A Mishandling of Justice

In September 2011, a shooting occurred in South Philadelphia, and two suspects were implicated based on eyewitness identification. There would be inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies, and both suspects had alibis. Despite this, both would be charged and placed on trial for the shooting. What followed was a travesty of justice, where the suspects would face the potential of serving decades behind bars.

Takeaways

• Eyewitness identification can be unreliable and subject to inconsistencies.
• Having a strong alibi and supporting evidence is crucial in building a defense.
• Proper legal representation is essential for a fair trial.
• Mishandling of investigations can lead to wrongful arrests and convictions. The importance of having a good understanding of the legal system
• The impact of financial resources on the quality of legal representation
• The consequences of inadequate representation in criminal trials
• The need for proper preparation and attention to detail in legal cases Ineffective legal representation can have severe consequences for defendants, as seen in CJ Rice's case.
• Sanjay Weaver, CJ's defense attorney, failed to provide a strong defense and neglected crucial evidence.
• The judge's lack of intervention and the prosecution's reliance on weak evidence further contributed to the injustice.
• After years of appeals and reinvestigation, CJ's habeas petition was granted, leading to his release and eventual exoneration.
• The case highlights the importance of competent legal representation and the need for oversight in the criminal justice system.

Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Shooting Incident
03:18 Eyewitness Identification and Inconsistencies
05:48 Strong Alibis and Supporting Evidence
09:46 Lack of Proper Legal Representation
14:08 Mishandling of the Investigation
29:39 The Impact of Financial Resources on Legal Representation
36:13 The Mishandling of CJ Rice's Trial
58:56 The Consequences of Inadequate Representation
01:05:26 Ineffective Legal Representation
01:17:24 Exoneration and Injustice
01:19:07 Sandjai Weaver's Incompetence
01:21:27 Reinvestigation and Murky Evidence
01:25:14 Lessons Learned and Compensation
01:26:19 Acknowledging Weaver's One Right Move
01:31:48 Dumb Criminal: Burglar Hiding Under a Couch



Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/crimepedia--5894684/support.

Episode Transcript

(00:37):
Welcome to crime Pedia. I amyour host this week. My name is
Morgan. I hope you are havinga wonderful day and joining me as always
after a little bit of a break, a little Easter break for us.
Is my wonderful true crime co host, my true crime bff. It is
the lovely Cherry. Hello Cherry,how are you hello? Have you guys

(01:00):
all had a lovely Easter? Yes, and very well. Thank you.
It's nice to be back and doingour show again. It's been a bit
up in the air recently, soit's lovely to have you all here and
hope you're going to enjoy this week'sshow. We're going to give you some
details of places that we're going tobe this year. So we've got some
good events that we're going to begoing to, including Crime Con UK.
So at the end of this week'sshow will give you all of the information

(01:21):
that you need to know to getyourself there this year, So listen out
for that. Very good So howabout we get onto this week's episode,
Let's go. In September twenty eleven, a shooting occurred in South Philadelphia and

(01:42):
two suspects were implicated Based on eyewitnessidentification. There would be inconsistencies in the
eyewitness testimonies in both suspects had alibis. Despite this, both would be charged
and placed on trial for the shooting. What followed was a travesty of justice,

(02:08):
with the suspect would face the potentialof serving decades behind bards. This
is crime Pedia, and this isa mishandling of justice, all right,

(02:29):
Cherry So. At around nine thirtypm on September twenty fifth, twenty eleven,
Latrese Johnson saw two people walking downFernin Street towards South eighteenth in the
Point Breeze neighborhood of South Philadelphia,even though it was warm. Both had
on hoodies and long pants with theirhoods pulled tight. Latrise was on her

(02:52):
parents' front steps waiting for food deliverywith her seventeen year old son, Khalif
Ladson, who was holding her sixyear old niece Denen Thomas. Three of
Latrecea's other children were nearby. Acrossthe street. Latrece's twenty three year old
stepdaughter, LaToya Lane, was watchingtwo of her children and two cousins playing
basketball. Suddenly, the two hoodedpeople on the other side of the street

(03:15):
pulled out guns and started shooting.Johnson would shield the children with her bodies
as bullets hit this let me saythat again. Johnson shielded the children with
her body as bullets hit the house. At least twelve shots were fired before
the attackers ran away. As bothLatrees and LaToya remembered, LaTrece found her

(03:38):
niece with a gunshot wound in herleg. At nine thirty six pm.
Someone called nine one one and policeofficers arrived quickly. By then, LaTrece
found out that not only did theDean, but also Caliph and LaToya had
been shot. Officer Charles Forrest rushedDenean and Latrese to Children's hospital in his
squad car. During the ride,Forest asked the tries if she could recognize

(04:00):
the shooters. Johnson repeated that shetold the dispatch what she told the dispatcher,
not identifying the attackers. At thehospital, Johnson also found out that
she had been hurt shrapnel had cuther lower body. Forrest would then take
her to the nearby hospital of theUniversity of Pennsylvania. There, he asked

(04:23):
again if she could identify the shooters. Johnson said she couldn't, only giving
a description of one black mail anda gray hoodie and the other in a
black hoodie, both wearing black sweatpants. So not a great description at all,
now. Khalif Ladson and LaToya Lanewere also taken to a hospital.

(04:46):
Later that evening, police officer LynnZarelli visited them. Zarella would later testify
saying that she had asked about theshooters. Ladson said he saw two to
three black mails in dark hoodies,while Lane said she saw two to three
blackmails, but neither could positively identifythem. All right, so this is
going to be very important later inour story. Now, overnight, the

(05:14):
investigation would change. According to policereports, a confident confidential informant implicated a
teenager named Charles c J. Rice. By that evening, both Johnson and
Lane changed their stories. One saidshe saw CJ at scene, while the
other said she saw his friend TylerLinder. Okay, now this is important

(05:41):
because because Johnson knew CJ. Riceand Lane knew Tyler Linder, so once
they know they are known to them. Yes, that's correct. Now.
On September twenty six, this isthe day after following this tip, police

(06:02):
would search their shooting database for CJand CJ's and they're victim names. They
found records showing that CJ and TylerLinder had been shot a few weeks earlier
while write while riding bikes. Thedatabase also suggested that CJ was associated with
with a gang, the Seventh StreetGang, while Ladsen was linked to the

(06:24):
rival Fifth Street Gang. So we'vehad a few stories about gang gang violence.
Yeah, and this is seems tobe once again unnecessary gang by violence.
It sounds like this could be atip for tat type thing. It
could be okay, well, youknow, one group shoots another group,

(06:45):
then the other another group is goingto go back and and shoot at them.
So mhm. Kleif Lasen was alsoa suspect in this shooting that happened
on September sixth. Okay, now, please started investigat attack as part of
a gang conflict, speculating that Cliffmight have been the intended target, with
Latrese LaToya and the knee getting caughtin the gunfire. Right, that seems

(07:10):
like it always happens, right,So you're going after one person, then
you have unnecessary Well everyone's a victimin this, but you have people that
have absolutely nothing to do with itwho end up getting getting involved in getting
shot and getting hit. Now,the Texas would make photo arrays with CJ
and Tyler Linder's pictures included. However, at this time it was three years

(07:35):
before the Philadelphia Police Department started usingwhat was called the double blind method to
ensure that the officers conducting the lineupsdidn't know the suspects identity. Right,
So the investigators detectives who were whoput together these photo arrays and who were
going to present them to the victims, they knew who who the suspects were.

