January 26, 2022 • 30 mins
On November 27, 2005, Catherine Woods was found viciously stabbed to death in her Upper Eastside apartment. At the time, her ex boyfriend David Haughn stayed on her couch while she was romantically involved with Paul Cortez. When David discovered this other man, he was jealous and upset, yet Haughn did not become the prime suspect despite damning evidence against him. A confluence of racism, a false media narrative, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective counsel sent Paul Cortez away for 25 to life.
To learn more and get involved, visit:
https://www.facebook.com/Help-Free-Paul-Cortez-38461123952/
https://twitter.com/pcdf?lang=en
https://lavaforgood.com/with-jason-flom/
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Co No1.
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 (00:02):
In two thousand five, Paul Cortes was pursuing his theatrical
and musical career in New York City while intermittently dating
twenty one year old Katherine Woods, an aspiring dancer from Columbus, Ohio.
Catherine also allowed her ex boyfriend David Han, who struggled
financially and with drug addiction, to stay in her Manhattan
apartment until he got back on his feet. One November
(00:25):
two thousand five, Katherine was brutally stabbed to death in
her apartment, with police and ear witnesses placing the time
of the crime between six twenty and six pm. Han
call at six fifty pm and named Paul Cortes as
the murderer when the police arrived. When police found one
(00:45):
of Paul's fingerprints that they mistakenly believe was impressed in
blood rather than an old print that had been covered
by blood, Paul became the prime suspect, even though surveillance
footage in front of Katherine's building only placed David Han
at to see. Paul was arrested and charged with her murder,
with Paul's defense failing to question this fingerprint or present
(01:08):
key exculpatory evidence, including the surveillance footage, as well as
the attackers DNA from the victim's fingernails and hands. Paul
was convicted and sentenced to to life. Well now check
in with Paul and his attorney Tony Marie Angelie to
see where his case stands. This is Wrongful Conviction. Welcome
(01:40):
back to Wrongful Conviction. Today's case is going to blow
your mind. You know, I thought I had seen everything
until I heard about the case of Paul Cortez. This case,
it has racism, it has incompetence on official levels, it
has junk science, but it also has attorneys representing the
defendant who themselves were committing numerous crimes before, during, and
(02:06):
probably after the trial. So yeah, sorry, I'm a little
worked up today, but you will be too by the
time you finished hearing this episode. This is Wrongful Conviction
behind Bars, where today's guest is, of course, Paul Cortez.
And Paul. I'm really sorry you're here because of the circumstances,
but I'm really happy to have you on the air.
Thank you, Jason. And I'm just very grateful for you
(02:28):
to have me on the show and to be able
to finally get my story out there and with us
today is Tony Marie Angelie of the Angelie Law Firm.
I hope you're never in trouble, but if you are,
you should track her down because she's a pit bull
um and I mean then the best way, Tony Marie.
I'm glad you're here, thank you, and I am so
(02:49):
happy to be here. So, Paul, you came from a
poor neighborhood in the Bronx, right, what was your childhood like? Well,
I was just like any normal kid in the Brown,
coming from a Puerto Rican family. My mom raised us
three kids. My father left when I was younger, and
my mom remarried later on. My mom always pushed academics
(03:10):
and doing well in school, so I think it was
around twelve I had tested into private schools and I
started going in private schools in Manhattan Fort Junior High
and then high school. During that time, I was in
the sports, I was in the theater, I was in
the arts. I auditioned to all of these colleges and
I eventually got into Lawston University and I earned my
(03:33):
bachelor's in Fine Arts. I was the first in my
family to go to college and to graduate. I was
in two thousand and three when I graduated, and after
that I came back to New York to pursue a
life in the arts, and I was very hopeful at
that time for accomplishing my dream. So now you're auditioning
for rent, making your way in the city that Never sleeps,
(03:56):
coming from the background that normally most people don't managed
to make it to anything like their dreams. So what
was happening back then? Take us back to two thousand
and three. I had signed with the talent agency and
I was very excited about that. I went on several
auditions and I was also doing music on the side
(04:17):
as well. It was really fun. I was living life
to the fullest at that time. Now here we go
to December two thousand and five. You are working as
a physical trainer and a yoga instructor, doing your auditions,
completing your solo musical album. And the person at the
center of this was your on again, off again girlfriend
(04:40):
and that woman who was the victim in this case
as a woman named Catherine Woods. Yeah, Catherine was twenty
one at a time, and she was a really special
person and I really cared for her and we had
a great relationship, and like any relationships, there are ups
and downs, but I always cared for her. So she
was taking voice and dance lessons, working part time jobs
(05:02):
at a hair salon, was seeing several different men. That's
her choice, you know, no judgment here, and she worked
as a stripper at night under the alias of Ava.
She had told her parents and friends that she was
dancing in an off Broadway show as a character named Ava.
So I mean, again, no judgment here, but it does
(05:24):
present a complex picture of a person. Then, as fate
would have it, when she was visiting her family in Columbus, Ohio,
she met a troubled guy named David han Now. David
was a guy who had grown up in foster homes
in Columbus and dropped out of high school. At the
time he met Catherine, he was unemployed and attempting to
make it as a rapper, and not too long after
(05:47):
they met, he moved to New York to live with her.
He struggled financially and bounced around, couldn't hold the job,
and she paid most of his bills. But weeks before
the murder, Catherine had asked David to move out, but
he struggled with drug so she had recently allowed him
to move back in and sleep on the couch. Now,
can you sort of fill in the blanks here, Paul, Well,
(06:08):
she was definitely trying to get him out of the apartment,
and several times where she had asked him too and
was successful, he would call her depressed and threatening to
kill himself. And it was kind of a vo little situation.
She always said that he's like family and that she
really cares about him. She kept a lot of it
to herself. She was very private in that sense. And
(06:30):
then in April of two thousand five, Ktsine was drugged
at one of the strip clubs that she worked at.
