with Christine is someone whose name you'll probably recognize, Ron Safer.

00:02:18
Speaker 1: Ron Safer.

00:02:19
Speaker 2: Is a former U.S. attorney turned corporate lawyer turned justice fighter. And you'll recognize him because he was a huge part of the exoneration of Julie Ray, an episode that I'll never forget. And I hope if you haven't heard it, that you'll go back and take a listen. Anyway, Ron, welcome back.

00:02:38
Speaker 4: My pleasure to be here. Thank you, Jason.

00:02:40
Speaker 2: So let's get right into it. Christine, you grew up in Indiana, right?

00:02:45
Speaker 5: I did.

00:02:46
Speaker 6: Things took a crazy turn when my parents divorced. But for the most part, I was happy and it was good.

00:02:53
Speaker 2: Now, at the time of this unimaginable tragedy, you were just a young mother living in a trailer, working hard, going to school, just starting your life. Just 21 years old, right?

00:03:06
Speaker 3: That's correct.

00:03:07
Speaker 6: I was working and going to school and I had a beautiful three-year-old son named Tony.

00:03:13
Speaker 2: And then the worst nightmare that any parent can possibly have or wake up to In a cold sweat, and some of us probably have had that experience, but it actually happened to you. And Ron, can you tell us about that awful morning of June 30th, 1995?

00:03:30
Speaker 4: What happened was Christine and Tony had gone to sleep together on a couch in the living room area of the trailer. Before Christine woke up, Tony had moved to the front room, which was a separate room from the living room. Christina awoke to a sound and a small fire. She was disoriented, but she saw the small fire and she tried to put it out with a pillow and couldn't do that. So she tried to smother the fire with a blanket and that didn't work either. Carbon monoxide is by this carbon monoxide. She's trying to put out the fire. She can't find the fire extinguisher. She knows where the fire extinguisher is. She can't find it. So by that time, the fire had grown into a wall between her and Tony, and she could not get to him. So she frantically went out of the trailer, tried to get help, and then tried to break the window into the front room so that she could get to Tony. But it was too late and Tony had perished.

00:04:57
Speaker 2: It's impossible to even conceive of the horror and the panic in a time like that, even if you didn't have kids, like waking up to a fire. Christine, what are your memories of that awful night now 25 years ago?

00:05:13
Speaker 3: I think the thing that sits with me the most is it was just normal.

00:05:18
Speaker 6: I came home from school and I got Tony from the babysitter and we went home and we cooked and I think we, you know, watched some TV and did some laundry and we fell asleep. I'd read him a story and he wasn't feeling really well. And we fell asleep on the couch under the air conditioner and everything just seemed normal. You didn't realize that you were going to wake up and your whole world would be turned upside down.

00:05:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, your whole world was really destroyed at a time when the community and the system should have been coming to help you in every conceivable way. Instead, you were exposed to and victimized by the worst that the system and our society has to offer. And it's so important that you're here now because this arson... quote unquote science that they used in order to frame you and wrongfully convict you for a crime that never even happened is something that we need to focus on because we need awareness among everyone. Because someday you, the listener, may find yourself on a jury and you may be presented with this same sort of junk science.

00:06:38
Speaker 4: So fire investigation was an apprentice art. There were what was regarded as common knowledge and industry standards that were passed down from generation to generation. Virtually none of those conventional wisdom were true. And when tested by scientific principles, they were all debunked. Unfortunately, that came too late for Christine.

00:07:09
Speaker 2: And this starts with a fire investigator named Brian Frank.

00:07:14
Speaker 4: So what Frank did was the day of this fire, and keep in mind, this trailer was completely incinerated. He comes into the trailer and just plucks things out of thin air. He says, oh, this... This is a burn pattern on the floor. That's evidence of a liquid accelerant like gasoline. Ooh, there's a V pattern on the wall. That is, fire burns up in a V pattern. And therefore, because there are two of these, there were two points of origin. A normal accidental fire will have one point of origin. Sometimes, if a fire is intentionally set, it will have two points of origin. It says, oops, here, the fire burned down. That is a sign of a liquid accelerant. For all of these reasons, I conclude this was not an accidental fire. This was intentionally set because, as you said at the beginning, Jason, unlike many crimes like a robbery or a fraud or a murder, The question in an arson is, was a crime even committed? And upon that threshold question rests the lives of hundreds of people, including Christine.

