February 19, 2021 • 27 mins
New (2019) allegations against Nacoe Brown’s defense lawyer for conspiracy give new light to claims that he may have been involved with the missing money eighteen years prior.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Somebody Somewhere is a production of Rainstream Media Incorporated. This
podcast investigates the unsolved death of Federal prosecutor Jonathan Luna
in two thousand and three. It is a true story,
but the opinions of the hosts and interviewees are simply
that opinions, not facts, and the credibility of the witnesses
and what they say is to be determined by the listener.
(00:27):
Everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court
of law. Previously on Somebody.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Somewhere rail and now if the only wonder didn't take
a paragraph therey, he was the only one that didn't
get into who's by being country.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
The FBI was embarrassed beyond description. That's something that shun
never happen, should never happen.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
Jonavan Luna's name was involved in that a prosecutor took
the money.
Speaker 5 (01:01):
I don't think so.
Speaker 6 (01:03):
And after that, I think Jonathan was not the most
favorite person on the FBI relationship list.
Speaker 7 (01:12):
This is episode six of season three The Defense Lawyer.
I'm your host David Payne. It's been ten years as
a federal prosecutor was found Edna Burgh Lecaester County.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
We will find out who did this?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Was he trying to stage some sort of attack and
went to Farris.
Speaker 7 (01:51):
On September twenty fifth, twenty nineteen, seventeen years after the
Naco Brown Bank robbery case he tried against Jonathan Luna,
defense attorney Ken Ravenel awoke the news he had been indicted.
It was a potentially shocking capstone to a storied legal
career in Baltimore, and of course WBAL investigative reporter Jane
(02:14):
Miller would be there on the courthouse steps to cover
the drama.
Speaker 8 (02:18):
Attorney Ken Ravenel has handled some of the most high
profile cases in the Baltimore area. Now he finds himself
in the limelight again, but for the wrong reason. Ravenel's
accused of helping his client, a drug dealer, and others
in a criminal conspiracy. A vague law enforcement key allegation
say Ravenel laundered money. The money laundering charge alone carries
(02:38):
up to twenty years in prison, but the third charge,
accusing Ravenel of being part of a drug conspiracy, carries
a maximum sentence of light In green Belt, I'm Jane
Millard WBALTV eleven News.
Speaker 7 (02:55):
When Ken Ravenel was indicted on conspiracy and money laundering
charges last year. Mind raised, Sure, these were only allegations,
and yes it was Baltimore, but the indictment was specific
enough to raise eyebrows, and I wanted to know what
Jane Miller could tell us about it.
Speaker 9 (03:12):
Well, the investigation in the case of Ken Ravenel had
been going on for years. First time he was raided
was I think twenty fourteen, and then in the summer
of twenty nineteen his office was again raided. But essentially
he's charged with laundering.
Speaker 7 (03:27):
Money and essentially using his law firm as a front
for law.
Speaker 9 (03:32):
Business moneys correct and funneling drug proceeds to various businesses.
This was a major league drug trafficking case. This wasn't
small local, this was nationwide, and so these questions swirled
around him for quite a bit of time about his
relationship with his clients and the money from his clients.
(03:53):
And so the primary client involved in the cases against
kenw is a drug traffic being. Drug traffic can represent it.
Speaker 7 (04:05):
Of course of interest to this story was not the
drug trafficker that Ken represented. It was the bank robber
that Jonathan Luna prosecuted and Ken defended and Naco Brown
was not happy with his representation either.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
I did come a complaint look the bar association on
him when so after my direct appeal, I did that
between two thousand and four, two thousand and six, I
did that you mentioned, And I believe that he has
something to do with everything that was going on surgrabbing
my cage and so that that didn't go over well.
And so that's who me and him had a big
(04:40):
falling out. And uh, he asked me, he other at me,
hung up on me if I haven't talked him in
the tension. And I was in Luisboro next the time.
Speaker 7 (04:49):
And here I should probably back up again to give
some context on where we're heading next. In all the
prior reporting about Naco Brown's trial, not so thinly veiled
to cogestion, was that Jonathan Luna had stolen the evidence
and that he had committed suicide because he was about
to be outed as a thief. You see, Jonathan was
(05:09):
supposed to take a polygraph test about the missing money
just two days after he went missing, and investigators theorized
he must have thought he was going to fail. And
so when Jodie and I first reached out to Naco Brown,
who was still serving time for his convictions. I wanted
to know if he had witnessed anything to support or
rebut this unsupported suspicion. Little did I know that we
(05:34):
would be breaking the news to him that his former
attorney had been indicted, a fact that could bolster an
alternative theory of what happened.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
When you originally told me about Revenuel, I was so
gon back and surprised that I really was just celebrating,
and I really didn't get to ask any questions in
prayer because I was just thanking God for that, And
so I could do that last night, and I'm gonna
(06:08):
give you some things that I think you're gonna appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (06:11):
Did Ravenel do anything in the course of the trial
that made you suspicious that he was involved?
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Yes, he literally brought I'm not actuating he literally bought
another breecase. I'm just I'm very observed, and I see
things and maybe stood the Holy Spirit telling me to
look at certain things. Well, at the end of the trial,
he bought this breecase that he never bought before, and
I realized that the pretase is a little bigger than
his normal compact breecase, you know. And so, of course, hindsight,
(06:45):
I'm looking back and say, oh my goodness, just ever
fight a day that he took the money or the
money was taken?
