October 31, 2022 • 47 mins
On August 19, 1983, a 19-year-old woman was found raped and beaten to death in Tampa, FL. Police focused on 18-year-old Robert DuBoise who allegedly “caused problems” in the area. Dr. Richard Souviron, a forensic odontologist, matched Robert’s teeth to a supposed bite mark on the victim’s cheek using bite mark analysis techniques that have since been discredited. Based on the supposed dental match, Robert was ultimately sentenced to death.
Gilbert King is the writer and host of the Lava For Good podcast, Bone Valley. He is also a New York Times bestseller and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the book Devil in the Grove. Gilbert has written about race, civil rights, and the death penalty for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and The Marshall Project.
While in Florida working on the Lava for Good podcast Bone Valley, Gilbert learned of Robert’s exoneration, which moved and inspired Gilbert to continue the fight for other innocent individuals. Robert and Leo Schofield, the subject of Bone Valley, were incarcerated together in the same Florida facility. In this episode, Gilbert and Robert connect over their ties to the Tampa area and the Florida criminal justice system.
To learn more about the junk science of bite mark evidence, visit:
https://lavaforgood.com/podcast/145-wrongful-conviction-junk-science-bite-mark-evidence/
To learn more and get involved, visit:
https://innocenceproject.org/petitions/help-fix-floridas-compensation-law/
This episode is part of a special series in our Wrongful Conviction podcast feed of 15 episodes focused on individual cases of wrongful incarceration, guest hosted by formerly incarcerated returning citizens and leading criminal justice advocates, award-winning journalists and progressive influencers.
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 (00:00):
I'm Jason Flammtt Wrongful Conviction. We're proud to be a
part of the ever growing landscape of true crime shows
that revealed just how our criminal legal system works and
often where it fails. This week, I've invited a colleague
from another podcast to bring their unique style to our
coverage of yet another wrongful conviction. Back in the late
(00:22):
seventies and early eighties, there was a string of violent
crimes in Florida. Young women were being raped and murdered
seemingly at random. One of the perpetrators was the infamous
Ted Bundy. He was convicted for one of these murders,
and among the mountain of evidence that was presented against
him was a bite mark. A dentist named Dr Suvaran
(00:46):
was called to testify against Bundy, making famous the use
of bite mark evidence known as forensic odeontology. Four years
after Bundy was sent to death row a young woman's
body he was found with obvious signs of sexual assault
near Tampa. There was also an injury on her cheek
(01:07):
that the medical examiner determined to be a bite mark.
Given that it followed the highly televised Bundy trial, police
honed in on that bite mark to the exclusion of
all other evidence. They began taking bite impressions or denticians
from dozens of men in the neighborhood and brought them
to Dr suvan. One of those men was eighteen year
(01:31):
old Robert Dubois. Dr Suvaran alleged that Robert's dentician matched
the bite mark on the victim, and Robert was arrested.
No other physical evidence tied him to the case, but
with the use of a jailhouse informant, Robert was convicted
of capital murder and sentenced to die by electrocution for
(01:53):
a crime he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction.
(02:13):
Welcome to Wrongful Conviction. I'm Gilbert King. I'm on the
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Devil in the Grove, about
Third Good Marshal's representation of the young men known as
the Groveland for who were just exonerated by the State
of Florida last year. I'm also the writer and host
of a new nine part narrative podcast called Bone Valley
by Lava for Good Podcasts, and I'm honored to be
(02:35):
guest hosting this episode of Wrongful Conviction. Today, we have
two very special guests and I'm gonna ask them both
to introduce themselves before we get into the interview. So
let's start out with the Robert Dubois. Well, my name
is Robert Dubois. So I was just exonerated in and
(02:56):
right now I'm sitting in my partment in Tampa, Florida.
Talk to you guys. And we also have Susan Freedman. Susan,
you want to introduce yourself? Yeah, thanks Philbert for having me.
My name is Susan Friedman. I'm a senior staff attorney
at the Innocence Project based in New York City, and
I represented Robert through his wrongful conviction. Oh, this is amazing.
We have so much to talk about that because this
(03:18):
is really going to be really fascinating. I studied the
case very familiar with Tampa. Robert, the event that would
change your life occurred back in Tampa. Um, you were
just eighteen years old. Can you talk about who you
were and what your life was before that arrest. Well,
at that time I was working in town and country
(03:39):
at an autowapholstery shop for Noel's Outowaupholstery. So I used
to ride my bike. It's like I guess about five miles,
So I wrote it to town and country every day
for the job. So suddenly my whole world was upside down,
(03:59):
you know, because I'm doing my everyday thing, going back
and forth to work, and then next thing, you know,
I'm gonna sell wondering why now, I mean, this is
just came out of the blue for you. I mean,
do you don't have any prior runnings with the law
or do you have you any understanding of what was happening.
I did have a prior running with the law when
I was at a teenager, so it was about an
(04:21):
empty house or car parts, just some dumb stuff. And
I had moved past that and had two years probation
community work hours for the Police Athletic League, which I completed.
And next thing, you know, I mean jail being accused
of murder. And let's go back to that in a minute.
(04:42):
But Susan, I just want to ask you your your experience.
You're coming in, what is what is you like really
understand about Tampa, Florida and this time the early eighties.
You know a lot of people think of like Miami Vice,
this is that era, but this is not like South Florida.
This is Central Florida, Tampa. It's a little sleepier, right, Yeah.
I mean, the one thing to know is that around
(05:02):
the time when this crime occurred that Robert was wrongly
convicted of, there actually were a string of women who
were sexually assaulted and murdered. Um. There wasn't a clear
m O, but there were a number of women that
turned up dead um, one of them obviously being the
victim and Robert's case. The other thing that turns out
to be really important is that Florida is the home
(05:24):
of the Ted Bundy case. And in the nineteen seventies,
Ted Bundy eventually comes to confess to around thirty cases.
And one of the really important pieces of evidence is
bite mark testimony. And that's what actually puts Dr Richard
Subaran on the map. And Dr Suberan testified in uh
in the Ted Bundy trials, and he also lived in Florida.
(05:45):
So this was just a very high profile time for
bite mark evidence generally in the criminal legal system. And
can you just talk briefly about how that science has
come to be viewed today as opposed to back in
the eighties. Yeah, So, you know, we today know that
bitemark evidence has been wholly discredited. Not only has the
(06:05):
National Academy of Sciences, who did a review of this
type of evidence back in two thousand nine, even the
a b FO, the group that regulates forensic odeontologists, have
made significant revisions to the conclusions that they can make.
In ten and so in seen after a number of
research studies that they concluded that they no longer can
(06:27):
do what's known as source attribution, mean that's say, in
a certain individual was the biter in a case? UM
and so that came after years of research in this
to finally debunk this type of evidence that for so
long has been held up as an important piece of evidence,
but that we know today has led to many, many
wrongful convictions. We know of at least thirty four wrongful
convictions in the United States, Robert being one of them. Susan,
(06:49):
can we just talk about the case that UM brought
Robert into trouble? Can you just talk about the facts
of the crime? Yeah. On August nine, in the early
morning hours, a dentist was showing up at work. He
was opening up his shop and in the back he
found the victim in this case, she had been uh,
(07:10):
she was severely beaten and she was there was certainly
evidence that she had been either actually sexually assaulted or
there was an attempted sexual assault. She was completely nude
except for a tube top that was pushed up above
her chest that exposed her breasts. So police immediately started
investigating and they canvass the neighborhood. Unfortunately, there were no eyewitnesses,
(07:34):
and so what we know about the victim is that
she worked at a local restaurant, a local fast food chain,
and she had left somewhere around nine to nine fifteen
in the evening after closing up. We know that someone
saw her about nine PM a couple of blocks away
from her home. But then she's found eight blocks south
of that, and so police started canvassing. They couldn't find
(07:56):
anyone who had any information, and so very quickly this
case focused in on the physical evidence, and that evidence
came from the medical examiner's office. During the autopsy, the
medical examiner concluded three things. First, that the victim was
killed as a result of blunt force trauma um as
I said. She had been severely beaten. And at the
crime scene they found a total of four to buy
(08:17):
four wooden boards by her and they all had UH
and a few of them had blood and hair on them,
which suggested that they were the murder weapon. The emmy
also concluded that she likely was sexually assaulted. And then
the third when he washed her face, he saw that
there was a pattern injury on her left cheek, which
he concluded even though he is not an ode ontologist
(08:38):
or a bite mark expert, he actually concluded must have
been a bite mark. How did police begin to narrow
this down to certain suspects? So, because law enforcement didn't
have any eyewitnesses, they really focused in on the bite mark.
And in this case, the medical examiner identified what he
believed to be a bite mark on the victim's left cheek.
(08:58):
He exercised it and put it in formal to hide,
which caused it to shrink. But then the photographs of
the bite mark were shared with Dr Suberan and Dr
Subaron concluded that this was a human bite mark and
that he would be able to make a comparison. So
Dr suber On then advised law enforcement to start collecting
denticians from individuals who they believed were suspects, and to
(09:19):
do that using these wax um And if folks are
thinking about why bees wax that doesn't really make sense.
You're right, because bees wax is not a good method
for capturing someone's dentition, but that's what they were using.
