June 15, 2023 • 39 mins
On June 19, 1988, 20-year-old Vincent Wright and 17-year-old Anissia Johnson were robbed at gunpoint by two men outside of a convenience store in Fort Lauderdale, FL. A third perpetrator also drove up to the scene in a brown car and instructed the gunmen to steal Wright’s car, which they did. 22-year-old Sidney Holmes came under police suspicion when they discovered that he drove a similar car to that of the third perpetrator – which happened to be one of the most popular cars at the time. Sidney was placed in multiple lineups, but the circumstances in which he was identified were entirely flawed. He also had a solid alibi. Nevertheless, Sidney was sentenced to 400 years in prison for a crime in which no one was injured, and that he did not commit. The two other perpetrators were never apprehended. Lauren Bright Pacheco talks to Sidney Holmes and Brandon Scheck, Sidney's attorney.
To learn more and get involved, visit:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/sidney-holmes
https://www.floridainnocence.org/
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 (00:03):
On June nineteenth, nineteen eighty eight, Vincent Wright and his
girlfriend Anssia Johnson were parked outside a one stop convenience
store in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. While an Assia waited in
the car, Vincent went behind it to fill the rear
tire with air. Suddenly, two armed gunmen approached, demanding money.
Vincent said he didn't have any. Just then another man
(00:24):
pulled up in a brown Oldsmobile and told the two
gunmen to take Vincent's car. Andissy had jumped out of
the car, and the two men sped off, followed by
the Oldsmobile. Police had no leads and did little to
investigate until Vincent's brother gave them the license number of
a brown Oldsmobile he had seen driving around. The car
(00:44):
belonged to twenty two year old Sidney Holmes, who soon
became the focus of the investigation, but Sydney denied any involvement,
claiming to have been over a mile away at the time.
After viewing two photo arrays, both of which contained Sydney's picture,
as well as a live lineup in which Sydney participated,
Vincent identified him as the man in the brown car.
(01:07):
It seemed to make sense. Why would one person be
shown in repeated lineups if the police didn't think he
was guilty? But this is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to
(01:36):
Wrongful Conviction. Before we even get into introductions with YouTube, gentlemen,
I just want to give the listener a little heads
up about the insanity that is about to unfold in
their headphones. The thing that really gets me most about
this case is that the prosecution initially recommended an eight
(01:58):
hundred and twenty five year sentence, and even without knowing
what you were accused of. I just want that to
resonate because I can't wrap my head around of what
kind of a heinous crime would warrant such a long sentence.
My name is Lauren brad Pacheco, and I'm a broadcast
(02:20):
journalist and a podcaster of such series as Murder in Oregon,
Murder in Illinois, and Murder in Miami. And I am
very honored to be sitting in this seat filling in
for Jason Flohm. But I'm also very honored to be
speaking to you too, Sydney Holmes. Welcome to Wrongful Conviction,
thanks for having us. And also joining us today is
(02:41):
Brandon Sheck Staff attorney with the Innocence Project of Florida.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Welcome Brandon, Thanks Lauren, it's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Sidney. Can you just tell me a little bit about
your upbringing and your family.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Well, I grew it up in a household with two parents.
I have two sisters. We grew up in a Christian household.
We know, very loving, family, were very close, all kind
of functions. Family functions were always coming together Thanksgiving, you know,
Christmas and all of the other days. The thing with me,
I was always a book run I'm always, you know,
a gadget type of guy. You know, I always the intelligent.
(03:18):
I always want to be the smartest guy in the
in the room. I was always that kind of guy.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
And Sydney, just take me to who you were at
the age of twenty two, the year that this happened
in your life. What were your interests, you know, what
were your hopes and plans for the future at that age.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well, age twenty two, I was working at a hospital
in which they was going to send me to school
for a surgic technician. So, you know, I feel like
my future was bright at that time. I was highly
into the medical field. I was highly ambitionous, but it
didn't happen.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
And the irony is you had had two prior incidences
run ins with the but you had turned your life
around at that point, correct, Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
It was a robbery case that at the same instinct,
I was taking a coworker home and he went inside
and committed to crimes without my knowledge, and I was
charged with the crime as well.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
But as I understand it, you did plead guilty in
that case, even though you say you had no idea
the robbery was going on. Were you offered some kind
of plea deal or were you told that if you
pled guilty it would make things easier.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Yes, that was the case.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
So when all of this went down, you were seen
as a previous prior offender, yes, ma'am. All right, And
so Brandon, can you just take me to the time
and the place that we're talking about. This happened in
Fort Lauderdale, But give me an idea of what the
(04:52):
scene was in nineteen eighty eight when the crime occurred.
Just in terms of the relationship between the police and
the public.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Well, you know, Broward County, Florida, has a history, and
it's a well documented history.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
At that time in Fort Lauderdale.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
There were a lot of these types of armed robberies,
and actually the arrest rate where police made arrests in
those cases was quite low.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
It was twenty to twenty five percent.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
So there are a large number of these types of
crimes happening, and you know, not enough police a lot
of cases, had not a lot to go on, and
so there are a lot of these unsolved cases. And
so in those cases, you know, we see shortcuts being taken,
and definitely we see shortcuts being taken here in Sydney's case,
and those shortcuts definitely directly led to his wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
And probably contributed significantly to the fact that Broward County
doesn't have a great track record when it comes to
wrongful convictions. In fact, according to the National Registry of Exonerations,
he leads the way in Florida with thirteen out of
ninety one wrongful convictions.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
That's correct.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
There's definitely a long history, and of course that history
affected a lot of folks, and you know, there's ongoing work,
you know, still with our organization with the State Attorney's
Office to try to assist individuals that we can identify
that were affected by that history, and Sydney here in
(06:28):
this case was definitely one of those folks.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
I think it's also important to note that a lot
of those wrongful convictions occurred under the watch of Florida's
longest serving State Attorney, Mike Satz. I believe Satz was
in office for almost fifty years.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Yeah, that's correct. And you know, to mister Satz's credit, you.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Know, one of the things that he did on the
way out was established this conviction Review Unit, and that
has continued, the review unit with great support by the
current State Attorney, mister Harrold Pryor. But yes, it's quite unusual,
especially in such a large jurisdiction as the seventeenth Circuit
(07:08):
Broward County, to have someone with that amount of power
for that long.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Okay, so now let's talk about the crime. This occurred
on June nineteenth, nineteen eighty eight, Father's Day. The two victims,
Vincent Wright and his girlfriend Anessia Johnson, were outside of
a convenience store gas station. An Isia was sitting in
the car and Vincent was putting air in the tires.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Yeah, so there were there were two perpetrators that were
armed that came up to them and demanded money, demanded possessions.
The victims didn't have anything to give them. I think
the perpetrators were kind of frustrated by that. And you know,
simultaneous to that, a third person driving a brown Oldsmobile
kind of came up onto the scene as it's unfolding
(07:55):
and told the two armed perpetrators, Hey, you just take
their car. And so the two armed perpetrators stole the
victim's car and drove off on the scene. And that
third individual got back into the brown Oldsmobile and also
drove off from the scene.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
And where were you, Sydney At six thirty pm that
night when the crime.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Occurred, I was celebrating Father's Day with my father, friends, neighbors.
We were riding up and down the street on a
cold car. So for the whole day I was at
my parents' house celebrating Father's Day.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
And multiple people were able to confirm that.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Yes, multiple pier cond term out way of Boss the
whole day.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
So after the three perpetrators sped off, an Asia called
the police and when the detective showed up, she told
him what had happened and described the first two men.