Speaker 6 (06:51):
What else was there that made you believe that he
wasn't on the up and out?
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Also, I didn't give him his last statement that another day,
complaining about money, complaining I give his last break. So
that was another thing.
Speaker 6 (07:05):
Are we going to get cut off here, Naco? Are
you going to be able to call back? Or are
we going to have to try again?
Speaker 4 (07:10):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (07:11):
Shit, I think they don't.
Speaker 7 (07:19):
And so it would go for the next three months
as we all waited through the twenty twenty pandemic, Nicco
Brown would take the precious ten minutes of phone time
he was allotted to call me, Hey, how's.
Speaker 6 (07:31):
It going, how are you doing? Yeah?
Speaker 7 (07:35):
And to be honest, I felt a little guilty about it.
Speaker 6 (07:39):
Mako. Yes, I don't want to take up all your
time because I don't want to take up your minutes
so that you need to contact your wife? So do
you want to try to do every other day?
Speaker 7 (07:48):
Or and so sometimes we would email too, And that
was how Naco Brown not only blew us away with
the money was stolen in the large briefcase theory, but
all so with this theory about how that alleged theft
was related to Jonathan's death.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
Are you there? Yeah?
Speaker 7 (08:07):
So let me read you what he said in the
message two days ago, three days ago.
Speaker 5 (08:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (08:14):
Now I'm going to give you something you need to
pray about and do your necessary research. As you know,
there is one rule of thumb when it comes to
solving a crime, motive an opportunity. When the money evidence
was stolen, Luna became number one suspect once he was
to see the investigation turned to his homicide. Who would
(08:35):
want him tob who ever stole the money with him?
I'm well to bet if I was a betting man,
if someone put it out there that the persons who
stole the money with Luna wanted him quick and not
take the scheduled polygraph test, had motive and opportunity. May
have a lot of people saying we did steal the money,
but did not kill anyone. Now you are close to
(08:58):
who committed the homicide.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Once again, I think someone thought that he was the
weakest link. I do, and as jollicated, I want to
be with anights issue and right diplomatic, and I wanted
to respect him, to inspect his family. But the reality is,
I think someone thought he was in the weakest link
and now wa in a situation where that he's in
(09:26):
the capability that holds an opportunity goes there, you know,
and say just one.
Speaker 7 (09:32):
Of the reason why I was as Nico recounted his story,
rattling around my brain were several key facts. First, Ken
Raveno may have been the last person to speak with Jonathan,
and someone who knew he was there that night likely
followed him out of that courthouse garage. Second, Raveno was
in a heated argument with Jonathan outside of Ned Richardson's
(09:54):
office the night he died. And Third, a courthouse colleague,
Paul hay Haselhurst, told us about Ravenol's apparent sensitivity to
his joshing when Jonathan did not show up at court
the following morning.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
And I do.
Speaker 6 (10:09):
Recall the day that Jonathan didn't show up for court
and a sort of a joking conversation with one of
the defense starneys and you know, what'd you do with Jonathan?
Speaker 5 (10:19):
You know, why is any here? I own no own
joke about that, because I think.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
You know that was their initial inclination of the US
Attorney's office was somebody from this case had something to
do with Jonathan not showing up.
Speaker 7 (10:34):
And I have to admit, NACo's theory got my mind
racing as I talked it all through with Jody.
Speaker 6 (10:40):
So NACo's theory, obviously is that somehow Luna and Ravenel
decided to take the money, and then further that had
to do with Luna getting killed on the night of
this crazy drive. Yeah, but it alls together just from
a logic standpoint. They were both in on it together
(11:01):
and Luna was getting cold feet. Maybe even Luna was
realizing that he was going to get squeezed for the
rest of his life by this guy right essentially as
blackmail material over him. If that's what happened, there were
definitely conversations on the side. Yeah, that makes sense, actually
(11:23):
more than he went and stabbed himself thirty six times.
Speaker 9 (11:26):
Well, come on, no one with a fucking pen night,
Come on.
Speaker 6 (11:30):
Yeah, ain't nobody's buying that bullshit.
Speaker 7 (11:40):
Whether anyone was buying that bullshit or the theory that
Naco was now selling was tough to say. It had
a certain logical appeal, but was completely inconsistent with what
I had learned about Jonathan, and as I started to
length the inquiry into NATO's claims, my initial skepticism was
mirrored in predicted formed by Nako himself, who wanted to
(12:02):
understand why we were interested in him.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
And you have a question for you, so you objective
in this was initially unraveled mystery, Alona, Yes, and you're
just talking about the money, or you talking about his staff,
or what.
Speaker 6 (12:19):
The depth is what we started looking at. And then
I got completely distracted by your story because of the
nature of it and how I mean it was just
your story is.
Speaker 7 (12:30):
Fascinating, and there was a reason for that distraction. The
way our research a case is to review every available
document in a courts filing system, and NACo's case file
was thick, thousands of pages, chronically not only the bank
robbery trial in two thousand and two, but all his
(12:51):
post conviction relief efforts as well, efforts that included allegations
that he had been prejudiced by the money going missing
and that he deserved a new trial. And to be honest,
when I first read through it, as a former prosecutor,
I wasn't convinced he was entitled to a do over.
Speaker 6 (13:12):
Just from a forum and I was thinking about it.