What a nightmare, Paul. Can you tell us what happened
with that. She called me at the club and she
asked for help, and I hurried down. She was really
messed up. She could hardly walk, and she didn't want
to go back to her apartment. So I just brought
(06:52):
her to a hotel and set her up there and
got her to go to the hospital. And because she
was worried that you might have gotten raped at that time,
so being concerned about it all, and I went back
and called her parents, but I thought maybe her parents
could talk to her and help her out, but she
got upset at me because that nightlife was something that
(07:14):
she didn't discussed with her family. And while I think
that any reasonable person who cared about somebody as you
did might do the same thing if they were in
your shoes, this caused a real rift between you two,
and when questioned by her father about what you had
told him, Catherine said that you were crazy, that she
was not working as a strip or involved in anything dangerous.
Her dad believed her, and she then broke up with you,
(07:37):
although several weeks later you both reckoncil I got back together.
So some time after this you went to Catherine's home
and happened to meet David. Now the two of you
only met this one time, but David had been unaware
of your in Catherine's relationship, and when he found out,
he became very upset, feeling misled. And so this now
brings us to November five, when miss Wood was found
(08:00):
stabbed to death in her Upper east Side apartment. According
to police reports and ear witness testimony, the attack happened
in two parts, first around six pm and then finally
around six pm, with four counts of four witnesses hearing
Catherine screaming and crying. Now, David had initially told police
(08:20):
that he left the apartment twenty minutes before he called
at six fifty pm that evening, which would have placed
him within the apartment during that exact time frame described
by the witnesses, and when police arrived on the scene,
David immediately named Paul as the killer, holding up a
CD of Paul's music. I mean, it's unreal, Okay. So
(08:42):
Tony Marie tell us about the investigation and what was
it that shifted the focus to Paul and away from David,
who would have seemed like the obvious suspect. Well, initially,
law enforcement had identified David Han as a perpetrator and
rething that he said at the time. Looking back now
(09:02):
with hindsight, it was deceptive, it was inaccurate, and it
showed that he was a perpetrator. But what happened was
law enforcement found this bloody fingerprint which they called it,
which it actually isn't in the apartment, and the focus
switched to Paul. Right, And this fingerprint plays such an
(09:25):
important role throughout this whole story. So investigators found this fingerprint,
but it didn't match David Haunt and Paul becomes the
prime suspect. But this fingerprint is actually a latent fingerprint
and not a patent fingerprint, which is what it was
incorrectly believed to be. Can you break this down for
us really quick, Well, anytime we touch a surface, we
(09:47):
can leave a fingerprint, and that could be from our
sweat or if something was on our hands, So you
would leave a print and it would not be made
from another substance that went on top of event. So
if you leave a print and then a substance goes
on top, that's latent. And if the print is made
of the substance, like they argued at trial, they argued
(10:09):
that the fingerprint was patent made of blood, which it
is not. It was latent, pre existing exactly. So the
fingerprints already there and then the blood ends up on
top of it. And this makes sense that Paul's fingerprints
were there, as he and Katherine had been in a
relationship and he'd been to her home many many times.
So was there any other evidence at all that pointed
(10:31):
to Paul. The case against Paul was really founded on
two or three pieces of evidence, So they had their
team in there for days documenting this very bloody crime scene.
It was a big fight in there, and that led
to this fingerprint that was on the wall. The other
piece of evidence was cell phone records, Paul's cell phone records,
(10:54):
Katherine's cell phone records, and David Hans cell phone records,
and the prosecution Shin and the police built a theory
that Paul was texting and leaving these messages, was this
jilted lover, and that she was rejecting him, and he
was full of rage and killed this girl. It's not
actually supported by any of the evidence, but that was
(11:17):
their theory. Here's where things started spinning out of control
in my opinion, which is that immediately after the murder,
the police leaked erroneous information, the false information called what
you Want to the media relating to the investigation, and
they aid it up. TV news and newspapers were filled
with stories with this false narrative of a scary, alleged
(11:38):
Puerto Rican predator from the Bronx taking the life of
this sweet, innocent girl from the Midwest, and so the
media made it about race and one of the stories
even cited anonymous police sources with reports of an alleged
confession letter, alleged existence of a surveillance video showing Paul
leaving the crime scene, which, of course all of it
was totally false. In act, the exact opposite was true.
(12:02):
There was a video that proves my innocence, video that
shows their original suspect leaving the crime scene thirteen minutes
after the commission of the crime. And I'm nowhere on
this video at all, and I'm nowhere on any videos.
And the cops and the d a's office, they were
leaking information to the media saying, oh, he was on
(12:23):
camera around the time of the crime and all of this,
But they had the video that showed the original suspect
entering into this scene and coming out thirteen minutes after
the crime. It's just horrendous. This episode is underwritten by
(12:48):
A i G, a leading global insurance company. A i
G is committed to corporate social responsibility and is making
a positive difference in the lives of its employees and
in the communities where we work and live. In light
of the compelling need for pro bono legal assistance, and
in recognition of A I g's commitment to criminal and
social justice reform, the A i G pro Bono Program
(13:09):
provides free legal services and other support to underrepresented communities
and individuals. While Paul awaited trial at Riker's Island, his
family pulled together their life savings to retain Dawn Florio
and her colleague Laura Miranda to represent paula trial. Now, unfortunately,
(13:33):
that's not even a strong enough for it. Unbeknownst to
Paul and his family, Florio, while she was representing Paul,
she was simultaneously under indictment by the same prosecutor's office
for smuggling drugs into a client at Rikers Island. The
case against Florio received repeated adjournments at the court. File
remains sealed to this day. But all of this came
(13:53):
to light as the trial was starting and the trial judge,
Judge Berkman, did not do a proper conflict inquiry, which
is called Gomberg inquiry, basically telling Paul that they didn't
see how it would be a problem and inferred he
would have to go to trial without counsel if he
pursued the matter further. Unreal so he would have had
to represent himself. I mean, it's not okay. So, Paul,
(14:17):
you've been waiting for eighteen months at Riker's Island, a
notoriously dangerous, chaotic and scary place. And this is how
your trial was starting. I mean, what was that like. Yeah, basically,
my lawyers didn't show up for the first three days
of trial, and it was just a mess. From the beginning.