00:08:45
Speaker 2: Here's what's absolutely nuts, is that to become a licensed arson investigator, one who can testify in court, you can take a 40-hour correspondence course. It takes 1,500 hours in some places to become a manicurist. You can't get a barber's license in less than six months. The idea that they've been relying on these charlatans. You'd be better off consulting with psychics or even just guessing. And in Christine's case, there are so many other problems, right? There's tunnel vision, withholding of exculpatory evidence. There's multiple incompetent investigators who pass themselves off as experts. And then it goes downhill from there. So there you are outside the house and in minutes, in moments, your life has gone from a good life full of love and hope to the worst imaginable scenario.

00:09:40
Speaker 6: You're just in shock and you don't really believe what people are telling you because they kept telling me, no, you can't go in and no, we couldn't get him.

00:09:51
Speaker 3: And no, he's not alive. And of course, as a parent, you don't want to believe that. People.

00:10:00
Speaker 6: On the outside want to look at it and say, well, if this was done differently or if you had acted this way. And I mean, for myself, I have played it over and over and over and over again in my mind. I still, every day that I wake up, play it over in my mind. And I don't know how to come up with a different scenario.

00:10:27
Speaker 3: When you're in that.

00:10:27
Speaker 6: Moment and the terror paralyzes you, you don't know what you would do. So it's easy to stand outside and say, this should have never happened.

00:10:39
Speaker 3: And somebody has to be blamed.

00:10:42
Speaker 2: Right. Because the alternative is incomprehensible to most people. Why an innocent baby would be taken and Christine, six days in hell, right? Six days for you between the fire and the loss of your child and the time that you're arrested. What were those six days like? What were you doing?

00:11:05
Speaker 3: I went with my parents to plan a funeral.

00:11:11
Speaker 6: And my mom and dad really went through how the service was going to be.

00:11:17
Speaker 3: And I just remember sitting there and crying.

00:11:20
Speaker 7: And then I told him that I wanted a song played, something that I, you know, sang with Tony. And he said, we can play whatever you want.

00:11:32
Speaker 6: And then I had to go get clothes to wear to a funeral. At that time, I was still walking around barefoot because I'd literally lost everything. And everybody was trying to you know, comfort you and give.

00:11:47
Speaker 5: You advice and it just doesn't comfort you. So you feel more alone than ever because you don't want to hurt their feelings, but everything they're saying to you doesn't penetrate.

00:12:05
Speaker 6: The police didn't help because they followed me everywhere I went and talked to everybody.

00:12:13
Speaker 3: After I left and they.

00:12:15
Speaker 6: Even showed up at my son's funeral and burial. They came to me before I even got out of the hospital and told me that it was an arson. They literally wanted a list of all my.

00:12:29
Speaker 3: Family and friends, anybody that could have possibly done it. Then they come back to me and say, no, you're, you're the person you're under arrest for this.

00:12:38
Speaker 6: And in a small town, once they make her arrest, and put a headline on the paper in a small community, in that community's.

00:12:47
Speaker 3: Mind, you're guilty.

00:12:52
Speaker 2: So now you're arrested. How long were you held before the trial? Were you able to bail out?

00:12:58
Speaker 3: I was in there from July 6th to October, mid-October. I bonded out on a $ 50, 000 cash bond. I tell....

00:13:09
Speaker 6: My son, Trent, all the time that he's the miracle that saved me. But when I got out, I certainly didn't care if I lived or died.

00:13:19
Speaker 3: And so I was drinking and doing a lot of self-medicating because I just didn't want to feel anymore.

00:13:28
Speaker 6: And in the midst of that, I started getting sick. And that's when I discovered I was pregnant.

