May 12, 2022 • 33 mins
In the early morning hours of June 23rd, 1984, 2 customers, a man and a woman, left a Bronx bodega. The store clerk said that the woman went with the man willingly. According to the woman, she was abducted, dragged into a park, raped, and robbed. Then, while waiting for a cab home, the same man dragged her into an abandoned building, where she was again raped and robbed. This time, he cut her face, damaging her eyesight. A rape kit was performed at the hospital, and she was shown a mugshot book, from which she identified Alan Newton - a man who had spent the night at his fiancee's family's home in Queens. Unfortunately, Alan had to wait for over 22 years for both the DNA testing and the authorities to begrudgingly locate the biological evidence to finally corroborate that alibi.
To learn more and get involve, visit:
https://lavaforgood.com/with-jason-flom/
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
On June and around four am, at a bodega in
the Bronx, a male customer bought beer and a year
old woman bought cigarettes. It's unclear whether they knew one another.
The store clerk said that the woman willingly got into
the mail customers blue and white sedan. However, according to
the woman, she was abducted upon leaving the store. Then
(00:26):
she was dragged into a park, raped, sodomized, and robbed
before chasing the man down and getting her money back. Then,
while waiting for a cab, the same man dragged her
into an abandoned building where he again assaulted her, but
this time he cut her face with a razor blade,
blinding her in her left eye and threatening to kill
her if she went to the police. When she awoke,
(00:48):
she called first responders and went to the hospital, where
she underwent surgery and a rape kit. Police showed her
a mugshot book and she chose the picture of a
man named Alan Newton. The store clerk identified Allan as
well from a photo array, But on the night of
the crime, Alan had stayed with his fiance's family and queens,
all of whom had said that no one had left
(01:10):
in the middle of the night. Curiously, no sorology was
presented at trial, only two very shaky ideas from the
witness and the victim, who could not agree on whether
the victim knew her assailant or not. Advances in DNA
testing would be all that Alan needed to eventually disprove
his accusers, but only if the police could be bothered
(01:30):
to locate the rape kid right where it had always
been for twenty two long years. This is Wrongful Conviction.
(01:51):
Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction today. Well, this is long
overdue because ever since I started doing this podcast back
in two thousands at six Team, I've thought a lot
about this case of the man you're about to hear
from in person, Alan Newton, and I don't know why
(02:11):
we haven't gotten around to it till now, but I'm
so glad we're gonna do it today because this is
a story that needs to be heard, and it's a
hard one to hear, by the way, and I'm very,
very excited and honored to have you here today, Alan Newton,
Welcome to Ron for Conviction. Thank you, Jason. Definitely appreciate
(02:34):
what you guys doing as far as getting our story
out there. So let's go back before this happened, and
before you were exposed to the worst of our criminal
legal system has to offer. Your life was was pretty good, right,
fairly decent. I was working, had graduated high school, and
(02:54):
in my mind, you know, back in Liver my best
life and appear when to go to college in a
couple of years is and that's ad and every young
guy just living my life. I mean, you're working for
the New York Telephone Company, obviously a name that doesn't
exist anymore, but New York Telephone Company for people who
remember that far back, was a big company in New
York obviously, and you were going to hip hop dad's
(03:17):
parties in the Bronx, which was again like that was
the popular thing to do back then. And if I
understand correctly, you were also engaged at the time, right, Yes, Um,
I was living in the brons my fiancee was living
in Queens, so I was working in Manhattan. So I
was basically traveling around New York City through the bows
(03:37):
and parties, just making your way, right like any other
twenty three year old guy would be doing at the time.
And so you had one previous incident that I guess
put you on the radar of the authorities, right, Can
you tell us about that? Um, it was the year
in nineteen seventy nine, two or three months before I
graduated high school, and I was at a party and
(04:00):
gotten to fight with another young teenager in my age
and got a battery charge. And unfortunately it was the
photographs and the police monk shot books that the victim
supposedly picked out to connect me to this long food
conviction of us. Yeah. I mean we've heard that story before,
whether it's with the John Asia of Alaska's case or
so many other cases where some minor infraction for which
(04:23):
somebody in a different zip code probably wouldn't have been
arrested or charged. But you know, a little high school incident,
a fight. I'm not saying the fight isn't a serious thing,
but it was a fight among two teenage boys, which
happens every day in different cities all over the country,
and of the time no charges are filed. But you know,
(04:44):
in the poorer communities, people of color, you can end
up with the record that could end up with a
mug shot in a book, that can end up in
a wrong for conviction. That it happens time and again,
and that's exactly what happened in this case. And you're
absolutely right because you know, whole later one on learning
about the case and all that, the other guy that
had to fight with wasn't coming to court. So it
(05:05):
really wasn't anybody foun you know, pushing the case along
through the justice system, but my ignorance, not knowing better
and just wanting to move on because I was working
and losing days at work, you know, coming back and
forth the court I decided just to take a blead
and and like you said, on different circumstances and another
zip colde the case would just like you said, it's
(05:26):
just a fight between teenagers at a party. And but
that's not the way the justice system, like the doll
out punishment when it comes to Southern communities, it's more
so about putting people through the criminal justice system and
making sure that they have a record for the rest
of their lives. So that brings us right up to
the time of the crime. Now, at four am on June,
(05:49):
year old woman stopped at a convenience during the bronx
to buy cigarettes. And there are some conflicts in the
narrative between the victim and the story clerk that had
an impact later in the compromised way in which the
jury decided the case. So back to the night of
the crime, the store clerk said that the assailant also
came into the store at that time and bought a
beer before returning to his car, a blue and white sedan,
(06:11):
where he was honking his horn for the victim. In
this case, the store clerk said that the victim went
to the car voluntarily. The victim, while maintained when she
exited the store that this other customer, the assailant grabbed
her from behind, put a box cutter to her throat,
and threw her into the blue and white sedan and
it drove off. Now, after a few minutes, the car stalled,
(06:32):
and when the assailant got out to check the engine,
allegedly the passenger side door handle was broken off so
the victim couldn't get out of the car. The assailant
then dragged her to a nearby park where he orally
sodomized and raped her and attempted to take her money
in cigarettes. Yes, she said the guy took her money.
She says she ran after the guy, and the guy
gave her money back when she claimed that she asked
(06:53):
some kids to feed. She she didn't say she was
going to call a cops at this time anything. She
says she was waiting for a cab. She said the
guy came and abducted again. This time he took off
an abandoned building, raped again, robbed again, and this time
he cut up In case it wasn't horrible enough, he'd
(07:13):
cut her face with a razor to prevent her from identifying.