You know, it's just like, okay, some evidence went missing,
and from that standpoint, okay, well that doesn't really go
to guilt or innocence, right right, right, But when.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
You see the aftermath of the whole concept, it was
just really like when it was found to send the
money in the joy that having for the money and
the judgement, I was waiting to say, no, we don't,
we don't do that, We don't send the money in
Why not? It was evident why unless the money is gone.
Speaker 6 (13:42):
That didn't surprise me, Nako, because a lot of times
you won't send firearms into evidence. I could see them
not sending the money into evidence. So that wouldn't alarm
me as somebody looking at the case after the fact.
But what you just said about.
Speaker 7 (13:57):
But the more Naco and I talked about it, the
more my mind open to the possibility that maybe he
did deserve a new trial because of the missing money.
Speaker 6 (14:06):
But that, to me, I'd love to hear it from
your perspective, how do you think it impacted your case?
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Well, first of all, if you have a paid attorney
who is focusing more on stealing the evidence and representing
his client. Then clearly it affected me there, So what
this said this turned up missing. He did not conduct
(14:33):
himself like a defense lawyer. A defense lawyer reasonally said, hey,
you know, we need to stop this whole proceeding. Put
this in advance into at the appint the investigation. This
is like a present given to a defense lawyer. You know.
He didn't take that approach.
Speaker 6 (14:51):
It's interesting because what you just said now had more
impact on me than what was coming through the writing,
which is that he had essentially an incentive to deep
six any further conversation about that case and try to
get it over with as soon as possible. In a fact,
that's an ineffective assistance of council type of argument, right,
(15:13):
because he was worried about himself getting caught and not
proceeding Now. I think that's probably some of the challenge
with some of the pleadings.
Speaker 7 (15:31):
But while I was becoming more open to NACo's legal
arguments about deserving a new trial, I remained guarded and
prepared for the expected give and get that might accompany
Naco agreeing to tell us what he knew about who
took the money and how it might relate to Jonathan's death.
Speaker 10 (15:47):
Has he asked for your legal advice and help it.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
I'll a little bit. Yeah, not directly.
Speaker 7 (15:53):
He asked me to contact the clerk to see if
they were going to respond at one of his pending motions,
see if he could jog it.
Speaker 5 (16:00):
What's the deal with his attorney now? Is it a
quarter pointed attorney? He said he just got a new one.
Speaker 7 (16:06):
He was not happy with his last public defender, and
he went out and went around him and contacted the AUSA,
and he contacted the judge. I'm sure that didn't endear
him to his attorney.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
No, I'm sure it did not.
Speaker 5 (16:18):
That usually doesn't.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
Go over well.
Speaker 10 (16:20):
No.
Speaker 7 (16:25):
But even though I didn't think his legal strategies were
serving him well, reading through year after year of pro
say letters and petitions for relief, something changed in my
assessment of his situation. For Starters, Despite the fact that
I didn't think the stolen evidence impacted the proper adjudication
of guilt, I came to sympathize with his jobsy and
(16:47):
efforts to simply get someone to listen to him.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
I knew that the entire process untainted all the evidence,
it would appear him under the fence had something to
do with respond like a Diffrench lawyer. But I was
thinking about some of the things that we talked about
last time, and one of the things that stood out
in my appill process is Judge Motts took Just David's place,
(17:17):
So Judge Monts became my judge. Everything that I put
in mean to not everything. So when I got the
FBI discovery and discover that he too was interviewed and
him and Just David had a relationship, I was kind
of shocked with that. And even up to today, it's
(17:39):
a sense of my appeals is not going to go
but so far because they don't want to bring it up.
You know. It's like it's a very touchy subject, very
sensitive subject with Luna being deceased and the question mark
over that the FBI is saying one thing and then
(18:01):
so I believe that my case was like right in
the middle of an unresolved issue, you know.
Speaker 7 (18:11):
And Nako is probably right to be concerned, but maybe
not for the reasons he thinks. The reality is that
judges and lawyers in every court system will always give
themselves the benefit of the doubt. And you cannot reasonably
expect the same for members of the opposing team. So
it is not really surprising that claims by a convicted
(18:32):
bank robber that a star lawyer took the money did
not land in that community, even if members of the
press had an inkling.
Speaker 10 (18:41):
Yeah, I mean, Ken's a really interesting question. I guess
I was never a reporter who loved off the record
or on background. But I will say, you know, he
was a hustler, right like he was on every case.
He was everywhere, and he was funny. He was a
little flashy, and he he was smart, he was quick.
Speaker 5 (19:01):
I really liked Ken. It's funny.
Speaker 10 (19:03):
He was a source in kind of the same way
Jonathan was. Like he had a good case. He wanted
to make sure you knew about it. But I guess
I would say that it's not an enormous surprise to
hear that he's involved in a case on the other side.
Speaker 6 (19:16):
Now.
Speaker 7 (19:20):
But if Ken was on your team, the legal profession team,
then like any tribe, you close ranks, and you have
to look no further than at Ravenel's twenty nineteen indictment
to see how cautious the bar is in rendering judgment
on one of its own, Judge Andre Davis.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
I'll start by just disclosing that Ken came to me
some time ago to ask whether I would testify as
a character witness if and when the proceedings get to
that point.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
And my answer to him was, you give me a subpoena.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
I will show up and I will test so if
I to my knowledge of your reputation and your good character.
Speaker 5 (20:05):
And I stand by that.
