October 27, 2022 • 53 mins
On March 18, 1997, two men exited a minivan and walked into the lobby of a bank in St. Louis, MO wearing ski masks and armed with semi-automatic rifles. Shots were fired and a security guard, Richard Heflin, was shot and fatally wounded. Billie Allen, aged 19, was arrested at about 2am the next morning and taken to police headquarters where he remained in an interrogation room, handcuffed to a table, for the next several hours. Later that morning, he was positively identified in a line-up by two forestry workers who had come across an individual in the woods. According to the police, after being told of these identifications, Billie Allen said he wanted to discuss the robbery, recanted his request for a lawyer and made statements incriminating himself in the murder. Billie Allen was charged with committing an armed bank robbery and using a firearm to commit a crime of violence. He was convicted on both counts and sentenced to death.
To learn more and get involved, visit:
https://linktr.ee/freebillieallen
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):
On March seventeenth, two armed and masked men robbed a
bank in Saint Louis, Missouri, and fatally shot a security
guard named Richard Heflin in the process. As part of
their plan to destroy evidence and evade captured, they had
pre soaked the getaway van with gasoline, but before they
got to switch from the van to a second getaway vehicle,
(00:24):
the van caught fire. One assailant, Norris Holder, was arrested
at the scene, but the second assailant escaped and was
described as a black man about five nine, with singed
hair and an injured right hand. Norris Holder told investigators
that the escape b was named John, but later changed
that name to Bill. Police arrested an acquaintance of Holders
(00:47):
named Billy Allen. Other than being black, Billy did not
match the initial descriptions, but curiously was somehow identified by
four witnesses, including Holder. Imagine being selected for this jury
and hearing investigators testify about an alleged confession, as well
as that four witnesses, including the only other assailant, identified
(01:08):
Billy Allen. You might feel pretty confident in your verdict,
Yet here we are, almost a quarter century later to
publicly reveal for the very first time, case breaking exculpatory
evidence from the state's own files that was ignored by
both the prosecution and the defense. Did I mentioned they
send them to death? This is wrongful Conviction. Welcome back
(01:44):
to Wrongful Conviction. Today we're going to do something I
don't think we've ever done before, which is that we're
covering a federal death penalty case. And we're honored. I'm
honored to have Professor Mark Howard, leader of the Making
an Exono Reprogram at Georgetown. So Mark, welcome back to
(02:05):
Wrongful Conviction. Great to be back. Jason, thanks, And with
Mark is his distinguished co professor who has also been
on the podcast before more than once for the right
and the wrong reasons. Marty tank Cliff was wrongfully convicted
himself and served seventeen years when Marty was wrong for
(02:27):
convicted of murdering his parents, and of course he's been
exonerated and we become great friends. And he also is
Mark's childhood friend and the co professor now at Georgetown
of the Making an Exono re Program. So Marty Tankliffe Esquire,
Welcome to Wrongful Conviction. You know the fact that we're
(02:51):
all here today is a beautiful thing, but it's also
an extremely troubling thing because we're here today to talk
about Billy Allen, who has been on death row in
the federal system for a quarter of a century. However,
since he was nineteen years old. I appreciate you, you you know,
you all taking an interest in my story and wanted
(03:12):
to tell it. Well, Billy, yours is a story that
definitely needs to be told, so welcome to the show.
But before we get into all the details, I'd love
to hear about your life before this horrible scenario took place.
You know, I grew up in a house with three
sisters on the north side of St. Louis, which was,
I guess you can save, flooded with drugs, a lot
(03:32):
of violence and stuff like that. Even though I lived
in the under privileged neighborhood, I went to school in
a privileged neighborhood. Platon, Missouri is considered probably one of
the wealthiest places in Missouri. You know, no matter if
I go out to the play school district and I'm
around rich people, I still have to deal with my surroundings.
When I come home. You're like, where do I fit
(03:54):
in in things? It sounds like you had a foothold
in these two sort of opposit worlds of halves and
have nots, which sounds like it could be pretty confusing.
So after you graduated high school and leading up to
March of ninety seven, what were you up to, to
be honest with people, You know, I was hustling at
the time. You know, I wasn't a big drug dealer
or anything like that. I was just hustling at the time.
But at the same time, I was trying to find
(04:17):
my way at the time, and that's why I met
the you know, the girl I ended up with who
I was going to move in with, you know, because
basically I was going to get a job, stop selling
drugs and just I guess you can say starting my
growth not only for her, but she had a daughter,
so I was trying to be better for all of them.
So you're at a crossroads, and it sounds like you
were choosing a more promising path. But your connection to
(04:38):
the old neighborhood happened to bring you into contact with
one of the actual bank robbers in this case, Norris Holder.
You had met him through job corps once and then
had a chance encounter with him years later. Apparently you
had sold him some weed once or vice versa, and
it was this chance meeting and short lived hang out
just just a few days before Holder committed this crime
(04:59):
that even put you into the realm of possibilities. I mean,
how well did you even know this older guy? Why
didn't know Holder? Per se? I guess you can say
the way they tried to, you know, sell the story
to my jury. When I was at the club one
day order I knew one of his friends he was with,
you know, just from my neighborhood, and so, you know,
we end up just talking. So he's like, hey, look,
(05:20):
you know, let's hook up one day, just being cordial
with people. Plus, like I said, I knew the guy
he was with. Then a few days, you know later,
I get a call from him, you know, basically like
hey man, you know, I'm gonna go to the mall
and you know, I got some weed, and I'm like, okay,
well I'm I'm in now. But for them to make
it seem like we were friends, we were plot in
this crime or anything like that, how can you say
(05:41):
that that I would involve myself in a you know,
in a crime of this magnitude with somebody I didn't
even know, right, it doesn't make a whole hell of
a lot of sense until you consider the investigators in
this case, one of whom Joseph Nickerson is on the St.
Louis d a's do not testify list, which is, by
the way, exactly what it sounds like. He's not allowed
to testify in cases because he lies so much. He's
(06:04):
the detective, by the way, from another egregious wrongful conviction
case out of St. Louis, Lamar Johnson, who is still
awaiting justice. And Lamar also did some drug dealing, as
did Billy, so they were typical targets for this Nickerson guy.
In Lamar's case, Nickerson fabricated a narrative from alleged witness statements,
(06:24):
but these witnesses later denied saying any of the things
Nickerson had attributed to them, So you know, just sat
around just making ship up. He perjured himself to make
Lamar's culpability even plausible. And then there's a cash incentivized
eyewitness who was convinced by investigators that the massed gunman
in this case was Lamar Johnson, so he went along
(06:46):
with the idea which you'll see in a bit, sounds
eerily similar to what happened in this case. Now, I
believe his partner, a guy named Carol, is actually doing
time now for assaulting someone who was in custody. So
it's patterns like these that give a helpful context to
what happened in Billie's case. So let's get to that
(07:07):
the morning of March seventeenth. Where were you actually that
that faithful morning. I had left the house early that morning,
like at eight o'clock in the morning. They claimed that
I had called holder and told them let's get ready
for the crime and all this stuff from the house.
But how can I call you from the household. I'm
already gone, you know. So I get to the mall
early in the morning, and my first stop is to
(07:29):
the hat zone. So I went to foot locker, and
I went to another story foot quarters, and right after that,
I went to Famous in Bar, which is a clothing store.
I went to this tuxedo place, and so as I'm chopping, basically,
I see Christagogue. Now Christagogue is a security guard who
was after the mall to pick up his paycheck. He
was like, Hey, I'm just going to pick up my checking,
(07:49):
and I planned to go to another mall to do
some shopping and stuff like that. So I'm like, well,
can I ride with you? I was like, look, I
just got to drop a few items off to a
girl I was dating, and so he was like okay.
So he went to pick up his chick and we
left them all and I dropped off a few items
for her baby and basically gave us some money because
we were moving in together, and left. So you've been
(08:13):
out of the house since eight am. At the mall
where you visited, several stores, made several points of contact,
and I'm talking about people who were disinterested alibi witnesses
to people who didn't know you. And there was also
surveillance footage. So all the great alibi evidence of places
you away from the scene at the time of the crime,
none of it was investigated or later presented on your behalf.
(08:34):
So while you were shopping across town, there was this
bank robbery going on at the Lindelle Bank and Trust,
which is Caddy corner from this huge park in St.
Louis that houses the St. Louis Zoo, several museums, landmarks,
and golf course, skating rink, and this area is known
as far As Park. Again. This is March seven, around
five am, when two masked and armed men busted down
(08:57):
the door and told everybody to get on the ground.
There were two bank robbers who stole fifty thou dollars
and a security guard named Richard Heflin was killed in
the process of that robbery. And then the two men
left the scene in a getaway van, drove to Forest
Park and they had a plan apparently to set the
(09:17):
van on fire and then get away in a different
vehicle that they planted there. But the van had actually
been pre soaked in gasoline and exploded and caught on
fire inside the park before sort of the full extent
of their plan and getaway plan could work. And so
the driver, a guy named Norris Holder, was still on
(09:39):
fire himself and was pulled out of the car, and
then the second suspect ran away, so Holder was in
custody almost immediately. And I've listened to the dispatch tapes
from that morning. It sounds pretty chaotic, but ultimately it
sounds like a team of folks trying to bring the
bank robbers and murderers of this bank security guard to justice.
(10:00):
And this is so important. Every one of them described
a blackmail about five eight to five ten, wearing gray
sweats and a blue and red colored jacket, and they
said he had singed hair understandably since the pan was
on fire, and an injured right hand. They never described
the person with a beard. And I had a beard
at the time, or if I was the person who
walked up to you and asked you for directions, wouldn't
(10:24):
that be one of the most descriptive things you can
point out about an individual. Had it actually been you,
they would have mentioned a beard, right, That's a that's
a pretty big detail for everybody to leave out. But
they did not say that. They also would have said
over six two instead of around five nine. Big difference there.
Six two is tall five nine. Most people would say
(10:46):
a short for a man. And when you were eventually
picked up, your right hand was not injured and your
hair was not burned in any way. So if you
listen to all of the dispatch tapes as we did,
the story remains the same. In the immediate aftermath, the
assailant came over a hill from the direction of the
burning van. He went toward the fence line and allegedly
told them that his van caught fire and he needed
(11:08):
to get to the metro link. Both park workers, you know,
when they first came forward, they claimed that all they
did was gave him directions to the metro link. The
thing about it is when we get the trial, both
park workers changed their story. They claimed they gave the
person a ride outside of the park. Do you know
I have their actual recordings or police officer is standing
(11:28):
right with them calling into dispatch the Warnestree Division supervisor
that forestry workers all the second subject he was running
east from the burning van by a construction trailer. This
about Jordie George Easter the heading right over here by
the fence line. There's a hole in the sounds floor
with who had adaptly win He tugh with them and
(11:54):
metro LINKA and afore we got the information. You don't
really want that. Everybody's what you happened after we had it.