He actually blinded her in one eye, and he told
her that if she called the police, he would come
back and kill her. She saw his back as he
ran away, and then she passed out. But when she
came to and regained consciousness, she went to a call box.
He used to have these police call boxes around the city,
(07:35):
and she called the police. Let me ask you. She
described the victim as five seven or five eight hundred
sixty pounds with a short afro, had a mustache, but
she said she couldn't tell if he was dark or
light skinned because it was the middle of the night.
Obviously was very dark out, and she told the detective
at the hospital that he was physically large and that
(07:57):
his name was Willie. Did any of this stuff match up?
With you. It didn't match up with me. It wasn't
anything that connected me to the crime. I was in
Queens that weekend with my fiance, had the tickets stopped
from going to see Ghostbusters that Saturday, And yeah, wow, Ghostbusters.
You know, I'm just thinking about that movie was like
(08:17):
such a huge thing a kid. It was like the
only thing we were talking about that summer of eighty four,
which has other implications, specifically that there was no DNA
testing back in at the hospital. They did do a
rape kit and sperm was gathered, but without the DNA
testing that eventually would exonerate you, Allen, all they had
was rology. So, to the best of your knowledge, did
(08:40):
they do any testing about blood types at all of
this evidence that they had collected. Not to my knowledge,
I didn't find any paperwork. But um, I had to
believe they had an idea because when I got arrested,
I went through MIRY because Allen and back then they
was taking booth from you. But as far as I know,
they never did any rology testing, even though they had
my blood type and they had a prology evidence that
(09:02):
was in the rape kit, so prology testing was standard
protocol back then in a case like this, if they
had something to use against you, I'm sure you know
that they would have. But the only evidence from the
rape kit that the d A used was that perman
azoa were present, proving that a sexual interaction had occurred,
but nothing about blood types, which is very suspicious. And meanwhile,
(09:23):
the detectives brought their mug book down to the hospital
and the victim, who had remember just gotten out of
eye surgery, was shown a dizzying amount of pictures. Who
knows what was going on during this process as far
as the suggestive nature of it or the pressure they
put on her when she was in an extremely fragile state.
But then eventually she picked out your picture from that
(09:44):
arrest back in high school. Then they brought a photo
lineup to the store clerk who also picked you out.
And even what they the store clook the store books said,
the reason why she recognized me, this is what she's playing.
Don't to stand. I was the only guy that came
into the establishment and the last twelve hours that she
didn't know. Then again, we don't know how suggestive they
(10:08):
were being with either of these identifications. And then both
of them having already seen your picture. It's not surprising
at all that both women picked you out of a
live lineup, so you were arrested. But something about this
idea in the whole situation should have stuck out to
everyone involved. The clerk maintained that the victim knew the assailant,
but the victim didn't know you at all, right, I mean,
(10:29):
did you know the victim not at all? Never seen
never met her, never knew right. Plus, you had a
solid alibi. Your fiance and her daughter vouched for you.
You've got the movie ticket stubs, you had stayed up
late watching TV with her family and queens before spending
the night there. I mean, you were in an entirely
different borough. I wasn't in the Bronx that weekend. I
was in Queens and bookmen. And it gets even better now.
(10:52):
When I first got arrested, my fiance said, you know,
I intended father in law. He wasn't retired correction officer.
He went to the Bronx District Attorney's office and said, listen,
I don't know what this case is about, but I
know this man was at my house and queens and
they try to ask, well, do we have the key?
(11:12):
Do he be coming in three four in the morning.
They was like, listen, he don't move like that. It
wasn't no urgency to try to get to the truth,
to find out what really happened. And like I said,
the victims also told the cops this guy named was
some guy named Willie. Later on I found out that
the cops was investigating some guy named Willie, and paperworked
that I was able to get years later, showed that
(11:34):
they was doing investigation into somebody. A matter of fact,
there was a series of rapes going on in the
community and it was fitting a similar description, a similar
m O. And that just stopped. I mean, it sounds
like maybe this guy could have been an informant, or
they were protecting him in some way. I don't know,
because otherwise, why would anybody want to let a serial
(11:54):
rapists remain free? It's insane, but that's what happened, and
I can only speculate because I haven't no idea what
was going on behind the scenes. And it's crazy when
you talk about your father in law to be, you know,
I mean, this is a guy you would think would
have some credibility, you know, in that system especially, and
they didn't care what he had to say. They didn't
care what you had to say, didn't care about your fiance.
(12:16):
In fact, they were aggressively disinterested, no question. They were
fighting against the truth and they want they said when
they came to stand. Well, once we focus on Mr Newton,
everything else ceased in regards to another suspect. And a
lot of these cases, the person that committed these crimes
go on to commit multiple crimes. Okay, I'm not caught.
(12:38):
They don't stop and like check themselves, right. And this
is a guy who was so depraved that he also
took a box cutter to her face. I mean, like,
this is like, this is a person that we should
all want off the streets, you know, I mean, Jesus Christ.
(13:05):
This episode is underwritten by global law firm Greenberg Traaric.
Through its pro Boono program, Greenberg Trary leverages it's more
than lawyers across forty two offices to serve the greater
good of our communities and provide equal access to justice
for all in the field of criminal justice. Greenbrig Triary Attorneys,
having soonerted and Freedom and in Philadelphia, represent numerous individuals
(13:27):
previously sentenced to life for crimes committed as juveniles and
resentencing hearings, and received the American part Associations Exceptional Service
Award for Death Penalty Representation for their work on five
death penalty cases. GT is reimagining what big law can
be because a more just world only happens by design.
(13:52):
They offered me three years, Jason offered me three to
ten years in a plea deal, and I couldn't take debts,
made a conscious decision to go to trial and fight
this all the way through. How long did the trial take?
Five to six days altogether? So it trially only used
the rape kit and other biological evidence to determine that
a sexual act had occurred, but no sterological evidence was presented,
(14:16):
so we don't know what they found out, if anything,
at all. And I'd only be speculating to say that
since they had identifications from the victim and the witness,
they may have ignored or hidden inconvenient exculpatory evidence like
if the blood type didn't match Allen. And of course,
many years later DNA testing absolutely excluded Alan and proved
(14:38):
that these two misidentifications were just that totally unreliable. And
that's really all this trial came down to, the two misidentifications.
They had to line up. They had to line up.
I was picked out by the victim and this witness.
But when they both came to court a year later
and saw me again, neither one of them in this
(14:59):
lely picked me out in the court, neither one of them.