Speaker 7 (20:07):
And it wasn't just the judge who was approached for
and agreed to give a good character affidavit for Ravenel.
It was members of the defense bar as well.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
And Ravenel contacted me and a number of other attorneys
that did federal work and asked that I would do
an affidavit for him about what I knew about him.
And essentially, you know, the affidavit was, you know, I've
known him, his reputation. You know he has a reputation
of being a very good criminal offense attorney. I know
(20:40):
nothing about him ever being.
Speaker 7 (20:41):
And as these things go, it is natural to want
to believe the best of the people.
Speaker 6 (20:46):
You know.
Speaker 7 (20:47):
Attorney Paul hazlehursts view about Ravenel pretty much capture the sentiment, and.
Speaker 6 (20:53):
I can't comment on what the government's accusing of him.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Now.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
I find it hard to believe. He's a smart, smart guy,
and I think.
Speaker 6 (21:01):
He knows where the traps would be and he would
not get himself into that kind of trouble.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
So I have a hard time believing if any substance there.
But again I have admirer Kenny, and I think, you know.
Speaker 6 (21:12):
In terms of his professionals go, he's a good at term.
Speaker 7 (21:17):
Of course, this being Baltimore, the plot of what may
have been going on behind the scenes is much thicker
than just lawyers reflexibly standing up for one another.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
I should also tell you that do you know the
name Josh Tream?
Speaker 9 (21:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 7 (21:31):
How do I know that name?
Speaker 5 (21:33):
So?
Speaker 3 (21:34):
Josh is a very very distinguished lawyer in the Maryland
bar has been for going on fifty years, probably not
quite fifty. He represented Ken during the prolonged investigation, and
it has come to pass that the US Attorney's Office
(21:57):
has targeted.
Speaker 5 (21:59):
Josh, and the FBI.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Executed a search warrant at Josh Trem's law firm, Wow
seizing yes, Wow, seizing records related to Josh's representation of Ken.
Ravenel so it's been a real shit shows.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
It's a real mess. The matter went up to the fourth.
Speaker 7 (22:24):
Thirty game, and the fact that Josh Trem, the lawyer
for Naco Brown's lawyer, has now in twenty twenty one,
been added to a superseding conspiracy indictment with his client
Ken Ravenel, makes it even messier for our purposes because
the guy who was originally overseeing the Ravenel case for
the government, the guy who was negotiating a potential plea
(22:46):
of Ravenel with his now indicted council and co defended
Josh Trem, was James Warwick, the same AUSA who approved
dropping the alleged related murder charge in the Stash House
records case the night John and died.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
You know, the original search warrant of Kin's former law
firm was now more than five years ago.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
So this investigation has just dragged on.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Beyond anything anybody around here has ever seen. I mean,
I understand, of course, for an investigation like this, you
got to get approvals at the highest level of the
Justice Department, of course, But a four or five or
six year investigation of a criminal defense lawyer based on
allegations of his former client.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
We've never seen anything like this around here.
Speaker 7 (23:43):
And while the judge can't explain the actions of the
Justice Department that he once served in, as well as
a simple testament to the strength of the legal brotherhood,
he's still willing to give his brethren the benefit of
the doubt.
Speaker 5 (23:56):
And so just.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Last week I agreed to add add my name to
a letter which a bunch of us who are former
assistant US attorneys and practitioners around Baltimore who know Josh,
to attest to Josh's good character. You just aren't going
to find a criminal defense practitioner anywhere in Maryland in
(24:19):
Baltimore were highly regarded than Josh Treen. I mean, we
were talking about Jonathan Luna just now. But the idea
that Josh Treen at this stage in his career would
cross some line in the representation of a lawyer, it's
just unthinkable.
Speaker 7 (24:40):
So is it really any wonder then that the lawyers
of the FBI and US Attorney's Office might not take
up the bank robbers' claims that a lawyer or too
crossed the line in his case. But Baltimore attorneys are
not the only troops that stick together when challenged for
as I would learn Naco was building his own army
(25:00):
in prison as well. Next time on Somebody Somewhere, he.
Speaker 11 (25:14):
Said, Man, I'd be praying in the spirits and I
see things, so you know, we're like, yeah, right, whatever.
And if you could just see how impactful that Nako was.
I seen supernatural kill and take place for the men
there you're always skeptical about, you know, how truthful they being?
Speaker 5 (25:31):
Is he just trying to get out?
Speaker 2 (25:33):
Everybody had their eye on him to see, hey, this
is really a man of God. Now what you need
to ask Nickele? How many don't call the coronavirus where.
Speaker 5 (25:41):
He is.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
There?
Speaker 11 (25:45):
It goes the devil telling me to lie again, he says,
I'm around me, says it's all right to every Then.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
That you can get more done. You give.
Speaker 7 (26:04):
Somebody Somewhere is a production of Rainstream Media Incorporated. Sound design,
editing and mixing has been provided by Resonate Recordings. Original
score and voiceover work provided by Hallie Payne. Artwork provided
by Evan McGlenn and Kendall Payne. If you have any
information regarding the Jonathan Luna case, please contact us via
(26:25):
our website, sbswpodcast dot com. And finally, if you enjoyed
this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.
It really helps and we really appreciate it. Thank you
for listening.
Speaker 11 (26:43):
Here. God I hey you se, I'm side good izz Word.
Hello evtill I.
