July 8, 2020 • 35 mins
On April 15th, 2011, an Oakland, CA drug dealer lost his iPod, and an addict lost his life. 5 weeks later, the questionable word of another addict derailed the promising musical career of a young man whom he had never met.
Learn more and get involved at:
https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/with-jason-flom
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
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 (00:01):
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 Sea 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.
(00:22):
Nearly a week would 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 s 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
(00:44):
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 we're stolen by
Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving fifty
(01:06):
to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed by
a drug dealer named C. Patrick. Smith has since signed
Affi Davis 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 see, we have censored his name from this episode
for mister Rushing's safety. Meanwhile, the state of California continues
(01:31):
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
(01:53):
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 attorney's, Marvin Lou as well
as taking a call from Kern Valley Correction in California
to hear from Pierre himself. This is Globaltallenge. You have
a free TOOD call from your MUSHA.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
This call and your telephone number will be monitored and recorded.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
To accept this call, sing.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Or dial five now. Thank you for using globaltal Link 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. I know we have limited times, so
let's get right into it. Today's episode, we're going to
tell the story of the man we have on the
(02:41):
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 in California.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
My father was a assentee and then out of prison,
smart was addicted crack cocaine. So I don't want to
say like any other Oakland kids, but I mean a
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 actually mature, we get to see that they
(03:21):
were really wrong.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
And how did you get into music.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
My auntie used to work for she Swet. Her name
was Tracy Rush and she since passed in twenty thirteen,
but just being around her, she took me un her wing,
just taking me to the studio with her as I
became addicted to you.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Is it fair to say by twenty eleven things were
starting to look up for you in terms of possibly
building a career.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
And yeah, 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 it.
I had been wrapping and going to the student sak
assist Is shooting videos. And actually when I was arrest
I was open up for Bay Area Ledge by the
(04:06):
name of surname Queen, and we had a big four
van with my patriots on and promoting my music and everything. So, yeah,
it was coming up for me.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Yeah, you were on 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.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
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 Cocaineatrick Smith was driving, Robert
(05:01):
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 s 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,
(05:24):
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
(05:44):
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 sees iPod. Robert Green was waiting
in the carting in the front passenger seat. So pat
Smith drives around the corner. They see mister Taylor walking
(06:06):
down the street and see or Andre Morris. Pat Smith
wasn't sure which told him to stop the car. S
and Andre Morris got out of the car, confronted mister Taylor,
and see 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.
(06:28):
Both c and mister Morris got out of the car
and ran away. So that's the factual backdrop for this thing.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
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? Never?
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Never, I've always went by the name of stink Or.
People from my neighborhood used to call me Peace thanked
me for my first Mspierre have never never went by
the nam Sea.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
So what happened. How did you end up getting wrong
with convicted here?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Well, one of the passes is Robert Green. He goes
to the police n five days after he allegedly sees
this crime, and he tells them that he's seen as
murdering a guy named see commissed this murder. He gives
the police multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description
is five a light skin, 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,
(07:30):
and I'm not light skin. The second time I sees
the police, he switches it up again. So allegedly he
says he sees seat on April thirties, 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
it had on red shirt and a red hat. I'm
(07:53):
not sure what kind of lineup they were showing me,
but he still couldn't identify who they believed to be seen.
The police seen 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, they said, what is your name? I don't
lie to the police. Year Russian is my name. I say, hey,
(08:14):
we're looking for a guy and beat a 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 shown my
picture four days after he's seen a guy with a
red hat. He said, you know what, he had asked Bessie,
And that's how the whole way of his spawned them
looking for a guy with a red had four days
(08:34):
after the Robert gif he's seen this.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Guy 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 don't ask anybody
in the audience right now, what were you doing. Let's
go back thirty five days from whatever day you're listening
(08:59):
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.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Right April fifteenth, as he 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 seen my
dad on his birthday, not one time at any trial
transcript police evidence toward these themery do they ever say
where were you three forty five a m. So if
they say no, you weren't with your dad. I also
(09:35):
remember that I had a traffic shot that day and
they went checked and it showed that I was on
the truth, but they said Noah, not at that time.
It took me, i believe my attorney, for about a
week to jog in my memory to figure out where
did I sleep at three forty five am that morning?