(07:59):
Okay, So I think obviously that'sprobably a huge issue because they can
obviously kind of point people in thedirection they want them to go. Right.
So, on the same day,this is the day after the shooting,
detectives would talk to both LaToya Laneand then Latrese Johnson. Now,

(08:20):
without any guns recovered and lacking anyphysical evidence connecting anyone to the crime,
eyewitness identification would be crucial in anycourt case. Now, even though Lane
and Johnson had previously said they couldn'tidentify a shooter, their response during the
hospital interviews changed. Okay. BothLatrese and LaToya would be shown the photo

(08:41):
arrays prior to officially being interviewed.And by that what I mean is they
were shown the photos before anything wasrecorded. So the detectives were talking to
them and they were showing their photosbefore they went and started interviewing and said,
hey, do you recognize any ofthese people? Right? So it's

(09:01):
KNU. So we're not sure exactlywhat was said during this initial phase before
the interview started, but obviously that'sgonna call in the question what's happening here?
Now? Detectives would start with LaToyaLane, who was still in the
hospital. While there aren't any detailednotes about the initial conversation, LaToya did

(09:24):
talk about hearing gunshots and seeing Tylerholding what looked like a gun. Now,
what's interesting is that neither Lane northe detectives actually mentioned Tyler Linder's last
name, suggesting that they had talkedabout it before. Right. So she's
saying, I saw Tyler, whichholding what looked to be a gun.
So if if they hadn't mentioned thename before, there's she would have been

(09:48):
more there have been clarification. Who'sTyler? Was Tyler's name? She would
have said Tyler Linder, right,But instead they used it. They used
it just Tyler as in, sothey they both know exactly who she's talking
about. So obviously there had beensome talk about Tyler before they actually started
the interview. Yeah, Now,Lane recognized Linda because because her cousin knew

(10:18):
who it was, Okay, Soher cousin knew who Tyler Linder was,
okay, and so she was ableto identify them. But she wasn't able
to identify the other person. Shejust said she saw another person in a
dark hoodie across the street and thatshe could not see his face. Okay.

(10:39):
Detective then would shown would shoe Lanea photo array, and she was
able to easily pick out Tyler Linder, circling his picture and then signing her
name. Now, three hours later, detective would then talk to Latrese Johnson,
who had been discharged from the hospitalbut would come back to see Lane.

(11:00):
Now, before the detective arrived,Lane had told Johnson about mentioning Linder's
name, So so there was alreadythis conversation between the two of them,
like, hey, I told himI saw Tyler Linder, so that's that's
what I know, Okay. Duringthe interview, Johnson would then change her
story very similar to Lane. Whilethe police note said that Johnson was shown

(11:24):
a photo ray beforehand. The processwasn't explained, so they didn't so they
didn't mention, like, you know, what was involved with them with showing
her the pictures. What did theytalk about? Was there any discussion about
suspects or if there was anyone thatshe knew in there. But once it
got to the official interview part,Johnson would circle and sign a picture of

(11:46):
c J. Rice, who sheknew from her son's school and also from
Facebook. So they were actually Facebookfriends. CEJ actually went to school with
Khalif and knew each other. Okay, so if you have a friend that's
a Facebook friend and your son knowssomeone goes to school with someone, you

(12:09):
should be able to easily identify themalmost right, right, right, right
right. So you have a situationwhere when she's first asked about it,
she doesn't know who it was,doesn't know who it was, couldn't see
any faces, couldn't recognize them.But then the next day she's getting interview,
she's showing these pictures and she's saying, yeah, it was CJ.
Rice. Yeah, that's a bitsuspicious in it. It is very suspicious.

(12:33):
Now, this is the specific questionthat was made that was made that
led her to choose CJ isn't writtendown, so we don't know exactly what
was said. During this time.Johnson would describe seeing two people approaching and
said she then saw CG shooting towardsthem. Okay, so let's go over
these two stories. So the storyone is, I saw Tyler Linder with

(12:56):
a gun shooting someone else. Icouldn't see their face, didn't recognize them,
right, I couldn't see who itwas. Then you have another person
saying, I saw two people approaching. I could see one of them who
was CJ. Rice. I didn'tknow who the other person was. I
don't know if she said she didn'tknow who the other person was or she
couldn't recognize the other person, butshe saw shoot CJ shooting towards them.

(13:18):
So now you have two people.One person saw one person, the other
person saw the other person. Oneperson saw one person shooting, the other
person saw the other person shooting.So doesn't seem very together. That kind
of makes up No, that's right, it's no. It's like if at

(13:41):
that point I would kind of question, like, what you know, where
are we at? There's not enoughevidence, right, and then we in
information, we know that there wastwo men there, so it is quite
possible if both of them were shooting, one could have seen one person shooting
the other one could have seen theother person shooting. So it could be
if they were both shooting, thatis quite possible that they could have seen

(14:03):
a recognized a different person shooting inthat case, So it's possible that was
how it was. But it soundsa bit like they didn't know who it
was, and then they do andthen you know, no, no,
I agree with you, but ityou know, from a standpoint of this
is something that at some point you'regonna want to take the court. It's

(14:26):
not tidy. It's not as tightas you want to be, right,
because any good defense attorney would beable to, you know, look at
this and tear it apart, right, So bringing reasonable doubt, how can
how can you say that you sawthis one person, but this other person
said I couldn't see them because youknow, the hood was pulled on tight

(14:48):
and I couldn't see their face.So how can you be absolutely sure that
that this is that person when thisother person is saying I couldn't see their
face. So obviously, I meana lot of issues already with this investigation,
but I can understand why the policewould focus on these two. You

(15:09):
know, they had been involved inshooting just weeks before, and when I
know, when CJ actually went topolice to give his statement, the police
detective actually told him, hey,if anything happens to Khalif, we know
it's going to be you. Basicallyin a nutshell. So it's like,

(15:33):
if anything happens to him, youknow we're coming after you. And then
you know, a few weeks later, something does happen to Cliff, so
obviously they're going to go. Thefirst people they're gonna think of was,
yeah, you know CJ was ashot and Khalif is a suspect and this
could happen. What's crazy about thisis I don't I don't think that that

(15:54):
CJ had any idea. No oneknew who who had shot him and that
Tyler until that moment when he steppedinto police station to give a statement,
and there was police who told cJ, yeah, you know, if
anything happens to Kleif, that ofobviously you gonna tip them off. Now
he knows, Okay, well,you think Calif's involved so it's it's absoutely

(16:15):
insane to me that that they wouldrelease that information to to to him to
a victim. Right, if youthink someone is a crime you, yeah,
you're not, You wouldn't do that. So it's just a little it
was a mishandling of of of informationand the mishandling of their that actual investigation.
Yeah. Now despite these this,these conflicts between these two statements eye

(16:41):
witnesses, these two eye witnesses pointingtheir fingers at these at at CJ and
Tyler, was enough for police toget warrants for your warrants to arrest CJ
and Tyler, thinking that these twohad worked together in the shooting that on
September twenty fifth. There's one bigproblem with all of this. Okay,

(17:07):
CJ was still healing from getting shoton September third. Okay, now on
that day, So we're gonna goWe're gonna go back to September third.
On that day, CJ and TylerLinder were at a friend's house playing cards.
After they were done, they gotup, got on their bikes,
and they were riding home. Now, as they were riding home on their
bike, the car came up andshots were fired. Now CJ got badly

(17:29):
hurt, needing surgery to get abullet out and staying for an extended period
of time at the hospital. Now, after leaving, he would end up
staying with family on the West sideof Philadelphia, which was, you know,
not in the area where he hadbeen shot in the area that he

(17:51):
lived, So he was out ofthe South Philadelphia area. He was out
in West Philadelphia and he shouldn't havebeen in the area at that time.
After the surgery and after being releasedfrom hospital, CJ had lots of pain
and trouble with moving and this wasmade clear at multiple checkups. So just

(18:18):
it's documented, it's documented that thisguy is having issues with his movement,
and it's documented by professionals that thisguy's struggling generally. Is he going to
be able to be running around shootingpeople? Now? Five days before the
shooting, on the twenty fifth,so CJ actually had an appointment with his

(18:38):
pediatrician, who had he had beenseen since you know, he was a
toddler, right, so he'd beenseeing for years. This piatrician made notes
that Tyler had extreme issues with mobility. He had a hard time getting up
on the examination. Table, hewas wincing in pain, and he said

