Episode 2 Season 1 - The Essence of Louisianas Exonerations

This is a call to action for the Juneteenth organizations, Black Ministers, Fraternities, Sororities and all right thinking counterparts that celebrate Dr. King and all the soldiers involved in the Civil Rights Movement that worked so hard for us to have equal justice and be treated fairly in the Courts. 

Ask yourself, can we really continue to ignore the fact that those we pay to represent us in State courts be allowed to withhold exculpatory material evidence from the Defense without us demanding that there be major Accountability under the fullest extent of the law...

Yes, there are Federal and State laws that forbid such behaviors, they just haven't been applied when it comes to black people being wrongfully convicted and later exonerated. 

In addition to pursuing investigations into State Prosecutors that participate in these offensive behaviors, as a lower level of Accountability there are State Bar Rules that govern State Prosecutors but, even those have rarely been utilized when it comes to taking the freedom of a black man or other wrongfully convicted person that was later exonerated. 

This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but, what happened in the lower Louisiana Courts details the steps the Court found State Prosecutors took that resulted in what was later found to be a wrongful conviction that later resulted in an exoneration. 

Be sure to listen to each Episode of the Judge's rulings because it should make you wonder as it does me:  Why All the Disrespect for black men and others? Why all the Disrespect for the law?  Why all the Disrespect for the safety of the public and public trust? Why all the Disrespect for the Rules that govern lawyers? 

Fair Use Disclaimer: The copyright laws of the United States recognizes a " fair use" of copyrighted content. Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act States "Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of copyrighted work including such use of reproduction in copies of phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching , scholarship or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

This podcast and or Youtube video channel in general may contain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for one or more of the reasons noted above. 

If you have any specific concerns about any of the audios/videos or our position on fair use please contact us

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:03

I can't fight my tongue. I gotta put my tongue up. But break 'em down with the wheaty and the course. Yeah, we take them back, but I do a throwing in, to the twist and wall, black court. Take them down, Dilla Weasy, and the course. Take 'em down, the wheaty and the course.

unknown 0:22

Take 'em up, break 'em up.

SPEAKER_02 0:23

Got them notify. You a tune in, to the twist and wall, black box, and the case.

SPEAKER_01 0:39

Get your red beans and rice and some jalapeno cornbread, and let's get back on this virtual road down to the essence of Louisiana's exonerations. So by now you've listened to episode one and heard the judge's ruling on the DA's and prosecutors' motion to dismiss JT's civil suit against them for his wrongful conviction. After that ruling, JT and his lawyers took his civil suit before a jury. The DA and prosecutors were not happy with the jury's verdict, so they appealed what the jury served up. And I mean that jury served it up. The appellate court's ruling is a long one that we're breaking up into separate episodes, so be sure to check back each month for the newest episodes. Here's the first part of the appellate court's ruling.