And so Detective Saladino started going around and collecting dozens
and dozens of denticians from basically any individual that they
(09:40):
came into contact with, and they turned their attention to
Robert because they interviewed a woman who had worked at
the at a store about a block away from where
the victim was discovered. And what's interesting about this individual
is that she worked at the store back in February,
which is six months before this crime. But she alleged
(10:00):
that she knew a couple of boys who, as she
said quote, caused trouble. That's what led police to focus
in on Robert and to ask him for his beeswax sdentician. So, Robert,
can you just talk a little bit about your first
contact with police and what you were thinking when you
when you got approached. What was that like that moment? Well,
I wasn't very fond of cops in general. I was
(10:22):
a teenager, but um, when I was approached, He's like,
would you mind doing a beeswax impression? And I'm like,
for what he says, Well, I we're just doing you know,
everybody in the neighborhood or whatever, even though I'm not
even from that neighborhood. So I went with him downtown.
Were the only two in the police detective division, and
(10:46):
he asked me to bite into a soft piece of
bees wax, so I did, and he drove me back home,
and he made a crazy statement on the way home.
He says, there was two girls walking down the street,
so I thought it pretty weird. He says, um, which
do you prefer, blonde or brunette? I said, what does
it matter? You know? So he didn't say anymore, and
(11:09):
he dropped me off their home. So then I didn't
hear anymore until October twenty one three, when they came
to my door at two thirty in the morning and
asked me to go downtown and said that my mom
needed to see me. So, taking the consideration, my father's
(11:31):
in a wheelchair, he's completely paralyzed, so I'm thinking, if
my mom needs to see me, something's really going on here.
So I go downtown. Of course my mom isn't there,
and then they tell me Detective Saladino will come shortly
and explain what's going on? So in the interim, I'm
sitting there and a detective looks at me. He's talking
(11:53):
about fishing, the weather, all this normal stuff, and then
he says, why did you do it? I said, what
did I do? What? He said, why did you kill her?
I said kill who? I said, what? Are you crazy?
So I'm thinking there's some kind of sick joke. So
(12:14):
aside from this, there's no other physical evidence that is
causing police to focus in on Robert. It's just they're
doing this thing with the teeth, right, Yeah, that's right.
Police approach Robert and he's completely cooperative because he has
nothing to hide. He knows he didn't commit this crime.
In fact, the other forensic evidence excludes Robert. And would
(12:35):
you consider that in an example of tunnel vision, you
have all this other evidence that's possibly exculpatory, is exculpatory,
and yet here they are focusing on this something that
we now consider junk signs. What what what happened there?
That's exactly right. This is classic tunnel vision and cognitive
bias setting in. This was the case with no eye witnesses,
(12:56):
and when police got their tip and they believe that
Robert was the sort to the pipe mark, all the
other evidence that was exculpatory, they found reasons to ignore,
and they focused in on Robert, and we're able to
explain away any fact that didn't line up with their
theory of the case. And Robert, this must have been,
you know, the worst day of your life to get
accused of something like this and arrested. Can you just
(13:17):
walk through the arrest and what that was like for you? Yeah,
I mean I was very angry and baffled. I mean
I was very angry, angry with the police when they
tried to handcuff me because I knew I had done
nothing wrong, you know. And then because I'm angry when
they took me to the jail, they had the nurse
shoot me up with how doll, so that put me out,
(13:41):
and when I woke up, I was strapped down to
a steel bunk with leather straps. So then the following morning, um,
they take me for all these dental impressions and I'm
still doped up off the how doll or whatever it was,
and I was just baffled. I was just trying to
(14:01):
get it over with because I knew I had done
nothing wrong, So I was living kind of like in
a bad dream I couldn't wake up for. This episode
is sponsored by the A I G pro Bono Program.
(14:23):
A I G is a leading global insurance company, and
the A I G pro Bono Program provides free legal services,
as well as other support to many nonprofit organizations as
well as individuals who are most in need, and they
recently announced that working to reform the criminal justice system
will become a key pillar of the program's mission. And
(14:52):
any of the time, did you ever have occurred to
you like I need a lawyer at this point, No,
because I knew I had done nothing wrong, So it
never even really crossed my mind. I didn't know enough
about the legal system to even know I had that right.
And I think one of the things that's really important
about Robert just said is that a lot of times
people's innocence puts them at risk, especially in interrogations and
(15:13):
in these kinds of situations where they're interacting with law enforcement.
They know that they're innocence and they believe that the
that the evidence will prove that. And so Robert went
ahead and completely cooperate with law enforcement, knowing that he
didn't commit this crime. He didn't bite the victim. He
was never there and so he had no reason to
hide on anything, and so he didn't think he needed
a lawyer. Yeah, I'm always amazed by the exonaries that
(15:35):
you talked to. They have so much faith in the
justices and like, they will just clear this up together.
We'll talk this over because I didn't do it, and
they they are at the most risk of anybody because
they're just talking the police right off the bat. So, Susan,
can you just give us a brief summary of what
what Robert's trial was like? Sure? So you know, the
focus of this case was the bite mark evidence, but
(15:57):
police and prosecutors wanted to have more evidence to support
this conviction. Police alleged that someone named Claude Butler, who
was no stranger to the Tampa Police Department, they were
very well acquainted with him, alleged that Robert actually confessed
to him while they were both incarcerated at the local
jail while Robert was awaiting trial. Claude Butler, at the
(16:18):
time had had been arrested previously for various offenses, but
at that time he also was facing charges for kidnapping,
robbery with a firearm, grand theft, auto dealing in stolen property,
battery on a law enforcement agent. So he was looking
at multiple life sentences and so Claude was the second
piece of evidence that police used. Then the third piece
(16:42):
of evidence was this witness named Jack. And Jack was
really perplexing because there were no police reports that memorialized
any interviews with Jack. He was not on the witness list.
He didn't testify in the grand jury. He pops up
two weeks before Robert goes to trial, and Jack alleges
that he was staying at the Peter Pan Motel, which
is where Robert was arrested, and that one day, he
(17:04):
doesn't remember exactly what day it was, but there was
a party going on. He walked in, he saw Robert
sitting on the bed. He looked very glum, and when
he asked Robert what was going on? Again, Robert does
not know this person. Robert just says, I wanted for murder.
And so from there they want the jury to infer
that Robert is confessing to committing this crimeer in some
way corroborating the allegation that he did commit this crime.
(17:27):
And that's the entire case. Robert, what are you thinking
when you're watching, you know, people like Jack and Claude
Butler get up there on the stand and talk about
you what's going through your mind when you're watching this testimony.
I was sitting there and disbelief, you know, I'm just
sitting there, like, how can they even believe this stuff?
You know? So I just watched it like I was
(17:48):
watching um, kind of like I was outside watching in
you know. So I said there every day they took
me to the courthouse at five am, and I didn't
get back to the jail to like midnight because they
keep you on hold and sale for transport and all that.
So I was just sitting there. I was tired, I
was baffled. I just had no clue while we're sitting here,
(18:12):
you know. And Susan, what kind of defense did Robert
have to start in this trial? One thing that's important
here is that this was a capital trial, so Robert
was facing the death penalty, and he had an attorney
whose defense in this case was the one he put
on another dentist, Dr. Norman Sperber, who said that, oh no,
(18:33):
this is a bite mark, but it's not Robert's bite.
There are too many inconsistencies here. And so it can't
be Robert's fight. And so now basically you had these
two bite mark experts going at it and what we
call in the legal field the battle of the experts,
and it just came down to the jury obviously siding
with the prosecution. And the second thing was that Robert's
(18:53):
mother testified that Robert was home on the night of
the crime. And then the third part of the case
really was ving or trying to prove or trying to
convince the jury that Claude Butler should not be trusted
and that he was an incentivized witness. Right he's facing
multiple life sentences instead only got five years UM and
to prove that that is why he cooperated with law enforcement.
(19:14):
You know, just listening, it seems like a really hard
thing for the defendant to overcome when this science is
just deemed, as you know, infallible. And then you have
a jailhouse snitch who's we don't even know anything about
jail house snitches back then, we didn't know how often
they were being used. So these two things just must
seem impossible to overcome at trial, that's right, you know.
(19:35):
So you have this dentist who gets on he is
a famous dentist. He's known for the Ted Bundy cases.
He's got all of his fancy degrees, He's got lots
of credentials that he's telling the jury about, and he
testifies that to a reasonable degree of dental certainty, Robert
is the source of the bite. How does anyone dispute that.
(19:55):
Who on the jury would then decide that, in fact,
actually this dentist is wrong and I know better and
this isn't a bite. This is something that we've seen
time and time again with a lot of cases that
involved the misapplication of forensics science. You have these techniques
that were born out of a need for law enforcement
to use them, that never are validated, that don't go
through the rigorous research that we do in other areas
(20:18):
of science and medicine. Yet then they're used in courtrooms
to convict people and to sentence them to death the
way this happened in Robert's case, Right, And I imagine
just coming off knowing what a storm that Wold Ted
Bundy case was. I mean, he was a superstar, a
superstar dentist. He's the one that basically his credentials, like
I'm the one who solved it. And and enabled us
(20:38):
to catch Ted Bundy. So you know, you go onto
the next case and you have this guy testifying. That's
a lot to overcome. Robert. Can you talk about what
it was like. You know, you mentioned just sort of
being in a daze and being disbelieving that this was
actually happening to you, which is a pretty common theme.
But you know, you obviously had to wait for that
verdict to come back. Can you just walk us to
(21:00):
that moment in your life, what you can remember of
that moment when the jury has a verdict During the trial,
I kind of uh detached myself, so to speak, So
I wasn't worried about the verdict because I knew I
had done nothing wrong. So I still had a little
faith left in the system. So when they came back
(21:23):
with the verdict, yeah, I was just amazed. But the
sentencing thing was the same way. You know, It's like
the jury recommended life in prison, the judge overrode it
and said, you know, sentenced me to die by electrocution.