She wasn't able to describe the man in the brown car.
At this point, Vincent had already set out with a
friend to try to chase the stolen car down themselves,
but Brandon, they didn't have any success, did they.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
Know, so the perpetrators with the stolen car had about
a five minute head start. Police actually found the stolen
vehicle the next morning and returned it back to Vincent,
but essentially police didn't have any leads. They didn't do
much of any of their own investigation over the next
few days. But meanwhile, Vincent had gone home that night
(09:24):
of the crime and had told his brother Milton what
had happened. Interestingly enough, Milton told Vincent that earlier that
same day, a group of four people who were also
in a brown Olsmobile stopped his car in a street
attempting to carjack him and were actually shooting at him.
(09:45):
And Milton believed that that same group of folks that
tried to carjack him were the same people that tried
to or that did rob Vincent and Anicia earlier that
same day, and so so Milton decided to take the
investigation into his own hands. Over the next few days,
(10:07):
he kind of kept an eye out while he was driving,
you know, the streets of Fort Lauderdale to see if
he spotted any brown oldsmobiles.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
He's basically playing citizen detective.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
And so he saw one brown oldsmobile, wrote down that
license plate, sent it to the police. Police ran it
through their system, and came back and told the right brothers, No,
actually that's the wrong car. Of course, they're looking for
three young black male perpetrators. And I can only imagine
(10:40):
that whatever car that brown Oldsmobile that Milton saw was
registered to was probably not a young black man.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
And so police said, no, that's not a match.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
But Milton continued to drive around over the next few
days and at one point was driving behind Sydney's car,
which was a brown Oldsmobile. So he gave that license
number to the police. Police saw that it was registered
to Sydney, who, of course is a young black man.
And Sydney also had these prior convictions for armed robbery,
(11:12):
and at that point it's kind of like bingo, here's
the guy that we're looking for. And from that point forward,
I would describe police as investigation as tunnel vision.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Essentially.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
That's pretty incredible when you think of it. I mean,
what are the chances of Sydney having the same car
as the perpetrators.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
So that's interesting that you mentioned that, because in our
post conviction investigation, we consulted with a historian at an
Oldsmobile museum in Michigan who told us, you know, you're
not going to believe this, but that car and that
precise color were the most common car and the most
(11:52):
common color of the most common car out on the
streets in the United States at that period of time,
and so I can only presume that there were hundreds,
if not thousands, of these, you know, very type of
brown Oldsmobile driving around the very busy streets of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida at that time. The reality is is that if
(12:14):
Milton had been driving behind another brown Oldsmobile register to
a young black man, then that person might have been
wrongfully convicted in this case.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
But even by his own description, you know, Sydney's car
didn't match because what he described was a similar looking
car but had a blown out circle where the lock
would have been.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
That's right, Milton is definitely the driving force of this investigation,
but you know, there were many inconsistencies between the car
involved in the one stop robbery, the car involved in
the attempted carjacking of Milton and Sydney's car, and so
(13:00):
one of the most significant inconsistencies is that the car
involved in the one stop crime, in the arm robbery
of Milton was described as having a hole in the
trunk kind of where the lock would be. It's possible
that that was a stolen car and so the lock
was popped out, but Sydney's car didn't have that. Sydney's car,
(13:21):
the lock in the back was completely intact. There was
otherwise no hole in the trunk, and the state never
provided any evidence to suggest that that was ever the
case with Sydney's car. And so obviously that's a very
glaring inconsistency between Sydney's car and the perpetrator's car. It
(13:42):
just didn't match up. And then, of course the physical
description of the perpetrator didn't match up with Sidney either.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Yes, let's talk about their physical characteristics. What was the
description given of the man in the brown car.
Speaker 4 (13:56):
So in his first deposition, Vincent said that the perpetrator
was five foot six. Vincent said that he himself was
five foot eight and the perpetrator was shorter. Than he was.
He described him as one hundred and seventy pounds, kind
of heavy set. He described him as a little bit overweight,
and that was not Sydney at the time of the crime.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Sidney just described to me then what your height and
weight was at the time of the crime. When you
were twenty.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Two, I was six feet one hundred eighty three pounds.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
She were a tall, skinny guy.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Yeah, six feet about one eighty three.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Got it.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
The lead investigator in this case was Detective Robert Campbell,
and it does seem like he was focused on you
as the only suspect, despite the fact that the driver
of the oldsmobile was not even one of the armed robbers. Sydney,
when did you even get an inkling that the police
were setting their sights specifically on you?
Speaker 3 (15:00):
My car at the time was ready to the address
I was using at that time was my grandmother's resident
and when they got to tag them rand his number
to the address, they came into the house and left
a business card. Satday, I need to contact them, these
two detectives, in which I did because I have nothing
been high, I haven't done anything. So I called them
(15:21):
and they came by questioned me and I actually take
a photograph to mirect. I didn't think anything was to that.
I gave him a photograph and that was that. That's
the first time. The next time I seen them, I
was being arrested for ann rovit.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Initially, the victims were shown what we would call mugg book,
which is essentially just a large book of photographs of
people who had previously been arrested for similar crimes, and
neither of the victims made an identification from the mug book.
Several days later, Sydney's license plate number was given to
the police, and that is the impetus for him becoming
(16:13):
a suspect in this case. And so the police created
a six pack, a photo lineup of six photos, including Sydney's,
using his booking photo from his prior arrest, from his
prior conviction in nineteen eighty four, which would have been
four years before this crime occurred, and neither of the
(16:33):
victims identified Sidney from that lineup.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
But then, of course the photo that Sidney just talked about,
the one he freely agreed to give the police, came
into play exactly.
Speaker 4 (16:45):
And so, as Sidney explained, you know, police came to
talk to him and he told them, you know, I
didn't do this. I have nothing to hide. Yes, of course,
please take a photograph of me, you know, expecting that
that photograph is going to help a limit him as
a suspect because he knew that he didn't commit this crime.
And so a second photo lineup was created using that
(17:07):
new photograph of Sydney that he agreed to take, and
five different people than from the filler photos in the
first lineup. And so Sidney is the only person that
was shown to the victims multiple times.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
And it should be noted that Detective Campbell was the
one who administered every one of those lineups.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
The female victim, she did not identify Sidney. She never
made an identification. In the case Vincent, the male victim,
he identified Sidney in the second lineup, and that's the
principal evidence used to convict him and Sidney.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
You know, you were quite willing to assist the detectives
in their initial investigation, and turns out there wasn't much
of an investigation because you were arrested on October sixth
of nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
That morning of October sixth, I was sitting at my parents' house,
actually talking to my father having breakfast at the kitchen table.
Then you know, to the the same to the tapis
came knocking at the front door, say they had a
warrant for my arrest, armed robbery. They took place at
this at that station. I'm looking at him saying, for robbery.