Speaker 5 (27:02):
Need more money
Speaker 2 (27:12):
H
Somebody Somewhere is a production of Rainstream Media Incorporated. This
podcast investigates the unsolved death of Federal prosecutor Jonathan Luna
in two thousand and three. It is a true story,
but the opinions of the hosts and interviewees are simply
that opinions, not facts, and the credibility of the witnesses
and what they say is to be determined by the listener.
(00:27):
Everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court
of law. Previously on Somebody.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Somewhere rail and now if the only wonder didn't take
a paragraph therey, he was the only one that didn't
get into who's by being country.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
The FBI was embarrassed beyond description. That's something that shun
never happen, should never happen.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
Jonavan Luna's name was involved in that a prosecutor took
the money.
Speaker 5 (01:01):
I don't think so.
Speaker 6 (01:03):
And after that, I think Jonathan was not the most
favorite person on the FBI relationship list.
Speaker 7 (01:12):
This is episode six of season three The Defense Lawyer.
I'm your host David Payne. It's been ten years as
a federal prosecutor was found Edna Burgh Lecaester County.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
We will find out who did this?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Was he trying to stage some sort of attack and
went to Farris.
Speaker 7 (01:51):
On September twenty fifth, twenty nineteen, seventeen years after the
Naco Brown Bank robbery case he tried against Jonathan Luna,
defense attorney Ken Ravenel awoke the news he had been indicted.
It was a potentially shocking capstone to a storied legal
career in Baltimore, and of course WBAL investigative reporter Jane
(02:14):
Miller would be there on the courthouse steps to cover
the drama.
Speaker 8 (02:18):
Attorney Ken Ravenel has handled some of the most high
profile cases in the Baltimore area. Now he finds himself
in the limelight again, but for the wrong reason. Ravenel's
accused of helping his client, a drug dealer, and others
in a criminal conspiracy. A vague law enforcement key allegation
say Ravenel laundered money. The money laundering charge alone carries
(02:38):
up to twenty years in prison, but the third charge,
accusing Ravenel of being part of a drug conspiracy, carries
a maximum sentence of light In green Belt, I'm Jane
Millard WBALTV eleven News.
Speaker 7 (02:55):
When Ken Ravenel was indicted on conspiracy and money laundering
charges last year. Mind raised, Sure, these were only allegations,
and yes it was Baltimore, but the indictment was specific
enough to raise eyebrows, and I wanted to know what
Jane Miller could tell us about it.
Speaker 9 (03:12):
Well, the investigation in the case of Ken Ravenel had
been going on for years. First time he was raided
was I think twenty fourteen, and then in the summer
of twenty nineteen his office was again raided. But essentially
he's charged with laundering.
Speaker 7 (03:27):
Money and essentially using his law firm as a front
for law.
Speaker 9 (03:32):
Business moneys correct and funneling drug proceeds to various businesses.
This was a major league drug trafficking case. This wasn't
small local, this was nationwide, and so these questions swirled
around him for quite a bit of time about his
relationship with his clients and the money from his clients.
(03:53):
And so the primary client involved in the cases against
kenw is a drug traffic being. Drug traffic can represent it.
Speaker 7 (04:05):
Of course of interest to this story was not the
drug trafficker that Ken represented. It was the bank robber
that Jonathan Luna prosecuted and Ken defended and Naco Brown
was not happy with his representation either.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
I did come a complaint look the bar association on
him when so after my direct appeal, I did that
between two thousand and four, two thousand and six, I
did that you mentioned, And I believe that he has
something to do with everything that was going on surgrabbing
my cage and so that that didn't go over well.
And so that's who me and him had a big
(04:40):
falling out. And uh, he asked me, he other at me,
hung up on me if I haven't talked him in
the tension. And I was in Luisboro next the time.
Speaker 7 (04:49):
And here I should probably back up again to give
some context on where we're heading next. In all the
prior reporting about Naco Brown's trial, not so thinly veiled
to cogestion, was that Jonathan Luna had stolen the evidence
and that he had committed suicide because he was about
to be outed as a thief. You see, Jonathan was
(05:09):
supposed to take a polygraph test about the missing money
just two days after he went missing, and investigators theorized
he must have thought he was going to fail. And
so when Jodie and I first reached out to Naco Brown,
who was still serving time for his convictions. I wanted
to know if he had witnessed anything to support or
rebut this unsupported suspicion. Little did I know that we
(05:34):
would be breaking the news to him that his former
attorney had been indicted, a fact that could bolster an
alternative theory of what happened.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
When you originally told me about Revenuel, I was so
gon back and surprised that I really was just celebrating,
and I really didn't get to ask any questions in
prayer because I was just thanking God for that, And
so I could do that last night, and I'm gonna
(06:08):
give you some things that I think you're gonna appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (06:11):
Did Ravenel do anything in the course of the trial
that made you suspicious that he was involved?
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Yes, he literally brought I'm not actuating he literally bought
another breecase. I'm just I'm very observed, and I see
things and maybe stood the Holy Spirit telling me to
look at certain things. Well, at the end of the trial,
he bought this breecase that he never bought before, and
I realized that the pretase is a little bigger than
his normal compact breecase, you know. And so, of course, hindsight,
(06:45):
I'm looking back and say, oh my goodness, just ever
fight a day that he took the money or the
money was taken?
Speaker 6 (06:51):
What else was there that made you believe that he
wasn't on the up and out?
