July 23, 2026 • 44 mins
On October 25, 1979, Rabbi David Okunov was robbed and fatally shot while on his way to temple in Brooklyn, New York. Two eyewitnesses described the perpetrator to authorities, and the police's first primary suspect fingered 19-year-old Carl Miller as the gunman. Despite not matching either eyewitness's descriptions, not being picked out of the line-up, and no physical evidence tying him to the crime, Carl was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for the murder.
To learn more and get involved, please visit:
https://jhenninglaw.com/contact/
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hey, it's Connor Hall, senior producer for Wrongful Conviction, back
with another case update and more behind.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The scenes insights.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
And this story started just a few months after I
was born in nineteen seventy nine. It's the murder of
a prominent rabbi in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn.
And it finally came to some sort of closure this
spring twenty twenty six with the exoneration of Carl Miller.
(00:33):
And this story probably begins before nineteen seventy nine, and
I suppose it'll never really end, and not just because justice.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Is not going to be served to the victim or
their family.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Well, let me explain. Even saying the phrase the Ground
Heights section of Brooklyn, it makes me hear a news
broadcaster voice in my head, not only because of the
you know, if it leads, it leads style of American
media that colored my childhood, along with the peak of
our city's murder rate during that time, but also there
(01:05):
was a race riot there in the summer of nineteen
ninety one between the black and Hasidic populations that lived there,
and I remember hearing about it on the news nightly.
And once you hear this story you know, it kind
of becomes hard to ignore that this tension that was
released through this riot must have been boiling under the
surface of this neighborhood before even this murder in nineteen
(01:28):
seventy nine. Now I have you been paying attention to
recent manufactured outrage over this immigrant enclave map of New
York City. It was at one time strictly self segregated
by ethnicity. Now it's just economics. But my people are
at least ethnically Irish. When I was, you know, a teenager,
(01:50):
I dated an Italian girl, a difference that now seems
silly to even mention, But at the time there were
older folks in our in both of our families that
I definitely looked at it as some sort of interracial arrangement.
So you can imagine that the religious and actual skin
tone differences between the black folks and the Hasidam in
(02:11):
Crown Heights that was probably even more difficult to overcome,
even though both populations had something very deep and common
as refugees of European style discrimination, the Jews escaping systematic
annihilation in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Bloc, and then
black folks escaping the Jim Crow South, only to come
(02:34):
to places like New York, where even the Irish and
Italians still hated each other, and many of whom climbed
out of economic dire straits by joining the police forces
that systematically tortured and wrongfully incarcerated people like Carl Miller,
who became some sort of sacrificial lamb to kind of
diffuse the tension that came from the murder of a
(02:56):
prominent rabbi in nineteen seventy nine, attention that only would
explode in nineteen ninety one, well, he had already been
in prison for eleven years. Carl was later paroled after
over thirty years in prison, just three years shy of
the establishment of Brooklyn's Conviction Review Unit in twenty thirteen
(03:16):
under Ken Thompson, which I believe may have started in
earnest to correct some of the terrifying history of police
violence and misconduct, but it appears to have morphed into
some kind of scene washing apparatus that helps maintain the
veneer of infallibility of our criminal legal system, which is
operated by flawed human beings, just like everything else is.
(03:38):
Despite the appearance of some higher calling in a commitment
to public safety that is bastardized in stories like this one.
And maybe you'll agree with my take when you hear
Carl's story. The Brooklyn CRU accepted his case, turned over
old investigative files, conducted an investigation, including interviews with witnesses
(03:59):
that the jury never heard from, as well as those
who testified, and after you hear this story, you're going
to wonder why the hell they were ever believed, and
all of it appears to support Carl's unwavering claim of innocence.
But before actually doing what the CRU was established to do,
the Brooklyn DA's office chose instead to meet Carl's team
(04:20):
in court, proceeding to burn through over a decade of
tax dollars in Carl's remaining years fighting his innocence claims
until April first, twenty twenty six, when a judge finally
agreed with Carl, overturning his conviction on the grounds of
actual innocence. Meanwhile, when asked for comment, the Brooklyn DA's
(04:40):
office said they're still reviewing the decision like they planned
to appeal or some shit. So let's you know, just
keep that in mind when you're listening to Carl's story
and ask why this alleged progressive city agency spends tax
dollars on fighting to maintain convictions like these. Do they
(05:00):
kind of look insane for doing it?
Speaker 2 (05:04):
I mean, who.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Benefits from from that? Rabbi Oknoff, the Hasidic community, the
rest of us here in New York, anybody, anybody, And
while we ponder that, for the first time in forty
seven years, Carl Miller's name is finally free from the
stain foisted upon him by police misconduct and violence. And
(05:27):
maybe that sounds too harsh to call it violence, but
what else is it when you kidnap someone for thirty
one years, steal their youth, steal a father from his children,
and then enslave him. And if that sounds like hyperbole,
I mean we think differently when it happens to us. Well,
(05:50):
Carl and our other guests don't have to wonder.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
On October twenty fifth, nineteen seventy nine, Rabbi David Akanov
was walking with his prayer case in Crown Heights, Brooklyn,
when an assailant approached, described as a young black man
about five nine, one hundred and fifty pounds, he shot
the prominent rabbi and stole the prayer case and read
it to an apartment building. Eventually, NYPD found a young
(06:17):
man named Daryl Brown, who gave several accounts alleging that
a local amateur broxer named Carl Miller had made some
incriminating statements. Carl had an open warrant for assault, was
brought in for a lineup, but the eyewitnesses didn't identify him.
After he was processed for the previous assault charge and released,
Carl approached Darryl Brown in the street, but Brown was
(06:40):
not deterred. At trial, Brown testified that he had seen
the whole thing from start to finish, so the prosecutor
no longer needed the other eyewitnesses who did not identify
Carl in the lineup. But this is wrongful conviction. Welcome
(07:05):
back to wrongful conviction, where we have a story born
out of racial and religious tension in New York City
that existed certainly before the crime came in the late seventies,
but also through the nineties and even today in Crown Heights, Brooklyn,
between the Black and Ascidic communities.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
That live there.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
But before we get into how that relates to this story,
I'm the man who lived at Carl Miller. I'd like
to welcome back one of his attorneys, James Henning, to
our show.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Pleasure to be back, Jason.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
And this time you brought along another attorney who played
a major role in this case, Carissa Cokin. Welcome, thank you,
and now i'd like to introduce the man himself, Carl Miller.
And as we record this right now, October twenty fifth,
twenty twenty three, it's not only his birthday, but also
the forty fourth anniversary of the crime at the center
of his wrongful conviction. So Carl, I'm sure that colors
(07:55):
how you see this day, but we hope that this
one is a happy birthday. Thank you for choosing to
spend some of it here with us, and you're welcome. Now, Carl,
can you tell us a little bit about your childhood.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
I grew up in Crown Heights with my family. I
went to public school to twenty one. From there went
to James D. Lawrence, which is a six hundred school.
My mother and my father moved out and I just
hung around with some of the guys that I was
associated with.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Carl did not have his parents around for a while.
He was expected to go out and handle his own business.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
And you were married, and you were a young father
at the time.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
That wasn't married at the time, but I was a
young father.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
I understand you were an amateur boxer.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
I did box for Izzyzerland Youth and Recreation Center and
Crown Heights, and I had a little reputation in the
neighborhood as somebody that you didn't want to mess with.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
And I think that, unfortunately worked against him when he
was wrongfully accused.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
In the months leading up to the murdering question, Carl
had been in a fight in which he was stabbed
with a screwdriver and hospitalized with the collapse lung, resulting
in an open arrestaurant for assault, which seems wrong for
someone defending themselves against deadly force, But that kind of
unfair application of the law was nothing new to Karl.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
I did have a confrontation with the seventy first Precinct
because they used to come around and get guys to
go in for lineups, and I started telling them, don't
do that because you getting paid five dollars for a lineup,
but they're not.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Giving you back the picture.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
So this is my way of like trying to keep
them out of the police way.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Which is solid advice. We've seen misidentifications start just that
way in so many wrongful conviction cases. So as a
young man, Carl had already witnessed injustices to give him
that perspective. While in contrast, there appeared to be preferential
treatment for the Hasidic community in Crown Heights.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
It's a strong voting block. It's like, you're not going
to get elected mayor if you don't have the Hasiatic community,
because they will vote in droves for the candidate that
the Rebbe tells them to vote for.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
The Hasidic community before and after World War Two settled
in Crown Heights, which had been anointed by the leaders
of what is known as the Jabad or Habbad Lubovich movement,
many of whom had escaped persecution either at the hands
of the Germans or those in the Soviet block. Before
and after World War Two. Curiously, the city allowed one
of its most powerful voting blocks to operate their own
(10:19):
police force, the Jewish Defense League or JDL.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
The hard charge behind that JDL philosophy was never again,
get yourself a gun, don't rely on the cops. People
lived in an era where the cops were hurting you
onto the trains to auschwitzen bergen Belsen and Triblinka and whatnot.
It's that Mirkan slogan, never again, We're not going to
be vulnerable. Imagine any other group in New York City
(10:45):
having their own police force. There are two very distinct
worlds there in the Crown Heights area. One that is
set up with their own ambulance and emergency systems, and
they've had a number of issues going up until recent days.
With those two communities bordering on each other.
