March 19, 2025 • 77 mins
Imagine being ripped from your life, convicted of a crime you didn't commit, and forced to spend decades behind bars while knowing you're innocent. This isn't a fictional scenario – it's the lived reality for thousands of Americans, including the five extraordinary men whose stories we explore in this episode.
When Jacob invited us to attend "The Lynched Among Us," a play performed by actual exonerees sharing their own wrongful conviction stories, we knew we had to discuss it on the podcast. What we witnessed was nothing short of transformative – these men relived their most traumatic experiences on stage to educate the public about the devastating flaws in our criminal justice system.
Michael Sutton's story hits particularly hard. At just 17, with a full scholarship awaiting him, he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 46 years for a crime he didn't commit. The play featured his actual parents crying out as police dragged him from his high school graduation ceremony. Charles Jackson injected dark humor into his segment, including an off-key rendition of "Bohemian Rhapsody" while portraying his prison job as a porter. Most shocking was RuEl Sailor's account of prosecutors admitting they knew he was innocent after 13 years – yet still making him take a guilty plea deal and wait two more years for release.
These stories illuminate a troubling truth: our system can easily destroy innocent lives through eyewitness misidentification, prosecutorial misconduct, and inadequate defense representation. The psychological warfare these men endured is incomprehensible – as one exoneree powerfully stated, "I had to become the thing you think I am to survive." This raises profound questions about identity, resilience, and what justice truly means in America.
We urge you to learn more about wrongful convictions and support organizations like Voices of Injustice working to prevent them. While we admire these men's extraordinary resilience, we recognize they shouldn't have needed it – no one should face decades of imprisonment for crimes they didn't commit. Visit voicesofjustice.com to learn how you can help ensure these stories become increasingly rare.
http://voicesofinjustice.com
Hey Legacy Family! Don't forget to check us out via email or our socials. Here's a list:
Our Website!: https://www.lockdown2legacy.com
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lockdown.2.legacy
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Lockdown2Legacy
InstaGram: https://www.instagram.com/lockdown2legacy/
You can also help support the Legacy movement at these links:
Buy Me A Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/storiesF
PayPal: paypal.me/Lockdown2Legacy
Buzzsprout Tips: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2086791/support
Also, check out the folks who got us together:
Music by: FiyahStartahz
https://soundcloud.com/fiyahstartahz
Cover art by: Timeless Acrylics
https://www.facebook.com/geremy.woods.94
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey everybody, welcome back to another episode
of Lockdown Legacy.
Of course I'm your host, remyJones, and today I have a guest
in half with me, my guest beingJacob Holycross, who has been a
guest on the show before.
So if you have not reached intoour catalog, please go and
dissect that and listen to everylast episode.
I want support.
I'm flinching, I'm wavering,I'm sorry, I'm joking.
So anyway, my half-dess is thefamed and proclaimed Dr Deborah
(00:23):
Jones.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I haven't been a doctor yet.
On this podcast, no this isyour debut.
Oh no, I'm not prepared forthat, but I'm happy to be here.
But I'm not the main focustoday.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
No, but for those of you who have been following, you
guys know that DJ has beenworking on her doctorate for a
long time, which is also thereason why she's been absent
from a lot of the journey hascome to a close.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
It's over baby.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Oh wait, wait, wait, I got the.
Is that an applause button?
It's a little applause button.
How do you know?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Because it's just a yellow button, because it says
applause button.
Yeah, it's all right.
Anyway, I got distracted.
We should introduce Jacob, soJacob.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Yes, what is it that you?
Speaker 3 (00:57):
do for a living.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Well, listeners of the podcast, okay, also, um,
just for full transparency,jacob is also one of our
co-parents of our amazingchildren, three of them, and so,
uh, very close to family,always around, always having
these uh insightfulconversations, very few of which
we get to bless you guys withcapture, but I don't think we
hate each other so I think thatthat's great we're just not
recording all the time, but wedo get a lot of compliments on
uh our family dynamics and youknow it works.
(01:32):
I much uh prefer this to thedrama.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
So there we go, there we go part of this is kind of
aligned right, because todaywe're going to talk about, uh, a
play, a live theater experience, a what would?
What do we?
It's not a musical, it's a aplay.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
It was an artistic expression of real life
experiences that happened tosome people, that, um, at least
one of them I knew, which iscool yeah, but um, I think it's
fine because we all wenttogether um while grandparents
babysat, so, yeah, and I didn'tknow that I knew anyone there,
yeah.
So jacob kind of said hey man, Igot these tickets, you guys
want to go?
And we're like, yeah sure.
And once I agreed, I found outwhat it was about.
I was like, oh man, that'sright in my alley.
And so we went and I enjoyed it.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Do you want to talk a little bit about, um, how the
tickets came to you and why youthought it would be good for us
all to go any of that background?
Speaker 3 (02:12):
well, it's not like a , you know, very exciting story,
but, um, I just come acrossthese things in the like
columbus area, which is, ofcourse, where I work, and saw
that the play was going to bethere.
The lynched among the LynchedAmong Us is what it's called,
and you know, kind of read thesynopsis, figured DJ and Remy
would also enjoy it.
So I reached out to them beforeI bought tickets.
I was like, is this somethingyou'd be interested in?
And then come to find out itwas based on all these real-life
experiences of, I believe, fivemen With you know, I think
(02:34):
references to a few otherstories as well along the way
Did not kind of comprehend theplay because there was, as we'll
talk about, some various artforms that were displayed, which
was pretty cool.
I think the play was mainlygeared towards lawyers and I'm
not sure why.
They had some kind ofsimulation beforehand that you
could have attended.
We did not, we just attendedthe play itself.
But again, the performance wasvery insightful.
(02:56):
I think it was a message or adisplay that many people and the
general public need to see,because many people don't
understand the possibilities of,and the ramifications of,
wrongful convictions.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Yeah, I agree um, I'm always one of those people who
think that, um, there's thislike blonder, um divide between
society and what goes on in thecriminal justice system.
Um, of course, it's all open tothe public, but, um, our
culture and society kind of makeus believe that only the worst
people are involved with thecriminal justice system.
Nobody's ever.
Everybody says they're innocent.
Nobody's really innocent, um,or even if they are guilty, like
they don't deserve to betreated like human beings.
(03:28):
And so I thought this was greatin many respects, but in one um
, the fact that, so theorganization that put on this
play is called voices ofinjustice and, um, they are a
wrongful conviction advocacygroup and they do uh, plays in
other art forms.
Um, one thing I thought wasreally interesting was that in
all these plays or skits, theywere played by the actual people
(03:48):
who these things happen to.
So, as the you know, plays wenton and you start realizing,
like man, this guy up on thestage was wrongfully convicted
and served 25 years, 15 years,like you know, it starts blowing
your mind.
You know, you hear that, thatbuzzword you know, uh,
resilience a lot, but when yousee somebody up there acting out
such a dramatic event rightfrom their own life, like you're
(04:09):
like wow, you know, like ithits a little different.
So I really really appreciatedthat these guys got up there and
did that.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
It's selfless and it's courageous to go through
that again, to want to sharethat story with strangers well,
not even just as a one-time only, like, uh, you know.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
As for me said, this is a uh, the show in columbus.
We saw it in columbus at thelincoln theater and this was one
night, but they told us at theend that it's traveling, uh, to
like five other cities detroit,somewhere in indiana, chicago,
etc.
And so not just to put it onand tell your story one time,
but like to do it in this liveduh, live theater type of an
environment over and over andover again.
I mean, think about liveaudience and then traveling to
(04:42):
do the same, um, I'm sure thereis a healing.
Maybe that feels cathartic andthose experiences too.
I mean, I don't want to uhassume, but I would.
I would imagine there has to besome component of that that
goes beyond, just like I needpeople to hear my story.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
But maybe this is a little bit for self also yeah,
so, yeah, um, because I mean,like you said, just rehearsing
could be traumatic, relivingthat, um.
And like you said, jacob, Ireally, really thought it was
interesting how many lawyerswere in the crowd, the audience.
I don't know if that was like,if it was really aimed at
lawyers or if they just heardabout it, but hey, this sounds
really interesting.
We should go check it out.
We also don't know how many ofthose people were on the
(05:13):
prosecution side or formerprosecution, because a lot of
defense lawyers seem to beformer prosecutors, which is
weird.
But yeah, I mean, that's hugebecause it kind of gives you
what's the word I'm looking for.
It helps you view your owncraft through a different lens.
It makes it just a little bitmore important to understand the
gravity of making sure you getit right, because some of these
guys I believe I can't rememberwhich one, but he said he was
(05:36):
sentenced after like 45 days ofbeing charged, which was unheard
of.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
I've never heard anything like that.
Yeah, that was the Ruel Saylorstory and I think it was the
last one, but they were allreally powerful, I think of
their own.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
What was really powerful about that was that he
said that he had such belief inthe legal system that he
cooperated through the wholething, thinking that they're
going to know this isn't me,they're going to catch the right
person, yeah.
And then he ended up going toprison and while in prison he
maintained that same thoughtprocess.
It's like they're going torealize I'm innocent, they're
going to let me out.
And he talked about how hisspirit slowly started to crumble
over the years.
(06:08):
After you know appeal requestsand records requests and all of
this gets denied.
He's like man, like am I reallygoing to get out?
Speaker 2 (06:14):
of here.
Yeah, I think there was acomponent of that to each of
them.
Does it make sense for us tokind talked about?
The play is called the LynchedAmong Us.
It is put on by the Voices ofInjustice and we'll put this in
the show notes but you can go tothat website,
voicesofinjusticecom.
They're always looking fordonations to make sure that this
gets spread far and wide.
They have a lot of goodsponsorship, of course.
(06:42):
We said we saw it at theLincoln I injustice and how
that's being amplified throughcurrent administration.
There was also we AmplifyVoices, the Greater Columbus
Arts Council let's see what'sthis one say Youth Ministry
Program and of course, theVoices of Injustice themselves.
So the first story well, firstLarice Glover hosted and he gave
his own testimony, so we'lltalk about him in a little bit.
But the first story was theMichael Sutton story, which I
think is, particularly in Ohio,is a pretty common name.
If people are thinking aboutinnocence and the Innocence
(07:04):
Project, which came up a lotthroughout the play, michael
Sutton is a name that comes uppretty frequently.
So I'm just going to read thedescription in the playbill and
then we can talk about it, ifthat makes sense to you both.
Michael Sutton was 17 when heand friends were out driving
celebrating their upcominggraduation.
On 55th and Woodland adjacentvehicle, cleveland police pulled
Michael and his friends overclaiming the boys jumped out and
(07:26):
fled the scene, shooting atthem in the process.
For the four young boys whojust witnessed the shooting,
this is where their nightmarebegins.
A compassionate judge, however,releases Michael on bond to
attend his high schoolgraduation, but the police storm
the school and arrest youngMichael, where he is booked,
afterwards convicted andsentenced to 46 years in prison.
This is a heralding story ofhow one young man with a full
scholarship and promising futureovercame the toughest trials of
his life and won.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Yeah, that's insane.
I remember him talking abouthow I mean he told the cops like
hey, you got the wrong guy.
Like I'm about to graduatetomorrow, you know, full ride,
scholarship and everything, andit's just like I said before,
like you have such faith thatthey got to notice this in me.
You know, and it't work outthat way.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
It's insane I think what was compelling about this
one in particular.
So, like we said earlier, themichael sutton played himself in
in this retelling, but also hisparents were there.
So when they showed thegraduation scene and how the
police came in and pulled himout, it was his real parents.
They're like with microphoneson crying and yelling at them to
stop it and I thought that wasreally powerful.
Maybe it's because I am aparent, but like that really got
to me in terms of his story atthe beginning of that tale.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
Yeah, michael Sutton's part of the play, as DJ
said, it was the beginningopening story.
Each of these five men were, Ibelieve, allowed to choose kind
of the artistic form that theywanted to express their story,
and so he chose it as a play andchose, like, different scenes
from.
You know everything thathappened to him.
So, as Remy said, you know itwas like him partying with his
friends and then the policearresting him, then a scene of
him at trial where the judgereleased him to go to his
(08:43):
graduation, but then immediatelyfollowing the next scene was
the graduation, where the policestormed the graduation and
arrested him in front of all hispeers and family and friends.
So each artistic expression foreach individual in this play
meant something to them.
There was some comedy to this,even though the stories are very
powerful, and so we'll get tokind of the comedic parts in a
little bit.
But I am just sitting thereremembering each of these scenes
from Michael's story and how,like you know, he played himself
(09:06):
in that interrogation room andthen the prosecutor comes in and
I believe didn't do a rap, hedid a rap, it was really good.
It was a really good rap, butit was basically to tell Michael
like listen, I don't give ashit about whether you're
innocent or not.
We're going to put somebodybehind bars, and it happens to
be you.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Directly preceding that rap was a very important,
very powerful thing.
That, um, it's one of thereasons why I think that the
public needs to be more educatedabout what goes on behind the
scenes.