(19:00):
that when he left he was hunchedover and walking in very small steps like
an old man. So this isa person who has very limited mobility,
and I don't see being able torun, as the winners has said,

(19:21):
five days just five days later,right, yeah, And I mean you
could understand if he was just likeif it was just a few days before.
But I mean, if he's beenseeing this pediatrician the whole time regularly
since he was shot up until thatpoint, then the chances of him just
faking it are unlikely. He's notgoing to fake it for for weeks,

(19:41):
you know, just so that he'sgoing to be free to go and shoot
someone. No, I mean no, so that he's not doing this for
Alibi. He's not going to belike, oh, you know what,
I'm gonna go and I'm gonna pretendlike I'm really hurt and I'm yeah,
you know, I can't move andI'm in pain. Then when I go

(20:02):
and I shoot someone, you knowthey're gonna be like, oh, it
could have been CJ because he wasin bad shape. No one, no
one's thinking that way, right,This isn't a this isn't a movie.
He's not. He's not a criminalmastermind. He's not. He's going in
my head if that were me,and if I was like, you know,
if I'm gonna shoot some I'm gonnashoot something. I'm not gonna make

(20:22):
up some elaborate story and like goweeks on end, like creating this,
this alibi or this, you know, this this situation where people were like,
oh, there's no way that thatMorgan could have shot somebody. No,
I'm going I'm gonna shoot somebody.I'm not going to shoot me.
But I'm just saying I'm not gonnaI'm not gonna make make this elaborate you
know, playing too far Yeah,it's too far fetched for that, I

(20:45):
think it is now. But witheven with all that, right, even
the fact that he was hurt andhow badly he was hurt, he was
still being blamed for the shooting basedon what one witness said. Yay,
that's all there is. One witnesspointed their finger at CJ Rise and said

(21:10):
I saw him shooting, and sopolice decided that was enough. This is
what we're going with. On Septembertwenty seventh, CJ's mom found out that
he was wanted for attempted murder.Now, she would call Dina Duncan,

(21:30):
Okay, who is there, aunt, This is who CJ was staying with
in West Philadelphia to let her know, like, hey, he's wanted for
attempted murder. She would then takeCJ to the police station in South Philadelphia,
where his mom would meet them.Now, CJ went into the building
very carefully because once again he wasin severe pain and wasn't able to move.

(21:53):
Now, outside, his mom gotin touch with san Jay Weaver,
a woman who she used to workwith and who is now a lawyer.
She told CJ not to say anythingwithout her there. Okay, okay,
yeah, it seemed for them itwas pretty straightforward. This is what we're

(22:17):
gonna do. We're gonna tell thepolice what happened, where I was,
what happened the day right. So, CJ had been with Duncan's son,
Quadifi, on September twenty fifth,watching a movie at home when the shooting
happened. CJ was at home withalso with Deanna's dad and her seven year

(22:40):
old son. Now, Duncan madesure to mention how hurt CJ was to
the police from the earlier shooting statingthat he needed care every day and that
he was not able to move verymuch. So he had to have his
his his wounds drained and and rebandedbandaged every day, right, so he

(23:03):
had to be held watched constantly hewas, So he was constantly being watched.
He's being taken care of, hewas recuperating, right. Yeah,
so obviously they think, well,yeah, this is what he was doing.
He wasn't out, he wasn't inSouth Philadelphia, he wasn't shooting.
He definitely wasn't running anywhere. Thisis where he was. Now. Tyler
Linder also had an alibi. TylerLinder's alibi actually was supported by video evidence

(23:32):
and actually, I mean it helpedthat he had a very good lawyer.
Right, So, in the nineof the shooting, Tyler Linder was actually
helping his mom cleaning building in NortheastPhiladelphia till at least ten o'clock, as
shown by security footage. Okay,so you remember the shooting in South Philadelphia
occurred around nine thirty. Videos showthat him and his mom were cleaning in

(23:59):
North Philadelphia, opposite side of thecity, until at least half hour after
the shooting. So there you go. Now, the Linder family would hire
a different lawyer. The name wasRaymond Driscoll, and after getting up getting
bail for Tyler Linder, they startedsetting up alibi interviews with the police and

(24:22):
the District Attorney's office. So theywanted to get in front of this.
They wanted to talk to police,they wanted to talk to DIA's office,
like, hey, here's his alibi. He couldn't have done it. He
was in video evidence. Yeah,exactly. Unfortunately for CJ, his mom
couldn't couldn't afford his bail, sohe would end up staying locked up until

(24:45):
his trial. Oh god, nowthis is where things start to get like
really crazy. Okay. In December, after more than two months in jail,
CJ would finally meet with his lawyer, san Jay Weaver. Okay,
this was just before his preliminary hearing, so he hadn't met with her at

(25:07):
all. So from the time fromthat time on the September twenty seventh,
when they made a phone call sayhey, we need your help, CJ's
being arrested. Yeah, don't talkto the police unless I'm there. Okay.
The first time wow, he actuallymet with her, saw her in
person, was in December. That'scrazy. Surely this isn't led stuff against

(25:33):
that. Surely that's not in hisbest interest that he's only met with her
so so late. It's not.But I don't I don't. You gotta
remember too, he was young,right, he was a teenager. I
don't know if he knew any better. I think he just kind of was
like, Okay, well, youknow she's she's doing what she needs to

(25:53):
do, and when you know,when she talks to me or when she's
gonna meet with me, then thenshe will until then I wait, don't
you You put your trust in likethat? That's the thing. You know,
you don't know any better. Soyou do put your trust in the
legal system too, because if you'reinnocent, you kind of like you're like,
well, they're going to show thatI'm innocent because I didn't do it.

(26:15):
So that's when you know you kindof trust it. You're putting Yeah,
you're putting your trust. You're puttingyour trust into a person. A
lot of times it's the person thatyou don't know, you don't know anything,
right, that's right. You're puttingtrust in this person who that they
are going to work in your bestinterest, right, exactly. So that's
what you have to think. You'relike, Okay, they're working in my

(26:37):
best interest, and so I'm goingto let the process, you know,
yeah, because I'm forward, yeah, yeah, And the process is going
to work in my in my favorbecause I'm innocent of there's no word,
no reason to be worried about it, no now. Eager to help with

(26:57):
his own defense, CJ would askWeaver for copies of important legal documents.
So he asked for all the discoverythe discovery file, which is required so
that you know, so when adefense attorney asked for discovery, the prosecutor

(27:17):
has to give them all their files, right, So he wanted that for
his own purposes. He also askedWeaver to get his Cricket wireless phone records
to prove his alibi. Right,so he believed, oh, like,
okay, I was home, mycell phone was home. These phone records
are going to show that I didn'tgo anywhere, right that I was.

(27:38):
I was where I was right now. San Jay Weaver promised to do both,
but during the fourteen months between thepreliminary hearing and when his trial started,
Weaver only met with CJ twice.Each time at the Philadelphia Industrial Correction

(28:00):
Center and each meeting lasting no morethan fifteen minutes. Oh no, So
this is a lawyer who is goingto trial on a you know, for
you, for attempted murder, andshe's spent, and let's be honest with
you, Yeah, there's no wayshe she knows anything about you. There's

(28:23):
no way that she's gonna get yourfull side of the story. And you
know, it's almost like I feellike at this point, like she kind
of has she only has like onefoot in the door for this kid,
right She's she's like, okay,yeah, I'll take the case and I'll
help you out, but she's notfully committed to it, like CJ would

(28:45):
also try to. He tried callingSanjay Weaver many times, but only man
should talk to her about three timesand each of those were about fifteen minutes
each as well. So we're talkingwhat between meeting in person and meeting talking
on the phone five times in fourteenmonths, You're talking to your lawyer five

(29:07):
times? How can she do herjob properly? Though? Like, for
I know she, I'm guessing she'sa public defender, so I'm guessing that
her caseload is ridiculous. How onearth is she expected to pull together a
case when she's only able to speakto her client in such a small you

