December 26, 2024 • 41 mins
On August 4, 1991, at a nightclub in New York NY, some teenagers began taunting each other and words escalated to punches. When the teenagers came out of the club prepared for a fight, a man shot and killed16-year-old Raymond Blount.
Police showed mug shots of several men to a group of Blount’s friends who initially identified a former classmate nicknamed “Wool Lou” as the shooter. After some deliberation, some of the witnesses identified 21-year-old Fernando Bermudez as the shooter. One of the witnesses later made a deal with the prosecution to identify Fernando Bermudez as the gunman in return for not being charged in the case. Fernando, who passed a polygraph examination and presented alibi witnesses in his defense, was charged and convicted with second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 23 years to life in prison.
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava For Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
I came from a beautiful neighborhood. I had a beautiful life.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I went to sleep because September seventh was the first
day of my high school year.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
I was going to be a senior at twenty two,
I was set to start college. I woke up and
my life was never the same again. Cops came out
with guns drawn, and I never saw freedom ever since
after that. It's like groach mode, Tom, once you get
in and I can't mount.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
I'm Jason Flamm. Today we'll be talking for Nando Bermudez,
a young man sent away for the rest of his life.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
The arrested him and they sew away the key thing
that it did another bit of investigation accusations.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
In nineteen ninety one for Nando Bermudez was arrested for
the murder of a sixteen year old boy in Greenwich Village,
even though he was five miles away with his friends
that had multiple alum by witnesses who placed him far
away from the scene of the crime.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
A young lady said that I looked cute, and that
was enough for her to share the pictures and for
the witnesses to communally agree that I resembled the perpetrator.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
He was convicted anyway, and since the twenty three years
to life in maximum security prisons in New York State,
this is wrongful conviction. With Jason Flumm Fernanda, Welcome to
(01:36):
the show.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Thank you Jason for having me.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
So I want to talk to you about what your
life was like, what happened, what went wrong, what you
learn from it, and where you're at now. So let's
go back to nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Major cities in the nation are under attack from within.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Nowhere are the problems more visible than in New York City.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Bob Fall reports.
Speaker 5 (02:00):
New York has gotten so mean and so dangerous.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
The mayor actually went to church yesterday and pleaded with
residents to come out from behind locked doors.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
What nineteen ninety one was a year where New York
City was crime ridden. The homicide rates were on average
two thousand per year, and it was a time where
I think the city was transitioning into a intention to
get tough on crime.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
I lived in New York my whole life, and so
I remember the only thing growing faster than the crime
rate was the hysteria over the crime rate, right. I mean,
it wasn't like everybody was getting killed or mugged or
but it seemed like it at the time. So but
how were you doing back then? What were you Were
you in high school college at the time, what was
your family situation?
Speaker 5 (02:45):
Where'd you live?
Speaker 1 (02:46):
I lived in Washington Heights, a predominantly Dominican neighborhood, mixed
with a lot of immigrants who had moved to the
other side of Upper Manhattan. And yet there was certainly
a commingling of ethnic groups and so forth. But for myself,
I was twenty two year old, twenty two year old
at the time, and I was a happy person growing
(03:07):
up in a close knit family, four siblings, two parents
who worked hard to achieve the American dream as Dominican
immigrants in coming to this country. And at twenty two
I was set to start college.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
So let's talk about the night that your life took
such a terrible turn. Let's talk about the crime itself,
and then where you were and how you got mixed
up in this.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
Nightmare.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Well, the crime itself, according to documented evidence, is that
there was a shooting at a nightclub, the mock Ballroom,
in the Greenwich Village section the mock Ballroom Misser, and
it was near NYU. And so this kid named From Lopez, sixteen,
who had have sconded it from a work release program,
had gotten punched by another guy named Raymond.
Speaker 5 (03:50):
Blount inside the club.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Inside the club outside, From Lopez had wanted revenge after
telling his friend from the West nineties neighborhood who had
punched him.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
So these two different groups of kids, yes, and they
wanted to start something.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Yeah, Lopez had been punched, though, he was embarrassed and
wanted revenge, and so he told his friends from the
West nineties neighborhood not only inside that he had gotten punched,
but also outside he identified the person who had punched him.