And I don't know if you guyssaw the same way as I did, but
if you notice, in the verybeginning, um, michael seemed to
be very relaxed.
He was very, like, kind ofnonchalant, and they asked him
questions and he just went alongwith it.
Yeah, yeah, just went alongwith it.
Yeah, yeah, this and that.
And then it wasn't until herealized, like wait a minute,
you guys are trying to pin thison me.
(09:45):
And they were just like, yeah,basically, like it's you, nobody
else, and this is what it'sgonna be.
And once he realized like therewas nothing he could say to get
out of that, like that was whenit was like, oh man, like let
me take this serious.
And the reason why I say thatthat's a very powerful moment is
because there are a lot ofpeople who go through this and
they have trust in the legalsystem and they think that I'm
just here to help you guys.
And then they've already saidby the time they take it
(10:06):
seriously.
They've already said enoughdamaging or incriminating things
, that they pretty much for lackof a better term they fuck
themselves.
You know, and that's hard todeal with, as especially as an
18, 19 year old person, you know, with no experience a piece
that I like about the uhretelling of this was the videos
, um that they played for eachstory.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
so so particularly for Michael's story as it went
through his time in prison andhow he kind of got through his
mental demons and those kinds ofthings, I appreciated the video
they also played in thebackground with some music to
that, particularly the livefootage of when he got released.
I think that was reallypowerful.
It wasn't just a scene of himgetting out, they showed the
media there helping him get out.
And I thought it was fun becauseit was the same guy from the
innocence project.
Like in all three of the videos, the lawyer was the same lawyer
(10:42):
and finally made it happen, butit was 2022 and he got
convicted in 2007, so I mean, Idon't do math, so, but that's a
really long time.
It's a long time for a childwho's innocent, and I think that
you know these are contributingfactors in all of these cases,
but they were just black men inthe wrong place at the wrong
time, which calls into questionlike, where is it right to be a
black man and what time is right?
Because if you're in cell, whichis the wrong place at the wrong
(11:03):
time, we assumed it was you.
Like, what does that say aboutthe biases that are systemically
embedded?
Because, like we're talkingabout, it's the fault of the
legal system that Michael wasput behind bars in the first
place and so for him to kind ofthen, because part of it was
play, and then he came out andkind of just gave a verbal
testimony, him getting released,and I thought it was a really
(11:26):
powerful, uh, use of media andaudio and visual retelling.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
So um with michael.
There was another very umpowerful thing that he said, and
we actually talked about thisin a previous episode where we
talked about what you have tobecome to survive prison.
The prosecution and the judgedon't really care, or maybe they
don't know what type ofenvironment they send you to and
you're just a person who maybeyou're not that bad of a, maybe
you happen to have a badsituation out there, but on
paper it's very like cut and dry.
(11:48):
You know, for them they saythis was a violent crime.
You know this was X, y and Z.
So they send you to a highsecurity prison where only
violent people go.
Now here we're talking about akid that was just about to
graduate high school and go isvery you know, it's a thing
that'll get you targeted inprison, because everybody knows
you can't afford to get introuble, you know.
So he spoke about how, afterexhausting all of these avenues
(12:11):
and getting denied, eventuallyhe had to do certain things you
know, different hustles thatweren't really above board so
that he could pay his lawyer,you know, and by the time he got
out, I'm not really for certainIs this the one who said he
went to Lucasville.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
I don't remember the specifics.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
He was in solitary when his lawyer called yeah, so
I'm not sure for certain if thiswas the one, but he said he was
in solitary confinement whenhis lawyer came to get him out
of prison, which we did anepisode on Lucasville, that was
real well.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
That was the last one .
Okay, I had sorry, I will editthat out.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
No, that's okay, it's okay, we'll just clarify it
when we get there.
But I mean, the point is, though, like you're trying to maintain
your innocence, you'resurrounded by all this, you know
, negativity.
You come into a high-securityprison there's no peace, you
know, but you're trying tocooperate to get out that
actually, when we were there andI went and introduced myself to
(13:04):
them, I had let them know that,hey, man, I did 10 years in
prison and this really inspiredme and stuff.
But I felt it was important tolet them know, like what I did,
what I went to prison for, justso we don't think we're gonna
bond over this innocence, youknow, and so like, because I
said before I would hate to tellsomebody like that I understand
what you're going through, whenI have no lived experience of
that matter.
So it was, it was powerful andit really really opened my eyes
to a lot, so much stuff thateven I didn't know.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Yeah, you kept saying Remy maintain his innocence.
And I've just been thinkingabout that ever since we saw the
play, because I can't evenbegin to comprehend the
psychological turmoil that thesemen have faced and their
experiences to be sent to prison, wrongfully convicted, and
almost no one I mean, you know,like general public and
institution-wise, you know maybeyour family believes you but
(13:43):
almost no one to be on your sideand to feel that powerless but
then, at the same point in time,to know innately that you
didn't do anything wrong.
I mean that is just like somekind of meta level of like
gaslighting that I don't thinkhopefully anyone listening or,
you know, any friend of thispodcast will ever have to
experience in their lifetime.
But it happens and you know wehave in America, of course, I'm
(14:13):
sure you've mentioned this inthe podcast before but the
presumption of innocence ends.
So while Michael and all thesemen were being held for
questioning, before they werearrested formally or before they
were sentenced or convicted,they were all supposed to be,
under the law, presumed innocent.
So the idea of maintaining one'sinnocence is just so crazy.
To a I have to maintain a?
Um argumentative stance or abelief in that.
It's like I'm factuallyinnocent like michael was
factually innocent in his caseand it like I.
I again can't comprehend howyou deal with that, on top of
(14:35):
the layers of trauma and stuffthat you're facing um being sent
to any kind of correctionalfacility.
Um being unable to see thepeople that you love or care
about, um at most, almost everyday of your life, not being able
to communicate with the outsideworld, missing out on
opportunities that you wereabout to have, such as, in
Michael's case, the fact that hewas about to go to college on a
full ride.
We can't, there's no way torepair the damage that was done
(14:57):
in these cases, and so thatmeans to me it's more important
that we get these messages outand people understand that it
happens, and the fact that evenone person is sent to innocent
that is innocent, is sent toprison, is an atrocity.
It's something akin to some ofthe worst human rights
violations I can think of.
Yeah absolutely.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I try to be objective and understand that it's no way
to be 100% sure With the waythe legal system is set up.
Of course there's going to besome people who slip in there,
who are wrongfully convicted.
For me, I hate the way thatthey have to go to all these
extents to prove their innocenceand in some cases they prove it
and still have to stay in therebecause of the process, the
formal process you have to gothrough.
(15:35):
So there was one guy I'm sorrymy memory isn't the best so I
can't really remember whosestory it was but he said he went
to the parole board and theparole board had zero sympathy
for him because he would notshow remorse, which is one of
the big things that the paroleboard wants to see if they want
to decide to let you go.
But they were saying we can'tlet you go, you haven't shown
any remorse.
And he's like I didn't do it.
And they're like well, go backand think about it, do some more
(15:57):
time.
It's on them to collect andhunt down the information that
will prove their innocence, andthey have to do it all from a
jail cell.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah, do you want to talk about the next piece?
So the next component was atestimony.
So Larise Glover gave thattestimony.
He was also the host of theEvening, so not Charles' story,
it wasn't theatrical, he juststood up no-transcript, broad
(16:30):
daylight and authorities quicklyidentified three teenagers luis
glover, derrick wheat andeugene johnson as the prime
suspects.
The the gunshot residue foundon Wheat's clothing, which they
argued was evidence of hisinvolvement.
However, the defense contestedthe claim, emphasizing that the
lack of forensic evidencelinking the three to the crime
(16:52):
and argued that Harris's vantagepoint made it unlikely that she
could clearly identify theshooter.
Despite these concerns, allthree teenagers were convicted
of murder and sentenced to lifein prison, with parole
eligibility after 18 years.
Years later, critical evidenceemerged that undermined the
prosecution's case.
Harris recounted her testimony,admitting that she had been
pressured by police intoidentifying them as the
defendants.
Moreover, police files thatwere never disclosed to the
defense that was my favoritepart of the story, so I want to
highlight that so that you cantell me to remember to come back
(17:13):
, because I'll forget containedrecords pointing to alternate
suspects and threats againstHudson before his murder.
These suppressed documentssuggested that authorities may
have ignored other leads intheir rush to convict the three
teenagers.
With this new evidence,leverett, wheat and Johnson's
convictions were overturned in2015.
That's 20 years.
By the way, the following year,all charges were dismissed,
officially exonerating themafter they had spent two decades
behind bars for a crime theydid not commit.
Their case highlights systemicissues of wrongful convictions,
(17:36):
including unreliable witnesstestimony, prosecutorial
misconduct and the failure todisclose evidence.
I was going to get there in theend, but I appreciate that.
Yeah, I think, before anybodyelse, if it's okay.
I think what was reallycompelling to me about Louise's
testimony was about thedocuments.
I know you just started to talkabout this that they tried to
subpoena these public recordsfrom the police department for
20 years and when they finallygot like they tried and tried
(17:59):
and tried, their defense lawyersand the Innocence Project tried
and they couldn't get them.
And then they gave it like onelast hail, mary, and there'd
been transitions within thedocuments in public records
department and so they just on afluke, got them.
Uh, the last, the very lasttime they were going to request
them as an appeal um, and whenthey received the documents, the
very front page said that ifthe, if the um public records
department released the policefiles, they could be charged
with um misconduct which Ithought was super by the police
(18:21):
department, which is crazy.
So the police were threateningthe public records department,
the prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
I'm sorry the prosecutor.
The prosecutor wrote on theredo not release these or you'll
be prosecuted.
Yes, thank you, but the thingabout that which I thought was
insane was 20 years went by 20.
2-0.
These records requests were theprimary thing in the battle.
I mean, they were the firstthing you do is make requests
for the records before you evenstart fighting in other places.
So the fact that they neveracknowledged it and they didn't
(18:50):
acknowledge it, no matter howmany times they asked for it, so
I thought that was insane Ialso thought that there was um
in larissa's.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Can you hear my carbonation, is it?
I can hear you asking about it.
You should leave that too.
Um, for larissa's uh testimony,I was.
He said the statement and youalluded to this earlier.
When he um, he said that he wasa completely innocent person,
but now he has to adapt to this.
Earlier, remy, he said that hewas a completely innocent person
, but now he has to adapt tothis environment where not
everybody is and he's like so byputting me in here as an
innocent person.
I now have to become the thingyou think I am, and I thought
that was a really powerful thingabout.
(19:16):
I have to now survive in thisenvironment, so I have to become
the very thing you think orhave told me that I am, when it
never was who I was, and thatwas a really powerful takeaway.
Back to your point, jacob,about like that psychological
toll.
Like I can't imagine the mentalfortitude one would have to
take if they've never been kindof in that type of an
environment or if you'reinnocent of this thing and
you're not really caught up inthese other things, like how
eye-opening prison environmentwould be.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Uh, and you also have to change your rhetoric right,
because you have to survive inthere, you have to maintain your
safety, and so you can't evensay stuff like I'm not even
supposed to be in here, becauseyou're kind of alluding to the
fact that everybody else issupposed to be here.
What are you saying?
You're not like us, you'rebetter than us, you know.
So I mean, it's insane.
It was pretty heartbreaking totell these stories.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
I've been thinking a lot about, not just in this
context but in kind of myprofessional work and everything
about stigma and shame and kindof my own definitions would be
like shame is something, afeeling that you have, that is,
internal control.
You have internal locus control,so I can feel ashamed that I
did something usually isaccompanied by guilt, not always
because you can be ashamed thatyou're associated with
(20:15):
something you know that youmaybe don't want to be, or
something where you didn't haveany guilt or any wrongdoing, but
a lot of times it is associatedwith guilt, whereas stigma is
externally controlled and isforced upon you by other people,
by society at large, and soanyone who enters the criminal
justice system faces stigma ofsome degree.
It's usually, I assume, prettybad, because you're either found
guilty and you know you'reguilty and your life is going to
(20:36):
always be, you know a kind ofproduct of the fact that you
made this mistake and that, eventhough you might have paid for
it with prison time or whatever,it's following you the rest of
your life, or the fact that youweren't guilty but everyone
thinks you were, and so you knowlike him, well, all these men,
but um, in this case, um, himgoing in there and having to
change who he is at the corebecause he didn't.
(20:59):
Um, he wanted to one surviveprison and but while he was
trying to still say I'm aninnocent person or keep that
belief inside himself.
That to me is just like anegregious form of stigma.
Like how, how does one copewith that, knowing that I can't
control that everyone perceivesme this way, even though I, you
know they shouldn't?
They shouldn't perceive me thatway and um, that almost causes
you, I would think, to have somekind of shame.
(21:21):
That isn't, that's unfounded,like the shame shouldn't be
there.
But you, I, people in asituation could go through some
kind of shame feeling becausethey are starting to believe,
because they're in a situation,that they are what people tell
them they are.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
I think that kind of piggybacks with your other
comment about the mental assault.