00:13:39
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's the worst possible scenario, although now, as you said, it turns out to be the thing that saved you, and we'll get into more of that later. But, Ron, this trial is full of, I mean, again, it's horseshit, the stuff that they were spewing from the stand.

00:13:58
Speaker 4: It began with the prosecutor standing in front of the jury and saying, motive is not an element of the crime. We don't have to prove motive. people tend not to commit crimes for no reason. And of course they investigated Christine and her motive for this crime. And they found that she was a good, loving, caring, wonderful mother, and that she and Tony had a beautiful relationship. Everybody said that universally. And so they're left with telling the jury, okay, Christine committed this horrific crime for no reason, but we don't have to prove motive. Then their case depended on 100% on this quote unquote expert testimony because Christine didn't set this fire. So, of course, nobody saw her set the fire. Nobody saw her prepare to set the fire. Nobody heard her talk about setting the fire. Nobody afterwards. There was no physical evidence, no forensic evidence, no nothing. Of course, the trailer wasn't insured. She lost all of her possessions. She lost, of course, the person who meant most to her in the world. So they were left with this expert testimony, these absurd fire investigation myths, which should have and could have been dispelled by a defense attorney or a competent attorney. defense expert. But there was something else that was critical in this trial that would have been difficult for a defense attorney to combat.

00:15:49
Speaker 2: And I have to tell the audience that this critical evidence becomes just as important later to proving Christine's innocence as it was in getting her convicted. But go ahead, Ron.

00:16:00
Speaker 4: They took 10 samples from The trailer from the floor of the trailer, from the carpet of the trailer, from Christine's nightgown. And they tested it for various accelerants. There was no gasoline. There was no inflammatory substance of any kind on Christine's nightgown, even though they said that she would splash this accelerant all around. But there were two positive samples. And those samples, by the way, were given to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, who federally investigates arson crimes. And they have special laboratories and they did gas chromatography on these samples. And they presented evidence at trial that there were two positive tests for what they called a heavy petroleum distillate, like jet fuel or something else, specifically not kerosene. And that was found in the living room area and critically in the front room, the room where Tony was found. Now, there is reason for there to be kerosene in the living room because the prior owners of this trailer testified that they had a kerosene heater and that they overfilled it from time to time. kerosene does not evaporate. And so even from years before, there would be kerosene in the wood. But there's no explanation for a heavy petroleum distillate like jet fuel. And there is absolutely no innocent explanation for there to be a heavy petroleum distillate in the front room, Tony's bedroom. And that was critical evidence that was not refuted by the defense attorney. And on the strength of that expert testimony and these critical lab determinations, Christine was convicted.

00:18:14
Speaker 2: March 4th, 1996, 22 years old, pregnant. Christine is convicted of arson and murder. Less than a month later, she's sentenced to two concurrent terms, 60 years for murder, and 50 years for arson. So how pregnant were you, Christine, at the time of this wrongful conviction? And what the hell was it like giving birth behind bars?

00:18:40
Speaker 6: Um, I was almost six months pregnant. The only thing they don't do to pregnant women is make them wear the belly chain and the box because the baby's not a prisoner. But, um, With so many pregnant women in there, you don't always get soft cuffs for your feet. So I've got deep scars on the back of my ankles from wearing those metal shackles. And then when I finally went into labor, I didn't really know.

00:19:15
Speaker 3: That I was in labor because I was just having a backache.

00:19:19
Speaker 6: So they took me to the infirmary and couldn't find a heartbeat.

00:19:24
Speaker 3: I lost it.

00:19:24
Speaker 6: I started, you know, screaming at him. And so I was handcuffed and shackled and taken out into an ambulance. And when I got to the hospital, a doctor come in and explained that I was having contractions and that's why they couldn't hear the heartbeat. They determined that I was going to have an emergency C-section. So the handcuffs and shackles came off and I got a metal.

00:19:48
Speaker 3: Cuff on my ankle and a log chain.

00:19:52
Speaker 6: I got about 36 hours with Trent and then I was transferred back to the facility and my family took him home.