So I'm lay ensued in which Raymond Blount's friends were
attacked by From Lopez's friends and his group from the
(04:29):
West nineties. And in that confusion, under nighttime conditions conducive
to a mistaken that witness identification, Raymond Blunt was shot
and killed and killed.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Right, And so what happens next? So now we have
a murder, it's near NYU. That that puts a lot
of pressure on the cops. Right, So you're where were
you at the time of this?
Speaker 1 (04:49):
So at the time, I'm actually uptown meaning where I lived.
Speaker 5 (04:52):
Did you have alibi witnesses?
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Yes, absolutely, And that's definitely part of the story because
we were together driving throughout the city in a car
that I had just newly acquired. It was like that
same day, August third and fourth, I had just gotten
that car, and it was sort of like a big gift. Well,
it was a big day, not just that the car
was out for the first time, but also that was
the car that I was going to use to go
(05:14):
to college, to drive to for my home, which was
right across in the Bronx where I was going to
go to college. And we were driving around and enjoying ourselves,
oblivious to anything that had happened. And at the time
when the actual crime occurred, we were uptown in my neighborhood,
driving around.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
And so when did you first come in contact with
the authorities?
Speaker 5 (05:35):
How did that happen?
Speaker 1 (05:37):
August sixth, nineteen ninety one. So this is a couple
of weeks, two days, two days right after the murder,
and I'm driving home. I'm with my brother and we
had actually met two young ladies that night. It was
another you know, good moment, and we was driving home
when suddenly cops came out with guns drawn and pointed
(05:58):
them out the window, and everyone just.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Screamed, you were in a traffic light.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
No, we were in front of my home. We drove.
The cops had been waiting for me. They had been
upstairs speaking to my mother and my siblings. When my
mother said that I should be coming home shortly, they
positioned themselves outside. So when we came out, they chew
their guns and told me to get out the car.
And I never saw freedom ever since after that.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
So obviously you're twenty two and you're scared out of
your mind and they take you in. They tell you've
been charged with murder. Is that right?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
That's correct. I was taken to the sixth Precinct and
and it's interesting because I was so scared, everyone was
so scared. I just got out. I complied, and I
got in the car. And then when they took me away,
the girl was saying, I thought you were a nice guy,
and I said, I screamed back, I said, I am,
you know, And I was taken to the precinct. I
(06:53):
was interrogated for over ten hours, and they want to
know my whereabouts. On the night of August thirty fourth,
nineteen ninety one. I told them, I told them who
I was with. I told them that on no circumstances
I was involved in any violence. I told him what
I was wearing.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
Ten hours.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
That's a tough I mean, that's a long time to
be interrogated.
Speaker 5 (07:10):
So did you did they get you to confess?
Speaker 1 (07:12):
No, I didn't confess. For me, it was surreal experience.
I just felt that if I told the truth that
it would be resolved. If I was just patient, that
it would be resolved. What I needed to do was
remember why I was, what I did, who I was with,
and it would be resolved.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
And well, that's interesting to hear you say that, Frenda,
because there's a lot of distrust among the Latino community
of police nationally. I think the figure sixty nine percent
of Latinos will actually even call the police if they're
a victim of a crime or if they witness a crime, because.
Speaker 5 (07:43):
There is that distrust. But you felt differently.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
You felt that the police were on your side and
that if you were truthful, then everything would work out
all right.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Well, absolutely, cops for me at that point were heroes
to me. I mean, I had gotten It's an interesting
anecdote when I was about maybe ten years old, I
had found the stolen car and we went to the
thirty fourth Precinct, our local neighborhood, and the cops gave
me a bag of jelly beans and put the cop
had on me, and they said, good job for finding
my cops, I mean my father's stolen car. So I
(08:13):
admired them, and plus they were protecting my community.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
As a ten year old, that's a big moment in
anybody's life. Yeah, you helped out your dad, you found,
you solved the crime, and the cops are giving you
big props. I'm not surprised then that you had some
you had a lot of faith in the system. What
happens next?