Speaker 5 (11:03):
One of the one that really stands out is the
Crown Heights Riot. But as I will say to people,
prior to Crown Heights riots, you had like Victor Road.
He was a guy that was a cost of about
the JDL.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
And of course you're talking about the awful incident on
June sixteenth, nineteen seventy eight, when approximately twenty ascetic men
beat a sixteen year old kid named Victor Roads into
a coma that lasted for two months. And so obviously
the tension was high in the area, so.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
It was always tension, but it wasn't the con attension
that the Crown Heights Riot had bought.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
The Crown Heights riot took place in August nineteen ninety one,
when a young Hasidic man drove through a red light,
peered off the road to avoid now oncoming traffic, and
pinned two seven year old black children under his car,
one of whom Gavin Cato, was killed, signetic a race riot.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
The story at the scene was the Shabbata ambulance showed
up and went straight for Hasidam while kids underneath the
car and they're trying to lift it up.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
The tension that was building for decades exploded. Jewish people
and their businesses were attacked, and the violence played heavily
into the nineteen ninety three mayoral election of Rudy Giuliani,
who unseated New York City's first African American mayor, David Dinkins.
The unrest in Crown Heights was palpable in nineteen ninety three,
and was certainly present when Victor Rhodes was attacked in
(12:26):
June of seventy eight, as well as when Rabbi David
Akanov was murdered in October seventy nine.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Rabbi David Akanov, the victim in this case, was in
his late sixties. He had been born in Ukraine in
nineteen eleven studied the Torah under Communist rule there. Actually,
after his bar mitzvah, he wanted to continue studying, but
his parents wouldn't let him, so he went on a
hunger strike until they gave up and led him. He
(12:52):
ended up emigrating to the US after learning that the
KGB was looking into him, and he made efforts in
the Crown Heights community to help other Jews who were
living under oppression in Russia. So Rabbi Akanov was by
all accounts, a very pious and charitable man. He was
not somebody who seemed to deal with a lot of trappings.
(13:13):
But he did have a regular prayer case that he
would bring with him to pray, and it contained and
I'm going to butcher this terminology, his talis and his tapillon,
which are religious implements used by Lubovich has seed him.
So just before seven am on October twenty fifth, nineteen
seventy nine, he's on his way to yeshiva when he shot.
Speaker 6 (13:35):
This was a very high profile case.
Speaker 7 (13:37):
We've got a very prominent rabbi in the community who
was shot with a thirty two caliber point blank in
the face. There were two eyewitnesses to this shooting.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
Both of the eyewitnesses Louis Fazio, who was not a
member of the seated community, and sixteen year old Schinini
of Sperlin, who was. It's pretty evident that they saw
the same person running from the scene with Rabbi Akinov's
prayer case.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Now, the descriptions were actually remarkably similar from the two witnesses.
A man who was black, twenty one years old, ish right,
about five nine, one hundred and fifty pounds, medium built,
medium hair, possibly wearing a hat and a dark jacket. Carl,
does that description match you or did it match you
at that time?
Speaker 5 (14:23):
At that time, I was probably a five hundred and
eighty pounds, weigh a little afro, and wear too many hats,
very athletic, not slim, as they had described this person
as being a slender person.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
That's not me.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
They're talking about a guy who's five nine one fifty.
You're about six feet tall, right, Yeah, there's a significant difference.
You were a boxer, right, so with a class of boxing.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
I was in a light heavy, light heavyweight, light heavyweight.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
So the descriptions didn't match, what about alibis and things
like that.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
I was in Queens, New York, celebrating my birthday with
my daughter's mother at the time, and I left the
house came back to Brooklyn, and that's when I learned
about the rabbi being murdered.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Carl had spent the night in Queens, and even after
lies and coercion, his daughter's mother, Joann Davis, maintained that
he was there that morning and not in Crown Heights
at seven am, murdering Rabbi Achanoff and running off with
his prayer case into the apartment building at five sixty
five Crown Street.
Speaker 7 (15:22):
And that is where they end up finding a suitcase
that belonged to an individual named Darryl Brown.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Rabbi Akanov's prayer case is never found, and in an
abandoned apartment they find this suitcase belonging to Darryl Brown
with his property in there, and two days later he
shows up at the precinct because he heard that they
were looking for them.
Speaker 7 (15:45):
Darryl Brown essentially ends up being the only person to
ever implicate Carl Beller in this crime.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Right, you don't have to be sure, Lock Holmes to
figure out that's a misdirection play there, right.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
You've also got the fact that Daryl Brown is repeatedly
lying to them. His statements evolved. His initial statement indicates
that he didn't see anything.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
And then they received a second statement from Daryl Brown
on November eight, nineteen seventy nine, while he was being
treated at King's County Hospital for a gunshot wound to
the hand. They never investigate the cause of the wound.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
When they come back to him, presumably with the ability
to turn the screws a little bit when he's in
the hospital with the gunshot wound. He now says that
he and two other friends had seen a Jewish man
with some money in a pizza falafel store and Carl
supposedly said, oh, you should have ripped him off, and
that he had heard the shot and saw Carl near
(16:39):
the scene.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Carl has always maintained that he was not present either
for the murder or that day in the store. We
only find out who that actually was much later then.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
Darryl Brown in his third documented statement and his first
sworn statement the next day, on November ninth, he says
that he had seen Carl near the scene and he
tried to get into five point sixty five Crown where
I was staying. I've seen him with a thirty two
and I spoke to him the day before the crime
about a jew with money in a blue bag. And
(17:11):
that's a quote which is important because it departs from
his testimony at trial.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
On the strength of Dall Brown's ever shifting word, Carl
was eventually charged with the murder. However, with his open
arrest warrant for assault, his reputation as a neighborhood tough guy,
and previous interactions with the seventy first Precinct, they came
looking for him way before Brown had ever made any statements.
Just a few days after the rabbi's murder in late October.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
My sister tell me that the police was looking for
me to talk to me. And I called him, said,
what are you looking me for? Oh, we want to
talk to you about the homicide. Come to the precinct.
I'm like, nah, we can talk about not come to
the precinct. I didn't go because I made it was
going to arrest me, so I had an open case.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
I had a warrant, which is completely within his rights.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
And I think it was November fourteenth. They picked me
up at my house, took me to the sixty ninth Precinct,
questioned me about the homicide, but they arrested me for
my warrant.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
When Carl does get brought to the precinct, he offers
to take a polygraph and provide his fingerprints, and police
don't take his prince, but they do take a polygraph,
which they claim Carl failed. He then stands in two
lineups without council and is viewed by Shanina Sperlin and
Louis Fazio, the two undisputed eyewitnesses, neither of whom identify him.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
I was held on the warrant.
Speaker 5 (18:27):
They took me to Rockets Island, came back out and
walking around the street, and people was telling me that
this guy Brown was talking about me with the police,
and I had a confrontation with him when I was accident.
Why are you telling him talking to the police about
me about this case? Oh, they want me to say
and I'm not going to say nothing. I was just
telling him leave my name out of it because I
(18:47):
had nothing to do with that at all.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
This was around probably right after Thanksgiving.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
Darryl Brown on November twenty ninth is given a polygraph
quote to test out his earlier statement end quote to
the proctor and according to the police, Brown's polygraph shows
that he was telling the truth about everything, but there
was some question about his withholding evidence from the police.
Now think about that statement, because we know number one,
(19:13):
polygraphs aren't this nuance? Now they weren't this nuance? Then
this was a tool for coercion.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
It usually is. Polygraphs aren't even admissible in court. And
I need our audience to remember that police are allowed
to lie to you about evidence, and they routinely lie
about polygraph results in order to coerce confessions.
Speaker 5 (19:35):
When they arrested me on the fourteenth and I volunteered
for the lineup, the guy has said that, oh, you
was picked out in Alno, which we come to learn
that was not true, that I was never identified in Lano.
Then after I take the polygraph test, they said, oh
you fail. So I'm like, okay, when I watched Perry
Mason when I was a kid, So if I failed,
allowed to take the test and I was picked out
(19:56):
in a lineup, what more evidence than you need to
arrest me? But I wasn't trust I was arrested in No.
Thirtieth for this.
Speaker 4 (20:03):
Case, after Daryl Brown gives that polygraph statement where according
to the police, he was truthful about everything. On the thirtieth,
they put Daryl Brown in lineups. But what are you
putting somebody in lineups for if they've told the truth
about everything implicating another individual.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
That's a good question. If I'm following this correctly, then
they must have suspected that he might have been the guy, right.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
It doesn't make sense to conclude otherwise. Either he's telling
the truth about everything when he implicates Carl, and okay,
authorize the arrest. Certainly, there's no basis the next day
to put Darryl Brown in lineups unless you're saying maybe
he's still not telling the truth about everything, and instead
what they do is revert to tunnel vision and authorize
(20:49):
and arrest for Karl based entirely. This is undisputed, entirely
on the accusation of Daryl Brown, his second differing sworn statement,
his fourth or fifth differing documented statement since the murder.
It's just a travesty.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
When you coming off the street, you know you gotta
fight within Rockets Island, because that's how it was so
it can be really alled on the person that if
you're not really up to it. And I was the
type of person that I could defend myself, so I
had no problem like that. You just waiting to go
to trial and prove my innocence.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
So nine months later, September eighth, nineteen eighty, you go
to trial. I'm assuming you were represented by a public defender.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
Yes, I was reaping presented by how it listwise. A
guy come in tell me, oh, I never lost a
murder case.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I didn't know you didn't have one until you had minds.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
There were some very serious discovery issues here, whether you
want to blame it on try council or whether you
want to blame it on the prosecution. But two things
that we now know happened just prior to trial. There's
no indication that Carl knew at the time of trial.