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Also, I didn't give him his last statement that another day,
complaining about money, complaining I give his last break. So
that was another thing.
Speaker 6 (07:05):
Are we going to get cut off here, Naco? Are
you going to be able to call back? Or are
we going to have to try again?
Speaker 4 (07:10):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (07:11):
Shit, I think they don't.
Speaker 7 (07:19):
And so it would go for the next three months
as we all waited through the twenty twenty pandemic, Nicco
Brown would take the precious ten minutes of phone time
he was allotted to call me, Hey, how's.
Speaker 6 (07:31):
It going, how are you doing? Yeah?
Speaker 7 (07:35):
And to be honest, I felt a little guilty about it.
Speaker 6 (07:39):
Mako. Yes, I don't want to take up all your
time because I don't want to take up your minutes
so that you need to contact your wife? So do
you want to try to do every other day?
Speaker 7 (07:48):
Or and so sometimes we would email too, And that
was how Naco Brown not only blew us away with
the money was stolen in the large briefcase theory, but
all so with this theory about how that alleged theft
was related to Jonathan's death.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
Are you there? Yeah?
Speaker 7 (08:07):
So let me read you what he said in the
message two days ago, three days ago.
Speaker 5 (08:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (08:14):
Now I'm going to give you something you need to
pray about and do your necessary research. As you know,
there is one rule of thumb when it comes to
solving a crime, motive an opportunity. When the money evidence
was stolen, Luna became number one suspect once he was
to see the investigation turned to his homicide. Who would
(08:35):
want him tob who ever stole the money with him?
I'm well to bet if I was a betting man,
if someone put it out there that the persons who
stole the money with Luna wanted him quick and not
take the scheduled polygraph test, had motive and opportunity. May
have a lot of people saying we did steal the money,
but did not kill anyone. Now you are close to
(08:58):
who committed the homicide.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Once again, I think someone thought that he was the
weakest link. I do, and as jollicated, I want to
be with anights issue and right diplomatic, and I wanted
to respect him, to inspect his family. But the reality is,
I think someone thought he was in the weakest link
and now wa in a situation where that he's in
(09:26):
the capability that holds an opportunity goes there, you know,
and say just one.
Speaker 7 (09:32):
Of the reason why I was as Nico recounted his story,
rattling around my brain were several key facts. First, Ken
Raveno may have been the last person to speak with Jonathan,
and someone who knew he was there that night likely
followed him out of that courthouse garage. Second, Raveno was
in a heated argument with Jonathan outside of Ned Richardson's
(09:54):
office the night he died. And Third, a courthouse colleague,
Paul hay Haselhurst, told us about Ravenol's apparent sensitivity to
his joshing when Jonathan did not show up at court
the following morning.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
And I do.
Speaker 6 (10:09):
Recall the day that Jonathan didn't show up for court
and a sort of a joking conversation with one of
the defense starneys and you know, what'd you do with Jonathan?
Speaker 5 (10:19):
You know, why is any here? I own no own
joke about that, because I think.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
You know that was their initial inclination of the US
Attorney's office was somebody from this case had something to
do with Jonathan not showing up.
Speaker 7 (10:34):
And I have to admit, NACo's theory got my mind
racing as I talked it all through with Jody.
Speaker 6 (10:40):
So NACo's theory, obviously is that somehow Luna and Ravenel
decided to take the money, and then further that had
to do with Luna getting killed on the night of
this crazy drive. Yeah, but it alls together just from
a logic standpoint. They were both in on it together
(11:01):
and Luna was getting cold feet. Maybe even Luna was
realizing that he was going to get squeezed for the
rest of his life by this guy right essentially as
blackmail material over him. If that's what happened, there were
definitely conversations on the side. Yeah, that makes sense, actually
(11:23):
more than he went and stabbed himself thirty six times.
Speaker 9 (11:26):
Well, come on, no one with a fucking pen night,
Come on.
Speaker 6 (11:30):
Yeah, ain't nobody's buying that bullshit.
Speaker 7 (11:40):
Whether anyone was buying that bullshit or the theory that
Naco was now selling was tough to say. It had
a certain logical appeal, but was completely inconsistent with what
I had learned about Jonathan, and as I started to
length the inquiry into NATO's claims, my initial skepticism was
mirrored in predicted formed by Nako himself, who wanted to
(12:02):
understand why we were interested in him.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
And you have a question for you, so you objective
in this was initially unraveled mystery, Alona, Yes, and you're
just talking about the money, or you talking about his staff,
or what.
Speaker 6 (12:19):
The depth is what we started looking at. And then
I got completely distracted by your story because of the
nature of it and how I mean it was just
your story is.
Speaker 7 (12:30):
Fascinating, and there was a reason for that distraction. The
way our research a case is to review every available
document in a courts filing system, and NACo's case file
was thick, thousands of pages, chronically not only the bank
robbery trial in two thousand and two, but all his
(12:51):
post conviction relief efforts as well, efforts that included allegations
that he had been prejudiced by the money going missing
and that he deserved a new trial. And to be honest,
when I first read through it, as a former prosecutor,
I wasn't convinced he was entitled to a do over.
Speaker 6 (13:12):
Just from a forum and I was thinking about it.