I haven't robbed anyone. So, you know, being the humble
(18:26):
god I am, you know, the Homer spirit. Okay, I
complied with law enforcement and I was arrested. You know,
I can't even put in the words what went through
my head. I'm saying, why is I being handcuffed? Why
is I being trout with something? Having done I'm twenty
two A while you know, what did I do? I
was speaceless, go to the kind of jail I'm in
(18:46):
art trying to figure it, you know. But like I said,
you know, the resilient person I am. I stayed humble
through the process, you know, praying that you know, we
got a lawyer and hoping that the true fights that
come out. Apparently it didn't.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
So a little over six months later, on April twenty fourth,
nineteen eighty nine, your trial began. Your defense attorney was
Mitchell Pole, and the prosecutor was Peter Magrino, So Brandon,
what did the prosecution present.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
So essentially it's the identification of Sydney by one of
the two victims, and again that's only after the second
lineup that he was in, plus whatever stock you want
to put into his car being similar, although significantly different
than that of the perpetrator's car that he was driving
(19:38):
at the crime scene. I think it's also really important
to note that Milton was critical to the investigation, the
citizen's investigation that we described, but he was never called
to testify at mister Holmes's trial, so the jury never
heard his perspective and precisely what he did and what
(19:58):
he saw during his own an investigation. And that information
is critical because it's the exact reason why Sidney became
a suspect in the first place. And without that citizen investigation,
without what Milton did, Sidney would never have been a
suspect in this case. So the jury never heard that.
You know, Milton is looking for what happens to be
(20:21):
the most common car in the United States at that time,
and you're just kind of going about his day keeping
an eye out looking for that car, and the jury
never heard from him.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
And the only thing that put Sidney in the.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
Crosshairs here is that he has, you know, that type
of car, and he's a young black man with the
prior arm robbery convictions, and so again that kind of
totality of the factors just leads police into tunnel vision
that he must have been the person who committed this crime.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
I'd also want to know that this identification was the
result of planting Sydney's image in Vincent's mind in the
first photo array in which he was not identified, followed
by an identification in the second after the seed had
been planted. Nevertheless, that was the state's case. So what
did the defense present?
Speaker 4 (21:14):
So the defense's case was that this was a misidentification,
that essentially the state got the wrong guy, and to
bolster that misidentification defense, the defense presented several alibi witnesses that,
like Sidney said, he was at this Father's Day cookout
and because he was there, he could not have committed
(21:35):
this crime at the one stop. And so essentially what
it boils down to is you have on the state side,
the one identification from Vincent. Again that happened only after
the second time that he was shown a photo of Sydney.
And on the defensive side, you have, I believe, four
(21:55):
alibi witnesses who came into court and testified that Sydney
was at the father's did cook out at his parents' house,
and therefore could not have committed this crime. And so
you know, the jury chose the state's evidence, the victim's
identification in court over the alibi witnesses who said that
Sydney couldn't have possibly been at the crime scene. Sydney.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Can you just take me to what it was like
to sit inside that courtroom?
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Well, you know, it was agony. You know, I thought
sure that I was going to be going home that
day because of lack of evidence, you know, and the
alibi witness and alab people's uh standing on the standing
total jerum wear my wayabouts. But when they deliberated, you know,
(22:42):
came back with it gives a verdict. You know, I
was completely and giving them four hundred er sentence at
age of twenty two, I was just devastating, you know
what a while, you know, and then I have a
six month old child. I had a daughter that was
six months so all that was taking away. So I
(23:03):
seen none of the childhood. She was two days from
being seven months old when I got arrested. I've been
in prisonbane thirty four years. My life is just, you know,
(23:37):
just a snappery my eye. It was gone for something
I haven't done. So how can I feel I was
feeling empty? I was, I was devastated, you know. So
I don't know, It's just it was just a day
that I would never forget. But today I just want
(23:58):
to move.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
On from So.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Sidney was not ever accused of being one of the
guys involved in an armed robbery. He's accused of being
a guy who drives by and says, hey, you should
take that car, and then drives away. And based on that,
prosecution recommends eight hundred and twenty five years, and he
(24:25):
gets sentenced to four hundred.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Yeah, that's correct. Four hundred was a compromise. The prosecutor
asks for eight hundred and twenty five years. The defense
attorney came back and said, well, forty years would be
a sufficient sentence, that.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Would be an effective life term.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
And the judge said, well, perhaps eight hundred and twenty
five is too many years. I can only presume that
he landed on four hundred because it's somewhere in the
middle of forty and eight hundred and twenty five, and
that's the sentence that Sydney got, four hundred years. And
so I think a lot of people are thinking, well,
why four hundred y eight hundred and twenty five. These
(25:01):
are just kind of arbitrary numbers. But really what it
boils down to is, at that time in Florida, a
life sentence would have made Sydney eligible for parole after
twenty five years. A term of years sentence, a four
hundred years sentence would mean that he would have to
serve out that number of years and he was not
(25:22):
eligible for parole. I know Sidney has said this multiple times,
but only God can serve four hundred years, right, No
man can serve four hundred years. So essentially that's the
workaround to make Sydney not eligible for parole. He would
never get out of prison.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Did they ever before it even got to court, did
they ever offer you some kind of a deal if
you could give them the names of the two armed assailants?
Speaker 3 (25:49):
They offered a deal. Well, why would I take a
deal for something I haven't done. No, I'm not taking
a deal because I haven't did anything I'm an anacent.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Man, and how can you name two people you have
no eye idea, I.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Don't know who they are.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
If I can just elaborate on At Sidney's sentencing after
he was convicted, the prosecutor said to the judge at sentencing,
and I'm looking at the quote right now, I would
point out that this defendant was given the opportunity to
carry the keys to the prison in his back pocket
because of the factual circumstances surrounding the robbery. And what
(26:24):
he's referring to is precisely, Lauren, what you just said
is that Sidney was given an opportunity to take a plea,
to plead to a crime that he did not commit,
in exchange for giving up the two other perpetrators. And
of course, if you didn't commit a crime, how could
you possibly know who those other two perpetrators were. He
maintained his innocence throughout and therefore he got punished when
(26:46):
it came to sentencing with this very harsh sentence.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Sidney, you were in prison for thirty four years. Can
you just take me to what your day to day
was like?
Speaker 3 (26:58):
Yeah, I spent a lot of time in life. They're
trying to research, trying to find, you know, a way
to become free, you know, get this charge of me
something I didn't do. But in the meantime, why outside
of that, I educated myself. I read a lot. I
love to read. I educated my self computer skills. I
got a social degree in theology. I learned coul their
(27:19):
art skills, I learned counseling skills. I would drug abuse skills.
Day to day, I just kept myself busy, reading a lot,
studying a lot always, you know, by you know, scriptures.
I did a lot just to keep myself afloat. Giving
up wasn't an option, and my parents and my family member,
(27:39):
they weren't going to allow me to ever give up,
you know, all the faith that we have. I was
always going to fight until I stopped breathing.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
And unfortunately it was a long fight, decades long. You
filed appeals for post conviction relief several times and all
were denied. What was the turning point.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Well, twenty seventeen, I would let's take write our application
to the n Surprise of Florida. And you know they
have a screening process. You know, they have to a
lot of cases they have to go through. I also
applied to the CRU and then between them and they
collaborated with each other.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
And that was the Broward County Conviction Review Unit, headed
up by Assistant State Attorney Ariel dembie Berger Brandon. When
you started working with the CRU on Sydney's case, what
stood out to you? What were the biggest red flags.
Speaker 4 (28:37):
In Sydney's case. Unfortunately, just like one read of the
trial transcripts, they aren't very long, and there were all
these holes, these things that didn't make sense. It's like,
how did this person even become a suspect in the
first place. It's not until you really dig into the
police reports, the depositions, and the discovery that's kind of
(28:58):
behind the scenes that the jury isn't always privy to.
When you get down to the bottom of the facts.