And I remembered it was my grandma. So I was
because my mom came to me that morning and said,
where are you going to get your dad for his birthday?
(09:58):
That's how I was able to put the piece of
it a pleasure 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 everything at.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
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.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Well, April fourteenth, I was shooting a video. If you
go on YouTube right now, the song was called Young
Stank Take a Trip. Lauren Richison 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, talked roughly about nine forty five rounds ten o'clock,
(10:53):
and we spend the night. We enjoy each other's company.
We deal with any other boys for their girlfriend.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Hello.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
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.
(11:23):
We were super excited because he has so much support
from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was a great rapper,
so 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
(11:43):
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
(12:05):
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
(12:28):
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.
(12:50):
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
for themselves, because this has to stop. They ruined an
entire family.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
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.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
The killing is on camera. When I heard they had
it on camera, I'm starting to kick my feet up
and just wait for the trial days because I'm like,
it's on camera. I'm going on. 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 graining, so
you can't really see anything. And I remember my heart
(13:52):
just dropping because I knew that that was what was
supposed to exonerate me. They had no evidence, no cor
no no physical They have the murdered vehicle with twelve
fingerprints inside the car and said I got in and
out of that car four times. None of the fingerprints
mats made. One of the prosecution's witness was a lady
by the name of the Carli smith Orf. She witnessed
(14:14):
the crime her and pass men for best friends. She
had been in that car the week before when the
police forensic pathologists became to call on every twenty second
they found to call his 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 possibly been wiped down. And if the car
wasn't wiped down, and you found twelve to fourteenth fingerprints
(14:35):
in that car. Per Robert Green's testimony, I got in
and out of that car four times, and I killed
this guy with no glove. Why an't wear my fingerprints
on the car? Second, if Robert Green is to believe,
why would you ever call me five day lights skin
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
(14:57):
the car room, they brought Robert Green in. They said,
could you please describe to kill it? This guy switched
it up to six to two hundred and twenty pounds.
This guy's not to be believed. He was addicted to cracking.
Heroon said he had been up for two days off
cracking Airon. I had to be insially seven time failing. Third,
you have to call the smith another prosecutions with us.
(15:18):
I didn't see him. I don't know who that is.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Well, yeah, I mean our standard in this country is
supposed to be reasonable doubt and this goes way beyond
that standard.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
I had hope that you know, I would be exaggerated.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
And did you have proper representation? Now?
Speaker 3 (15:33):
I went to a trial with a POS defender, and
I went speedy trial. I was arrested in May. I
was a convicted and all this, and the reason I
went speedy truck because I felt like I had nothing odd.
I didn't do it. So while when 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
(15:55):
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 seen, so they want to know if
what we call in the urban community, if I'm going
to snitch, I know a lot of seas. That's that's
the one for two. It's not my job to do
(16:16):
the police a job for them, you know. So if
I wasn't there, what do you expect me to do?
Or maybe it could have been this guy, Maybe it
could beat this guy. If I do that, I'm worse
than Robert Green because you were not there and they
know that and they feed off that.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Yeah, jailhouse snitches has just sort of become like standard
operating procedure.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Correct. It's a nightmare. It is a living nightmare. But
that was that was the summ of the trail.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
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.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
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 courtroom, not
even the victim's family, nobody from my family. That was
(17:13):
just like a sense of loneliness, assensan like me against
the world because you're sitting here convicted 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 said. I'm like, why wasn't even the victims
family like where was It was just it's a feeling
(17:35):
that I never want to feel again.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
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.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney,
Stephen Bedrick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court,
also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State
Court of Appeal.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
What is a literal interpretation of habeas corpus?
Speaker 4 (18:13):
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 of my own, that very much turned.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Out to be true. What went wrong here?
Speaker 4 (18:33):
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
(18:56):
who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone
mirror minutes 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
(19:17):
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 person responsible for this murder.
But they weren't introduced, The jury never heard of them.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
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? Well?