Speaker 1 (08:30):
So because I refused to confess, I was taken to
the Manhattan Tombs Central Booking in other words, and I
was processed, I was arranged, I pled not guilty, and
from then on. Hours later, I was sent to Rikers Island,
where my nightmare really began in Earnest.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
So you're in Rikers Island now your nightmare is fully underway.
I mean, this is I think this is everyone's nightmare.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Solarly, I had to go into survival mode because all
around me. I mean people were fighting over the phone
to make phone calls. I mean the phones were racially divided,
two phones, one Latino and one Black, and those anyone
who crossed those lines so use those phones will be
cut in the face, smashed in the face with a phone.
These are things I actually saw, and it was black
(09:14):
market operations. They were burgeoning gangs and what would become
groups like Latin Kings and stuff like that. And now
I was terrified. I just tried to mind my business
and all along, in my heart, I still felt that
the American criminal just system would prevail if I stayed patient.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
Was there bail said in your case, no bail, so
you had no hope of getting out it before your trial.
Speaker 5 (09:34):
How long did it take you to get the trial?
Speaker 1 (09:36):
My trial took about seven months to get on their way.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
So you're locked up for seven months, taken away from
your family, taken away from your life, put into this
devastating circumstance was what was Let's just talk about the
jail for a minute. Rikers Island is technically pacified as
a jail, even though but people don't understand that many
jails like Rikers are actually more dangerous than maxims prisons.
(10:01):
So in those seven months, what you know what went
through your mind?
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Sure, well I was there over a year, but it
took seven months to get to my trial. And you know,
during the whole year and change that I was there,
I mean, I was deeply affected by just seeing the
violence perpetuated by not just inmates on inmates, but correctional
officers attacking inmates, and even inmates attacking correctional officers. When
(10:27):
you see someone get stabbed with sewing machine efficiency, you
know there's something in you that dies and yet lives.
It affects your psyche in a way that you're never
the same because you see another human being injured in
a way that just makes an impression, a bad impression
in your.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
Life, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
There's nothing you can do about it, even if it
happens to be someone that you knew and even shared
a meal with for some reason.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
Were you when you went in, would you consider yourself
a tough guy? Were you a guy who could handle
himself in a fight or you what was your I mean,
Fernando as a guy who keeps himself in very good shape.
But I don't know you back then I've known you
now for six or seven years, so yeah, I mean,
how were were you equipped to deal with this situation anyway?
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Well, mentally, I wasn't equipped physically, perhaps I had a
better fighting chance than a more scronier person. I mean
I was a bodybuilder at the time, and that's what
would make also the distinction in this case in terms
of the identification procedure and why they even made me
sit down. They described the perpetrator by the witnesses themselves.
The perpetrator was described as five ten, one hundred and
(11:35):
sixty five pounds. I'm six two, weighing two twenty and
so they made me sit down in the lineup to
hide the identification procedure. But for me, it was a
matter of just trying to adjust because you couldn't even
have a fair fight without getting jumped. That's what happened
to me when I was attacked. I was trying to
defend myself against someone in one instance, and then his
friends came and attacked me. I had no I couldn't
(11:55):
fight three guys.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
And what happened then, were you well.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Went into my locker and stole my food and the
soap and deodorant, that my parents brought me.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
But were you badly beating up at the time.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
I wasn't that badly beating up, but I was very embarrassed.