In Sydney's case, the facts overwhelmingly speak of discrepancies rather
than corroboration of guilt. And so when you see the
specific facts in Sydney's case and how they just don't
line up right, nothing added up. And that's not even
(29:21):
taking into consideration Sidney's alibi. This crime happened on Father's
Day and he was at a Father's Day gathering, that
had many, many people that corroborated that either through trial
testimony and or deposition testimony. No physical evidence, no other
corroborating witness identifications. All that the state had in this
case was one eyewitness identification.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
And as we talked about earlier, that eyewitness identification was
obviously tainted. What did you learn when you dug deeper
into that process.
Speaker 4 (29:55):
We had two separate eyewitness identification experts and everything relevant
to Sydney's identification, and they both identified double digit issues
pertaining to the identification, both the victim's ability to perceive
the event at the convenience store, but then also the
(30:18):
way that the lineup was composed and administered by the police.
They came back with very similar reports citing very similar
issues that have contributed to hundreds and hundreds of people
being exonerated based on eyewitness identification evidence across the country.
There was no identification of Sydney made by either of
(30:38):
the victims in the first lineup, and so what's problematic
in the second lineup where Sidney was identified by one
of the two victims, is that Sidney was the only
person that's in both lineups. Because of the way that
the lineup is composed this one photo visa via the
other five sticks out to them and so it could
(30:59):
be an in cater to them that police are signaling
and drawing their attention into that photo, and in this case,
that photo was Sydney's photo.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
I thought it was really interesting to the during the
reinvestigation that you interviewed Vincent Wright and Anicia Johnson, who
were the original victims of this crime.
Speaker 4 (31:21):
I think Miss Johnson and mister Ray were very forthcoming
in the information that they provided to us. They were
quite honestly astonished that Sidney, irrespective of whether he committed
the crime, that he was still in prison for this,
and we appreciated their willingness to speak to us and
provide that kind of context to us to understand from
(31:42):
their perspective what happened.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
So on March ninth, twenty twenty three, the Innocence Project
of Florida and the Conviction Review Unit presented all of
their findings and filed emotion for post conviction relief. And
then Sidney, while you were waiting for your hearing to
come up, you get some really great news from television
of all places.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Yeah, what happened was ab By eleven thirty, they came
and told me the judge want to see me. So
I kind of baffled. Why would I judge want to
see me? I knew hearings on Thursday, but they took
me downstairs to see the judge. But then they say
eleven third was too early because the hearing is set
for two o'clock. So they took me back to the
cell and I went and laid down on Then I
heard the guys shower. Hey, I think I see your
(32:28):
picture on TV. So I'm saying, why have my pictures
on TV? Why? You know? I didn't even see it.
It came out. It wasn't there. So I called my sister.
Then when I called my sister, I asked what is
going on? Then she just w was start crying on
the phone, and then I went right to I was
in Courtina at two o'clock to be released.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
And so on March thirteenth, twenty twenty three, you walked
out of prison a free man. What did that feel like?
Speaker 3 (32:53):
Well, I don't know, I can't even know what to say.
I was in tears, you know it. It was kind
of a bittersweet because you know, my father wasn't there.
You know, he died four years ago, so other than that,
that was only a bittersweet part of it, you know,
being released that he wasn't there to see this happen. No,
(33:16):
I'm still really you know, it's only been thirty five
days I've been home, so I'm still trying to grab
to you know, it's still unbelievable. I am free after thirty.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Four years Brandon, as Sydney told us, he'd been working
on his appeals for a long time without success before
connecting with you and the cru What do you think
was the magic ingredient this third time around?
Speaker 4 (33:41):
Well, the magic ingredient, ironically, is the current state of
the State Attorney's Office in Broward County. You have Ril
Demie Berger and her staff at the Conviction Review Unit,
and you have the elected State Attorney, Harold Pryor, who
are truly seeking justice. I think that that is the difference.
(34:01):
They have an open mind and they follow the evidence,
and that's what they did in Sydney's case.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
What's next for you, Sydney, what are your hopes and
plans for the future.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Well, you know, I'm still working though things I always want,
like I have culinary skills and the food truck is
emin it that I you know, roughly one day that
might happen. But you know, like I say, take capitally,
take finance. You know, it's a process. So whatever, just
try to keep brand opportunity to come.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Just take it and Brandon, I understand that under Florida law,
Sydney is unfortunately not even eligible for compensation from the
state because he had those prior convictions we talked about
in the beginning of this episode.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
That's what the state statute says. Is called the Clean
Hands Provision as it it's now essentially says that if
you have a prior felony conviction, you're not eligible for
compensation in a subsequent wrongful conviction, matter how much time
or whatever the circumstances are for that wrongful conviction. You know,
the data says that if you have a prior conviction
(35:09):
of any kind, you're fifty percent more likely to subsequently
be convicted for a crime that you didn't commit in
a later case. There's a bill pending in the Florida
legislature right now that would eradicate that requirement, if you will,
and the Instence Project of Florida is working to fix
that to make people like Sidney who have prior convictions
(35:31):
eligible for compensation for the wrongful conviction cases.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
Well, I understand that the IPF has started a go
Fundme page for Sydney. We'll have a link to that
on our bio page for our listeners who'd like to
help Sydney get a new start. Who knows, maybe start
up capital for that food truck. And now at the
end of every podcast, we have what's called closing arguments,
just your final thoughts, whatever you'd like to say to listeners. Brandon,
(35:58):
why don't you start and then go to Sydney to
close things out.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
Wrongful convictions absolutely happen. It takes a lot of diligence
to overturn them. It takes a lot of seeking the truth,
seeking facts. And in Sydney's case, it was clear from
the very beginning that he was innocent, what he told
everyone all along, and the system got it wrong thirty
(36:23):
four years ago. And there's no amount of effort, no
amount of money, that can get him that time back
with his family, with his daughter, with his mother and
father and sister. But the State Attorney's office in this
case ultimately did the right thing. They ultimately pursued justice.
(36:43):
They themselves sought the facts and the truth, and with
a lot of diligence and hard work, they saw that
Sydney was in fact telling the truth all along, that
he was innocent. And I really do commend the work
that State Attorney's offices are doing across the country to
realize when they got things wrong in the past, to
take accountability for that, and to do whatever it takes
(37:06):
to rectify the situation so that people like Sydney can
come home to their families and live the rest of
their life in freedom.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
Well, like I say, I can't say it enough, that
fantastic job. Like I say to say that you know
the new current state attorney, it's entire staff mis Bergier
and also Brandon Jeth Miller and the whole staff of
the Innocent Project. But a close statement is that throughout
this process, I will always tell the person you can
(37:36):
never give up hope. It's always the chance. It's always
a slim hope, a chance of anything in life that
we does. It was a hard fault. I was twenty two,
But I'm not mad with the justice system. I can't
be mad because you know that's something that's needed in
our country. You know, it's if it weren't with justice system.
But I think it's broken. But I think we're on
(37:57):
the right track. That we got prosecuted throughout the country
and justices throughout the country that they trying to make
changees other states that you got organizations, innercent projects. You know,
they're doing a lot of hard work to try to
reclify some of these things that's going on in our
great state of Florida. It's so much that need to
be done. But like I say, I'm just so grateful
(38:17):
that I had the opportunity to be free. It was
a long road. My thing is to help help people
to overcome the things that I went through, and I
hope I can be some kind of light and I
own it for them, for the youth as well, because
it's needed in our country.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your guest host,
Lauren Bright Pacheco. I'd like to thank executive producers Jason
Flahm and Kevin Wardis for inviting me to be here.