I'm just up, said and baffled about the whole thing.
(21:45):
And now I know I'm really in a in a mess.
I'm in a trap, you know, And I don't see
a way out. I mean, I can't even imagine what
that's like. The jury comes back, says you're guilty and
and says you you're sentencing you to life, and it
gets worse. The jury the judge over overrides the jury recommendation.
(22:06):
Do you remember going back into your cell after that
and thinking I just got sentenced to death for a
crime I didn't commit. Yes, So once they sentenced me
to death, it's like from that moment on, I had
like dirty officers around me, you know, escorting me all
the way back to the jail into my sale. If
I had if they let me out to use the phone,
(22:27):
I had thirty officers surrounding me. So I think it
was only like until the next morning. They got a
transport to take me the death row at two thirty
in the morning. And what was that like, You're arrivaling,
you know, at at this age, arriving at you know,
Florida's most notorious death row. What what was that like?
I mean, could you have just imagine yourself in this
(22:48):
situation and how do you hang on to any optimism
at this point? Well, I know, the ride to death row,
still in a daze, and I'm wondering, how could this
be happening? You know, how did this just happen to me?
Why am I going to death Row? You know? And
then I arrive at death Row or Florida State Prison,
(23:09):
and I see this big green building and it's like
a filling of gloom when you see this building. And
then I go up into the building. They escort me
down this long hallway into a cell on death Row
and they slammed the door, and that's my new home.
And I'm like, man, are these guys like sitting here
(23:32):
waiting to die? So it was very disturbing. And you know,
some of the guys already had warrant signed, so they
were really afraid because they knew if their name may
come up, once it comes up again, they might get killed.
You know. So these things, you know, went through all
of our heads. You know, is it gonna be my turn?
(23:56):
When you hear that plane fly over the prison? You
don't know? And is it true that old Sparky the
Florida's Electric Chair it's right there on death Row, isn't it.
I mean? And in the eighties it was pretty active, right,
Oh yeah, it was on que Wing So yeah, well,
just while I was there alone. They killed Margaret Francois,
(24:16):
Jeff Daughtry, Willie Darden, Ted Bundy, another guy only knew
m as Frog, another guy named Tiny. So they killed
all total while I was there like twelve. What is
that like being on death row when that happens. What's
the general mood among among people on death row? It's
very quiet and gloomy, you know, It's like, let me
(24:39):
tell you, they the torture, the mental torture they use
on death row, even though they may not even realize
they were doing it. I thought they did though. Is
a plane Whenever the governor signs a death roard, the
plane flies over Florida State Prison, lands on their runway,
and walks the after war into the colonel of the prison.
(25:02):
The colonel sends his officers to death row to get
whoever it belongs to. Then they escorted them up to
the colonel's office, they go to death watch, and nine
times out of tail you don't see him no more.
That must be just the most terrifying sound when you're
in death row to hear a plane landing. Well, yeah,
(25:23):
that And then every Wednesday at one o'clock in the afternoon,
they would test the electric chair, so all the lights
on death Row with Dim Robert. Three years after your conviction,
(25:53):
your attorney managed to get your death sentence changed to
life in prison with a mandatory quarter, meaning you'd get
to go see the parole board after five years served.
You must have felt a bit of relief when that happened. No,
not at all. So now I'm not on death row.
I no longer have the right for legal representation anymore.
(26:13):
Now I am literally on my own. You're entitled to
legal representation as long as you have a death sentence.
I was not happy when my death sentence got overturned
to life because I had asked the attorney over and
over again to please fight the conviction, and he kept
fighting the sentencing. How do I hope to prove my
(26:35):
innocence is all if all you're doing is fighting to
get a death sentence turned to life. Now I went
from death row to the worst population in the state
of Florida. So FSP is the dumping ground for what
they considered the worst of the worst. Okay, this is inmates.
(26:56):
There's been at other institutions stabbed at the inmates raped?
Are the inmates stabbed officers and done just numerous awful things,
and they got sent here as a punishment. So it's
like the wild wild West. They won't accept me to
no other prison because I came from death row. That's
how I ended up at FSP. FSP, by the way,
(27:20):
is Florida State Prison. And while you were there, you
were writing a lot of letters. How did you get
to be such a prolific letter writer? I had never
written a letter till I went to jail, not that
I remember, you know, And now that's all I'm doing. Susan,
can you just give us a brief synopsis of this
post conviction history that Robert had, Like what what he
(27:42):
what he was trying to do, what, what kind of
appeals he was trying to find, what areas he was
looking to explore. Probert was his own best advocate. He
wrote to everybody, UM and that included lawyers, the media,
really anyone who would listen, UM. And you know, after
his death sentence was vacated, he continued to have hope
(28:04):
that the truth would come to light and that he
would be proven innocent. And one of the really important
things that Robert did was in two thousand and six
he filed a motion for access to DNA testing because
he believed if we use this modern DNA testing that's
now available, it would prove that he was innocent. And
what is truly remarkable here is that he was convicted
(28:25):
in five and what we learned is that in October
of nineteen ninety, just five years after he's convicted, the
State of Florida destroys all of the evidence that was
admitted at his trial, including the victims rape kit. So
they have an extensive hearing where the state puts on
evidence that everything was destroyed and that the only evidence
(28:46):
that's remaining are a few hairs and two cigarette butts.
And so I'm just really curious the laws about you know,
in a capital case, they're disposing evidence after five years, Like,
what are the laws about that? So today we have
preservation laws in I believe every single state, but here
in nine Robert's death sentence had been vacated, and so
(29:09):
the court just entered an order disposing of all of
the evidence. Luckily, as we learned in post conviction with
the reinvestigation, that was actually not the case. But it
was shocking to see that in five short years after
a death sentence, that the state destroyed all of that
biological evidence, especially because in nine we did start to
have DNA come online and it was started, it was
(29:30):
being used, So that was really shocking to see in
this case. Susan, how did you become involved in this case?
Robert wrote to the Innocence Project the way he wrote
to many organizations. Uh, And when we review this case,
there are two things that set out to us that
he was convicted based on faulty forensics and a jailhouse informant,
(29:50):
which are too leading contributing factors to wrongful conviction. And
we believe that even though they said that a significant
amount of the DNA evidence was destroyed, it's possible that
we could still get access to some of that other
evidence and do some additional retesting. And so we accepted
Robert's case and we started investigating immediately. And Robert, what
(30:10):
was that like for you? I mean, just being in
the situation and just thinking about all these years that
are passing for you. Yeah, I mean, you know, I
was hoping to have a wife and kids in the
house and all this stuff. So that was taken from me.
That didn't happen. It still hasn't happen. So I started
focusing on not the things I didn't have, but be
(30:35):
grateful for the things I do have and did have.
So I just moved forward. And as the years went by,
I had three parole hearings. All three were negative. It
didn't happen. Now in my mind, um, this is like
the last straw, you know, this is pretty much blocks
(30:57):
off everything I had going for me. And I'm like,
you know, I just felt total hopelessness, and I just
put my hands together and I said, God, send your hands.
That night, they have what they call a legal call
out sheet letting you know you have legal mail. So
the next day I went to get the letter and
it was from Susan saying that hey, we read your case.
(31:20):
We're taking your case, you know. And then like I
think a week later, she was sitting across the table
from me talking to me. When we accepted the case,
I started digging into Robert's file. This was a capital case.
There were a lot of materials. While I had hope
that we'd be able to do some additional DNA testing
on the items that we believed still existed, I also
(31:42):
knew that this was going to be an informing case.
We had to get to the bottom of what was
going on with Claude Butler, because just from a cold
read of the record, it is clear that he's incentivized
and that he was testifying falsely at Robert's trial. So
we started digging into him immediately, and very quickly, a
lot of things surfaced about him that confirmed all of
(32:02):
our original suspicions. The trial prosecutor in Robert's case, who
elicited all kinds of testimony about the fact that Claude
Butler was not receiving any benefits, he was testifying out
of the goodness of his heart. He believed this was
the right thing to do, to tell everybody what Robert
confessed to him. We found out that the trial prosecutor
in Robert's case filed emotion to mitigate in the informants case,
(32:26):
urging that judge to let Claude Butler walk free because
Claude Butler was a key witness in Robert's case and
that he was part of him securing a death sentence
against Robert. The other thing that we did is we
started digging into Jack because we were so surprised by Jack.
We didn't understand where he came from just like the
(32:47):
trial defense counselor was shocked by him, So were we
and what do we do? We found a criminal case
where he was the star witness. And in that case,
Jack alleged that someone locked on his door, he was
covered in blood. This person entered the hat, entered his
hotel room, that he helped him dispose of the clothes
(33:08):
that recovered in blood. And then, as it turned out,
this person was charged with capital murder. And so Jack,
who at minimum could have been an accessory after the
fact in this case, is not charged at all. He
becomes a star witness in this other case, and he
pops up in Robert's case, and Robert has no idea
who who this is. There are no police reports connecting
Jack to this case, and all of a sudden, it
(33:30):
becomes very clear that Jack is a plant. Right, Jack
is inserted into this case on the eve of Robert's trial. Susan,
what did you learn about that bite mark after all
these years? So one of the things that we did
during the reinvestigation was we submitted all of the materials,
we had photographs, testimony about the bite mark evidence to
(33:51):
Dr Adam Freeman, who is a board certified forensic codontologist
and dentist, and he examined all those materials and he
made a number of conclusions about both the evidence collection
and the pattern injury itself. So first he concluded that
the way that people's denticitions were collected using that beeswax
(34:11):
was an improper way to collect to obtain denticians. He
evaluated the pattern injury on the victim's cheek and specifically
he was looking at measurements and concluded that this was
way too big to be a human bite mark. So
ultimately we found out that this was not a bite
mark at all. And one of the things that I
think is really important here is that the victim was
(34:33):
beaten so severely in the face that this may have
actually been from the boards. The severe damage that she suffered.