And you know, it was a turning point because I
was at a point where I was waiting for my
trial to occur. I'm waiting for the American criminal just
system to work in my case, and I'm being patient,
and this is something that really tries your patient. And
when once the Latino groups saw what had happened to me,
someone tried to pass me a razor and they say, yo,
(12:27):
you could resolve it this way, and I declined because
I want to go home. If I stab or hurt
someone even worse, I could end up in prison even longer.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Yeah, I mean you were already facing a very long
sentence and you knew it at the time, right. So,
And it's interesting too, the eyewitness identification. I just want
to touch on that for a minute, because there are
a lot of tricks that they play, right, and we
know that eyewitness identification is a factor in seventy five
percent of the DNA exonerations that have happened nationwide. So
there's a lot of movement now on the Innis's project,
(12:59):
The Spearhead this along with some other groups to reform
how I wouldn't identifications are done everything from videotaping to
other procedures what we call a double blind. But in
your case, they obviously just wanted to get you, and
they were willing to do some dirty tricks in order
to get a conviction, so they weren't really interested in
(13:19):
the truth.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Is that fair to say that's correct?
Speaker 1 (13:21):
I mean, as proven, the witnesses were placed in a room,
these teenage witnesses at that who have been beaten, who
were hungry, who were tired, who were joking around, who
by their own accounts did not want to be there,
and they were placed in a room and allowed to
just shift through pictures, and three friends of deceased who
were in a separate identification procedure, correctly identified who would
(13:44):
become the state star witness. And the four of the
witnesses who were in another room selecting pictures, then selected
my picture, and a seventeen year old young lady said
that I looked cute, and that was enough for her
to share the pictures and for the witnesses to uh
communally agree that I resembled the perpetrator and that was enough.
Speaker 5 (14:03):
They looked at the pictures together.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Yes, which is illegal.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
Of course it's illegal.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
It's one of the reasons I got read it.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
Oh my god, that's it.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
That's I've heard a lot, but I hadn't heard that
particular story before, you know, having having you know, been
being that I'm familiar with so many of these cases.
But that's that's just straight crazy. So there you are,
you're you're stuck there.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
And you go to trial.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
And and you were you were represented by a public
defender at the time.
Speaker 5 (14:32):
You weren't a wealthy guy, right.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
I wasn't a wealthy guy. But my parents, uh got
scared and they hired a private attorney based upon word
of mouth, particularly because he spoke Spanish and he had
a son named Fernando. Okay, so that was like for
them for some reason that he had like a sign like,
you know, and so they hired him. And you know,
(14:53):
he was hoodwinked from the start in that the prosecutor
didn't turn over excopolatory evidence, and when he did turn
over boxes of evidence, it was after my jury was selected.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
So this is where so he had no time, no time.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Even when he asked he was not allowed.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Right, And we know that the Supreme Court ruled in
Brady that they have to turn over exculpatory evidence, but
it seems like it's almost routinely ignored by prosecutors, which
is shocking. Should be shocking to everyone in America, right,
I mean, everyone who watches TV, watches crime shows, knows
that that's the responsibility of the prosecutor. And most people,
i think, believe that the prosecutor wants to get the
(15:30):
right guy and would want to get the right guy
because who would want the wrong guy to still be
out there? Right? That's always crazy to be fre nanda
that when you aside from the human tragedy of locking
up the wrong person, the idea that the real perpetrator
is out there and is going in many cases, in
almost all cases, he's going to commit more mayhem, be
(15:51):
responsible for more mayhem and hurt other people should be
enough motivation in itself for law enforcement to want to
do the right thing. But obviously in your that was
not the case. I'm sure these guys were feeling a
lot of pressure, so much crime, so many cases they
deal with, they want to get it off their desk.
You were victimized by that mentality and that lack of morality.
(16:12):
I would say, as well, so now you're at trial,
you have your alibi. Witnesses there were they called to
the stand.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Yes, matter by witnesses came forward. I testified, and even
three friends of deceased came forward and said that I
wasn't the guy who shot their best friend.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
And so then people are listening, They're going, well, wait
a minute, wouldn't that be enough, wouldn't that be.
Speaker 5 (16:34):
The case closed? No?
Speaker 1 (16:35):
Well that's what I thought, That's what I had hoped.