They seemed prepared. No, I think some people in our
(14:41):
audience may well say themselves. Wait a minute, I thought
I heard him say that his attorneys didn't show up
for the first three days of trial. But that can't
be true. Yeah, you're right, they didn't show up. I
didn't know where they were. And it's so bad that
one of your attorneys was held to contempt of court
and actually find a thousand dollars for not showing up.
And when they did show up, they didn't even pretend
(15:01):
to make an effort to represent you. So, Tony Marie,
the two defense attorneys, Florio and Miranda, can you talk
about the myriad errors that they made during the trial. Well,
they didn't hire any experts, and they didn't develop any
of this evidence. They didn't go to the scene, they
didn't speak to the witnesses. The one thing they did
do was they contacted a fingerprint expert. I spoke to
(15:26):
that expert. I got an affid David from him. What
is chilling is that expert actually told the defense that
there was a problem with the fingerprint, it looked like
it was latent, and they should have the sheet rock
examined and test the medium. So the one direction they
got they were actually given information as to how to
(15:49):
disprove this by an expert. They didn't call the expert.
They didn't do it. And we haven't even touched on
one of the biggest things here, which is the surveillance
video that Paul mentioned earlier, and this is it just
blows my mind. On the video, you can clearly see
David Hahn leaving the apartment at six thirty seven, and
(16:10):
there's the time stamp right on the video, and that's
just thirteen fourteen minutes after this brutal murder took place
at But the defense attorneys didn't show this to the
jury because it turns out that while they had the video,
they didn't know this was there because they hadn't even
bothered to watch the whole video. The defense didn't bring
(16:33):
it to light, and the prosecutor went forward and argued
and presented evidence that we now know affirmatively was untrue
and we now know affirmatively he knew at the time.
So it is a profound injustice and failing of all
the pieces of our system that we rely on. Okay,
(16:57):
So the state presented mostly circumstance to evidence like the
high volume of calls you mentioned, and the only physical
evidence presented was the latent fingerprint, which we've talked about.
But the state also presented what they described as evidence
but can only really be described as somewhere between ridiculous
and ludicrous. I'm talking about Paul's diary entries dating back
(17:17):
to what he was ten years old. What world do
we live in? But this is allowed to be admitted.
They also submitted lyrics to a song that Paul co
wrote with his fellow band member and a childhood comment
drawing of a teenage mutant Ninja turtle holding a sword. Wow,
I mean, this is as bad as the West Memphis
(17:40):
three in that sense. And this was brought into the
trial as supposed it proof that he was a violent guy,
even though Paul had no history whatsoever of violence or
any run ins at all with the law. And here's
the thing, obviously, whoever was involved in this violent struggle
for Katherine's life and which she ripped out the hair
(18:01):
of her attacker and clawed him as well. One would say, well,
Paul must have been covered in scratches or at least
had blood on him, or you know, maybe even a
significant amount of blood, But he didn't. First of all,
that testimony came out at trial by the forensic experts
called by the police that the person would be covered
in blood. What didn't come out at trial was the
(18:21):
cleanup that took place. There was crystal violet all in
the tub, so the perpetrator not only was covered in blood,
but cleaned up in that apartment before they left. We
know from the video footage that his Internet time stamped
proven to be accurate that David Han walked out of
that apartment thirteen minutes after the homicide occurred. What the
(18:43):
prosecutor did, which was just incredibly inappropriate in my opinion
and rises to the level of misconduct, is then argue
to the jury and closing knowingly untrue assertions that David
Han left the apartment at six o'clock before the homicide occurred,
leaving this window of forty minutes for Paul Cortes who
have gone in and committed homicide. That he didn't commit.
(19:06):
That's how this conviction happened. So, Tony Marie, if you
had been able to represent Paul at the original trial,
and I know you probably wish you could go back
in time and do that, how would things have gone differently?
I think if you play the video and watch it
and see someone else leaving the scene after the homicide,
that is key, and you show that to the journey,
(19:28):
that would have changed the day. The forensic evidence, for instance,
there were hairs found in Catherine's hand, hairs with the
roots attached. The only tests that were done on those
hairs were by the prosecution comparing it to Paul. He's excluded.
Why not test those hairs? Why not go forward with
(19:50):
that type of investigation. It's a homicide, Go to the scene,
speak to the witnesses. The failings are just monumental. I
did never expected that I would be convicted. I just
believe that the truth would prevail, and that's why I
took the stand and I tried to be as forthcoming
as I could understand. I completely expected that they would
(20:12):
have quit me because they would know that what I
was saying was the truth. So here we have it.
No evidence presented by the defense, phony evidence presented by
the prosecutors, and the results are a foregone conclusion. And
now the worst moment comes. You get convicted, right then
you get taken away. So tell us about that. I
(20:34):
mean from Rikers, I guess it couldn't get worse, could it.
It did, and at a certain points throughout this incarceration
it has. When I heard the guilty verdict, it was
just a complete shock to me. I didn't expected this
life that I've been living for the past sixteen years
as an innocent man in prison, and all the terrible
(20:55):
things I've witnessed throughout the sixteen years, all the tragedies.
It was definitely the hardest time of my life. I
(21:18):
went to my first prison, which was all burned Correctional facility,
which is a disciplinary jail. It's probably one of the
most violent prisons at the time, multiple stabbing every day,
people meeting each other up getting violence. So I'm just
trying to stay safe, trying to write the case during
that time. I mean, with everything that's gone on, there
(21:40):
are definitely waves even today of me just being so
crazy mad at everything about life, about how unfair everything is.