Maybe the one of the boards left an injury that
appeared to be the pattern injury that the dentist obviously
assumed the bite mark, But this in fact was not
a bite mark on the victim at all. Yeah, I
really want to get into this part of it. So
you're you're you're dealing with the thirteenth Circuit in Florida. Um,
(34:55):
can you just talk about these conviction integatory review units
how important they were to this particular case. Conviction integrity units,
sometimes also called conviction review units, are specialized units within
prosecutors offices that are supposed to look at cases where
an individual is factually innocent and reinvestigate. They're really important
units that allow for prosecutors not only to correct wrongful
(35:18):
convictions but also prevent them by implementing policies that they
realize are important in order to prevent wronkle convictions in
the future and have implement those policies in their offices.
And so, after I did as much investigating as I
possibly colude on Claude, Butler and Jack and obtained all
of the records that I could from the police department,
(35:40):
I put together a memo to Teresa Hall, who was
the chief at the time, the chief of the conviction
review unit, and I put forward all the evidence I
had that made me suspicious about the conviction, the reasons
why I thought that uh, Butler and Jack didn't have
any credibility, And then I put forward an investigation plan
and asked her to join me in re investigating this case.
(36:01):
And so that was my pitch to her, and then
very quickly she came back to me and we started
our joint reinvestigation. But the timing was tough because it
was March of and we all remember what happened in
March of the world shut down as a result of
the COVID nineteen pandemic. But to her credit, we pushed
through and we continued to investigate, and we got a
(36:23):
lot done despite the fact that we were all working remotely.
Right And do you recall a moment where, you know,
maybe Teresa Hall sent you an email or called you
on the phone and said, we're going forward with this.
This is we're going to move on. This was there
at one of those moments. Well, I think there were
two moments that stand out to me. One was Teresa
emailing me and accepting the case. The second was when
(36:46):
she called me and said, I think we may have
vaginal swabs from the victim's rape kit, which blew my
mind because there was an entire hearing about the fact
that all of the evidence was destroyed, but she got
a tip that there may still be UH swabs from
the victim's rape kit at the medical Examiner's office. I
knew that the DNA was going to be a game changer.
(37:07):
So when she called me and told me she thought
there was even a slight possibility that this vaginal swab
was still available, that was huge for us. And Robert,
what was it like for you getting all this news
all of a sudden, She told me, you know, they
did the DNA say uh test and not only did
they exclude you, but they also put it into codas
(37:30):
and found a match. So I was like floored by
all this, and she says, you will be free by
Thursday morning. And what was the reaction on the phone, Robert,
what did that feel like? No, it was very special.
I was very thankful for all of them. I've always
told everybody I didn't do it, you know, and you know,
you would get some responses such as, yeah, everybody says that,
(37:54):
But I say, yeah, but everybody ain't telling you the truth.
I said, I really am innocent. So I've had a
lot of staff members from the prison contact me when
I got out and they said, you know, you always
said you were in this, and we always knew there
was something different about you, you know. So they still
stay in touch. And so you were given your date,
(38:15):
but freedom was at the next day, or it was
Thursday was on Thursday her birthday. Oh, that's a great birthday.
That's a really nice present. All right. What was it
like being free, finally walking out of there? Oh? Man, undescribable,
(38:35):
you know, to actually walk out of that prison and
know that that was it. The nightmares finally over. Robert.
What has it been like since you release? It's been
very challenging. Remember I went into a world I didn't know,
and then in I come back into another world that
I don't know anymore. You know, modern technology, cell phone,
(39:00):
never seen one home depot, Walmart, all the different restaurants.
Now there's just self checkout. As Susan and I became
accustom went together, it was pretty exciting. It's been. It's been, Um,
it's been an adventure. Just coming out of prison during
a pandemic. Not only you having to adjust to uh,
(39:23):
you know, decades that have passed by while you were
in prison, but now you're coming out during a pandemic.
What was that like for you? Yeah? It was that
was challenging as well, because you know, everywhere you went
required a face mask, and you know, it's like when
I was walking by an armored car wearing a face mask,
I'm like, if I would have done this in three
(39:45):
they would have shot me. So then I found out,
you know, there were obstacles, of course. So my goal
when I got out was to get my voter registration card,
to get my passport, which I've never had one, which
I got um, to get my license. So I went
over there with a night three expired license to get
(40:10):
it renewed. It was pretty exciting seeing their face trying
to figure out how I'm bringing nine license to haven't renewed.
You've been driving this whole time. Actually, she's let me
ask what has been the challenge here? Robert was not
eligible for compensation from the state after this exoneration. Can
(40:30):
you talk about that? Yeah? So, you know, I think
that people see an exoneration and it's so beautiful and
it's so joyful, and they believe that this is the
end of the journey. But this is just the beginning
of the next part of an individual's journey, where they
have to heal from the trauma that they have suffered
from their wrongful conviction. And although no amount of money
(40:51):
will ever make anyone whole, certainly compensation goes a long
way at helping someone get on their feet, Um, get
a job right, feel some sense of security. And in
Florida currently there is a stat there is a bill
pending to fix Florida's compensation statute. So right now, the
statute in Florida prevents anyone who had any prior convictions compensation.
(41:14):
And so Robert when he was a teenager, he had
to minor non violent felony convictions and now because of that,
he is completely barred from seeking compensation through the Florida
compensation scheme, even though he spent thirty seven years wrongfully incarcerated,
including three years on death row. Right, and these charges
had nothing to do with the crime that he was
(41:34):
accused of. It was something from his teenage years. Correct,
So we could do the call to action. Um, Susan,
I'll start with you. Is there anything that you know
our audience who's listening to this, who's just outraged by
these kinds of stories, anything that you know they any
specific issues that you feel need changing and that we
can help as audience members listening to this. Thanks for
(41:56):
asking about that, Gilbert. So I am going to urge
the audience if they want to learn more about how
they can help us fix Florida's compensation statute. They should
go to the Innocence Project web page to learn how
they can join us in calling on the Florida State
legislature to finally fix the broken compensation statute in Florida.
There right now is a bill that is pending that
(42:16):
would make two critical changes. One that would allow individuals
with prior convictions to see compensation, and to that would
extend the very tight deadline that they had that Florida
currently has of ninety days for a for a person
who's been exonerated to file their request for compensation. So
again I urge everyone to head over to the Innocence
(42:37):
Project website and learn how they can support Agonores in
Florida finally received the compensation that they are entitled to.
And Robert, is there anything from your point of view
that could make life easier for recent agonore ees. The
most challenging thing is like for me, when I went
to a bank to open a bank account, or when
I try to get an apartment or even try to
(42:58):
get a job. I have no history, so they're looking
at me like I'm an alien. Where did I come from?
You know, what was your past employment? Prison? What was
your past resident prison, you know, so you don't want
to tell this to to your new employers or to
a bank or whoever. So you know, you just have
(43:22):
to kind of explain the story. And this is why
I don't have a history. Um. I'm going to enter
the closing argument phase of this of this conversation today,
and I think we're gonna start with Susan. Susan, I'm
going just gonna give you the floor here. What do
you want to say about your work with Robert and
how the importance of what the Innocence Project does, the
(43:44):
importance of what the public can do in order to
not only bring justice to these gross injustices, but also
to prevent them from happening again. The Innocence Project just
had its thirtieth anniversary in August, and over these last
thirty years, we have learned so touch about the criminal
legal system and the significant flaws that we have that
leads to wrongful convictions and also that just lead to
(44:06):
unfair trials that biolate people's constitutional rights. There is a
role for every single person in correcting and preventing wrongful
convictions and preventing just injustice in the criminal legal system.
I would urge people to see what issues are impacting
your communities and get out there and vote. We don't
endorse anybody, but certainly get out there, educate yourself and
(44:27):
understand the issues, because every single citizen has a role
to play in correcting are very, very flawed criminal legal system. Well,
I really want to thank you because I learned so
much just listening to you today about the Florida justice system,
and so I really am grateful for that. Um So
thank you, and Robert give you the closing argument, the
real closing argument here. Anything you want to talk about,
(44:50):
it's all yours. I'm just happy to be where my family,
and my goal really is to tell people that, you know,
if they support the Innocence Project in this I'm not
the only one. There's still others in there, you know,
and they need help. They're in the same predicament I
(45:10):
was when I was begging for help, you know, and
they just don't see an out, you know, without the
Innocence Project, and people like Susan, you know, they have
no hope. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm
(45:34):
your guest host, Gilbert King. I'd like to thank our
executive producers Jason flam and Kevin Wurdis. The senior producer
for this episode is Jackie Pauli, and our producers are
Lila Robinson and Jeff Clyburne. Our editor is Lexandra Guidi.