(29:27):
know, such a such such asmall amount of times. How do you
build up a case like that?I mean, because I know I've recently
read a book A recent read abook called The Secret Barrister, and it
gives you like a behind the scenesunderstanding of what the legal the British legal
system is like caseloads and stuff likethat, and it's really eye opening because

(29:51):
if you are in the fortunate positionwhere you would never need to be represented
in court for anything, then that'sbrilliant. But for a lot of people
that could be, including yourself ormyself, there could be a time where
you're called into court and we don'thave a general public do not have a
good enough understanding of the British legalsystem. And I'm sure it's the same

(30:15):
in America in that the public defensesystem. We don't have enough, we
don't have enough knowledge about it,and we should because one day that could
be us standing in that dock,and every single person that stood in that
dock wants and deserves the best representationthey can get and Unfortunately, a lot
of that comes down to money.If you can hire the best lawyers,

(30:37):
you've got more chance of getting yourselfout of prison. If you haven't,
and you're relying on a public defenderthat's got fourteen cases a day to deal
with, how on earth are yougoing to how are they going to be
able to represent to you the bestthey can when they don't have the they
don't have the time. And itsounds like this is exactly what's happened in
this case. She's just got loadson and she's doing as much as she

(31:00):
can. She's only human, She'sdoing as much as she's like she can.
But this is not given this boythe best representation or even a representation
that he deserves. Really, it'snot giving him an adequate representation. I
am very glad that you brought thatup. All right, So let's quickly
talk about san Jay Weaver and whatwas going on at this very time.

(31:22):
Right, So this month, atthe time that that that that CJ was
arrested, the shooting curred in himand being in jail. So, like
I said, his mother couldn't affordto saturd post his bail, so he
stayed in right so also she wasconcerned that she wouldn't be able to pay

(31:44):
san Jay Weaver because she wasn't actuallya court she wasn't court appointed, she
wasn't a public defender. But inDecember, so you know, before she
was, she actually went and metwith CJ. She did get she was
granted formal court appointment status to representCJ, which would then allow her to

(32:07):
be compensated with public funds. Okay, right right now. In twenty eleven,
at the time, court court appointedlawyers would receive flat fees. They
would receive two hundred dollars for preparationif the case went to trial, and
one three hundred and thirty three dollarsif it didn't. Okay, for each

(32:28):
day after the for the each dayafter the first day of trial, these
court appointed lawyers would receive four hundreddollars a day if they spent more than
three hours in the courtroom, andtwo hundred if they spent fewer. Okay,
so she's she's not billing per hour. She just know. Okay,
this is how much I'm going toget. This is what I'm going to

(32:49):
get if if they go to trial, this if it doesn't, this is
what I'm going to get so forherten At this time, it was probably
best that the case went to trialand that it would go on for a
few days. The reason why isbecause in March twenty eleven, Sanjay Weaver
filed for Chapter thirteen bankruptcy. Okay. During this bankruptcy, she declared that

(33:15):
she only had four hundred dollars inher two bank accounts, in that she
owed creditors nearly one hundred and thirtythousand dollars, not including her home mortgage
that she was behind on. Okay, No, she ended up getting She
At the time, she wanted aChapter thirteen plan which would allow her to

(33:38):
pay back what she owed to abankruptcy trustee each month. At the time,
she declared that she was she wasmaking four thousand dollars in monthly income
but had just over thirty two hundredexpenses, and she proposed that she pay

(33:58):
her creditors seven hundred fIF dollars amonth for sixteen months. The court said
that wasn't good enough, so asecond plan was submitted where she agreed to
pay one two hundred and sixty onedollars every month right in order for her
to make these payments she would actuallyhave to earn more money than she thought

(34:21):
was possible. So what what doyou do if you're a lawyer and you
need to make more money? Yeah, you take on more cases, of
course you do. That's right.So this is very similar. Okay,
I mean, let's let's talk aboutthis. This is very similar to to

(34:43):
add non si Ed and what welearned on Cereal with his first lawyer,
right, Yeah, who was havingfinancial issues and was taken on case after
case in the case because she hadto too many cases. So same things
going on with with san Jay Weaver. M hmm. It's absolutely and it's
absolutely insane that like, like stufflike this can happen, because yeah,

(35:07):
you know, if if you're puttingtoo much on on your your own plate,
you're not just hurting yourself, Imean yeah, you're hurting all your
clients and people that you're supposed tobe you're entrusted on doing your best job.
You're you can't you can't, youcan't put your best best effort in

(35:28):
these cases and all these cases you'regonna only have one foot in the door,
you know, because you have tohave the other foot out because there's
a not a case that you haveto worry about for her, it's sink
or swim. I mean, sheshe either takes on more cases and pays
things off and saves herself, orshe sinks and she is declared bankrupt and

(35:50):
everything. So exactly, she she'sbasically, understandably is thinking about herself and
her own life, but at theliberty of others, you know, And
that's not fair regard. I understandit. It's hard for her, but
that's not fair on those clients.She shouldn't be she shouldn't have been representing
them in something as important as that. I don't I don't know what you

(36:15):
do to prevent things like that happening, right, I mean, because as
as a court and when you havea court order, you need to make
sure that the person can meet theserequirements. Yeah, but at the same
time, you have to make surethat you know their their job, especially
a criminal lawyer, their job isextremely important to the public. That of

(36:42):
course, if someone should not allowyeah, you shouldn't allow them to be
in a situation where they can overextendthemselves and you know, you can't let
them get in over their heads.So how do you balance that? How
do you balance someone make a livingwith ensuring that they are able to provide

(37:06):
the services needed to very vulnerable persons. There needs to be rules in place,
isn't there that that a person canonly take on so much? So
during these meetings that these few meetingsthat Sanjay Weaver had with CJ, she
never gave him any of the casedocuments that he requested. Instead, she

(37:30):
would often bring files from other clients, which suggested that she was once again
busy with other cases. This isnot good, is it. This guy
is not getting a fair crack ofthe whip at all. This is never
right. This is never right.Yeah. Now, CJ thought that Weave
might have been scheduling multiple meetings inthe person at that time, leaving little

(37:54):
time to actually discuss his trial.He would continue to you, you know,
give Sanji Weaver reminders that that heneeded the documents, but she would
never send these documents to him,and she would never actually acquire his phone
records, which obviously were very importantfor his defense of course is alibi.

(38:21):
Yeah, never received them. That'snever received. Yeah, very bad.
By the time people realized that theydidn't have his phone records, it was
too late. So it was itwas like three years later and by that
point all of his records had beendestroyed. Oh no, I was going

(38:43):
to say, because he could goodfire, he could file, couldn't he
that It was in there's something youcan file, which is like your council
is not good enough. You knowthat there was like miss you know that
you've been misrep represented at court becauseyour your attorney hasn't been up to date
with everything. But if they've losteverything, it doesn't matter anymore because you've

(39:06):
got no fight to have, You'vegot nothing. That's ridiculous now it's just
I mean, I feel like aswe go on it, it's just gonna
get it's getting worse and worse.Right We learned then that that that's Sanjay
Weaver never submitted a alibi notice untilseven months after CJ's arrest. So you

(39:30):
remember Tyler Linder, he had hislawyer alibi. They met with police right
away away with the statement on hisalibi straight away. It took Weaver seven
months to file any alibi notice.Okay, he you know in that alibi
once again, she said that CJwas with Dina Duncan's family in West Philadelphia

(39:53):
in the shooting. The problem isis when she submitted this alibi notice,
she didn't arraign for any alibi witnessesto be interviewed, basically leaving it to
the DA's office to set those upif they wished. She had the incompetence,

(40:19):
isn't it. It's incompetence for him. Realistically, what should happen,
or what should have happened for him, is when this all came out,
somebody should have gone, okay,right, you have been completely you know,
you've been completely misrepresented. Let's justlet you go. It's you know,
you've served all this time. You'llprobably you could there is a heart
there is a chance that you couldbe innocent. And so unfortunately the courts