00:20:14
Speaker 2: So the good news is that there is actually an equal or greater number of heroes in this story than villains. Betsy Marks, Hilary Bo Ricks, Jamie McAllister, and the other two actual fire scientists, John DeHaan and John Malooly, plus the electrical engineer Richard Hansen. Then Karen Daniel and Jane Raley, legends in the field, were on your side. And of course, you're on my side. Ron himself, Ron Safer. I mean, the fucking cavalry came in on this one, right? Can you talk now about the process that led 17 years later to Christine finally coming home?

00:20:53
Speaker 4: Yes, Christine pursued this tirelessly against all odds. Found a wonderful local attorney, Hilary Bo Ricks, who believed in Christine, but really did not have the resources to take on the awesome power of the state. And a supporter of Christine wrote a letter to Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions. And Jane Raley, along with Karen Daniel, took Christine's case and they disassembled Every piece of evidence the state put forward, Karen and Jane assembled the world's experts on fire science, not the myths of arson investigation, but on fire science to prove first that everything the state said was wrong. And then second, that Christine was innocent, not beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt. So first, they got... a former ATF agent, and he testified that every one of the myths that was used by the so-called arson investigator, Brian Frank, was wrong. A V pattern does not indicate a point of origin. It indicates a point where something burned against a wall. Fire burns down not because of a liquid accelerant, but because it's seeking oxygen and there was a hole in the trailer. So the burn patterns that Frank says indicated that there was a liquid accelerant have been disproved. Brian Frank said that the fire was hotter because a liquid accelerant was used. That is a myth. Controlled experiments prove that fire is no hotter. Indeed, the heat depends on what is being burnt. So chemistry, Physics disproved every one of the pieces of evidence. But there was one more critical thing that Karen Daniel did that was pivotal. She subpoenaed the underlying test data that had been used by the ATF lab and all of the documents related to those tests. And what that found was stunning. First, she got the actual gas chromatographs, so the actual tests. And contrary to his testimony, he did test against the standard of kerosene, not a heavy distillate, but kerosene. Then, When you look at those actual test data, you find that, yes, there was kerosene in the living room where the kerosene heater had been years before. But then you look at the sample from Tony's bedroom, the sample that convicted Christine, and the test was negative for any liquid accelerant. Kerosene, heavy petroleum distillate, nothing. What's more, in that file, there was a draft report that reflected accurately the test results. That is that there had been kerosene in the living room and that the sample in Tony's bedroom was negative. And then there was a report that in handwriting that crossed that out and made that test result positive. How that happened, unfortunately, we'll never know. Because by the time we got to the hearing, the ATF agent who is now deceased was incompetent in an assisted living home and could not testify about what happened. But what was clear was Christine was convicted based on not only faulty but false evidence. So that takes care of the state's case.

00:25:01
Speaker 2: So Christine's team exposed the junk science and the outright falsification of the real scientific data that led to her conviction. And by the way, these are your tax dollars at work. And if you don't think this could happen to you, well, don't even get me started. There's more to this. And I'm talking about what the defense's expert, Jamie McAllister, testified to about how the fire really started.

00:25:24
Speaker 4: Jamie McAllister, who is an expert in examining the victim's chemistry and reverse engineering how a fire must have started, testified about how this fire started. Tony died before the fire got hot. He died of carbon monoxide poisoning. There was no burning in his trachea, no burning in his lungs. And so he had stopped breathing before the fire got hot. His carboxyhemoglobin rate, which is what we refer to as carbon monoxide poisoning, it's when the carbon monoxide bonds with your blood, the hemoglobin.

00:26:05
Speaker 2: Was 80%.