And then the district attorney I was on the case
at the time. The ad A have a discussion with
the victim and the store clerk, and they both came
up with an excuse of why I'm now the guy.
So the only evidence they had was shaky. But somehow
that was still enough to overcome your defense. What if
(15:23):
anything was presented in your favor. I mean, not only
did my fiance testify, her daughter testified. My fiance also
took a lot of technive tests. He passed it. You know,
the court wasn't formed, the district attorney wasn't formed about this.
And unlike you see on C S I or one
of these other law and order shows, where okay, somebody
passed a lot of tective tests, let's try to do
(15:44):
a little more research. The only thing the judge did
he turned to my fiance while she was on the
stand and said, listen, if you say anything about that
lot of detective tests, I'm gonna hold you in contempt,
right and obviously lie. Detective test results are inadmissible because
the testing is super were subjective, but back in polygraph
results were still admissible in court. So it's interesting and
(16:07):
confusing that this judge seemed keen on keeping that information
from the jury, which brings us to this very odd verdict.
You were acquitted of all the charges stemming from the
incident at the park, but convicted of the charges related
to the victim's attack in the abandoned building, which I
had to read that like three times because I was like,
but wait a minute, it was known at the time
(16:30):
directly from the victim that it was the same person.
So can you I mean, that's a great question. Just
helped me out here because I don't understand I gotta
answer for that. Remember, now, the victim and the clerk
had different testimony in the gods to how the victim
got into the car. The victim says she was abducted.
(16:54):
The clerk says she wentomly walked into the car. So
the jury subbi as that these two people knew each other.
And then to hear what the jury told my lawyer
about why they made that decision. It was like, oh, yeah, well,
they called the girl a liar about being abducted coming
(17:15):
out the store. They went with the store clerks testimony
that she walked into the car on her own, which
me they were saying the girl and the guy was together,
but we believe something went wrong after the park. So
they believed the victim when she says she got assaulted
in the building, but they thought she was lying about
(17:37):
the park and that came out because she got cut.
If this woman did not get cut, I truly believe
I wouldn't have got convicted because their attitude was, well,
this was a consensual relationship, even though that wasn't the
testimony outside of what the clerks said about the guy
beeping the horn and the victim walking into the car.
So that's called to be pugnant verdict because it's the
(18:00):
same victim, it's the same evidence, and a judge legally
don't supposed to allow because it's inconsistent. I mean, the
jury was presented with this conflicting evidence, and maybe in
the interest of public safety or so they thought, they
were very willing to come up with their own narrative
of the events to come to this verdict, which of
course isn't what they're supposed to do. It. They accepted
(18:21):
the store clerks testimony, in effect calling the victims testimony
about not knowing her attacker. They called that a lie. Meanwhile,
it was undisputed that she didn't know you at all,
yet she identified you anyway. That means if the store
clerk was right, the victim must have been protecting her
actual attack or when talking to the police and fingered
(18:42):
you in his place. On the other hand, if the
store clerk was wrong, maybe she was abducted by a stranger,
But then the jury should have believed her about both assaults.
They just chose to believe half of the victim's story
about the building, and we don't believe what happened in
the park. And they said, well, we're gonna go with
the store clerk because supposedly she's an independent witness. But
(19:06):
it was also testimony from the victim ofself now that
she got assaulted about less than a month before by
an ex boyfriend. So it was a lot of things
that came out. But I also believe the judge played
a big part in my trial because the A d
A in my case was kind of new, fresh out
of law school. You know, she wasn't up to par
(19:28):
when it came to trying to question witnesses. The judge
was taken over across examination and to direct the examination.
It was like you're supposed to be, you know, the arbitrator,
not make the case for the A d A. Unfortunately
passed away before my case got overturned, because I would
have really liked to show him that I was really innocent.
(19:48):
I'm sure that would have been satisfying. Considering what you're
telling us now and also what we know this judge
had already said to your fiance. By being held in contempt,
it sounds like he was really, for all intents and purposes,
just another prosecutor, like an adjunct prosecutor, which obviously totally
tilts the scale, and not in your favor at all.
So at this point did you expect the jury would
(20:10):
see past the nonsense? I mean, when you're telling the truth,
you believe in your heart it's gonna stand up you.
You believe it's enough. It came as a real shot.
I wanted to prove my innocence and say, hey, I
got the wrong guy here, you know this, this can't
go on. And I didn't think it was gonna last
twenty two years. And I mean I didn't think I
(20:31):
was gonna get convicted either. So the first thing I
did once I got up state, the Falce motion I
(20:53):
put in the post say motion was trying to get
podology tested. That's the first motion I put it. I
want to try to get that great kit and try
to test it, you know, and this was pre DNA.
I just want to test it for blood typing. Judge
Weinstein or through the years when I was founding motions
on my behalf, he just he would shoot me down.
(21:14):
He just disregarded all my emotions. Even I was trying
to find the rat kit and presenting you know, the
Republican verdict, everything got dismissed. And it was hard, man,
you know, it was rough. I lost both my parents
in there, and whose things that you know that I
(21:35):
lost I could never get back. But I had my
family and they was, you know, always there for me,
and so having that support and had to keep fighting
though until I got it right though, until they realized
they made a mistake. And that took unfortunately way too
long as it usually does in these cases. Ten years
after I got convicted, New York State passed the DNA law.
(21:59):
I was one of the first people to put in
the motion as far as trying to get tested. Unger
sixteenth and eighteen eighty before that was the first time
that you requested the post conviction DNA testing. But the
court denied your request because they said the kid could
not be located. Because I was going to say, the
courts allotted d A's office to indicate, well, we can't
(22:22):
find it. We did a search, we can't find it.
And so my one true hope of proving my innocence
and my mind didn't exist anymore. You know, it was
gone beneato, and that had to be a terrible blow, right,
you know. I was almost broken though, and you know,
no chance of getting out I got to do all
this time unless I go say I did something I
didn't do to try to make prolole. And I spoke
(22:45):
with you know, my brother about it, my family, and
I was like, hey, I may have to go take
a program here and say I did this crime just
to have consideration, not for releast consideration. And my family
was like, no, you're you're not doing that I was like,
I'm doing this time. It was like, no, we're all
(23:06):
doing this time with you. That sounds like a pretty
dark time. But fortunately this whole situation turned around and
this is the good stuff. So what happened next? So
now ten years after that, when innocens brought to come
on in case, Vanessa Popkin reached out to the Bronze
County District Attorney's office and the a d A decided, Okay,
(23:28):
you know, we're gonna look for it now because we
have an attorney acts in us. The relationships the Innocence
Project had with the district attorney offices made it possible.