But you know, that just makes a person bitter, and
we just have to continue in the best way we
can to be good people and help people in the
situations that we're in. And that's what I've been trying
to do. I've always saw this as a test, and
(22:04):
if I can pass this test, and if I can
come out of this a better person, not to someone
who survived this, but someone who's overcommon zone, who has
contributed throughout this ordeal to try to help others who
have been even less fortunate than I. I guess I
hold on to the fact that there are people like
Tony Marie, people like yourself, people like my family and
(22:25):
my friends who know that I am innocent, and they
believe in my innocence and they haven't and they don't
give up on me. And knowing that has been something
that has really given me hope through all of this,
and it has made me the person that I am.
Tony Marie, how did this case first land on your desk?
(22:45):
And what was it about this that made you decide
to devote yourself pro bono by the way, for years
to this man, Paul Cortez Well. I was contacted by
some of Paul's ardent supporters in the fall of two
thousand fifteen, and I ordered the file, and when I
opened it up in January six, I did what any
(23:08):
thinking lawyer might do. I put the video in. And
when I put the video in and I saw David
Han leaving after that homicide had occurred, I couldn't get involved.
Upon seeing that, I worked up the case. I contacted,
you know, eleven different experts on crime scenes and the
cell phone records, the cell site records which show where
(23:29):
Paul is, which is actually not at the apartment, went
through every slip of paper in this case, and what
came over and over and over again was more and
more and more information showing how innocent he is. And honestly,
it was all there all along. It was in the file.
So these lawyers bad enough not showing up, but then
(23:53):
not introducing the evidence that was in their files and
then claiming later on that they didn't even know that
it was there. The real consequence of that is that
now you can't introduce that evidence as new evidence because
it was there the whole time. So now Paul is
stuck with a much more difficult legally speaking task of
proving ineffective assistance of counsel. Although in this case, it
(24:16):
seems like that should be open and shut. One would
think that this should be pretty straightforward when we look
at all the malfeasance and all the incompetence and everything else,
and the evidence itself. So how has it unbound thus far?
In terms of the post conviction litigation? There was appeals
of the conviction itself and some rulings that suggested that
(24:38):
there should be a four forty, which in New York
is where you go back and say, hey, we want
to put everything on the record and fix this. There's
some issues, the failings of the defense and failing to
just do basic investigation to speak to the witnesses. I
did do that motion, and stunningly it was denied. But
now it's in front of a federal judge, judge free
(25:00):
and in New York, and it's been a long way.
Paul has been very unlucky in many ways, as our
motion was submitted prior to COVID, so there's been a
halt there. But we're hopeful, and as a lawyer, I
have to believe that when you put this type of
evidence in front of a judge and show this kind
of injustice, that the judge is going to correct it.
(25:23):
I do believe that, however you slice it, this is
ineffective assistance of counsel, and this is actual innocence, and
we should be successful in federal court. And I'm relying
on the judge to do the right thing. Order hearing
dismiss this order a new trial. It's so clear that
he did not commit this crime. And so, Paul, for
(25:46):
the people who are listening right now and feeling this
mixture the same one that I feel of anger and
just just rage at the wrongdoing in this case and
the desire to help to do something to move this forward,
what would you like them to do? Is there a
website you want people to go to, or is there
a change dot org petition or anything like that. Yeah,
(26:07):
there is a change dot org petition. One of them
is a petition for clemency. And then the other thing
is a website. It's www dot Free Paul Cortez dot
com and people can visit that side to see everything
more in detail, everything about the case. Well, we're gonna
have all of the links in the bio in the episode,
(26:28):
So please wherever you are, unless you're driving, in which case,
wait till you stop, but go click on those links
because your voice matters and you can help us, help
Paul and bring him home where he belongs. I would
also suggest too that if you are a New Yorker,
to contact your state assembly member, your state senator in
your district and let them know how you feel and
(26:51):
have them try to advocate as well. I've always found
that the state senators and state assembly men are more
receptive than you would think, and it's a lot easier
for them to reach the ear of the governor then
it is for us, just normal people. That's a very
good suggestion. And Paul, we have a tradition here of
closing the show in a particularly type of way. It's
(27:12):
my favorite part of the show, and I think that's
probably true for most of our audience. It's called closing arguments.
First of all, I thank you again for being here
and sharing your story. I know it's not easy, and
just for being the beacon of light that you are.
And then what happens is I turned my microphone off
and leave yours on, and then I'll just kick back
(27:34):
in my chair with my headphones on and just listen
for any other thoughts that you want to share. Of course,
as we always do, We're going to save Paul for last,
because we're here for you, Paul. But first I want
to turn over to you, Tony, for any thoughts you
want to share that we haven't already covered. Well, I
(27:54):
just want to say something about Paul. I just want
to say what an inspiring person he is. That he
has kept the attitude and the faith and that I
think a lot of that comes from the kind of
person he is, but also from the support he gets.
So I'm just grateful the support of this podcast of you, Jason,
(28:15):
and would encourage people to continue to give that support
because it makes a difference, and I'm hoping that it
will also perhaps put additional pressure forth in order to
set him free as he should be. And now over
to you. I have been incarcerated for sixteen years for
come I didn't commit. I have been fighting since they
(28:38):
want to prove my innocence to the court system. I
haven't given up, and it is a terrible injustice, not
only for me and my family, but it's also been
a terrible injustice for Catherine and for her family. I'm
so grateful that I have people in my life that
(28:59):
do care about me and that are willing to spend
so much time and energy and effort and heartache and
tears and pain to support me and continue to fight
with me for justice. And maybe there's someone listening out there,
someone who's dealing with an injustice, someone who's dealing with
an addiction of loneliness, some kind of isolation. My message
(29:21):
to you is just don't give up, continue to fight,
continue to believe. Just know there are people who care
about you. There is a better way than what you're
living through right now. Just keep continuing on. I guess
that is my message for everyone. And I firmly believe
that justice will be served and I will be exonerated
one day. I don't know when that day is going
(29:43):
to be, but keep praying for it to happen soon.