Speaker 4 (19:46):
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
(20:09):
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
sat just before the murder occurred. In addition, there was
(20:34):
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
(20:57):
in state court to attempt to prove years 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
(21:20):
that he's innocent. The government opposed our efforts to have
that evidence tested, and ultimately the judge in this case
refused to allow us 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
(21:42):
case tested if they're so confident that, in fact he's
the perpetrator.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
I never can understand in any case, especially in a
case as serious as this one, a murray 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
(22:10):
this whole wrongful conviction. Can you explain their role in
what went wrong here? Sure?
Speaker 4 (22:17):
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 resolved 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
(22:41):
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 C. And that individual was
not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing refused to
name that individual because he was afraid for his life.
One of the people who was in that apartment was
(23:03):
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 C was.
She obviously knew who Andre Morris was, and what she
said in her affid David was that Pierre Rushing is
(23:26):
not the drug dealer who shot and killed mister Taylor.
Pierre Rushing is not C. 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,
(23:51):
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 Se because his
name is Pierre Rushing does not have a Sea in
his name, and she has never been Pierre's nickname. Because
(24:14):
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.
(24:35):
So I filed a motion essentially asking that her affidavit
be considered because she was unavailable, and that request was denied.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
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.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
For me growing up. And I don't mean to say
it like this because of the social climate that we
have one on in the United States right now, but
growing up, I voice so like it's been Dominus. So
not because I grow up in Hayden the police, but
I just watch how they need those that look likely.
Here it is we're talking about a guy gives a
description on April thirties of a red hat and you
(25:30):
see me on the dirt and say, well, hey, that's
a guy wearing a red hat. Let me stop him.
And now my whole life is his spending in a
Sparta with not a shread of physical evidence links me
to this crime. And if it could happen to me,
it can't happen to anybody.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up. I mean,
we you know, every day there's more information coming out,
and I'm grateful that the public is starting to have
really heightened awareness to the fact that black people, it's
just put it right out there, are so much more
are likely to be victimized by not just police brutality,
but by wrongful convictions, by wrongful prosecutions, being forced into
(26:09):
taking plea bargains to things they didn't do. The whole
system is stacked wrongful convictions, though, do happen to people
from all races, all nationalities, all different creeds, all different religions.
I mean, we've had people on the show from every
walk of life.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
I mean, you can take the case of Mayan Ferguson
in a two thousand and one Columbus, Missouri killing. He
was wrongfully convicted, and he's a white man, you know
what I mean. Like, wrathful convictions don't have a skin color.
I mean, it's usually what I'm going through. I witness misidentification,
i'm valid, forensic science, false confessions, police or prosecutor misconduct.
(26:46):
This is a slew of things on why wrongful convictions happened.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Then there's just laziness too. It's like, oh, we got
a guy with a red hat, good enough, you know
what I mean? Yeah, But the idea that the justice
system at every level, now we see it on video
of how the system treats people like yourself, like George Floyd,
like so many others, as expendable, disposable, and yet I mean,
there are very very real consequences. That's why we're on
(27:11):
the phone with you from prison now, or you and
I might be working together on a record instead of Pierre.
What would you want people to know about you and
what would you want them to do if you could
(27:33):
give them an action step.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
I would want them to know that I could be
your son, I could be your brother, I could be
your nephew, I could be your cousin. I could be
your friend. I'm innocent. If you have any doubt in
my innocence, I would actually just think on these key points.
If I wasn't innocent, guilty person would push for DNA
(27:58):
testing up the materials that we saw out the vehicle.
If I wasn't innocent, what guilty man would push for
the enhancement of the of the video if I wasn't innocent,
or man, I'm going to push for the phone records.
I'm innocent. I didn't commit this crime. I have nothing
to do with this crime. I would ask that you
(28:21):
just look inside of art and find the empathy and
the compassion to sign a petition that my family is
an organized justice for peer Russian that change dot org,
and I would ask that you stand up, that you
would reach out to their local authorities, their local police department,
concrist legislation is trying to try to make change.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
So again, that's justice for Pierre rushing on Change dot org.
Is the petition. We'll also have a link in this
episode description so you can sign the petition there. Please
everyone go and sign it. I already did. I hope
you'll join me and let's bring him home. And now well,
I want to introduce what our listeners have come to
(29:04):
know is my favorite part of the show, and I
think a lot for a lot of them, it's true too.