I mean, the courts couldn't make the d a's office
look for it. In November two thousand and five, the
kit was found after a physical search of the evidence
(23:51):
barrels at the Pearson Place Queen's warehouse, which means the
rape kit was found in the same barrel that was
indicated on the evidence voucher, which is to say, it
was where it was supposed to be and where he
had almost certainly been all those years that they had
(24:13):
been saying they couldn't find it. It was right there
now it was supposed to go back to the Bronx.
It never went back to the Bronx. They didn't come
to pick it up after the trial. And what happened.
You know, evidence that's not reclaimed is sent to piercing
place in Queens and like you said, it was indicated
(24:36):
on the voucher that it was set somewhere else. Now
this is the this is the tricky part. If it
had got sent back to the Bronx, there's a possibility
I wouldn't have been here. Because the Bronx was losing
and destroying stuff. Queen's warehouse was bigger, so they was
able to maintain property. Even though they got property in
(24:57):
there for fifty years, they was able to maintained So
technically it wasn't what was supposed to be, but it
was wild was indicated to be so. In April two
thousand and six, F s A Forensic Science Associates attained
a full DNA profile from the Dagelan cervical swabs. The
reference samples were collected from you, Allen, and F s
(25:20):
A and the Bronx d AS office confirmed the d
n A. Drum roll please, here we go. The d
n A conclusively excluded you as the source of the
sperm recovered from the victim. Immediately after the rape, justice
finally prevailed. It was delayed, but not denied. It was
delayed for twenty two years, and on July six of
(25:40):
two thousand and six, you walked out of a Bronx
courthouse after the instance project and the Bronx County t
A's office filed the joint motion to vacate your conviction.
I remember this because we were all celebrating. What was
that moment like for you? I was heaving, I was
I was being I was like being born again. I
(26:01):
didn't see it coming. I was almost prepared just do
the whole forty. That was the attitude I had, because
the pre parole board told me I have no chance
unless I take responsibility, and so I couldn't see it.
And I mean I was walked around like a zombie.
I was just you know, being led by my family
(26:23):
and you know, I mean the lights and it's the
It was the best moment in my life, you know,
like getting convicted. You know, twenty two years prior to that,
I didn't see that curveball coming. I didn't really see
this curveball coming too, because they told me the evidence
was gone. So when they found it, you know, it
(26:43):
was like, if it's not tampered with, I know, I'm okay.
Let me interject one thing real quick. If it was
up to the city, I would have never got exonerated.
We found out during a civil trial the o c
m e's office when they were doing the testing and
they was contaminating their own samples, they was not able
(27:05):
to come up with a result whether that was my
DNA or not because the sample that they had they
was contaminating it. So whether it's being done deliberately or
you know, just in competence, it's still being done. And
if you can't get access to independent testing, which is
what the Innocence Project was able to do, instead of
(27:26):
relying on just the o c m S Office, you're
in a catch swaying to the situation because you can
only believe the sworn documents that they submit to the court.
It's the same way when I was following my motions,
po say, all those years they were swearing to the
court that they did a search and can't find the evidence.
It's terrifying. I mean, it's scary enough to think you
(27:49):
could get lost, Like even when your evidence was sitting
in that warehouse. They could have been a flood, right,
there could have been anything and you would be doomed.
But it wasn't. So when Lost six came and they
cut a brother loose, like I said, it was like
my born day and that's like my second birthday now
and I look forward to that day and I chellship
(28:13):
I appreciate life so much more now because I realized
how quick we can have the snatched away from us,
just you know, on somebody's accusation, somebody's claim, and you
know how we really don't have any rights because that'shally
came down to. You know, you're guilty until you prove
(28:33):
your innocence. That's the way to the system is now.
So it was you know, bitter sweet too at the
end of the day because I had lost so much,
like I said, both my parents. So it was a
bitter sweet Forty five years old, you're released out into
the world, no job. Your fiance had moved on. I mean,
I can't blame her after twenty two years, but you know,
you hit the ground running anyway. Scholarship from the Third
(28:56):
Good Marshal Fund enabled you to enroll and get it
be as business administration. Right. I remember meeting you back
around that time, and you started working as a youth mentor,
started dating, even water skiing in the Caribbean, eventually right
and graduating in two thousand and NATed. Of course, you
filed civil rights lawsuit and were awarded a lot of money.
(29:20):
I don't think there's any amount of money that would
be enough to justify the suffering that you went through
and your family went through. But the fact is it's
nice to see. I mean, unfortunately most exonorees never get
any compensation. It makes me happy to see when somebody
like you does at least get that monetary rewards so
you can, you know, do the things that you want
(29:41):
to do. And I get back though, and I try
to help that the exonovies try to go out there
and talk about this issue because I could stay at
my you know, man cave and you know, stay depressed
and stay focused on the last forty years of my life.
But it's more about, you know, letting people know there's
(30:02):
something better out there and and we could make things better,
but we all have to you know, stay you know,
vigilant and trying to make this possible. And I'm glad
you're out there doing everything you're doing. It's so important
that people need to hear from you. You're including right here,
right now on this podcast. Should now getting towards the
closing of the show, It's called closing arguments, and it
(30:24):
works like this. I'm gonna first of all, thank you
again for being here and for being such a beacon
of hope and for sharing your story. And then I'm
going to kick back in my chair, turn off my
microphone and leave my headphones on and just listen for
anything else you want to share with me in our audience.
Thank you, Jason H. I appreciate you guys and being
(30:46):
able to tell the story. It's a blessing because I think, um,
this is you know, one subject that all sane minds
think alike. We should not have innocent people being wrong
fee convicted and locked up for anything. And if there's
any chance in any shred of evidence that proved us,
(31:09):
I think, you know, we should move mountains to to
exonerate you know, men and women, because you have a
lot more women now that's being wrongfully convicted also. And
and like I said, I think this is one thing
that you know, we all agree about, but we just
have to be diligent and always reminding, you know, public
officials that this is a subject that affects each and
(31:34):
every one of us, and each time the opportunity arises,
we must help people in these situations, you know, while
they imprisoned, trying to prove their innocence, and definitely when
we come home, because like you said, I had to
hit the ground running because it wasn't nothing there for me.
I had a lot of help, fortunately, and unfortunately, a
(31:57):
lot of my you know, for Alexander Rees don't at
that type of help. You know, whether it's you know,
whether they got exonerated or you know, the family or
friends situation. It's so important that you know, we all
as a society try to not only prevent this from
happening in the future, but when it does, make every
opportunity to make these people hold again, you know, make
(32:19):
it right. They can't go back and obtain what they lost,
but moving forward we can all make life better for us.