00:26:06
Speaker 4: 50% is lethal. So how did it get that high? Well, Jamie McAllister testifies that controlled experiments show that if the fire had started out in the open air of the living room or the bedroom, it would have produced a lot of carbon dioxide to oxygen molecules because there's a lot of air floating around. and very little carbon monoxide, one oxygen molecule. It would have taken 90 minutes for the fire to have produced enough carbon monoxide for Tony to have gotten to a carboxyhemoglobin rate approaching 80%. He would have burned to death long before that. And of course, his lungs and everything else would have burned. That didn't happen. So how did this fire happen? Well, as an electrician testified, there were electrical wires that were overloaded that ran between the roof and the drop-down ceiling tiles. There was an electrical fire that started that morning. But because there's limited oxygen there, what happens is the fire smolders and it produces a lot of carbon monoxide. up in the ceiling. Now, eventually, the fire gets hot enough so that one of the ceiling tiles burns and drops to the floor. That undoubtedly is what Christine awakens to. Now, when that happens, the carbon monoxide fills Tony's room like a balloon that is letting out its air. Physical tests and chemical tests prove within minutes he dies of carbon monoxide poisoning. That's how this fire had to have happened. And thus, not only was there no evidence that Christine was guilty of an arson, there was conclusive evidence that the fire was an accidental fire. that took place in the confined area of the ceiling and that Tony died, as everybody knew, of carbon monoxide poisoning.

00:28:30
Speaker 2: But in spite of all of this, on June 8th of 2010, now over 14 years after your conviction, Judge Westhofer denied you a new trial. He said, quote, while, and this is a quote, while Ms. Bunch had new resources available to her at the post-conviction hearing, New experts do not create new evidence. The issues raised and the conclusions reached, while packaged differently, remain basically the same as they were at trial in 1996, end quote. He went on to add that he did not believe the ATF documents would have changed the outcome of the trial. I mean, it was exposed that they falsified the findings and said the samples were positive when they weren't. What the actual fuck? And this again, if you don't think this can happen to you and I'm talking to the audience now, of course, you're wrong. A very large percentage of judges are elected and the others are appointed by elected officials. Either way, your decisions in the voting booth are going to determine who ends up on the bench. So end of my rant. Back to the story. Meanwhile, another Indianapolis lawyer joins the team, John Larimore. And then we get to the good stuff, right? On July 13th, 2011, Ron, who's here with us now, argued in front of a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals of Indiana.

00:29:57
Speaker 4: At the argument itself, it was very clear from the questioning of the judges that one judge was dead set against us. There was nothing I was going to be able to say to change his mind. One judge was for us. And no matter how incoherently I babbled, he was going to vote for us. And so the middle judge, the chief judge, held Christine's fate in her hand. Our working theory, and it made sense, was that if the court was going to reverse this conviction, they would have done it right away because they know she's sitting in jail. So we're sitting there understanding that the longer this goes on, the more likely it is we lost. As time wore on, despair grew.

00:30:47
Speaker 2: And eight of what must have been truly agonizing months later, Christine, on March 21st of 2012, in a two-to-one decision, the panel reversed the conviction and granted you a new trial, citing the evolution of fire science, as well as the fact that exculpatory evidence was withheld that, quote-unquote, directly contradicted ATF forensic analyst William Kennard's trial testimony. Christine, how did you find out about this momentous decision?

00:31:19
Speaker 3: I got a call to come to the counselor's office.

00:31:23
Speaker 6: And my lawyers were on the phone to tell me that they had reversed.

00:31:26
Speaker 3: My conviction and remanded for a new trial.

00:31:29
Speaker 6: I started crying and I asked them if they called my son. I wanted him to know that I won and I was going.

00:31:38
Speaker 3: To come home.

00:31:42
Speaker 6: And so they assured me that yes, they were calling him. And I ended up, I stayed in the counselor's office for like an hour and a half because I had back-to-back calls. And she said, you know, she said, we're just going to make this your day. So everybody can call and congratulate you and tell you the news.

00:32:00
Speaker 3: And they were just so happy for me.

00:32:03
Speaker 2: Ron, what about you? What's your recollection of that phone call?

00:32:07
Speaker 4: I cared beyond measure about Christine in this case and getting her out of jail. And when it ultimately happened, it was as if it was happening to my sister. Just the most moving experience. Although the reality comes home of, okay, she's not out of jail. She gets a new trial. She's still sitting in jail. We got to get her out of jail.

