Episode 107 – the Helpers 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Episode 107 – The Helpers 2 Brooke: Previously, on Actual Innocence: Sam: I can tell you a couple of things that people should know about these cases. They’re extremely interesting. If you are bored and think what could I possibly do to fill my time, just looking and reading through these cases will do it. They’re – at the low end, they’re interesting; at the high end, they’re transfixing. But the other thing that goes along with that is, they’re depressing because they don’t usually have happy endings. Even the people who are released don’t really ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after. And then, worst of all, realize when you read these cases that these are the lucky ones. These are the ones who did get found; who did get released; who did get exonerated. And for each of those, there are several others or maybe dozens or hundreds of others who didn’t. ***MUSIC*** Brooke: Actual Innocence is a podcast that tells the stories of people who serve time for crimes they did not commit. Listen to the heartbreaking true accounts of wrongly convicted people and they’re journey to exoneration. Thanks so much for listening. Thanks for joining me for part 2 of The Helpers. If you haven’t listened to part 1, you might want to go back and do that first, as that’s where our experts are introduced. This episode includes interviews with three attorneys that work with people who have been wrongfully convicted. In the second half of the episode, there’s an interview with another Helper, who reveals some of the behind-the-scenes work done on the Undisclosed Podcast. I’m Brooke – and here are The Helpers. Imran: You know, some cases – and here we’re talking about, you know, cases that we’ve actually accepted for litigation, because the others – you know, if we’re investigating a case, even if I feel really strongly about something, I have to really hedge that because I don’t want to become too committed because that makes you less neutral in your evaluation, and you really need to make a neutral evaluation before you’ve concluded this person is innocent. At that point, you become their advocate; and then, of course, you take their side. My second year in the Clinic as a 3L, I started working on the David Gavitt case, which was another very meaningful case because that turned into my first exoneration. And it was an incredible factual case. I mean, a house had burned down and David’s wife and two young daughters had died in the fire; and then subsequently he was charged and convicted of murder for intentionally setting that fire. But, you know, that’s one of those cases where a lot of fire science, in quotes, was used against David which over the years has been discredited; and today, no one would agree with the State’s evidence in that case. So we went and hired independent experts who said that -- who said, look, taking away the junk science, there would be no evidence to convict this person. After we wrote a motion and had affidavits from experts, we went to the prosecutor and told him, look, this is a very obvious case and why don’t you review it and have your own experts look at it and maybe we can come to an agreement. And he did. It took him nearly a year, but after that, you know, he agreed to vacate charges – dismiss charges against David. He was released from prison without ever going to court. And that was after 27 years of serving a life sentence. Wolfgang: The Reed v. Ecorse case, the first wrongful conviction, was when I was able to, through a Freedom of Information request, obtain handwritten notes by the lead detective where he scratched out yeses and turned them into nos and head shakes up and down instead of head shakes left and right, and you saw all that. Well, when I sued and asked for the same thing through the lawyers, didn’t get that. But they didn’t know I had that document, so it’s one of those – it really is one of those aha moments when I know that I have you in a lie. That was – that was very memorable. That’s one of the things that drove that lawsuit. Brooke: If a person is fortunate enough -- and I use the word “fortunate” loosely -- to be exonerated, then what happens next? Sam: By now, exonerees who were in prison for long periods of time – 10, 20, 25 years – receive substantial compensation. By now, most states provide for compensation for wrongful imprisonment as a matter of law. Michigan does not. Michigan is a minority – one of the minority states that don’t, although there is a bill that passed one house of the Michigan State Legislature just the other day and may possibly actually pass this session. Texas provides the most generous of compensation and has one of the better systems for awarding it. Some states have systems in place that are just terrible and very few people bother to use them. Some people who are exonerated, regardless of which state they were convicted in, get even larger amounts of compensation from civil lawsuits, usually against police officers who committed misconduct that helped produce the conviction that they were ultimately exonerated of. That’s extremely variable and it’s only a minority of them. And some of them receive a large amount of compensation – you know, millions of dollars; in a small number of cases, tens of millions of dollars. But most do not. And many receive no help whatever from any source and are destitute. They come out years after exoneration and have no skills; they’re unfamiliar with the technology that they have to use just to live, let alone get jobs nowadays; family members may have died; and so forth. So they’re condition can be very bad. And in some respects, it is often worse than that of defendants who did commit crimes and served their time and were released because states often provide better and more helpful re-entry programs to people who were guilty of crimes and are re-entering society after completing their sentences. One organization that could be very useful to exonerees who have problems after they’ve been freed, and also someone you might want to interview, the organization is called “After Innocence”. It’s not hard to find on the web. And the person who runs it is a man by the name of John Eldan. And what he does is basically run a network of lawyers and other service providers who can help exonerees around the country who have problems that don’t relate to their criminal cases which can, be you, government benefits; healthcare is actually the one he’s devoted the most attention to in the last year or so; employment issues; family law problems; housing; anything. And has been very successful at it. He’s really helped, you know, several hundred of them in one form or another. Brooke: Wolf Mueller has completed a few wrongful conviction cases and still has one more in litigation. Using myself as an example, I asked Wolf what the process would be for me to receive compensation after having been exonerated. Wolfgang: How would you find me is typically like anybody in this position might lean on the lawyers who they owe their life and their freedom to, the folks who got them out. My first case involving a wrongful conviction just in a circular way came through the University of Michigan Innocence Clinic. And through that, and the publicity because it was the University of Michigan, I think other folks that University of Michigan exonerated heard about me and I probably got a recommendation from somebody that I did a good job for these other folks, and so that’s kind of how the ball gets rolling there. The first thing we’d have to do was sit down and have a long interview. Typically, if it’s a case – all of these wrongful conviction cases get publicity. If I know you’re coming in the office, I’ve done some research on your case. I have a general idea what it is. But the big thing is that distinguishes these civil rights cases from the work that innocence clinics have to do or public defender’s office have to do is I have to show that there’s police misconduct. Cuz a criminal defense attorney, you’re not going to be able to sue him and get any kind of money from him or her. That’s just – as a practical matter, by the time these folks get out, 8, 10, 20 years later, the 2 year statute of limitations is long past and these folks don’t have insurance anyways. So you can forget from a practical matter the lawyering. Then there’s the prosecutorial misconduct which happens, with overzealous prosecutors who may hide evidence, and that happens. But they have absolute immunity for their conduct during a criminal case. So you can’t sue them. Then it focuses on the police misconduct. Then the most important part of that is – what these innocence clinics try to do is – if it’s a technical expert – and for example, the University of Michigan has had success in arson cases, debunking the fire science or showing that the investigator just was sloppy or just didn’t know what he was doing.