Loved to the big robber stud in guard that the
stubdic would life staying call and understood the new metro
Lake that I have it on a plate punds and
(12:17):
have on a multi colors y. The park workers just
told them that they gave the person directions right, These
park workers along with everyone else at this point, we're
just feeding in whatever they could to help nab this guy,
no other agenda. They pointed him in the right direction
and he left got away whatever through a hole in defense. Importantly,
(12:37):
not in someone's car. Giving this assailant a ride outside
the park would really make for a much more credible
I D. Which is why we believe this story changed
by the time of trial. But back to the immediate aftermath. Ultimately,
the effort to close it on the second assailant was unsuccessful,
and they were hoping to get something out of Holder. Yeah,
when Holder was arrested, he said the person wouldn't was
(13:00):
m guy named John. Then they with the defining and say, hey, look,
whoever is the least culpable is who might get leniency
in this case. So basically you need to provide us
you know where the story you know, or something that
can help us out or help you out. So all
of a sudden, he switches from John and he mentioned
my name. So now he's given them something concrete, a
(13:20):
full name, and not just a name that feels chosen
at random. That's the thing. He didn't even know my
last name he just said, Bill, Just Bill. That's it.
I'll show you where Bill lives. Now. The thing about
the John's situation is this. Throughout the reports, does a
person named JB who was connected to Holder? We think
JB is his cousin. I can't, you know, I don't
(13:40):
want to falsely accuse anybody or anything like that, you know,
but that's this is what the reports are basically saying.
It's my belief that Holder is using me as escape
go to protect somebody who was close to So now
you had no idea what was coming your way. Did
you even know that this bank robbery had taken place? Well,
I did see the crimes. You go on the news
(14:01):
when they arrested Holder, and so I'm like, okay, well,
you know, I'm not involving, so it doesn't really draw
my attention to it. Next thing, I know, I'm at
the apartment, you know, with the girl I was living
with at the time, and I hear some banging on
the door and don't know what the hell is going
on or anything like that. FBI and police officers come
to my door. They arrest me, and the first thing
(14:23):
I tell them I had the clothes and everything that
I had bought on the couch, and I told the officers, look,
you're arresting the wrong person. Here are all the items.
The receipts are still in the back, the clothes are
still in the back, and I'm like, look, just go
to the mall and ask to see the surveillance footage
and basically you'll see that I have an alibi at
(14:44):
the time to crime took place. You know, you can't
beat a video, and so they were basically just yessing
me off. And so they took me down to the
homicide office, and that's when I kept repeating the same
story and that they can talk to Christian gag who
was a security guard at the time, to find out
whether or not I was at the mall. Yeah, But unfortunately,
they weren't interested in solving the case. They were interested
(15:05):
in fixing the facts to match the name that they
got from Norris Holder. So I mean, I'm using facts
very loosely there. So you were arrested around two am.
What happened next When I was in the homicide office,
it's two officers that came and talked to me, Thomas
Carroll and Joseph Nickerson. Now I told both officers I'm like, look,
(15:28):
you all can go to the mall, you all can
get the recordings, and you all can see that I
have an alibi. Now, they claimed they went to the mall,
yet for some reason, there's no surveillance footage that can
be found. I believe they have this footage because I believe,
and here's the thing. I reported about this before the
Lamar Johnson case. I reported that they were probably withholding
(15:49):
this evidence, and come to find out years later they
withhold recordings of Lamar Johnson case. So it's like a
pattern down there dealing with these officers, a pattern that
is unfortunately valent in St. Louis, and let's face it,
around this whole country as our alleged false confessions or
fabricated statements, which we'll get into in a bit. But first,
what happened in that interrogation room when I first came
(16:12):
in and as they reported their reports, you know, like
I told him, look, I didn't have anything to do
with the crime. So this is when you know both
of them, you know, officers were like, okay, well if
you didn't commit this crime and give us your DNA.
I'm like, sure, shoot, I ain't gonnaunerdo what did you
can have it? When I was in prison, I used
to always ask guys who would say they're innocent. One
(16:32):
of the first person I said, would you be want
to do with DNA test? And almost ninety nine point
nine percent of the people who were really innocent said,
I will do a DNA test. I will do any
forensic tests that I can do to prove my innocence.
And Billy falls into the category who said I want
to do anything and everything possible. Next thing they do,
(16:56):
they'd sell the van you know that would use in
the crime was soaked in gasoline. You know, so if
you don't have any gasoline on your clothes, you know,
that can help prove that you weren't there. So I'm like, okay,
we're here, you can have all of my clothes. So
I willingly gave him my DNA and my clothes. I
mean the fact that this entire case was covered in gasoline,
so to speak, and Billy has none on him. They
(17:18):
tested the co defendant. His clothes were sure enough, every
inch of them had gasoline residue on him. Billy had
a credible alibi. DNA test results came back negative. They
left open the question whose DNA is it and that
hasn't been pursued, hasn't been shown, but it's certainly not Billy's.
So take take us back there, Billy to the interrogation
(17:39):
and I d process. Next thing I know, FBI agent
comes into the room. But agent Jan Hartman, you know,
she started reading my rights. This is the first time
I was ever read my right. So I'm like, well, look,
I want a lawyer from the court period. I'm done talking.
I don't have anything to say. You all are gonna
believe me. So, according to her trial testimony, she never
(17:59):
told on anybody about my request for an attorney. So
one officer comes in, he conducted the lineup. I'm like, well, look,
you know where's my attorney at And he was like,
you know, you don't need an attorney for this. I'm like,
but I asked for one. He's like, well, you can
get one afterwards. So they took me to the lineup.
And now here's the crazy part about this lineup. I'm
the tallest person in their day. I'm line up. They
(18:21):
have nobody close to six two in this lineup, Nobody
who looks like me in this lineup. And to make
matters worse, he puts me in position number three. I
am the tallest person in the thing, and I'm beside
the two shortest people inside there. So basically you're giving
people the person you want them to pick. Not only
is it suggestive, but it's also telling about the description
(18:44):
they had exactly five eight, five ten. And like our
line up, a lot of people when they envision lineup,
they envision you behind the glass and the witnesses are
outside of the thing. The St. Louis if they have
a piece of cloth, it's like a black piece of
cloth right there, so you can see. You can actually
see the damned person who's basically identifying you, you know,
and you can hear him. And this is just how
(19:06):
hilarious my lineup was. This lady I'll mcgillion. You know,
they were telling her, well, can you identify the person
you saw? She picks the person in position number two. Now,
if you look at this person in my line up photo,
this dude has a freaking full beard. He looks nothing
like me, and he fits the description that she gave
(19:27):
of the person she saw at the crime. So now
I hear this guy he comes in and say, hey,
look we think it's the guy in position number three.
Can we bring him forward and you look at him?
She was like are you sure? You're like yeah, So
they tell the number two guys go back, and they
take me out of the lineup, and she was like, yeah,
I think you might be right. Wow. If you go
(19:49):
to my transcripts, she will tell you she picked the
guy in position number two. So why would you pick
somebody five, a full beard, full head of hair, and
yet all of a sudden you switch your account to
somebody six to small beard at the time. So come
to find out, you know, in the dispatch tape, she
actually is reporting that she couldn't even describe the person
(20:11):
she saw. This is on their own recordings. My attorney
didn't find it. It was never presented on my defense
or anything. But yet this woman was allowed to pick
somebody in position number two who was clearly different than
I was, and then basically come to court changed her story,
claimed that she never told the officers that. And then
we have the recordings to prove that the prosecutors presented
(20:31):
false testimony. And this wasn't the only time the prosecutors
not only put on false testimony in this case, nor
was it the last time that one of the quote
unquote eyewitnesses picked someone out when they had no business
doing so, because they admitted not having seen the assailant,
like the guy who had followed the van from the
bank to the park, William Green. William Green walked in
(20:53):
the room. Like I said, you can clearly hear what
the person is telling them, you know, talking to the witnesses.
He comes in the door and he tells them, look,
I can't identify anybody. You know what the officer tells him,
just pick anybody, And that's exactly what he does. He
just he just get a random pick. He never picked me.
But why would you even take that chance? The same
(21:15):
reason we have to remind people that black lives matter,
as well as why that statement has ever met with
any pushback. Exactly, I'm no for a fact, my life
didn't matter. When you're going through that, when you're sitting
in this situation that you're hearing these things going on,
you're like, man, what did I do to deserve this?
Why are these people doing what they're doing when basically
(21:37):
everything shows that they're lying. This episode is underwritten by
A I G, a leading global insurance company. A I
(21:57):
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 provides free legal services and other support to underrepresented
(22:19):
communities and individuals. So you have two witnesses who admitted
in front of you that their identifications were entirely invalid.
And then you have these two park workers who said
that they gave the assailant a ride and that the
(22:39):
assailant was not wearing a mask, so they got a
good look. As we already pointed out, the dispatch tapes
proved that these two accounts were also lies. They were
standing there with the police saying that they had pointed
the assailant towards the metrolink, But my attorney never presented
this recording. I found the recorder a couple of years ago,
(23:00):
so I just found out about them because I kept
telling everybody, I'm like, look, I know these guys in
line they would be you know. Everybody was like well
we you know, you have to prove it. So I knew,
um they had turned over these dispatched tape transcripts, but
they only gave me six pages. Do you know the
actual recording is over an hour and a half long.
My producer transcribed these tapes. The ninety minutes segment you're
(23:22):
talking about comes out to thirty nine pages, and that's
what the artificial intelligence transcriber missing a lot of the
actual words. So basically, they withheld the fact that they
knew that both park workers were lying that or they
were counting on your attorney not doing his job. So
we already heard about al mcgillian and William Green. So
what happened when these park workers walked into the lineup room?
(23:44):
When William Green didn't pick me out? The officer walked,
you know, William Green out, and you see the two
park workers. I literally when they opened the door, you
can see the two park workers standard side by side,
and they were like, look, you know, we think it's
the guy in position number three. Before they even walk
into the room, they were like, yeah, yeah, it's the
guy in position number three. And the officer tells him, no,
you will have to come in and identify him so
(24:06):
we can put it on records. So they come in
and pick me in position number three. That's how they
got me. So this total sham identification procedure where all
the witnesses already and willing to help out the boys
in blue with whatever they need, plus Norris Holder, who's
incentivized to try to avoid the death penalty, even though
that ended up backfiring for him. This is essentially that's
(24:27):
all they had against you. All the other evidence, or
let's call it, but it is, the actual evidence told
a totally different story. They tested holders clothes for traces
of gasoline. I'm talking about the shoes, his sox, his pants,
his shirt, his T shirt. Everything he had on came
back positive for traces of gasoline. I gave you my clothes.
(24:49):
Not a single trace of gasoline was found on anything,
and they knew that as well as that you didn't
match any of the physical descriptions. You didn't have the
injury your right hand that was described the witnesses, an
injury that would have explained the blood left behind on
the strap to a bullet proof vest. It was tested
for both yours and the victim's DNA, both negative. Yet still,
(25:12):
some how, some way they chose to believe holder and
basically rigged the I D process. But they didn't stop
with just one fix. Your attorney could have found all
of this evidence. So they needed some more, right, you know,
they wanted me to confess to the crime, and I
told him I don't have anything to do with this crime.