I just thank you, I think everyone that the Wrongful
Conviction podcast who works behind the scenes, and especially my friends,
my family, and Tony Murray, my amazing lawyer who is
so bright and intelligent and really my champion. Thank you,
(30:08):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne,
and Kevin Wardis. With research by Lila Robinson. The music
in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and
(30:30):
on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava
for Good. On all three platforms, you can also follow
me on both TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason Flom.
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
in association with Signal Company Number one
In two thousand five, Paul Cortes was pursuing his theatrical
and musical career in New York City while intermittently dating
twenty one year old Katherine Woods, an aspiring dancer from Columbus, Ohio.
Catherine also allowed her ex boyfriend David Han, who struggled
financially and with drug addiction, to stay in her Manhattan
apartment until he got back on his feet. One November
(00:25):
two thousand five, Katherine was brutally stabbed to death in
her apartment, with police and ear witnesses placing the time
of the crime between six twenty and six pm. Han
call at six fifty pm and named Paul Cortes as
the murderer when the police arrived. When police found one
(00:45):
of Paul's fingerprints that they mistakenly believe was impressed in
blood rather than an old print that had been covered
by blood, Paul became the prime suspect, even though surveillance
footage in front of Katherine's building only placed David Han
at to see. Paul was arrested and charged with her murder,
with Paul's defense failing to question this fingerprint or present
(01:08):
key exculpatory evidence, including the surveillance footage, as well as
the attackers DNA from the victim's fingernails and hands. Paul
was convicted and sentenced to to life. Well now check
in with Paul and his attorney Tony Marie Angelie to
see where his case stands. This is Wrongful Conviction. Welcome
(01:40):
back to Wrongful Conviction. Today's case is going to blow
your mind. You know, I thought I had seen everything
until I heard about the case of Paul Cortez. This case,
it has racism, it has incompetence on official levels, it
has junk science, but it also has attorneys representing the
defendant who themselves were committing numerous crimes before, during, and
(02:06):
probably after the trial. So yeah, sorry, I'm a little
worked up today, but you will be too by the
time you finished hearing this episode. This is Wrongful Conviction
behind Bars, where today's guest is, of course, Paul Cortez.
And Paul. I'm really sorry you're here because of the circumstances,
but I'm really happy to have you on the air.
Thank you, Jason. And I'm just very grateful for you
(02:28):
to have me on the show and to be able
to finally get my story out there and with us
today is Tony Marie Angelie of the Angelie Law Firm.
I hope you're never in trouble, but if you are,
you should track her down because she's a pit bull
um and I mean then the best way, Tony Marie.
I'm glad you're here, thank you, and I am so
(02:49):
happy to be here. So, Paul, you came from a
poor neighborhood in the Bronx, right, what was your childhood like? Well,
I was just like any normal kid in the Brown,
coming from a Puerto Rican family. My mom raised us
three kids. My father left when I was younger, and
my mom remarried later on. My mom always pushed academics
(03:10):
and doing well in school, so I think it was
around twelve I had tested into private schools and I
started going in private schools in Manhattan Fort Junior High
and then high school. During that time, I was in
the sports, I was in the theater, I was in
the arts. I auditioned to all of these colleges and
I eventually got into Lawston University and I earned my
(03:33):
bachelor's in Fine Arts. I was the first in my
family to go to college and to graduate. I was
in two thousand and three when I graduated, and after
that I came back to New York to pursue a
life in the arts, and I was very hopeful at
that time for accomplishing my dream. So now you're auditioning
for rent, making your way in the city that Never sleeps,
(03:56):
coming from the background that normally most people don't managed
to make it to anything like their dreams. So what
was happening back then? Take us back to two thousand
and three. I had signed with the talent agency and
I was very excited about that. I went on several
auditions and I was also doing music on the side
(04:17):
as well. It was really fun. I was living life
to the fullest at that time. Now here we go
to December two thousand and five. You are working as
a physical trainer and a yoga instructor, doing your auditions,
completing your solo musical album. And the person at the
center of this was your on again, off again girlfriend
(04:40):
and that woman who was the victim in this case
as a woman named Catherine Woods. Yeah, Catherine was twenty
one at a time, and she was a really special
person and I really cared for her and we had
a great relationship, and like any relationships, there are ups
and downs, but I always cared for her. So she
was taking voice and dance lessons, working part time jobs
(05:02):
at a hair salon, was seeing several different men. That's
her choice, you know, no judgment here, and she worked
as a stripper at night under the alias of Ava.
She had told her parents and friends that she was
dancing in an off Broadway show as a character named Ava.
So I mean, again, no judgment here, but it does
(05:24):
present a complex picture of a person. Then, as fate
would have it, when she was visiting her family in Columbus, Ohio,
she met a troubled guy named David han Now. David
was a guy who had grown up in foster homes
in Columbus and dropped out of high school. At the
time he met Catherine, he was unemployed and attempting to
make it as a rapper, and not too long after
(05:47):
they met, he moved to New York to live with her.
He struggled financially and bounced around, couldn't hold the job,
and she paid most of his bills. But weeks before
the murder, Catherine had asked David to move out, but
he struggled with drug so she had recently allowed him
to move back in and sleep on the couch. Now,
can you sort of fill in the blanks here, Paul, Well,
(06:08):
she was definitely trying to get him out of the apartment,
and several times where she had asked him too and
was successful, he would call her depressed and threatening to
kill himself. And it was kind of a vo little situation.
She always said that he's like family and that she
really cares about him. She kept a lot of it
to herself. She was very private in that sense. And
(06:30):
then in April of two thousand five, Ktsine was drugged
at one of the strip clubs that she worked at.
What a nightmare, Paul. Can you tell us what happened
with that. She called me at the club and she
asked for help, and I hurried down. She was really
messed up. She could hardly walk, and she didn't want
to go back to her apartment. So I just brought
(06:52):
her to a hotel and set her up there and
got her to go to the hospital. And because she
was worried that you might have gotten raped at that time,
so being concerned about it all, and I went back
and called her parents, but I thought maybe her parents
could talk to her and help her out, but she
got upset at me because that nightlife was something that
(07:14):
she didn't discussed with her family. And while I think
that any reasonable person who cared about somebody as you
did might do the same thing if they were in
your shoes, this caused a real rift between you two,
and when questioned by her father about what you had
told him, Catherine said that you were crazy, that she
was not working as a strip or involved in anything dangerous.