This is a part of the show where first of all,
I thank you for being on the show and sharing
your experience. Hopefully it will make a difference in the
lives of others and a difference in your case as well.
So thank you again, Pierre for being here. And now
(29:24):
I'm going to kick back in my chair, turn my
microphone off and just basically shut up and listen. So
closing arguments, we're going to go first to Marvin lou
and then we're going to hear from Pierre.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
What has happened to Pierre is a systemic failure. These
are problems which are built into the legal system that
need to be fixed on the systemic level, you know,
in terms of next steps, you know. Fortunately, Pierre continues
to be represented by Bob Bellis in his ongoing federal
habeas matter, and I wish them the best and I
(29:59):
hope that ultimately, through the legal system, they're able to
generate some relief and review for Pierre. But what I
will say is that in light of the failures of
the system relating to Pierre over and over again. What
I would say is that this venue is an opportunity
(30:19):
to go outside of and beyond the legal system to
attempt to find a way to free Pierre from this
wrongful conviction. And one of the things that can be
done outside of the legal system is to put pressure
on the government to either test that DNA evidence or
(30:40):
provide it to Pierre's attorneys so that they can test
it for him. Even though they have resisted that and
actively opposed that throughout these proceedings, nonetheless they retain the
power to change their minds and agree, and they are
the Alameda County District Attorney's Office and the California Attorney
(31:00):
General's office. So whether they're forced to do that through
some legal proceeding or whether they agree to do that
by virtue of public and political pressure, that is something
that can be done and that they continue to have
the power to do.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Pierre. The mic is yours for closing arguments.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Thank you. I would like to first off saying thank
you on behalf of me in behalf of my family
to a few people, first, starting with you, Jason Flamfer,
You creating this platform that is reaching millions and millions
of people right now. We're living in an a climate
where a lot of people are making it a black
and a white issue right now. Yes, black lives do matter,
(31:41):
but it's not a black and a white issue because
they have a lot of people that are of Caucasian
race that are standing up, and you are are one
of us. So I thank you. I thank Marvin Loewell
for fighting and championing my innocence. I like to thank
glri An Saudi. I like to thank Josh Wendle for
helping my family out. And I'd also like to thank
Okay and what she's doing for justice reform. And I'd
(32:02):
like to thank the Innocence Project and those that are
are standing enough for these carvers. And finally, I like
to just also thank my father. They tried to make
my father and try to transfer to look like a
guy who was trying to persuade witnesses. You know, in
twenty fifteen, the driver of this case, Patrick Smith, came
and he said, you know, I took them guys to
(32:24):
do that stuff, and I was a part of that.
And I can't live with myself knowing that a man
is doing life for something that I did, he's not
the guy. And when they asked him, why are you
coming forward now, he said because his father reached out
to me. And they tried to make my father look
like like like he was persuading, when all he was
doing was fighting for his son. What was you done
(32:44):
if your son was arrested to some mean and do
you would fight for him? So you know they're gonna
throw smoking mirrors and try to make it seem like
this and try to make it seem like that. I
don't care about the smoking mirror. I care about the facts,
and the fact is I didn't commit to come. With
that being said, you know, it's a lot going on
right now, So I just ask for people to just
educate yourselves on these type of situations. They could happen
(33:06):
to anybody here. I was rapping, so I was attending
the landing in Marry College. I didn't do too good.
I ended up dropping out, but I tried. You know,
I don't know a lot of people that come from
where I come from not even try to go to college,
let alone do it while they're doing music. I was
trying to make a change in my life. I didn't
grow up squeaky clean I'd be the first one to
(33:27):
tell you, like I told anybody, I've had a check pass.
That doesn't define me, that doesn't make me a killer,
that doesn't make me anything but a man that grew
up looking at something that's wrong believing that it was right.
There is no physical, forensic evidence that links me to
this crime. So if you need any reason to fight
for this cause, just look inside the case. Pull the
(33:48):
case up. You're going to see listen is an atrocity
and it could happen to anybody, anybody. They say in
the Wikipedia two point three million prisoners, like one hundred
twenty Thollan wrowfully convicted people in prison. Something is wrong
with that. Likely there's something farribly wrong with that.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
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 dot org
to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like
to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis
(34:39):
the music in The show is by three time OSCAR
nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm is a production of Lava
for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
The Woman That Was Made
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 Sea 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.