You know, it's just like, okay, some evidence went missing,
and from that standpoint, okay, well that doesn't really go
to guilt or innocence, right right, right, But when.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
You see the aftermath of the whole concept, it was
just really like when it was found to send the
money in the joy that having for the money and
the judgement, I was waiting to say, no, we don't,
we don't do that, We don't send the money in
Why not? It was evident why unless the money is gone.
Speaker 6 (13:42):
That didn't surprise me, Nako, because a lot of times
you won't send firearms into evidence. I could see them
not sending the money into evidence. So that wouldn't alarm
me as somebody looking at the case after the fact.
But what you just said about.
Speaker 7 (13:57):
But the more Naco and I talked about it, the
more my mind open to the possibility that maybe he
did deserve a new trial because of the missing money.
Speaker 6 (14:06):
But that, to me, I'd love to hear it from
your perspective, how do you think it impacted your case?
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Well, first of all, if you have a paid attorney
who is focusing more on stealing the evidence and representing
his client. Then clearly it affected me there, So what
this said this turned up missing. He did not conduct
(14:33):
himself like a defense lawyer. A defense lawyer reasonally said, hey,
you know, we need to stop this whole proceeding. Put
this in advance into at the appint the investigation. This
is like a present given to a defense lawyer. You know.
He didn't take that approach.
Speaker 6 (14:51):
It's interesting because what you just said now had more
impact on me than what was coming through the writing,
which is that he had essentially an incentive to deep
six any further conversation about that case and try to
get it over with as soon as possible. In a fact,
that's an ineffective assistance of council type of argument, right,
(15:13):
because he was worried about himself getting caught and not
proceeding Now. I think that's probably some of the challenge
with some of the pleadings.
Speaker 7 (15:31):
But while I was becoming more open to NACo's legal
arguments about deserving a new trial, I remained guarded and
prepared for the expected give and get that might accompany
Naco agreeing to tell us what he knew about who
took the money and how it might relate to Jonathan's death.
Speaker 10 (15:47):
Has he asked for your legal advice and help it.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
I'll a little bit. Yeah, not directly.
Speaker 7 (15:53):
He asked me to contact the clerk to see if
they were going to respond at one of his pending motions,
see if he could jog it.
Speaker 5 (16:00):
What's the deal with his attorney now? Is it a
quarter pointed attorney? He said he just got a new one.
Speaker 7 (16:06):
He was not happy with his last public defender, and
he went out and went around him and contacted the AUSA,
and he contacted the judge. I'm sure that didn't endear
him to his attorney.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
No, I'm sure it did not.
Speaker 5 (16:18):
That usually doesn't.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
Go over well.
Speaker 10 (16:20):
No.
Speaker 7 (16:25):
But even though I didn't think his legal strategies were
serving him well, reading through year after year of pro
say letters and petitions for relief, something changed in my
assessment of his situation. For Starters, Despite the fact that
I didn't think the stolen evidence impacted the proper adjudication
of guilt, I came to sympathize with his jobsy and
(16:47):
efforts to simply get someone to listen to him.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
I knew that the entire process untainted all the evidence,
it would appear him under the fence had something to
do with respond like a Diffrench lawyer. But I was
thinking about some of the things that we talked about
last time, and one of the things that stood out
in my appill process is Judge Motts took Just David's place,
(17:17):
So Judge Monts became my judge. Everything that I put
in mean to not everything. So when I got the
FBI discovery and discover that he too was interviewed and
him and Just David had a relationship, I was kind
of shocked with that. And even up to today, it's
(17:39):
a sense of my appeals is not going to go
but so far because they don't want to bring it up.
You know. It's like it's a very touchy subject, very
sensitive subject with Luna being deceased and the question mark
over that the FBI is saying one thing and then
(18:01):
so I believe that my case was like right in
the middle of an unresolved issue, you know.
Speaker 7 (18:11):
And Nako is probably right to be concerned, but maybe
not for the reasons he thinks. The reality is that
judges and lawyers in every court system will always give
themselves the benefit of the doubt. And you cannot reasonably
expect the same for members of the opposing team. So
it is not really surprising that claims by a convicted
(18:32):
bank robber that a star lawyer took the money did
not land in that community, even if members of the
press had an inkling.
Speaker 10 (18:41):
Yeah, I mean, Ken's a really interesting question. I guess
I was never a reporter who loved off the record
or on background. But I will say, you know, he
was a hustler, right like he was on every case.
He was everywhere, and he was funny. He was a
little flashy, and he he was smart, he was quick.
Speaker 5 (19:01):
I really liked Ken. It's funny.
Speaker 10 (19:03):
He was a source in kind of the same way
Jonathan was. Like he had a good case. He wanted
to make sure you knew about it. But I guess
I would say that it's not an enormous surprise to
hear that he's involved in a case on the other side.
Speaker 6 (19:16):
Now.
Speaker 7 (19:20):
But if Ken was on your team, the legal profession team,
then like any tribe, you close ranks, and you have
to look no further than at Ravenel's twenty nineteen indictment
to see how cautious the bar is in rendering judgment
on one of its own, Judge Andre Davis.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
I'll start by just disclosing that Ken came to me
some time ago to ask whether I would testify as
a character witness if and when the proceedings get to
that point.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
And my answer to him was, you give me a subpoena.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
I will show up and I will test so if
I to my knowledge of your reputation and your good character.
Speaker 5 (20:05):
And I stand by that.
Speaker 7 (20:07):
And it wasn't just the judge who was approached for
and agreed to give a good character affidavit for Ravenel.
