May 14, 2020 • 25 mins
Host, Corny Koehl, attends the oral arguments for Jarvis Master’s final state appeal before the California Supreme Court. His writ of Habeas Corpus was filed back in 2005, and Jarvis has been languishing in wait all this time. As his appellate attorneys present new evidence that bolsters Jarvis’s claims of innocence, will the Court decide to exonerate him or confirm his sentence to death?
Meet Connie Pham, an outspoken advocate for Jarvis. As a 15 year old student, she was so moved by Jarvis’s first book, “Finding Freedom: Writings from Death Row,” that she wrote to him behind bars, and they’ve maintained a close friendship ever since.
Theme song SENTENCED, is complements of the band Stick Figure, from their album “Set In Stone.”
Have a question for Jarvis that you’d like to hear him answer on the podcast, please leave a message on our hotline: 201-903-3575 or, AskJarvisMasters@Gmail.com
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Dear Governor is a production of I Heart Media and
three Months Media. Dear Governor Newsom, Dear Mr Governor Newsom,
this is an open letter to Governor Gavin Newsom. Dear
Governor Newsom. Okay, So today is Jarvis Master's final state
(00:33):
appeal and I just pulled into one of many Joe's
auto parking lots in downtown Los Angeles. It is a
beautiful Sunday morning. Jervis's attorneys will go before the California
Supreme Court in the Ronald Reagan State Building, which is
about a half a mile from where O J was
(00:56):
tried back in Jarvis can't be here, not allowed to
leave San Quentin's death throw. Most of his friends are
in the Bay Area. So I'm here to show my support,
along with Connie fam who is a longtime advocate and
confidant of Jarvis's. We're meeting my mom and my brother
(01:18):
in the court house. Father Gregory Boyle of Homeboy Industries
said that he's going to be sending a bunch of
his homies to attend today to show solidarity with Jarvis.
For some background, Jarvis filed a petition for his writ
of habeas corpus back in two thousand five. It's taken
the court fourteen years to hear as constitutionally guaranteed arguments.
(01:40):
For perspective, Jarvis was sentenced to death five years before
o J was ever even tried. Back in Corrections, Officer
Sergeant Dean Birchfield was murdered at San Quentin. Three of
the inmates were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The
guy who actually did the stabbing was sentenced to life
(02:04):
without parole, the guy who was accused of masterminding the
murder was also given life without parole, and Jarvis, who
was accused of making the SHIV, was sentenced to death.
Now we'll get into the details of his case and
talk to investigators and attorneys who who know it well
(02:26):
at a later date, but suffice to say there's a
lot of alarming incongruities the suppression of information, witness recantations,
destruction of evidence. Also, keep in mind, Jarvis never murdered anyone,
that's a verifiable fact, and on top of that, he's
always denied that he had anything to do with the
making of the weapon, full and probably obvious disclosure. Those
(02:52):
of us producing this podcast believed Jarvis to be factually innocent.
We know what we've read, and we've heard from league
of scholars who are familiar with the case. Over the years,
we've gotten to know Jarvis. We've witnessed his good works,
and we appreciate that he's a man of integrity and honesty.
We do not expect you to believe him. We don't
(03:13):
even ask you to believe him. We simply invite you
to get to know this fascinating man, and to hear
about the unusual circumstances of his case, and judge for
yourself whether the death penalty is appropriate. As Governor Newsom
told us, there are innocent men on death row, and
(03:35):
there are hundreds of folks on death row now today
whose crimes and convictions are anything but cut and dry.
As the only Western country that still executes its citizens,
perhaps you'll consider a worthwhile exercise to question what is
in order to answer what can be, or maybe even
(03:56):
what should be. Perhaps the answers you draw will help
inform your vote in the elections. Is the death penalty
a necessary evil to keep our streets safe and too
exact righteous punishment, and to deliver a semblance of justice
to victims? There is it too fraught with ambiguity and
contradictions and biases to ensure that we're all protected equally
(04:20):
under the law. Okay, I've made it over to three
D South Spring Street, which is the home of the courthouse.