(00:22):
Nearly a week would 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 s 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
(00:44):
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 we're stolen by
Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving fifty
(01:06):
to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed by
a drug dealer named C. Patrick. Smith has since signed
Affi Davis 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 see, we have censored his name from this episode
for mister Rushing's safety. Meanwhile, the state of California continues
(01:31):
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
(01:53):
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 attorney's, Marvin Lou as well
as taking a call from Kern Valley Correction in California
to hear from Pierre himself. This is Globaltallenge. You have
a free TOOD call from your MUSHA.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
This call and your telephone number will be monitored and recorded.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
To accept this call, sing.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Or dial five now. Thank you for using globaltal Link 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. I know we have limited times, so
let's get right into it. Today's episode, we're going to
tell the story of the man we have on the
(02:41):
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 in California.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
My father was a assentee and then out of prison,
smart was addicted crack cocaine. So I don't want to
say like any other Oakland kids, but I mean a
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 actually mature, we get to see that they
(03:21):
were really wrong.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
And how did you get into music.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
My auntie used to work for she Swet. Her name
was Tracy Rush and she since passed in twenty thirteen,
but just being around her, she took me un her wing,
just taking me to the studio with her as I
became addicted to you.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Is it fair to say by twenty eleven things were
starting to look up for you in terms of possibly
building a career.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
And yeah, 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 it.
I had been wrapping and going to the student sak
assist Is shooting videos. And actually when I was arrest
I was open up for Bay Area Ledge by the
(04:06):
name of surname Queen, and we had a big four
van with my patriots on and promoting my music and everything. So, yeah,
it was coming up for me.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Yeah, you were on 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.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
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 Cocaineatrick Smith was driving, Robert
(05:01):
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 s 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,
(05:24):
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
(05:44):
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 sees iPod. Robert Green was waiting
in the carting in the front passenger seat. So pat
Smith drives around the corner. They see mister Taylor walking
(06:06):
down the street and see or Andre Morris. Pat Smith
wasn't sure which told him to stop the car. S
and Andre Morris got out of the car, confronted mister Taylor,
and see 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.
(06:28):
Both c and mister Morris got out of the car
and ran away. So that's the factual backdrop for this thing.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
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? Never?
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Never, I've always went by the name of stink Or.
People from my neighborhood used to call me Peace thanked
me for my first Mspierre have never never went by
the nam Sea.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
So what happened. How did you end up getting wrong
with convicted here?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Well, one of the passes is Robert Green. He goes
to the police n five days after he allegedly sees
this crime, and he tells them that he's seen as
murdering a guy named see commissed this murder. He gives
the police multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description
is five a light skin, 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,
(07:30):
and I'm not light skin. The second time I sees
the police, he switches it up again. So allegedly he
says he sees seat on April thirties, 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
it had on red shirt and a red hat. I'm
(07:53):
not sure what kind of lineup they were showing me,
but he still couldn't identify who they believed to be seen.
The police seen 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, they said, what is your name? I don't
lie to the police. Year Russian is my name. I say, hey,
(08:14):
we're looking for a guy and beat a 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 shown my
picture four days after he's seen a guy with a
red hat. He said, you know what, he had asked Bessie,
And that's how the whole way of his spawned them
looking for a guy with a red had four days
(08:34):
after the Robert gif he's seen this.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Guy 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 don't ask anybody
in the audience right now, what were you doing. Let's
go back thirty five days from whatever day you're listening
(08:59):
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.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Right April fifteenth, as he 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 seen my
dad on his birthday, not one time at any trial
transcript police evidence toward these themery do they ever say
where were you three forty five a m. So if
they say no, you weren't with your dad. I also
(09:35):
remember that I had a traffic shot that day and
they went checked and it showed that I was on
the truth, but they said Noah, not at that time.
It took me, i believe my attorney, for about a
week to jog in my memory to figure out where
did I sleep at three forty five am that morning?
And I remembered it was my grandma. So I was
because my mom came to me that morning and said,
where are you going to get your dad for his birthday?