It was members of the defense bar as well.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
And Ravenel contacted me and a number of other attorneys
that did federal work and asked that I would do
an affidavit for him about what I knew about him.
And essentially, you know, the affidavit was, you know, I've
known him, his reputation. You know he has a reputation
of being a very good criminal offense attorney. I know
(20:40):
nothing about him ever being.
Speaker 7 (20:41):
And as these things go, it is natural to want
to believe the best of the people.
Speaker 6 (20:46):
You know.
Speaker 7 (20:47):
Attorney Paul hazlehursts view about Ravenel pretty much capture the sentiment, and.
Speaker 6 (20:53):
I can't comment on what the government's accusing of him.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Now.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
I find it hard to believe. He's a smart, smart guy,
and I think.
Speaker 6 (21:01):
He knows where the traps would be and he would
not get himself into that kind of trouble.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
So I have a hard time believing if any substance there.
But again I have admirer Kenny, and I think, you know.
Speaker 6 (21:12):
In terms of his professionals go, he's a good at term.
Speaker 7 (21:17):
Of course, this being Baltimore, the plot of what may
have been going on behind the scenes is much thicker
than just lawyers reflexibly standing up for one another.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
I should also tell you that do you know the
name Josh Tream?
Speaker 9 (21:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 7 (21:31):
How do I know that name?
Speaker 5 (21:33):
So?
Speaker 3 (21:34):
Josh is a very very distinguished lawyer in the Maryland
bar has been for going on fifty years, probably not
quite fifty. He represented Ken during the prolonged investigation, and
it has come to pass that the US Attorney's Office
(21:57):
has targeted.
Speaker 5 (21:59):
Josh, and the FBI.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Executed a search warrant at Josh Trem's law firm, Wow
seizing yes, Wow, seizing records related to Josh's representation of Ken.
Ravenel so it's been a real shit shows.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
It's a real mess. The matter went up to the fourth.
Speaker 7 (22:24):
Thirty game, and the fact that Josh Trem, the lawyer
for Naco Brown's lawyer, has now in twenty twenty one,
been added to a superseding conspiracy indictment with his client
Ken Ravenel, makes it even messier for our purposes because
the guy who was originally overseeing the Ravenel case for
the government, the guy who was negotiating a potential plea
(22:46):
of Ravenel with his now indicted council and co defended
Josh Trem, was James Warwick, the same AUSA who approved
dropping the alleged related murder charge in the Stash House
records case the night John and died.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
You know, the original search warrant of Kin's former law
firm was now more than five years ago.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
So this investigation has just dragged on.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Beyond anything anybody around here has ever seen. I mean,
I understand, of course, for an investigation like this, you
got to get approvals at the highest level of the
Justice Department, of course, But a four or five or
six year investigation of a criminal defense lawyer based on
allegations of his former client.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
We've never seen anything like this around here.
Speaker 7 (23:43):
And while the judge can't explain the actions of the
Justice Department that he once served in, as well as
a simple testament to the strength of the legal brotherhood,
he's still willing to give his brethren the benefit of
the doubt.
Speaker 5 (23:56):
And so just.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Last week I agreed to add add my name to
a letter which a bunch of us who are former
assistant US attorneys and practitioners around Baltimore who know Josh,
to attest to Josh's good character. You just aren't going
to find a criminal defense practitioner anywhere in Maryland in
(24:19):
Baltimore were highly regarded than Josh Treen. I mean, we
were talking about Jonathan Luna just now. But the idea
that Josh Treen at this stage in his career would
cross some line in the representation of a lawyer, it's
just unthinkable.
Speaker 7 (24:40):
So is it really any wonder then that the lawyers
of the FBI and US Attorney's Office might not take
up the bank robbers' claims that a lawyer or too
crossed the line in his case. But Baltimore attorneys are
not the only troops that stick together when challenged for
as I would learn Naco was building his own army
(25:00):
in prison as well. Next time on Somebody Somewhere, he.
Speaker 11 (25:14):
Said, Man, I'd be praying in the spirits and I
see things, so you know, we're like, yeah, right, whatever.
And if you could just see how impactful that Nako was.
I seen supernatural kill and take place for the men
there you're always skeptical about, you know, how truthful they being?
Speaker 5 (25:31):
Is he just trying to get out?
Speaker 2 (25:33):
Everybody had their eye on him to see, hey, this
is really a man of God. Now what you need
to ask Nickele? How many don't call the coronavirus where.
Speaker 5 (25:41):
He is.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
There?
Speaker 11 (25:45):
It goes the devil telling me to lie again, he says,
I'm around me, says it's all right to every Then.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
That you can get more done. You give.
Speaker 7 (26:04):
Somebody Somewhere is a production of Rainstream Media Incorporated. Sound design,
editing and mixing has been provided by Resonate Recordings. Original
score and voiceover work provided by Hallie Payne. Artwork provided
by Evan McGlenn and Kendall Payne. If you have any
information regarding the Jonathan Luna case, please contact us via
(26:25):
our website, sbswpodcast dot com. And finally, if you enjoyed
this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.
It really helps and we really appreciate it. Thank you
for listening.
Speaker 11 (26:43):
Here. God I hey you se, I'm side good izz Word.
Hello evtill I.
Speaker 5 (27:02):
Need more money
Speaker 2 (27:12):
H
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.