But what the jury didn't know, and I didn't even
know until the investigation unraveled on my behalf, was that,
for example, from Lopez, the state start witness sixteen years old,
who knew the actual perpetrator had told the police and
prosecutors who actually committed the crime, but they suppressed that
(16:57):
evidence and where he could be found. In exchange for
his false testimony, he named me as someone I totally
was not, and the police still did not go investigate
the neighborhood. He got, after over twenty hours of interrogation,
an opportunity to escape from murder charges, and the witnesses
the teenage witnesses as well. In addition, who didn't know
(17:19):
it from Lopez, but who did say that it was him.
They got that that part right. They had gotten charges
dismissed on the eve of their trial. Two had unrelated
criminal charges pending it which were dismissed right before my
trial began.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
So it's amazing that prosecutors have this much power, right.
The fact is that people think that the judge has
a lot of power, or that the police or the
defenders have power. The fact is that an overwhelming amount
of the power rests with the prosecutors, because they can
decide whether to prosecute or drop charges against anyone for
(17:54):
any reason.
Speaker 5 (17:55):
Is that right, yes, sir.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
So it's interesting because we know everyone who follows is
even aware of anything to do with criminal justice, knows
that you can't bribe a witness, right, But yet the
state is able to offer the best bribe that there is,
which is that, Hey, you got a lot of trouble
on your hands, kid, right, you're facing a murder charge
or you're facing assault or other things, and you know what,
(18:19):
we're just going to ask you to do us a
little favor here, you know, tell us what we need
to hear, and you could go home and we're going
to clean it up and keep it moving, right, I mean,
what could be better than that? And I think that
a lot of people would have trouble resisting that if
they're looking at a long period in prison, a long
many many years they're facing. They're scared too, and they
want to go home, and they go, well, I don't
(18:40):
even know this guy, Fernando, but you know what, screw him,
you know. So I think that's something that's important for
people to understand. People who are going to be serving
on juries, people who are involved in the system in
any way, I think they need to know that well absolutely.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
And it's also how the system sets up the vulnerability
of this case. Teenage witnesses, you know, who haven't even
had their prefrontal cortex meant for good judgment even fully developed.
In my case, for example, two of the witnesses, one
of whom had one of the charges dismissed, told the
prosecutor that didn't want to come testified. They didn't believe
I was the guy, and yet they were arrested, physically
(19:18):
taken from their home as material witnesses.
Speaker 5 (19:20):
That doesn't sound closer either.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
I mean there's just so it was really a series
of mistakes that read to you that led to your
both both deliberate and accidental, but mostly deliberate. Right, Yes,
so you're now you get convicted. The moment of that,
the jury coming back in, I can't imagine the pressure,
(19:43):
but you're you're standing there, You're still hoping that this
is going to be you know, the system's going to work,
and you're going to go home and try to forget
this whole thing. But then they come back and they
read off the verdict, and then.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
What And at that moment, I just had an out
of body experience because I couldn't believe that, you know,
all my hopes and dreams were shattered in the American
criminal justice system. I really had believe in the system.
I told the truth, honestly, and I was just shattered.
I mean, my mother started crying. My six year old
(20:16):
sister at that time fell to the floor, and you know,
my grandmother, she like nearly fainted. I couldn't turn around
because the hand of the bailiffs was shifting me now
to not being able to look at my family, but
to look directly at the jury or the judge. And
I was just I was terrified. I didn't even feel
like I was there. I felt my body, but I
(20:36):
felt myself floating away.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
The nightmares now fully underway. You're in a maximum security prison.
Is it as bad as people think it is?
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Yeah? It is. It is. You're living in a six
by night foot cell. It's very small. I mean I
could stretch out my hands and almost touch the cell walls.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
And there's two of you in there.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Well, there was one at times there was too. Throughout
my years, I would be forced to be with someone else,
but in the beginning I was by myself. They didn't
have double bunking in the beginning of my inconserration.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
And so there you are, facing the possibility of spending
the rest of your life there. And then things took
a very interesting turn. And this is the story again,
one of the many things that makes your story so
unique and makes you such an inspiring character to me.