It's that Shanina Sperlin shows up at the Brooklyn DIA's
(22:16):
office and tells Ada Barbara Newman, the trial prosecutor, that
he recognized a possible perpetrator in one of the lineups
he viewed. But it's not the Carl Miller lineup. It's
the Daryl Brown lineup. The other thing that is potentially
but we're not certain, disclosed on August twenty eighth, nineteen eighty,
(22:36):
about a week or so before Carl's trial starts, is
that Ada Newman discloses that an individual named Barry Lee
Jackson had been identified from photographs on or before October
twenty seventh, nineteen seventy nine, which is just two days
after the murder, and in writing whether this was received
by mister weis Wesser or not, or whether it was
(22:58):
taken as legitimate or not, she tells him that if
he lacked any further discovery, he should tell her so
she could provide it. Now, that's kind of a catch
twenty two, and it's not how discovery works. He can't
tell her if he's lacking something that he doesn't know about,
and you're now on the eve of trial.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
There were several other important Brady violations, including more alternate
suspects like a man named Derek Peterson, as well as
a guy named Willie Easterling who had been seen trying
to sell religious artifacts in the area. Police reports did
not demonstrate any follow up and were not shared with
the defense either, and this conduct was only compounded by
(23:38):
presenting the ever changing testimony of Daryl Brown, this time
at trial. He said that he followed Carl that morning,
saw him grab Achanoff, who screamed before he was shot,
then saw him run off to five sixty five Crown
Street with the prayer case, and Carl's attorney did lean
heavily on the inconsistencies between Brown's version of events and
undisputed facts of the crime, as well as hows testimony
(24:00):
may have resulted from pressure from investigators.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Detective Sorrentino, who's the assigned detective here, testifies that he
never told Daryl Brown he was a suspect, which, as
we noted earlier, if after the fact of him giving
you a completely truthful statement, you're placing him in lineups,
there's only one reason to play somebody in a lineup
as the subject. Second, the court prohibited Carl's council from
(24:25):
questioning Detective Sorrentino about whether he had ever put psychological
pressure on a suspect. And there's one more thing. Darryl
Brown's account of Rabbi Akanov's suitcase is not accurate. His
prayer bag was a distinctive dark blue color and in
the early unrecorded police statement that Daryl Brown gives describing
(24:49):
this bag, it is a dark blue bag, but by
the time he gets a trial, it's a clear bag
that he can see into and actually tell the type
of felt matis burial inside, and more concerning it indicates
to me one of two possible conclusions. One Daryl Brown
saw inside that bag or touched it. Two Daryl Brown
(25:12):
was told how that bag looked after he gave independent statements.
Neither of them tend to support the reliability of the
verdict in this case.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Darryl Brown also testified that Rabbi Achanov made no attempt
to block the bullet with his hand, which was contradicted
by the state's forensic pathologist, citing the black powder stain
and stippling on the back of the rabbi's hand. So,
while the defense seated doubt about the state's witness, the
state attacked Carl's alibi witness, his daughter's mother, Joanne Davis.
Speaker 7 (25:43):
From everything in the transcript, everything on the record, all
the materials we have, the only indication we can really
come to is that Carl's alibi witness was really just
spoken to in order to try and get impeachment material
for her. And you know something else that we see
as well too, is that false statements are attributed to
(26:04):
Carl's alibi witness, which is something that we very frequently
see in these cases as well. You have unindorsed statements,
you have unsigned statements. Then at trial it's the detective's
word against the witnesses word.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
In this case, the lead detective Sorrentino, testified that Miss
Davis said that she saw Karl with the thirty two
caliber pistol, the kind of gun used to kill Achanov,
even though Miss Davis denied ever saying that, but rather
that she'd only seen him with a toy gun. In addition,
Sorrentino testified that Miss Davis's mother had said that Carl
was not at her home the morning of the murder.
Speaker 4 (26:40):
To the credit of Joanne Davis, she's actually asked under
oath if her mother is stupid. She's told that Carl
supposedly failed to polygraph, She's told that he may never
come home, and she doesn't change her account.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
The state referred to Miss Davis's story as concocted, and
they told the jury to quote wonder about the sense
of someone who gave birth at seventeen woo.
Speaker 7 (27:05):
Her credibility was unborn to being attacked by the police
and prosecutors.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
The state made note that the main issue of the
case was whether Daryl Brown had seen the shooting, calling
the actual eyewitnesses nothing more than quote distractions unquote, and
that eyewitness Louis Fazzio quote didn't add anything to the
case unquote. They had to take this tact after all,
because Fazio was no help to them.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
Fazio was initially subpoenaed by the people. Right, So he
gets into the courtroom and he tells his wife that
Carl is too broad to have been the man that
he saw.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
As a result, Idia Newman doesn't call him, but the
defense does.
Speaker 7 (27:48):
He reiterated that he made this remark that Carl was
too broad to have been the person that he saw,
and he also basically said that he was not able
to identify the person who he saw in the courtroom,
So meaning right, it's not Carl.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
But the fact that Ada Newman had subpoenaed him makes
two things ridiculous. She asks him, mister Fozzio, were you
wearing your glasses? As if this is supposed to impugne
his account, even though she was going to call him
as her witness previously when she thought maybe it wouldn't
denigrate her case. But second of all, how you could
get up in summation and say he couldn't add anything
(28:25):
to the case when you were calling him in a
case that did not have a ton of witnesses testifying.
He's one of two people that indisputably saw the purp
running from this crime scene.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
So Fasio was positive for the defense while Joeanne Davis
was brutally attacked. But then Carl's lawyer does something absolutely
insane at the end of the trial.
Speaker 4 (28:48):
It's absurd. It's in his own summation where the verdict
is going to come down to a credibility contest between
his civilian aliby witness and the sole witness for the prosecutor.
And first the judge says, actually says on the record, well,
it's probably improper for me to express an opinion, but
I'm going to say it. I think the alibi has
(29:10):
been pretty well discredited. And instead of mister Weiswasser standing
up and advocating for his client, he says, quote, I
wish I never heard the word alibi, and In his
own summation, he points out supposed holes in miss Davis's testimony,
denigrates her as a witness, while calling Detective Sorrentino an
(29:30):
excellent officer. It's a complete abdication of his duty to
his client.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
He didn't really do anything in defense of me. He
really didn't. And a jurior or eleven whites and one black.
It was over two hundred asiitics inside and outside the court.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
The deck was stacked against me.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Predictably, the jury went out and they came back with
guilty on all the accounts right felony, murder, robbery in
the first degree, in criminal possession of a weapon in
the second degree.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
When I was found guilty, it was like, wow, are
you serious? But you're gonna believe this guy that I
killed this man. A lot of things was running through
my head. I'm not gonna be able to raise my son.
I'm not gonna be able to raise my daughter, you know,
my sisters, my family. So it's a whole lot going
through a whole lot. I'm put on that bus to
(30:31):
go up to Elmira. It's like the reality starts sitting there.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
What are you gonna do? What are you gonna do get.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
Caught up in a lot of negative stuff that goes
on in prison, or you're gonna get yourself up out
of there for time being. You get caught up in
a little bit of the negativity stuff to stimulate yourself
from the reality of being in prison. That's something that
I did to a couple of old timers. Pulled me
to the side and said, hey, look, we read about
your case. It don't seem right. You need to get
(30:57):
your butt in a little library while your indictment it
can still fresh.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
I had a little pill of attorney.
Speaker 5 (31:02):
He put together some type of brief that was straight
up BS and I wound up doing time, just trying
to seek help from different people. Just keep pushing, went
to school, got a ged legal research certificate, still trying
to prove my innocence. Nobody was listening to pills, was
denied time come for your first parole board. I go
(31:24):
in there, continue to maintain my innocence. That was in
two thousand and four, Go back in two thousand and six,
come back in two thousand and eight, same thing, go
back in twenty ten. And what was presented to the
senior parole officer at the time is that Shanina Sperling
and Louis Faizio did not identify me the senior parole officer.
(31:44):
He said, Yo, you know they always sent up transcripts
of the sentencing, but they never sent up stuff like this.
And he said, wow, I never knew this. So he said,
the next parole hearing come up, I think you got
a good shot with this commission of someone set your
paperwork in front. I just continue saying with you, saying,
maintaining your innocent, don't change, and I didn't, and the
lo and behold, I was parole.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
So you kind of glossed over a little bit over
thirty years that you spent in prison. Right, was it
that long? Thirty one thirty one years?
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Right?
Speaker 3 (32:14):
It's amazing that you survived, and that you seem to
really have survived with your spirit intact. And it's also
incredible that you were able to go to the parole
board and do exactly opposite of what people are advised
to do.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Right.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
They want to hear remorse, they want to hear that
sort of narrative. Right, So for them to be able
to act the way that they did shows that they
must have known what you had known all along and
what everyone should have known all along, which is that
you were actually innocent.