We're not talking about acouple weeks, a couple months or
even a couple years.
We're talking about decades.
That somebody is beingassaulted with their reality.
That is unfounded.
That somebody's being assaultedwith their reality.
That is unfounded.
And not only are youapproaching the legal system
which you are petitioning toadvocate on your behalf because
you're innocent.
You think, hey, you guys shouldget this right, you should make
(21:54):
it right.
But when you approach thesystem like that, they're like
everybody says they're innocent.
You know you're just anotherperson who's coming trying to
get over the system.
You know no-transcript.
But really even your family,after a decade and a half, two
decades, and they're seeing howmuch fight you're putting up and
(22:15):
you're getting nowhere eventhem they will probably start to
think like, yeah, maybe they doit.
And that's sad, that's really.
Over the years many people comeand go in your support circle
and they themselves have amental battle to deal with.
Their peers are out there likenow are you?
Why are you supporting that guy?
You know a story like this I'msure made the news.
People are like, why are yousupporting that guy?
(22:35):
Hey, I'm sure he did.
You know, it's not until youfinally make it out.
You, you know, you uh emergedvictorious.
That then all the naysayersstarted oh man, we always knew
the whole time.
You know, thank goodness hemade it home, but I'm sure there
were many people that were likehe was in the center of this.
It used to be kind of sneaky.
I've heard people say the mostridiculous things.
I remember a time he stole acandy bar Get the fuck out of
(22:56):
here.
Or even stuff that's prettystereotypical, chewing out stuff
Like oh man, I remember Icaught them skipping school one
time.
Yeah, but skipping school isnot a murder.
Let's just not try to relatethe two, you know, and let's
just look at the evidence forwhat it is, because people will
even come to those terms inspite of the evidence that
they're in.
They'll just use the fact thatthey haven't gotten out yet to
(23:17):
justify in their mind that maybethey are guilty.
That's sad.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
It is sad.
Real quick I want to interjectwith a I recently came across
well, was made aware, I shouldsay, of a framework that is
called the social safety theoryand basically it's the idea that
minority people especially facea lot of cumulative or
multiplicative stress in theirlifetimes and so that, you know,
can contribute to really badmental health and physical
health outcomes across thelifespan.
But also that there's this factof social safety where you know
(23:41):
if people are in an environmentthey feel are associated with
safety, or they're with someonethat they feel are associated
with safety, then that can helpimprove their outcomes and their
functioning overall.
So now, incorporating that intowhat you're saying, like I'm
wondering and I would like toask people that have gone
through this experience, like,did you at any point at least
have one person that you feltlike was in your corner the
whole time?
Because I would be like, fromthe social safety perspective,
(24:04):
if you have at least one person,then you're more likely to
maintain resiliency.
There's that buzzword again,which I am, so you know, I want
to kind of shout out to peoplethat I wish there was a world
where they didn't have tomaintain resiliency, that you
know people didn't have tosuffer and then be told that you
know they're a better personbecause of it, like that's
terrible.
(24:24):
We should want better for allhumanity, but given that that's
the state of the world thatwe're in, I think that people
that are in prison, andespecially those who are
wrongfully convicted and sent toprison, if they have even one
person you know inside, outside,you know whatever that they
feel like, is still fighting forthem, still believing in them,
I would guess that they wouldfare better.
(24:44):
Of course, that's all relativeto the total outcome of the
experience, whether theyactually make it out of prison
or if they go through theirentire sentence and are finally
released on parole or something,but in this case, I hope that
he had someone that he couldstill believe in, and I believe
in him, I hope he does.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Usually that person in a situation when it comes to
incarceration usually thatperson is your parents, but we
have to recognize that noteverybody has parents Correct.
Also, when you talk aboutresiliency, we have to
understand that not everybodykeeps their parents through the
situation Correct Two decades.
I know plenty of people whohave done a lot less than two
decades in prison, who have losttheir parents or grandparents,
which was another story.
(25:20):
Yeah, he talked, I forget whosestory it was, but gentleman
released and he was able to gosee his mom and it was his
mother was, uh, in a coma, yeah,and he got to hold her hand and
speak to her and she woke upand, uh, I think she she lived
for a few more months, I thinkthat was also real well, uh,
because charles had the kidney,the kidney transplant yeah,
charles got to give a kidney tohis nephew.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Yep, but I think it was real story.
But I'm gonna, yeah, yeah,sorry, keep going.
Oh, it's cool.
I was just trying to rememberwhose name it was so we could
attach it sorry, it's like threeor four weeks ago at this point
we don't have super bad memoryand the thing that you talked
about, um, kind of looks like.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
When you talk about um, these guys experiences, I
mean, they're all innocent,regardless of what walk of life
they had.
I mean, some of them were justlike young school kids, um, who
had the most innocent of stories.
Some one guy, um, I think wasreal who said, like I was a
street guy, you know, I didn'tdo this crime, but I was in the
streets.
So, yes, he at least owned andknew what he was and what
(26:13):
situation he was in.
But my point is there's allthis talk about black people or
low-income people don't trustlaw enforcement.
And when you talk aboutresiliency and how we praise
these guys for making it out, wehave to understand that yes,
they made it out, but theydidn't make it out unscathed.
They lost a lot more than justthe years.
The people Like they have scarsfrom the situation and when you
already come from a place whereyou don't really trust law
(26:35):
enforcement, the fact that theydid and that they gave them
their trust and thought thatthey would get them out of the
situation is kind of a testamentto itself of why people don't.
I've always heard people say,well, why wouldn't you?
You live in a high crime rate.
Why wouldn't you trust lawenforcement?
I think me and you actually,debbie when, early in our
relationship, I believe, we hada conversation where I told you
I feel more safe in the hoodthan I do in the suburbs or than
(26:55):
I do in rural areas.
I'll go somewhere where I canclearly hear gunshots in the
background and I was like coolas a cucumber, but driving into
the suburbs is giving me anxiety.
When I'm like, uh, you know,make sure you see me.
I was like, well, we'll givehim no reason to pull us over,
you know, because you never know, as soon as you have that law
enforcement situation, whetheryou know you fit the description
(27:16):
of somebody they're looking for.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
And of course, you have it no-transcript
(27:55):
circumstances, as remy, or thatyou know you've never been to
prison yourself or something,then you know.
Also think about the differentways that people might
experience the same kind oftrauma.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
I mean, I really myself, I don't, really.
I don't really let it bother mea lot, except for times when
I'm with my kids, because Iwould hate for my kids to have
to witness something like that.
But what we're talking about is, yeah, I have a criminal record
, we all know that.
But when you get pulled overand they run my plates, when I
(28:23):
get pulled over and they run myplates, man, I got insurance to
the max.
I'm gainfully employed, I domentorship, I do all this stuff.
I am a perfect model of acitizen.
I pay my taxes.
I can't say I go to church toomuch, but whatever, what I'm
trying to say is, theoretically,I have zero to worry about,
absolutely nothing to worryabout when I get pulled over.
But when I get pulled over, Igot a lot to worry about,
because the first thing that'sgoing to come up beside my name,
(28:44):
I'm sure, is going to say thatI'm a violent felon.
I have criminal history.
They don't care that that was16, 17 years ago.
They're like, oh, okay, so nowthey're walking into their car
with their hand on their pistolor something.
That's the same for people whohave citizenship issues or
anything else Like, oh, theyhave an accent.
Well, now they're probablythinking like, oh shit, I hope
this cop doesn't think I'm anillegal.
You know, just try to give me ahard time when they themselves
(29:07):
also should have zero to worryabout, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
So I just wanted to recall we were talking about an
individual whose mom was sick.
That was Lamont Clark, and sowe're going to talk about Lamont
at the end, but just want tomake sure we're putting the
right names to things.
So I did some back researchwhile we were talking that
through.
The next story is when you'retalking about injecting a little
bit of humor.
So the next story was theCharles Jackson story, and so
I'm going to read the bio and wecan talk about how Charles
chose to showcase his story.
(29:30):
So Charles Jackson.
Fifteen-year-old Charles Jacksonlived in fear of his older
brother, tony, whose addictionhad altered his behavior.
But when Charles' young nephew,houston, bravely stood up to
Tony, they both realized they'rethe true source of his
intimidating behavior the gripof addiction.
Charles' love and admirationfor Tony remained unwavering,
but he struggled to reconcilethat with the harm caused by his
addiction.
This pain and experience forgedan unbreakable bond between
(29:51):
Houston and Charles, one thatwould last a lifetime.
Charles Jackson's life took adevastating turn when he was
falsely accused and framed bypolice for a murder he did not
commit.
Despite having two policeofficers as his alibis, charles
was persuaded by his publicdefenders to withhold this
crucial evidence from the jury.
The consequences were dire.
Charles was convicted andsentenced to 30 years to life in
prison.
While Charles languished behindbars, his nephew Houston's
health began to deterioraterapidly.
Houston's kidneys were failingand he was forced to undergo
(30:13):
dialysis.
Charles, aware that he was amatching donor, was tormented by
his inability to help.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Charles.
I appreciate it, charles'injection of humor into a story.
No-transcript.
Be a donor.
Um, the lawyers, I mean when hetalked about, hey, the officer
(30:41):
out there at the desk, it's myalibi, I go talk to them.
And his lawyers told himstraight up, like you can't say
you were running from a cop andthat's why you didn't commit
this murder.
But it was true.
But it was true.
I mean, he said, like you know,hey, I stumbled out of the bar
and these two cops approached meand I ran, mm-hmm.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
But obviously, and they chased him, yeah, they
chased him, they were involvedin a chase with him at the same
time this murder was beingcommitted.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
It's not the best excuse, it's not the best alibi,
but it is one nonetheless.
And the fact that he just sohappened while coming to this
meeting with his lawyers, hejust so happened to pass the cop
that was chasing him.
It was like, wow, what elsecould you ask for?
And he said no.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I think what was fun I guess if there's anything fun
about Charles' story was that hewas the oldest man on the stage
and so he had to play himselfas the 27-year-old right and he
literally ran, yeah, literallyran on stage.
And then he paused because hewas out of breath, you remember.
So, like, this crime happenedin 1991, and he was 27 years old
when he got his conviction.
So I think that that'simportant because obviously it's
2025 when he's putting on thisplay and he had been out since
(31:54):
2019.
So I think we saw ineverybody's stories, but his was
more about collecting intel andstuff and making sure it was a
fun time for him.
So he sang Bohemian Rhapsodyduring a part where he was
cleaning out the prison.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
So his job in prison was cleaning the hallways, but
he just he said that being aporter was something that gave
him a bit of freedom in thereand helped him maintain his
sanity.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
But he poorly, poorly sang that song for a solid
three minutes, and it was he.
Had the crowd behind him,though, so I just On the side of
the innocence.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
You know, trying to prove his innocence, it wasn't
just the fact that he had thisaltercation with two cops and
that could be his alibi, it'sthe fact that when you have an
altercation with two policeofficers like that, it is well
documented, you know.
Obviously they knew who he was.
Although he ran, he left hiscar there, he you know.
So it's not like they could say, oh, we didn't know like the
(32:45):
car was, might have beenimpounded, even I don't remember
.
There had to be numerousrecords that would say, oh yeah,
this is what I got.
Good thing we got him, though,because now we can hold him, you
know, accountable for thisother thing.
But this isn't the fit for this.
And instead his lawyer chose tosay, no, we shouldn't tell him
that, we should just take ourchances, and that was a big
miscarriage of justice, um big.
I mean.
I don't know if anything everhappened to those lawyers from
(33:06):
like the Association or anything, but I would imagine that that
was very frowned upon.
Very, very bad advice for alawyer to give somebody.
It's a really good piece ofevidence, but we should not talk
about it at all.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
Yeah, charles' story.
Just the ridiculousness andkind of humor of the fact that
it's so crazy that he wasrunning from the cops and then
convicted for a crime whilerunning from the cops, I think
it sets the stage for the humorthat he displayed throughout.
I mean he incorporated, as DJsaid, music, his singing.
He's not going to have a careeras a singer but as an
entertainer.
Yes, he brought a lot ofentertainment to his segment of
(33:36):
the show and it definitelylivened up the crowd and helped,
because you know, like thesestories aren't just, you know,
fun they're not supposed to be.
But it helped to change thetone and provide a little bit of
relief for the remainingstories that came.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
And, as we shared with the earlier stories, there
was a mixed media method.
So, even though in his lastscene he really did run through
the audience and then back uponto the stage and those pieces,
there was also the video of himbeing released too.
Again, it was the pullback atthe end be like no, this was my
lived experience.
You know, even with the humor,my lived experience was this,
(34:13):
and here's where you can see it,because you can see me walking
out of the courtroom finally afree person.
Um, and listener, I know you'reworried.
So he did get to donate hiskidney to his nephew.
He's dead and they have alifelong relationship.
At this point, they're stillthe best of friends.