00:32:36
Speaker 2: So almost five months go by after March 21st, 2012, and the amazing phone call all the way to August 8th, when the Indiana Supreme Court left the appellate court's decision undisturbed. And then finally, about a month after that, September 1st, 2012, 17 years, one month, and 16 days after you were arrested, Christine, you were finally released into the arms of your family. What was that like?

00:33:02
Speaker 6: Well, I mean, when you first walk out, I think all you're looking at is the dream finally happened, and I have so many possibilities. After that initial, whoo, wears off, then you're left with all of these fears and insecurities. It was great walking out and seeing everyone. But then, you know, I'm facing another murder trial. So we have to start preparing for that. And I have, you know, my son who I have to provide a home for and I have to make sure that he has everything he needs.

00:33:45
Speaker 3: He's just 16. So I don't have a.

00:33:49
Speaker 6: A driver's license. I don't have any kind of ID. I don't have renter's history, credit score, all of these things. I don't even know where I'm going to get a job after 17 years. So fear starts to take you over. And I think that.

00:34:05
Speaker 3: At first I was just like, I'm not going to make it. There's no way I'm going to be able to make it.

00:34:11
Speaker 6: And that first night, my son was showing me on his laptop how to set up a Facebook account. And while I'm looking at it, I see that he has the appellate court site bookmarked.

00:34:26
Speaker 3: And I said, why do you have that?

00:34:27
Speaker 6: And he looked at me and he said, because I checked every day to see if they made a decision and you.

00:34:34
Speaker 3: Were coming home. And I started crying.

00:34:38
Speaker 6: And I said, you know, I said, I've been so worried and so unsure.

00:34:44
Speaker 3: But hearing that you believed in me and were just waiting for me to come home. I can make it through.

00:34:58
Speaker 1: Anything.

00:35:02
Speaker 2: Then another in a long line of amazing developments in your case happened just before Christmas, which must have made that time of year even sweeter. The prosecution finally came around to their senses and dropped the charges, which brings us to your next struggle. compensation for all that lost time. And of course, no amount of money can be enough to repay what you lost. But you had an uphill battle and a unique struggle just to even get compensation. Can you fill us in on that?

00:35:31
Speaker 3: Yes. So like everyone, I filed a civil suit. Clearly, people are protected.

00:35:38
Speaker 6: So you have to break through immunity to try to sue. The issue is the ATF chemist is deceased. so I didn't have a leg to stand on, and that was ultimately dismissed. Compensation, I have been working since I've been out, and, well, I've helped pass new legislation in three different states working with the Innocence Project. This past year, we passed compensation in Indiana, and then when my civil suit was dismissed, I applied for the compensation. You know, it was, I think, very surreal to receive a letter from them saying that just because my conviction was reversed and I wasn't retried did not mean that I was actually innocent. And it really, I mean, it hurt my feelings because I testified before these legislators three separate occasions. The senators and representatives that passed this bill used my case to pass this compensation bill. And then you're going to basically retry me all over again.

00:36:45
Speaker 2: So are they really trying to relitigate this case?

00:36:49
Speaker 3: No, they are not.

00:36:51
Speaker 6: But as you go through the process, you fill out a compensation application and then they review it. So for them, they reached out to the prosecutor and the prosecutor said, you know, no, we didn't have evidence at the time to retry this. But, you know, we aren't going to say we made a mistake. They never want to say they made a mistake. So I had to reach out to everyone I knew, the Center on Wrongful Convictions with, you know, the amazing Laura Nye Ryder and Steve Drizzen, Ron Safer, and all of them wrote letters and submitted the evidence that was used to exonerate me in order to show them that I am innocent and worthy of this compensation 25 years after the fact.

00:37:40
Speaker 3: They are reviewing the application. They've been reviewing it since November.

00:37:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, let's hope they come to their senses and come to the right decision because I think the right thing to do is clear to everyone who's listening and to anyone with a heart and a soul. So let's get to what you're doing now. You started an organization called Just Is for Just Us.