The music in this production is by three time OSCAR
nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
(45:57):
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. If you're interested
in more wrongful conviction stories in Florida, check out my
new nine part series Bone Valley. The podcast investigates the
(46:19):
case of Leo Schofield, a young man accused of murdering
his wife and who has been in prison ever since,
despite his unwavering claims of innocence. Subscribe to Bone Valley
wherever you get your podcasts. You can find more information
at Lava for Good dot com. Wrongful Conviction is a
production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal
(46:42):
Company Number one. Next week, on the guest hosted episodes
of Wrongful Conviction, investigative reporter Beth Shelburne, We'll talk with
Jeffrey Hollman about the Alabama criminal justice system and Jeffery's
experience of being incarcerated for ten years for a crime
(47:03):
he did not commit. They'll talk about the crime, Jeffrey
time in prison, and the extremely rare pro sate motions
Jeffrey filed that eventually led to his release. Beth Shelburne
is an Alabama native and a veteran journalist who has
spent her career focused on the criminal justice system and
the issue of mass incarceration, and this conversation will touch
(47:25):
on many of the issues she's covered in her work.
Listen next Monday in the Wrongful Conviction podcast Feed
I'm Jason Flammtt Wrongful Conviction. We're proud to be a
part of the ever growing landscape of true crime shows
that revealed just how our criminal legal system works and
often where it fails. This week, I've invited a colleague
from another podcast to bring their unique style to our
coverage of yet another wrongful conviction. Back in the late
(00:22):
seventies and early eighties, there was a string of violent
crimes in Florida. Young women were being raped and murdered
seemingly at random. One of the perpetrators was the infamous
Ted Bundy. He was convicted for one of these murders,
and among the mountain of evidence that was presented against
him was a bite mark. A dentist named Dr Suvaran
(00:46):
was called to testify against Bundy, making famous the use
of bite mark evidence known as forensic odeontology. Four years
after Bundy was sent to death row a young woman's
body he was found with obvious signs of sexual assault
near Tampa. There was also an injury on her cheek
(01:07):
that the medical examiner determined to be a bite mark.
Given that it followed the highly televised Bundy trial, police
honed in on that bite mark to the exclusion of
all other evidence. They began taking bite impressions or denticians
from dozens of men in the neighborhood and brought them
to Dr suvan. One of those men was eighteen year
(01:31):
old Robert Dubois. Dr Suvaran alleged that Robert's dentician matched
the bite mark on the victim, and Robert was arrested.
No other physical evidence tied him to the case, but
with the use of a jailhouse informant, Robert was convicted
of capital murder and sentenced to die by electrocution for
(01:53):
a crime he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction.
(02:13):
Welcome to Wrongful Conviction. I'm Gilbert King. I'm on the
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Devil in the Grove, about
Third Good Marshal's representation of the young men known as
the Groveland for who were just exonerated by the State
of Florida last year. I'm also the writer and host
of a new nine part narrative podcast called Bone Valley
by Lava for Good Podcasts, and I'm honored to be
(02:35):
guest hosting this episode of Wrongful Conviction. Today, we have
two very special guests and I'm gonna ask them both
to introduce themselves before we get into the interview. So
let's start out with the Robert Dubois. Well, my name
is Robert Dubois. So I was just exonerated in and
(02:56):
right now I'm sitting in my partment in Tampa, Florida.
Talk to you guys. And we also have Susan Freedman. Susan,
you want to introduce yourself? Yeah, thanks Philbert for having me.
My name is Susan Friedman. I'm a senior staff attorney
at the Innocence Project based in New York City, and
I represented Robert through his wrongful conviction. Oh, this is amazing.
We have so much to talk about that because this
(03:18):
is really going to be really fascinating. I studied the
case very familiar with Tampa. Robert, the event that would
change your life occurred back in Tampa. Um, you were
just eighteen years old. Can you talk about who you
were and what your life was before that arrest. Well,
at that time I was working in town and country
(03:39):
at an autowapholstery shop for Noel's Outowaupholstery. So I used
to ride my bike. It's like I guess about five miles,
So I wrote it to town and country every day
for the job. So suddenly my whole world was upside down,
(03:59):
you know, because I'm doing my everyday thing, going back
and forth to work, and then next thing, you know,
I'm gonna sell wondering why now, I mean, this is
just came out of the blue for you. I mean,
do you don't have any prior runnings with the law
or do you have you any understanding of what was happening.
I did have a prior running with the law when
I was at a teenager, so it was about an
(04:21):
empty house or car parts, just some dumb stuff. And
I had moved past that and had two years probation
community work hours for the Police Athletic League, which I completed.
And next thing, you know, I mean jail being accused
of murder. And let's go back to that in a minute.
(04:42):
But Susan, I just want to ask you your your experience.
You're coming in, what is what is you like really
understand about Tampa, Florida and this time the early eighties.
You know a lot of people think of like Miami Vice,
this is that era, but this is not like South Florida.
This is Central Florida, Tampa. It's a little sleepier, right, Yeah.
I mean, the one thing to know is that around
(05:02):
the time when this crime occurred that Robert was wrongly
convicted of, there actually were a string of women who
were sexually assaulted and murdered. Um. There wasn't a clear
m O, but there were a number of women that
turned up dead um, one of them obviously being the
victim and Robert's case. The other thing that turns out
to be really important is that Florida is the home
(05:24):
of the Ted Bundy case. And in the nineteen seventies,
Ted Bundy eventually comes to confess to around thirty cases.
And one of the really important pieces of evidence is
bite mark testimony. And that's what actually puts Dr Richard
Subaran on the map. And Dr Suberan testified in uh
in the Ted Bundy trials, and he also lived in Florida.
(05:45):
So this was just a very high profile time for
bite mark evidence generally in the criminal legal system. And
can you just talk briefly about how that science has
come to be viewed today as opposed to back in
the eighties. Yeah, So, you know, we today know that
bitemark evidence has been wholly discredited. Not only has the
(06:05):
National Academy of Sciences, who did a review of this
type of evidence back in two thousand nine, even the
a b FO, the group that regulates forensic odeontologists, have
made significant revisions to the conclusions that they can make.
In ten and so in seen after a number of
research studies that they concluded that they no longer can
(06:27):
do what's known as source attribution, mean that's say, in
a certain individual was the biter in a case? UM
and so that came after years of research in this
to finally debunk this type of evidence that for so
long has been held up as an important piece of evidence,
but that we know today has led to many, many
wrongful convictions. We know of at least thirty four wrongful
convictions in the United States, Robert being one of them. Susan,
(06:49):
can we just talk about the case that UM brought
Robert into trouble? Can you just talk about the facts
of the crime? Yeah. On August nine, in the early
morning hours, a dentist was showing up at work. He
was opening up his shop and in the back he
found the victim in this case, she had been uh,
(07:10):
she was severely beaten and she was there was certainly
evidence that she had been either actually sexually assaulted or
there was an attempted sexual assault. She was completely nude
except for a tube top that was pushed up above
her chest that exposed her breasts. So police immediately started
investigating and they canvass the neighborhood. Unfortunately, there were no eyewitnesses,
(07:34):
and so what we know about the victim is that
she worked at a local restaurant, a local fast food chain,
and she had left somewhere around nine to nine fifteen
in the evening after closing up. We know that someone
saw her about nine PM a couple of blocks away
from her home. But then she's found eight blocks south
of that, and so police started canvassing. They couldn't find
(07:56):
anyone who had any information, and so very quickly this
case focused in on the physical evidence, and that evidence
came from the medical examiner's office. During the autopsy, the
medical examiner concluded three things. First, that the victim was
killed as a result of blunt force trauma um as
I said. She had been severely beaten. And at the
crime scene they found a total of four to buy
(08:17):
four wooden boards by her and they all had UH
and a few of them had blood and hair on them,
which suggested that they were the murder weapon. The emmy
also concluded that she likely was sexually assaulted. And then
the third when he washed her face, he saw that
there was a pattern injury on her left cheek, which
he concluded even though he is not an ode ontologist
(08:38):
or a bite mark expert, he actually concluded must have
been a bite mark. How did police begin to narrow
this down to certain suspects? So, because law enforcement didn't
have any eyewitnesses, they really focused in on the bite mark.
And in this case, the medical examiner identified what he
believed to be a bite mark on the victim's left cheek.
(08:58):
He exercised it and put it in formal to hide,
which caused it to shrink. But then the photographs of
the bite mark were shared with Dr Suberan and Dr
Subaron concluded that this was a human bite mark and
that he would be able to make a comparison. So
Dr suber On then advised law enforcement to start collecting
denticians from individuals who they believed were suspects, and to
(09:19):
do that using these wax um And if folks are
thinking about why bees wax that doesn't really make sense.
You're right, because bees wax is not a good method
for capturing someone's dentition, but that's what they were using.
And so Detective Saladino started going around and collecting dozens
and dozens of denticians from basically any individual that they
(09:40):
came into contact with, and they turned their attention to
Robert because they interviewed a woman who had worked at
the at a store about a block away from where
the victim was discovered. And what's interesting about this individual
is that she worked at the store back in February,
which is six months before this crime. But she alleged
(10:00):
that she knew a couple of boys who, as she
said quote, caused trouble. That's what led police to focus
in on Robert and to ask him for his beeswax sdentician. So, Robert,
can you just talk a little bit about your first
contact with police and what you were thinking when you
when you got approached. What was that like that moment? Well,
I wasn't very fond of cops in general. I was
(10:22):
a teenager, but um, when I was approached, He's like,
would you mind doing a beeswax impression? And I'm like,
for what he says, Well, I we're just doing you know,
everybody in the neighborhood or whatever, even though I'm not
even from that neighborhood. So I went with him downtown.
Were the only two in the police detective division, and
(10:46):
he asked me to bite into a soft piece of
bees wax, so I did, and he drove me back home,
and he made a crazy statement on the way home.