He said so.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
Um, I really loved that too so, on a latter note, I
gotta commend these guys fornot only just gaining their
freedom and that being enough,but that they all came together.
I'm not sure how they all foundeach other, but I know that
they all came together and theyall said, hey, we have to spread
the word.
You know, we have to sharethese stories because they are
very impactful, not only thepeople who have gone through it,
but for the loved ones ofpeople who have gone through it
(34:46):
and the community as a whole,because I'm sure when this made
the news, the community didn'tfeel safe.
I'm sure the community knewlike, hey, those birds are
innocent and they're gettingrailroaded.
So the fact that these guyscame out and took it upon
themselves as their mission tospread this word being free
wasn't enough for them.
I really got to commend that.
Also, I would like to give ashout out to Al Cleveland.
He's one of the guys who, uh,promotes this a lot.
(35:06):
Uh, you guys can look him up onfacebook.
He's involved in a lot of stuff.
Um, and lamont clark, who isactually the guy I was hooked up
with.
You know, we were pretty coolin there, so it's nice to see
him up on stage and uh literallyget their flowers, yeah, yeah.
But also shout out to all theseguys, man, the fact that they
would go out there and sharetheir own stories like this.
It's amazing.
I really uh encourage all youguys if you see this play going
on in your area, like, pleasegrab some tickets, have a night
(35:28):
out, go see it.
I'm pretty sure, um, you'lllearn something.
There's a lot in there thateven I haven't gone through the
system, uh didn't know.
And check out their website,voices of injustice.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
You can also check them out on facebook and
instagram was there anythingelse on charles's story we
wanted to talk about before wetransition to well?
I think we're good, proceed thatup uh, the third and final
story was that?
No, it wasn't the final story,because Lamont came up and gave
some closing remarks and told alittle bit of his story with him
and his mom, so Ruel's storywas the last one that was done
theatrically.
And so, in 2002, ruel Saylorwas wrongfully convicted of
(35:59):
murder, kidnapping and assaultin Cleveland, ohio, following
the fatal shooting of Omar Clark.
The case against Saylor was theshooter.
Another witness, larry Braxton,also identified Saylor.
So, despite Saylor maintaininghis innocence and presenting an
alibi that replaced himelsewhere at the time of the
crime, he was convicted in 2003and sentenced to 25 years to
(36:20):
life.
Years later, new evidencesurfaced proving Saylor's
innocence.
Williams admitted hisidentification had been
influenced by suggestion, andother witnesses, including
Cordell Hubbard and NicoleHubbard, provided sworn
statements supporting Saylor'salibi.
Anthony McKenzie and WilliamSizemore further corroborated
that Saylor was not present atthe crime scene.
In 2018, after spending morethan 15 years in prison,
saylor's convictions werevacated and he was released.
In 2023, he was awarded$652,000 in state compensation
(36:41):
for his wrongful conviction,highlighting the flaws in
eyewitness identification andthe devastating impact of
prosecutorial errors.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Now this story, I think, is important because this
is the story where he took thedeal right.
Yes, that's correct.
So after, let me see, he did 15years right.
So I think he said I think itwas like year 12 or 13.
He said the prosecutor came tovisit him in prison.
He also injected a little bitof comedy because he said oh,
they're coming for me and hegave all this stuff away.
(37:07):
And you know they're comingdown here themselves.
They must be here to get me out.
Gave all this stuff away.
He said.
He went into this conferenceroom and the prosecutor flat out
says we know you're innocent.
At that point, what else isthere to talk about, right,
right?
But they also said well, weknow you lied in court for your
friend and so if you sign thisplea agreement saying you know,
yeah, you lied for your friendin court, we'll call it a wash.
(37:29):
You know you'll only do thistime that you did.
You can go home.
And his lawyer is like this isreally bad advice.
As your lawyer, I will tell youthis is a shit deal, but as a
friend, I will tell you to takethe deal and fight from outside.
I thought who the hell saidsomething like that.
I wanted to stand up and screamat that moment.
Yeah, that was the mosthorrible advice ever, but he
signed the deal.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
You know I don't know that it was the most horrible
advice ever.
I'll push back because she hadtried a lot of appeal processes
and it was in the hands of likeit was up to whoever was going
to hear it or sign it, andthey've been trying for 15 years
to get an appeal heard and sothis was a deal that gave
immediate freedom or he couldhave not.
Sondra and her continued herefforts that for 15 years had
been fruitless, so I don't knowthat it was the worst advice
ever.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
From my point of view , I want to tell you why I
thought this was the worst ever.
When you admit guilt, you loseall appeal process, all appeal
power.
You cannot appeal a guiltyverdict, no matter if it was
coerced, no matter if it wasprosecution, misconduct or
anything.
You said you did it.
Nobody made you say you did it.
So by them saying we'll let yougo only if you admit to this
and accept the time you've done,as you know punishment for this
, this uh deal that you'retaking, you basically say, yeah,
(38:32):
I can go home today.
You'll never compensate me forthis time I did.
I'm still going to be a felon.
I'm still going to be you know,like you're not going to go
home a free man.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
You know you still might go home on supervision,
you like I understand, I get it,I know the depth of that, but I
think from ruel's perspective,like he shared on the stage, and
from his lawyer's viewpoint,who was his friend at that point
of over a decade and a half ofworking alongside each other,
like she could see him mentallydeteriorating, as we talked
about earlier.
He was in solitary confinementat the time of this visit from
this prosecutor and was reallystruggling with his mental
(39:00):
health and his wellness, knowinghe should be at home.
He kept his faith.
That was one of his big throughlines was his faith.
But like I understand why sheleft it up to him for advice.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
I understand why she said what she said.
It doesn't change the fact thatit was horrible advice, because
the same way he got railroadedhere right, the same way they're
trying to give him this deal tocover up their tracks and
justify what they did to him.
He goes home on supervision.
By the time he did, it would befive years of mandatory
post-release control.
What's to stop them fromviolating his parole and putting
him back in prison?
Speaker 2 (39:26):
Well, I don't know that there is any, but what's
the likelihood that he wouldn'thave gotten out at all?
I mean, there's the componentof— but if he did his whole time
?
Speaker 1 (39:33):
and got out, he would still be able to fight for the
injustice that he gone through.
If he admitted that he wasguilty and deserving of this
punishment, he would have nobasis, no grounds to stand on.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
I would have done what he did no-transcript.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
At that point I don't see and maybe I'm just living
in this idealized world, but Idon't see how they have any
power at that point If you admitto me that you know, by some
ethics or some kind of legalstandards maybe they can't do
anything directly about this.
But who's to say that somenewspaper doesn't get a hold of
this story and find out thatprosecution wrongfully convicted
(40:14):
a person and then went to saidperson and said we know you're
innocent but we're not releasingyou.
I'm sure they did not allowthat to for people, other
parties, that if you say, hey,this happened, for them to
investigate that would 100%renew my vigor.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
I think that's a really well-made point, because
I think you and I are sittinghere talking about the advice,
but in reality that's not thepart of the problem.
Prosecution was the problem andthe injustice of the system is
the complicated component here.
So, regardless of the deal hetook or didn't take, he
shouldn't have been after weknow you're innocent, right like
that.
Should.
That should have been the endof the sentence, not the
(40:50):
aftermath that followed, I guess.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
So but if you guys caught it, what I said was at
year 12 or 13 the prosecutorcame to him.
Yeah, he took the deal, stayedin prison for another two years
waiting to be released and theynever came for him.
Right, they took the signeddeal and totally forgot about
him and as he started beating ontheir door like hey, what's
going on, they said I'm gonnatake the deal back and just left
him there.
So basically they got him togive up his fight and just sit
(41:12):
and wait.
Now, who knows what that wasfor.
I mean, it could have been areelection season, who knows?
But I mean the mental warfarethat they just put on this guy.
You know the one.
Tell him hey, we know you'reinnocent.
Like, oh, my, that started out.
I would have cried right theremy God, you know, you recognize
that I'm innocent.
What else could I ask for?
(41:32):
Right, just then spring on me.
This deal was like damn, that'sa little defeating, but you
still got hope right To take thedeal.
Like you had to go through alot to convince yourself to take
that deal and then still not gohome.
That was horrible.
And we're talking about peoplewho are are I mean, if you talk
about us versus them mentality.
From their point of view,they're pillars of society,
you're the slime of the earthand we're upholding the law and
(41:53):
justice and whatnot, and they'reinflicting this upon people who
they know are innocent.
It's just cruel.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
Again, I can't speak for what his choice was, because
I'm not him and didn't gothrough what he went through.
But from the outside I wouldhave looked at him and been like
I trusted you guys that thelegal system would not convict
me because I'm an innocentperson.
And here I am, 13 years laterand now you're telling me you're
going to trust me again.
To me it was so blatant of likewhy would you make the same
mistake twice?
But again, I didn't go throughwhat he went through.
(42:21):
So, to be in his mental stateat that exact moment, I'm sure I
might have made the same choicethat you made.
I.
I might have made the samechoice that you might very well
could have made the same choice.
Speaker 1 (42:28):
This is like playing with a revolver and somebody's
like, oh, it's empty.
And then you mess around andshoot yourself in the foot and
they're like, no, the next one'sempty, don't worry about it.
You're like, how are you goingto get me this way?
It's a trigger game, it's well,I guess it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
Luckily, I renewed the fight and made it out, and I
sound a lot like my own lawyer,but they made it out with
enough life left to still enjoyWell, so I have two points to
make.
So first was Lamont Clark.
I don't know if you wanted toshare anything about him or any
other than that you knew him,but Lamont offered some closing
remarks, similarly sharing hisown case.
We talked about it a little bitearlier, about he needed to get
out because his mom was dying,had a terminal illness, and so
by the time he fought his fightso he could go home for a little
(43:10):
bit, he did get to see his momand she was in a coma and he was
able to talk to her and itwasn't very long that she passed
away, but there were—well,munt's case is a little
different and more complicatedthan the other individuals that
were part of this play, but thething that remains true is that
he had to demonstrate thisconsistent resiliency, and that
was the other point I was goingto make was we talked a lot
(43:31):
about this term resiliency andwhat it means and why it's
trendy and all these things.
So I want to give a quick shoutout to a friend of the pod,
jesse Schrader, my friend andconfidant for a long time, but
we used to do a lot of trainingaround resiliency and the term
and what we often shared withpeople was, yes, resiliency is
important, but we can'thigh-five people that are
drowning right.
We have to recognize thatpraising people for their
strength without acknowledgingthe thing that has had to make
(43:52):
them strong doesn't fix anything, and so I think that, as an
overall takeaway for me fromthis event, it was man, these
people are amazing and itshouldn't have to be like this,
and I hope that more people inthe audience kind of grappled
with that same little reality ofthese are people's lived
experiences, and the system isflawed that makes it such um.
So those are my closingthoughts.
I know we're wrapping up, so Ijust wanted to get mine in there
so that you all can say yourstoo.
Speaker 3 (44:12):
To follow up on what you just said, dj, I would just
say that, from my viewpoint,resiliency should be a thing
that we praise in individualswhen the circumstances that they
went through weren't somethingthat could be prevented.
But we too often ascriberesiliency to people that went
through preventablecircumstances, whether that be
abuse, whether that be awrongful conviction, whether
that be stigmatization bysociety.
(44:34):
These are all social constructsthat are all things that we, as
you know, as a society, couldjust like work to stop.
You know someone going througha natural disaster, such as a
hurricane or something.
You know that's terrible, butthat's not something that we can
control, and so them beingresilient in the face of that,
that is something admirable, andI'm saying that being resilient
in these cases, these othercases, isn't admirable.
I'm just saying that it driveshome BJ's point of the fact that
they shouldn't have to havebeen resilient, and so it
(44:56):
saddens me to have to give themthat admiration for something
that we put them through and Iinclude myself in that Like we
as a country, as a society, areresponsible of society are
responsible.
Speaker 1 (45:09):
I totally agree.
And to piggyback off of that,we're talking about resiliency
through something that if, giventhe opportunity, I would not go
through.
We're not talking about like,oh man, I'm Kobe Bryant, I was
in the gym three times a day andI was so resilient to overcome
this and be a whatever time NBAchampion.
We're not talking about that.
We're talking about, no, I wasplucked out of my life and
forced to go through this, andnow you're praising me for
making it through.
Yeah, I'm happy I made itthrough.
(45:30):
But if, given the opportunity,like if you ask Kobe Bryant, hey
, would you still go throughthis?
Do you think it was worth it?
He'd be like hell, yeah, I'm soglad I was resilient through
that.
But if you ask these guys, hey,would you do it again?
They're like fuck, no.
So Give them their praise and,you know, give them their
flowers, thanks for coming homeand sharing your story, but
recognize that it's notsomething that they went through
by choice.
It's not something that theywould probably choose to go
(45:51):
through again and recognizetheir losses through all of this
.
Speaker 3 (45:54):
I'd much rather live in a world where we didn't have
to put on a play call the lynchamong us.
But I'm glad I saw it and I'mglad that hopefully it's going.