So you maintain your innocence throughout your quote unquote I
(25:35):
did in that fixed lineup. But now when you're going
to trial, you received discovery. Next thing I know, I
read a report a few days later basically saying that
I confessed the crime. There's get this, not a single
piece of evidence to show that a confession ever took place. Well,
to me, it's a perfect example of a larger phenomenon
(25:58):
that we know well, which is that when there's this
pressure to close a case, they start making ship up
so they feel like they need a little bit more
on Billy Ell and so hey, he confessed. Well, where's
the evidence of this confession? Was it recorded? No? Where
their notes? Yes? Okay, then where are the notes? We
don't have them anymore. We lost them, we threw it away.
I mean, come on, that's just bullshit. Beginning middle to end.
(26:20):
They didn't even say they lost it, which would have Like,
you know, they said they threw it away. So I
mean they threw away the only evidence that they had
that this alleged confession ever took place. Yeah, I know,
I'm not um, I'm not really. Usually they say it
was lost in a flood. We've heard that in a
number of cases. Yeah, we had it, but it was
(26:41):
lost in a flood. In this case, they say, no,
we threw it away. They claimed that after the line off,
I demanded to speak to a Lieutenant Henderson because I
allegedly knew him from a previous case. The previous case
they mentioned is a friend of mine. He was murdered.
We were the victims in that case. And basically they
so they used my friend's murder to say that I
(27:03):
confessed to this black officer because I knew him and
I trusted him. Now, I kept telling my lawyer's I'm like,
I don't even know this guy. One thing I do
know is that when my friend was killed, there wasn't
one black officer that came to their climb scene that day.
So basically I'm telling my lawyer to look for this
police report so I can prove that they, you know,
(27:24):
manufactured this line. He never find it. I find this
myself a few years later, and come to find out
Henderson didn't even worked that day. So how can I
ask to confess to somebody that I never even met before?
But we were never able to fund them with that.
There was a lot of bullshit slinging at your trial
and a near total abdication of duty by your defense attorney,
(27:47):
who could have done so much more with what was
available to him to discredit this horrendous lide that perhaps
even the jury saw through, but they most definitely were
not provided with what they needed to see the real
truth in this case. I mean, let's face it, the
very least he could have done was present the negative
gasoline residue and DNA test results that would have had
(28:08):
a big impact on the jury. I mean, the fact
that he didn't even highlight this, didn't even make it
part of his case, part of his defense. A government
forensic expert even testified a trial saying that anyone who
had been in that van would have had gasoline present
on their clothing. Yet he just didn't seize that moment,
probably because he hadn't done his freaking homework or he
(28:29):
would have known to do it. I mean, this was
any first year law student would have known to do that.
And then there's all these different eyewitnessed discrepancies, right, and
as we've mentioned, there were four alleged eyewitness ideas, and
considering the dispatch tapes and interview recordings that were available
to him, more could have been done to impeach all
of them. Two of the eyewitnesses, after all, said on
(28:49):
the tapes that they were unable to identify the purpose.
On top of what they said and did at the lineup.
Then you've got these two park workers saying that they
gave the assailant a ride and identified Billy. But your
attorney would have researched and pointed out that that testimony
was contradicted by what they had said in their initial
statements via the dispatch tape. He didn't present one piece
of evidence he crossed examine these witnesses though that's it
(29:12):
didn't present not a single shred of all the evidence
I found that he had access to. He didn't even
look forward. So, not having done the preparation, his cross examination,
among other things, fell predictably short. His public defender did
an unconscionably poor job, didn't seek any confirmation of Billy's alibi,
(29:33):
just sort of let it go to me. I mean,
you think about somebody goes shopping in a very public place.
The first thing you're gonna do is have an investigator
to every single store, speak to people, get videos, trying
to find witnesses down right, I mean, there could have
been receipts from them, all security footage which instantly would
(29:54):
have cleared Billy, and he didn't do anything and didn't
make any attempt to obtain that. And now, of course
it's far too late. Of course, there was a security
guard that gave him a ride as well, Chris shagag
How do you not present him or look into when
he picked up his paycheck. There would have certainly been
a record that showed that this took place at the
(30:15):
time of the crime, which would have cleared Billy. But
none of this was done. Norris Holder identified you in
an effort to save himself and his actual partner in
crime from death row little good that ended up doing
for him anyway, though. And meanwhile, there's the first person
that he named, whose name was John. This is another
lead that could have and should have been developed, But
(30:36):
beyond the leaves that could have been developed, there was
everything that was already available that Billy has been able
to use to prove that the witnesses and the police
were lying, Which makes this all so unbelievable that this
ever even made it to trial. Yeah, all the evidence
that I'm presented on my behalf is in their own files,
So they knew that when they put in at this testimony,
(30:58):
when they opted at this story and claimed all these things,
they had their actual reports that shows something other than
what they were actually testified too, So it wasn't like
it was just a lot concocted about the officers. The
prosecutors basically allowed them to tell these lives because they
have these fowls with them when they put these people
(31:19):
on the stands. Yeah, you think that would make them
eligible for attempted murder? And perhaps your trial attorney could
be and should be considered for criminal negligence because without
the defense you needed, the jury was left with this
pack of lies and not much else. And before we
go to this trial's inevitable conclusion, I want to talk
about this really makes me sick. This electric stunt belt
(31:42):
that Billy was made to wear throughout the proceedings. What
in the actual funck is up with that? I don't
have words, Jason, I don't know. It's part of the dehumanizing,
degrading process that I think often happens to different degrees.
This is extreme to scares into viewing somebody as being
(32:02):
responsible and perhaps worthy, so to speak, of getting the
death penalty. My thing was, you know a lot of
times you want to stand up, you know, you want
to tell them, you know, object, or you want to,
you know, yell out, hey, you're on our innocent or
you want to yell out to the jury, or you
want to stand up and you know, kind of defend yourself,
especially when you're not being defended by your turn, you know.
But the thing about the Marshalls, they were like, look,
(32:23):
if you make any quick movements, we're gonna push the button.
Freaking twenty votes of fifty. I don't even remember how
many votes this thing is. I don't know, man. I
felt even more imprisoned because I couldn't say anything, I
couldn't do anything. They were essentially treating you like cattle,
and by the way, that's not even the way cattle
should be treated. Exactly do you have to realize I
(32:46):
wasn't called Billy Allen. I was called a murderous dog
by my prosecutor. Montier Rout. Was never allowed to basically
see the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth.
They got half of a story that was concocted by
officers that could have easily been disputed with evidence. And
so that's why I'm kind of hoping that this platform
allows my jury to hear this stuff and say, hey,
(33:08):
you know what, I think I made a mistake. Did
you have any hope that they were going to see
that at the time. No, Honestly, I told my mom,
and this is a stadd part about it, um, I
told my mom right before the verdict, I say, look,
I'm gonna get found guilty. And she was like, no,
don't say that. I said, look, mom, my lawyer isn't
gonna present a defense, so don't be surprised. I prepared
(33:30):
my mom emotionally and prepare my family to accept the
fact that I was going to get found guilty. I
accepted it, you know. And here's the thing. I wasn't
mad at my jury. I was more mad at my
defense attorney for him not defending me. And proving to
them that I was innocent. So I wasn't mad at then,
because if I were to sit on that jury, I
would have to find a person guilty. There was nothing
(33:52):
I could do. From the moment I got locked up.
That started my mission to prove my innocence. One because
when I went into court, you know, the victim's family
(34:13):
was there, and I saw people looking at me with
so much anger and so much pain and so much hate.
And I'm like, I got people hate me when they
have the wrong person. So I'm like, Okay, I'm gonna
make it my mission to prove that I'm innocent. And
you know, I made that same problems to my mom
and they saidly. That started my journey where I started
reading all the fouls. I read every single page, every
(34:37):
single sentence, every transcript, everything, and I started putting together
this puzzle. And when you see the story that they
tell at my trial, and you see all the evidence
that they had to to show something different, you start
to ask yourself, why would somebody go this far to
convict me for something they know I didn't do, where
their own evidence proves on this. So that has been
(35:00):
the burden that I've had to carry, you know, in
a sense, being innocent, being innocent as a burden man.
You know, every day you're fighting to live, you're fighting
to prove your innocence. You're fighting to convince judges to
do the right thing who won't do the right thing.
So your first appeal happened in two thousand and one,
and it was based on your Fifth Amendment right to
be indicted by a grand jury. Essentially, the effort sought
(35:23):
to get you off of death row. What's interesting is
that his sentence was mixed. So the first count, which
was bank robbery in which a killing occurs, he was
convicted and got life. On the second, which was using
a firearm during in relation to a federal crime of
violence which resulted in murder, he was convicted and got
the death penalty. Then that was appealed by Billy and
(35:46):
it was reversed so commuted to life. But then the
state appealed it to the Eighth Circuit and made back
to death and put him on death row. But I
think the fact that you had these different outcomes just
suggest us there's something fishy here. And also the fact
that the state appealed to get it back on death
row just shows how hell bent they are on having
(36:10):
the highest possible outcome and win for their case based
on what they decided to pursue, which was death penalty.
The best predictor of whether somebody is going to get
the death penalty is the race of the victim. So
having a white victim and black perpetrator, suddenly the odds
of prosecutors going for death penalty shoot up, as they
did in this case. While we're on the subject of
(36:30):
race in the community that was half white and half
flag literally split evenly, some are other the jury pool
ended up being ten white jurors, so the prosecutors found
all sorts of reasons to strike black people from the jury,
and on appeal in two thousand nine, Billy Allen's lawyers
(36:51):
saw it an evid entry hearing on the race issue,
noting that as of the twelfth of May two thousand
nine of the four hundred and sixty federal defendants against
whom the U. S. Attorney General had authorized federal prosecutors
to seek the death penalty, and this will shock no one,
but a hundred and nineteen of them were white, and
three hundred forty one we're from minority racial or ethnic groups,
(37:13):
of whom two hundred and thirty seven were black. So
I know today, I don't know the percentages, and is
probably about the same percent American population as black. And
yet somehow or other, over fifty of the time the
death penalty was used weaponized against people innocent or guilty
in the federal system, it was used against black people,
(37:37):
and then fully another hundred and four of those four
d and sixty total were people from other minority groups.
The direct quote from the government to this incredible statistical
evidence was quote, there are three kinds of lies, lies,
damn lies, and statistics. This is so nonsensical, it's like cartoonish,
(37:57):
but again deadly serious. And a judge, of course, ruled
that even if the court would agree with Mr Allen,
that these statistics amounted to a compelling indictment of the
federal governments using the death penalty against minoriti defendants, which
is basically him almost tacitly acknowledging that it did. He
goes on to say, the law is nevertheless clear that
the defendant cannot make out a selective prosecution claim under
the equal Protection Clause without evidence that there was discriminatory
(38:21):
motive to prosecute him in particular. Yeah. So that's the
lasting legacy of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions
in our lifetime, which is seven McCleskey versus Kemp, where
there was an overwhelming finding that still exists today and
statistical pattern that's indisputable that you have an overrepresentation of
(38:41):
people of color, particularly African Americans, who are sentenced to death.