Special thanks also to our wonderful production team Connor Hall,
Annie Chelsea, Lyla Robinson, and Jeff Cliburn. The music in
this production comes from three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
(39:03):
Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
wrong Conviction, as well as Lava for Good on all
three platforms. Be online at Lauren Bright Pacheco, and you
can find my podcasts Murder and Oregon, Murder and Illinois,
and my latest Murder Miami wherever you listen to podcasts.
(39:25):
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
in association with Signal Company Number one
On June nineteenth, nineteen eighty eight, Vincent Wright and his
girlfriend Anssia Johnson were parked outside a one stop convenience
store in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. While an Assia waited in
the car, Vincent went behind it to fill the rear
tire with air. Suddenly, two armed gunmen approached, demanding money.
Vincent said he didn't have any. Just then another man
(00:24):
pulled up in a brown Oldsmobile and told the two
gunmen to take Vincent's car. Andissy had jumped out of
the car, and the two men sped off, followed by
the Oldsmobile. Police had no leads and did little to
investigate until Vincent's brother gave them the license number of
a brown Oldsmobile he had seen driving around. The car
(00:44):
belonged to twenty two year old Sidney Holmes, who soon
became the focus of the investigation, but Sydney denied any involvement,
claiming to have been over a mile away at the time.
After viewing two photo arrays, both of which contained Sydney's picture,
as well as a live lineup in which Sydney participated,
Vincent identified him as the man in the brown car.
(01:07):
It seemed to make sense. Why would one person be
shown in repeated lineups if the police didn't think he
was guilty? But this is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to
(01:36):
Wrongful Conviction. Before we even get into introductions with YouTube, gentlemen,
I just want to give the listener a little heads
up about the insanity that is about to unfold in
their headphones. The thing that really gets me most about
this case is that the prosecution initially recommended an eight
(01:58):
hundred and twenty five year sentence, and even without knowing
what you were accused of. I just want that to
resonate because I can't wrap my head around of what
kind of a heinous crime would warrant such a long sentence.
My name is Lauren brad Pacheco, and I'm a broadcast
(02:20):
journalist and a podcaster of such series as Murder in Oregon,
Murder in Illinois, and Murder in Miami. And I am
very honored to be sitting in this seat filling in
for Jason Flohm. But I'm also very honored to be
speaking to you too, Sydney Holmes. Welcome to Wrongful Conviction,
thanks for having us. And also joining us today is
(02:41):
Brandon Sheck Staff attorney with the Innocence Project of Florida.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Welcome Brandon, Thanks Lauren, it's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Sidney. Can you just tell me a little bit about
your upbringing and your family.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Well, I grew it up in a household with two parents.
I have two sisters. We grew up in a Christian household.
We know, very loving, family, were very close, all kind
of functions. Family functions were always coming together Thanksgiving, you know,
Christmas and all of the other days. The thing with me,
I was always a book run I'm always, you know,
a gadget type of guy. You know, I always the intelligent.
(03:18):
I always want to be the smartest guy in the
in the room. I was always that kind of guy.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
And Sydney, just take me to who you were at
the age of twenty two, the year that this happened
in your life. What were your interests, you know, what
were your hopes and plans for the future at that age.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well, age twenty two, I was working at a hospital
in which they was going to send me to school
for a surgic technician. So, you know, I feel like
my future was bright at that time. I was highly
into the medical field. I was highly ambitionous, but it
didn't happen.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
And the irony is you had had two prior incidences
run ins with the but you had turned your life
around at that point, correct, Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
It was a robbery case that at the same instinct,
I was taking a coworker home and he went inside
and committed to crimes without my knowledge, and I was
charged with the crime as well.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
But as I understand it, you did plead guilty in
that case, even though you say you had no idea
the robbery was going on. Were you offered some kind
of plea deal or were you told that if you
pled guilty it would make things easier.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Yes, that was the case.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
So when all of this went down, you were seen
as a previous prior offender, yes, ma'am. All right, And
so Brandon, can you just take me to the time
and the place that we're talking about. This happened in
Fort Lauderdale, But give me an idea of what the
(04:52):
scene was in nineteen eighty eight when the crime occurred.
Just in terms of the relationship between the police and
the public.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Well, you know, Broward County, Florida, has a history, and
it's a well documented history.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
At that time in Fort Lauderdale.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
There were a lot of these types of armed robberies,
and actually the arrest rate where police made arrests in
those cases was quite low.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
It was twenty to twenty five percent.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
So there are a large number of these types of
crimes happening, and you know, not enough police a lot
of cases, had not a lot to go on, and
so there are a lot of these unsolved cases. And
so in those cases, you know, we see shortcuts being taken,
and definitely we see shortcuts being taken here in Sydney's case,
and those shortcuts definitely directly led to his wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
And probably contributed significantly to the fact that Broward County
doesn't have a great track record when it comes to
wrongful convictions. In fact, according to the National Registry of Exonerations,
he leads the way in Florida with thirteen out of
ninety one wrongful convictions.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
That's correct.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
There's definitely a long history, and of course that history
affected a lot of folks, and you know, there's ongoing work,
you know, still with our organization with the State Attorney's
Office to try to assist individuals that we can identify
that were affected by that history, and Sydney here in
(06:28):
this case was definitely one of those folks.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
I think it's also important to note that a lot
of those wrongful convictions occurred under the watch of Florida's
longest serving State Attorney, Mike Satz. I believe Satz was
in office for almost fifty years.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Yeah, that's correct. And you know, to mister Satz's credit, you.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Know, one of the things that he did on the
way out was established this conviction Review Unit, and that
has continued, the review unit with great support by the
current State Attorney, mister Harrold Pryor. But yes, it's quite unusual,
especially in such a large jurisdiction as the seventeenth Circuit
(07:08):
Broward County, to have someone with that amount of power
for that long.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Okay, so now let's talk about the crime. This occurred
on June nineteenth, nineteen eighty eight, Father's Day. The two victims,
Vincent Wright and his girlfriend Anessia Johnson, were outside of
a convenience store gas station. An Isia was sitting in
the car and Vincent was putting air in the tires.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Yeah, so there were there were two perpetrators that were
armed that came up to them and demanded money, demanded possessions.
The victims didn't have anything to give them. I think
the perpetrators were kind of frustrated by that. And you know,
simultaneous to that, a third person driving a brown Oldsmobile
kind of came up onto the scene as it's unfolding
(07:55):
and told the two armed perpetrators, Hey, you just take
their car. And so the two armed perpetrators stole the
victim's car and drove off on the scene. And that
third individual got back into the brown Oldsmobile and also
drove off from the scene.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
And where were you, Sydney At six thirty pm that
night when the crime.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Occurred, I was celebrating Father's Day with my father, friends, neighbors.
We were riding up and down the street on a
cold car. So for the whole day I was at
my parents' house celebrating Father's Day.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
And multiple people were able to confirm that.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Yes, multiple pier cond term out way of Boss the
whole day.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
So after the three perpetrators sped off, an Asia called
the police and when the detective showed up, she told
him what had happened and described the first two men.
She wasn't able to describe the man in the brown car.
At this point, Vincent had already set out with a
friend to try to chase the stolen car down themselves,
but Brandon, they didn't have any success, did they.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
Know, so the perpetrators with the stolen car had about
a five minute head start. Police actually found the stolen
vehicle the next morning and returned it back to Vincent,
but essentially police didn't have any leads. They didn't do
much of any of their own investigation over the next
few days. But meanwhile, Vincent had gone home that night
(09:24):
of the crime and had told his brother Milton what
had happened. Interestingly enough, Milton told Vincent that earlier that
same day, a group of four people who were also
in a brown Olsmobile stopped his car in a street
attempting to carjack him and were actually shooting at him.