Speaker 5 (32:41):
Being released after thirty one years, it was surreal. It
was wow, I'm walking the street. Oh man, what am
I going to do? Okay, gotta go see parole. That's
kind of frustrating because you're still on the supervision. Came out,
got married, reconnected. What did I miss? I missed my
daughter's first time walking. I missed my daughter's first grade.
(33:02):
I missed my son's first grade. I missed my son's
first baseball game. I miss so many things that you
cannot get back. So when you come out, where do
you pick up from my daughter? Because she was only
a couple of months before I left. My son was two,
So you look at the time. So you're saying thirty
one and thirty three, these are young adults that have
lived a life. So how could you interject as a
(33:24):
father because this was taken away from me. So you
do the best that you can. And that's all I've
been doing since I've been out, was reconnecting with them,
connected with other family members and things of that nature,
and then got back into proving my innocence. And that's
when I continue doing what I was doing, and I
wrote to different people after Ken Thompson had set up
the Wrongful Conviction Unit that he has in the Brooklyn
(33:46):
District Attorney's office and I had contacted them. Then I
contacted James, and this is where we're at now.
Speaker 4 (33:52):
So where we are right now is we had cooperated
for a bit with the conviction Review Unit here in Brooklyn.
We'd receive some materials we intend to use and support
of emotion at some point. Ultimately, after they interviewed Carl
and some of the witnesses in the case declined to
be interviewed or could not be located, they closed out
(34:13):
the case. But then this month they reached back out
and said that there has been a recent and unexpected
development in the investigation of Carl's case, and that they're
going to reopen the investigation, which I don't believe I've
heard of them doing in any other case.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
After we wrapped our first interview, we got a call
from James and Carrissa asking us to hold on production
until they could meet with the Brooklyn DA's office. It
turns out that back in nineteen seventy nine, a guy
named Robert Simms gave a statement to corroborate Brown about
Carl's alleged statement at the falafel or pizza store. Now,
in October twenty twenty three, some new evidence came to
light about Robert Simms and his wife.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
Linda Simms, the broken cru in the course of their reinvestigation,
had visited her house looking to speak with her husband,
Robert Simms, and left the card there. And what we've
been told is that Linda Simms, the wife, in January
of twenty twenty three, reached out to her sister and
sent a picture of the assistant's business card that had
(35:14):
been left at the door. And when her sister asked, well,
what is this about, she responded, well, google Rabbi Crown
Heights nineteen seventy nine, and the sister, Teresa, found articles
on Rabbi Akonov's murder. And she asked her sister, Linda, well,
what did you do? And Linda responded that's what I did.
And Teresa, caring about her sister, said well, what you
(35:38):
need to do is get yourself an attorney and turn
yourself in. And Linda, for many months did not heed
that advice. So by September ish it seems to be
Teresa this was weighing very heavily on her contacted the
Brooklyn DIA's office and that's what spurred on the reopening
of the investigation.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
The confession from Linda to her sister Teresa continued implicating
Robert Simms.
Speaker 4 (36:05):
Linda said, I did that and then weave meaning her
and Robert brought it up to our father. He was
very pissed off and sent me down south. Now there's
a fair inference that she was saying that both of
us did this. And we now have additional evidence that
Linda Simms's father, who was murdered in December nineteen eighty,
shortly after Carl's trial, that at various points throughout nineteen
(36:28):
seventy nine and nineteen eighty, both Linda and Robert Simms
had possession of his handgun. And additional information that has
come out about Robert has certainly changed our assessment of him. Specifically,
when he was interviewed by the cru in relation to
Carl's case, they did not know that in the early
(36:48):
two thousands he was carrying on this relationship outside of
his marriage with Linda. She was a twenty something meter beautician.
They had a child together and she was found this
disposed of in a very rough fashion in an abandoned building,
and Robert was brought to trial in Brooklyn for the
murder and somehow acquitted. Obviously, the file is sealed following
(37:11):
the acquittal, but it sounds like the only reason for
the acquittal was that Robert pointed the finger to friends
who had helped him dispose of the body and claimed
that one of them was the actual murderer.
Speaker 3 (37:24):
So what was the guy's name who took the fall?
Speaker 4 (37:26):
Meltrius Walker?
Speaker 3 (37:28):
Is he still serving time?
Speaker 4 (37:29):
He's out now? He essentially says he came over to
the house. The woman had been shot four times, and
Robert said, I need you to help me take care
of this. Now. What's even more interesting here is before
the Brooklyn DIA's office, the cru had learned through Theresa
and his sister about Robert's prior charge that he was
acquitted of. They interviewed him and he said he did
(37:52):
not want to talk about his prior case, which he
referred to as sort of a little incident, I believe,
but he didn't want to get into the details. He
said that he and Daryl Brown, the sole witness against
Carl Miller, had been best friends for years up until
that point, at which time they had a falling out
(38:13):
because he asked Darryl Brown for some help with something
and Daryl Brown's response was, who the f do you
think you are? John Gotti or something? And they haven't
really spoken since it sounds like Daryl was asked to
do some dirty work for Robert.
Speaker 3 (38:28):
Now, it certainly plausible that Daryl Brown may have been
responding to a request from Robert Simms for yet another
big favor.
Speaker 4 (38:35):
Going back to the original investigation, the statement attributed to
Robert by police was that Robert and Darryl Brown a
day or a few days before Rabbi Akinov's murder had
been in a pizza shop on Kingston Avenue and seeing
a Jewish man with a prayer bag full of money.
And according to the police report, Robert and Daryl were
(38:59):
thinking of robbing this man but didn't And when they
later saw Carl Miller, they said, here's what we saw,
and according to the police report, Carl said, oh, you
should have ripped him off. Now, Carl has always denied
making that statement. We have nothing from Daryl Brown on
that statement at trial. We have him in a police
report giving a different version of that. What Robert Simms
did admit to us and to the CRU was that
(39:22):
he was looking to get one of those bags. He
was interested in robbing somebody. He denies that they had
any conversation where Carl Miller said, yeah, you should have
taken this guy off, And as Carl has said repeatedly,
his response to that would have been, are you crazy.
You're right across the street from the JDL and you're
going to rob a guy like this. That's ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
So where does the case stand now?
Speaker 4 (39:45):
With the CRU, they have turned things over to us.
We're gathering information and evidence to put a motion into court.
We've had several people talk to us and give us
additional evidence. We're feeling good that we can get ourselves
a hearing where we can subpoena some of these people
and get them in to give warn testimony so we
can weed out the truth here.
Speaker 7 (40:04):
Absolutely, and now when we're working with the CiU, clearly
there are ways and avenues for us to pursue.
Speaker 6 (40:12):
We just need people to speak up about it.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
Karl deserves it. Rabbi Akanov deserves to have the right
person convicted of this crime. This is a case that
is based on one person, Darryl Brown his word. We're
not here to judge you. Somebody was already judged in
this case, and we submit that it was wrongful. Reach
out to us. We'll talk to you. This isn't a
(40:35):
witch hunt or something. We just want the truth. We're
at eighty six Livingston Street in Brooklyn. We want to
get to the bottom of this.
Speaker 3 (40:42):
So we'll definitely have your contact info length in the
episode description, and with that we're going to go to
closing arguments, where first of all, I just want to
thank you for joining us, and now I'm going to
shut my microphone off, kick back of my chair with
my headphones on, and just listen to anything else you
feel is left to be said. So let's start with James,
(41:03):
go to Carissa, and then gin a shit off with you.
Speaker 2 (41:06):
Carl.
Speaker 4 (41:07):
One thing that I think we didn't get into, something
that we only learned after we started cooperating with the
cru in this case, is that one of the people
that we've seen pop up in a lot of these
cases is a gentleman that your viewers are certainly familiar with,
the detective Lewis Scarcella, and he it just so happens
pops up in this case for reasons that have not
(41:31):
been revealed to us. Two days after the murder, then
anti crime officer Lewis Scarcella is interviewed by the assisting
detective Viola, and we have no information about that, but
we do have information that former detective Scarcella has been
monitoring the progress of this case and the media accounts
(41:52):
of this case. So again I'll say the same thing
I said about Daryl Brown, Missus Scarcella, my phone is on.
Information is information. We don't know how you factored into this. Again,
I'll say, we're not going to stop. There will be
a resolution here, whether it's through the cru whether it's
filing something. When Carl came to me, I said, we're
(42:13):
going to fight this case. When Carissa read this case,
she said, we're going to fight this case together. That's
what we do, and we're going to keep moving forward,
reach out.
Speaker 7 (42:22):
I'm just really happy that we were able to touch
on the fact that Carl was released on parole, notwithstanding
him maintaining his innocence.
Speaker 6 (42:31):
I think that is huge.
Speaker 7 (42:33):
Anyone who's familiar with the criminal justice process knows that
is huge, And I really think.
Speaker 6 (42:39):
It's no surprise that Fazio played.
Speaker 7 (42:41):
A role and that so as we're saying, if anyone
has any more information similar to Fazzio, maybe they saw
something just come forward.
Speaker 5 (42:51):
I would like to say thank you in the wrong
for Fixing Podcasts giving us the opportunity to have this
out there in the public so that people you can
see not just me, but they had a whole bunch
of wrongful convictions, and as James and Carissa as stated,
it's people that know me. If you know something that
need to be spoke on, speak on it. That's all
(43:13):
I have to say.
Speaker 3 (43:20):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
week early and ed free by subscribing to Lava for
Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our
production team Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well as
my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and Jeff Cliber.