So your story is national news, right it became. It
(21:43):
got a lot of coverage. I mean there's a lot
of murders at this time, but your story got a
lot of coverage.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
Fernando Bermudez five people testified against him, and the judge
put them away for life, but was he wrongly convicted
of murder. Fernando Bermudez had an alibi. He says he
was driving around with friends.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
There was no physical evidence against him, no blood, no gun,
but there was no getting around those witnesses. Maryann de Berry,
with the father's help, was able to track down all
the witnesses who testified against Fernando and get them to
admit that under pressure, they gave false testimony.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
And so then you received a letter. Let's talk about
this because this is really and you wrote a lot
of letters, but this letter that came in you probably
remember pretty well what it said, right.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Well, absolutely. I was in my cell and I was
working out, and I just finished writing another legal letter
because I was always writing letters to try to get help.
And a young lady wrote me. She had saw my case.
She was living in Oklahoma at the time, and she
wrote me and she says she believed in me. She
said that she wanted to pray for me. And I
(22:48):
was just amazed that at her persistent persistence in continuing
a relationship.
Speaker 5 (22:54):
With me, and she had to go to some trouble
to find you and gave your address on the TV.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Show, Oh no, no, no, yees. She had to investigate.
At the time, there was no internet and things like that,
and so she had to go. She was working for
the phone company, so she had to actually call places,
and finally she called Rikers Island and they got so
fed up with her after calling so many different departments
they already had heard about her that they just scribbled
off some numbers and you know, some more information that
(23:20):
when she was able to see on the TV apart
from my name, and then she wrote me a letter.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
So you get this letter, and there was no picture attached, right, So,
as far as you knew, could have been anybody, but
just you didn't know that this was going to be
the woman of your dreams at the time, right, right,
But then things progressed.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
That's right. She sent me a picture and she was
beautiful apart from her description, and most importantly to me
was that she brought the word of God in my life.
I mean, I was at a point where I didn't
know what to believe anymore. The American criminal justice system
had failed me. I felt that God had abandoned me.
And here was this young girl speaking about God to
me and bringing about faith. You know, renewing it, and
(24:00):
that's what she did, and she came to visit me
and we got married.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
You got married at the prison in prison, so I
couldn't believe it.
Speaker 3 (24:08):
Wow, that was And that's Crystal Now, Crystal is. I've
met Crystal several times. She's an amazing person, beautiful, has
such a great disposition, so positive. And then you had kids, yes,
while you're in prison. Yes, And your daughter was born
in what ninety six, ninety five.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
In the early nineties, and then we had another We
had our second daughter, who was born in two thousand
and one, followed by my son in two thousand and five.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
So as much as it's a blessing to have kids
and have another reason to live right and to be
you know, motivated to get out of bed every day
when you're in this impossible situation, how difficult is that
to grow up apart from your kids, And how does
that affect them when they're that that is, you know,
(25:01):
not accessible to them.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
What was extremely difficult decision for myself because first I
told Chris, I said, Chris, I said, we shouldn't get married.
You know, you really even shouldn't bother with me because
I don't know what I'm getting out.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
You don't know if you're getting out, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Yeah, And so she was like, I have faith in
God that it's going to turn out. And then came
the decision to have kids. For me. I didn't want
to have kids because I didn't want to bring more
burdens to not only ourselves in the situation we were in.
But if I didn't get out, then the children would
essentially almost be fatherless apart from me being alive in
prison if I survived. But also I was so angry
(25:37):
at the system and what it did to me and
the confines and controls that I found myself in that
I said to myself, Wow, you have to do something
that means if you have a kid that can survive
if you don't. So it was that decision as well.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
Yeah, and listen, it was a great decision because you
have a wonderful family, have three kids, right, yes, Yeah,
it's fantastic. So then let's talk about how you so
when things turned for the better and how you did
get out.
Speaker 5 (26:06):
What was the breaking tipping point?
Speaker 3 (26:08):
Who was it, what organization or person or combination of
things and others take it through.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
When you were released.
Speaker 6 (26:18):
Well.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
The foundation of my case leading to my exoneration, upon
which all the good intention and no well spoken lawyers
who fought hard for my case. The foundation begins with
Marianne the Barry, who was a former nun turned attorney
in her late forties, who began investigating my case as
(26:39):
early as nineteen ninety three, nineteen ninety two and so forth.