He says, there was two girls walking down the street,
so I thought it pretty weird. He says, um, which
do you prefer, blonde or brunette? I said, what does
it matter? You know? So he didn't say anymore, and
(11:09):
he dropped me off their home. So then I didn't
hear anymore until October twenty one three, when they came
to my door at two thirty in the morning and
asked me to go downtown and said that my mom
needed to see me. So, taking the consideration, my father's
(11:31):
in a wheelchair, he's completely paralyzed, so I'm thinking, if
my mom needs to see me, something's really going on here.
So I go downtown. Of course my mom isn't there,
and then they tell me Detective Saladino will come shortly
and explain what's going on? So in the interim, I'm
sitting there and a detective looks at me. He's talking
(11:53):
about fishing, the weather, all this normal stuff, and then
he says, why did you do it? I said, what
did I do? What? He said, why did you kill her?
I said kill who? I said, what? Are you crazy?
So I'm thinking there's some kind of sick joke. So
(12:14):
aside from this, there's no other physical evidence that is
causing police to focus in on Robert. It's just they're
doing this thing with the teeth, right, Yeah, that's right.
Police approach Robert and he's completely cooperative because he has
nothing to hide. He knows he didn't commit this crime.
In fact, the other forensic evidence excludes Robert. And would
(12:35):
you consider that in an example of tunnel vision, you
have all this other evidence that's possibly exculpatory, is exculpatory,
and yet here they are focusing on this something that
we now consider junk signs. What what what happened there?
That's exactly right. This is classic tunnel vision and cognitive
bias setting in. This was the case with no eye witnesses,
(12:56):
and when police got their tip and they believe that
Robert was the sort to the pipe mark, all the
other evidence that was exculpatory, they found reasons to ignore,
and they focused in on Robert, and we're able to
explain away any fact that didn't line up with their
theory of the case. And Robert, this must have been,
you know, the worst day of your life to get
accused of something like this and arrested. Can you just
(13:17):
walk through the arrest and what that was like for you? Yeah,
I mean I was very angry and baffled. I mean
I was very angry, angry with the police when they
tried to handcuff me because I knew I had done
nothing wrong, you know. And then because I'm angry when
they took me to the jail, they had the nurse
shoot me up with how doll, so that put me out,
(13:41):
and when I woke up, I was strapped down to
a steel bunk with leather straps. So then the following morning, um,
they take me for all these dental impressions and I'm
still doped up off the how doll or whatever it was,
and I was just baffled. I was just trying to
(14:01):
get it over with because I knew I had done
nothing wrong, So I was living kind of like in
a bad dream I couldn't wake up for. This episode
is sponsored by the A I G pro Bono Program.
(14:23):
A I G is a leading global insurance company, and
the A I G pro Bono Program provides free legal services,
as well as other support to many nonprofit organizations as
well as individuals who are most in need, and they
recently announced that working to reform the criminal justice system
will become a key pillar of the program's mission. And
(14:52):
any of the time, did you ever have occurred to
you like I need a lawyer at this point, No,
because I knew I had done nothing wrong, So it
never even really crossed my mind. I didn't know enough
about the legal system to even know I had that right.
And I think one of the things that's really important
about Robert just said is that a lot of times
people's innocence puts them at risk, especially in interrogations and
(15:13):
in these kinds of situations where they're interacting with law enforcement.
They know that they're innocence and they believe that the
that the evidence will prove that. And so Robert went
ahead and completely cooperate with law enforcement, knowing that he
didn't commit this crime. He didn't bite the victim. He
was never there and so he had no reason to
hide on anything, and so he didn't think he needed
a lawyer. Yeah, I'm always amazed by the exonaries that
(15:35):
you talked to. They have so much faith in the
justices and like, they will just clear this up together.
We'll talk this over because I didn't do it, and
they they are at the most risk of anybody because
they're just talking the police right off the bat. So, Susan,
can you just give us a brief summary of what
what Robert's trial was like? Sure? So you know, the
focus of this case was the bite mark evidence, but
(15:57):
police and prosecutors wanted to have more evidence to support
this conviction. Police alleged that someone named Claude Butler, who
was no stranger to the Tampa Police Department, they were
very well acquainted with him, alleged that Robert actually confessed
to him while they were both incarcerated at the local
jail while Robert was awaiting trial. Claude Butler, at the
(16:18):
time had had been arrested previously for various offenses, but
at that time he also was facing charges for kidnapping,
robbery with a firearm, grand theft, auto dealing in stolen property,
battery on a law enforcement agent. So he was looking
at multiple life sentences and so Claude was the second
piece of evidence that police used. Then the third piece
(16:42):
of evidence was this witness named Jack. And Jack was
really perplexing because there were no police reports that memorialized
any interviews with Jack. He was not on the witness list.
He didn't testify in the grand jury. He pops up
two weeks before Robert goes to trial, and Jack alleges
that he was staying at the Peter Pan Motel, which
is where Robert was arrested, and that one day, he
(17:04):
doesn't remember exactly what day it was, but there was
a party going on. He walked in, he saw Robert
sitting on the bed. He looked very glum, and when
he asked Robert what was going on? Again, Robert does
not know this person. Robert just says, I wanted for murder.
And so from there they want the jury to infer
that Robert is confessing to committing this crimeer in some
way corroborating the allegation that he did commit this crime.
(17:27):
And that's the entire case. Robert, what are you thinking
when you're watching, you know, people like Jack and Claude
Butler get up there on the stand and talk about
you what's going through your mind when you're watching this testimony.
I was sitting there and disbelief, you know, I'm just
sitting there, like, how can they even believe this stuff?
You know? So I just watched it like I was
(17:48):
watching um, kind of like I was outside watching in
you know. So I said there every day they took
me to the courthouse at five am, and I didn't
get back to the jail to like midnight because they
keep you on hold and sale for transport and all that.
So I was just sitting there. I was tired, I
was baffled. I just had no clue while we're sitting here,
(18:12):
you know. And Susan, what kind of defense did Robert
have to start in this trial? One thing that's important
here is that this was a capital trial, so Robert
was facing the death penalty, and he had an attorney
whose defense in this case was the one he put
on another dentist, Dr. Norman Sperber, who said that, oh no,
(18:33):
this is a bite mark, but it's not Robert's bite.
There are too many inconsistencies here. And so it can't
be Robert's fight. And so now basically you had these
two bite mark experts going at it and what we
call in the legal field the battle of the experts,
and it just came down to the jury obviously siding
with the prosecution. And the second thing was that Robert's
(18:53):
mother testified that Robert was home on the night of
the crime. And then the third part of the case
really was ving or trying to prove or trying to
convince the jury that Claude Butler should not be trusted
and that he was an incentivized witness. Right he's facing
multiple life sentences instead only got five years UM and
to prove that that is why he cooperated with law enforcement.
(19:14):
You know, just listening, it seems like a really hard
thing for the defendant to overcome when this science is
just deemed, as you know, infallible. And then you have
a jailhouse snitch who's we don't even know anything about
jail house snitches back then, we didn't know how often
they were being used. So these two things just must
seem impossible to overcome at trial, that's right, you know.
(19:35):
So you have this dentist who gets on he is
a famous dentist. He's known for the Ted Bundy cases.
He's got all of his fancy degrees, He's got lots
of credentials that he's telling the jury about, and he
testifies that to a reasonable degree of dental certainty, Robert
is the source of the bite. How does anyone dispute that.
(19:55):
Who on the jury would then decide that, in fact,
actually this dentist is wrong and I know better and
this isn't a bite. This is something that we've seen
time and time again with a lot of cases that
involved the misapplication of forensics science. You have these techniques
that were born out of a need for law enforcement
to use them, that never are validated, that don't go
through the rigorous research that we do in other areas
(20:18):
of science and medicine. Yet then they're used in courtrooms
to convict people and to sentence them to death the
way this happened in Robert's case, Right, And I imagine
just coming off knowing what a storm that Wold Ted
Bundy case was. I mean, he was a superstar, a
superstar dentist. He's the one that basically his credentials, like
I'm the one who solved it. And and enabled us
(20:38):
to catch Ted Bundy. So you know, you go onto
the next case and you have this guy testifying. That's
a lot to overcome. Robert. Can you talk about what
it was like. You know, you mentioned just sort of
being in a daze and being disbelieving that this was
actually happening to you, which is a pretty common theme.
But you know, you obviously had to wait for that
verdict to come back. Can you just walk us to
(21:00):
that moment in your life, what you can remember of
that moment when the jury has a verdict During the trial,
I kind of uh detached myself, so to speak, So
I wasn't worried about the verdict because I knew I
had done nothing wrong. So I still had a little
faith left in the system. So when they came back
(21:23):
with the verdict, yeah, I was just amazed. But the
sentencing thing was the same way. You know, It's like
the jury recommended life in prison, the judge overrode it
and said, you know, sentenced me to die by electrocution.
I'm just up, said and baffled about the whole thing.
(21:45):
And now I know I'm really in a in a mess.
I'm in a trap, you know, And I don't see
a way out. I mean, I can't even imagine what
that's like. The jury comes back, says you're guilty and
and says you you're sentencing you to life, and it
gets worse. The jury the judge over overrides the jury recommendation.
(22:06):
Do you remember going back into your cell after that
and thinking I just got sentenced to death for a
crime I didn't commit. Yes, So once they sentenced me
to death, it's like from that moment on, I had
like dirty officers around me, you know, escorting me all
the way back to the jail into my sale. If
I had if they let me out to use the phone,
(22:27):
I had thirty officers surrounding me. So I think it
was only like until the next morning. They got a
transport to take me the death row at two thirty
in the morning. And what was that like, You're arrivaling,
you know, at at this age, arriving at you know,
Florida's most notorious death row. What what was that like?