(40:42):
have messed up on this and theyshould now let you go free because they
have not given you a decent representation. They've not given you a decent chance.
They've not heard all the evidence thatthere is to hear. You have
not had a fair trial. Therefore, unfortunately, due to the courts and
their you know, in their issues, you should now be released because you

(41:04):
can't give this guy a fair troaloff the' stuff's been lost, you know,
things haven't been filed properly, Peoplehaven't been made aware, witnesses haven't
been gathered. It it's just completelyit's completely unfair. It is absolutely fair.
And so when the DA's office receivedthis alibi notice, yeah, while
they made notes on it, theydidn't follow up the Duncan family to range

(41:29):
testimony because they didn't have to.That was not the that's I mean,
that's not the responsibility. And tobe honest, if if they were going
after CJ. Rice as being theperson who pulled the trigger, it wouldn't
be in their best interest to rangehis testimony. Course, So the first

(41:52):
official statement supporting CJ's alibi came sixteenmonths after shooting at the time of the
trial, which then allowed the prosecutionto question its credibility because negligence. It's
just not good enough. And that'sexactly what, Yeah, they say,
why did it take you sixteen monthsto come forward? Like why didn't you

(42:15):
come forward? Why wouldn't why didn'tyou make a statement right away? Yeah,
it's it is crazy. It is. Now, as a trial date
started to get closer, the assistantdistric attorney who was handley case handling this
case name was Eric Strid. Heprivately had doubts about the police. You

(42:37):
know the police idea that CJ andTyler and Linder were working together. In
an eternal memo, it was explainthat proving Tyler Linder's involvement would be very
tough, Okay, right, obviouslybecause there is video evidence, yeah that

(43:02):
he was not there. Yeah,But this was a situation where they the
DA's office decided that they were justthey were going to go ahead and they
were going to like throw it upand throw it and let the jury decide.
So while they weren't sure about it, they decided, well, let's

(43:29):
just put it up and see whathappens, which is something that they do
sometimes, which is crazy to me. Right, if you're like, I'm
unsure about this and I don't thinkthis is I don't think the police case
is strong enough, and I don'tthink we can win this, but let's
go ahead and do it. Anyway, see what happened. Let's just give
it a show. No, itdoesn't seem like the best you know,

(43:52):
practice or the you know, thestrongest strategy in the case. It doesn't.
So, like I said, thevideo evidence that supported Linder's alibi once
again. It showed him cleaning abuilding in north of Philadelphia, until to
one building in North Philadelpha intil eightforty five in the nine and shooting,

(44:13):
so we know he was actually therenortheast Northeas Philadelphia. We see him on
video. After that, he andhis mom said that they went to clean
another building, but this one didnot have security cameras. There was other
security footage that showed an SUV thatwas like his mom's leaving the area at
nine fifty three, but it wasn'tclear because the license plate wasn't visible,

(44:36):
so they weren't able to say forsure it was her vehicle or not.
Chances are it was because it madesense. They said, this is where
I am, this is the timewe left, and then on the video
here it is right now. Theother reason they decided to go forward with
Tyler Linder as well is because it'spossible that after they left the first building

(45:00):
at eight forty five, he couldhave actually gone to the crime scene in
South Philadelphia and the family might becovering for him. So even though we
see his mom's YESUV where it's supposedto be at that certain time, and
even though they said Tyler was withher, they said, well, we
didn't see him there. We don'thave any video. It takes a lot

(45:20):
of that. Yeah, yeah,but you know, it's it's tough because
I think you're right, because Ithink, you know, expecting the jury
to believe all of that might bea little too much to ask, right.
Despite the uncertainty with the case,the DA's office decided to put both

(45:45):
Tyler Linder and CJ. Rice ontrial. Now, Rice and Linder would
end up having their trials together,but they would be represented by different lawyers,
which I always find very Yeah,you're trying two different people at the
same time, and they're being representedby two different people, and so you

(46:05):
really are doing two cases of one. And I mean, for I could
see how for a jury that couldbe very confusing, right, Or it's
just like and for the prosecution becauseyou'll fight in two attorneys. Yeah,
exactly so, But that's what decidedto do. So they were both both
on trial together. While the evidenceagainst both men or was weak, CJ

(46:35):
had the unfortunate situation of he ofbeing reliant solely on the performance of san
J san J. We right,that's the big difference, now, right,
it is the representation between these twoor is stark? It's so different
between the two. You have someonethat's being represented the way he should be

(46:57):
and had a good representation. Thenyou have someone that's being represented by you
know, at this point, someoneI don't even know if they fully comprehend
the case and no, yeah whattheir where their client stands. Now.
While I would love to go into, you know, detail about the trial,

(47:19):
we don't have enough time for that. Right so that you can understand
how poorly a trial was handled bysan Jay Weaver, I'm going to give
you a few of her highlights orlows. I don't know. You can
choose if their highlights or low lightsyour choice now. At a pre trial
hearing, the court indicated that prosecutorevidence suggesting that Khalif Ladson had been involved

(47:45):
in the September third shooting of CJ. Rice was not strong. It would
not be admissible in court. Okay. So basically, the police said,
okay, you know Khalif was involvedin this September third shooting, and so
the shooting on the twenty fifth,Tyler and CJ did it in retaliation for
the shooting on the third. Right, The court said, no, it's

(48:07):
not strong. You cannot that cannotbe a part of the case. That
cannot be You cannot bring that,bring that as evidence. It's not gonna
be admissible. But despite this,san Jay Weaver inexplicably agreed to a stipulation
which allowed this motive motive evidence tobe presented against him. What so the

(48:35):
court said, why not strong enough? It would not be admissible. Then
your own a toy attorney says,okay, well let's make a stipulation.
You Yeah, it's fine, goahead, you can present it. Okay,
that's the moment. This is apre trial. Hearing that moment,
I'd be like, WHOA hold up, you'll fight it. The something's not

(49:00):
right? Yeah. Now. Weaverwould also fail to move to decertify the
case to juvenile court, even thoughRice was a miner who had no prior
violent offenses. Right, So,Tyler Ladsden was was over the age eighteen,

(49:21):
so he was going to be triedas an adult. Yeah, CJ
was a minor. He could havebeen This could have been put to juvenile
court if she puts put forth emotionfor it to be. She failed to
do that, so he was beingtried as an adult for this. Oh.
On the very first day of thetrial, Weaver would be admonished by

(49:44):
Judge Dennis Cohen for arriving in courtwith unlabeled exhibits and no copies for the
bench. Completely unprepared. This iscompletely incompetent the whole thing. She just
is not to stand try like toto be overseeing this blust guy's case.
He's not getting a fair trial atall. No, absolutely not. It's

(50:07):
terrible. Weave. Were never challengedthe way the photo arrays were presented during
the hospital interview. So she neverchallenged what was said to these two eye
witnesses prior to their interview. Shenever challenged the fact that it was obvious
that at least one of them hadtalked about the suspects to prior to officially

(50:30):
being interviewed by the police. Neverchallenged it, So weird. She never
She never brought the fact that LatreseJohnson, the sole eye witness to place
CJ at the scene, did notidentify him when initially asked. Okay,
never brought that up. Doubts aboutwhether or not Johnson actually had the ability

(50:52):
to see the shooters from the porchwere never raised. Okay, now this
is very important. The trees.Johnson had stated that the porch was twenty
feet from where the shooters were onthe sidewalk, and that her view in
the darkness had been aided by astreet light. However, the distance was
actually more than sixty feet from whereshe stood and where the shooters were on

(51:15):
the corner, and there was nostreet light where the shooters had been standing.
So lies right, So she's outlying about how far away they were
in the fact that she was ableto see them because there's a street light.
There was no street light. Theyare more than sixty feet away.