It's undeniable, and the Supreme Court says, even though that
may be true, it will not help any individual African
American defendant sentenced to death unless they can show that
race was a bias in their particular case. And the
only way to show that it's basically getting a secret
(39:01):
recording of the prosecutor using the N word or somehow
something that would be just so egregious that would be
caught on tape, and that of course never comes to light.
But we know the overall pattern is there. We're letting
these biases run rampant, and the Supreme Court, unfortunately it's
given a green light to them and that continues today. Yeah.
And while this argument was less about Billy's case in
particular and more about the bent of the entire system
(39:23):
against black defendants, it was also one that became more
pressing at the time. There was a moratorium on executions
on the federal level that started in two thousand six,
but it was lifted in two thousand nineteen. The previous
occupant of the Oval Office spent the last gasp of
his power overseeing the first seventeen executions in a generation
(39:43):
on the federal level, sixteen by lethal injection and one
by elextecution. He's the same person who sought to bring
the death penalty back in New York State many years ago,
seeking the death penalty execution of several young men that
were wrongfully accused in New York City in Central Park
(40:04):
five from the Central Park five now known as the
Exonerated five. And the fact that Billy Allen bore witness
to these executions from his vantage point as one of
the long serving people on death row. In spite of
this remarkable body of exculpatory evidence, so Billy also raised
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for the reasons that
(40:25):
we've already laid out here, And of course the gasoline
residue and DNA test that truly do exculpate Billy. Let's
face it, I wrote a letter to my attorney, and
I framed it this way for a reason. I said, basically,
I about to file on appeal. I located DNA evidence,
I located gasoline results, I located all this evidence. Had
(40:47):
you known about these things before I went to trial?
Which you have presented these things on my behalf. And
he in his letter, in his response to me, he
specifically says, yes, he would have presented these things. Eddie
known about them before trial. Now here's the thing about it.
These things were in the in the records that he
handed over to me. There was no way in hill
(41:10):
that my trial was fair when I had an attorney
who specifically responded to a letter that had he knew
about these things, he would presented them. But yet he
had these things in his possession and never looked for Yeah,
we've seen some pretty grotesque examples of ineffective assistance of
counsel before, but this is a whole new level. But
(41:30):
yet somehow you were denied on that front as well.
All those denials and basically the rejection, it becomes a
burden on your shoulders, you know. So that has been
my burden for the last few years, you know, trying
to find all the evidence, and now that I found it,
I can't get people to listen. What what what does
(41:52):
it take for people to care? What does it take
for situations to change? And to me, I guess that
goes to the Georgetown project. The Georgetown project, I felt
like ignited a whole and a flame that has you know,
basically dimmed over the years. And that was my first introduction,
you know, to market Marty into the you know, the
(42:14):
students at Georgetown. And I asked, you know, I think
I asked Mark. I was like, well, what is your
process of picking people? And he was like, we go
through thousands and thousands of applications and only pick five
and yours stood out. And that meant everything to me.
And of course, you mean Georgetown's making an Axondore class
(42:36):
and remarkably, it's an undergraduate course, so you don't have
to be a law student, of forensic scientist or a
private investigator to look at some of the evidence and say,
wait a minute, how did this actually even go forward
to trial? How much less result than a conviction? And Marty,
you know, I watched the remarkable video that you and
your students put together with the making Axondo re class,
(42:59):
of course, and those it is in that class never
ceased to blow my mind with the amazing, amazing work
that they do semester after semester, class after class, and
of course their work has led to the actual freeing
of four people now, right, I mean Keith Washington, Valentino Dixon,
Eric Rittick, and now Orlando Trey Jones. Right, these kids
(43:21):
are doing absolutely phenomenal jobs. Some of them have even
come to work for us or have gone on to
law school working as paralegals on pro bono cases or
other nonprofits. They are truly incredible assets to this movement
for justice, and I'm so glad that you all landed
on Billy's case. Billy's case, to me, it was just
(43:41):
a multitude of things that went wrong. Every week that
we live, we see another man or woman become exonerated.
And what we also see is that something from the
original case went wrong, and it was either from the prosecutor.
To Lisa's point of view, there were some wrongdoing, forensic misconduct,
(44:04):
or incompetent lawyers. And in Billy's case, I think he
had a little bit of everything. You know, there was
someone else who was seen with Holder planning the bank robbery,
but that was just never pursued. There was an anonymous
tip that we don't know much more about. We just
know that the initials of the suspect are d M,
and obviously that's not Billy Allen DM, but we don't
(44:28):
know more and haven't been able to find out more
because it's been kept you under wraps. But that very
well could be the second person who Holder is protecting.
There's d M, there's JB as Billy mentioned, and a
whole lot of potential avenues if you could just access
these materials, but they've been fighting it every step of
the way. Now there was renewed efforts to test the
(44:51):
DANNI evidence against other potential suspects, which was the focus
of your filings. Not only is there this bloody strap
that excludes you and the victim that they refused to
run through CODIS or test against anyone else, there's also
the matter of a damp cloth that was found near
the fence where the second suspect escaped from Forest Park.
They tested it for d n A and it excluded you,
(45:12):
but have since sealed those results. I'm sure if they
had matched Billy, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
So how have those efforts gone thus far? Thanks stopped
every year from the first year I filed pro say,
my lawyers have filed, We've done everything we could to
get them to basically do all the testing, and my
judge basically is has refused every single request and the
(45:37):
prosecutor has opposed every prium of testing. In my case,
I can't get nothing tested. If we could test that
DNA against other possible suspects, who knows what would come
up in this case. But there's such a conspiracy, I mean,
that's not too strong a word to say that police
and prosecutors have in just sealing tight a conviction, even
(45:58):
if it's the wrong one, even if there's evidence that
proves that it was a mistake. My case is in
one of those where I'm just asking people to, you know,
take a chance on me. I'm asking people to believe
in my evidence and fight for me. So that's where
this is at right now. And Billy and his team
are fighting this on two fronts, trying to get access
to those biological materials as well as seeking a pardon
from President Biden. There's a petition among so many other
(46:22):
action steps linked in the bio, but go there now,
don't wait, go to the bio, click on it, signed
a petition, and in addition to all of that, there's
the making an exonery video. Please check all of it out.
We also encourage you to join Billy Supporters this November
and Washington, d C. For a rally. You can follow
Billy on Instagram. It's free Billy b I L l
(46:43):
I E Allen A l L E n so free
Billy Allen to receive updates. And now we go to
our closing work. First of all, I thank all of
you for joining us. I'm just gonna kick back in
my chair, turn my microphone off, and just listen for
any closing thoughts that you all have. Let's start with Mark,
then Marty, and then and then Billy over to you
to close this out. Thanks, Jason. Billy is an extraordinary person.
(47:05):
He is warm, he is caring, he is funny, he
is compassionate, he is dedicated, hard working, and he's incredibly talented.
And I got to see a lot of his artwork.
I actually have some of it now in my office
at Georgetown. But Billy is himself a beacon of light
(47:26):
and hope for this world. And what I really hope
more than anything is that the rest of the world
will discover the Billy that I've come to know and love,
and to recognize his talent and to appreciate his humanity,
and that hopefully he'll have that opportunity to connect with
the world as a freeman soon. There's just two things
I want people to understand. Well, is an epidemic. We
(47:53):
had one and seventy three exonerations that were recognized by
the National Registered Exhonery. We already have a hundred and
seventy three. Billy should be added to that list in
the near future. Our system can't function if we keep
(48:14):
convicting innocent people, and when there's evidence that somebody was
denied justice, we let them languish in prison day after
day after day. The day has to come where Billy
gets his day for justice. And I look forward to
the day where Mark, myself, our students can be waiting
(48:37):
outside of a prison somewhere like we have for four
other individuals to watch Billy walk out of prison. I'm
not just somebody who's saying they're innocing, you know. I'm
somebody who can show you that I'm in a sing
and to me, I feel like that should ignite people
to say, you know what, let me go to bad
for this guy. You know, I'll get, you know, letters
(48:59):
from people saying, hey, I'm praying for you, and I'm like, okay, well,
you know, I appreciate the prayers, but I need you
to speak out, you know, because you need those voices
in the high places to be able to hear that
you do care. And I feel like the more people
who show that they care, the more the system is
going to have to care and gonna have to give
us the testing that we're looking for and allow the
(49:19):
evidence to be the thing that motivates you to want
to go out there and fight for me to want
to go out there. And you know, every time you're
on social media, instead of posting about the new foods
you're eating, to be able to say, hey, you know what,
free Billy Allen period, you know, And and November will
be going to d C, you know, to basically do
a march on d C to present my case. And
(49:40):
I'm hoping that people start raising their voice and have
an influence when we do follow our petition of biding
to be able to make him say, you know what,
we're always asking another country to do right by their citizens.
We fail this guy right here. Let us do the
right thing now and return him to his family. And
I guess I'm I'm going to read you something that
I think it will help you kind of gather who
(50:02):
I am and my journey. And it's called long soldier.
To find myself engaged in the conflict that some have
deemed to be a battle between good and evil, and
it is I who they have labeled the ladder. This
battle is not one worth on the reward will be
heard thought about a stench of gun smoke charred flesh,
nor where bloodstains will take the same brown with footsteps
(50:25):
travel to the froe. No, this battle was one that
is rooted in the bloodlines and bloodshed that painted the
stripes red, and in the blue sky that weighed fifty stars,
which are a time saluted or drape over the caskets
of fallen heroes. Now, because I know that there are
those who like to take one's word out of context
with malicious intent, No, there's no way in my claiming
(50:46):
the role of hero. I'm just one who has been
wrathfully imprisoned, and who wishes defend myself against those who
have brought this battle to my doorsteps. And in doing so,
I planned to defend myself against the lies ms represent
Patian in advances to take my life in the pretense
of justice. Now, after I expose this injustice, if you
(51:07):
then deem my actions to be that of a hero,
know that it is I who will not make such
a claim. This battle will take place on what many
have deemed to be sacred ground, or what some have
said to be the foundation of our society, without which
will cause chaos and leave in its path destruction. And
(51:27):
that battleground is the constitutionists amendments to oversee this battle
and to ensure that it's conducted without a hint of bias, favoritism,
nor that it will be tainted with the temptation of
power or financial gain. Is Lady Justice yet, to my disbelief,
though she is supposed to stand out front of the
symbol of fundamental fairness, I could have sworn that I
(51:49):
saw her trip of scale of justice and favor of
my foes, who already have superior power, resources, and who
attack without malicious forethought. Though I know that the other again.