The music in this production was supplied by three time
(43:40):
OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us
across all social media platforms at Lava for Good and
at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on Instagram
at it's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a production of
Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 1 (43:56):
We've worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in
this show are the views and opinions expressed by the
individuals featured in this show are their own and do
not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
Hey, it's Connor Hall, senior producer for Wrongful Conviction, back
with another case update and more behind.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The scenes insights.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
And this story started just a few months after I
was born in nineteen seventy nine. It's the murder of
a prominent rabbi in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn.
And it finally came to some sort of closure this
spring twenty twenty six with the exoneration of Carl Miller.
(00:33):
And this story probably begins before nineteen seventy nine, and
I suppose it'll never really end, and not just because justice.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Is not going to be served to the victim or
their family.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Well, let me explain. Even saying the phrase the Ground
Heights section of Brooklyn, it makes me hear a news
broadcaster voice in my head, not only because of the
you know, if it leads, it leads style of American
media that colored my childhood, along with the peak of
our city's murder rate during that time, but also there
(01:05):
was a race riot there in the summer of nineteen
ninety one between the black and Hasidic populations that lived there,
and I remember hearing about it on the news nightly.
And once you hear this story you know, it kind
of becomes hard to ignore that this tension that was
released through this riot must have been boiling under the
surface of this neighborhood before even this murder in nineteen
(01:28):
seventy nine. Now I have you been paying attention to
recent manufactured outrage over this immigrant enclave map of New
York City. It was at one time strictly self segregated
by ethnicity. Now it's just economics. But my people are
at least ethnically Irish. When I was, you know, a teenager,
(01:50):
I dated an Italian girl, a difference that now seems
silly to even mention, But at the time there were
older folks in our in both of our families that
I definitely looked at it as some sort of interracial arrangement.
So you can imagine that the religious and actual skin
tone differences between the black folks and the Hasidam in
(02:11):
Crown Heights that was probably even more difficult to overcome,
even though both populations had something very deep and common
as refugees of European style discrimination, the Jews escaping systematic
annihilation in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Bloc, and then
black folks escaping the Jim Crow South, only to come
(02:34):
to places like New York, where even the Irish and
Italians still hated each other, and many of whom climbed
out of economic dire straits by joining the police forces
that systematically tortured and wrongfully incarcerated people like Carl Miller,
who became some sort of sacrificial lamb to kind of
diffuse the tension that came from the murder of a
(02:56):
prominent rabbi in nineteen seventy nine, attention that only would
explode in nineteen ninety one, well, he had already been
in prison for eleven years. Carl was later paroled after
over thirty years in prison, just three years shy of
the establishment of Brooklyn's Conviction Review Unit in twenty thirteen
(03:16):
under Ken Thompson, which I believe may have started in
earnest to correct some of the terrifying history of police
violence and misconduct, but it appears to have morphed into
some kind of scene washing apparatus that helps maintain the
veneer of infallibility of our criminal legal system, which is
operated by flawed human beings, just like everything else is.
(03:38):
Despite the appearance of some higher calling in a commitment
to public safety that is bastardized in stories like this one.
And maybe you'll agree with my take when you hear
Carl's story. The Brooklyn CRU accepted his case, turned over
old investigative files, conducted an investigation, including interviews with witnesses
(03:59):
that the jury never heard from, as well as those
who testified, and after you hear this story, you're going
to wonder why the hell they were ever believed, and
all of it appears to support Carl's unwavering claim of innocence.
But before actually doing what the CRU was established to do,
the Brooklyn DA's office chose instead to meet Carl's team
(04:20):
in court, proceeding to burn through over a decade of
tax dollars in Carl's remaining years fighting his innocence claims
until April first, twenty twenty six, when a judge finally
agreed with Carl, overturning his conviction on the grounds of
actual innocence. Meanwhile, when asked for comment, the Brooklyn DA's
(04:40):
office said they're still reviewing the decision like they planned
to appeal or some shit. So let's you know, just
keep that in mind when you're listening to Carl's story
and ask why this alleged progressive city agency spends tax
dollars on fighting to maintain convictions like these. Do they
(05:00):
kind of look insane for doing it?
Speaker 2 (05:04):
I mean, who.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Benefits from from that? Rabbi Oknoff, the Hasidic community, the
rest of us here in New York, anybody, anybody, And
while we ponder that, for the first time in forty
seven years, Carl Miller's name is finally free from the
stain foisted upon him by police misconduct and violence. And
(05:27):
maybe that sounds too harsh to call it violence, but
what else is it when you kidnap someone for thirty
one years, steal their youth, steal a father from his children,
and then enslave him. And if that sounds like hyperbole,
I mean we think differently when it happens to us. Well,
(05:50):
Carl and our other guests don't have to wonder.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
On October twenty fifth, nineteen seventy nine, Rabbi David Akanov
was walking with his prayer case in Crown Heights, Brooklyn,
when an assailant approached, described as a young black man
about five nine, one hundred and fifty pounds, he shot
the prominent rabbi and stole the prayer case and read
it to an apartment building. Eventually, NYPD found a young
(06:17):
man named Daryl Brown, who gave several accounts alleging that
a local amateur broxer named Carl Miller had made some
incriminating statements. Carl had an open warrant for assault, was
brought in for a lineup, but the eyewitnesses didn't identify him.
After he was processed for the previous assault charge and released,
Carl approached Darryl Brown in the street, but Brown was
(06:40):
not deterred. At trial, Brown testified that he had seen
the whole thing from start to finish, so the prosecutor
no longer needed the other eyewitnesses who did not identify
Carl in the lineup. But this is wrongful conviction. Welcome
(07:05):
back to wrongful conviction, where we have a story born
out of racial and religious tension in New York City
that existed certainly before the crime came in the late seventies,
but also through the nineties and even today in Crown Heights, Brooklyn,
between the Black and Ascidic communities.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
That live there.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
But before we get into how that relates to this story,
I'm the man who lived at Carl Miller. I'd like
to welcome back one of his attorneys, James Henning, to
our show.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Pleasure to be back, Jason.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
And this time you brought along another attorney who played
a major role in this case, Carissa Cokin. Welcome, thank you,
and now i'd like to introduce the man himself, Carl Miller.
And as we record this right now, October twenty fifth,
twenty twenty three, it's not only his birthday, but also
the forty fourth anniversary of the crime at the center
of his wrongful conviction. So Carl, I'm sure that colors
(07:55):
how you see this day, but we hope that this
one is a happy birthday. Thank you for choosing to
spend some of it here with us, and you're welcome. Now, Carl,
can you tell us a little bit about your childhood.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
I grew up in Crown Heights with my family. I
went to public school to twenty one. From there went
to James D. Lawrence, which is a six hundred school.
My mother and my father moved out and I just
hung around with some of the guys that I was
associated with.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Carl did not have his parents around for a while.
He was expected to go out and handle his own business.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
And you were married, and you were a young father
at the time.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
That wasn't married at the time, but I was a
young father.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
I understand you were an amateur boxer.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
I did box for Izzyzerland Youth and Recreation Center and
Crown Heights, and I had a little reputation in the
neighborhood as somebody that you didn't want to mess with.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
And I think that, unfortunately worked against him when he
was wrongfully accused.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
In the months leading up to the murdering question, Carl
had been in a fight in which he was stabbed
with a screwdriver and hospitalized with the collapse lung, resulting
in an open arrestaurant for assault, which seems wrong for
someone defending themselves against deadly force, But that kind of
unfair application of the law was nothing new to Karl.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
I did have a confrontation with the seventy first Precinct
because they used to come around and get guys to
go in for lineups, and I started telling them, don't
do that because you getting paid five dollars for a lineup,
but they're not.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Giving you back the picture.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
So this is my way of like trying to keep
them out of the police way.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Which is solid advice. We've seen misidentifications start just that
way in so many wrongful conviction cases. So as a
young man, Carl had already witnessed injustices to give him
that perspective. While in contrast, there appeared to be preferential
treatment for the Hasidic community in Crown Heights.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
It's a strong voting block. It's like, you're not going
to get elected mayor if you don't have the Hasiatic community,
because they will vote in droves for the candidate that
the Rebbe tells them to vote for.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
The Hasidic community before and after World War Two settled
in Crown Heights, which had been anointed by the leaders
of what is known as the Jabad or Habbad Lubovich movement,
many of whom had escaped persecution either at the hands
of the Germans or those in the Soviet block. Before
and after World War Two. Curiously, the city allowed one
of its most powerful voting blocks to operate their own
(10:19):
police force, the Jewish Defense League or JDL.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
The hard charge behind that JDL philosophy was never again,
get yourself a gun, don't rely on the cops. People
lived in an era where the cops were hurting you
onto the trains to auschwitzen bergen Belsen and Triblinka and whatnot.
It's that Mirkan slogan, never again, We're not going to
be vulnerable. Imagine any other group in New York City
(10:45):
having their own police force. There are two very distinct
worlds there in the Crown Heights area. One that is
set up with their own ambulance and emergency systems, and
they've had a number of issues going up until recent days.
With those two communities bordering on each other.
Speaker 5 (11:03):
One of the one that really stands out is the
Crown Heights Riot. But as I will say to people,
prior to Crown Heights riots, you had like Victor Road.