I mean, could you have just imagine yourself in this
(22:48):
situation and how do you hang on to any optimism
at this point? Well, I know, the ride to death row,
still in a daze, and I'm wondering, how could this
be happening? You know, how did this just happen to me?
Why am I going to death Row? You know? And
then I arrive at death Row or Florida State Prison,
(23:09):
and I see this big green building and it's like
a filling of gloom when you see this building. And
then I go up into the building. They escort me
down this long hallway into a cell on death Row
and they slammed the door, and that's my new home.
And I'm like, man, are these guys like sitting here
(23:32):
waiting to die? So it was very disturbing. And you know,
some of the guys already had warrant signed, so they
were really afraid because they knew if their name may
come up, once it comes up again, they might get killed.
You know. So these things, you know, went through all
of our heads. You know, is it gonna be my turn?
(23:56):
When you hear that plane fly over the prison? You
don't know? And is it true that old Sparky the
Florida's Electric Chair it's right there on death Row, isn't it.
I mean? And in the eighties it was pretty active, right,
Oh yeah, it was on que Wing So yeah, well,
just while I was there alone. They killed Margaret Francois,
(24:16):
Jeff Daughtry, Willie Darden, Ted Bundy, another guy only knew
m as Frog, another guy named Tiny. So they killed
all total while I was there like twelve. What is
that like being on death row when that happens. What's
the general mood among among people on death row? It's
very quiet and gloomy, you know, It's like, let me
(24:39):
tell you, they the torture, the mental torture they use
on death row, even though they may not even realize
they were doing it. I thought they did though. Is
a plane Whenever the governor signs a death roard, the
plane flies over Florida State Prison, lands on their runway,
and walks the after war into the colonel of the prison.
(25:02):
The colonel sends his officers to death row to get
whoever it belongs to. Then they escorted them up to
the colonel's office, they go to death watch, and nine
times out of tail you don't see him no more.
That must be just the most terrifying sound when you're
in death row to hear a plane landing. Well, yeah,
(25:23):
that And then every Wednesday at one o'clock in the afternoon,
they would test the electric chair, so all the lights
on death Row with Dim Robert. Three years after your conviction,
(25:53):
your attorney managed to get your death sentence changed to
life in prison with a mandatory quarter, meaning you'd get
to go see the parole board after five years served.
You must have felt a bit of relief when that happened. No,
not at all. So now I'm not on death row.
I no longer have the right for legal representation anymore.
(26:13):
Now I am literally on my own. You're entitled to
legal representation as long as you have a death sentence.
I was not happy when my death sentence got overturned
to life because I had asked the attorney over and
over again to please fight the conviction, and he kept
fighting the sentencing. How do I hope to prove my
(26:35):
innocence is all if all you're doing is fighting to
get a death sentence turned to life. Now I went
from death row to the worst population in the state
of Florida. So FSP is the dumping ground for what
they considered the worst of the worst. Okay, this is inmates.
(26:56):
There's been at other institutions stabbed at the inmates raped?
Are the inmates stabbed officers and done just numerous awful things,
and they got sent here as a punishment. So it's
like the wild wild West. They won't accept me to
no other prison because I came from death row. That's
how I ended up at FSP. FSP, by the way,
(27:20):
is Florida State Prison. And while you were there, you
were writing a lot of letters. How did you get
to be such a prolific letter writer? I had never
written a letter till I went to jail, not that
I remember, you know, And now that's all I'm doing. Susan,
can you just give us a brief synopsis of this
post conviction history that Robert had, Like what what he
(27:42):
what he was trying to do, what, what kind of
appeals he was trying to find, what areas he was
looking to explore. Probert was his own best advocate. He
wrote to everybody, UM and that included lawyers, the media,
really anyone who would listen, UM. And you know, after
his death sentence was vacated, he continued to have hope
(28:04):
that the truth would come to light and that he
would be proven innocent. And one of the really important
things that Robert did was in two thousand and six
he filed a motion for access to DNA testing because
he believed if we use this modern DNA testing that's
now available, it would prove that he was innocent. And
what is truly remarkable here is that he was convicted
(28:25):
in five and what we learned is that in October
of nineteen ninety, just five years after he's convicted, the
State of Florida destroys all of the evidence that was
admitted at his trial, including the victims rape kit. So
they have an extensive hearing where the state puts on
evidence that everything was destroyed and that the only evidence
(28:46):
that's remaining are a few hairs and two cigarette butts.
And so I'm just really curious the laws about you know,
in a capital case, they're disposing evidence after five years, Like,
what are the laws about that? So today we have
preservation laws in I believe every single state, but here
in nine Robert's death sentence had been vacated, and so
(29:09):
the court just entered an order disposing of all of
the evidence. Luckily, as we learned in post conviction with
the reinvestigation, that was actually not the case. But it
was shocking to see that in five short years after
a death sentence, that the state destroyed all of that
biological evidence, especially because in nine we did start to
have DNA come online and it was started, it was
(29:30):
being used, So that was really shocking to see in
this case. Susan, how did you become involved in this case?
Robert wrote to the Innocence Project the way he wrote
to many organizations. Uh, And when we review this case,
there are two things that set out to us that
he was convicted based on faulty forensics and a jailhouse informant,
(29:50):
which are too leading contributing factors to wrongful conviction. And
we believe that even though they said that a significant
amount of the DNA evidence was destroyed, it's possible that
we could still get access to some of that other
evidence and do some additional retesting. And so we accepted
Robert's case and we started investigating immediately. And Robert, what
(30:10):
was that like for you? I mean, just being in
the situation and just thinking about all these years that
are passing for you. Yeah, I mean, you know, I
was hoping to have a wife and kids in the
house and all this stuff. So that was taken from me.
That didn't happen. It still hasn't happen. So I started
focusing on not the things I didn't have, but be
(30:35):
grateful for the things I do have and did have.
So I just moved forward. And as the years went by,
I had three parole hearings. All three were negative. It
didn't happen. Now in my mind, um, this is like
the last straw, you know, this is pretty much blocks
(30:57):
off everything I had going for me. And I'm like,
you know, I just felt total hopelessness, and I just
put my hands together and I said, God, send your hands.
That night, they have what they call a legal call
out sheet letting you know you have legal mail. So
the next day I went to get the letter and
it was from Susan saying that hey, we read your case.
(31:20):
We're taking your case, you know. And then like I
think a week later, she was sitting across the table
from me talking to me. When we accepted the case,
I started digging into Robert's file. This was a capital case.
There were a lot of materials. While I had hope
that we'd be able to do some additional DNA testing
on the items that we believed still existed, I also
(31:42):
knew that this was going to be an informing case.
We had to get to the bottom of what was
going on with Claude Butler, because just from a cold
read of the record, it is clear that he's incentivized
and that he was testifying falsely at Robert's trial. So
we started digging into him immediately, and very quickly, a
lot of things surfaced about him that confirmed all of
(32:02):
our original suspicions. The trial prosecutor in Robert's case, who
elicited all kinds of testimony about the fact that Claude
Butler was not receiving any benefits, he was testifying out
of the goodness of his heart. He believed this was
the right thing to do, to tell everybody what Robert
confessed to him. We found out that the trial prosecutor
in Robert's case filed emotion to mitigate in the informants case,
(32:26):
urging that judge to let Claude Butler walk free because
Claude Butler was a key witness in Robert's case and
that he was part of him securing a death sentence
against Robert. The other thing that we did is we
started digging into Jack because we were so surprised by Jack.
We didn't understand where he came from just like the
(32:47):
trial defense counselor was shocked by him, So were we
and what do we do? We found a criminal case
where he was the star witness. And in that case,
Jack alleged that someone locked on his door, he was
covered in blood. This person entered the hat, entered his
hotel room, that he helped him dispose of the clothes
(33:08):
that recovered in blood. And then, as it turned out,
this person was charged with capital murder. And so Jack,
who at minimum could have been an accessory after the
fact in this case, is not charged at all. He
becomes a star witness in this other case, and he
pops up in Robert's case, and Robert has no idea
who who this is. There are no police reports connecting
Jack to this case, and all of a sudden, it
(33:30):
becomes very clear that Jack is a plant. Right, Jack
is inserted into this case on the eve of Robert's trial. Susan,
what did you learn about that bite mark after all
these years? So one of the things that we did
during the reinvestigation was we submitted all of the materials,
we had photographs, testimony about the bite mark evidence to
(33:51):
Dr Adam Freeman, who is a board certified forensic codontologist
and dentist, and he examined all those materials and he
made a number of conclusions about both the evidence collection
and the pattern injury itself. So first he concluded that
the way that people's denticitions were collected using that beeswax
(34:11):
was an improper way to collect to obtain denticians. He
evaluated the pattern injury on the victim's cheek and specifically
he was looking at measurements and concluded that this was
way too big to be a human bite mark. So
ultimately we found out that this was not a bite
mark at all. And one of the things that I
think is really important here is that the victim was
(34:33):
beaten so severely in the face that this may have
actually been from the boards. The severe damage that she suffered.