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
(32:40):
thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburne, and Kevin Wardis,
with research by Lila Robinson. The music in this production
was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
(33:01):
all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason flam Raleval Conviction is
the production of Lava for Good podcasts in association with
Signal Company Number one
On June and around four am, at a bodega in
the Bronx, a male customer bought beer and a year
old woman bought cigarettes. It's unclear whether they knew one another.
The store clerk said that the woman willingly got into
the mail customers blue and white sedan. However, according to
the woman, she was abducted upon leaving the store. Then
(00:26):
she was dragged into a park, raped, sodomized, and robbed
before chasing the man down and getting her money back. Then,
while waiting for a cab, the same man dragged her
into an abandoned building where he again assaulted her, but
this time he cut her face with a razor blade,
blinding her in her left eye and threatening to kill
her if she went to the police. When she awoke,
(00:48):
she called first responders and went to the hospital, where
she underwent surgery and a rape kit. Police showed her
a mugshot book and she chose the picture of a
man named Alan Newton. The store clerk identified Allan as
well from a photo array, But on the night of
the crime, Alan had stayed with his fiance's family and queens,
all of whom had said that no one had left
(01:10):
in the middle of the night. Curiously, no sorology was
presented at trial, only two very shaky ideas from the
witness and the victim, who could not agree on whether
the victim knew her assailant or not. Advances in DNA
testing would be all that Alan needed to eventually disprove
his accusers, but only if the police could be bothered
(01:30):
to locate the rape kid right where it had always
been for twenty two long years. This is Wrongful Conviction.
(01:51):
Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction today. Well, this is long
overdue because ever since I started doing this podcast back
in two thousands at six Team, I've thought a lot
about this case of the man you're about to hear
from in person, Alan Newton, and I don't know why
(02:11):
we haven't gotten around to it till now, but I'm
so glad we're gonna do it today because this is
a story that needs to be heard, and it's a
hard one to hear, by the way, and I'm very,
very excited and honored to have you here today, Alan Newton,
Welcome to Ron for Conviction. Thank you, Jason. Definitely appreciate
(02:34):
what you guys doing as far as getting our story
out there. So let's go back before this happened, and
before you were exposed to the worst of our criminal
legal system has to offer. Your life was was pretty good, right,
fairly decent. I was working, had graduated high school, and
(02:54):
in my mind, you know, back in Liver my best
life and appear when to go to college in a
couple of years is and that's ad and every young
guy just living my life. I mean, you're working for
the New York Telephone Company, obviously a name that doesn't
exist anymore, but New York Telephone Company for people who
remember that far back, was a big company in New
York obviously, and you were going to hip hop dad's
(03:17):
parties in the Bronx, which was again like that was
the popular thing to do back then. And if I
understand correctly, you were also engaged at the time, right, Yes, Um,
I was living in the brons my fiancee was living
in Queens, so I was working in Manhattan. So I
was basically traveling around New York City through the bows
(03:37):
and parties, just making your way, right like any other
twenty three year old guy would be doing at the time.
And so you had one previous incident that I guess
put you on the radar of the authorities, right, Can
you tell us about that? Um, it was the year
in nineteen seventy nine, two or three months before I
graduated high school, and I was at a party and
(04:00):
gotten to fight with another young teenager in my age
and got a battery charge. And unfortunately it was the
photographs and the police monk shot books that the victim
supposedly picked out to connect me to this long food
conviction of us. Yeah. I mean we've heard that story before,
whether it's with the John Asia of Alaska's case or
so many other cases where some minor infraction for which
(04:23):
somebody in a different zip code probably wouldn't have been
arrested or charged. But you know, a little high school incident,
a fight. I'm not saying the fight isn't a serious thing,
but it was a fight among two teenage boys, which
happens every day in different cities all over the country,
and of the time no charges are filed. But you know,
(04:44):
in the poorer communities, people of color, you can end
up with the record that could end up with a
mug shot in a book, that can end up in
a wrong for conviction. That it happens time and again,
and that's exactly what happened in this case. And you're
absolutely right because you know, whole later one on learning
about the case and all that, the other guy that
had to fight with wasn't coming to court. So it
(05:05):
really wasn't anybody foun you know, pushing the case along
through the justice system, but my ignorance, not knowing better
and just wanting to move on because I was working
and losing days at work, you know, coming back and
forth the court I decided just to take a blead
and and like you said, on different circumstances and another
zip colde the case would just like you said, it's
(05:26):
just a fight between teenagers at a party. And but
that's not the way the justice system, like the doll
out punishment when it comes to Southern communities, it's more
so about putting people through the criminal justice system and
making sure that they have a record for the rest
of their lives. So that brings us right up to
the time of the crime. Now, at four am on June,
(05:49):
year old woman stopped at a convenience during the bronx
to buy cigarettes. And there are some conflicts in the
narrative between the victim and the story clerk that had
an impact later in the compromised way in which the
jury decided the case. So back to the night of
the crime, the store clerk said that the assailant also
came into the store at that time and bought a
beer before returning to his car, a blue and white sedan,
(06:11):
where he was honking his horn for the victim. In
this case, the store clerk said that the victim went
to the car voluntarily. The victim, while maintained when she
exited the store that this other customer, the assailant grabbed
her from behind, put a box cutter to her throat,
and threw her into the blue and white sedan and
it drove off. Now, after a few minutes, the car stalled,
(06:32):
and when the assailant got out to check the engine,
allegedly the passenger side door handle was broken off so
the victim couldn't get out of the car. The assailant
then dragged her to a nearby park where he orally
sodomized and raped her and attempted to take her money
in cigarettes. Yes, she said the guy took her money.
She says she ran after the guy, and the guy
gave her money back when she claimed that she asked
(06:53):
some kids to feed. She she didn't say she was
going to call a cops at this time anything. She
says she was waiting for a cab. She said the
guy came and abducted again. This time he took off
an abandoned building, raped again, robbed again, and this time
he cut up In case it wasn't horrible enough, he'd
(07:13):
cut her face with a razor to prevent her from identifying.
He actually blinded her in one eye, and he told
her that if she called the police, he would come
back and kill her. She saw his back as he
ran away, and then she passed out. But when she
came to and regained consciousness, she went to a call box.
He used to have these police call boxes around the city,
(07:35):
and she called the police. Let me ask you. She
described the victim as five seven or five eight hundred
sixty pounds with a short afro, had a mustache, but
she said she couldn't tell if he was dark or
light skinned because it was the middle of the night.