And she began investigating my case, and she started laying
the foundation of all the misconduct that occurred and everything.
And even though I was denied ten appeals, you know,
with her help and all the different lawyers, including Hellerstein
(27:00):
you know, and got rest Marianne's soul as she passed
away last year. The tipping point became around two thousand
and eight when I had gotten help from another attorney
from Seaton Hall Law School, and she was involved in
my case, and she got what would many prisoners would
call a dream team, including lawyers from Washington, d C.
(27:23):
New York law firms and other people from New Jersey
as well. And she also got involved on New York's
Innocence Project and together we all went into court in
two thousand and nine after I had rejected a plea
bargain from the District Attorney's office. So for me, that
was a turning point because I finally got to test
(27:43):
the evidence before a new judge in Manhattan stan Supreme Court.
And it was a moment where I felt good because
I had rejected a plea, a plea bargain and off
for plea. But I was also scared because it meant
that if I had lost this eleventh a pal, I
would definitely or most likely, I should say, die in prison.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Well, that's an unbelievable amount of pressure, and an Alfred
plea for those of you who aren't aware, means that
you're the state basically comes to you and says you
we kind of they kind of give you like a wink, right,
like we kind of know we mess this up, but
we're not gonna admit that we're wrong, which means you
can't sue us, but we're gonna let you go home. So,
(28:24):
I mean, that's a tough decision to make, right, I mean,
as bad as you want to get out of there.
But at the same time, it's a it's sort of
like a I mean, it's I don't know if you
call it like a Sophie's choice. But it's a brutal
decision to have to make. But you made the right decision.
And yours was not a DNA case because it was
a shooting, so there was no physical evidence at the time.
(28:45):
There was actually no physical evidence of any kind that
connected you to.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
The crime, none whatsoever.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
Never was never.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
So you go to trial with this dream team innocence projects,
this group of dedicated individuals, and now you got the
full Now you got the odds a little bit in
your favor, right, it's fair to say. And so you
go to court. Let's have let's talk about the opposite experience.
(29:16):
You're there saying, you know, different kind of pressure, right,
You've been through everything that they can throw at you.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
What happens, Well, I'm in court and I'm just like
glad that I rejected that offer because I really wanted
to get down to the matter of these witnesses coming forward.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
And NBC News investigation shows if those witnesses are now
telling the truth, and Fernando Bermudas is the wrong man.
Speaker 5 (29:41):
Your kids are there, wife is there.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
My wife was there, and all a lot of the
past lawyers throughout the years were there as well. Mary
Anne was actually in a cave and Israel praying for me.
She went out, she was already out there, and the
hearing came and she was just there and she sent
word that she'd be praying in the cave, okay, and
so that was good. I felt confident with that. And
we were there and the EVIDENTI hearing under the leadership
(30:06):
of Barry Pollock from Washington, d C.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
It went well.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
It went well. I mean, the detective I don't know
what kind of problems he's had in his past, but
he did have, for example, past the rest for drunk
driving in which he hit two girls. He came into
the courtroom seemingly drunk. The prosecutor, who up until this
point was so smug and confident in his position about
(30:32):
his case against me, now was shaken, visibly shaken. They
brought in a surprise detective who they said would now
testify that he was observing the witnesses and that they
were not engaged in the illegal identification procedures, which we
already were on the verge of proving. And he couldn't
remember any details. So it's like they even made a
(30:53):
mistake bring him in because he couldn't remember.