It's me. I do not waiver on my stands, and
I hold tight to the hilt of my sword of
truth and evidence, where my evidence is the material which
it has been forced me. I closed my eyes, say
(52:12):
a prayer, and I can only hope that God here.
My please is I throw stones at Goliath, and it
is I who am the long soldier. Thank you for
listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our production
team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburn and Kevin Wardis, with research
(52:35):
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 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
(52:56):
at It's Jason flom Rnful Conviction is the production of
Lava a Good Podcast in association with Signal Company Number
one h
On March seventeenth, two armed and masked men robbed a
bank in Saint Louis, Missouri, and fatally shot a security
guard named Richard Heflin in the process. As part of
their plan to destroy evidence and evade captured, they had
pre soaked the getaway van with gasoline, but before they
got to switch from the van to a second getaway vehicle,
(00:24):
the van caught fire. One assailant, Norris Holder, was arrested
at the scene, but the second assailant escaped and was
described as a black man about five nine, with singed
hair and an injured right hand. Norris Holder told investigators
that the escape b was named John, but later changed
that name to Bill. Police arrested an acquaintance of Holders
(00:47):
named Billy Allen. Other than being black, Billy did not
match the initial descriptions, but curiously was somehow identified by
four witnesses, including Holder. Imagine being selected for this jury
and hearing investigators testify about an alleged confession, as well
as that four witnesses, including the only other assailant, identified
(01:08):
Billy Allen. You might feel pretty confident in your verdict,
Yet here we are, almost a quarter century later to
publicly reveal for the very first time, case breaking exculpatory
evidence from the state's own files that was ignored by
both the prosecution and the defense. Did I mentioned they
send them to death? This is wrongful Conviction. Welcome back
(01:44):
to Wrongful Conviction. Today we're going to do something I
don't think we've ever done before, which is that we're
covering a federal death penalty case. And we're honored. I'm
honored to have Professor Mark Howard, leader of the Making
an Exono Reprogram at Georgetown. So Mark, welcome back to
(02:05):
Wrongful Conviction. Great to be back. Jason, thanks, And with
Mark is his distinguished co professor who has also been
on the podcast before more than once for the right
and the wrong reasons. Marty tank Cliff was wrongfully convicted
himself and served seventeen years when Marty was wrong for
(02:27):
convicted of murdering his parents, and of course he's been
exonerated and we become great friends. And he also is
Mark's childhood friend and the co professor now at Georgetown
of the Making an Exono re Program. So Marty Tankliffe Esquire,
Welcome to Wrongful Conviction. You know the fact that we're
(02:51):
all here today is a beautiful thing, but it's also
an extremely troubling thing because we're here today to talk
about Billy Allen, who has been on death row in
the federal system for a quarter of a century. However,
since he was nineteen years old. I appreciate you, you you know,
you all taking an interest in my story and wanted
(03:12):
to tell it. Well, Billy, yours is a story that
definitely needs to be told, so welcome to the show.
But before we get into all the details, I'd love
to hear about your life before this horrible scenario took place.
You know, I grew up in a house with three
sisters on the north side of St. Louis, which was,
I guess you can save, flooded with drugs, a lot
(03:32):
of violence and stuff like that. Even though I lived
in the under privileged neighborhood, I went to school in
a privileged neighborhood. Platon, Missouri is considered probably one of
the wealthiest places in Missouri. You know, no matter if
I go out to the play school district and I'm
around rich people, I still have to deal with my surroundings.
When I come home. You're like, where do I fit
(03:54):
in in things? It sounds like you had a foothold
in these two sort of opposit worlds of halves and
have nots, which sounds like it could be pretty confusing.
So after you graduated high school and leading up to
March of ninety seven, what were you up to, to
be honest with people, You know, I was hustling at
the time. You know, I wasn't a big drug dealer
or anything like that. I was just hustling at the time.
But at the same time, I was trying to find
(04:17):
my way at the time, and that's why I met
the you know, the girl I ended up with who
I was going to move in with, you know, because
basically I was going to get a job, stop selling
drugs and just I guess you can say starting my
growth not only for her, but she had a daughter,
so I was trying to be better for all of them.
So you're at a crossroads, and it sounds like you
were choosing a more promising path. But your connection to
(04:38):
the old neighborhood happened to bring you into contact with
one of the actual bank robbers in this case, Norris Holder.
You had met him through job corps once and then
had a chance encounter with him years later. Apparently you
had sold him some weed once or vice versa, and
it was this chance meeting and short lived hang out
just just a few days before Holder committed this crime
(04:59):
that even put you into the realm of possibilities. I mean,
how well did you even know this older guy? Why
didn't know Holder? Per se? I guess you can say
the way they tried to, you know, sell the story
to my jury. When I was at the club one
day order I knew one of his friends he was with,
you know, just from my neighborhood, and so, you know,
we end up just talking. So he's like, hey, look,
(05:20):
you know, let's hook up one day, just being cordial
with people. Plus, like I said, I knew the guy
he was with. Then a few days, you know later,
I get a call from him, you know, basically like
hey man, you know, I'm gonna go to the mall
and you know, I got some weed, and I'm like, okay,
well I'm I'm in now. But for them to make
it seem like we were friends, we were plot in
this crime or anything like that, how can you say
(05:41):
that that I would involve myself in a you know,
in a crime of this magnitude with somebody I didn't
even know, right, it doesn't make a whole hell of
a lot of sense until you consider the investigators in
this case, one of whom Joseph Nickerson is on the St.
Louis d a's do not testify list, which is, by
the way, exactly what it sounds like. He's not allowed
to testify in cases because he lies so much. He's
(06:04):
the detective, by the way, from another egregious wrongful conviction
case out of St. Louis, Lamar Johnson, who is still
awaiting justice. And Lamar also did some drug dealing, as
did Billy, so they were typical targets for this Nickerson guy.
In Lamar's case, Nickerson fabricated a narrative from alleged witness statements,
(06:24):
but these witnesses later denied saying any of the things
Nickerson had attributed to them, So you know, just sat
around just making ship up. He perjured himself to make
Lamar's culpability even plausible. And then there's a cash incentivized
eyewitness who was convinced by investigators that the massed gunman
in this case was Lamar Johnson, so he went along
(06:46):
with the idea which you'll see in a bit, sounds
eerily similar to what happened in this case. Now, I
believe his partner, a guy named Carol, is actually doing
time now for assaulting someone who was in custody. So
it's patterns like these that give a helpful context to
what happened in Billie's case. So let's get to that
(07:07):
the morning of March seventeenth. Where were you actually that
that faithful morning. I had left the house early that morning,
like at eight o'clock in the morning. They claimed that
I had called holder and told them let's get ready
for the crime and all this stuff from the house.
But how can I call you from the household. I'm
already gone, you know. So I get to the mall
early in the morning, and my first stop is to
(07:29):
the hat zone. So I went to foot locker, and
I went to another story foot quarters, and right after that,
I went to Famous in Bar, which is a clothing store.
I went to this tuxedo place, and so as I'm chopping, basically,
I see Christagogue. Now Christagogue is a security guard who
was after the mall to pick up his paycheck. He
was like, Hey, I'm just going to pick up my checking,
(07:49):
and I planned to go to another mall to do
some shopping and stuff like that. So I'm like, well,
can I ride with you? I was like, look, I
just got to drop a few items off to a
girl I was dating, and so he was like okay.
So he went to pick up his chick and we
left them all and I dropped off a few items
for her baby and basically gave us some money because
we were moving in together, and left. So you've been
(08:13):
out of the house since eight am. At the mall
where you visited, several stores, made several points of contact,
and I'm talking about people who were disinterested alibi witnesses
to people who didn't know you. And there was also
surveillance footage. So all the great alibi evidence of places
you away from the scene at the time of the crime,
none of it was investigated or later presented on your behalf.
(08:34):
So while you were shopping across town, there was this
bank robbery going on at the Lindelle Bank and Trust,
which is Caddy corner from this huge park in St.
Louis that houses the St. Louis Zoo, several museums, landmarks,
and golf course, skating rink, and this area is known
as far As Park. Again. This is March seven, around
five am, when two masked and armed men busted down
(08:57):
the door and told everybody to get on the ground.
There were two bank robbers who stole fifty thou dollars
and a security guard named Richard Heflin was killed in
the process of that robbery. And then the two men
left the scene in a getaway van, drove to Forest
Park and they had a plan apparently to set the
(09:17):
van on fire and then get away in a different
vehicle that they planted there. But the van had actually
been pre soaked in gasoline and exploded and caught on
fire inside the park before sort of the full extent
of their plan and getaway plan could work. And so
the driver, a guy named Norris Holder, was still on
(09:39):
fire himself and was pulled out of the car, and
then the second suspect ran away, so Holder was in
custody almost immediately. And I've listened to the dispatch tapes
from that morning. It sounds pretty chaotic, but ultimately it
sounds like a team of folks trying to bring the
bank robbers and murderers of this bank security guard to justice.
(10:00):
And this is so important. Every one of them described
a blackmail about five eight to five ten, wearing gray
sweats and a blue and red colored jacket, and they
said he had singed hair understandably since the pan was
on fire, and an injured right hand. They never described
the person with a beard. And I had a beard
at the time, or if I was the person who
walked up to you and asked you for directions, wouldn't
(10:24):
that be one of the most descriptive things you can
point out about an individual. Had it actually been you,
they would have mentioned a beard, right, That's a that's
a pretty big detail for everybody to leave out. But
they did not say that. They also would have said
over six two instead of around five nine. Big difference there.
Six two is tall five nine. Most people would say
(10:46):
a short for a man. And when you were eventually
picked up, your right hand was not injured and your
hair was not burned in any way. So if you
listen to all of the dispatch tapes as we did,
the story remains the same. In the immediate aftermath, the
assailant came over a hill from the direction of the
burning van. He went toward the fence line and allegedly
told them that his van caught fire and he needed
(11:08):
to get to the metro link. Both park workers, you know,
when they first came forward, they claimed that all they
did was gave him directions to the metro link. The
thing about it is when we get the trial, both
park workers changed their story. They claimed they gave the
person a ride outside of the park. Do you know
I have their actual recordings or police officer is standing
(11:28):
right with them calling into dispatch the Warnestree Division supervisor
that forestry workers all the second subject he was running
east from the burning van by a construction trailer. This
about Jordie George Easter the heading right over here by
the fence line. There's a hole in the sounds floor
with who had adaptly win He tugh with them and
(11:54):
metro LINKA and afore we got the information. You don't
really want that. Everybody's what you happened after we had it.