Obviously was very dark out, and she told the detective
at the hospital that he was physically large and that
(07:57):
his name was Willie. Did any of this stuff match up?
With you. It didn't match up with me. It wasn't
anything that connected me to the crime. I was in
Queens that weekend with my fiance, had the tickets stopped
from going to see Ghostbusters that Saturday, And yeah, wow, Ghostbusters.
You know, I'm just thinking about that movie was like
(08:17):
such a huge thing a kid. It was like the
only thing we were talking about that summer of eighty four,
which has other implications, specifically that there was no DNA
testing back in at the hospital. They did do a
rape kit and sperm was gathered, but without the DNA
testing that eventually would exonerate you, Allen, all they had
was rology. So, to the best of your knowledge, did
(08:40):
they do any testing about blood types at all of
this evidence that they had collected. Not to my knowledge,
I didn't find any paperwork. But um, I had to
believe they had an idea because when I got arrested,
I went through MIRY because Allen and back then they
was taking booth from you. But as far as I know,
they never did any rology testing, even though they had
my blood type and they had a prology evidence that
(09:02):
was in the rape kit, so prology testing was standard
protocol back then in a case like this, if they
had something to use against you, I'm sure you know
that they would have. But the only evidence from the
rape kit that the d A used was that perman
azoa were present, proving that a sexual interaction had occurred,
but nothing about blood types, which is very suspicious. And meanwhile,
(09:23):
the detectives brought their mug book down to the hospital
and the victim, who had remember just gotten out of
eye surgery, was shown a dizzying amount of pictures. Who
knows what was going on during this process as far
as the suggestive nature of it or the pressure they
put on her when she was in an extremely fragile state.
But then eventually she picked out your picture from that
(09:44):
arrest back in high school. Then they brought a photo
lineup to the store clerk who also picked you out.
And even what they the store clook the store books said,
the reason why she recognized me, this is what she's playing.
Don't to stand. I was the only guy that came
into the establishment and the last twelve hours that she
didn't know. Then again, we don't know how suggestive they
(10:08):
were being with either of these identifications. And then both
of them having already seen your picture. It's not surprising
at all that both women picked you out of a
live lineup, so you were arrested. But something about this
idea in the whole situation should have stuck out to
everyone involved. The clerk maintained that the victim knew the assailant,
but the victim didn't know you at all, right, I mean,
(10:29):
did you know the victim not at all? Never seen
never met her, never knew right. Plus, you had a
solid alibi. Your fiance and her daughter vouched for you.
You've got the movie ticket stubs, you had stayed up
late watching TV with her family and queens before spending
the night there. I mean, you were in an entirely
different borough. I wasn't in the Bronx that weekend. I
was in Queens and bookmen. And it gets even better now.
(10:52):
When I first got arrested, my fiance said, you know,
I intended father in law. He wasn't retired correction officer.
He went to the Bronx District Attorney's office and said, listen,
I don't know what this case is about, but I
know this man was at my house and queens and
they try to ask, well, do we have the key?
(11:12):
Do he be coming in three four in the morning.
They was like, listen, he don't move like that. It
wasn't no urgency to try to get to the truth,
to find out what really happened. And like I said,
the victims also told the cops this guy named was
some guy named Willie. Later on I found out that
the cops was investigating some guy named Willie, and paperworked
that I was able to get years later, showed that
(11:34):
they was doing investigation into somebody. A matter of fact,
there was a series of rapes going on in the
community and it was fitting a similar description, a similar
m O. And that just stopped. I mean, it sounds
like maybe this guy could have been an informant, or
they were protecting him in some way. I don't know,
because otherwise, why would anybody want to let a serial
(11:54):
rapists remain free? It's insane, but that's what happened, and
I can only speculate because I haven't no idea what
was going on behind the scenes. And it's crazy when
you talk about your father in law to be, you know,
I mean, this is a guy you would think would
have some credibility, you know, in that system especially, and
they didn't care what he had to say. They didn't
care what you had to say, didn't care about your fiance.
(12:16):
In fact, they were aggressively disinterested, no question. They were
fighting against the truth and they want they said when
they came to stand. Well, once we focus on Mr Newton,
everything else ceased in regards to another suspect. And a
lot of these cases, the person that committed these crimes
go on to commit multiple crimes. Okay, I'm not caught.
(12:38):
They don't stop and like check themselves, right. And this
is a guy who was so depraved that he also
took a box cutter to her face. I mean, like,
this is like, this is a person that we should
all want off the streets, you know, I mean, Jesus Christ.
(13:05):
This episode is underwritten by global law firm Greenberg Traaric.
Through its pro Boono program, Greenberg Trary leverages it's more
than lawyers across forty two offices to serve the greater
good of our communities and provide equal access to justice
for all in the field of criminal justice. Greenbrig Triary Attorneys,
having soonerted and Freedom and in Philadelphia, represent numerous individuals
(13:27):
previously sentenced to life for crimes committed as juveniles and
resentencing hearings, and received the American part Associations Exceptional Service
Award for Death Penalty Representation for their work on five
death penalty cases. GT is reimagining what big law can
be because a more just world only happens by design.
(13:52):
They offered me three years, Jason offered me three to
ten years in a plea deal, and I couldn't take debts,
made a conscious decision to go to trial and fight
this all the way through. How long did the trial take?
Five to six days altogether? So it trially only used
the rape kit and other biological evidence to determine that
a sexual act had occurred, but no sterological evidence was presented,
(14:16):
so we don't know what they found out, if anything,
at all. And I'd only be speculating to say that
since they had identifications from the victim and the witness,
they may have ignored or hidden inconvenient exculpatory evidence like
if the blood type didn't match Allen. And of course,
many years later DNA testing absolutely excluded Alan and proved
(14:38):
that these two misidentifications were just that totally unreliable. And
that's really all this trial came down to, the two misidentifications.
They had to line up. They had to line up.
I was picked out by the victim and this witness.
But when they both came to court a year later
and saw me again, neither one of them in this
(14:59):
lely picked me out in the court, neither one of them.
And then the district attorney I was on the case
at the time. The ad A have a discussion with
the victim and the store clerk, and they both came
up with an excuse of why I'm now the guy.
So the only evidence they had was shaky. But somehow
that was still enough to overcome your defense. What if
(15:23):
anything was presented in your favor. I mean, not only
did my fiance testify, her daughter testified. My fiance also
took a lot of technive tests. He passed it. You know,
the court wasn't formed, the district attorney wasn't formed about this.