They don't allow recording apparatus in the courtroom, so I
will be reporting back later. Jervis Master's case involves a
(04:43):
prosecution that was rotten to the core. Joe Baxter, the
appellate attorney who has represented Jarvis for over twenty five years,
from a KPF a FM interview four years ago, did
two main witnesses against them are chronic lawers. Both of
those witnesses ever cantered their testimony. The state failed to
(05:05):
disclose that one of its main witnesses against Jarvis Masters
was the key suspect in a murder investigation at the
time he was on the witness stand and guess what
the investigation was shut down the minute he agreed to testify. Last,
and certainly not least, the Marine County d A threatened
(05:25):
the life of the other witness who had SINTR candidate
if he refused to testify against Jarvis Masters. So this
is a case, as I said, that just rotten to
the rotten to the core. And it's a total miscarriage
of justice. And I can fully understand why Jarvis's frustrated
by the delay in his case, waiting for the courts
(05:51):
further to come in. I have been waiting twenty six
years for it almost. I think it's a long good
anybody on death row by far Jarvis masters. And it
wasn't cold shelf. It wasn't on the shelf colde. It
was on the docket. It was in their face for many, many,
(06:15):
many years, and they didn't do anything until now. I
don't know why they weighed it so long, because think
about it, course they could have found I mean, if
they really believed I shocked that if they could have
just said, you know what, didn't I go to another
courting room, go to you to federal courting room and
do your appeal. They didn't do that. They didn't do it.
(06:38):
If me and the guy did. Two of the guys
were charged with the same thing, and I found guilty
of the same thing, and their appeals were hurt within
three or four years. Why it wasn't my hurt, but
in the same amount of time. M M. It doesn't
make sense in a civil case if you go to
trial and the jury flying for the plaintiff. Let's say
(07:03):
we know that you have appeals. You can go through
the state system of appeals and and then when that's over,
that's the end of the case. But we have a trial,
we have an appeal, that's the end of it. If
your lawyer committed malpractice, go sue your lawyer, but the
case is final. Larry Marshall is a professor of law
Stanford University and maintains an active pro bono practice through
(07:26):
which he represents individuals and criminal appeals and post conviction
proceedings in the criminal justice system. We recognize that we
do need more than just the idea of an appeal
that when new evidence emerges or new arguments can be
made that could not have been made undirect appeal, then
(07:50):
we're going to create a mechanism through which the system
will look at those to see if there are constitutional violations. So,
for example, assume that you have a situation where your
lawyer was dismal, Your lawyer never investigated the case, never
talked to some key witnesses, You get convicted, you go
(08:13):
up on appeal. You can't raise that issue because by definition,
the case as it stands, looking at what happened at
the trial court doesn't say anything about those witnesses, and
the direct appeal only deals with what happened at the
trial itself. The appellate court of the Supreme Court is
(08:34):
looking to say, did the trial court make any mistakes? Well,
the trial court didn't make any mistakes. In my example,
it was the lawyer who was dismal. So now what
do we do. We say, if you want to raise
that issue on habeas, we will let you go out
and investigate. We will let you get a statement from
those statements from those witnesses saying, boy, nobody ever contacted me.
(08:58):
If they had, I would have testified that this defendant
was not the person who you know who committed the murder.
I would have testified that readily. And then you'll get
to bring in evidence about that your lawyer never did
interview those people, and so on. So that's an example
of what can happen at habeas. You also have situations
(09:21):
where you find out that the prosecutor did not turn
over exculpatory evidence as the law requires the prosecutor to do,
and that comes to light afterwards after trial. There again
we let you advance that. And these are just two
of many, many examples. And another one is the ability
(09:42):
to come in and show that there's newly discovered evidence
that demonstrates your factual innocence. Jarvis's attorneys they filed the
petition previous corpus back in two thousand five. Why would
it take so? What is that almost fifteen sixteen years
to have the oral arguments? Is that unprecedented? Is that typical?
(10:05):
I can't tell you whether it's unprecedented or not, but
I'll tell you it's shocking. Um, it's shocking that how
long this is taken. And I can't begin to understand
how it's possible that the process has taken this this long. Um.
So I wish I had an answer on that. It's
(10:26):
just there are delays. Uh. You know a lot of
the delays in the in the death penalty in California
are due to a shortage of lawyers willing to take
these cases. Uh, and that, but I don't believe that
was what caused the delay in Jarvis's case. He had
lawyers throughout Um, and Um, the delay is just it's
(10:49):
unfathomable to me. Yeah, calling the matter now of Enried
arcs j Masters on Abeas Corplasce. The judicial branch of
the California Courts does not permit broadcast of their proceedings,
(11:11):
so we've produced a dramatization directly from the court transcripts.
At the oral arguments today, Alice Luster, the Deputy Attorney
General at the Office of the California Attorney General, argued
on behalf of the state, may it please the court
new credible evidence is what is required on habeas to
overturn what is under this law a presumptively valid judgment,
(11:35):
and what we have in this case. The referee found
time after time after time that the evidence presented by
petitioner at the Jarvis Master's habeas hearing was simply not credible.