It didn't happen and thesepeople didn't go to prison
wrongfully or that really almostanybody doesn't go to prison.
But that's a different episodefor the podcast.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
Thank you, jacob, for joining us to talk about this.
Thank you for inviting us toattend it with you.
I think it was really impactful.
Through each of our respectivelenses, we took different things
away from it, and it was areally good way to spend time.
Part of it Donate if you havecapacity, whether that's time,
(46:33):
whether that's monetary gifts,whether that's sharing it on
social media, whatever way youcan contribute to make sure that
this is circulated in the waythat it should be.
And, yeah, thank you forlistening.
Right, we're going to close outwith that.
Speaker 1 (46:43):
Like I said, these guys on Facebook and Instagram,
as well as the Voices of Justicepage.
Just give it a look.
I know personally, with usthree here being co-parents, it
was important to learn this, tosee this and communicate it
somehow to our children, becauseit may not impact us, but it
could impact the next generationor somebody you know.
So, like DJ said, please go totheir page.
(47:05):
Please support them however youcan, and with that we're done.
Peace.
Please go to their page.
Please support them however youcan, and with that we're done.
Peace.
Applause for you guys.
We're out of here.
Hey everybody, welcome back to another episode
of Lockdown Legacy.
Of course I'm your host, remyJones, and today I have a guest
in half with me, my guest beingJacob Holycross, who has been a
guest on the show before.
So if you have not reached intoour catalog, please go and
dissect that and listen to everylast episode.
I want support.
I'm flinching, I'm wavering,I'm sorry, I'm joking.
So anyway, my half-dess is thefamed and proclaimed Dr Deborah
(00:23):
Jones.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I haven't been a doctor yet.
On this podcast, no this isyour debut.
Oh no, I'm not prepared forthat, but I'm happy to be here.
But I'm not the main focustoday.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
No, but for those of you who have been following, you
guys know that DJ has beenworking on her doctorate for a
long time, which is also thereason why she's been absent
from a lot of the journey hascome to a close.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
It's over baby.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Oh wait, wait, wait, I got the.
Is that an applause button?
It's a little applause button.
How do you know?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Because it's just a yellow button, because it says
applause button.
Yeah, it's all right.
Anyway, I got distracted.
We should introduce Jacob, soJacob.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Yes, what is it that you?
Speaker 3 (00:57):
do for a living.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Well, listeners of the podcast, okay, also, um,
just for full transparency,jacob is also one of our
co-parents of our amazingchildren, three of them, and so,
uh, very close to family,always around, always having
these uh insightfulconversations, very few of which
we get to bless you guys withcapture, but I don't think we
hate each other so I think thatthat's great we're just not
recording all the time, but wedo get a lot of compliments on
uh our family dynamics and youknow it works.
(01:32):
I much uh prefer this to thedrama.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
So there we go, there we go part of this is kind of
aligned right, because todaywe're going to talk about, uh, a
play, a live theater experience, a what would?
What do we?
It's not a musical, it's a aplay.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
It was an artistic expression of real life
experiences that happened tosome people, that, um, at least
one of them I knew, which iscool yeah, but um, I think it's
fine because we all wenttogether um while grandparents
babysat, so, yeah, and I didn'tknow that I knew anyone there,
yeah.
So jacob kind of said hey man, Igot these tickets, you guys
want to go?
And we're like, yeah sure.
And once I agreed, I found outwhat it was about.
I was like, oh man, that'sright in my alley.
And so we went and I enjoyed it.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Do you want to talk a little bit about, um, how the
tickets came to you and why youthought it would be good for us
all to go any of that background?
Speaker 3 (02:12):
well, it's not like a , you know, very exciting story,
but, um, I just come acrossthese things in the like
columbus area, which is, ofcourse, where I work, and saw
that the play was going to bethere.
The lynched among the LynchedAmong Us is what it's called,
and you know, kind of read thesynopsis, figured DJ and Remy
would also enjoy it.
So I reached out to them beforeI bought tickets.
I was like, is this somethingyou'd be interested in?
And then come to find out itwas based on all these real-life
experiences of, I believe, fivemen With you know, I think
(02:34):
references to a few otherstories as well along the way
Did not kind of comprehend theplay because there was, as we'll
talk about, some various artforms that were displayed, which
was pretty cool.
I think the play was mainlygeared towards lawyers and I'm
not sure why.
They had some kind ofsimulation beforehand that you
could have attended.
We did not, we just attendedthe play itself.
But again, the performance wasvery insightful.
(02:56):
I think it was a message or adisplay that many people and the
general public need to see,because many people don't
understand the possibilities of,and the ramifications of,
wrongful convictions.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Yeah, I agree um, I'm always one of those people who
think that, um, there's thislike blonder, um divide between
society and what goes on in thecriminal justice system.
Um, of course, it's all open tothe public, but, um, our
culture and society kind of makeus believe that only the worst
people are involved with thecriminal justice system.
Nobody's ever.
Everybody says they're innocent.
Nobody's really innocent, um,or even if they are guilty, like
they don't deserve to betreated like human beings.
(03:28):
And so I thought this was greatin many respects, but in one um
, the fact that, so theorganization that put on this
play is called voices ofinjustice and, um, they are a
wrongful conviction advocacygroup and they do uh, plays in
other art forms.
Um, one thing I thought wasreally interesting was that in
all these plays or skits, theywere played by the actual people
(03:48):
who these things happen to.
So, as the you know, plays wenton and you start realizing,
like man, this guy up on thestage was wrongfully convicted
and served 25 years, 15 years,like you know, it starts blowing
your mind.
You know, you hear that, thatbuzzword you know, uh,
resilience a lot, but when yousee somebody up there acting out
such a dramatic event rightfrom their own life, like you're
(04:09):
like wow, you know, like ithits a little different.
So I really really appreciatedthat these guys got up there and
did that.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
It's selfless and it's courageous to go through
that again, to want to sharethat story with strangers well,
not even just as a one-time only, like, uh, you know.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
As for me said, this is a uh, the show in columbus.
We saw it in columbus at thelincoln theater and this was one
night, but they told us at theend that it's traveling, uh, to
like five other cities detroit,somewhere in indiana, chicago,
etc.
And so not just to put it onand tell your story one time,
but like to do it in this liveduh, live theater type of an
environment over and over andover again.
I mean, think about liveaudience and then traveling to
(04:42):
do the same, um, I'm sure thereis a healing.
Maybe that feels cathartic andthose experiences too.
I mean, I don't want to uhassume, but I would.
I would imagine there has to besome component of that that
goes beyond, just like I needpeople to hear my story.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
But maybe this is a little bit for self also yeah,
so, yeah, um, because I mean,like you said, just rehearsing
could be traumatic, relivingthat, um.
And like you said, jacob, Ireally, really thought it was
interesting how many lawyerswere in the crowd, the audience.
I don't know if that was like,if it was really aimed at
lawyers or if they just heardabout it, but hey, this sounds
really interesting.
We should go check it out.
We also don't know how many ofthose people were on the
(05:13):
prosecution side or formerprosecution, because a lot of
defense lawyers seem to beformer prosecutors, which is
weird.
But yeah, I mean, that's hugebecause it kind of gives you
what's the word I'm looking for.
It helps you view your owncraft through a different lens.
It makes it just a little bitmore important to understand the
gravity of making sure you getit right, because some of these
guys I believe I can't rememberwhich one, but he said he was
(05:36):
sentenced after like 45 days ofbeing charged, which was unheard
of.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
I've never heard anything like that.
Yeah, that was the Ruel Saylorstory and I think it was the
last one, but they were allreally powerful, I think of
their own.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
What was really powerful about that was that he
said that he had such belief inthe legal system that he
cooperated through the wholething, thinking that they're
going to know this isn't me,they're going to catch the right
person, yeah.
And then he ended up going toprison and while in prison he
maintained that same thoughtprocess.
It's like they're going torealize I'm innocent, they're
going to let me out.
And he talked about how hisspirit slowly started to crumble
over the years.
(06:08):
After you know appeal requestsand records requests and all of
this gets denied.
He's like man, like am I reallygoing to get out?
Speaker 2 (06:14):
of here.
Yeah, I think there was acomponent of that to each of
them.
Does it make sense for us tokind talked about?
The play is called the LynchedAmong Us.
It is put on by the Voices ofInjustice and we'll put this in
the show notes but you can go tothat website,
voicesofinjusticecom.
They're always looking fordonations to make sure that this
gets spread far and wide.
They have a lot of goodsponsorship, of course.
(06:42):
We said we saw it at theLincoln I injustice and how
that's being amplified throughcurrent administration.
There was also we AmplifyVoices, the Greater Columbus
Arts Council let's see what'sthis one say Youth Ministry
Program and of course, theVoices of Injustice themselves.
So the first story well, firstLarice Glover hosted and he gave
his own testimony, so we'lltalk about him in a little bit.
But the first story was theMichael Sutton story, which I
think is, particularly in Ohio,is a pretty common name.
If people are thinking aboutinnocence and the Innocence
(07:04):
Project, which came up a lotthroughout the play, michael
Sutton is a name that comes uppretty frequently.
So I'm just going to read thedescription in the playbill and
then we can talk about it, ifthat makes sense to you both.
Michael Sutton was 17 when heand friends were out driving
celebrating their upcominggraduation.
On 55th and Woodland adjacentvehicle, cleveland police pulled
Michael and his friends overclaiming the boys jumped out and
(07:26):
fled the scene, shooting atthem in the process.
For the four young boys whojust witnessed the shooting,
this is where their nightmarebegins.
A compassionate judge, however,releases Michael on bond to
attend his high schoolgraduation, but the police storm
the school and arrest youngMichael, where he is booked,
afterwards convicted andsentenced to 46 years in prison.
This is a heralding story ofhow one young man with a full
scholarship and promising futureovercame the toughest trials of
his life and won.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Yeah, that's insane.
I remember him talking abouthow I mean he told the cops like
hey, you got the wrong guy.
Like I'm about to graduatetomorrow, you know, full ride,
scholarship and everything, andit's just like I said before,
like you have such faith thatthey got to notice this in me.
You know, and it't work outthat way.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
It's insane I think what was compelling about this
one in particular.
So, like we said earlier, themichael sutton played himself in
in this retelling, but also hisparents were there.
So when they showed thegraduation scene and how the
police came in and pulled himout, it was his real parents.
They're like with microphoneson crying and yelling at them to
stop it and I thought that wasreally powerful.
Maybe it's because I am aparent, but like that really got
to me in terms of his story atthe beginning of that tale.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
Yeah, michael Sutton's part of the play, as DJ
said, it was the beginningopening story.
Each of these five men were, Ibelieve, allowed to choose kind
of the artistic form that theywanted to express their story,
and so he chose it as a play andchose, like, different scenes
from.
You know everything thathappened to him.
So, as Remy said, you know itwas like him partying with his
friends and then the policearresting him, then a scene of
him at trial where the judgereleased him to go to his
(08:43):
graduation, but then immediatelyfollowing the next scene was
the graduation, where the policestormed the graduation and
arrested him in front of all hispeers and family and friends.
So each artistic expression foreach individual in this play
meant something to them.
There was some comedy to this,even though the stories are very
powerful, and so we'll get tokind of the comedic parts in a
little bit.
But I am just sitting thereremembering each of these scenes
from Michael's story and how,like you know, he played himself
(09:06):
in that interrogation room andthen the prosecutor comes in and
I believe didn't do a rap, hedid a rap, it was really good.
It was a really good rap, butit was basically to tell Michael
like listen, I don't give ashit about whether you're
innocent or not.
We're going to put somebodybehind bars, and it happens to
be you.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Directly preceding that rap was a very important,
very powerful thing.
That, um, it's one of thereasons why I think that the
public needs to be more educatedabout what goes on behind the
scenes.
And I don't know if you guyssaw the same way as I did, but
if you notice, in the verybeginning, um, michael seemed to
be very relaxed.
He was very, like, kind ofnonchalant, and they asked him
questions and he just went alongwith it.
Yeah, yeah, just went alongwith it.
Yeah, yeah, this and that.
And then it wasn't until herealized, like wait a minute,
you guys are trying to pin thison me.
(09:45):
And they were just like, yeah,basically, like it's you, nobody
else, and this is what it'sgonna be.
And once he realized like therewas nothing he could say to get
out of that, like that was whenit was like, oh man, like let
me take this serious.
And the reason why I say thatthat's a very powerful moment is
because there are a lot ofpeople who go through this and
they have trust in the legalsystem and they think that I'm
just here to help you guys.
And then they've already saidby the time they take it
(10:06):
seriously.
They've already said enoughdamaging or incriminating things
, that they pretty much for lackof a better term they fuck
themselves.
You know, and that's hard todeal with, as especially as an
18, 19 year old person, you know, with no experience a piece
that I like about the uhretelling of this was the videos
, um that they played for eachstory.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
so so particularly for Michael's story as it went
through his time in prison andhow he kind of got through his
mental demons and those kinds ofthings, I appreciated the video
they also played in thebackground with some music to
that, particularly the livefootage of when he got released.