(09:45):
And Milton believed that that same group of folks that
tried to carjack him were the same people that tried
to or that did rob Vincent and Anicia earlier that
same day, and so so Milton decided to take the
investigation into his own hands. Over the next few days,
(10:07):
he kind of kept an eye out while he was driving,
you know, the streets of Fort Lauderdale to see if
he spotted any brown oldsmobiles.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
He's basically playing citizen detective.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
And so he saw one brown oldsmobile, wrote down that
license plate, sent it to the police. Police ran it
through their system, and came back and told the right brothers, No,
actually that's the wrong car. Of course, they're looking for
three young black male perpetrators. And I can only imagine
(10:40):
that whatever car that brown Oldsmobile that Milton saw was
registered to was probably not a young black man.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
And so police said, no, that's not a match.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
But Milton continued to drive around over the next few
days and at one point was driving behind Sydney's car,
which was a brown Oldsmobile. So he gave that license
number to the police. Police saw that it was registered
to Sydney, who, of course is a young black man.
And Sydney also had these prior convictions for armed robbery,
(11:12):
and at that point it's kind of like bingo, here's
the guy that we're looking for. And from that point forward,
I would describe police as investigation as tunnel vision.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Essentially.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
That's pretty incredible when you think of it. I mean,
what are the chances of Sydney having the same car
as the perpetrators.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
So that's interesting that you mentioned that, because in our
post conviction investigation, we consulted with a historian at an
Oldsmobile museum in Michigan who told us, you know, you're
not going to believe this, but that car and that
precise color were the most common car and the most
(11:52):
common color of the most common car out on the
streets in the United States at that period of time,
and so I can only presume that there were hundreds,
if not thousands, of these, you know, very type of
brown Oldsmobile driving around the very busy streets of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida at that time. The reality is is that if
(12:14):
Milton had been driving behind another brown Oldsmobile register to
a young black man, then that person might have been
wrongfully convicted in this case.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
But even by his own description, you know, Sydney's car
didn't match because what he described was a similar looking
car but had a blown out circle where the lock
would have been.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
That's right, Milton is definitely the driving force of this investigation,
but you know, there were many inconsistencies between the car
involved in the one stop robbery, the car involved in
the attempted carjacking of Milton and Sydney's car, and so
(13:00):
one of the most significant inconsistencies is that the car
involved in the one stop crime, in the arm robbery
of Milton was described as having a hole in the
trunk kind of where the lock would be. It's possible
that that was a stolen car and so the lock
was popped out, but Sydney's car didn't have that. Sydney's car,
(13:21):
the lock in the back was completely intact. There was
otherwise no hole in the trunk, and the state never
provided any evidence to suggest that that was ever the
case with Sydney's car. And so obviously that's a very
glaring inconsistency between Sydney's car and the perpetrator's car. It
(13:42):
just didn't match up. And then, of course the physical
description of the perpetrator didn't match up with Sidney either.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Yes, let's talk about their physical characteristics. What was the
description given of the man in the brown car.
Speaker 4 (13:56):
So in his first deposition, Vincent said that the perpetrator
was five foot six. Vincent said that he himself was
five foot eight and the perpetrator was shorter. Than he was.
He described him as one hundred and seventy pounds, kind
of heavy set. He described him as a little bit overweight,
and that was not Sydney at the time of the crime.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Sidney just described to me then what your height and
weight was at the time of the crime. When you
were twenty.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Two, I was six feet one hundred eighty three pounds.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
She were a tall, skinny guy.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Yeah, six feet about one eighty three.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Got it.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
The lead investigator in this case was Detective Robert Campbell,
and it does seem like he was focused on you
as the only suspect, despite the fact that the driver
of the oldsmobile was not even one of the armed robbers. Sydney,
when did you even get an inkling that the police
were setting their sights specifically on you?
Speaker 3 (15:00):
My car at the time was ready to the address
I was using at that time was my grandmother's resident
and when they got to tag them rand his number
to the address, they came into the house and left
a business card. Satday, I need to contact them, these
two detectives, in which I did because I have nothing
been high, I haven't done anything. So I called them
(15:21):
and they came by questioned me and I actually take
a photograph to mirect. I didn't think anything was to that.
I gave him a photograph and that was that. That's
the first time. The next time I seen them, I
was being arrested for ann rovit.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Initially, the victims were shown what we would call mugg book,
which is essentially just a large book of photographs of
people who had previously been arrested for similar crimes, and
neither of the victims made an identification from the mug book.
Several days later, Sydney's license plate number was given to
the police, and that is the impetus for him becoming
(16:13):
a suspect in this case. And so the police created
a six pack, a photo lineup of six photos, including Sydney's,
using his booking photo from his prior arrest, from his
prior conviction in nineteen eighty four, which would have been
four years before this crime occurred, and neither of the
(16:33):
victims identified Sidney from that lineup.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
But then, of course the photo that Sidney just talked about,
the one he freely agreed to give the police, came
into play exactly.
Speaker 4 (16:45):
And so, as Sidney explained, you know, police came to
talk to him and he told them, you know, I
didn't do this. I have nothing to hide. Yes, of course,
please take a photograph of me, you know, expecting that
that photograph is going to help a limit him as
a suspect because he knew that he didn't commit this crime.
And so a second photo lineup was created using that
(17:07):
new photograph of Sydney that he agreed to take, and
five different people than from the filler photos in the
first lineup. And so Sidney is the only person that
was shown to the victims multiple times.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
And it should be noted that Detective Campbell was the
one who administered every one of those lineups.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
The female victim, she did not identify Sidney. She never
made an identification. In the case Vincent, the male victim,
he identified Sidney in the second lineup, and that's the
principal evidence used to convict him and Sidney.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
You know, you were quite willing to assist the detectives
in their initial investigation, and turns out there wasn't much
of an investigation because you were arrested on October sixth
of nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
That morning of October sixth, I was sitting at my parents' house,
actually talking to my father having breakfast at the kitchen table.
Then you know, to the the same to the tapis
came knocking at the front door, say they had a
warrant for my arrest, armed robbery. They took place at
this at that station. I'm looking at him saying, for robbery.
I haven't robbed anyone. So, you know, being the humble
(18:26):
god I am, you know, the Homer spirit. Okay, I
complied with law enforcement and I was arrested. You know,
I can't even put in the words what went through
my head. I'm saying, why is I being handcuffed? Why
is I being trout with something? Having done I'm twenty
two A while you know, what did I do? I
was speaceless, go to the kind of jail I'm in
(18:46):
art trying to figure it, you know. But like I said,
you know, the resilient person I am. I stayed humble
through the process, you know, praying that you know, we
got a lawyer and hoping that the true fights that
come out. Apparently it didn't.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
So a little over six months later, on April twenty fourth,
nineteen eighty nine, your trial began. Your defense attorney was
Mitchell Pole, and the prosecutor was Peter Magrino, So Brandon,
what did the prosecution present.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
So essentially it's the identification of Sydney by one of
the two victims, and again that's only after the second
lineup that he was in, plus whatever stock you want
to put into his car being similar, although significantly different
than that of the perpetrator's car that he was driving
(19:38):
at the crime scene. I think it's also really important
to note that Milton was critical to the investigation, the
citizen's investigation that we described, but he was never called
to testify at mister Holmes's trial, so the jury never
heard his perspective and precisely what he did and what
(19:58):
he saw during his own an investigation. And that information
is critical because it's the exact reason why Sidney became
a suspect in the first place. And without that citizen investigation,
without what Milton did, Sidney would never have been a
suspect in this case. So the jury never heard that.