Joe Baxter, Jervis's ap Pellet attorney, followed by his second chair,
Chris Andrian, argued to the contrary, had the jury known
(11:57):
what we now know, the jury would have had far
more than a reasonable doubt about Jarvis Master's guilt. Second,
what we now know and what the referee found and
what the Attorney General accepted, is that the state's case
is founded on the testimony of two inveterate liars Bobby Evans,
(12:18):
whom the state's b GF expert described as a spectacular liar,
and Rufus Willis, who the referee described as an inveterate
liar with selective memory who would do anything to save
his skin. What we also now know, based on the
findings is that the remaining piece of evidence against Masters,
what the d A called the choke chain around his neck,
(12:41):
two kites written by him were probably not authored by him,
your honor, Associate Justices. I didn't play a major role
in a in a lot of the briefing, but you
probably remember I was the lead counsel at the habeas hearing,
and as it came time for closing argument, I sat
(13:02):
down with the guys and and we started talking, and
I said, you know, I think the role I need
to play, the role, the role I'd like to play
for you today is to put you into shoes of
a trial lawyer like myself, somebody who's been trying cases
for over forty six years now. I'm an experienced trial lawyer,
(13:25):
and I've had a chance to take all of this
in and take another look at and say to you,
if we look the state of the record as it is,
right now with the presentation of false evidence, new evidence
lead to the likelihood of a different outcome at the trial.
And I'm going to say the answer is unequivvabally yes.
(13:49):
And let me tell you why. I think the way
you have to look at this is take all these
different things that Mr Baxter was talking about and say,
we have a new state age the stage. The stage
has been reset. When you look at Bobby Evans and
you look at Rufus Willis as well as you have
if we take the referees findings here, you've got these
(14:12):
two inveterate liars and Mr Backs are referred to them.
You've got these two guys and you can't believe a
word they say. But some guy sitting on death row
now because at some point, well that's what they said
that day, and because they said something that day, we're
(14:33):
going to accept that. And that's fundamentally wrong. I don't
think you can say, oh, we're going to accept what
they said at the trial when all this other stuff
has come out, and that shows that maybe those statements
that the murder trial weren't presently aren't enough to convict
Mr Masters at trial. It's my understanding that the defense
went pretty hard to impeach both Willis and Evans. Is
(14:56):
that not correct? I'm just saying that to you as
some one who lived through this case. I see it
now as being a whole different case. And as you
put this case in my lap today, and as I
look at it and say, he's got a good chance
to win this case, and she should get that chance.
Thank you, Thank you, Mr Andrean He corny He Connie,
(15:26):
how do you feel? I feel very disheartened. It's one day.
Connie Famine I sat next to each other in the
back of the dimly lit baroque courtroom. She's known Jarvis
for over twenty years. We did a little post game
on the phone after we return from the hearing. What
(15:47):
is your what is your take of the day? You know,
it's just it's hard to say. It's hard to say
because you know, I'm just I just feel really kind
of depleted. I mean, it's a little bit disappointing, but
now I just want to hope for the best. You know, Yeah, No,
I feel the same, Lay. I think it was completely disheartening.
(16:10):
I was. I was so disappointed that that his case
was heard at the end of a long day I mean,
how many court cases did we sit through before the
the court heard his case. It was like four year four. Yeah,
they're like four cases. Probably we're doing like property management
(16:30):
and like you know, labor law, wage stepped and I mean,
here we are talking about like a man's life, you
know that, you know, I mean, it's it's the difference
between life and best for somebody, and they just you know,
these cases went on and on and on. You know,
in civil law, there's civil law cases is there give
(16:51):
each other were money and here we are, like at
the end of the day, everyone's exhausted. It's like five
talk and that's when it was hurt. I mean really,
I know, and I felt like they almost felt bored
or like they weren't paying attention, like they engaged in
the civil law cases, but that none of the justices,
(17:12):
none of the seven justices, really seemed to be particularly
invested or maybe that was just my perception. No, I
think you're totally right. I think it was the end
of a long day and everyone which was really really tired.