(09:58):
That's how I was able to put the piece of
it a pleasure 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 everything at.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
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.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Well, April fourteenth, I was shooting a video. If you
go on YouTube right now, the song was called Young
Stank Take a Trip. Lauren Richison 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, talked roughly about nine forty five rounds ten o'clock,
(10:53):
and we spend the night. We enjoy each other's company.
We deal with any other boys for their girlfriend.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Hello.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
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.
(11:23):
We were super excited because he has so much support
from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was a great rapper,
so 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
(11:43):
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
(12:05):
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
(12:28):
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.
(12:50):
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
for themselves, because this has to stop. They ruined an
entire family.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
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.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
The killing is on camera. When I heard they had
it on camera, I'm starting to kick my feet up
and just wait for the trial days because I'm like,
it's on camera. I'm going on. 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 graining, so
you can't really see anything. And I remember my heart
(13:52):
just dropping because I knew that that was what was
supposed to exonerate me. They had no evidence, no cor
no no physical They have the murdered vehicle with twelve
fingerprints inside the car and said I got in and
out of that car four times. None of the fingerprints
mats made. One of the prosecution's witness was a lady
by the name of the Carli smith Orf. She witnessed
(14:14):
the crime her and pass men for best friends. She
had been in that car the week before when the
police forensic pathologists became to call on every twenty second
they found to call his 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 possibly been wiped down. And if the car
wasn't wiped down, and you found twelve to fourteenth fingerprints
(14:35):
in that car. Per Robert Green's testimony, I got in
and out of that car four times, and I killed
this guy with no glove. Why an't wear my fingerprints
on the car? Second, if Robert Green is to believe,
why would you ever call me five day lights skin
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
(14:57):
the car room, they brought Robert Green in. They said,
could you please describe to kill it? This guy switched
it up to six to two hundred and twenty pounds.
This guy's not to be believed. He was addicted to cracking.
Heroon said he had been up for two days off
cracking Airon. I had to be insially seven time failing. Third,
you have to call the smith another prosecutions with us.
(15:18):
I didn't see him. I don't know who that is.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Well, yeah, I mean our standard in this country is
supposed to be reasonable doubt and this goes way beyond
that standard.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
I had hope that you know, I would be exaggerated.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
And did you have proper representation? Now?
Speaker 3 (15:33):
I went to a trial with a POS defender, and
I went speedy trial. I was arrested in May. I
was a convicted and all this, and the reason I
went speedy truck because I felt like I had nothing odd.
I didn't do it. So while when 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
(15:55):
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 seen, so they want to know if
what we call in the urban community, if I'm going
to snitch, I know a lot of seas. That's that's
the one for two. It's not my job to do
(16:16):
the police a job for them, you know. So if
I wasn't there, what do you expect me to do?
Or maybe it could have been this guy, Maybe it
could beat this guy. If I do that, I'm worse
than Robert Green because you were not there and they
know that and they feed off that.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Yeah, jailhouse snitches has just sort of become like standard
operating procedure.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Correct. It's a nightmare. It is a living nightmare. But
that was that was the summ of the trail.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
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.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
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 courtroom, not
even the victim's family, nobody from my family. That was
(17:13):
just like a sense of loneliness, assensan like me against
the world because you're sitting here convicted 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 said. I'm like, why wasn't even the victims
family like where was It was just it's a feeling
(17:35):
that I never want to feel again.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
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.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney,
Stephen Bedrick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court,
also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State
Court of Appeal.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
What is a literal interpretation of habeas corpus?
Speaker 4 (18:13):
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 of my own, that very much turned.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Out to be true. What went wrong here?
Speaker 4 (18:33):
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
(18:56):
who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone
mirror minutes 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
(19:17):
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 person responsible for this murder.
But they weren't introduced, The jury never heard of them.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
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? Well?
Speaker 4 (19:46):
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
(20:09):
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
sat just before the murder occurred. In addition, there was
(20:34):
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
(20:57):
in state court to attempt to prove years 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
(21:20):
that he's innocent. The government opposed our efforts to have
that evidence tested, and ultimately the judge in this case
refused to allow us 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
(21:42):
case tested if they're so confident that, in fact he's
the perpetrator.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
I never can understand in any case, especially in a
case as serious as this one, a murray 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
(22:10):
this whole wrongful conviction. Can you explain their role in
what went wrong here? Sure?