You know, Milton is looking for what happens to be
(20:21):
the most common car in the United States at that time,
and you're just kind of going about his day keeping
an eye out looking for that car, and the jury
never heard from him.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
And the only thing that put Sidney in the.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
Crosshairs here is that he has, you know, that type
of car, and he's a young black man with the
prior arm robbery convictions, and so again that kind of
totality of the factors just leads police into tunnel vision
that he must have been the person who committed this crime.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
I'd also want to know that this identification was the
result of planting Sydney's image in Vincent's mind in the
first photo array in which he was not identified, followed
by an identification in the second after the seed had
been planted. Nevertheless, that was the state's case. So what
did the defense present?
Speaker 4 (21:14):
So the defense's case was that this was a misidentification,
that essentially the state got the wrong guy, and to
bolster that misidentification defense, the defense presented several alibi witnesses that,
like Sidney said, he was at this Father's Day cookout
and because he was there, he could not have committed
(21:35):
this crime at the one stop. And so essentially what
it boils down to is you have on the state side,
the one identification from Vincent. Again that happened only after
the second time that he was shown a photo of Sydney.
And on the defensive side, you have, I believe, four
(21:55):
alibi witnesses who came into court and testified that Sydney
was at the father's did cook out at his parents' house,
and therefore could not have committed this crime. And so
you know, the jury chose the state's evidence, the victim's
identification in court over the alibi witnesses who said that
Sydney couldn't have possibly been at the crime scene. Sydney.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Can you just take me to what it was like
to sit inside that courtroom?
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Well, you know, it was agony. You know, I thought
sure that I was going to be going home that
day because of lack of evidence, you know, and the
alibi witness and alab people's uh standing on the standing
total jerum wear my wayabouts. But when they deliberated, you know,
(22:42):
came back with it gives a verdict. You know, I
was completely and giving them four hundred er sentence at
age of twenty two, I was just devastating, you know
what a while, you know, and then I have a
six month old child. I had a daughter that was
six months so all that was taking away. So I
(23:03):
seen none of the childhood. She was two days from
being seven months old when I got arrested. I've been
in prisonbane thirty four years. My life is just, you know,
(23:37):
just a snappery my eye. It was gone for something
I haven't done. So how can I feel I was
feeling empty? I was, I was devastated, you know. So
I don't know, It's just it was just a day
that I would never forget. But today I just want
(23:58):
to move.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
On from So.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Sidney was not ever accused of being one of the
guys involved in an armed robbery. He's accused of being
a guy who drives by and says, hey, you should
take that car, and then drives away. And based on that,
prosecution recommends eight hundred and twenty five years, and he
(24:25):
gets sentenced to four hundred.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Yeah, that's correct. Four hundred was a compromise. The prosecutor
asks for eight hundred and twenty five years. The defense
attorney came back and said, well, forty years would be
a sufficient sentence, that.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Would be an effective life term.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
And the judge said, well, perhaps eight hundred and twenty
five is too many years. I can only presume that
he landed on four hundred because it's somewhere in the
middle of forty and eight hundred and twenty five, and
that's the sentence that Sydney got, four hundred years. And
so I think a lot of people are thinking, well,
why four hundred y eight hundred and twenty five. These
(25:01):
are just kind of arbitrary numbers. But really what it
boils down to is, at that time in Florida, a
life sentence would have made Sydney eligible for parole after
twenty five years. A term of years sentence, a four
hundred years sentence would mean that he would have to
serve out that number of years and he was not
(25:22):
eligible for parole. I know Sidney has said this multiple times,
but only God can serve four hundred years, right, No
man can serve four hundred years. So essentially that's the
workaround to make Sydney not eligible for parole. He would
never get out of prison.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Did they ever before it even got to court, did
they ever offer you some kind of a deal if
you could give them the names of the two armed assailants?
Speaker 3 (25:49):
They offered a deal. Well, why would I take a
deal for something I haven't done. No, I'm not taking
a deal because I haven't did anything I'm an anacent.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Man, and how can you name two people you have
no eye idea, I.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Don't know who they are.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
If I can just elaborate on At Sidney's sentencing after
he was convicted, the prosecutor said to the judge at sentencing,
and I'm looking at the quote right now, I would
point out that this defendant was given the opportunity to
carry the keys to the prison in his back pocket
because of the factual circumstances surrounding the robbery. And what
(26:24):
he's referring to is precisely, Lauren, what you just said
is that Sidney was given an opportunity to take a plea,
to plead to a crime that he did not commit,
in exchange for giving up the two other perpetrators. And
of course, if you didn't commit a crime, how could
you possibly know who those other two perpetrators were. He
maintained his innocence throughout and therefore he got punished when
(26:46):
it came to sentencing with this very harsh sentence.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Sidney, you were in prison for thirty four years. Can
you just take me to what your day to day
was like?
Speaker 3 (26:58):
Yeah, I spent a lot of time in life. They're
trying to research, trying to find, you know, a way
to become free, you know, get this charge of me
something I didn't do. But in the meantime, why outside
of that, I educated myself. I read a lot. I
love to read. I educated my self computer skills. I
got a social degree in theology. I learned coul their
(27:19):
art skills, I learned counseling skills. I would drug abuse skills.
Day to day, I just kept myself busy, reading a lot,
studying a lot always, you know, by you know, scriptures.
I did a lot just to keep myself afloat. Giving
up wasn't an option, and my parents and my family member,
(27:39):
they weren't going to allow me to ever give up,
you know, all the faith that we have. I was
always going to fight until I stopped breathing.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
And unfortunately it was a long fight, decades long. You
filed appeals for post conviction relief several times and all
were denied. What was the turning point.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Well, twenty seventeen, I would let's take write our application
to the n Surprise of Florida. And you know they
have a screening process. You know, they have to a
lot of cases they have to go through. I also
applied to the CRU and then between them and they
collaborated with each other.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
And that was the Broward County Conviction Review Unit, headed
up by Assistant State Attorney Ariel dembie Berger Brandon. When
you started working with the CRU on Sydney's case, what
stood out to you? What were the biggest red flags.
Speaker 4 (28:37):
In Sydney's case. Unfortunately, just like one read of the
trial transcripts, they aren't very long, and there were all
these holes, these things that didn't make sense. It's like,
how did this person even become a suspect in the
first place. It's not until you really dig into the
police reports, the depositions, and the discovery that's kind of
(28:58):
behind the scenes that the jury isn't always privy to.
When you get down to the bottom of the facts.
In Sydney's case, the facts overwhelmingly speak of discrepancies rather
than corroboration of guilt. And so when you see the
specific facts in Sydney's case and how they just don't
line up right, nothing added up. And that's not even
(29:21):
taking into consideration Sidney's alibi. This crime happened on Father's
Day and he was at a Father's Day gathering, that
had many, many people that corroborated that either through trial
testimony and or deposition testimony. No physical evidence, no other
corroborating witness identifications. All that the state had in this
case was one eyewitness identification.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
And as we talked about earlier, that eyewitness identification was
obviously tainted. What did you learn when you dug deeper
into that process.