And I mean, but that's scary to think that somebody's
life is on the line under those conditions, you know,
(17:33):
I know, Yeah, I'm so glad we were we were
able to come out and you know, and I'm glad
that the law students were there in the gallery to
watch at least, you know, some part of the proceedings today. Um,
you know, it's always an education. I mean, I've got
on several juries previously, but this is I have never
I have never sat on a jury. So that was
(17:55):
that was actually my first time ever stepping foot into it,
into a courtroom. It's pretty intimidating. Now, Yeah, yeah, I
was very formal. I was pleasantly surprised by the diversity
of the judges though. I mean there were seven of
them and it was did you see that three of
those were women and there were several different ethnicities, So
(18:17):
that that was that was a positive. Yeah, I mean,
and like I said, I mean, this case is so
complicated honestly, Um, you know, we we all believe in
Darvice's innocence, but in terms of like what the law limits,
in terms of the arguments that were presented today, UM,
(18:38):
I think just puts all of it in a difficult situation,
and including I think maybe the judges because they can
only comment on certain parameters of the case. Um, you know,
and and it's yeah, it's it's very technical, and uh,
it's it's it's a hard thing to resolve. Um. I
(19:00):
mean if this if this thing goes to the federal level,
you know, um, you know, well that's the next step,
isn't it that. I mean, if the if the if
the opinion comes back and it's not in favor of Jarvish,
then I mean he's exhausted all of his state appeal,
so he will be headed to the to the federal level, right,
(19:21):
and a whole new team team of attorneys, and it's
going to be a whole new move ballet, right, Yeah, exactly,
And hopefully at that level there will be new sets
of eyes that can you know, look at this case again,
you know, and and it's hard. I mean, this case
is is over what almost thirty five years old? Um,
(19:45):
so yeah, but you know it's not impossible. So keep
the faith. I mean, we've heard of some really egregious
cases where uh, people have been released and people have
been exonerated after thirty five forty years. This is a
really great political moment to really shine a spotlight on
(20:06):
what's going on in our justice system. Dear Governor newsom
My name is Connie fam and I am a public
school teacher in southern California. Twenty years ago, when I
myself was in high school, I read Jarvis J. Master's
(20:27):
book Finding Freedom, Writings from Death Row. It had a
profound impact on me as a young person, a Buddhist
and an Asian American. It was awe inspiring to see
an example of how someone who shared my own spiritual
convictions could live their ideals and craft an amazing life
of service even under the most tragic of circumstances. Well
(20:51):
lear me to say this. I'm a lot older than County,
but I still think Connie is my big shield. It
kind of stick over me. The power of Ris's books
lie in the fact that they serve both as mirrors
into our own lives and as windows into the lives
of others. I meant her when she was in high school.
(21:13):
I think Finding Freedom. It just came out and I
had been outful a while, and she wrote me a
letter and shared a lot of commitments that I thought
was inspiring. She wanted to be a teacher, she lived
in a Buddhist community. I heard the Buddhist in her.
It was not just words than I heard but a
(21:35):
commitment to the practice. His writings have helped open a
whole new world to people, young and old. Governor, I
write to you knowing I represent hundreds of school teachers,
social workers, counselors, and professors from across the country. We
have read, been inspired and transformed by Jarvis's essays, stories
(21:56):
and articles, and have gone on to share them with
our students. This is not someone who's going to, you know,
find another path in her life. This is someone who's
going to keep a path she's on, and however it
brings something new to her, she's gonna be that way.
Through his personal correspondence to our classrooms and offices, he
has become a friend, a mentor, and her brother to
(22:20):
so many people, and through his guidance and compassion, he
has helped to inform our life's work and dedication to others.
So we started writing each other and we wrote. We wrote.
Most times it was not about Buddhism, but a lot
of times it was about how she deal with certain
things and how I explained to her what I deal
(22:43):
with every day. And she thought that was very, very
powerful because she lives in a community that was more,
more comfortable, more structured, and when I was in and
I was on death row, these people visit me. Blah
blah blah. It's an ongoing travesty that Jarvis spends any
(23:07):
more time in prison for a crime that he did
not commit. I believe in Jarvis's innocence not because I
was physically present at San Quatin in when Sergeant Halbert
Field tragically lost his life. I believe in him because
of what my lived experience tells me that anyone who
(23:28):
can muster the courage and clarity of mind to precisely
articulate suffering and redemption in the way that Jarvis does,
cannot also falsify their innocence. But she stated in the background,
you know and really really became my big sister over
the years, and actually have a feel good calling that
(23:50):
you know, Governor and issuing your moratorium. You have gone
on record stating there are innocent people on death row. Well,
Jarvis is one of them, and I urge your office
to closely examine his case as soon as possible. On
behalf of my friend Jarvis and in faith and solidarity,
(24:12):
Connie fam Jarvis has been very transparent about the fact
that he is a much different man now than when
he first walked through the gates of San Quentin in
nineteen one. He was on a fast track to prison
from the moment he left the womb. By his late teens,
he was bitter and angry, had a chip on his shoulder,
and he made many ill conceived choices that eventually landed
(24:35):
him in prison. Next week, as we anxiously await the
opinion from today's habeas hearing, we'll learn about those crimes
as Jarvis reflects on that dark time in his life,
whether he has any regrets, and how he was able
to make such a dramatic transformation. Today's episode was written
and produced by Donna Fazzari and myself Corny Cole. Our
(24:57):
theme song sentenced his compliments of the band stick Figure
from their album Set in Stone. Stu Sternbach has composed
of the original music and provided voice work for this episode.