Her dad believed her, and she then broke up with you,
(07:37):
although several weeks later you both reckoncil I got back together.
So some time after this you went to Catherine's home
and happened to meet David. Now the two of you
only met this one time, but David had been unaware
of your in Catherine's relationship, and when he found out,
he became very upset, feeling misled. And so this now
brings us to November five, when miss Wood was found
(08:00):
stabbed to death in her Upper east Side apartment. According
to police reports and ear witness testimony, the attack happened
in two parts, first around six pm and then finally
around six pm, with four counts of four witnesses hearing
Catherine screaming and crying. Now, David had initially told police
(08:20):
that he left the apartment twenty minutes before he called
at six fifty pm that evening, which would have placed
him within the apartment during that exact time frame described
by the witnesses, and when police arrived on the scene,
David immediately named Paul as the killer, holding up a
CD of Paul's music. I mean, it's unreal, Okay. So
(08:42):
Tony Marie tell us about the investigation and what was
it that shifted the focus to Paul and away from David,
who would have seemed like the obvious suspect. Well, initially,
law enforcement had identified David Han as a perpetrator and
rething that he said at the time. Looking back now
(09:02):
with hindsight, it was deceptive, it was inaccurate, and it
showed that he was a perpetrator. But what happened was
law enforcement found this bloody fingerprint which they called it,
which it actually isn't in the apartment, and the focus
switched to Paul. Right, And this fingerprint plays such an
(09:25):
important role throughout this whole story. So investigators found this fingerprint,
but it didn't match David Haunt and Paul becomes the
prime suspect. But this fingerprint is actually a latent fingerprint
and not a patent fingerprint, which is what it was
incorrectly believed to be. Can you break this down for
us really quick, Well, anytime we touch a surface, we
(09:47):
can leave a fingerprint, and that could be from our
sweat or if something was on our hands, So you
would leave a print and it would not be made
from another substance that went on top of event. So
if you leave a print and then a substance goes
on top, that's latent. And if the print is made
of the substance, like they argued at trial, they argued
(10:09):
that the fingerprint was patent made of blood, which it
is not. It was latent, pre existing exactly. So the
fingerprints already there and then the blood ends up on
top of it. And this makes sense that Paul's fingerprints
were there, as he and Katherine had been in a
relationship and he'd been to her home many many times.
So was there any other evidence at all that pointed
(10:31):
to Paul. The case against Paul was really founded on
two or three pieces of evidence, So they had their
team in there for days documenting this very bloody crime scene.
It was a big fight in there, and that led
to this fingerprint that was on the wall. The other
piece of evidence was cell phone records, Paul's cell phone records,
(10:54):
Katherine's cell phone records, and David Hans cell phone records,
and the prosecution Shin and the police built a theory
that Paul was texting and leaving these messages, was this
jilted lover, and that she was rejecting him, and he
was full of rage and killed this girl. It's not
actually supported by any of the evidence, but that was
(11:17):
their theory. Here's where things started spinning out of control
in my opinion, which is that immediately after the murder,
the police leaked erroneous information, the false information called what
you Want to the media relating to the investigation, and
they aid it up. TV news and newspapers were filled
with stories with this false narrative of a scary, alleged
(11:38):
Puerto Rican predator from the Bronx taking the life of
this sweet, innocent girl from the Midwest, and so the
media made it about race and one of the stories
even cited anonymous police sources with reports of an alleged
confession letter, alleged existence of a surveillance video showing Paul
leaving the crime scene, which, of course all of it
was totally false. In act, the exact opposite was true.
(12:02):
There was a video that proves my innocence, video that
shows their original suspect leaving the crime scene thirteen minutes
after the commission of the crime. And I'm nowhere on
this video at all, and I'm nowhere on any videos.
And the cops and the d a's office, they were
leaking information to the media saying, oh, he was on
(12:23):
camera around the time of the crime and all of this,
But they had the video that showed the original suspect
entering into this scene and coming out thirteen minutes after
the crime. It's just horrendous. This episode is underwritten by
(12:48):
A i G, a leading global insurance company. A i
G is committed to corporate social responsibility and is making
a positive difference in the lives of its employees and
in the communities where we work and live. In light
of the compelling need for pro bono legal assistance, and
in recognition of A I g's commitment to criminal and
social justice reform, the A i G pro Bono Program
(13:09):
provides free legal services and other support to underrepresented communities
and individuals. While Paul awaited trial at Riker's Island, his
family pulled together their life savings to retain Dawn Florio
and her colleague Laura Miranda to represent paula trial. Now, unfortunately,
(13:33):
that's not even a strong enough for it. Unbeknownst to
Paul and his family, Florio, while she was representing Paul,
she was simultaneously under indictment by the same prosecutor's office
for smuggling drugs into a client at Rikers Island. The
case against Florio received repeated adjournments at the court. File
remains sealed to this day. But all of this came
(13:53):
to light as the trial was starting and the trial judge,
Judge Berkman, did not do a proper conflict inquiry, which
is called Gomberg inquiry, basically telling Paul that they didn't
see how it would be a problem and inferred he
would have to go to trial without counsel if he
pursued the matter further. Unreal so he would have had
to represent himself. I mean, it's not okay. So, Paul,
(14:17):
you've been waiting for eighteen months at Riker's Island, a
notoriously dangerous, chaotic and scary place. And this is how
your trial was starting. I mean, what was that like. Yeah, basically,
my lawyers didn't show up for the first three days
of trial, and it was just a mess. From the beginning.