He was a guy that was a cost of about
the JDL.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
And of course you're talking about the awful incident on
June sixteenth, nineteen seventy eight, when approximately twenty ascetic men
beat a sixteen year old kid named Victor Roads into
a coma that lasted for two months. And so obviously
the tension was high in the area, so.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
It was always tension, but it wasn't the con attension
that the Crown Heights Riot had bought.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
The Crown Heights riot took place in August nineteen ninety one,
when a young Hasidic man drove through a red light,
peered off the road to avoid now oncoming traffic, and
pinned two seven year old black children under his car,
one of whom Gavin Cato, was killed, signetic a race riot.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
The story at the scene was the Shabbata ambulance showed
up and went straight for Hasidam while kids underneath the
car and they're trying to lift it up.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
The tension that was building for decades exploded. Jewish people
and their businesses were attacked, and the violence played heavily
into the nineteen ninety three mayoral election of Rudy Giuliani,
who unseated New York City's first African American mayor, David Dinkins.
The unrest in Crown Heights was palpable in nineteen ninety three,
and was certainly present when Victor Rhodes was attacked in
(12:26):
June of seventy eight, as well as when Rabbi David
Akanov was murdered in October seventy nine.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Rabbi David Akanov, the victim in this case, was in
his late sixties. He had been born in Ukraine in
nineteen eleven studied the Torah under Communist rule there. Actually,
after his bar mitzvah, he wanted to continue studying, but
his parents wouldn't let him, so he went on a
hunger strike until they gave up and led him. He
(12:52):
ended up emigrating to the US after learning that the
KGB was looking into him, and he made efforts in
the Crown Heights community to help other Jews who were
living under oppression in Russia. So Rabbi Akanov was by
all accounts, a very pious and charitable man. He was
not somebody who seemed to deal with a lot of trappings.
(13:13):
But he did have a regular prayer case that he
would bring with him to pray, and it contained and
I'm going to butcher this terminology, his talis and his tapillon,
which are religious implements used by Lubovich has seed him.
So just before seven am on October twenty fifth, nineteen
seventy nine, he's on his way to yeshiva when he shot.
Speaker 6 (13:35):
This was a very high profile case.
Speaker 7 (13:37):
We've got a very prominent rabbi in the community who
was shot with a thirty two caliber point blank in
the face. There were two eyewitnesses to this shooting.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
Both of the eyewitnesses Louis Fazio, who was not a
member of the seated community, and sixteen year old Schinini
of Sperlin, who was. It's pretty evident that they saw
the same person running from the scene with Rabbi Akinov's
prayer case.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Now, the descriptions were actually remarkably similar from the two witnesses.
A man who was black, twenty one years old, ish right,
about five nine, one hundred and fifty pounds, medium built,
medium hair, possibly wearing a hat and a dark jacket. Carl,
does that description match you or did it match you
at that time?
Speaker 5 (14:23):
At that time, I was probably a five hundred and
eighty pounds, weigh a little afro, and wear too many hats,
very athletic, not slim, as they had described this person
as being a slender person.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
That's not me.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
They're talking about a guy who's five nine one fifty.
You're about six feet tall, right, Yeah, there's a significant difference.
You were a boxer, right, so with a class of boxing.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
I was in a light heavy, light heavyweight, light heavyweight.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
So the descriptions didn't match, what about alibis and things
like that.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
I was in Queens, New York, celebrating my birthday with
my daughter's mother at the time, and I left the
house came back to Brooklyn, and that's when I learned
about the rabbi being murdered.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Carl had spent the night in Queens, and even after
lies and coercion, his daughter's mother, Joann Davis, maintained that
he was there that morning and not in Crown Heights
at seven am, murdering Rabbi Achanoff and running off with
his prayer case into the apartment building at five sixty
five Crown Street.
Speaker 7 (15:22):
And that is where they end up finding a suitcase
that belonged to an individual named Darryl Brown.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Rabbi Akanov's prayer case is never found, and in an
abandoned apartment they find this suitcase belonging to Darryl Brown
with his property in there, and two days later he
shows up at the precinct because he heard that they
were looking for them.
Speaker 7 (15:45):
Darryl Brown essentially ends up being the only person to
ever implicate Carl Beller in this crime.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Right, you don't have to be sure, Lock Holmes to
figure out that's a misdirection play there, right.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
You've also got the fact that Daryl Brown is repeatedly
lying to them. His statements evolved. His initial statement indicates
that he didn't see anything.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
And then they received a second statement from Daryl Brown
on November eight, nineteen seventy nine, while he was being
treated at King's County Hospital for a gunshot wound to
the hand. They never investigate the cause of the wound.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
When they come back to him, presumably with the ability
to turn the screws a little bit when he's in
the hospital with the gunshot wound. He now says that
he and two other friends had seen a Jewish man
with some money in a pizza falafel store and Carl
supposedly said, oh, you should have ripped him off, and
that he had heard the shot and saw Carl near
(16:39):
the scene.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Carl has always maintained that he was not present either
for the murder or that day in the store. We
only find out who that actually was much later then.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
Darryl Brown in his third documented statement and his first
sworn statement the next day, on November ninth, he says
that he had seen Carl near the scene and he
tried to get into five point sixty five Crown where
I was staying. I've seen him with a thirty two
and I spoke to him the day before the crime
about a jew with money in a blue bag. And
(17:11):
that's a quote which is important because it departs from
his testimony at trial.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
On the strength of Dall Brown's ever shifting word, Carl
was eventually charged with the murder. However, with his open
arrest warrant for assault, his reputation as a neighborhood tough guy,
and previous interactions with the seventy first Precinct, they came
looking for him way before Brown had ever made any statements.
Just a few days after the rabbi's murder in late October.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
My sister tell me that the police was looking for
me to talk to me. And I called him, said,
what are you looking me for? Oh, we want to
talk to you about the homicide. Come to the precinct.
I'm like, nah, we can talk about not come to
the precinct. I didn't go because I made it was
going to arrest me, so I had an open case.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
I had a warrant, which is completely within his rights.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
And I think it was November fourteenth. They picked me
up at my house, took me to the sixty ninth Precinct,
questioned me about the homicide, but they arrested me for
my warrant.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
When Carl does get brought to the precinct, he offers
to take a polygraph and provide his fingerprints, and police
don't take his prince, but they do take a polygraph,
which they claim Carl failed. He then stands in two
lineups without council and is viewed by Shanina Sperlin and
Louis Fazio, the two undisputed eyewitnesses, neither of whom identify him.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
I was held on the warrant.
Speaker 5 (18:27):
They took me to Rockets Island, came back out and
walking around the street, and people was telling me that
this guy Brown was talking about me with the police,
and I had a confrontation with him when I was accident.
Why are you telling him talking to the police about
me about this case? Oh, they want me to say
and I'm not going to say nothing. I was just
telling him leave my name out of it because I
(18:47):
had nothing to do with that at all.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
This was around probably right after Thanksgiving.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
Darryl Brown on November twenty ninth is given a polygraph
quote to test out his earlier statement end quote to
the proctor and according to the police, Brown's polygraph shows
that he was telling the truth about everything, but there
was some question about his withholding evidence from the police.
Now think about that statement, because we know number one,
(19:13):
polygraphs aren't this nuance? Now they weren't this nuance? Then
this was a tool for coercion.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
It usually is. Polygraphs aren't even admissible in court. And
I need our audience to remember that police are allowed
to lie to you about evidence, and they routinely lie
about polygraph results in order to coerce confessions.
Speaker 5 (19:35):
When they arrested me on the fourteenth and I volunteered
for the lineup, the guy has said that, oh, you
was picked out in Alno, which we come to learn
that was not true, that I was never identified in Lano.
Then after I take the polygraph test, they said, oh
you fail. So I'm like, okay, when I watched Perry
Mason when I was a kid, So if I failed,
allowed to take the test and I was picked out
(19:56):
in a lineup, what more evidence than you need to
arrest me? But I wasn't trust I was arrested in No.
Thirtieth for this.
Speaker 4 (20:03):
Case, after Daryl Brown gives that polygraph statement where according
to the police, he was truthful about everything. On the thirtieth,
they put Daryl Brown in lineups. But what are you
putting somebody in lineups for if they've told the truth
about everything implicating another individual.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
That's a good question. If I'm following this correctly, then
they must have suspected that he might have been the guy, right.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
It doesn't make sense to conclude otherwise. Either he's telling
the truth about everything when he implicates Carl, and okay,
authorize the arrest. Certainly, there's no basis the next day
to put Darryl Brown in lineups unless you're saying maybe
he's still not telling the truth about everything, and instead
what they do is revert to tunnel vision and authorize
(20:49):
and arrest for Karl based entirely. This is undisputed, entirely
on the accusation of Daryl Brown, his second differing sworn statement,
his fourth or fifth differing documented statement since the murder.
It's just a travesty.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
When you coming off the street, you know you gotta
fight within Rockets Island, because that's how it was so
it can be really alled on the person that if
you're not really up to it. And I was the
type of person that I could defend myself, so I
had no problem like that. You just waiting to go
to trial and prove my innocence.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
So nine months later, September eighth, nineteen eighty, you go
to trial. I'm assuming you were represented by a public defender.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
Yes, I was reaping presented by how it listwise. A
guy come in tell me, oh, I never lost a
murder case.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I didn't know you didn't have one until you had minds.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
There were some very serious discovery issues here, whether you
want to blame it on try council or whether you
want to blame it on the prosecution. But two things
that we now know happened just prior to trial. There's
no indication that Carl knew at the time of trial.