Special thanks also to Sue Cardon and Tim Carton for
their voice work. Nate Defort did the sound design. Visit
free Jarvis dot org to find out more about Jarvis's
(25:19):
case and to sign your name to our dear Governor
newsom petition and if you have questions for Jarvis, please
leave a message on our hotline at two zero one
nine zero three thirty five seventy five. That's two zero
one nine zero three thirty five seventy five. Dear Governor.
Newsom is a production of I Heart Media and three
Months Media. For more podcasts for my Heart Radio, visit
(25:42):
the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to your favorite shows,
Dear Governor is a production of I Heart Media and
three Months Media. Dear Governor Newsom, Dear Mr Governor Newsom,
this is an open letter to Governor Gavin Newsom. Dear
Governor Newsom. Okay, So today is Jarvis Master's final state
(00:33):
appeal and I just pulled into one of many Joe's
auto parking lots in downtown Los Angeles. It is a
beautiful Sunday morning. Jervis's attorneys will go before the California
Supreme Court in the Ronald Reagan State Building, which is
about a half a mile from where O J was
(00:56):
tried back in Jarvis can't be here, not allowed to
leave San Quentin's death throw. Most of his friends are
in the Bay Area. So I'm here to show my support,
along with Connie fam who is a longtime advocate and
confidant of Jarvis's. We're meeting my mom and my brother
(01:18):
in the court house. Father Gregory Boyle of Homeboy Industries
said that he's going to be sending a bunch of
his homies to attend today to show solidarity with Jarvis.
For some background, Jarvis filed a petition for his writ
of habeas corpus back in two thousand five. It's taken
the court fourteen years to hear as constitutionally guaranteed arguments.
(01:40):
For perspective, Jarvis was sentenced to death five years before
o J was ever even tried. Back in Corrections, Officer
Sergeant Dean Birchfield was murdered at San Quentin. Three of
the inmates were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The
guy who actually did the stabbing was sentenced to life
(02:04):
without parole, the guy who was accused of masterminding the
murder was also given life without parole, and Jarvis, who
was accused of making the SHIV, was sentenced to death.
Now we'll get into the details of his case and
talk to investigators and attorneys who who know it well
(02:26):
at a later date, but suffice to say there's a
lot of alarming incongruities the suppression of information, witness recantations,
destruction of evidence. Also, keep in mind, Jarvis never murdered anyone,
that's a verifiable fact, and on top of that, he's
always denied that he had anything to do with the
making of the weapon, full and probably obvious disclosure. Those
(02:52):
of us producing this podcast believed Jarvis to be factually innocent.
We know what we've read, and we've heard from league
of scholars who are familiar with the case. Over the years,
we've gotten to know Jarvis. We've witnessed his good works,
and we appreciate that he's a man of integrity and honesty.
We do not expect you to believe him. We don't
(03:13):
even ask you to believe him. We simply invite you
to get to know this fascinating man, and to hear
about the unusual circumstances of his case, and judge for
yourself whether the death penalty is appropriate. As Governor Newsom
told us, there are innocent men on death row, and
(03:35):
there are hundreds of folks on death row now today
whose crimes and convictions are anything but cut and dry.
As the only Western country that still executes its citizens,
perhaps you'll consider a worthwhile exercise to question what is
in order to answer what can be, or maybe even
(03:56):
what should be. Perhaps the answers you draw will help
inform your vote in the elections. Is the death penalty
a necessary evil to keep our streets safe and too
exact righteous punishment, and to deliver a semblance of justice
to victims? There is it too fraught with ambiguity and
contradictions and biases to ensure that we're all protected equally
(04:20):
under the law. Okay, I've made it over to three
D South Spring Street, which is the home of the courthouse.
They don't allow recording apparatus in the courtroom, so I
will be reporting back later. Jervis Master's case involves a
(04:43):
prosecution that was rotten to the core. Joe Baxter, the
appellate attorney who has represented Jarvis for over twenty five years,
from a KPF a FM interview four years ago, did
two main witnesses against them are chronic lawers. Both of
those witnesses ever cantered their testimony. The state failed to
(05:05):
disclose that one of its main witnesses against Jarvis Masters
was the key suspect in a murder investigation at the
time he was on the witness stand and guess what
the investigation was shut down the minute he agreed to testify. Last,
and certainly not least, the Marine County d A threatened
(05:25):
the life of the other witness who had SINTR candidate
if he refused to testify against Jarvis Masters. So this
is a case, as I said, that just rotten to
the rotten to the core. And it's a total miscarriage
of justice. And I can fully understand why Jarvis's frustrated
by the delay in his case, waiting for the courts
(05:51):
further to come in. I have been waiting twenty six
years for it almost. I think it's a long good
anybody on death row by far Jarvis masters. And it
wasn't cold shelf. It wasn't on the shelf colde. It
was on the docket. It was in their face for many, many,
(06:15):
many years, and they didn't do anything until now. I
don't know why they weighed it so long, because think
about it, course they could have found I mean, if
they really believed I shocked that if they could have
just said, you know what, didn't I go to another
courting room, go to you to federal courting room and
do your appeal. They didn't do that. They didn't do it.