(51:35):
In addition, there had been twocars parked on the street, which would
have obstructed the view of the cornerfrom the porch. There was no way
she would have been able to seethem, or at least see them clearly
on a dark night from where shewas standing. That was never brought up.
That never question, what did weeven do right? Let's ask that

(52:00):
question like instead of saying, like, what did she do wrong? What
did she do right? In thiswhole thing? Nothing? Nothing? Nothing?
Wow, she tried to do somethingright. She called CJ's piatrician to
the witness stand right, so thathe can tell the condition is. However,

(52:20):
she only met with him once inperson. That being in the hallway
outside the courtroom prior to this testimony, where she did not give him any
instructions. This is just crazy.San Jay Weaver would fail to present CJ's
medical condition in full. She failedto bring up his hospital illness where he

(52:45):
had pneumonia, as well as hisweakend muscular state. She did not explore
what the stress of exertion might havedone to a stapled wound if Rice had
in fact started running. Never discussedany of that, never brought it up.
The most the craziest thing about allthis, Santa Weaver never got a
hold of CJ's complete hospital records.If she had, she would have noticed

(53:09):
that CJ not only had had anincision in his abdomen, but he also
had a fractured pelvis. Oh okay, so that's going to make it very
easy to run. Running with afractured pelvis is really easy. Running frae
pelvis is going to take weeks weeksto recover from. I mean, you're

(53:32):
I'm surprised he was even walking whenhe was going to the pediatricians appointment.
So the pediatricians already says he waslike hunched over like an old man.
So the pediatricians always already mentioned thathe's shuffling his feet, which is which
is quite right with a with afirm fractured pelvis. So this just does
it is just so frustrating, absolutelyfrustrating. Sany weaver would call Dina Duncan

(54:01):
to testify in support of CJ's alibi, okay, since his aunt who But
this would be a costly mistake becauseno, Dina Duncan wasn't at home at
the time of the shooting, whichmade it seem as though CJ had no
alibi at alibi. Yeah, that'sright, So in cross examinations she had

(54:25):
to admit No, I wasn't evenhome when the shooting occurred, so she
couldn't even say that CG was homeat the time. So they must have
been thinking, like what the hellof why the hell is it? If
they got you on the stand thenif you weren't even there, like why
are we calling you at all?Because that doesn't make sense. Yeah.
Yeah, Now, like I saidearlier, we were never attempted to treat

(54:50):
the location data from from CJ's phone. Never, there was no attemption,
so she could have had easibly veriviable evidence to support alibi, but she
failed himself. Unbelievas, isn't it. It's really unbelievable. It's really sad

(55:10):
because this is a young man's life. He's a young man and he's not
even a man, is he?I mean, is a juvenile. And
yeah, he's not getting a fairhe's not getting a fair representation at all,
not at all. On February eighth, twenty thirteen, after two days
of deliberation, the jury would returna verdict. Tyler Linder would be acquitted

(55:32):
on all counts. C J.Wright was found guilty on four councils.
I knew it. I knew thatwas going to happen, as well as
other associate charges. He would besentenced to thirty to sixty years in prison.
And this is this is the differencebetween a decent council and an incompetent

(55:53):
council. Yes. Absolutely, Wow, Wow, it's unbelievable. I'm surprised
that this has been I'm surprised thatthe courts have allowed this to happen.
I'm surprised with all of this,you know the fact that it was quite
clearly so incompetent. I'm surprised thatthey even let this let this go like

(56:17):
this, because I mean even eventhat young kid is saying, like,
you know, I never spoke toher. I haven't seen her. You
know pete witnesses and things like that. I've never haven't heard from her.
I mean, it's just it's notright, is it. It's just not
right. It's not and I meanalmost like, please tell me after oh

(56:39):
no, after your sentenced the judge. The only thing the judge said to
him after being a sentence was goodluck, mister Rice. It's like how
you twist a knife harder? Whydon't you It's like you're the judge and
you're sitting here and you're seeing what'shappening. You've seen how poorly he's being
represented. Yeah, and I meanthe only thing you say is good luck,
good luck. I mean, pleasetell me that like years down the

(57:02):
line, people have looked into thisand that this he's been given a retrial.
Okay, so he has right.So what's really interesting about this case
is you might not be familiar withthis person, but American listeners probably are.
So. On CNN, one ofthe anchors is a man named Jake

(57:27):
Tapper. Okay, his father wasactually the pediatrician that looked after. Yes,
so obviously he knew about the case. He got very involved in it.
He very much, very invested interests. So he started talking to CJ.
Rice and like getting his story andgetting all the information. So he

(57:47):
absolutely helped out one hundred percent withhis case. Yeah, so appeals process
you know, has to start almostimmediately. It would take such a long
time. Yes, it would takealmost five years. So October twenty sixteen.
CJ actually had hired a new lawyerby this point in an effort to

(58:08):
pursue his appeals. Now, hislawyer had hoped to call Sanjay Weaver as
a witness in his appeal process,but she failed to respond to respond to
a subpoena to appear as evidentiary hearing. Of course she did. Now CJ's
lawyer would eventually learn that Weaver hadbeen suffering with the medical condition that left

(58:31):
her physically and cognitively unavailable to providecompetent testimony that was per her daughter.
So daughter said, she's in badshape. She can't, she can't do
this. Now. Sanjay Weaver wouldend up passing away in twenty nineteen.
So once again, this is thisis just so early similar to like Adnan

(58:55):
sayed, and in this it reallyis Yeah. Is Christine Gutier's passes yea
quickly shortly after you know, thetrial and the med Yeah your help.
No. Now, while his firstattempt to appeal was unsuccessful, CJ's lawyer

(59:16):
did make a very important decision duringthe hearings. You mentioned this earlier.
Okay. He his lawyer actually broughtup CJ's ineffective counsel through the state's Post
Conviction Relief Act. So he broughtit brought up saying, hey, he
had ineffective counsel, so that's whatwe'll go. Yep. This allowed him

(59:38):
to file a federal habeas petition,which would be granted in twenty twenty three.
Okay. The crazy part about thisis had his lawyer not raised the
ineffective assistance of council claims, hemay not have been able to use that
as an argument to get his casethrown out. That's because under the Post

(01:00:00):
Conviction Relief Act, defendants can onlyraise these claims on their first post conviction
appeal. So had he not not, had he not brought these claims during
the first conviction appeal, yeah,it would he would have been in a

(01:00:20):
really really bad situation. Yeah,that's a really bad situation. You wouldn't
be able to talk about anything thatthat she that that Sanjay, We've had
done or had not done. Itwould be left just to the facts,
right, Yeah, even though they'reI mean, let's be honest, the
facts aren't there. There's no Imean, the only reason I think C.

(01:00:46):
J. Rice was convicted was I'mnot saying that she was actively working
for the prosecution. She wasn't,but she was helping the prosecution and everything
that she was that she did ordidn't do. And then it makes you
wonder ended up helping CJ. Rice. And then it makes you wonder due
to her situation, was there anythinggoing on between like you know that was

(01:01:09):
there anything underhand going on so thatyou know it was worth her while to
make sure that the prosecution won theircase. You know, it makes you
wonder was there anything like that happening? I know that you know, there's
your speculation, but I mean theway that this this has been so badly
mishandled, and the fact that she'sgoing to want more work, I mean,

(01:01:30):
acting like that and doing that toyour clients surely is not going to
give you a good reputation and getyou more work. It's just gonna you
know, it's not It's not agood thing, is it. It's crazy.
Look, I'm not a trading lawyer. You're not a trained lawyer.
No, but I guarantee you eitherone of us could have done a better

(01:01:51):
job representing CJ. Rice in trialthan Sandy did. I think I think
you know you're right there. Imean, neither of us are legally trained,
but already we're bringing up stuff thatwe would have looked at. And
I just don't understand. Something's goingon there. Something's going on there with
Weaver. And if you hadn't mentionedabout the the money worries, I would