And unlike you see on C S I or one
of these other law and order shows, where okay, somebody
passed a lot of tective tests, let's try to do
(15:44):
a little more research. The only thing the judge did
he turned to my fiance while she was on the
stand and said, listen, if you say anything about that
lot of detective tests, I'm gonna hold you in contempt,
right and obviously lie. Detective test results are inadmissible because
the testing is super were subjective, but back in polygraph
results were still admissible in court. So it's interesting and
(16:07):
confusing that this judge seemed keen on keeping that information
from the jury, which brings us to this very odd verdict.
You were acquitted of all the charges stemming from the
incident at the park, but convicted of the charges related
to the victim's attack in the abandoned building, which I
had to read that like three times because I was like,
but wait a minute, it was known at the time
(16:30):
directly from the victim that it was the same person.
So can you I mean, that's a great question. Just
helped me out here because I don't understand I gotta
answer for that. Remember, now, the victim and the clerk
had different testimony in the gods to how the victim
got into the car. The victim says she was abducted.
(16:54):
The clerk says she wentomly walked into the car. So
the jury subbi as that these two people knew each other.
And then to hear what the jury told my lawyer
about why they made that decision. It was like, oh, yeah, well,
they called the girl a liar about being abducted coming
(17:15):
out the store. They went with the store clerks testimony
that she walked into the car on her own, which
me they were saying the girl and the guy was together,
but we believe something went wrong after the park. So
they believed the victim when she says she got assaulted
in the building, but they thought she was lying about
(17:37):
the park and that came out because she got cut.
If this woman did not get cut, I truly believe
I wouldn't have got convicted because their attitude was, well,
this was a consensual relationship, even though that wasn't the
testimony outside of what the clerks said about the guy
beeping the horn and the victim walking into the car.
So that's called to be pugnant verdict because it's the
(18:00):
same victim, it's the same evidence, and a judge legally
don't supposed to allow because it's inconsistent. I mean, the
jury was presented with this conflicting evidence, and maybe in
the interest of public safety or so they thought, they
were very willing to come up with their own narrative
of the events to come to this verdict, which of
course isn't what they're supposed to do. It. They accepted
(18:21):
the store clerks testimony, in effect calling the victims testimony
about not knowing her attacker. They called that a lie. Meanwhile,
it was undisputed that she didn't know you at all,
yet she identified you anyway. That means if the store
clerk was right, the victim must have been protecting her
actual attack or when talking to the police and fingered
(18:42):
you in his place. On the other hand, if the
store clerk was wrong, maybe she was abducted by a stranger,
But then the jury should have believed her about both assaults.
They just chose to believe half of the victim's story
about the building, and we don't believe what happened in
the park. And they said, well, we're gonna go with
the store clerk because supposedly she's an independent witness. But
(19:06):
it was also testimony from the victim ofself now that
she got assaulted about less than a month before by
an ex boyfriend. So it was a lot of things
that came out. But I also believe the judge played
a big part in my trial because the A d
A in my case was kind of new, fresh out
of law school. You know, she wasn't up to par
(19:28):
when it came to trying to question witnesses. The judge
was taken over across examination and to direct the examination.
It was like you're supposed to be, you know, the arbitrator,
not make the case for the A d A. Unfortunately
passed away before my case got overturned, because I would
have really liked to show him that I was really innocent.
(19:48):
I'm sure that would have been satisfying. Considering what you're
telling us now and also what we know this judge
had already said to your fiance. By being held in contempt,
it sounds like he was really, for all intents and purposes,
just another prosecutor, like an adjunct prosecutor, which obviously totally
tilts the scale, and not in your favor at all.
So at this point did you expect the jury would
(20:10):
see past the nonsense? I mean, when you're telling the truth,
you believe in your heart it's gonna stand up you.
You believe it's enough. It came as a real shot.
I wanted to prove my innocence and say, hey, I
got the wrong guy here, you know this, this can't
go on. And I didn't think it was gonna last
twenty two years. And I mean I didn't think I
(20:31):
was gonna get convicted either. So the first thing I
did once I got up state, the Falce motion I
(20:53):
put in the post say motion was trying to get
podology tested. That's the first motion I put it. I
want to try to get that great kit and try
to test it, you know, and this was pre DNA.
I just want to test it for blood typing. Judge
Weinstein or through the years when I was founding motions
on my behalf, he just he would shoot me down.
(21:14):
He just disregarded all my emotions. Even I was trying
to find the rat kit and presenting you know, the
Republican verdict, everything got dismissed. And it was hard, man,
you know, it was rough. I lost both my parents
in there, and whose things that you know that I
(21:35):
lost I could never get back. But I had my
family and they was, you know, always there for me,
and so having that support and had to keep fighting
though until I got it right though, until they realized
they made a mistake. And that took unfortunately way too
long as it usually does in these cases. Ten years
after I got convicted, New York State passed the DNA law.
(21:59):
I was one of the first people to put in
the motion as far as trying to get tested. Unger
sixteenth and eighteen eighty before that was the first time
that you requested the post conviction DNA testing. But the
court denied your request because they said the kid could
not be located. Because I was going to say, the
courts allotted d A's office to indicate, well, we can't
(22:22):
find it. We did a search, we can't find it.
And so my one true hope of proving my innocence
and my mind didn't exist anymore. You know, it was
gone beneato, and that had to be a terrible blow, right,
you know. I was almost broken though, and you know,
no chance of getting out I got to do all
this time unless I go say I did something I
didn't do to try to make prolole. And I spoke
(22:45):
with you know, my brother about it, my family, and
I was like, hey, I may have to go take
a program here and say I did this crime just
to have consideration, not for releast consideration. And my family
was like, no, you're you're not doing that I was like,
I'm doing this time. It was like, no, we're all
(23:06):
doing this time with you. That sounds like a pretty
dark time. But fortunately this whole situation turned around and
this is the good stuff. So what happened next? So
now ten years after that, when innocens brought to come
on in case, Vanessa Popkin reached out to the Bronze
County District Attorney's office and the a d A decided, Okay,
(23:28):
you know, we're gonna look for it now because we
have an attorney acts in us. The relationships the Innocence
Project had with the district attorney offices made it possible.
I mean, the courts couldn't make the d a's office
look for it. In November two thousand and five, the
kit was found after a physical search of the evidence
(23:51):
barrels at the Pearson Place Queen's warehouse, which means the
rape kit was found in the same barrel that was
indicated on the evidence voucher, which is to say, it
was where it was supposed to be and where he
had almost certainly been all those years that they had
(24:13):
been saying they couldn't find it. It was right there
now it was supposed to go back to the Bronx.