It's that Shanina Sperlin shows up at the Brooklyn DIA's
(22:16):
office and tells Ada Barbara Newman, the trial prosecutor, that
he recognized a possible perpetrator in one of the lineups
he viewed. But it's not the Carl Miller lineup. It's
the Daryl Brown lineup. The other thing that is potentially
but we're not certain, disclosed on August twenty eighth, nineteen eighty,
(22:36):
about a week or so before Carl's trial starts, is
that Ada Newman discloses that an individual named Barry Lee
Jackson had been identified from photographs on or before October
twenty seventh, nineteen seventy nine, which is just two days
after the murder, and in writing whether this was received
by mister weis Wesser or not, or whether it was
(22:58):
taken as legitimate or not, she tells him that if
he lacked any further discovery, he should tell her so
she could provide it. Now, that's kind of a catch
twenty two, and it's not how discovery works. He can't
tell her if he's lacking something that he doesn't know about,
and you're now on the eve of trial.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
There were several other important Brady violations, including more alternate
suspects like a man named Derek Peterson, as well as
a guy named Willie Easterling who had been seen trying
to sell religious artifacts in the area. Police reports did
not demonstrate any follow up and were not shared with
the defense either, and this conduct was only compounded by
(23:38):
presenting the ever changing testimony of Daryl Brown, this time
at trial. He said that he followed Carl that morning,
saw him grab Achanoff, who screamed before he was shot,
then saw him run off to five sixty five Crown
Street with the prayer case, and Carl's attorney did lean
heavily on the inconsistencies between Brown's version of events and
undisputed facts of the crime, as well as hows testimony
(24:00):
may have resulted from pressure from investigators.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Detective Sorrentino, who's the assigned detective here, testifies that he
never told Daryl Brown he was a suspect, which, as
we noted earlier, if after the fact of him giving
you a completely truthful statement, you're placing him in lineups,
there's only one reason to play somebody in a lineup
as the subject. Second, the court prohibited Carl's council from
(24:25):
questioning Detective Sorrentino about whether he had ever put psychological
pressure on a suspect. And there's one more thing. Darryl
Brown's account of Rabbi Akanov's suitcase is not accurate. His
prayer bag was a distinctive dark blue color and in
the early unrecorded police statement that Daryl Brown gives describing
(24:49):
this bag, it is a dark blue bag, but by
the time he gets a trial, it's a clear bag
that he can see into and actually tell the type
of felt matis burial inside, and more concerning it indicates
to me one of two possible conclusions. One Daryl Brown
saw inside that bag or touched it. Two Daryl Brown
(25:12):
was told how that bag looked after he gave independent statements.
Neither of them tend to support the reliability of the
verdict in this case.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Darryl Brown also testified that Rabbi Achanov made no attempt
to block the bullet with his hand, which was contradicted
by the state's forensic pathologist, citing the black powder stain
and stippling on the back of the rabbi's hand. So,
while the defense seated doubt about the state's witness, the
state attacked Carl's alibi witness, his daughter's mother, Joanne Davis.
Speaker 7 (25:43):
From everything in the transcript, everything on the record, all
the materials we have, the only indication we can really
come to is that Carl's alibi witness was really just
spoken to in order to try and get impeachment material
for her. And you know something else that we see
as well too, is that false statements are attributed to
(26:04):
Carl's alibi witness, which is something that we very frequently
see in these cases as well. You have unindorsed statements,
you have unsigned statements. Then at trial it's the detective's
word against the witnesses word.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
In this case, the lead detective Sorrentino, testified that Miss
Davis said that she saw Karl with the thirty two
caliber pistol, the kind of gun used to kill Achanov,
even though Miss Davis denied ever saying that, but rather
that she'd only seen him with a toy gun. In addition,
Sorrentino testified that Miss Davis's mother had said that Carl
was not at her home the morning of the murder.
Speaker 4 (26:40):
To the credit of Joanne Davis, she's actually asked under
oath if her mother is stupid. She's told that Carl
supposedly failed to polygraph, She's told that he may never
come home, and she doesn't change her account.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
The state referred to Miss Davis's story as concocted, and
they told the jury to quote wonder about the sense
of someone who gave birth at seventeen woo.
Speaker 7 (27:05):
Her credibility was unborn to being attacked by the police
and prosecutors.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
The state made note that the main issue of the
case was whether Daryl Brown had seen the shooting, calling
the actual eyewitnesses nothing more than quote distractions unquote, and
that eyewitness Louis Fazzio quote didn't add anything to the
case unquote. They had to take this tact after all,
because Fazio was no help to them.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
Fazio was initially subpoenaed by the people. Right, So he
gets into the courtroom and he tells his wife that
Carl is too broad to have been the man that
he saw.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
As a result, Idia Newman doesn't call him, but the
defense does.
Speaker 7 (27:48):
He reiterated that he made this remark that Carl was
too broad to have been the person that he saw,
and he also basically said that he was not able
to identify the person who he saw in the courtroom,
So meaning right, it's not Carl.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
But the fact that Ada Newman had subpoenaed him makes
two things ridiculous. She asks him, mister Fozzio, were you
wearing your glasses? As if this is supposed to impugne
his account, even though she was going to call him
as her witness previously when she thought maybe it wouldn't
denigrate her case. But second of all, how you could
get up in summation and say he couldn't add anything
(28:25):
to the case when you were calling him in a
case that did not have a ton of witnesses testifying.
He's one of two people that indisputably saw the purp
running from this crime scene.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
So Fasio was positive for the defense while Joeanne Davis
was brutally attacked. But then Carl's lawyer does something absolutely
insane at the end of the trial.
Speaker 4 (28:48):
It's absurd. It's in his own summation where the verdict
is going to come down to a credibility contest between
his civilian aliby witness and the sole witness for the prosecutor.
And first the judge says, actually says on the record, well,
it's probably improper for me to express an opinion, but
I'm going to say it. I think the alibi has
(29:10):
been pretty well discredited. And instead of mister Weiswasser standing
up and advocating for his client, he says, quote, I
wish I never heard the word alibi, and In his
own summation, he points out supposed holes in miss Davis's testimony,
denigrates her as a witness, while calling Detective Sorrentino an
(29:30):
excellent officer. It's a complete abdication of his duty to
his client.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
He didn't really do anything in defense of me. He
really didn't. And a jurior or eleven whites and one black.
It was over two hundred asiitics inside and outside the court.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
The deck was stacked against me.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Predictably, the jury went out and they came back with
guilty on all the accounts right felony, murder, robbery in
the first degree, in criminal possession of a weapon in
the second degree.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
When I was found guilty, it was like, wow, are
you serious? But you're gonna believe this guy that I
killed this man. A lot of things was running through
my head. I'm not gonna be able to raise my son.
I'm not gonna be able to raise my daughter, you know,
my sisters, my family. So it's a whole lot going
through a whole lot. I'm put on that bus to
(30:31):
go up to Elmira. It's like the reality starts sitting there.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
What are you gonna do? What are you gonna do get.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
Caught up in a lot of negative stuff that goes
on in prison, or you're gonna get yourself up out
of there for time being. You get caught up in
a little bit of the negativity stuff to stimulate yourself
from the reality of being in prison. That's something that
I did to a couple of old timers. Pulled me
to the side and said, hey, look, we read about
your case. It don't seem right. You need to get
(30:57):
your butt in a little library while your indictment it
can still fresh.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
I had a little pill of attorney.
Speaker 5 (31:02):
He put together some type of brief that was straight
up BS and I wound up doing time, just trying
to seek help from different people. Just keep pushing, went
to school, got a ged legal research certificate, still trying
to prove my innocence. Nobody was listening to pills, was
denied time come for your first parole board. I go
(31:24):
in there, continue to maintain my innocence. That was in
two thousand and four, Go back in two thousand and six,
come back in two thousand and eight, same thing, go
back in twenty ten. And what was presented to the
senior parole officer at the time is that Shanina Sperling
and Louis Faizio did not identify me the senior parole officer.
(31:44):
He said, Yo, you know they always sent up transcripts
of the sentencing, but they never sent up stuff like this.
And he said, wow, I never knew this. So he said,
the next parole hearing come up, I think you got
a good shot with this commission of someone set your
paperwork in front. I just continue saying with you, saying,
maintaining your innocent, don't change, and I didn't, and the
lo and behold, I was parole.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
So you kind of glossed over a little bit over
thirty years that you spent in prison. Right, was it
that long? Thirty one thirty one years?
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Right?
Speaker 3 (32:14):
It's amazing that you survived, and that you seem to
really have survived with your spirit intact. And it's also
incredible that you were able to go to the parole
board and do exactly opposite of what people are advised
to do.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Right.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
They want to hear remorse, they want to hear that
sort of narrative. Right, So for them to be able
to act the way that they did shows that they
must have known what you had known all along and
what everyone should have known all along, which is that
you were actually innocent.
Speaker 5 (32:41):
Being released after thirty one years, it was surreal. It
was wow, I'm walking the street. Oh man, what am
I going to do? Okay, gotta go see parole. That's
kind of frustrating because you're still on the supervision. Came out,
got married, reconnected. What did I miss? I missed my
daughter's first time walking. I missed my daughter's first grade.