Loved to the big robber stud in guard that the
stubdic would life staying call and understood the new metro
Lake that I have it on a plate punds and
(12:17):
have on a multi colors y. The park workers just
told them that they gave the person directions right, These
park workers along with everyone else at this point, we're
just feeding in whatever they could to help nab this guy,
no other agenda. They pointed him in the right direction
and he left got away whatever through a hole in defense. Importantly,
(12:37):
not in someone's car. Giving this assailant a ride outside
the park would really make for a much more credible
I D. Which is why we believe this story changed
by the time of trial. But back to the immediate aftermath. Ultimately,
the effort to close it on the second assailant was unsuccessful,
and they were hoping to get something out of Holder. Yeah,
when Holder was arrested, he said the person wouldn't was
(13:00):
m guy named John. Then they with the defining and say, hey, look,
whoever is the least culpable is who might get leniency
in this case. So basically you need to provide us
you know where the story you know, or something that
can help us out or help you out. So all
of a sudden, he switches from John and he mentioned
my name. So now he's given them something concrete, a
(13:20):
full name, and not just a name that feels chosen
at random. That's the thing. He didn't even know my
last name he just said, Bill, Just Bill. That's it.
I'll show you where Bill lives. Now. The thing about
the John's situation is this. Throughout the reports, does a
person named JB who was connected to Holder? We think
JB is his cousin. I can't, you know, I don't
(13:40):
want to falsely accuse anybody or anything like that, you know,
but that's this is what the reports are basically saying.
It's my belief that Holder is using me as escape
go to protect somebody who was close to So now
you had no idea what was coming your way. Did
you even know that this bank robbery had taken place? Well,
I did see the crimes. You go on the news
(14:01):
when they arrested Holder, and so I'm like, okay, well,
you know, I'm not involving, so it doesn't really draw
my attention to it. Next thing, I know, I'm at
the apartment, you know, with the girl I was living
with at the time, and I hear some banging on
the door and don't know what the hell is going
on or anything like that. FBI and police officers come
to my door. They arrest me, and the first thing
(14:23):
I tell them I had the clothes and everything that
I had bought on the couch, and I told the officers, look,
you're arresting the wrong person. Here are all the items.
The receipts are still in the back, the clothes are
still in the back, and I'm like, look, just go
to the mall and ask to see the surveillance footage
and basically you'll see that I have an alibi at
(14:44):
the time to crime took place. You know, you can't
beat a video, and so they were basically just yessing
me off. And so they took me down to the
homicide office, and that's when I kept repeating the same
story and that they can talk to Christian gag who
was a security guard at the time, to find out
whether or not I was at the mall. Yeah, But unfortunately,
they weren't interested in solving the case. They were interested
(15:05):
in fixing the facts to match the name that they
got from Norris Holder. So I mean, I'm using facts
very loosely there. So you were arrested around two am.
What happened next When I was in the homicide office,
it's two officers that came and talked to me, Thomas
Carroll and Joseph Nickerson. Now I told both officers I'm like, look,
(15:28):
you all can go to the mall, you all can
get the recordings, and you all can see that I
have an alibi. Now, they claimed they went to the mall,
yet for some reason, there's no surveillance footage that can
be found. I believe they have this footage because I believe,
and here's the thing. I reported about this before the
Lamar Johnson case. I reported that they were probably withholding
(15:49):
this evidence, and come to find out years later they
withhold recordings of Lamar Johnson case. So it's like a
pattern down there dealing with these officers, a pattern that
is unfortunately valent in St. Louis, and let's face it,
around this whole country as our alleged false confessions or
fabricated statements, which we'll get into in a bit. But first,
what happened in that interrogation room when I first came
(16:12):
in and as they reported their reports, you know, like
I told him, look, I didn't have anything to do
with the crime. So this is when you know both
of them, you know, officers were like, okay, well if
you didn't commit this crime and give us your DNA.
I'm like, sure, shoot, I ain't gonnaunerdo what did you
can have it? When I was in prison, I used
to always ask guys who would say they're innocent. One
(16:32):
of the first person I said, would you be want
to do with DNA test? And almost ninety nine point
nine percent of the people who were really innocent said,
I will do a DNA test. I will do any
forensic tests that I can do to prove my innocence.
And Billy falls into the category who said I want
to do anything and everything possible. Next thing they do,
(16:56):
they'd sell the van you know that would use in
the crime was soaked in gasoline. You know, so if
you don't have any gasoline on your clothes, you know,
that can help prove that you weren't there. So I'm like, okay,
we're here, you can have all of my clothes. So
I willingly gave him my DNA and my clothes. I
mean the fact that this entire case was covered in gasoline,
so to speak, and Billy has none on him. They
(17:18):
tested the co defendant. His clothes were sure enough, every
inch of them had gasoline residue on him. Billy had
a credible alibi. DNA test results came back negative. They
left open the question whose DNA is it and that
hasn't been pursued, hasn't been shown, but it's certainly not Billy's.
So take take us back there, Billy to the interrogation
(17:39):
and I d process. Next thing I know, FBI agent
comes into the room. But agent Jan Hartman, you know,
she started reading my rights. This is the first time
I was ever read my right. So I'm like, well, look,
I want a lawyer from the court period. I'm done talking.
I don't have anything to say. You all are gonna
believe me. So, according to her trial testimony, she never
(17:59):
told on anybody about my request for an attorney. So
one officer comes in, he conducted the lineup. I'm like, well, look,
you know where's my attorney at And he was like,
you know, you don't need an attorney for this. I'm like,
but I asked for one. He's like, well, you can
get one afterwards. So they took me to the lineup.
And now here's the crazy part about this lineup. I'm
the tallest person in their day. I'm line up. They
(18:21):
have nobody close to six two in this lineup, Nobody
who looks like me in this lineup. And to make
matters worse, he puts me in position number three. I
am the tallest person in the thing, and I'm beside
the two shortest people inside there. So basically you're giving
people the person you want them to pick. Not only
is it suggestive, but it's also telling about the description
(18:44):
they had exactly five eight, five ten. And like our
line up, a lot of people when they envision lineup,
they envision you behind the glass and the witnesses are
outside of the thing. The St. Louis if they have
a piece of cloth, it's like a black piece of
cloth right there, so you can see. You can actually
see the damned person who's basically identifying you, you know,
and you can hear him. And this is just how
(19:06):
hilarious my lineup was. This lady I'll mcgillion. You know,
they were telling her, well, can you identify the person
you saw? She picks the person in position number two. Now,
if you look at this person in my line up photo,
this dude has a freaking full beard. He looks nothing
like me, and he fits the description that she gave
(19:27):
of the person she saw at the crime. So now
I hear this guy he comes in and say, hey,
look we think it's the guy in position number three.
Can we bring him forward and you look at him?
She was like are you sure? You're like yeah, So
they tell the number two guys go back, and they
take me out of the lineup, and she was like, yeah,
I think you might be right. Wow. If you go
(19:49):
to my transcripts, she will tell you she picked the
guy in position number two. So why would you pick
somebody five, a full beard, full head of hair, and
yet all of a sudden you switch your account to
somebody six to small beard at the time. So come
to find out, you know, in the dispatch tape, she
actually is reporting that she couldn't even describe the person
(20:11):
she saw. This is on their own recordings. My attorney
didn't find it. It was never presented on my defense
or anything. But yet this woman was allowed to pick
somebody in position number two who was clearly different than
I was, and then basically come to court changed her story,
claimed that she never told the officers that. And then
we have the recordings to prove that the prosecutors presented
(20:31):
false testimony. And this wasn't the only time the prosecutors
not only put on false testimony in this case, nor
was it the last time that one of the quote
unquote eyewitnesses picked someone out when they had no business
doing so, because they admitted not having seen the assailant,
like the guy who had followed the van from the
bank to the park, William Green. William Green walked in
(20:53):
the room. Like I said, you can clearly hear what
the person is telling them, you know, talking to the witnesses.
He comes in the door and he tells them, look,
I can't identify anybody. You know what the officer tells him,
just pick anybody, And that's exactly what he does. He
just he just get a random pick. He never picked me.
But why would you even take that chance? The same
(21:15):
reason we have to remind people that black lives matter,
as well as why that statement has ever met with
any pushback. Exactly, I'm no for a fact, my life
didn't matter. When you're going through that, when you're sitting
in this situation that you're hearing these things going on,
you're like, man, what did I do to deserve this?
Why are these people doing what they're doing when basically
(21:37):
everything shows that they're lying. This episode is underwritten by
A I G, a leading global insurance company. A I
(21:57):
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 provides free legal services and other support to underrepresented
(22:19):
communities and individuals. So you have two witnesses who admitted
in front of you that their identifications were entirely invalid.
And then you have these two park workers who said
that they gave the assailant a ride and that the
(22:39):
assailant was not wearing a mask, so they got a
good look. As we already pointed out, the dispatch tapes
proved that these two accounts were also lies. They were
standing there with the police saying that they had pointed
the assailant towards the metrolink, But my attorney never presented
this recording. I found the recorder a couple of years ago,
(23:00):
so I just found out about them because I kept
telling everybody, I'm like, look, I know these guys in
line they would be you know. Everybody was like well
we you know, you have to prove it. So I knew,
um they had turned over these dispatched tape transcripts, but
they only gave me six pages. Do you know the
actual recording is over an hour and a half long.
My producer transcribed these tapes. The ninety minutes segment you're
(23:22):
talking about comes out to thirty nine pages, and that's
what the artificial intelligence transcriber missing a lot of the
actual words. So basically, they withheld the fact that they
knew that both park workers were lying that or they
were counting on your attorney not doing his job. So
we already heard about al mcgillian and William Green. So
what happened when these park workers walked into the lineup room?
(23:44):
When William Green didn't pick me out? The officer walked,
you know, William Green out, and you see the two
park workers. I literally when they opened the door, you
can see the two park workers standard side by side,
and they were like, look, you know, we think it's
the guy in position number three. Before they even walk
into the room, they were like, yeah, yeah, it's the
guy in position number three. And the officer tells him, no,
you will have to come in and identify him so
(24:06):
we can put it on records. So they come in
and pick me in position number three. That's how they
got me. So this total sham identification procedure where all
the witnesses already and willing to help out the boys
in blue with whatever they need, plus Norris Holder, who's
incentivized to try to avoid the death penalty, even though
that ended up backfiring for him. This is essentially that's
(24:27):
all they had against you. All the other evidence, or
let's call it, but it is, the actual evidence told
a totally different story. They tested holders clothes for traces
of gasoline. I'm talking about the shoes, his sox, his pants,
his shirt, his T shirt. Everything he had on came
back positive for traces of gasoline. I gave you my clothes.
(24:49):
Not a single trace of gasoline was found on anything,
and they knew that as well as that you didn't
match any of the physical descriptions. You didn't have the
injury your right hand that was described the witnesses, an
injury that would have explained the blood left behind on
the strap to a bullet proof vest. It was tested
for both yours and the victim's DNA, both negative. Yet still,
(25:12):
some how, some way they chose to believe holder and
basically rigged the I D process. But they didn't stop
with just one fix. Your attorney could have found all
of this evidence. So they needed some more, right, you know,
they wanted me to confess to the crime, and I
told him I don't have anything to do with this crime.