It never went back to the Bronx. They didn't come
to pick it up after the trial. And what happened.
You know, evidence that's not reclaimed is sent to piercing
place in Queens and like you said, it was indicated
(24:36):
on the voucher that it was set somewhere else. Now
this is the this is the tricky part. If it
had got sent back to the Bronx, there's a possibility
I wouldn't have been here. Because the Bronx was losing
and destroying stuff. Queen's warehouse was bigger, so they was
able to maintain property. Even though they got property in
(24:57):
there for fifty years, they was able to maintained So
technically it wasn't what was supposed to be, but it
was wild was indicated to be so. In April two
thousand and six, F s A Forensic Science Associates attained
a full DNA profile from the Dagelan cervical swabs. The
reference samples were collected from you, Allen, and F s
(25:20):
A and the Bronx d AS office confirmed the d
n A. Drum roll please, here we go. The d
n A conclusively excluded you as the source of the
sperm recovered from the victim. Immediately after the rape, justice
finally prevailed. It was delayed, but not denied. It was
delayed for twenty two years, and on July six of
(25:40):
two thousand and six, you walked out of a Bronx
courthouse after the instance project and the Bronx County t
A's office filed the joint motion to vacate your conviction.
I remember this because we were all celebrating. What was
that moment like for you? I was heaving, I was
I was being I was like being born again. I
(26:01):
didn't see it coming. I was almost prepared just do
the whole forty. That was the attitude I had, because
the pre parole board told me I have no chance
unless I take responsibility, and so I couldn't see it.
And I mean I was walked around like a zombie.
I was just you know, being led by my family
(26:23):
and you know, I mean the lights and it's the
It was the best moment in my life, you know,
like getting convicted. You know, twenty two years prior to that,
I didn't see that curveball coming. I didn't really see
this curveball coming too, because they told me the evidence
was gone. So when they found it, you know, it
(26:43):
was like, if it's not tampered with, I know, I'm okay.
Let me interject one thing real quick. If it was
up to the city, I would have never got exonerated.
We found out during a civil trial the o c
m e's office when they were doing the testing and
they was contaminating their own samples, they was not able
(27:05):
to come up with a result whether that was my
DNA or not because the sample that they had they
was contaminating it. So whether it's being done deliberately or
you know, just in competence, it's still being done. And
if you can't get access to independent testing, which is
what the Innocence Project was able to do, instead of
(27:26):
relying on just the o c m S Office, you're
in a catch swaying to the situation because you can
only believe the sworn documents that they submit to the court.
It's the same way when I was following my motions,
po say, all those years they were swearing to the
court that they did a search and can't find the evidence.
It's terrifying. I mean, it's scary enough to think you
(27:49):
could get lost, Like even when your evidence was sitting
in that warehouse. They could have been a flood, right,
there could have been anything and you would be doomed.
But it wasn't. So when Lost six came and they
cut a brother loose, like I said, it was like
my born day and that's like my second birthday now
and I look forward to that day and I chellship
(28:13):
I appreciate life so much more now because I realized
how quick we can have the snatched away from us,
just you know, on somebody's accusation, somebody's claim, and you
know how we really don't have any rights because that'shally
came down to. You know, you're guilty until you prove
(28:33):
your innocence. That's the way to the system is now.
So it was you know, bitter sweet too at the
end of the day because I had lost so much,
like I said, both my parents. So it was a
bitter sweet Forty five years old, you're released out into
the world, no job. Your fiance had moved on. I mean,
I can't blame her after twenty two years, but you know,
you hit the ground running anyway. Scholarship from the Third
(28:56):
Good Marshal Fund enabled you to enroll and get it
be as business administration. Right. I remember meeting you back
around that time, and you started working as a youth mentor,
started dating, even water skiing in the Caribbean, eventually right
and graduating in two thousand and NATed. Of course, you
filed civil rights lawsuit and were awarded a lot of money.
(29:20):
I don't think there's any amount of money that would
be enough to justify the suffering that you went through
and your family went through. But the fact is it's
nice to see. I mean, unfortunately most exonorees never get
any compensation. It makes me happy to see when somebody
like you does at least get that monetary rewards so
you can, you know, do the things that you want
(29:41):
to do. And I get back though, and I try
to help that the exonovies try to go out there
and talk about this issue because I could stay at
my you know, man cave and you know, stay depressed
and stay focused on the last forty years of my life.
But it's more about, you know, letting people know there's
(30:02):
something better out there and and we could make things better,
but we all have to you know, stay you know,
vigilant and trying to make this possible. And I'm glad
you're out there doing everything you're doing. It's so important
that people need to hear from you. You're including right here,
right now on this podcast. Should now getting towards the
closing of the show, It's called closing arguments, and it
(30:24):
works like this. I'm gonna first of all, thank you
again for being here and for being such a beacon
of hope and for sharing your story. And then I'm
going to kick back in my chair, turn off my
microphone and leave my headphones on and just listen for
anything else you want to share with me in our audience.
Thank you, Jason H. I appreciate you guys and being
(30:46):
able to tell the story. It's a blessing because I think, um,
this is you know, one subject that all sane minds
think alike. We should not have innocent people being wrong
fee convicted and locked up for anything. And if there's
any chance in any shred of evidence that proved us,
(31:09):
I think, you know, we should move mountains to to
exonerate you know, men and women, because you have a
lot more women now that's being wrongfully convicted also. And
and like I said, I think this is one thing
that you know, we all agree about, but we just
have to be diligent and always reminding, you know, public
officials that this is a subject that affects each and
(31:34):
every one of us, and each time the opportunity arises,
we must help people in these situations, you know, while
they imprisoned, trying to prove their innocence, and definitely when
we come home, because like you said, I had to
hit the ground running because it wasn't nothing there for me.
I had a lot of help, fortunately, and unfortunately, a
(31:57):
lot of my you know, for Alexander Rees don't at
that type of help. You know, whether it's you know,
whether they got exonerated or you know, the family or
friends situation. It's so important that you know, we all
as a society try to not only prevent this from
happening in the future, but when it does, make every
opportunity to make these people hold again, you know, make
(32:19):
it right. They can't go back and obtain what they lost,
but moving forward we can all make life better for us.
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
(32:40):
thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburne, and Kevin Wardis,
with research by Lila Robinson. The music in this production
was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
(33:01):
all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason flam Raleval Conviction is
the production of Lava for Good podcasts in association with
Signal Company Number one
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.