I think that was reallypowerful.
It wasn't just a scene of himgetting out, they showed the
media there helping him get out.
And I thought it was fun becauseit was the same guy from the
innocence project.
Like in all three of the videos, the lawyer was the same lawyer
(10:42):
and finally made it happen, butit was 2022 and he got
convicted in 2007, so I mean, Idon't do math, so, but that's a
really long time.
It's a long time for a childwho's innocent, and I think that
you know these are contributingfactors in all of these cases,
but they were just black men inthe wrong place at the wrong
time, which calls into questionlike, where is it right to be a
black man and what time is right?
Because if you're in cell, whichis the wrong place at the wrong
(11:03):
time, we assumed it was you.
Like, what does that say aboutthe biases that are systemically
embedded?
Because, like we're talkingabout, it's the fault of the
legal system that Michael wasput behind bars in the first
place and so for him to kind ofthen, because part of it was
play, and then he came out andkind of just gave a verbal
testimony, him getting released,and I thought it was a really
(11:26):
powerful, uh, use of media andaudio and visual retelling.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
So um with michael.
There was another very umpowerful thing that he said, and
we actually talked about thisin a previous episode where we
talked about what you have tobecome to survive prison.
The prosecution and the judgedon't really care, or maybe they
don't know what type ofenvironment they send you to and
you're just a person who maybeyou're not that bad of a, maybe
you happen to have a badsituation out there, but on
paper it's very like cut and dry.
(11:48):
You know, for them they saythis was a violent crime.
You know this was X, y and Z.
So they send you to a highsecurity prison where only
violent people go.
Now here we're talking about akid that was just about to
graduate high school and go isvery you know, it's a thing
that'll get you targeted inprison, because everybody knows
you can't afford to get introuble, you know.
So he spoke about how, afterexhausting all of these avenues
(12:11):
and getting denied, eventuallyhe had to do certain things you
know, different hustles thatweren't really above board so
that he could pay his lawyer,you know, and by the time he got
out, I'm not really for certainIs this the one who said he
went to Lucasville.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
I don't remember the specifics.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
He was in solitary when his lawyer called yeah, so
I'm not sure for certain if thiswas the one, but he said he was
in solitary confinement whenhis lawyer came to get him out
of prison, which we did anepisode on Lucasville, that was
real well.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
That was the last one .
Okay, I had sorry, I will editthat out.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
No, that's okay, it's okay, we'll just clarify it
when we get there.
But I mean, the point is, though, like you're trying to maintain
your innocence, you'resurrounded by all this, you know
, negativity.
You come into a high-securityprison there's no peace, you
know, but you're trying tocooperate to get out that
actually, when we were there andI went and introduced myself to
(13:04):
them, I had let them know that,hey, man, I did 10 years in
prison and this really inspiredme and stuff.
But I felt it was important tolet them know, like what I did,
what I went to prison for, justso we don't think we're gonna
bond over this innocence, youknow, and so like, because I
said before I would hate to tellsomebody like that I understand
what you're going through, whenI have no lived experience of
that matter.
So it was, it was powerful andit really really opened my eyes
to a lot, so much stuff thateven I didn't know.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Yeah, you kept saying Remy maintain his innocence.
And I've just been thinkingabout that ever since we saw the
play, because I can't evenbegin to comprehend the
psychological turmoil that thesemen have faced and their
experiences to be sent to prison, wrongfully convicted, and
almost no one I mean, you know,like general public and
institution-wise, you know maybeyour family believes you but
(13:43):
almost no one to be on your sideand to feel that powerless but
then, at the same point in time,to know innately that you
didn't do anything wrong.
I mean that is just like somekind of meta level of like
gaslighting that I don't thinkhopefully anyone listening or,
you know, any friend of thispodcast will ever have to
experience in their lifetime.
But it happens and you know wehave in America, of course, I'm
(14:13):
sure you've mentioned this inthe podcast before but the
presumption of innocence ends.
So while Michael and all thesemen were being held for
questioning, before they werearrested formally or before they
were sentenced or convicted,they were all supposed to be,
under the law, presumed innocent.
So the idea of maintaining one'sinnocence is just so crazy.
To a I have to maintain a?
Um argumentative stance or abelief in that.
It's like I'm factuallyinnocent like michael was
factually innocent in his caseand it like I.
I again can't comprehend howyou deal with that, on top of
(14:35):
the layers of trauma and stuffthat you're facing um being sent
to any kind of correctionalfacility.
Um being unable to see thepeople that you love or care
about, um at most, almost everyday of your life, not being able
to communicate with the outsideworld, missing out on
opportunities that you wereabout to have, such as, in
Michael's case, the fact that hewas about to go to college on a
full ride.
We can't, there's no way torepair the damage that was done
(14:57):
in these cases, and so thatmeans to me it's more important
that we get these messages outand people understand that it
happens, and the fact that evenone person is sent to innocent
that is innocent, is sent toprison, is an atrocity.
It's something akin to some ofthe worst human rights
violations I can think of.
Yeah absolutely.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I try to be objective and understand that it's no way
to be 100% sure With the waythe legal system is set up.
Of course there's going to besome people who slip in there,
who are wrongfully convicted.
For me, I hate the way thatthey have to go to all these
extents to prove their innocenceand in some cases they prove it
and still have to stay in therebecause of the process, the
formal process you have to gothrough.
(15:35):
So there was one guy I'm sorrymy memory isn't the best so I
can't really remember whosestory it was but he said he went
to the parole board and theparole board had zero sympathy
for him because he would notshow remorse, which is one of
the big things that the paroleboard wants to see if they want
to decide to let you go.
But they were saying we can'tlet you go, you haven't shown
any remorse.
And he's like I didn't do it.
And they're like well, go backand think about it, do some more
(15:57):
time.
It's on them to collect andhunt down the information that
will prove their innocence, andthey have to do it all from a
jail cell.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah, do you want to talk about the next piece?
So the next component was atestimony.
So Larise Glover gave thattestimony.
He was also the host of theEvening, so not Charles' story,
it wasn't theatrical, he juststood up no-transcript, broad
(16:30):
daylight and authorities quicklyidentified three teenagers luis
glover, derrick wheat andeugene johnson as the prime
suspects.
The the gunshot residue foundon Wheat's clothing, which they
argued was evidence of hisinvolvement.
However, the defense contestedthe claim, emphasizing that the
lack of forensic evidencelinking the three to the crime
(16:52):
and argued that Harris's vantagepoint made it unlikely that she
could clearly identify theshooter.
Despite these concerns, allthree teenagers were convicted
of murder and sentenced to lifein prison, with parole
eligibility after 18 years.
Years later, critical evidenceemerged that undermined the
prosecution's case.
Harris recounted her testimony,admitting that she had been
pressured by police intoidentifying them as the
defendants.
Moreover, police files thatwere never disclosed to the
defense that was my favoritepart of the story, so I want to
highlight that so that you cantell me to remember to come back
(17:13):
, because I'll forget containedrecords pointing to alternate
suspects and threats againstHudson before his murder.
These suppressed documentssuggested that authorities may
have ignored other leads intheir rush to convict the three
teenagers.
With this new evidence,leverett, wheat and Johnson's
convictions were overturned in2015.
That's 20 years.
By the way, the following year,all charges were dismissed,
officially exonerating themafter they had spent two decades
behind bars for a crime theydid not commit.
Their case highlights systemicissues of wrongful convictions,
(17:36):
including unreliable witnesstestimony, prosecutorial
misconduct and the failure todisclose evidence.
I was going to get there in theend, but I appreciate that.
Yeah, I think, before anybodyelse, if it's okay.
I think what was reallycompelling to me about Louise's
testimony was about thedocuments.
I know you just started to talkabout this that they tried to
subpoena these public recordsfrom the police department for
20 years and when they finallygot like they tried and tried
(17:59):
and tried, their defense lawyersand the Innocence Project tried
and they couldn't get them.
And then they gave it like onelast hail, mary, and there'd
been transitions within thedocuments in public records
department and so they just on afluke, got them.
Uh, the last, the very lasttime they were going to request
them as an appeal um, and whenthey received the documents, the
very front page said that ifthe, if the um public records
department released the policefiles, they could be charged
with um misconduct which Ithought was super by the police
(18:21):
department, which is crazy.
So the police were threateningthe public records department,
the prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
I'm sorry the prosecutor.
The prosecutor wrote on theredo not release these or you'll
be prosecuted.
Yes, thank you, but the thingabout that which I thought was
insane was 20 years went by 20.
2-0.
These records requests were theprimary thing in the battle.
I mean, they were the firstthing you do is make requests
for the records before you evenstart fighting in other places.
So the fact that they neveracknowledged it and they didn't
(18:50):
acknowledge it, no matter howmany times they asked for it, so
I thought that was insane Ialso thought that there was um
in larissa's.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Can you hear my carbonation, is it?
I can hear you asking about it.
You should leave that too.
Um, for larissa's uh testimony,I was.
He said the statement and youalluded to this earlier.
When he um, he said that he wasa completely innocent person,
but now he has to adapt to this.
Earlier, remy, he said that hewas a completely innocent person
, but now he has to adapt tothis environment where not
everybody is and he's like so byputting me in here as an
innocent person.
I now have to become the thingyou think I am, and I thought
that was a really powerful thingabout.
(19:16):
I have to now survive in thisenvironment, so I have to become
the very thing you think orhave told me that I am, when it
never was who I was, and thatwas a really powerful takeaway.
Back to your point, jacob,about like that psychological
toll.
Like I can't imagine the mentalfortitude one would have to
take if they've never been kindof in that type of an
environment or if you'reinnocent of this thing and
you're not really caught up inthese other things, like how
eye-opening prison environmentwould be.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Uh, and you also have to change your rhetoric right,
because you have to survive inthere, you have to maintain your
safety, and so you can't evensay stuff like I'm not even
supposed to be in here, becauseyou're kind of alluding to the
fact that everybody else issupposed to be here.
What are you saying?
You're not like us, you'rebetter than us, you know.
So I mean, it's insane.
It was pretty heartbreaking totell these stories.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
I've been thinking a lot about, not just in this
context but in kind of myprofessional work and everything
about stigma and shame and kindof my own definitions would be
like shame is something, afeeling that you have, that is,
internal control.
You have internal locus control,so I can feel ashamed that I
did something usually isaccompanied by guilt, not always
because you can be ashamed thatyou're associated with
(20:15):
something you know that youmaybe don't want to be, or
something where you didn't haveany guilt or any wrongdoing, but
a lot of times it is associatedwith guilt, whereas stigma is
externally controlled and isforced upon you by other people,
by society at large, and soanyone who enters the criminal
justice system faces stigma ofsome degree.
It's usually, I assume, prettybad, because you're either found
guilty and you know you'reguilty and your life is going to
(20:36):
always be, you know a kind ofproduct of the fact that you
made this mistake and that, eventhough you might have paid for
it with prison time or whatever,it's following you the rest of
your life, or the fact that youweren't guilty but everyone
thinks you were, and so you knowlike him, well, all these men,
but um, in this case, um, himgoing in there and having to
change who he is at the corebecause he didn't.
(20:59):
Um, he wanted to one surviveprison and but while he was
trying to still say I'm aninnocent person or keep that
belief inside himself.
That to me is just like anegregious form of stigma.
Like how, how does one copewith that, knowing that I can't
control that everyone perceivesme this way, even though I, you
know they shouldn't?
They shouldn't perceive me thatway and um, that almost causes
you, I would think, to have somekind of shame.
(21:21):
That isn't, that's unfounded,like the shame shouldn't be
there.
But you, I, people in asituation could go through some
kind of shame feeling becausethey are starting to believe,
because they're in a situation,that they are what people tell
them they are.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
I think that kind of piggybacks with your other
comment about the mental assault.
We're not talking about acouple weeks, a couple months or
even a couple years.
We're talking about decades.
That somebody is beingassaulted with their reality.
That is unfounded.
That somebody's being assaultedwith their reality.
That is unfounded.
And not only are youapproaching the legal system
which you are petitioning toadvocate on your behalf because
you're innocent.
You think, hey, you guys shouldget this right, you should make
(21:54):
it right.
But when you approach thesystem like that, they're like
everybody says they're innocent.
You know you're just anotherperson who's coming trying to
get over the system.
You know no-transcript.
But really even your family,after a decade and a half, two
decades, and they're seeing howmuch fight you're putting up and
(22:15):
you're getting nowhere eventhem they will probably start to
think like, yeah, maybe they doit.
And that's sad, that's really.
Over the years many people comeand go in your support circle
and they themselves have amental battle to deal with.
Their peers are out there likenow are you?
Why are you supporting that guy?
You know a story like this I'msure made the news.
People are like, why are yousupporting that guy?
(22:35):
Hey, I'm sure he did.
You know, it's not until youfinally make it out.
You, you know, you uh emergedvictorious.