Speaker 4 (22:17):
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 resolved 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
(22:41):
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 C. And that individual was
not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing refused to
name that individual because he was afraid for his life.
One of the people who was in that apartment was
(23:03):
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 C was.
She obviously knew who Andre Morris was, and what she
said in her affid David was that Pierre Rushing is
(23:26):
not the drug dealer who shot and killed mister Taylor.
Pierre Rushing is not C. 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,
(23:51):
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 Se because his
name is Pierre Rushing does not have a Sea in
his name, and she has never been Pierre's nickname. Because
(24:14):
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.
(24:35):
So I filed a motion essentially asking that her affidavit
be considered because she was unavailable, and that request was denied.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
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.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
For me growing up. And I don't mean to say
it like this because of the social climate that we
have one on in the United States right now, but
growing up, I voice so like it's been Dominus. So
not because I grow up in Hayden the police, but
I just watch how they need those that look likely.
Here it is we're talking about a guy gives a
description on April thirties of a red hat and you
(25:30):
see me on the dirt and say, well, hey, that's
a guy wearing a red hat. Let me stop him.
And now my whole life is his spending in a
Sparta with not a shread of physical evidence links me
to this crime. And if it could happen to me,
it can't happen to anybody.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up. I mean,
we you know, every day there's more information coming out,
and I'm grateful that the public is starting to have
really heightened awareness to the fact that black people, it's
just put it right out there, are so much more
are likely to be victimized by not just police brutality,
but by wrongful convictions, by wrongful prosecutions, being forced into
(26:09):
taking plea bargains to things they didn't do. The whole
system is stacked wrongful convictions, though, do happen to people
from all races, all nationalities, all different creeds, all different religions.
I mean, we've had people on the show from every
walk of life.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
I mean, you can take the case of Mayan Ferguson
in a two thousand and one Columbus, Missouri killing. He
was wrongfully convicted, and he's a white man, you know
what I mean. Like, wrathful convictions don't have a skin color.
I mean, it's usually what I'm going through. I witness misidentification,
i'm valid, forensic science, false confessions, police or prosecutor misconduct.
(26:46):
This is a slew of things on why wrongful convictions happened.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Then there's just laziness too. It's like, oh, we got
a guy with a red hat, good enough, you know
what I mean? Yeah, But the idea that the justice
system at every level, now we see it on video
of how the system treats people like yourself, like George Floyd,
like so many others, as expendable, disposable, and yet I mean,
there are very very real consequences. That's why we're on
(27:11):
the phone with you from prison now, or you and
I might be working together on a record instead of Pierre.
What would you want people to know about you and
what would you want them to do if you could
(27:33):
give them an action step.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
I would want them to know that I could be
your son, I could be your brother, I could be
your nephew, I could be your cousin. I could be
your friend. I'm innocent. If you have any doubt in
my innocence, I would actually just think on these key points.
If I wasn't innocent, guilty person would push for DNA
(27:58):
testing up the materials that we saw out the vehicle.
If I wasn't innocent, what guilty man would push for
the enhancement of the of the video if I wasn't innocent,
or man, I'm going to push for the phone records.
I'm innocent. I didn't commit this crime. I have nothing
to do with this crime. I would ask that you
(28:21):
just look inside of art and find the empathy and
the compassion to sign a petition that my family is
an organized justice for peer Russian that change dot org,
and I would ask that you stand up, that you
would reach out to their local authorities, their local police department,
concrist legislation is trying to try to make change.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
So again, that's justice for Pierre rushing on Change dot org.
Is the petition. We'll also have a link in this
episode description so you can sign the petition there. Please
everyone go and sign it. I already did. I hope
you'll join me and let's bring him home. And now well,
I want to introduce what our listeners have come to
(29:04):
know is my favorite part of the show, and I
think a lot for a lot of them, it's true too.
This is a part of the show where first of all,
I thank you for being on the show and sharing
your experience. Hopefully it will make a difference in the
lives of others and a difference in your case as well.