They seemed prepared. No, I think some people in our
(14:41):
audience may well say themselves. Wait a minute, I thought
I heard him say that his attorneys didn't show up
for the first three days of trial. But that can't
be true. Yeah, you're right, they didn't show up. I
didn't know where they were. And it's so bad that
one of your attorneys was held to contempt of court
and actually find a thousand dollars for not showing up.
And when they did show up, they didn't even pretend
(15:01):
to make an effort to represent you. So, Tony Marie,
the two defense attorneys, Florio and Miranda, can you talk
about the myriad errors that they made during the trial. Well,
they didn't hire any experts, and they didn't develop any
of this evidence. They didn't go to the scene, they
didn't speak to the witnesses. The one thing they did
do was they contacted a fingerprint expert. I spoke to
(15:26):
that expert. I got an affid David from him. What
is chilling is that expert actually told the defense that
there was a problem with the fingerprint, it looked like
it was latent, and they should have the sheet rock
examined and test the medium. So the one direction they
got they were actually given information as to how to
(15:49):
disprove this by an expert. They didn't call the expert.
They didn't do it. And we haven't even touched on
one of the biggest things here, which is the surveillance
video that Paul mentioned earlier, and this is it just
blows my mind. On the video, you can clearly see
David Hahn leaving the apartment at six thirty seven, and
(16:10):
there's the time stamp right on the video, and that's
just thirteen fourteen minutes after this brutal murder took place
at But the defense attorneys didn't show this to the
jury because it turns out that while they had the video,
they didn't know this was there because they hadn't even
bothered to watch the whole video. The defense didn't bring
(16:33):
it to light, and the prosecutor went forward and argued
and presented evidence that we now know affirmatively was untrue
and we now know affirmatively he knew at the time.
So it is a profound injustice and failing of all
the pieces of our system that we rely on. Okay,
(16:57):
So the state presented mostly circumstance to evidence like the
high volume of calls you mentioned, and the only physical
evidence presented was the latent fingerprint, which we've talked about.
But the state also presented what they described as evidence
but can only really be described as somewhere between ridiculous
and ludicrous. I'm talking about Paul's diary entries dating back
(17:17):
to what he was ten years old. What world do
we live in? But this is allowed to be admitted.
They also submitted lyrics to a song that Paul co
wrote with his fellow band member and a childhood comment
drawing of a teenage mutant Ninja turtle holding a sword. Wow,
I mean, this is as bad as the West Memphis
(17:40):
three in that sense. And this was brought into the
trial as supposed it proof that he was a violent guy,
even though Paul had no history whatsoever of violence or
any run ins at all with the law. And here's
the thing, obviously, whoever was involved in this violent struggle
for Katherine's life and which she ripped out the hair
(18:01):
of her attacker and clawed him as well. One would say, well,
Paul must have been covered in scratches or at least
had blood on him, or you know, maybe even a
significant amount of blood, But he didn't. First of all,
that testimony came out at trial by the forensic experts
called by the police that the person would be covered
in blood. What didn't come out at trial was the
(18:21):
cleanup that took place. There was crystal violet all in
the tub, so the perpetrator not only was covered in blood,
but cleaned up in that apartment before they left. We
know from the video footage that his Internet time stamped
proven to be accurate that David Han walked out of
that apartment thirteen minutes after the homicide occurred. What the
(18:43):
prosecutor did, which was just incredibly inappropriate in my opinion
and rises to the level of misconduct, is then argue
to the jury and closing knowingly untrue assertions that David
Han left the apartment at six o'clock before the homicide occurred,
leaving this window of forty minutes for Paul Cortes who
have gone in and committed homicide. That he didn't commit.
(19:06):
That's how this conviction happened. So, Tony Marie, if you
had been able to represent Paul at the original trial,
and I know you probably wish you could go back
in time and do that, how would things have gone differently?
I think if you play the video and watch it
and see someone else leaving the scene after the homicide,
that is key, and you show that to the journey,
(19:28):
that would have changed the day. The forensic evidence, for instance,
there were hairs found in Catherine's hand, hairs with the
roots attached. The only tests that were done on those
hairs were by the prosecution comparing it to Paul. He's excluded.
Why not test those hairs? Why not go forward with
(19:50):
that type of investigation. It's a homicide, Go to the scene,
speak to the witnesses. The failings are just monumental. I
did never expected that I would be convicted. I just
believe that the truth would prevail, and that's why I
took the stand and I tried to be as forthcoming
as I could understand. I completely expected that they would
(20:12):
have quit me because they would know that what I
was saying was the truth. So here we have it.
No evidence presented by the defense, phony evidence presented by
the prosecutors, and the results are a foregone conclusion. And
now the worst moment comes. You get convicted, right then
you get taken away. So tell us about that. I
(20:34):
mean from Rikers, I guess it couldn't get worse, could it.
It did, and at a certain points throughout this incarceration
it has. When I heard the guilty verdict, it was
just a complete shock to me. I didn't expected this
life that I've been living for the past sixteen years
as an innocent man in prison, and all the terrible
(20:55):
things I've witnessed throughout the sixteen years, all the tragedies.
It was definitely the hardest time of my life. I
(21:18):
went to my first prison, which was all burned Correctional facility,
which is a disciplinary jail. It's probably one of the
most violent prisons at the time, multiple stabbing every day,
people meeting each other up getting violence. So I'm just
trying to stay safe, trying to write the case during
that time. I mean, with everything that's gone on, there
(21:40):
are definitely waves even today of me just being so
crazy mad at everything about life, about how unfair everything is.
But you know, that just makes a person bitter, and
we just have to continue in the best way we
can to be good people and help people in the
situations that we're in. And that's what I've been trying
to do. I've always saw this as a test, and
(22:04):
if I can pass this test, and if I can
come out of this a better person, not to someone
who survived this, but someone who's overcommon zone, who has
contributed throughout this ordeal to try to help others who
have been even less fortunate than I. I guess I
hold on to the fact that there are people like
Tony Marie, people like yourself, people like my family and
(22:25):
my friends who know that I am innocent, and they
believe in my innocence and they haven't and they don't
give up on me. And knowing that has been something
that has really given me hope through all of this,
and it has made me the person that I am.