(06:38):
If me and the guy did. Two of the guys
were charged with the same thing, and I found guilty
of the same thing, and their appeals were hurt within
three or four years. Why it wasn't my hurt, but
in the same amount of time. M M. It doesn't
make sense in a civil case if you go to
trial and the jury flying for the plaintiff. Let's say
(07:03):
we know that you have appeals. You can go through
the state system of appeals and and then when that's over,
that's the end of the case. But we have a trial,
we have an appeal, that's the end of it. If
your lawyer committed malpractice, go sue your lawyer, but the
case is final. Larry Marshall is a professor of law
Stanford University and maintains an active pro bono practice through
(07:26):
which he represents individuals and criminal appeals and post conviction
proceedings in the criminal justice system. We recognize that we
do need more than just the idea of an appeal
that when new evidence emerges or new arguments can be
made that could not have been made undirect appeal, then
(07:50):
we're going to create a mechanism through which the system
will look at those to see if there are constitutional violations. So,
for example, assume that you have a situation where your
lawyer was dismal, Your lawyer never investigated the case, never
talked to some key witnesses, You get convicted, you go
(08:13):
up on appeal. You can't raise that issue because by definition,
the case as it stands, looking at what happened at
the trial court doesn't say anything about those witnesses, and
the direct appeal only deals with what happened at the
trial itself. The appellate court of the Supreme Court is
(08:34):
looking to say, did the trial court make any mistakes? Well,
the trial court didn't make any mistakes. In my example,
it was the lawyer who was dismal. So now what
do we do. We say, if you want to raise
that issue on habeas, we will let you go out
and investigate. We will let you get a statement from
those statements from those witnesses saying, boy, nobody ever contacted me.
(08:58):
If they had, I would have testified that this defendant
was not the person who you know who committed the murder.
I would have testified that readily. And then you'll get
to bring in evidence about that your lawyer never did
interview those people, and so on. So that's an example
of what can happen at habeas. You also have situations
(09:21):
where you find out that the prosecutor did not turn
over exculpatory evidence as the law requires the prosecutor to do,
and that comes to light afterwards after trial. There again
we let you advance that. And these are just two
of many, many examples. And another one is the ability
(09:42):
to come in and show that there's newly discovered evidence
that demonstrates your factual innocence. Jarvis's attorneys they filed the
petition previous corpus back in two thousand five. Why would
it take so? What is that almost fifteen sixteen years
to have the oral arguments? Is that unprecedented? Is that typical?
(10:05):
I can't tell you whether it's unprecedented or not, but
I'll tell you it's shocking. Um, it's shocking that how
long this is taken. And I can't begin to understand
how it's possible that the process has taken this this long. Um.
So I wish I had an answer on that. It's
(10:26):
just there are delays. Uh. You know a lot of
the delays in the in the death penalty in California
are due to a shortage of lawyers willing to take
these cases. Uh, and that, but I don't believe that
was what caused the delay in Jarvis's case. He had
lawyers throughout Um, and Um, the delay is just it's
(10:49):
unfathomable to me. Yeah, calling the matter now of Enried
arcs j Masters on Abeas Corplasce. The judicial branch of
the California Courts does not permit broadcast of their proceedings,
(11:11):
so we've produced a dramatization directly from the court transcripts.
At the oral arguments today, Alice Luster, the Deputy Attorney
General at the Office of the California Attorney General, argued
on behalf of the state, may it please the court
new credible evidence is what is required on habeas to
overturn what is under this law a presumptively valid judgment,
(11:35):
and what we have in this case. The referee found
time after time after time that the evidence presented by
petitioner at the Jarvis Master's habeas hearing was simply not credible.
Joe Baxter, Jervis's ap Pellet attorney, followed by his second chair,
Chris Andrian, argued to the contrary, had the jury known
(11:57):
what we now know, the jury would have had far
more than a reasonable doubt about Jarvis Master's guilt. Second,
what we now know and what the referee found and
what the Attorney General accepted, is that the state's case
is founded on the testimony of two inveterate liars Bobby Evans,
(12:18):
whom the state's b GF expert described as a spectacular liar,
and Rufus Willis, who the referee described as an inveterate
liar with selective memory who would do anything to save
his skin. What we also now know, based on the
findings is that the remaining piece of evidence against Masters,
what the d A called the choke chain around his neck,
(12:41):
two kites written by him were probably not authored by him,
your honor, Associate Justices. I didn't play a major role
in a in a lot of the briefing, but you
probably remember I was the lead counsel at the habeas hearing,
and as it came time for closing argument, I sat
(13:02):
down with the guys and and we started talking, and
I said, you know, I think the role I need
to play, the role, the role I'd like to play
for you today is to put you into shoes of
a trial lawyer like myself, somebody who's been trying cases
for over forty six years now. I'm an experienced trial lawyer,
(13:25):
and I've had a chance to take all of this
in and take another look at and say to you,
if we look the state of the record as it is,
right now with the presentation of false evidence, new evidence
lead to the likelihood of a different outcome at the trial.