That then all the naysayersstarted oh man, we always knew
the whole time.
You know, thank goodness hemade it home, but I'm sure there
were many people that were likehe was in the center of this.
It used to be kind of sneaky.
I've heard people say the mostridiculous things.
I remember a time he stole acandy bar Get the fuck out of
(22:56):
here.
Or even stuff that's prettystereotypical, chewing out stuff
Like oh man, I remember Icaught them skipping school one
time.
Yeah, but skipping school isnot a murder.
Let's just not try to relatethe two, you know, and let's
just look at the evidence forwhat it is, because people will
even come to those terms inspite of the evidence that
they're in.
They'll just use the fact thatthey haven't gotten out yet to
(23:17):
justify in their mind that maybethey are guilty.
That's sad.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
It is sad.
Real quick I want to interjectwith a I recently came across
well, was made aware, I shouldsay, of a framework that is
called the social safety theoryand basically it's the idea that
minority people especially facea lot of cumulative or
multiplicative stress in theirlifetimes and so that, you know,
can contribute to really badmental health and physical
health outcomes across thelifespan.
But also that there's this factof social safety where you know
(23:41):
if people are in an environmentthey feel are associated with
safety, or they're with someonethat they feel are associated
with safety, then that can helpimprove their outcomes and their
functioning overall.
So now, incorporating that intowhat you're saying, like I'm
wondering and I would like toask people that have gone
through this experience, like,did you at any point at least
have one person that you feltlike was in your corner the
whole time?
Because I would be like, fromthe social safety perspective,
(24:04):
if you have at least one person,then you're more likely to
maintain resiliency.
There's that buzzword again,which I am, so you know, I want
to kind of shout out to peoplethat I wish there was a world
where they didn't have tomaintain resiliency, that you
know people didn't have tosuffer and then be told that you
know they're a better personbecause of it, like that's
terrible.
(24:24):
We should want better for allhumanity, but given that that's
the state of the world thatwe're in, I think that people
that are in prison, andespecially those who are
wrongfully convicted and sent toprison, if they have even one
person you know inside, outside,you know whatever that they
feel like, is still fighting forthem, still believing in them,
I would guess that they wouldfare better.
(24:44):
Of course, that's all relativeto the total outcome of the
experience, whether theyactually make it out of prison
or if they go through theirentire sentence and are finally
released on parole or something,but in this case, I hope that
he had someone that he couldstill believe in, and I believe
in him, I hope he does.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Usually that person in a situation when it comes to
incarceration usually thatperson is your parents, but we
have to recognize that noteverybody has parents Correct.
Also, when you talk aboutresiliency, we have to
understand that not everybodykeeps their parents through the
situation Correct Two decades.
I know plenty of people whohave done a lot less than two
decades in prison, who have losttheir parents or grandparents,
which was another story.
(25:20):
Yeah, he talked, I forget whosestory it was, but gentleman
released and he was able to gosee his mom and it was his
mother was, uh, in a coma, yeah,and he got to hold her hand and
speak to her and she woke upand, uh, I think she she lived
for a few more months, I thinkthat was also real well, uh,
because charles had the kidney,the kidney transplant yeah,
charles got to give a kidney tohis nephew.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Yep, but I think it was real story.
But I'm gonna, yeah, yeah,sorry, keep going.
Oh, it's cool.
I was just trying to rememberwhose name it was so we could
attach it sorry, it's like threeor four weeks ago at this point
we don't have super bad memoryand the thing that you talked
about, um, kind of looks like.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
When you talk about um, these guys experiences, I
mean, they're all innocent,regardless of what walk of life
they had.
I mean, some of them were justlike young school kids, um, who
had the most innocent of stories.
Some one guy, um, I think wasreal who said, like I was a
street guy, you know, I didn'tdo this crime, but I was in the
streets.
So, yes, he at least owned andknew what he was and what
(26:13):
situation he was in.
But my point is there's allthis talk about black people or
low-income people don't trustlaw enforcement.
And when you talk aboutresiliency and how we praise
these guys for making it out, wehave to understand that yes,
they made it out, but theydidn't make it out unscathed.
They lost a lot more than justthe years.
The people Like they have scarsfrom the situation and when you
already come from a place whereyou don't really trust law
(26:35):
enforcement, the fact that theydid and that they gave them
their trust and thought thatthey would get them out of the
situation is kind of a testamentto itself of why people don't.
I've always heard people say,well, why wouldn't you?
You live in a high crime rate.
Why wouldn't you trust lawenforcement?
I think me and you actually,debbie when, early in our
relationship, I believe, we hada conversation where I told you
I feel more safe in the hoodthan I do in the suburbs or than
(26:55):
I do in rural areas.
I'll go somewhere where I canclearly hear gunshots in the
background and I was like coolas a cucumber, but driving into
the suburbs is giving me anxiety.
When I'm like, uh, you know,make sure you see me.
I was like, well, we'll givehim no reason to pull us over,
you know, because you never know, as soon as you have that law
enforcement situation, whetheryou know you fit the description
(27:16):
of somebody they're looking for.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
And of course, you have it no-transcript
(27:55):
circumstances, as remy, or thatyou know you've never been to
prison yourself or something,then you know.
Also think about the differentways that people might
experience the same kind oftrauma.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
I mean, I really myself, I don't, really.
I don't really let it bother mea lot, except for times when
I'm with my kids, because Iwould hate for my kids to have
to witness something like that.
But what we're talking about is, yeah, I have a criminal record
, we all know that.
But when you get pulled overand they run my plates, when I
(28:23):
get pulled over and they run myplates, man, I got insurance to
the max.
I'm gainfully employed, I domentorship, I do all this stuff.
I am a perfect model of acitizen.
I pay my taxes.
I can't say I go to church toomuch, but whatever, what I'm
trying to say is, theoretically,I have zero to worry about,
absolutely nothing to worryabout when I get pulled over.
But when I get pulled over, Igot a lot to worry about,
because the first thing that'sgoing to come up beside my name,
(28:44):
I'm sure, is going to say thatI'm a violent felon.
I have criminal history.
They don't care that that was16, 17 years ago.
They're like, oh, okay, so nowthey're walking into their car
with their hand on their pistolor something.
That's the same for people whohave citizenship issues or
anything else Like, oh, theyhave an accent.
Well, now they're probablythinking like, oh shit, I hope
this cop doesn't think I'm anillegal.
You know, just try to give me ahard time when they themselves
(29:07):
also should have zero to worryabout, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
So I just wanted to recall we were talking about an
individual whose mom was sick.
That was Lamont Clark, and sowe're going to talk about Lamont
at the end, but just want tomake sure we're putting the
right names to things.
So I did some back researchwhile we were talking that
through.
The next story is when you'retalking about injecting a little
bit of humor.
So the next story was theCharles Jackson story, and so
I'm going to read the bio and wecan talk about how Charles
chose to showcase his story.
(29:30):
So Charles Jackson.
Fifteen-year-old Charles Jacksonlived in fear of his older
brother, tony, whose addictionhad altered his behavior.
But when Charles' young nephew,houston, bravely stood up to
Tony, they both realized they'rethe true source of his
intimidating behavior the gripof addiction.
Charles' love and admirationfor Tony remained unwavering,
but he struggled to reconcilethat with the harm caused by his
addiction.
This pain and experience forgedan unbreakable bond between
(29:51):
Houston and Charles, one thatwould last a lifetime.
Charles Jackson's life took adevastating turn when he was
falsely accused and framed bypolice for a murder he did not
commit.
Despite having two policeofficers as his alibis, charles
was persuaded by his publicdefenders to withhold this
crucial evidence from the jury.
The consequences were dire.
Charles was convicted andsentenced to 30 years to life in
prison.
While Charles languished behindbars, his nephew Houston's
health began to deterioraterapidly.
Houston's kidneys were failingand he was forced to undergo
(30:13):
dialysis.
Charles, aware that he was amatching donor, was tormented by
his inability to help.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Charles.
I appreciate it, charles'injection of humor into a story.
No-transcript.
Be a donor.
Um, the lawyers, I mean when hetalked about, hey, the officer
(30:41):
out there at the desk, it's myalibi, I go talk to them.
And his lawyers told himstraight up, like you can't say
you were running from a cop andthat's why you didn't commit
this murder.
But it was true.
But it was true.
I mean, he said, like you know,hey, I stumbled out of the bar
and these two cops approached meand I ran, mm-hmm.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
But obviously, and they chased him, yeah, they
chased him, they were involvedin a chase with him at the same
time this murder was beingcommitted.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
It's not the best excuse, it's not the best alibi,
but it is one nonetheless.
And the fact that he just sohappened while coming to this
meeting with his lawyers, hejust so happened to pass the cop
that was chasing him.
It was like, wow, what elsecould you ask for?
And he said no.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I think what was fun I guess if there's anything fun
about Charles' story was that hewas the oldest man on the stage
and so he had to play himselfas the 27-year-old right and he
literally ran, yeah, literallyran on stage.
And then he paused because hewas out of breath, you remember.
So, like, this crime happenedin 1991, and he was 27 years old
when he got his conviction.
So I think that that'simportant because obviously it's
2025 when he's putting on thisplay and he had been out since
(31:54):
2019.
So I think we saw ineverybody's stories, but his was
more about collecting intel andstuff and making sure it was a
fun time for him.
So he sang Bohemian Rhapsodyduring a part where he was
cleaning out the prison.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
So his job in prison was cleaning the hallways, but
he just he said that being aporter was something that gave
him a bit of freedom in thereand helped him maintain his
sanity.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
But he poorly, poorly sang that song for a solid
three minutes, and it was he.
Had the crowd behind him,though, so I just On the side of
the innocence.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
You know, trying to prove his innocence, it wasn't
just the fact that he had thisaltercation with two cops and
that could be his alibi, it'sthe fact that when you have an
altercation with two policeofficers like that, it is well
documented, you know.
Obviously they knew who he was.
Although he ran, he left hiscar there, he you know.
So it's not like they could say, oh, we didn't know like the
(32:45):
car was, might have beenimpounded, even I don't remember
.
There had to be numerousrecords that would say, oh yeah,
this is what I got.
Good thing we got him, though,because now we can hold him, you
know, accountable for thisother thing.
But this isn't the fit for this.
And instead his lawyer chose tosay, no, we shouldn't tell him
that, we should just take ourchances, and that was a big
miscarriage of justice, um big.
I mean.
I don't know if anything everhappened to those lawyers from
(33:06):
like the Association or anything, but I would imagine that that
was very frowned upon.
Very, very bad advice for alawyer to give somebody.
It's a really good piece ofevidence, but we should not talk
about it at all.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
Yeah, charles' story.
Just the ridiculousness andkind of humor of the fact that
it's so crazy that he wasrunning from the cops and then
convicted for a crime whilerunning from the cops, I think
it sets the stage for the humorthat he displayed throughout.
I mean he incorporated, as DJsaid, music, his singing.
He's not going to have a careeras a singer but as an
entertainer.
Yes, he brought a lot ofentertainment to his segment of
(33:36):
the show and it definitelylivened up the crowd and helped,
because you know, like thesestories aren't just, you know,
fun they're not supposed to be.
But it helped to change thetone and provide a little bit of
relief for the remainingstories that came.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
And, as we shared with the earlier stories, there
was a mixed media method.
So, even though in his lastscene he really did run through
the audience and then back uponto the stage and those pieces,
there was also the video of himbeing released too.
Again, it was the pullback atthe end be like no, this was my
lived experience.
You know, even with the humor,my lived experience was this,
(34:13):
and here's where you can see it,because you can see me walking
out of the courtroom finally afree person.
Um, and listener, I know you'reworried.
So he did get to donate hiskidney to his nephew.
He's dead and they have alifelong relationship.
At this point, they're stillthe best of friends.
He said so.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
Um, I really loved that too so, on a latter note, I
gotta commend these guys fornot only just gaining their
freedom and that being enough,but that they all came together.
I'm not sure how they all foundeach other, but I know that
they all came together and theyall said, hey, we have to spread
the word.
You know, we have to sharethese stories because they are
very impactful, not only thepeople who have gone through it,
but for the loved ones ofpeople who have gone through it
(34:46):
and the community as a whole,because I'm sure when this made
the news, the community didn'tfeel safe.
I'm sure the community knewlike, hey, those birds are
innocent and they're gettingrailroaded.
So the fact that these guyscame out and took it upon
themselves as their mission tospread this word being free
wasn't enough for them.
I really got to commend that.
Also, I would like to give ashout out to Al Cleveland.
He's one of the guys who, uh,promotes this a lot.
(35:06):
Uh, you guys can look him up onfacebook.
He's involved in a lot of stuff.
Um, and lamont clark, who isactually the guy I was hooked up
with.
You know, we were pretty coolin there, so it's nice to see
him up on stage and uh literallyget their flowers, yeah, yeah.
But also shout out to all theseguys, man, the fact that they
would go out there and sharetheir own stories like this.
It's amazing.