Speaker 4 (29:55):
We had two separate eyewitness identification experts and everything relevant
to Sydney's identification, and they both identified double digit issues
pertaining to the identification, both the victim's ability to perceive
the event at the convenience store, but then also the
(30:18):
way that the lineup was composed and administered by the police.
They came back with very similar reports citing very similar
issues that have contributed to hundreds and hundreds of people
being exonerated based on eyewitness identification evidence across the country.
There was no identification of Sydney made by either of
(30:38):
the victims in the first lineup, and so what's problematic
in the second lineup where Sidney was identified by one
of the two victims, is that Sidney was the only
person that's in both lineups. Because of the way that
the lineup is composed this one photo visa via the
other five sticks out to them and so it could
(30:59):
be an in cater to them that police are signaling
and drawing their attention into that photo, and in this case,
that photo was Sydney's photo.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
I thought it was really interesting to the during the
reinvestigation that you interviewed Vincent Wright and Anicia Johnson, who
were the original victims of this crime.
Speaker 4 (31:21):
I think Miss Johnson and mister Ray were very forthcoming
in the information that they provided to us. They were
quite honestly astonished that Sidney, irrespective of whether he committed
the crime, that he was still in prison for this,
and we appreciated their willingness to speak to us and
provide that kind of context to us to understand from
(31:42):
their perspective what happened.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
So on March ninth, twenty twenty three, the Innocence Project
of Florida and the Conviction Review Unit presented all of
their findings and filed emotion for post conviction relief. And
then Sidney, while you were waiting for your hearing to
come up, you get some really great news from television
of all places.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Yeah, what happened was ab By eleven thirty, they came
and told me the judge want to see me. So
I kind of baffled. Why would I judge want to
see me? I knew hearings on Thursday, but they took
me downstairs to see the judge. But then they say
eleven third was too early because the hearing is set
for two o'clock. So they took me back to the
cell and I went and laid down on Then I
heard the guys shower. Hey, I think I see your
(32:28):
picture on TV. So I'm saying, why have my pictures
on TV? Why? You know? I didn't even see it.
It came out. It wasn't there. So I called my sister.
Then when I called my sister, I asked what is
going on? Then she just w was start crying on
the phone, and then I went right to I was
in Courtina at two o'clock to be released.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
And so on March thirteenth, twenty twenty three, you walked
out of prison a free man. What did that feel like?
Speaker 3 (32:53):
Well, I don't know, I can't even know what to say.
I was in tears, you know it. It was kind
of a bittersweet because you know, my father wasn't there.
You know, he died four years ago, so other than that,
that was only a bittersweet part of it, you know,
being released that he wasn't there to see this happen. No,
(33:16):
I'm still really you know, it's only been thirty five
days I've been home, so I'm still trying to grab
to you know, it's still unbelievable. I am free after thirty.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Four years Brandon, as Sydney told us, he'd been working
on his appeals for a long time without success before
connecting with you and the cru What do you think
was the magic ingredient this third time around?
Speaker 4 (33:41):
Well, the magic ingredient, ironically, is the current state of
the State Attorney's Office in Broward County. You have Ril
Demie Berger and her staff at the Conviction Review Unit,
and you have the elected State Attorney, Harold Pryor, who
are truly seeking justice. I think that that is the difference.
(34:01):
They have an open mind and they follow the evidence,
and that's what they did in Sydney's case.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
What's next for you, Sydney, what are your hopes and
plans for the future.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Well, you know, I'm still working though things I always want,
like I have culinary skills and the food truck is
emin it that I you know, roughly one day that
might happen. But you know, like I say, take capitally,
take finance. You know, it's a process. So whatever, just
try to keep brand opportunity to come.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Just take it and Brandon, I understand that under Florida law,
Sydney is unfortunately not even eligible for compensation from the
state because he had those prior convictions we talked about
in the beginning of this episode.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
That's what the state statute says. Is called the Clean
Hands Provision as it it's now essentially says that if
you have a prior felony conviction, you're not eligible for
compensation in a subsequent wrongful conviction, matter how much time
or whatever the circumstances are for that wrongful conviction. You know,
the data says that if you have a prior conviction
(35:09):
of any kind, you're fifty percent more likely to subsequently
be convicted for a crime that you didn't commit in
a later case. There's a bill pending in the Florida
legislature right now that would eradicate that requirement, if you will,
and the Instence Project of Florida is working to fix
that to make people like Sidney who have prior convictions
(35:31):
eligible for compensation for the wrongful conviction cases.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
Well, I understand that the IPF has started a go
Fundme page for Sydney. We'll have a link to that
on our bio page for our listeners who'd like to
help Sydney get a new start. Who knows, maybe start
up capital for that food truck. And now at the
end of every podcast, we have what's called closing arguments,
just your final thoughts, whatever you'd like to say to listeners. Brandon,
(35:58):
why don't you start and then go to Sydney to
close things out.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
Wrongful convictions absolutely happen. It takes a lot of diligence
to overturn them. It takes a lot of seeking the truth,
seeking facts. And in Sydney's case, it was clear from
the very beginning that he was innocent, what he told
everyone all along, and the system got it wrong thirty
(36:23):
four years ago. And there's no amount of effort, no
amount of money, that can get him that time back
with his family, with his daughter, with his mother and
father and sister. But the State Attorney's office in this
case ultimately did the right thing. They ultimately pursued justice.
(36:43):
They themselves sought the facts and the truth, and with
a lot of diligence and hard work, they saw that
Sydney was in fact telling the truth all along, that
he was innocent. And I really do commend the work
that State Attorney's offices are doing across the country to
realize when they got things wrong in the past, to
take accountability for that, and to do whatever it takes
(37:06):
to rectify the situation so that people like Sydney can
come home to their families and live the rest of
their life in freedom.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
Well, like I say, I can't say it enough, that
fantastic job. Like I say to say that you know
the new current state attorney, it's entire staff mis Bergier
and also Brandon Jeth Miller and the whole staff of
the Innocent Project. But a close statement is that throughout
this process, I will always tell the person you can
(37:36):
never give up hope. It's always the chance. It's always
a slim hope, a chance of anything in life that
we does. It was a hard fault. I was twenty two,
But I'm not mad with the justice system. I can't
be mad because you know that's something that's needed in
our country. You know, it's if it weren't with justice system.
But I think it's broken. But I think we're on
(37:57):
the right track. That we got prosecuted throughout the country
and justices throughout the country that they trying to make
changees other states that you got organizations, innercent projects. You know,
they're doing a lot of hard work to try to
reclify some of these things that's going on in our
great state of Florida. It's so much that need to
be done. But like I say, I'm just so grateful
(38:17):
that I had the opportunity to be free. It was
a long road. My thing is to help help people
to overcome the things that I went through, and I
hope I can be some kind of light and I
own it for them, for the youth as well, because
it's needed in our country.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your guest host,
Lauren Bright Pacheco. I'd like to thank executive producers Jason
Flahm and Kevin Wardis for inviting me to be here.
Special thanks also to our wonderful production team Connor Hall,
Annie Chelsea, Lyla Robinson, and Jeff Cliburn. The music in
this production comes from three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
(39:03):
Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
wrong Conviction, as well as Lava for Good on all
three platforms. Be online at Lauren Bright Pacheco, and you
can find my podcasts Murder and Oregon, Murder and Illinois,
and my latest Murder Miami wherever you listen to podcasts.
(39:25):
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
in association with Signal Company Number one
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.