SPEAKER_00 1:27

In Brady versus Maryland, the Supreme Court held that due process requires the prosecution in a criminal case to turn over evidence that is favorable to the accused when the evidence is material to guilt or punishment. The Supreme Court later expanded the Brady rule to require the disclosure of evidence that is relevant to the credibility of key government witnesses. See Giglio versus United States. In the criminal proceedings that prompted this lawsuit, it is undisputed that Brady evidence was not turned over to the defense. As a result, plaintiff appellee JT was convicted of an attempted armed robbery of which he was actually innocent. Attorneys in the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office then used the attempted armed robbery conviction to help secure a conviction and death sentence for JT in an unrelated murder case. Eighteen years later, and one month before his scheduled execution, JT's investigators uncovered the exculpatory evidence that indisputably cleared JT of the armed robbery charge. JT was then retried for the murder and found not guilty. JT now sakes damages for the 18 years he spent in prison, 14 of which were in solitary confinement on death row. After a jury trial lasting several days, the jury determined that the DA's office was deliberately indifferent to the need to train, monitor, and supervise its attorneys on Brady principles. The jury awarded JT $14 million in damages, and the district court added approximately $1 million in attorney's fees. Defendants challenged that result on multiple grounds. Finding no reversible error for the majority of the defendants' arguments, we affirm in large part. Because the district court erroneously included non-lible defendants in the judgment, we reverse in part and remand with instructions to remove those defendants from the judgment. Factual background. On December 6, 1984, Mr. L was robbed, shot, and killed outside of his home in New Orleans. Because Mr. L was the son of a prominent executive, the murder received a lot of attention in the community. Approximately three weeks later, on December 28, 1984, three siblings were the victims of an armed robbery while in their car in New Orleans. One sibling fought off the perpetrator, and in the scuffle, some of the perpetrator's blood ended up on the cuff of that sibling's pants. As part of the police investigation, crime scene technicians took a swatch of the pants with the perpetrator's blood on it. On January 17, 1985, JT and alias number two were arrested and charged with Mr. L's murder. As a result, JT's picture was published in the New Orleans Times Pickyune. The three siblings' father showed his children the picture, and they believed that JT was the individual who had attempted to rob them. They contacted the DA's office and identified JT as the armed robber. The three siblings armed robbery case was then screened by assistant district attorney Bruce Whitaker as part of the case handling process that then district attorney Harry F. Connick instituted. Screening was designed to identify the cases in which charges should be brought and those in which no further action should be taken. The screening process would begin when the New Orleans Police Department made an arrest. The police department would then send a police report to the DA's office where it was reviewed by an assistant district attorney, the screener, who determined whether a case could be made against the alleged perpetrator. The screener then filled out a screening action form indicating whether charges should be brought and, if appropriate, making suggestions about the way the case should be handled. With respect to the armed robbery of the three siblings, Whitaker approved the case for prosecution and, after noting that a crime scene technician had taken a swatch of sibling number three's pants with blood on it, wrote to the screening action form that the government, quote, may wish to do a blood test, end quote. Whitaker also indicated that the case should be handled by Eric Dubalier as a special prosecutor. Whitaker explained at trial that the case was sent to Dubalier because it involved the same defendant, J.T., as the Mr. L. murder case, which Dubalier was already handling. In a strategic move, the district attorneys successfully petitioned the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court to switch the order of the trials so that JT would be tried for the armed robbery first. The idea was that a guilty verdict in the armed robbery case would make JT unwilling to take the stand in the murder trial, due to the fact that a conviction from the attempted armed robbery trial could be entered into evidence against him as impeachment if he testified and increased the likelihood of the death penalty. On March 11, 1985, James Williams handled a hearing on behalf of the DA's office regarding a motion to suppress in the armed robbery case. Footnote 1. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams, noting the reference to a blood test on the screening action form, stated in open court that, quote, it's the state's intention to file a motion to take a blood sample from the defendant, and we will file that motion, have a criminal list here on the 27th, end quote. There is no indication that the DA's office ever sent anyone to test JT's blood. Approximately one week before the armed robbery trial, the bloody swatch from sibling number three's pants was sent to be tested, although the record does not reveal who ordered the test. Two days before the armed robbery trial, Whitaker received a crime lab report that stated that the armed robbery perpetrator's blood type was Type B. Whitaker stated that he placed the report on Williams' desk, but Williams claims that he never saw the report. Regardless, the report was never turned over to JT. Footnote 2. Several days before the armed robbery trial, Dubalier asked Williams to act as lead prosecutor in the case. Therefore, the armed robbery case was tried by Williams and Assistant District Attorney Jerry Deegan on April 11th and 12th, 1985. On the first day of the trial, Deegan checked all of the armed robbery evidence out of the police property room, including the bloody swatch from sibling number three's pants. Deegan then checked the evidence into the court property room, but never checked in the pants swatch. Footnote 3. Williams never mentioned the blood evidence at trial and relied primarily on eyewitness testimony. The jury found JT guilty of attempted armed robbery, and he was sentenced to 49 and one half years in prison. Dubalier and Williams then tried JT for Mr. L.'s murder from May 6th to 8, 1985. At the trial, alias number two, the other individual who had been charged with the murder, testified that JT shot Mr. L. Alias No. 1, an acquaintance of JT's, testified that JT made incriminating statements about Mr. L's murder and that he had sold JT's gun for him. There was also testimony by police officer David Carter, an eyewitness Mr. S. Mr. S described the perpetrator's hair as short and as an afro. Carter testified that when he first questioned Mr. S, Mr. S described the perpetrator's hair as, quote, black and short, Afro-style, end quote. Due to his attempted armed robbery conviction, JT chose not to testify on his own behalf. Had he testified, the district attorney likely would have entered his attempted armed robbery conviction into evidence against him for purposes of impeachment. Footnote four. The jury convicted JT of first-degree murder. During the sentencing phase, sibling number two testified about JT's attempt to rob her family and her brother's actions in fighting him off. Dubalier emphasized this testimony in his closing argument, asserting that there easily could have been three more murders and that a death sentence was necessary to punish JT because he was already set to spend 49 and one-half years in prison for the attempted armed robbery. The jury sentenced JT to death. In the 14 years after his murder conviction, JT exhausted all of his appeals. His execution was set for May 20, 1999, and his attorneys informed him that there were no more options for appeal. Then, in late April 1999, one of JT's investigators came across a microfiche copy of the crime lab report containing the blood type of the armed robbery perpetrator. JT was tested and found to be blood type O, making it impossible for him to have been the armed robber. JT's attorneys presented this information to the DA's office, which then moved for a stay of execution. In the ensuing investigation, it was uncovered that, in 1994, Deegan confessed to Michael Realman, a former assistant district attorney, that he, Deegan, had intentionally withheld the blood evidence. Deegan made this confession shortly after being told that he had only months to live as the result of cancer. Realman did not tell anyone of the confession until the blood evidence was discovered in 1999. Footnote five.