So you maintain your innocence throughout your quote unquote I
(25:35):
did in that fixed lineup. But now when you're going
to trial, you received discovery. Next thing I know, I
read a report a few days later basically saying that
I confessed the crime. There's get this, not a single
piece of evidence to show that a confession ever took place. Well,
to me, it's a perfect example of a larger phenomenon
(25:58):
that we know well, which is that when there's this
pressure to close a case, they start making ship up
so they feel like they need a little bit more
on Billy Ell and so hey, he confessed. Well, where's
the evidence of this confession? Was it recorded? No? Where
their notes? Yes? Okay, then where are the notes? We
don't have them anymore. We lost them, we threw it away.
I mean, come on, that's just bullshit. Beginning middle to end.
(26:20):
They didn't even say they lost it, which would have Like,
you know, they said they threw it away. So I
mean they threw away the only evidence that they had
that this alleged confession ever took place. Yeah, I know,
I'm not um, I'm not really. Usually they say it
was lost in a flood. We've heard that in a
number of cases. Yeah, we had it, but it was
(26:41):
lost in a flood. In this case, they say, no,
we threw it away. They claimed that after the line off,
I demanded to speak to a Lieutenant Henderson because I
allegedly knew him from a previous case. The previous case
they mentioned is a friend of mine. He was murdered.
We were the victims in that case. And basically they
so they used my friend's murder to say that I
(27:03):
confessed to this black officer because I knew him and
I trusted him. Now, I kept telling my lawyer's I'm like,
I don't even know this guy. One thing I do
know is that when my friend was killed, there wasn't
one black officer that came to their climb scene that day.
So basically I'm telling my lawyer to look for this
police report so I can prove that they, you know,
(27:24):
manufactured this line. He never find it. I find this
myself a few years later, and come to find out
Henderson didn't even worked that day. So how can I
ask to confess to somebody that I never even met before?
But we were never able to fund them with that.
There was a lot of bullshit slinging at your trial
and a near total abdication of duty by your defense attorney,
(27:47):
who could have done so much more with what was
available to him to discredit this horrendous lide that perhaps
even the jury saw through, but they most definitely were
not provided with what they needed to see the real
truth in this case. I mean, let's face it, the
very least he could have done was present the negative
gasoline residue and DNA test results that would have had
(28:08):
a big impact on the jury. I mean, the fact
that he didn't even highlight this, didn't even make it
part of his case, part of his defense. A government
forensic expert even testified a trial saying that anyone who
had been in that van would have had gasoline present
on their clothing. Yet he just didn't seize that moment,
probably because he hadn't done his freaking homework or he
(28:29):
would have known to do it. I mean, this was
any first year law student would have known to do that.
And then there's all these different eyewitnessed discrepancies, right, and
as we've mentioned, there were four alleged eyewitness ideas, and
considering the dispatch tapes and interview recordings that were available
to him, more could have been done to impeach all
of them. Two of the eyewitnesses, after all, said on
(28:49):
the tapes that they were unable to identify the purpose.
On top of what they said and did at the lineup.
Then you've got these two park workers saying that they
gave the assailant a ride and identified Billy. But your
attorney would have researched and pointed out that that testimony
was contradicted by what they had said in their initial
statements via the dispatch tape. He didn't present one piece
of evidence he crossed examine these witnesses though that's it
(29:12):
didn't present not a single shred of all the evidence
I found that he had access to. He didn't even
look forward. So, not having done the preparation, his cross examination,
among other things, fell predictably short. His public defender did
an unconscionably poor job, didn't seek any confirmation of Billy's alibi,
(29:33):
just sort of let it go to me. I mean,
you think about somebody goes shopping in a very public place.
The first thing you're gonna do is have an investigator
to every single store, speak to people, get videos, trying
to find witnesses down right, I mean, there could have
been receipts from them, all security footage which instantly would
(29:54):
have cleared Billy, and he didn't do anything and didn't
make any attempt to obtain that. And now, of course
it's far too late. Of course, there was a security
guard that gave him a ride as well, Chris shagag
How do you not present him or look into when
he picked up his paycheck. There would have certainly been
a record that showed that this took place at the
(30:15):
time of the crime, which would have cleared Billy. But
none of this was done. Norris Holder identified you in
an effort to save himself and his actual partner in
crime from death row little good that ended up doing
for him anyway, though. And meanwhile, there's the first person
that he named, whose name was John. This is another
lead that could have and should have been developed, But
(30:36):
beyond the leaves that could have been developed, there was
everything that was already available that Billy has been able
to use to prove that the witnesses and the police
were lying, Which makes this all so unbelievable that this
ever even made it to trial. Yeah, all the evidence
that I'm presented on my behalf is in their own files,
So they knew that when they put in at this testimony,
(30:58):
when they opted at this story and claimed all these things,
they had their actual reports that shows something other than
what they were actually testified too, So it wasn't like
it was just a lot concocted about the officers. The
prosecutors basically allowed them to tell these lives because they
have these fowls with them when they put these people
(31:19):
on the stands. Yeah, you think that would make them
eligible for attempted murder? And perhaps your trial attorney could
be and should be considered for criminal negligence because without
the defense you needed, the jury was left with this
pack of lies and not much else. And before we
go to this trial's inevitable conclusion, I want to talk
about this really makes me sick. This electric stunt belt
(31:42):
that Billy was made to wear throughout the proceedings. What
in the actual funck is up with that? I don't
have words, Jason, I don't know. It's part of the dehumanizing,
degrading process that I think often happens to different degrees.
This is extreme to scares into viewing somebody as being
(32:02):
responsible and perhaps worthy, so to speak, of getting the
death penalty. My thing was, you know a lot of
times you want to stand up, you know, you want
to tell them, you know, object, or you want to,
you know, yell out, hey, you're on our innocent or
you want to yell out to the jury, or you
want to stand up and you know, kind of defend yourself,
especially when you're not being defended by your turn, you know.
But the thing about the Marshalls, they were like, look,
(32:23):
if you make any quick movements, we're gonna push the button.
Freaking twenty votes of fifty. I don't even remember how
many votes this thing is. I don't know, man. I
felt even more imprisoned because I couldn't say anything, I
couldn't do anything. They were essentially treating you like cattle,
and by the way, that's not even the way cattle
should be treated. Exactly do you have to realize I
(32:46):
wasn't called Billy Allen. I was called a murderous dog
by my prosecutor. Montier Rout. Was never allowed to basically
see the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth.
They got half of a story that was concocted by
officers that could have easily been disputed with evidence. And
so that's why I'm kind of hoping that this platform
allows my jury to hear this stuff and say, hey,
(33:08):
you know what, I think I made a mistake. Did
you have any hope that they were going to see
that at the time. No, Honestly, I told my mom,
and this is a stadd part about it, um, I
told my mom right before the verdict, I say, look,
I'm gonna get found guilty. And she was like, no,
don't say that. I said, look, mom, my lawyer isn't
gonna present a defense, so don't be surprised. I prepared
(33:30):
my mom emotionally and prepare my family to accept the
fact that I was going to get found guilty. I
accepted it, you know. And here's the thing. I wasn't
mad at my jury. I was more mad at my
defense attorney for him not defending me. And proving to
them that I was innocent. So I wasn't mad at then,
because if I were to sit on that jury, I
would have to find a person guilty. There was nothing
(33:52):
I could do. From the moment I got locked up.
That started my mission to prove my innocence. One because
when I went into court, you know, the victim's family
(34:13):
was there, and I saw people looking at me with
so much anger and so much pain and so much hate.
And I'm like, I got people hate me when they
have the wrong person. So I'm like, Okay, I'm gonna
make it my mission to prove that I'm innocent. And
you know, I made that same problems to my mom
and they saidly. That started my journey where I started
reading all the fouls. I read every single page, every
(34:37):
single sentence, every transcript, everything, and I started putting together
this puzzle. And when you see the story that they
tell at my trial, and you see all the evidence
that they had to to show something different, you start
to ask yourself, why would somebody go this far to
convict me for something they know I didn't do, where
their own evidence proves on this. So that has been
(35:00):
the burden that I've had to carry, you know, in
a sense, being innocent, being innocent as a burden man.
You know, every day you're fighting to live, you're fighting
to prove your innocence. You're fighting to convince judges to
do the right thing who won't do the right thing.
So your first appeal happened in two thousand and one,
and it was based on your Fifth Amendment right to
be indicted by a grand jury. Essentially, the effort sought
(35:23):
to get you off of death row. What's interesting is
that his sentence was mixed. So the first count, which
was bank robbery in which a killing occurs, he was
convicted and got life. On the second, which was using
a firearm during in relation to a federal crime of
violence which resulted in murder, he was convicted and got
the death penalty. Then that was appealed by Billy and
(35:46):
it was reversed so commuted to life. But then the
state appealed it to the Eighth Circuit and made back
to death and put him on death row. But I
think the fact that you had these different outcomes just
suggest us there's something fishy here. And also the fact
that the state appealed to get it back on death
row just shows how hell bent they are on having
(36:10):
the highest possible outcome and win for their case based
on what they decided to pursue, which was death penalty.
The best predictor of whether somebody is going to get
the death penalty is the race of the victim. So
having a white victim and black perpetrator, suddenly the odds
of prosecutors going for death penalty shoot up, as they
did in this case. While we're on the subject of
(36:30):
race in the community that was half white and half
flag literally split evenly, some are other the jury pool
ended up being ten white jurors, so the prosecutors found
all sorts of reasons to strike black people from the jury,
and on appeal in two thousand nine, Billy Allen's lawyers
(36:51):
saw it an evid entry hearing on the race issue,
noting that as of the twelfth of May two thousand
nine of the four hundred and sixty federal defendants against
whom the U. S. Attorney General had authorized federal prosecutors
to seek the death penalty, and this will shock no one,
but a hundred and nineteen of them were white, and
three hundred forty one we're from minority racial or ethnic groups,
(37:13):
of whom two hundred and thirty seven were black. So
I know today, I don't know the percentages, and is
probably about the same percent American population as black. And
yet somehow or other, over fifty of the time the
death penalty was used weaponized against people innocent or guilty
in the federal system, it was used against black people,
(37:37):
and then fully another hundred and four of those four
d and sixty total were people from other minority groups.
The direct quote from the government to this incredible statistical
evidence was quote, there are three kinds of lies, lies,
damn lies, and statistics. This is so nonsensical, it's like cartoonish,
(37:57):
but again deadly serious. And a judge, of course, ruled
that even if the court would agree with Mr Allen,
that these statistics amounted to a compelling indictment of the
federal governments using the death penalty against minoriti defendants, which
is basically him almost tacitly acknowledging that it did. He
goes on to say, the law is nevertheless clear that
the defendant cannot make out a selective prosecution claim under
the equal Protection Clause without evidence that there was discriminatory
(38:21):
motive to prosecute him in particular. Yeah. So that's the
lasting legacy of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions
in our lifetime, which is seven McCleskey versus Kemp, where
there was an overwhelming finding that still exists today and
statistical pattern that's indisputable that you have an overrepresentation of
(38:41):
people of color, particularly African Americans, who are sentenced to death.