00:38:02
Speaker 6: Just Is, just like it sounds, because the situation just is. And then it's for just us, which means all of us exonerees. Justice for Just Us was started by myself and another exoneree that came from the Center on Wrongful Convictions.

00:38:20
Speaker 3: And Juan and I just.

00:38:21
Speaker 6: Basically wanted to address what it was like because when people walk out, you don't have a toothbrush.

00:38:26
Speaker 3: You don't have the basic necessities. So J4J for short, we're helping with boxes. If somebody reaches out and.

00:38:34
Speaker 6: Says, hey, I need an outfit and I need basic hygiene, we put that together. We've helped take some exonerees to the Innocence Conference, sent out gas cards, cash cards.

00:38:46
Speaker 3: We've paid rent. We've paid bills.

00:38:49
Speaker 6: And our organization allows health care providers to donate services so they can get a dental visit or some counseling sessions. or a physical, things that are desperately needed when you return.

00:39:04
Speaker 2: It's such an important thing. You know, I've tried to devote myself to doing as much as I can to help people coming out of the system because it's exactly as you described. It's like, I call it the second punishment. And what I mean by that is most people coming out have no support whatsoever. They may get $ 40 and a bus ticket and then, you know, not even a good luck. So, There are a number of wonderful organizations doing this work. And I encourage everyone to support Just Is for Just Us. So please, everyone scroll down in the episode description and get involved with Just Is for Just Us. And now this is the part of the show, of course, that we call Closing Arguments. So first of all, thank you to our phenomenal guests today. The closing argument segment works like this. I turn off my microphone, kick back in my chair, leave my headphones on. Sometimes I close my eyes and we're going to let each of you have the final word on whatever you want to talk about. So let's go to Ron first and then Christine, you can just take us out.

00:40:06
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, thanks so much, Jason, for telling this story, for telling the other stories. It is so critically important to raise public awareness of these wrongful convictions. We have the best criminal justice system in the world, but it is run by human beings and human beings are flawed. They make mistakes. They commit at times, act intentionally maliciously. When that happens, it takes enormous resources to get the system back on track. And so few people are able to afford those resources or are given those resources. So what has to happen is everybody involved in the system, prosecutors, judges, jurors, have to have an open mind. They have to be persons of goodwill. We as citizens have to hold them accountable that their jobs are not to get convictions. Their jobs are to do justice. And we have to insist on We have to enter that jury box as citizens giving credence to the presumption of innocence that our Constitution requires. They're not words. They are a critical concept. But if we don't pay attention to it, if we don't honor it, then wonderful people like Christine will have their lives robbed from them, losing decades that nobody can give back to them. And so this is a call to action. We have to be more active. We have to be more responsible. We have to be accountable and make sure that everybody in the system is accountable.

00:42:16
Speaker 2: Christine?

00:42:17
Speaker 6: When I go speak to the community and tell them how they can help with J4J or how they can help the Innocence Project or how they can step up and make changes within our system because it is a great system. It is designed to work and we have to take responsibility and make sure it works. So I know that everybody is sitting there saying, I don't have money to donate, but everybody does have.

00:42:48
Speaker 3: To step up and say, I have something to give here. I can vote.

00:42:53
Speaker 6: I can educate myself so that when I'm sitting on the jury, I know what I'm listening to because the CSI you watch on TV, that's not always accurate. So really learning about these issues, really raising your voice.

00:43:09
Speaker 3: And saying, you know, we need to change some things. That's how we make the world better.

00:43:14
Speaker 6: And I encourage all of you to learn about this and figure out if you can help by voting by sharing our stories, by talking to an exoneree, by.

00:43:26
Speaker 3: Just being there.

00:43:33
Speaker 2: Don't forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud donor to the Innocence Project. And I really hope you'll join me in supporting this very important cause and helping to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to innocenceproject.org to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wardus. The music in the show is by three-time Oscar-nominated composer, Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at wrongfulconviction and on Facebook at wrongfulconvictionpodcast. Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company No. 1.