I really uh encourage all youguys if you see this play going
on in your area, like, pleasegrab some tickets, have a night
(35:28):
out, go see it.
I'm pretty sure, um, you'lllearn something.
There's a lot in there thateven I haven't gone through the
system, uh didn't know.
And check out their website,voices of injustice.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
You can also check them out on facebook and
instagram was there anythingelse on charles's story we
wanted to talk about before wetransition to well?
I think we're good, proceed thatup uh, the third and final
story was that?
No, it wasn't the final story,because Lamont came up and gave
some closing remarks and told alittle bit of his story with him
and his mom, so Ruel's storywas the last one that was done
theatrically.
And so, in 2002, ruel Saylorwas wrongfully convicted of
(35:59):
murder, kidnapping and assaultin Cleveland, ohio, following
the fatal shooting of Omar Clark.
The case against Saylor was theshooter.
Another witness, larry Braxton,also identified Saylor.
So, despite Saylor maintaininghis innocence and presenting an
alibi that replaced himelsewhere at the time of the
crime, he was convicted in 2003and sentenced to 25 years to
(36:20):
life.
Years later, new evidencesurfaced proving Saylor's
innocence.
Williams admitted hisidentification had been
influenced by suggestion, andother witnesses, including
Cordell Hubbard and NicoleHubbard, provided sworn
statements supporting Saylor'salibi.
Anthony McKenzie and WilliamSizemore further corroborated
that Saylor was not present atthe crime scene.
In 2018, after spending morethan 15 years in prison,
saylor's convictions werevacated and he was released.
In 2023, he was awarded$652,000 in state compensation
(36:41):
for his wrongful conviction,highlighting the flaws in
eyewitness identification andthe devastating impact of
prosecutorial errors.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Now this story, I think, is important because this
is the story where he took thedeal right.
Yes, that's correct.
So after, let me see, he did 15years right.
So I think he said I think itwas like year 12 or 13.
He said the prosecutor came tovisit him in prison.
He also injected a little bitof comedy because he said oh,
they're coming for me and hegave all this stuff away.
(37:07):
And you know they're comingdown here themselves.
They must be here to get me out.
Gave all this stuff away.
He said.
He went into this conferenceroom and the prosecutor flat out
says we know you're innocent.
At that point, what else isthere to talk about, right,
right?
But they also said well, weknow you lied in court for your
friend and so if you sign thisplea agreement saying you know,
yeah, you lied for your friendin court, we'll call it a wash.
(37:29):
You know you'll only do thistime that you did.
You can go home.
And his lawyer is like this isreally bad advice.
As your lawyer, I will tell youthis is a shit deal, but as a
friend, I will tell you to takethe deal and fight from outside.
I thought who the hell saidsomething like that.
I wanted to stand up and screamat that moment.
Yeah, that was the mosthorrible advice ever, but he
signed the deal.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
You know I don't know that it was the most horrible
advice ever.
I'll push back because she hadtried a lot of appeal processes
and it was in the hands of likeit was up to whoever was going
to hear it or sign it, andthey've been trying for 15 years
to get an appeal heard and sothis was a deal that gave
immediate freedom or he couldhave not.
Sondra and her continued herefforts that for 15 years had
been fruitless, so I don't knowthat it was the worst advice
ever.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
From my point of view , I want to tell you why I
thought this was the worst ever.
When you admit guilt, you loseall appeal process, all appeal
power.
You cannot appeal a guiltyverdict, no matter if it was
coerced, no matter if it wasprosecution, misconduct or
anything.
You said you did it.
Nobody made you say you did it.
So by them saying we'll let yougo only if you admit to this
and accept the time you've done,as you know punishment for this
, this uh deal that you'retaking, you basically say, yeah,
(38:32):
I can go home today.
You'll never compensate me forthis time I did.
I'm still going to be a felon.
I'm still going to be you know,like you're not going to go
home a free man.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
You know you still might go home on supervision,
you like I understand, I get it,I know the depth of that, but I
think from ruel's perspective,like he shared on the stage, and
from his lawyer's viewpoint,who was his friend at that point
of over a decade and a half ofworking alongside each other,
like she could see him mentallydeteriorating, as we talked
about earlier.
He was in solitary confinementat the time of this visit from
this prosecutor and was reallystruggling with his mental
(39:00):
health and his wellness, knowinghe should be at home.
He kept his faith.
That was one of his big throughlines was his faith.
But like I understand why sheleft it up to him for advice.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
I understand why she said what she said.
It doesn't change the fact thatit was horrible advice, because
the same way he got railroadedhere right, the same way they're
trying to give him this deal tocover up their tracks and
justify what they did to him.
He goes home on supervision.
By the time he did, it would befive years of mandatory
post-release control.
What's to stop them fromviolating his parole and putting
him back in prison?
Speaker 2 (39:26):
Well, I don't know that there is any, but what's
the likelihood that he wouldn'thave gotten out at all?
I mean, there's the componentof— but if he did his whole time
?
Speaker 1 (39:33):
and got out, he would still be able to fight for the
injustice that he gone through.
If he admitted that he wasguilty and deserving of this
punishment, he would have nobasis, no grounds to stand on.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
I would have done what he did no-transcript.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
At that point I don't see and maybe I'm just living
in this idealized world, but Idon't see how they have any
power at that point If you admitto me that you know, by some
ethics or some kind of legalstandards maybe they can't do
anything directly about this.
But who's to say that somenewspaper doesn't get a hold of
this story and find out thatprosecution wrongfully convicted
(40:14):
a person and then went to saidperson and said we know you're
innocent but we're not releasingyou.
I'm sure they did not allowthat to for people, other
parties, that if you say, hey,this happened, for them to
investigate that would 100%renew my vigor.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
I think that's a really well-made point, because
I think you and I are sittinghere talking about the advice,
but in reality that's not thepart of the problem.
Prosecution was the problem andthe injustice of the system is
the complicated component here.
So, regardless of the deal hetook or didn't take, he
shouldn't have been after weknow you're innocent, right like
that.
Should.
That should have been the endof the sentence, not the
(40:50):
aftermath that followed, I guess.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
So but if you guys caught it, what I said was at
year 12 or 13 the prosecutorcame to him.
Yeah, he took the deal, stayedin prison for another two years
waiting to be released and theynever came for him.
Right, they took the signeddeal and totally forgot about
him and as he started beating ontheir door like hey, what's
going on, they said I'm gonnatake the deal back and just left
him there.
So basically they got him togive up his fight and just sit
(41:12):
and wait.
Now, who knows what that wasfor.
I mean, it could have been areelection season, who knows?
But I mean the mental warfarethat they just put on this guy.
You know the one.
Tell him hey, we know you'reinnocent.
Like, oh, my, that started out.
I would have cried right theremy God, you know, you recognize
that I'm innocent.
What else could I ask for?
(41:32):
Right, just then spring on me.
This deal was like damn, that'sa little defeating, but you
still got hope right To take thedeal.
Like you had to go through alot to convince yourself to take
that deal and then still not gohome.
That was horrible.
And we're talking about peoplewho are are I mean, if you talk
about us versus them mentality.
From their point of view,they're pillars of society,
you're the slime of the earthand we're upholding the law and
(41:53):
justice and whatnot, and they'reinflicting this upon people who
they know are innocent.
It's just cruel.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
Again, I can't speak for what his choice was, because
I'm not him and didn't gothrough what he went through.
But from the outside I wouldhave looked at him and been like
I trusted you guys that thelegal system would not convict
me because I'm an innocentperson.
And here I am, 13 years laterand now you're telling me you're
going to trust me again.
To me it was so blatant of likewhy would you make the same
mistake twice?
But again, I didn't go throughwhat he went through.
(42:21):
So, to be in his mental stateat that exact moment, I'm sure I
might have made the same choicethat you made.
I.
I might have made the samechoice that you might very well
could have made the same choice.
Speaker 1 (42:28):
This is like playing with a revolver and somebody's
like, oh, it's empty.
And then you mess around andshoot yourself in the foot and
they're like, no, the next one'sempty, don't worry about it.
You're like, how are you goingto get me this way?
It's a trigger game, it's well,I guess it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
Luckily, I renewed the fight and made it out, and I
sound a lot like my own lawyer,but they made it out with
enough life left to still enjoyWell, so I have two points to
make.
So first was Lamont Clark.
I don't know if you wanted toshare anything about him or any
other than that you knew him,but Lamont offered some closing
remarks, similarly sharing hisown case.
We talked about it a little bitearlier, about he needed to get
out because his mom was dying,had a terminal illness, and so
by the time he fought his fightso he could go home for a little
(43:10):
bit, he did get to see his momand she was in a coma and he was
able to talk to her and itwasn't very long that she passed
away, but there were—well,munt's case is a little
different and more complicatedthan the other individuals that
were part of this play, but thething that remains true is that
he had to demonstrate thisconsistent resiliency, and that
was the other point I was goingto make was we talked a lot
(43:31):
about this term resiliency andwhat it means and why it's
trendy and all these things.
So I want to give a quick shoutout to a friend of the pod,
jesse Schrader, my friend andconfidant for a long time, but
we used to do a lot of trainingaround resiliency and the term
and what we often shared withpeople was, yes, resiliency is
important, but we can'thigh-five people that are
drowning right.
We have to recognize thatpraising people for their
strength without acknowledgingthe thing that has had to make
(43:52):
them strong doesn't fix anything, and so I think that, as an
overall takeaway for me fromthis event, it was man, these
people are amazing and itshouldn't have to be like this,
and I hope that more people inthe audience kind of grappled
with that same little reality ofthese are people's lived
experiences, and the system isflawed that makes it such um.
So those are my closingthoughts.
I know we're wrapping up, so Ijust wanted to get mine in there
so that you all can say yourstoo.
Speaker 3 (44:12):
To follow up on what you just said, dj, I would just
say that, from my viewpoint,resiliency should be a thing
that we praise in individualswhen the circumstances that they
went through weren't somethingthat could be prevented.
But we too often ascriberesiliency to people that went
through preventablecircumstances, whether that be
abuse, whether that be awrongful conviction, whether
that be stigmatization bysociety.
(44:34):
These are all social constructsthat are all things that we, as
you know, as a society, couldjust like work to stop.
You know someone going througha natural disaster, such as a
hurricane or something.
You know that's terrible, butthat's not something that we can
control, and so them beingresilient in the face of that,
that is something admirable, andI'm saying that being resilient
in these cases, these othercases, isn't admirable.
I'm just saying that it driveshome BJ's point of the fact that
they shouldn't have to havebeen resilient, and so it
(44:56):
saddens me to have to give themthat admiration for something
that we put them through and Iinclude myself in that Like we
as a country, as a society, areresponsible of society are
responsible.
Speaker 1 (45:09):
I totally agree.
And to piggyback off of that,we're talking about resiliency
through something that if, giventhe opportunity, I would not go
through.
We're not talking about like,oh man, I'm Kobe Bryant, I was
in the gym three times a day andI was so resilient to overcome
this and be a whatever time NBAchampion.
We're not talking about that.
We're talking about, no, I wasplucked out of my life and
forced to go through this, andnow you're praising me for
making it through.
Yeah, I'm happy I made itthrough.
(45:30):
But if, given the opportunity,like if you ask Kobe Bryant, hey
, would you still go throughthis?
Do you think it was worth it?
He'd be like hell, yeah, I'm soglad I was resilient through
that.
But if you ask these guys, hey,would you do it again?
They're like fuck, no.
So Give them their praise and,you know, give them their
flowers, thanks for coming homeand sharing your story, but
recognize that it's notsomething that they went through
by choice.
It's not something that theywould probably choose to go
(45:51):
through again and recognizetheir losses through all of this
.
Speaker 3 (45:54):
I'd much rather live in a world where we didn't have
to put on a play call the lynchamong us.
But I'm glad I saw it and I'mglad that hopefully it's going.
It didn't happen and thesepeople didn't go to prison
wrongfully or that really almostanybody doesn't go to prison.
But that's a different episodefor the podcast.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
Thank you, jacob, for joining us to talk about this.
Thank you for inviting us toattend it with you.
I think it was really impactful.
Through each of our respectivelenses, we took different things
away from it, and it was areally good way to spend time.
Part of it Donate if you havecapacity, whether that's time,
(46:33):
whether that's monetary gifts,whether that's sharing it on
social media, whatever way youcan contribute to make sure that
this is circulated in the waythat it should be.
And, yeah, thank you forlistening.
Right, we're going to close outwith that.
Speaker 1 (46:43):
Like I said, these guys on Facebook and Instagram,
as well as the Voices of Justicepage.
Just give it a look.
I know personally, with usthree here being co-parents, it
was important to learn this, tosee this and communicate it
somehow to our children, becauseit may not impact us, but it
could impact the next generationor somebody you know.
So, like DJ said, please go totheir page.
(47:05):
Please support them however youcan, and with that we're done.
Peace.
Please go to their page.
Please support them however youcan, and with that we're done.
Peace.
Applause for you guys.
We're out of here.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com