It's undeniable, and the Supreme Court says, even though that
may be true, it will not help any individual African
American defendant sentenced to death unless they can show that
race was a bias in their particular case. And the
only way to show that it's basically getting a secret
(39:01):
recording of the prosecutor using the N word or somehow
something that would be just so egregious that would be
caught on tape, and that of course never comes to light.
But we know the overall pattern is there. We're letting
these biases run rampant, and the Supreme Court, unfortunately it's
given a green light to them and that continues today. Yeah.
And while this argument was less about Billy's case in
particular and more about the bent of the entire system
(39:23):
against black defendants, it was also one that became more
pressing at the time. There was a moratorium on executions
on the federal level that started in two thousand six,
but it was lifted in two thousand nineteen. The previous
occupant of the Oval Office spent the last gasp of
his power overseeing the first seventeen executions in a generation
(39:43):
on the federal level, sixteen by lethal injection and one
by elextecution. He's the same person who sought to bring
the death penalty back in New York State many years ago,
seeking the death penalty execution of several young men that
were wrongfully accused in New York City in Central Park
(40:04):
five from the Central Park five now known as the
Exonerated five. And the fact that Billy Allen bore witness
to these executions from his vantage point as one of
the long serving people on death row. In spite of
this remarkable body of exculpatory evidence, so Billy also raised
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for the reasons that
(40:25):
we've already laid out here, And of course the gasoline
residue and DNA test that truly do exculpate Billy. Let's
face it, I wrote a letter to my attorney, and
I framed it this way for a reason. I said, basically,
I about to file on appeal. I located DNA evidence,
I located gasoline results, I located all this evidence. Had
(40:47):
you known about these things before I went to trial?
Which you have presented these things on my behalf. And
he in his letter, in his response to me, he
specifically says, yes, he would have presented these things. Eddie
known about them before trial. Now here's the thing about it.
These things were in the in the records that he
handed over to me. There was no way in hill
(41:10):
that my trial was fair when I had an attorney
who specifically responded to a letter that had he knew
about these things, he would presented them. But yet he
had these things in his possession and never looked for Yeah,
we've seen some pretty grotesque examples of ineffective assistance of
counsel before, but this is a whole new level. But
(41:30):
yet somehow you were denied on that front as well.
All those denials and basically the rejection, it becomes a
burden on your shoulders, you know. So that has been
my burden for the last few years, you know, trying
to find all the evidence, and now that I found it,
I can't get people to listen. What what what does
(41:52):
it take for people to care? What does it take
for situations to change? And to me, I guess that
goes to the Georgetown project. The Georgetown project, I felt
like ignited a whole and a flame that has you know,
basically dimmed over the years. And that was my first introduction,
you know, to market Marty into the you know, the
(42:14):
students at Georgetown. And I asked, you know, I think
I asked Mark. I was like, well, what is your
process of picking people? And he was like, we go
through thousands and thousands of applications and only pick five
and yours stood out. And that meant everything to me.
And of course, you mean Georgetown's making an Axondore class
(42:36):
and remarkably, it's an undergraduate course, so you don't have
to be a law student, of forensic scientist or a
private investigator to look at some of the evidence and say,
wait a minute, how did this actually even go forward
to trial? How much less result than a conviction? And Marty,
you know, I watched the remarkable video that you and
your students put together with the making Axondo re class,
(42:59):
of course, and those it is in that class never
ceased to blow my mind with the amazing, amazing work
that they do semester after semester, class after class, and
of course their work has led to the actual freeing
of four people now, right, I mean Keith Washington, Valentino Dixon,
Eric Rittick, and now Orlando Trey Jones. Right, these kids
(43:21):
are doing absolutely phenomenal jobs. Some of them have even
come to work for us or have gone on to
law school working as paralegals on pro bono cases or
other nonprofits. They are truly incredible assets to this movement
for justice, and I'm so glad that you all landed
on Billy's case. Billy's case, to me, it was just
(43:41):
a multitude of things that went wrong. Every week that
we live, we see another man or woman become exonerated.
And what we also see is that something from the
original case went wrong, and it was either from the prosecutor.
To Lisa's point of view, there were some wrongdoing, forensic misconduct,
(44:04):
or incompetent lawyers. And in Billy's case, I think he
had a little bit of everything. You know, there was
someone else who was seen with Holder planning the bank robbery,
but that was just never pursued. There was an anonymous
tip that we don't know much more about. We just
know that the initials of the suspect are d M,
and obviously that's not Billy Allen DM, but we don't
(44:28):
know more and haven't been able to find out more
because it's been kept you under wraps. But that very
well could be the second person who Holder is protecting.
There's d M, there's JB as Billy mentioned, and a
whole lot of potential avenues if you could just access
these materials, but they've been fighting it every step of
the way. Now there was renewed efforts to test the
(44:51):
DANNI evidence against other potential suspects, which was the focus
of your filings. Not only is there this bloody strap
that excludes you and the victim that they refused to
run through CODIS or test against anyone else, there's also
the matter of a damp cloth that was found near
the fence where the second suspect escaped from Forest Park.
They tested it for d n A and it excluded you,
(45:12):
but have since sealed those results. I'm sure if they
had matched Billy, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
So how have those efforts gone thus far? Thanks stopped
every year from the first year I filed pro say,
my lawyers have filed, We've done everything we could to
get them to basically do all the testing, and my
judge basically is has refused every single request and the
(45:37):
prosecutor has opposed every prium of testing. In my case,
I can't get nothing tested. If we could test that
DNA against other possible suspects, who knows what would come
up in this case. But there's such a conspiracy, I mean,
that's not too strong a word to say that police
and prosecutors have in just sealing tight a conviction, even
(45:58):
if it's the wrong one, even if there's evidence that
proves that it was a mistake. My case is in
one of those where I'm just asking people to, you know,
take a chance on me. I'm asking people to believe
in my evidence and fight for me. So that's where
this is at right now. And Billy and his team
are fighting this on two fronts, trying to get access
to those biological materials as well as seeking a pardon
from President Biden. There's a petition among so many other
(46:22):
action steps linked in the bio, but go there now,
don't wait, go to the bio, click on it, signed
a petition, and in addition to all of that, there's
the making an exonery video. Please check all of it out.
We also encourage you to join Billy Supporters this November
and Washington, d C. For a rally. You can follow
Billy on Instagram. It's free Billy b I L l
(46:43):
I E Allen A l L E n so free
Billy Allen to receive updates. And now we go to
our closing work. First of all, I thank all of
you for joining us. I'm just gonna kick back in
my chair, turn my microphone off, and just listen for
any closing thoughts that you all have. Let's start with Mark,
then Marty, and then and then Billy over to you
to close this out. Thanks, Jason. Billy is an extraordinary person.
(47:05):
He is warm, he is caring, he is funny, he
is compassionate, he is dedicated, hard working, and he's incredibly talented.
And I got to see a lot of his artwork.
I actually have some of it now in my office
at Georgetown. But Billy is himself a beacon of light
(47:26):
and hope for this world. And what I really hope
more than anything is that the rest of the world
will discover the Billy that I've come to know and love,
and to recognize his talent and to appreciate his humanity,
and that hopefully he'll have that opportunity to connect with
the world as a freeman soon. There's just two things
I want people to understand. Well, is an epidemic. We
(47:53):
had one and seventy three exonerations that were recognized by
the National Registered Exhonery. We already have a hundred and
seventy three. Billy should be added to that list in
the near future. Our system can't function if we keep
(48:14):
convicting innocent people, and when there's evidence that somebody was
denied justice, we let them languish in prison day after
day after day. The day has to come where Billy
gets his day for justice. And I look forward to
the day where Mark, myself, our students can be waiting
(48:37):
outside of a prison somewhere like we have for four
other individuals to watch Billy walk out of prison. I'm
not just somebody who's saying they're innocing, you know. I'm
somebody who can show you that I'm in a sing
and to me, I feel like that should ignite people
to say, you know what, let me go to bad
for this guy. You know, I'll get, you know, letters
(48:59):
from people saying, hey, I'm praying for you, and I'm like, okay, well,
you know, I appreciate the prayers, but I need you
to speak out, you know, because you need those voices
in the high places to be able to hear that
you do care. And I feel like the more people
who show that they care, the more the system is
going to have to care and gonna have to give
us the testing that we're looking for and allow the
(49:19):
evidence to be the thing that motivates you to want
to go out there and fight for me to want
to go out there. And you know, every time you're
on social media, instead of posting about the new foods
you're eating, to be able to say, hey, you know what,
free Billy Allen period, you know, And and November will
be going to d C, you know, to basically do
a march on d C to present my case. And
(49:40):
I'm hoping that people start raising their voice and have
an influence when we do follow our petition of biding
to be able to make him say, you know what,
we're always asking another country to do right by their citizens.
We fail this guy right here. Let us do the
right thing now and return him to his family. And
I guess I'm I'm going to read you something that
I think it will help you kind of gather who
(50:02):
I am and my journey. And it's called long soldier.
To find myself engaged in the conflict that some have
deemed to be a battle between good and evil, and
it is I who they have labeled the ladder. This
battle is not one worth on the reward will be
heard thought about a stench of gun smoke charred flesh,
nor where bloodstains will take the same brown with footsteps
(50:25):
travel to the froe. No, this battle was one that
is rooted in the bloodlines and bloodshed that painted the
stripes red, and in the blue sky that weighed fifty stars,
which are a time saluted or drape over the caskets
of fallen heroes. Now, because I know that there are
those who like to take one's word out of context
with malicious intent, No, there's no way in my claiming
(50:46):
the role of hero. I'm just one who has been
wrathfully imprisoned, and who wishes defend myself against those who
have brought this battle to my doorsteps. And in doing so,
I planned to defend myself against the lies ms represent
Patian in advances to take my life in the pretense
of justice. Now, after I expose this injustice, if you
(51:07):
then deem my actions to be that of a hero,
know that it is I who will not make such
a claim. This battle will take place on what many
have deemed to be sacred ground, or what some have
said to be the foundation of our society, without which
will cause chaos and leave in its path destruction. And
(51:27):
that battleground is the constitutionists amendments to oversee this battle
and to ensure that it's conducted without a hint of bias, favoritism,
nor that it will be tainted with the temptation of
power or financial gain. Is Lady Justice yet, to my disbelief,
though she is supposed to stand out front of the
symbol of fundamental fairness, I could have sworn that I
(51:49):
saw her trip of scale of justice and favor of
my foes, who already have superior power, resources, and who
attack without malicious forethought. Though I know that the other again.
It's me. I do not waiver on my stands, and
I hold tight to the hilt of my sword of
truth and evidence, where my evidence is the material which
it has been forced me. I closed my eyes, say
(52:12):
a prayer, and I can only hope that God here.
My please is I throw stones at Goliath, and it
is I who am the long soldier. Thank you for
listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our production
team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburn and Kevin Wardis, with research
(52:35):
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 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
(52:56):
at It's Jason flom Rnful Conviction is the production of
Lava a Good Podcast in association with Signal Company Number
one h
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.