(01:02:13):
be questioning what's happening because it doesn'tmake sense. Lawyers don't usually do such
a bad job. They don't.It's their livelihood. They don't do such
a such an awful job. Theydo it because they're good at what they
do, and their job is toif you're a defense lawyer, is to
defend your your client, to getthem off as a as a you know,

(01:02:36):
as what you've got prosecution is thereto fight to prove that you know
that that person has done wrong foryour client so I don't understand how this
is so badly done and it's beenignored so much. Something isn't right,
something's not right there what I'm interestedabout and just actually might be someone there

(01:02:57):
I do. So, you know, one of my best is a judge.
Yes, as a judge, youknow, it's your courtroom and you
have to you know, you Ifeel like you have to ensure a fair
trial and that things get moved alongin that. Yes, your job to

(01:03:19):
make sure your fair Yeah, exactly. And like a case like this,
what do you what do you doas a judge? Do you stop him,
say, wait, this is somethingyou know not right here? This
person is not being represented fairly.You know, do you throw out as
a mistrial? So I'll be curious. I'm gonna I want to talk to

(01:03:42):
him in his courtroom. Interested.Yeah, I would be really interested to
see what he says, because youwould think fair as you know, the
whole reason we have trials, thewhole reason we have this is so that
they present their cases and that it'sfair. That everybody gets a fair trial,
no matter what they're accused of.You know, they all get a
fair trial. Okay, So ifif a judge is sitting there and can

(01:04:04):
blatantly see that this isn't fair andthat this person is not doing their job
properly, and that this young kid, especially as it's a young kid in
such a serious case and with theimplications where this kid could go to prison
for a very very long time,surely the judge could sit there and go,

(01:04:26):
WHOA, hang on a minute,this isn't making sense. Let's just
stop. I want to speak toyou, and I want to you know,
because I don't see why you can'tdo that. You're the judge.
It's your it's your job to makesure that things are fair and that things
are heard in your courtroom. SoI'd be really interesting what your friend says.
I'd be interested to see what hesays. You'll have to let us
know, you know what, Maybewe'll get them on for like a crampity

(01:04:48):
extra and we can talk about whatgreat, and we can talk about Yeah,
let's do it. Let's get themover the extra episode. I think
that would be really interest And yeah, and then if you've got any questions
for him that you want us toask, just send him in to us
and we'll ask him, because thatwould be that would be very interesting to

(01:05:09):
hear it from from a judge.Yeah, definitely, that's to yeah.
Yeah, Now, if a federalcourt would grant CJ's habeas petition in November
twenty twenty three, so just afew months ago, Yeah, he would
be released on bail December twenty twentythree. At that point, the state
of Pennsylvania had one hundred and eightydays aside whether to retry CJ on all

(01:05:31):
counts. Okay, on March eighteenth, twenty twenty four, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania would dismiss dismiss all charges inCJ. Rice Goodness was exonerated. But
it doesn't It doesn't give that kidback the years that he spent in prison
for, you know, and thathe was it was probably innocent, He

(01:05:55):
was probably completely innocent. I wouldnow if I was him, I would
be seeking legal advice from somebody abit more trustworthy as to what now compensation
he can be given for this complete, complete, inadequate representation and the fact
that he's lost so much of hisliberty. And I mean, he went

(01:06:15):
to prison as a child, hecame out of prison as a man.
That changes a person, That reallychanges a person. All of your formative
years where you're working out who youare, where your carving your way in
the world, have all been takenaway from him. And that's that's very
very unfair, very unfair. Okay, So maybe I've been a little too

(01:06:43):
hard on Sanjay Weaver because you askedto to do anything right. It ends
up she did. Okay, wellwhat did she do? So? You
remember I mentioned that she agreed toallow that motive evidence to go to be
in including the trial. Rice's habeaspetition was granted on that specific claim that

(01:07:11):
his trial attorney was incompetent when theyagreed to allow that mode of evidence that
trial. So, but she didn'tdo something right on purpose? Did she
was? It was by accident.I mean, I'm sorry. If you're
her family and you're listening, itmust be very hard to have all this
pointed out. But when you arein a profession where you are you are

(01:07:35):
working and on something as important assomeone's liberty, you cannot have off days,
You cannot be less than one hundredpercent on your game, and no
matter what is going on in yourprivate life. That is why they get
paid that the money that they do. I mean, let's face it,
they are paid very well, andthat's because they've been to university and they've

(01:07:56):
done all the stuff that But that'swhy, that's why they are paid well,
because they have the knowledge that theyhave, and because they're doing such
an important job. You can't havebeen having a bad day when you are
representing someone in such a serious case. We're not talking about being told off
or being given, you know,a slap on the wrist for stealing sweets.
We're talking about attempted murder. Youknow, it's it's not good enough,

(01:08:21):
it's not And if that is anif Weaver is part of your family
and you're hearing this, and I'msorry, but you even you can listen
to this and realize that she wasnot an adequate she was not doing a
good job. She was not andthat's and that's horrible. I feel sorry
for her. She's got a lotgoing on and she's financially worried. That's
that's a huge burden to have onyour shoulders and that's not very nice,

(01:08:44):
and it's hard to concentrate on yourjob when you're worried. You know that
your house is going to be takenaway and you're going to be declared bankrupt.
That's awful. But then if that'sthe case, you can't be putting
yourself. You can't do it.You just can't. It's not fair.
It's not fair on that person.Then, Yeah, I do have to
give print to the Philadelphia District Attorney'soffice. Prior to the federal Magistrate judge

(01:09:11):
hearing the appeal his habeas uh habeaspetition appeal, the Philadelphia District Attorney's office
did a full reinvestigation of the case. Okay, it was very it was
it was comprehensive. They examined evidence, including Rice's prison conversations with his families
after his arrest, as well asinconsistencies around rice Rice's hair style with in

(01:09:35):
the witness identification. Right, sothere's questions about like what they said his
hair looked like, what his hairlook like at the District attorney, after
reinvestigating the case, found that itwas very murky without clear evidence one way

(01:09:57):
or the other. Yeah, hestated that that it would be a violation
of my oath to leave someone sittingin jail on a case that has no
integrity. Yeah. Good, I'mreally glad that he did that. I'm
really really glad. I mean,it's there's cases like this all the time,

(01:10:20):
right, Yeah, it's sad,isn't it? This one? It
is. I mean it's tough because, you know, to be honest,
like, while I was while Iwas working on this case, there was
another case that I came across.I started looking into where where the family,

(01:10:42):
you know, the parents were convincedthat their son hadn't you know,
had it committed it, and theyyou know, they had valid points and
they made a strong case. Butthen you look at it and to me,
it's like he did it. Andit's tough because you know, in
cases where there is strong evidence againstthe person who is saying that, you

(01:11:03):
know, they they are innocent,they didn't commit a crime, It's like,
what do you do, right ifthe evidence is pointing to towards one
person and they're found guilty. Youknow, that's one thing. This is
a yeah, this is a wholenother case where I feel like this,
this is a person that that shouldnever have been charged in the first place.