Tony Marie, how did this case first land on your desk?
(22:45):
And what was it about this that made you decide
to devote yourself pro bono by the way, for years
to this man, Paul Cortez Well. I was contacted by
some of Paul's ardent supporters in the fall of two
thousand fifteen, and I ordered the file, and when I
opened it up in January six, I did what any
(23:08):
thinking lawyer might do. I put the video in. And
when I put the video in and I saw David
Han leaving after that homicide had occurred, I couldn't get involved.
Upon seeing that, I worked up the case. I contacted,
you know, eleven different experts on crime scenes and the
cell phone records, the cell site records which show where
(23:29):
Paul is, which is actually not at the apartment, went
through every slip of paper in this case, and what
came over and over and over again was more and
more and more information showing how innocent he is. And honestly,
it was all there all along. It was in the file.
So these lawyers bad enough not showing up, but then
(23:53):
not introducing the evidence that was in their files and
then claiming later on that they didn't even know that
it was there. The real consequence of that is that
now you can't introduce that evidence as new evidence because
it was there the whole time. So now Paul is
stuck with a much more difficult legally speaking task of
proving ineffective assistance of counsel. Although in this case, it
(24:16):
seems like that should be open and shut. One would
think that this should be pretty straightforward when we look
at all the malfeasance and all the incompetence and everything else,
and the evidence itself. So how has it unbound thus far?
In terms of the post conviction litigation? There was appeals
of the conviction itself and some rulings that suggested that
(24:38):
there should be a four forty, which in New York
is where you go back and say, hey, we want
to put everything on the record and fix this. There's
some issues, the failings of the defense and failing to
just do basic investigation to speak to the witnesses. I
did do that motion, and stunningly it was denied. But
now it's in front of a federal judge, judge free
(25:00):
and in New York, and it's been a long way.
Paul has been very unlucky in many ways, as our
motion was submitted prior to COVID, so there's been a
halt there. But we're hopeful, and as a lawyer, I
have to believe that when you put this type of
evidence in front of a judge and show this kind
of injustice, that the judge is going to correct it.
(25:23):
I do believe that, however you slice it, this is
ineffective assistance of counsel, and this is actual innocence, and
we should be successful in federal court. And I'm relying
on the judge to do the right thing. Order hearing
dismiss this order a new trial. It's so clear that
he did not commit this crime. And so, Paul, for
(25:46):
the people who are listening right now and feeling this
mixture the same one that I feel of anger and
just just rage at the wrongdoing in this case and
the desire to help to do something to move this forward,
what would you like them to do? Is there a
website you want people to go to, or is there
a change dot org petition or anything like that. Yeah,
(26:07):
there is a change dot org petition. One of them
is a petition for clemency. And then the other thing
is a website. It's www dot Free Paul Cortez dot
com and people can visit that side to see everything
more in detail, everything about the case. Well, we're gonna
have all of the links in the bio in the episode,
(26:28):
So please wherever you are, unless you're driving, in which case,
wait till you stop, but go click on those links
because your voice matters and you can help us, help
Paul and bring him home where he belongs. I would
also suggest too that if you are a New Yorker,
to contact your state assembly member, your state senator in
your district and let them know how you feel and
(26:51):
have them try to advocate as well. I've always found
that the state senators and state assembly men are more
receptive than you would think, and it's a lot easier
for them to reach the ear of the governor then
it is for us, just normal people. That's a very
good suggestion. And Paul, we have a tradition here of
closing the show in a particularly type of way. It's
(27:12):
my favorite part of the show, and I think that's
probably true for most of our audience. It's called closing arguments.
First of all, I thank you again for being here
and sharing your story. I know it's not easy, and
just for being the beacon of light that you are.
And then what happens is I turned my microphone off
and leave yours on, and then I'll just kick back
(27:34):
in my chair with my headphones on and just listen
for any other thoughts that you want to share. Of course,
as we always do, We're going to save Paul for last,
because we're here for you, Paul. But first I want
to turn over to you, Tony, for any thoughts you
want to share that we haven't already covered. Well, I
(27:54):
just want to say something about Paul. I just want
to say what an inspiring person he is. That he
has kept the attitude and the faith and that I
think a lot of that comes from the kind of
person he is, but also from the support he gets.
So I'm just grateful the support of this podcast of you, Jason,
(28:15):
and would encourage people to continue to give that support
because it makes a difference, and I'm hoping that it
will also perhaps put additional pressure forth in order to
set him free as he should be. And now over
to you. I have been incarcerated for sixteen years for
come I didn't commit. I have been fighting since they
(28:38):
want to prove my innocence to the court system. I
haven't given up, and it is a terrible injustice, not
only for me and my family, but it's also been
a terrible injustice for Catherine and for her family. I'm
so grateful that I have people in my life that
(28:59):
do care about me and that are willing to spend
so much time and energy and effort and heartache and
tears and pain to support me and continue to fight
with me for justice. And maybe there's someone listening out there,
someone who's dealing with an injustice, someone who's dealing with
an addiction of loneliness, some kind of isolation. My message
(29:21):
to you is just don't give up, continue to fight,
continue to believe. Just know there are people who care
about you. There is a better way than what you're
living through right now. Just keep continuing on. I guess
that is my message for everyone. And I firmly believe
that justice will be served and I will be exonerated
one day. I don't know when that day is going
(29:43):
to be, but keep praying for it to happen soon.
I just thank you, I think everyone that the Wrongful
Conviction podcast who works behind the scenes, and especially my friends,
my family, and Tony Murray, my amazing lawyer who is
so bright and intelligent and really my champion. Thank you,
(30:08):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne,
and Kevin Wardis. With research by Lila Robinson. The music
in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and
(30:30):
on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava
for Good. On all three platforms, you can also follow
me on both TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason Flom.
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
in association with Signal Company Number one
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.