So thank you again, Pierre for being here. And now
(29:24):
I'm going to kick back in my chair, turn my
microphone off and just basically shut up and listen. So
closing arguments, we're going to go first to Marvin lou
and then we're going to hear from Pierre.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
What has happened to Pierre is a systemic failure. These
are problems which are built into the legal system that
need to be fixed on the systemic level, you know,
in terms of next steps, you know. Fortunately, Pierre continues
to be represented by Bob Bellis in his ongoing federal
habeas matter, and I wish them the best and I
(29:59):
hope that ultimately, through the legal system, they're able to
generate some relief and review for Pierre. But what I
will say is that in light of the failures of
the system relating to Pierre over and over again. What
I would say is that this venue is an opportunity
(30:19):
to go outside of and beyond the legal system to
attempt to find a way to free Pierre from this
wrongful conviction. And one of the things that can be
done outside of the legal system is to put pressure
on the government to either test that DNA evidence or
(30:40):
provide it to Pierre's attorneys so that they can test
it for him. Even though they have resisted that and
actively opposed that throughout these proceedings, nonetheless they retain the
power to change their minds and agree, and they are
the Alameda County District Attorney's Office and the California Attorney
(31:00):
General's office. So whether they're forced to do that through
some legal proceeding or whether they agree to do that
by virtue of public and political pressure, that is something
that can be done and that they continue to have
the power to do.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Pierre. The mic is yours for closing arguments.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Thank you. I would like to first off saying thank
you on behalf of me in behalf of my family
to a few people, first, starting with you, Jason Flamfer,
You creating this platform that is reaching millions and millions
of people right now. We're living in an a climate
where a lot of people are making it a black
and a white issue right now. Yes, black lives do matter,
(31:41):
but it's not a black and a white issue because
they have a lot of people that are of Caucasian
race that are standing up, and you are are one
of us. So I thank you. I thank Marvin Loewell
for fighting and championing my innocence. I like to thank
glri An Saudi. I like to thank Josh Wendle for
helping my family out. And I'd also like to thank
Okay and what she's doing for justice reform. And I'd
(32:02):
like to thank the Innocence Project and those that are
are standing enough for these carvers. And finally, I like
to just also thank my father. They tried to make
my father and try to transfer to look like a
guy who was trying to persuade witnesses. You know, in
twenty fifteen, the driver of this case, Patrick Smith, came
and he said, you know, I took them guys to
(32:24):
do that stuff, and I was a part of that.
And I can't live with myself knowing that a man
is doing life for something that I did, he's not
the guy. And when they asked him, why are you
coming forward now, he said because his father reached out
to me. And they tried to make my father look
like like like he was persuading, when all he was
doing was fighting for his son. What was you done
(32:44):
if your son was arrested to some mean and do
you would fight for him? So you know they're gonna
throw smoking mirrors and try to make it seem like
this and try to make it seem like that. I
don't care about the smoking mirror. I care about the facts,
and the fact is I didn't commit to come. With
that being said, you know, it's a lot going on
right now, So I just ask for people to just
educate yourselves on these type of situations. They could happen
(33:06):
to anybody here. I was rapping, so I was attending
the landing in Marry College. I didn't do too good.
I ended up dropping out, but I tried. You know,
I don't know a lot of people that come from
where I come from not even try to go to college,
let alone do it while they're doing music. I was
trying to make a change in my life. I didn't
grow up squeaky clean I'd be the first one to
(33:27):
tell you, like I told anybody, I've had a check pass.
That doesn't define me, that doesn't make me a killer,
that doesn't make me anything but a man that grew
up looking at something that's wrong believing that it was right.
There is no physical, forensic evidence that links me to
this crime. So if you need any reason to fight
for this cause, just look inside the case. Pull the
(33:48):
case up. You're going to see listen is an atrocity
and it could happen to anybody, anybody. They say in
the Wikipedia two point three million prisoners, like one hundred
twenty Thollan wrowfully convicted people in prison. Something is wrong
with that. Likely there's something farribly wrong with that.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
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 dot org
to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like
to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis
(34:39):
the music in The show is by three time OSCAR
nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm is a production of Lava
for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
The Woman That Was Made
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
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
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.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!