And I'm going to say the answer is unequivvabally yes.
(13:49):
And let me tell you why. I think the way
you have to look at this is take all these
different things that Mr Baxter was talking about and say,
we have a new state age the stage. The stage
has been reset. When you look at Bobby Evans and
you look at Rufus Willis as well as you have
if we take the referees findings here, you've got these
(14:12):
two inveterate liars and Mr Backs are referred to them.
You've got these two guys and you can't believe a
word they say. But some guy sitting on death row
now because at some point, well that's what they said
that day, and because they said something that day, we're
(14:33):
going to accept that. And that's fundamentally wrong. I don't
think you can say, oh, we're going to accept what
they said at the trial when all this other stuff
has come out, and that shows that maybe those statements
that the murder trial weren't presently aren't enough to convict
Mr Masters at trial. It's my understanding that the defense
went pretty hard to impeach both Willis and Evans. Is
(14:56):
that not correct? I'm just saying that to you as
some one who lived through this case. I see it
now as being a whole different case. And as you
put this case in my lap today, and as I
look at it and say, he's got a good chance
to win this case, and she should get that chance.
Thank you, Thank you, Mr Andrean He corny He Connie,
(15:26):
how do you feel? I feel very disheartened. It's one day.
Connie Famine I sat next to each other in the
back of the dimly lit baroque courtroom. She's known Jarvis
for over twenty years. We did a little post game
on the phone after we return from the hearing. What
(15:47):
is your what is your take of the day? You know,
it's just it's hard to say. It's hard to say
because you know, I'm just I just feel really kind
of depleted. I mean, it's a little bit disappointing, but
now I just want to hope for the best. You know, Yeah, No,
I feel the same, Lay. I think it was completely disheartening.
(16:10):
I was. I was so disappointed that that his case
was heard at the end of a long day I mean,
how many court cases did we sit through before the
the court heard his case. It was like four year four. Yeah,
they're like four cases. Probably we're doing like property management
(16:30):
and like you know, labor law, wage stepped and I mean,
here we are talking about like a man's life, you
know that, you know, I mean, it's it's the difference
between life and best for somebody, and they just you know,
these cases went on and on and on. You know,
in civil law, there's civil law cases is there give
(16:51):
each other were money and here we are, like at
the end of the day, everyone's exhausted. It's like five
talk and that's when it was hurt. I mean really,
I know, and I felt like they almost felt bored
or like they weren't paying attention, like they engaged in
the civil law cases, but that none of the justices,
(17:12):
none of the seven justices, really seemed to be particularly
invested or maybe that was just my perception. No, I
think you're totally right. I think it was the end
of a long day and everyone which was really really tired.
And I mean, but that's scary to think that somebody's
life is on the line under those conditions, you know,
(17:33):
I know, Yeah, I'm so glad we were we were
able to come out and you know, and I'm glad
that the law students were there in the gallery to
watch at least, you know, some part of the proceedings today. Um,
you know, it's always an education. I mean, I've got
on several juries previously, but this is I have never
I have never sat on a jury. So that was
(17:55):
that was actually my first time ever stepping foot into it,
into a courtroom. It's pretty intimidating. Now, Yeah, yeah, I
was very formal. I was pleasantly surprised by the diversity
of the judges though. I mean there were seven of
them and it was did you see that three of
those were women and there were several different ethnicities, So
(18:17):
that that was that was a positive. Yeah, I mean,
and like I said, I mean, this case is so
complicated honestly, Um, you know, we we all believe in
Darvice's innocence, but in terms of like what the law limits,
in terms of the arguments that were presented today, UM,
(18:38):
I think just puts all of it in a difficult situation,
and including I think maybe the judges because they can
only comment on certain parameters of the case. Um, you know,
and and it's yeah, it's it's very technical, and uh,
it's it's it's a hard thing to resolve. Um. I
(19:00):
mean if this if this thing goes to the federal level,
you know, um, you know, well that's the next step,
isn't it that. I mean, if the if the if
the opinion comes back and it's not in favor of Jarvish,
then I mean he's exhausted all of his state appeal,
so he will be headed to the to the federal level, right,
(19:21):
and a whole new team team of attorneys, and it's
going to be a whole new move ballet, right, Yeah, exactly,
And hopefully at that level there will be new sets
of eyes that can you know, look at this case again,
you know, and and it's hard. I mean, this case
is is over what almost thirty five years old? Um,
(19:45):
so yeah, but you know it's not impossible. So keep
the faith. I mean, we've heard of some really egregious
cases where uh, people have been released and people have
been exonerated after thirty five forty years. This is a
really great political moment to really shine a spotlight on
(20:06):
what's going on in our justice system. Dear Governor newsom
My name is Connie fam and I am a public
school teacher in southern California. Twenty years ago, when I
myself was in high school, I read Jarvis J. Master's
(20:27):
book Finding Freedom, Writings from Death Row. It had a
profound impact on me as a young person, a Buddhist
and an Asian American. It was awe inspiring to see
an example of how someone who shared my own spiritual
convictions could live their ideals and craft an amazing life
of service even under the most tragic of circumstances. Well
(20:51):
lear me to say this. I'm a lot older than County,
but I still think Connie is my big shield. It
kind of stick over me. The power of Ris's books
lie in the fact that they serve both as mirrors
into our own lives and as windows into the lives
of others. I meant her when she was in high school.