(01:11:27):
There was no evidence to charge them. No, it should never have
went to trial. He should neverhave been represented by who he had been
represented by, the case should haveat some point been halted. And you
know, stopped whatever throwing a mistrial, and you know it ultimately was a
kid that's spent what thirteen years ofhis life behind bars? For what is

(01:11:55):
there is there not? Like?Is it not? I'm sure there should
be or there is. I'm surethere is standards of like I'm sure there's
standards that you have to hit whenyou are presenting things in court. I'm
sure that you're not just left willynilly to just chuck whatever you want in.
So I'm really surprised that this actuallyhappens. I'm surprised that that there

(01:12:16):
is like where she hasn't submitted thison time, or she hasn't done this.
Well, surely there should be somebodythat oversees that that says, well,
where is this? Where has thisbeen? How has this been filed?
This should have been filed by thetwenty first. Why hasn't it been
filed? I'm sure that there's somethinglike that. So how has this all
been missed so much? I mean, I'm glad he's out. I'm glad

(01:12:39):
he's out. Even if he diddo it, I am glad he's out
because he hasn't had a fair hehasn't had a fair trial. So you
can't you can't be sort of youcan't be hard on him on something that
he hasn't had a fair trial about. So even if he did do it
and we don't know, then,you know, unfortunately, that's just part
of all of this mess. SoI do hope that that's it for him

(01:13:01):
now. I do hope that hewill receive some kind of compensation for the
thirteen years that he's lost. AndI'm I'm sad that that weaver passed away.
That's horrible, But I don't thinkit was a good thing that she
would ever be representing anybody else untilshe sorted out everything, because she's obviously
highly educated because she's doing that job, and obviously her personal circumstances have clouded

(01:13:25):
her judgment, and you know,there's a deprivation of people's liberties to contend
with. So yeah, it's verysad, but I mean, what a
case. BlimE me, what acase. I feel really bad for,
like, for his mom, becauseI do she has to like put she
has to put some like feel likesome responsibility, because you know, she

(01:13:47):
can't reached out to someone that sheyeah, well, yeah, she reached
out to this person who thought,okay, well, you know what,
I know this person who's a lawyernow and you know, you know,
we work together as she's a goodperson we can rely on, and then
it all completely just falls apart.Yeah, you know, it's horrible,

(01:14:09):
you know it is. It reallyis horrible. But it's you know,
thank god that this happens a lot, doesn't it. Yeah, it does,
unfortunately, it does, it does. It's yeah, and how often
do we get to hear about it? True? Truly? How much do
we How many cases like this dowe actually hear the truth about? I

(01:14:30):
bet there's a lot. When youstart digging, I bet there's a lot.
You're yeah, oh, absolutely absolutely, it's an unfortunate truth. So
oh, thank you, thank you. That was a very very interesting case,
and it was really it's really goodto be on you know, to
to look at it like that andto look at it and see what we

(01:14:51):
like you say, we always docases where you have a clear victim,
you have a clear perpetrator, oryou know, you're searching for the perpetrator.
In this one, it's a reallyinteresting to see the injustice and how
this was dealt with. So yeah, yeah, that's just yeah, you
really you really inspired me with withyour Mirriam case, and I was like,

(01:15:12):
you know what, there's other thingsthat we need to look at and
we need we need to discuss becausethings like this are important. When you
have you have a mother who ishell bent on on you know, finding
out like what happened to her daughter, and yeah and seeking justice, right,
that's one thing. Then you havethis where you have a person who's
faced injustice for so long and youknow it, they they deserve to have

(01:15:36):
a fair share, you know,fair share and have a fair trial.
And yeah, they spent thirteen yearsof their life behind bars for for what,
you know, for for having areally bad lawyer. M h.
It's crazy. Yeah, really it'sreally sad. Well talking of all things

(01:15:58):
that we love to look at andinjustice, justice and things like that.
We are going to be this yearat Crime Con UK, which is the
ultimate true crime event. It's goingto be returning to London on the twenty
first and twenty second of September twentytwenty four. Now it's the UK leading
true crime event, partnered by TrueCrime which is the expert lead panel.
And this is available on your platformof choice or wherever you want to look

(01:16:21):
at it you can find all abouttrue crime. They've got some absolutely brilliant
programs, so make sure you docheck that out. Now we will be
there so you can come and joinus. You can just use the code
crime Pedia at checkout and it willgive you a special ten percent discount.
The good thing about this year isthat they've changed things a little bit and

(01:16:42):
they are doing day tickets, soif you can't make the whole weekend,
you can actually just get a dayticket. You can have a look at
the schedule and see which one hasgot the most of the stuff that you
want, and you can just purchasea day ticket. The other, really
really good thing that I'm really excitedabout and you will be too, Morgan,
is that the dogs are back thisyear. The dogs are back.

(01:17:03):
One of the dogs are back,which is brilliant because the dogs weren't there
last year and we miss them.They do some fantastic demonstrations the drug dogs
on finding drugs on the unsuspecting people, which is just the way they work
is so clever, and they're socute and you get to scrunch them and
like you know, give them agood robin a tickle and it's really nice.

(01:17:25):
We've got a new venue this year. It's very easy access to all
the content creators, which are goingto be bang in the middle of the
show this year, which is abit different, so we're not going to
be in a separate room. We'regoing to be sort of like banging in
the middle of everything, so youcan come and meet your favorite podcasters.
Not only podcasters, they've also gotTV show hosts, We've got documentary makers.

(01:17:46):
There's also YouTubers. There's loads ofpeople. Like Morgan and I get
so excited every year to meet allthese people that we've seen their shows or
we've listened, or we've watched,or we've seen on YouTube or tiktokos.
There's loads. There's more every year. Yeah, there's gonna be Yeah,
there's Colin Sutton. Of course,he is like the daddy of true crime.

(01:18:10):
I think everybody wants to meet ColinSutton. Everybody. Everyone loves that
man. I don't think he needsto buy like a drink for the whole
weekend because I think he's just constantlyhanded handed drinks quite rightly. So he's
a godfather of two crime. Soyeah, there's loads, there's a meetup,
there's gonna be a live podcast.I don't know if you people generally

(01:18:31):
know that that happens, but quitea lot of the time we do record
live episodes from the venue, soyou can sit in the audience and be
part of the live episode. It'sgoing to be amazing. I love crime
Con. I love going. Ialways look forward to it. I've usually
got an exam and have to runaway, but this year I don't,
so it's the first year I thinkI haven't an exam to run away to.

(01:18:51):
So yeah, it's gonna be reallyfun, I know, really really
fun. So make sure if youwant to get yourself a ticket, just
go to the website dot co dotuk and you can check out all the
prices. Stick yourself for the discountin because it gets you ten percent off
and that's quite quite good discount tojust put crime Pedia in and then you
can come and meet us because we'llboth be there. So it's going to

(01:19:14):
be great. I'm really looking forwardto it. Always a good time.
I enjoy it always me too,Yeah, me too. I have just
as much fun in the bar asI do work in talking about a good
time. So at the end ofeach show, as you'll know, if
you're a regular listener, we liketo cheer you up with something that we
like to call a dumb criminal.Hey, dumb dumb here use a real

(01:19:38):
jackass. This is brilliant. Ilove this one. So a policeman responding
to a burglary report at a housein Johannesburg, sat down on the couch
to take a statement okay from theowner of the house, not realizing that
the burglar was hiding under the sofa. So the homeowner is sat talking to
the police officer, look down andsaw the burglar lying flat on his stomach

(01:20:02):
underneath the couch. Okay. Sohalf of this burglar is under and half
of him is hanging out. Hishead was right by the policeman's legs okay.
So the policeman jumps off of thesofa, arrests the man and hands
back all the stolen jewelry and thedigital camera that has stolen from the house.

(01:20:24):
The police was so happy, right, The whole thing was completely bizarre
because literally the policeman was like saton top of the burglar the whole time
he's sitting there taking the statement fromthe homeowner, Like what are the chances?
What you go and hide under asofa and the police sit on the
sofa of your heart under Can youimagine the burglar under there? Like the

(01:20:46):
police officer sits down and like youhere, you're sweating because then looked down
and was like, what hang on, there's a man under what are you
doing? Unbelievable, I know.So the places like what's worth being caught,

(01:21:09):
like hiding halfway under a couch ortrying to hide behind a curtain in
the corner. Yeah, yeah,it's just as bad the corner. Yeah,
it's just as bad. So ifyou're going to be burgling someone's house
in future, probably not the besthiding place under the sofa. It's probably
not a good idea. Definitely notall. So yeah, so that's it

(01:21:30):
from us this week. Thank youso much for joining us. We're really
happy to be back and we'll beback with you in a fortnight with one
of my episodes, which will bea UK based episode for all of your
overseas that like to listen to whatgoes on in England. Yeah, we'll
have that for you then. Sofor now, be nice and bye.