(33:02):
I missed my son's first grade. I missed my son's
first baseball game. I miss so many things that you
cannot get back. So when you come out, where do
you pick up from my daughter? Because she was only
a couple of months before I left. My son was two,
So you look at the time. So you're saying thirty
one and thirty three, these are young adults that have
lived a life. So how could you interject as a
(33:24):
father because this was taken away from me. So you
do the best that you can. And that's all I've
been doing since I've been out, was reconnecting with them,
connected with other family members and things of that nature,
and then got back into proving my innocence. And that's
when I continue doing what I was doing, and I
wrote to different people after Ken Thompson had set up
the Wrongful Conviction Unit that he has in the Brooklyn
(33:46):
District Attorney's office and I had contacted them. Then I
contacted James, and this is where we're at now.
Speaker 4 (33:52):
So where we are right now is we had cooperated
for a bit with the conviction Review Unit here in Brooklyn.
We'd receive some materials we intend to use and support
of emotion at some point. Ultimately, after they interviewed Carl
and some of the witnesses in the case declined to
be interviewed or could not be located, they closed out
(34:13):
the case. But then this month they reached back out
and said that there has been a recent and unexpected
development in the investigation of Carl's case, and that they're
going to reopen the investigation, which I don't believe I've
heard of them doing in any other case.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
After we wrapped our first interview, we got a call
from James and Carrissa asking us to hold on production
until they could meet with the Brooklyn DA's office. It
turns out that back in nineteen seventy nine, a guy
named Robert Simms gave a statement to corroborate Brown about
Carl's alleged statement at the falafel or pizza store. Now,
in October twenty twenty three, some new evidence came to
light about Robert Simms and his wife.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
Linda Simms, the broken cru in the course of their reinvestigation,
had visited her house looking to speak with her husband,
Robert Simms, and left the card there. And what we've
been told is that Linda Simms, the wife, in January
of twenty twenty three, reached out to her sister and
sent a picture of the assistant's business card that had
(35:14):
been left at the door. And when her sister asked, well,
what is this about, she responded, well, google Rabbi Crown
Heights nineteen seventy nine, and the sister, Teresa, found articles
on Rabbi Akonov's murder. And she asked her sister, Linda, well,
what did you do? And Linda responded that's what I did.
And Teresa, caring about her sister, said well, what you
(35:38):
need to do is get yourself an attorney and turn
yourself in. And Linda, for many months did not heed
that advice. So by September ish it seems to be
Teresa this was weighing very heavily on her contacted the
Brooklyn DIA's office and that's what spurred on the reopening
of the investigation.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
The confession from Linda to her sister Teresa continued implicating
Robert Simms.
Speaker 4 (36:05):
Linda said, I did that and then weave meaning her
and Robert brought it up to our father. He was
very pissed off and sent me down south. Now there's
a fair inference that she was saying that both of
us did this. And we now have additional evidence that
Linda Simms's father, who was murdered in December nineteen eighty,
shortly after Carl's trial, that at various points throughout nineteen
(36:28):
seventy nine and nineteen eighty, both Linda and Robert Simms
had possession of his handgun. And additional information that has
come out about Robert has certainly changed our assessment of him. Specifically,
when he was interviewed by the cru in relation to
Carl's case, they did not know that in the early
(36:48):
two thousands he was carrying on this relationship outside of
his marriage with Linda. She was a twenty something meter beautician.
They had a child together and she was found this
disposed of in a very rough fashion in an abandoned building,
and Robert was brought to trial in Brooklyn for the
murder and somehow acquitted. Obviously, the file is sealed following
(37:11):
the acquittal, but it sounds like the only reason for
the acquittal was that Robert pointed the finger to friends
who had helped him dispose of the body and claimed
that one of them was the actual murderer.
Speaker 3 (37:24):
So what was the guy's name who took the fall?
Speaker 4 (37:26):
Meltrius Walker?
Speaker 3 (37:28):
Is he still serving time?
Speaker 4 (37:29):
He's out now? He essentially says he came over to
the house. The woman had been shot four times, and
Robert said, I need you to help me take care
of this. Now. What's even more interesting here is before
the Brooklyn DIA's office, the cru had learned through Theresa
and his sister about Robert's prior charge that he was
acquitted of. They interviewed him and he said he did
(37:52):
not want to talk about his prior case, which he
referred to as sort of a little incident, I believe,
but he didn't want to get into the details. He
said that he and Daryl Brown, the sole witness against
Carl Miller, had been best friends for years up until
that point, at which time they had a falling out
(38:13):
because he asked Darryl Brown for some help with something
and Daryl Brown's response was, who the f do you
think you are? John Gotti or something? And they haven't
really spoken since it sounds like Daryl was asked to
do some dirty work for Robert.
Speaker 3 (38:28):
Now, it certainly plausible that Daryl Brown may have been
responding to a request from Robert Simms for yet another
big favor.
Speaker 4 (38:35):
Going back to the original investigation, the statement attributed to
Robert by police was that Robert and Darryl Brown a
day or a few days before Rabbi Akinov's murder had
been in a pizza shop on Kingston Avenue and seeing
a Jewish man with a prayer bag full of money.
And according to the police report, Robert and Daryl were
(38:59):
thinking of robbing this man but didn't And when they
later saw Carl Miller, they said, here's what we saw,
and according to the police report, Carl said, oh, you
should have ripped him off. Now, Carl has always denied
making that statement. We have nothing from Daryl Brown on
that statement at trial. We have him in a police
report giving a different version of that. What Robert Simms
did admit to us and to the CRU was that
(39:22):
he was looking to get one of those bags. He
was interested in robbing somebody. He denies that they had
any conversation where Carl Miller said, yeah, you should have
taken this guy off, And as Carl has said repeatedly,
his response to that would have been, are you crazy.
You're right across the street from the JDL and you're
going to rob a guy like this. That's ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
So where does the case stand now?
Speaker 4 (39:45):
With the CRU, they have turned things over to us.
We're gathering information and evidence to put a motion into court.
We've had several people talk to us and give us
additional evidence. We're feeling good that we can get ourselves
a hearing where we can subpoena some of these people
and get them in to give warn testimony so we
can weed out the truth here.
Speaker 7 (40:04):
Absolutely, and now when we're working with the CiU, clearly
there are ways and avenues for us to pursue.
Speaker 6 (40:12):
We just need people to speak up about it.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
Karl deserves it. Rabbi Akanov deserves to have the right
person convicted of this crime. This is a case that
is based on one person, Darryl Brown his word. We're
not here to judge you. Somebody was already judged in
this case, and we submit that it was wrongful. Reach
out to us. We'll talk to you. This isn't a
(40:35):
witch hunt or something. We just want the truth. We're
at eighty six Livingston Street in Brooklyn. We want to
get to the bottom of this.
Speaker 3 (40:42):
So we'll definitely have your contact info length in the
episode description, and with that we're going to go to
closing arguments, where first of all, I just want to
thank you for joining us, and now I'm going to
shut my microphone off, kick back of my chair with
my headphones on, and just listen to anything else you
feel is left to be said. So let's start with James,
(41:03):
go to Carissa, and then gin a shit off with you.
Speaker 2 (41:06):
Carl.
Speaker 4 (41:07):
One thing that I think we didn't get into, something
that we only learned after we started cooperating with the
cru in this case, is that one of the people
that we've seen pop up in a lot of these
cases is a gentleman that your viewers are certainly familiar with,
the detective Lewis Scarcella, and he it just so happens
pops up in this case for reasons that have not
(41:31):
been revealed to us. Two days after the murder, then
anti crime officer Lewis Scarcella is interviewed by the assisting
detective Viola, and we have no information about that, but
we do have information that former detective Scarcella has been
monitoring the progress of this case and the media accounts
(41:52):
of this case. So again I'll say the same thing
I said about Daryl Brown, Missus Scarcella, my phone is on.
Information is information. We don't know how you factored into this. Again,
I'll say, we're not going to stop. There will be
a resolution here, whether it's through the cru whether it's
filing something. When Carl came to me, I said, we're
(42:13):
going to fight this case. When Carissa read this case,
she said, we're going to fight this case together. That's
what we do, and we're going to keep moving forward,
reach out.
Speaker 7 (42:22):
I'm just really happy that we were able to touch
on the fact that Carl was released on parole, notwithstanding
him maintaining his innocence.
Speaker 6 (42:31):
I think that is huge.
Speaker 7 (42:33):
Anyone who's familiar with the criminal justice process knows that
is huge, And I really think.
Speaker 6 (42:39):
It's no surprise that Fazio played.
Speaker 7 (42:41):
A role and that so as we're saying, if anyone
has any more information similar to Fazzio, maybe they saw
something just come forward.
Speaker 5 (42:51):
I would like to say thank you in the wrong
for Fixing Podcasts giving us the opportunity to have this
out there in the public so that people you can
see not just me, but they had a whole bunch
of wrongful convictions, and as James and Carissa as stated,
it's people that know me. If you know something that
need to be spoke on, speak on it. That's all
(43:13):
I have to say.
Speaker 3 (43:20):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
week early and ed free by subscribing to Lava for
Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our
production team Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well as
my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and Jeff Cliber.
The music in this production was supplied by three time
(43:40):
OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us
across all social media platforms at Lava for Good and
at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on Instagram
at it's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a production of
Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 1 (43:56):
We've worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in
this show are the views and opinions expressed by the
individuals featured in this show are their own and do
not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
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.
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
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.