Maybe the one of the boards left an injury that
appeared to be the pattern injury that the dentist obviously
assumed the bite mark, But this in fact was not
a bite mark on the victim at all. Yeah, I
really want to get into this part of it. So
you're you're you're dealing with the thirteenth Circuit in Florida. Um,
(34:55):
can you just talk about these conviction integatory review units
how important they were to this particular case. Conviction integrity units,
sometimes also called conviction review units, are specialized units within
prosecutors offices that are supposed to look at cases where
an individual is factually innocent and reinvestigate. They're really important
units that allow for prosecutors not only to correct wrongful
(35:18):
convictions but also prevent them by implementing policies that they
realize are important in order to prevent wronkle convictions in
the future and have implement those policies in their offices.
And so, after I did as much investigating as I
possibly colude on Claude, Butler and Jack and obtained all
of the records that I could from the police department,
(35:40):
I put together a memo to Teresa Hall, who was
the chief at the time, the chief of the conviction
review unit, and I put forward all the evidence I
had that made me suspicious about the conviction, the reasons
why I thought that uh, Butler and Jack didn't have
any credibility, And then I put forward an investigation plan
and asked her to join me in re investigating this case.
(36:01):
And so that was my pitch to her, and then
very quickly she came back to me and we started
our joint reinvestigation. But the timing was tough because it
was March of and we all remember what happened in
March of the world shut down as a result of
the COVID nineteen pandemic. But to her credit, we pushed
through and we continued to investigate, and we got a
(36:23):
lot done despite the fact that we were all working remotely.
Right And do you recall a moment where, you know,
maybe Teresa Hall sent you an email or called you
on the phone and said, we're going forward with this.
This is we're going to move on. This was there
at one of those moments. Well, I think there were
two moments that stand out to me. One was Teresa
emailing me and accepting the case. The second was when
(36:46):
she called me and said, I think we may have
vaginal swabs from the victim's rape kit, which blew my
mind because there was an entire hearing about the fact
that all of the evidence was destroyed, but she got
a tip that there may still be UH swabs from
the victim's rape kit at the medical Examiner's office. I
knew that the DNA was going to be a game changer.
(37:07):
So when she called me and told me she thought
there was even a slight possibility that this vaginal swab
was still available, that was huge for us. And Robert,
what was it like for you getting all this news
all of a sudden, She told me, you know, they
did the DNA say uh test and not only did
they exclude you, but they also put it into codas
(37:30):
and found a match. So I was like floored by
all this, and she says, you will be free by
Thursday morning. And what was the reaction on the phone, Robert,
what did that feel like? No, it was very special.
I was very thankful for all of them. I've always
told everybody I didn't do it, you know, and you know,
you would get some responses such as, yeah, everybody says that,
(37:54):
But I say, yeah, but everybody ain't telling you the truth.
I said, I really am innocent. So I've had a
lot of staff members from the prison contact me when
I got out and they said, you know, you always
said you were in this, and we always knew there
was something different about you, you know. So they still
stay in touch. And so you were given your date,
(38:15):
but freedom was at the next day, or it was
Thursday was on Thursday her birthday. Oh, that's a great birthday.
That's a really nice present. All right. What was it
like being free, finally walking out of there? Oh? Man, undescribable,
(38:35):
you know, to actually walk out of that prison and
know that that was it. The nightmares finally over. Robert.
What has it been like since you release? It's been
very challenging. Remember I went into a world I didn't know,
and then in I come back into another world that
I don't know anymore. You know, modern technology, cell phone,
(39:00):
never seen one home depot, Walmart, all the different restaurants.
Now there's just self checkout. As Susan and I became
accustom went together, it was pretty exciting. It's been. It's been, Um,
it's been an adventure. Just coming out of prison during
a pandemic. Not only you having to adjust to uh,
(39:23):
you know, decades that have passed by while you were
in prison, but now you're coming out during a pandemic.
What was that like for you? Yeah? It was that
was challenging as well, because you know, everywhere you went
required a face mask, and you know, it's like when
I was walking by an armored car wearing a face mask,
I'm like, if I would have done this in three
(39:45):
they would have shot me. So then I found out,
you know, there were obstacles, of course. So my goal
when I got out was to get my voter registration card,
to get my passport, which I've never had one, which
I got um, to get my license. So I went
over there with a night three expired license to get
(40:10):
it renewed. It was pretty exciting seeing their face trying
to figure out how I'm bringing nine license to haven't renewed.
You've been driving this whole time. Actually, she's let me
ask what has been the challenge here? Robert was not
eligible for compensation from the state after this exoneration. Can
(40:30):
you talk about that? Yeah? So, you know, I think
that people see an exoneration and it's so beautiful and
it's so joyful, and they believe that this is the
end of the journey. But this is just the beginning
of the next part of an individual's journey, where they
have to heal from the trauma that they have suffered
from their wrongful conviction. And although no amount of money
(40:51):
will ever make anyone whole, certainly compensation goes a long
way at helping someone get on their feet, Um, get
a job right, feel some sense of security. And in
Florida currently there is a stat there is a bill
pending to fix Florida's compensation statute. So right now, the
statute in Florida prevents anyone who had any prior convictions compensation.
(41:14):
And so Robert when he was a teenager, he had
to minor non violent felony convictions and now because of that,
he is completely barred from seeking compensation through the Florida
compensation scheme, even though he spent thirty seven years wrongfully incarcerated,
including three years on death row. Right, and these charges
had nothing to do with the crime that he was
(41:34):
accused of. It was something from his teenage years. Correct,
So we could do the call to action. Um, Susan,
I'll start with you. Is there anything that you know
our audience who's listening to this, who's just outraged by
these kinds of stories, anything that you know they any
specific issues that you feel need changing and that we
can help as audience members listening to this. Thanks for
(41:56):
asking about that, Gilbert. So I am going to urge
the audience if they want to learn more about how
they can help us fix Florida's compensation statute. They should
go to the Innocence Project web page to learn how
they can join us in calling on the Florida State
legislature to finally fix the broken compensation statute in Florida.
There right now is a bill that is pending that
(42:16):
would make two critical changes. One that would allow individuals
with prior convictions to see compensation, and to that would
extend the very tight deadline that they had that Florida
currently has of ninety days for a for a person
who's been exonerated to file their request for compensation. So
again I urge everyone to head over to the Innocence
(42:37):
Project website and learn how they can support Agonores in
Florida finally received the compensation that they are entitled to.
And Robert, is there anything from your point of view
that could make life easier for recent agonore ees. The
most challenging thing is like for me, when I went
to a bank to open a bank account, or when
I try to get an apartment or even try to
(42:58):
get a job. I have no history, so they're looking
at me like I'm an alien. Where did I come from?
You know, what was your past employment? Prison? What was
your past resident prison, you know, so you don't want
to tell this to to your new employers or to
a bank or whoever. So you know, you just have
(43:22):
to kind of explain the story. And this is why
I don't have a history. Um. I'm going to enter
the closing argument phase of this of this conversation today,
and I think we're gonna start with Susan. Susan, I'm
going just gonna give you the floor here. What do
you want to say about your work with Robert and
how the importance of what the Innocence Project does, the
(43:44):
importance of what the public can do in order to
not only bring justice to these gross injustices, but also
to prevent them from happening again. The Innocence Project just
had its thirtieth anniversary in August, and over these last
thirty years, we have learned so touch about the criminal
legal system and the significant flaws that we have that
leads to wrongful convictions and also that just lead to
(44:06):
unfair trials that biolate people's constitutional rights. There is a
role for every single person in correcting and preventing wrongful
convictions and preventing just injustice in the criminal legal system.
I would urge people to see what issues are impacting
your communities and get out there and vote. We don't
endorse anybody, but certainly get out there, educate yourself and
(44:27):
understand the issues, because every single citizen has a role
to play in correcting are very, very flawed criminal legal system. Well,
I really want to thank you because I learned so
much just listening to you today about the Florida justice system,
and so I really am grateful for that. Um So
thank you, and Robert give you the closing argument, the
real closing argument here. Anything you want to talk about,
(44:50):
it's all yours. I'm just happy to be where my family,
and my goal really is to tell people that, you know,
if they support the Innocence Project in this I'm not
the only one. There's still others in there, you know,
and they need help. They're in the same predicament I
(45:10):
was when I was begging for help, you know, and
they just don't see an out, you know, without the
Innocence Project, and people like Susan, you know, they have
no hope. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm
(45:34):
your guest host, Gilbert King. I'd like to thank our
executive producers Jason flam and Kevin Wurdis. The senior producer
for this episode is Jackie Pauli, and our producers are
Lila Robinson and Jeff Clyburne. Our editor is Lexandra Guidi.
The music in this production is by three time OSCAR
nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
(45:57):
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. If you're interested
in more wrongful conviction stories in Florida, check out my
new nine part series Bone Valley. The podcast investigates the
(46:19):
case of Leo Schofield, a young man accused of murdering
his wife and who has been in prison ever since,
despite his unwavering claims of innocence. Subscribe to Bone Valley
wherever you get your podcasts. You can find more information
at Lava for Good dot com. Wrongful Conviction is a
production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal
(46:42):
Company Number one. Next week, on the guest hosted episodes
of Wrongful Conviction, investigative reporter Beth Shelburne, We'll talk with
Jeffrey Hollman about the Alabama criminal justice system and Jeffery's
experience of being incarcerated for ten years for a crime
(47:03):
he did not commit. They'll talk about the crime, Jeffrey
time in prison, and the extremely rare pro sate motions
Jeffrey filed that eventually led to his release. Beth Shelburne
is an Alabama native and a veteran journalist who has
spent her career focused on the criminal justice system and
the issue of mass incarceration, and this conversation will touch
(47:25):
on many of the issues she's covered in her work.
Listen next Monday in the Wrongful Conviction podcast Feed
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com