(21:13):
I think Finding Freedom. It just came out and I
had been outful a while, and she wrote me a
letter and shared a lot of commitments that I thought
was inspiring. She wanted to be a teacher, she lived
in a Buddhist community. I heard the Buddhist in her.
It was not just words than I heard but a
(21:35):
commitment to the practice. His writings have helped open a
whole new world to people, young and old. Governor, I
write to you knowing I represent hundreds of school teachers,
social workers, counselors, and professors from across the country. We
have read, been inspired and transformed by Jarvis's essays, stories
(21:56):
and articles, and have gone on to share them with
our students. This is not someone who's going to, you know,
find another path in her life. This is someone who's
going to keep a path she's on, and however it
brings something new to her, she's gonna be that way.
Through his personal correspondence to our classrooms and offices, he
has become a friend, a mentor, and her brother to
(22:20):
so many people, and through his guidance and compassion, he
has helped to inform our life's work and dedication to others.
So we started writing each other and we wrote. We wrote.
Most times it was not about Buddhism, but a lot
of times it was about how she deal with certain
things and how I explained to her what I deal
(22:43):
with every day. And she thought that was very, very
powerful because she lives in a community that was more,
more comfortable, more structured, and when I was in and
I was on death row, these people visit me. Blah
blah blah. It's an ongoing travesty that Jarvis spends any
(23:07):
more time in prison for a crime that he did
not commit. I believe in Jarvis's innocence not because I
was physically present at San Quatin in when Sergeant Halbert
Field tragically lost his life. I believe in him because
of what my lived experience tells me that anyone who
(23:28):
can muster the courage and clarity of mind to precisely
articulate suffering and redemption in the way that Jarvis does,
cannot also falsify their innocence. But she stated in the background,
you know and really really became my big sister over
the years, and actually have a feel good calling that
(23:50):
you know, Governor and issuing your moratorium. You have gone
on record stating there are innocent people on death row. Well,
Jarvis is one of them, and I urge your office
to closely examine his case as soon as possible. On
behalf of my friend Jarvis and in faith and solidarity,
(24:12):
Connie fam Jarvis has been very transparent about the fact
that he is a much different man now than when
he first walked through the gates of San Quentin in
nineteen one. He was on a fast track to prison
from the moment he left the womb. By his late teens,
he was bitter and angry, had a chip on his shoulder,
and he made many ill conceived choices that eventually landed
(24:35):
him in prison. Next week, as we anxiously await the
opinion from today's habeas hearing, we'll learn about those crimes
as Jarvis reflects on that dark time in his life,
whether he has any regrets, and how he was able
to make such a dramatic transformation. Today's episode was written
and produced by Donna Fazzari and myself Corny Cole. Our
(24:57):
theme song sentenced his compliments of the band stick Figure
from their album Set in Stone. Stu Sternbach has composed
of the original music and provided voice work for this episode.
Special thanks also to Sue Cardon and Tim Carton for
their voice work. Nate Defort did the sound design. Visit
free Jarvis dot org to find out more about Jarvis's
(25:19):
case and to sign your name to our dear Governor
newsom petition and if you have questions for Jarvis, please
leave a message on our hotline at two zero one
nine zero three thirty five seventy five. That's two zero
one nine zero three thirty five seventy five. Dear Governor.
Newsom is a production of I Heart Media and three
Months Media. For more podcasts for my Heart Radio, visit
(25:42):
the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to your favorite shows,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!