Speaker 5 (30:55):
Because everybody could see he was lying, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
We demonstrated through cross examination. So I was just like, wow,
all this is finally coming to the point where my
faith told me that my enemies would become my footstool. Wow,
And that's what was happening. That's what was happening.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
And this was a judge, not a jury.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
This was before a judge. And after a two week proceeding,
I waited a month because the judge says he needed
more time to make the decision. And I was like, wow,
I was stuck at Downstate correctional facility, starving. I mean,
I was so hungry. I was actually taking rations from
the mess hall and saving it in myself like a squirrel,
(31:36):
just to get through because there I was like in
between my irregular prison and rikers, waiting to be called
back to court. So it was crazy. I came back
to court and it was the big moment, this was
my eleventh appeal. I walked into the courtroom and there
was just like a hushed suffocation. All you could hear
was the whirl of recorders of television cameras, reporters furiously scribbling,
(32:04):
You could hear people breathing. The clock seemed to be
just ticking so slow you could just hear that. And
I was just like I was. I was nervous because
this was a moment. And finally, finally the judge asked
me to stand, and I stood, and my knees were shaken.
(32:24):
I felt a touch of global warming under my shirt.
I was just so nervous. And the judge declared me
actually innocent, and the courtroom erupted in applause. And then
the judge didn't stop there. He said that in this case,
the prosecutor, James G. Rodriguez, knew and should have known,
(32:45):
that he was relying upon perjured testimony, that the identification
procedures were illegal and constitutional and should not have occurred,
which a federal judge I previously ruled in my favor on,
And that the State of New York admitted that its
state start witness from Lopez had committed perjury, and he
declared me actually innocent.
Speaker 6 (33:04):
Fernando Bermudaz was falsely accused of murder after a fight
outside of Manhattan nightclub. He was convicted, though sent to prison,
exonerated and released after nearly twenty years when a judge
found misconduct in his case.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
This wrongful conviction was predicated upon perjury, was predicated upon manipulation,
was predicated upon coercion and deceit of New York City
District Attorney's Office and New York City Police Department.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
And then you walked out of the court room of
free men. TV cameras there.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Yes, yes, soon after that, I walked out.
Speaker 5 (33:37):
And that must have been like a crazy mixture of
emotions too.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
I mean, your wife is there, You're able to hug
her like a normal person, like a man, not in
any nobody overseeing you or watching or anything else, right,
But then you're out in the fresh air, and like,
what's going through your mind?
Speaker 1 (33:57):
Well? I was scared because the world had changed so much.
I mean by eighteen years, eighteen and a half years,
several presidents and governors later. I mean, now there was
the Internet. People were walking around, cell phones, Yeah, they
were walking before I went to prison. The cell phones
with the size of shoe boxes, assuming you even had one,
you know, it was very rare, you know, And now
(34:18):
everyone had one. People were talking to themselves on the street.
I realized it was bluetooth technology. The fashion had changed
from baggy pants to now skinny jeans. Besides that, I
was just scared because it didn't even feel like I
had permission to be outside.
Speaker 5 (34:33):
I was, I was psychologically Were you worried that they
were going to send you back in, that this was
all a dream, or that there was someone was going
to grab you and go no, go back to your cell. Whatever.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Well, I certainly felt that this can happen again. I
felt that, but I've had trouble crossing the street. I
got Disney in department stores because there were so many
colors and choices.
Speaker 5 (34:53):
Like a PTSD kind of Well, then that's when I realized.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
After a while, I said, well, what's wrong with me?
Why am I waking up in the middle of the night,
getting up and feeling like I'm still in a prison cell,
pacing and Crystal would tell me, you know, you got
to get back to bed. You're not in prison anymore,
you know. Walking the family dog at the point at
that time was an issue. I felt like there was
gun towers outside. I mean, it was just a lot
of stuff. So I realized after I went to psychiatric
(35:18):
evaluation that I have post traumatic stress disorder, and I
didn't think I would have that.
Speaker 3 (35:22):
Well, you served, you know, of the of the in
the DNA exoneration cases with homicide as the as a crime,
the average time served a thirteen years, so you served,
you know, significantly longer than the average one, although we
had a couple of recent exonerations of guys who had
served thirty four years, which is unbelievable, numbers.
Speaker 5 (35:42):
Almost twice as long.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
But it affects everyone differently, and it obviously is going
to infect anybody to go through this. So I think,
you know, and it's interesting too, thinking back to that
scene in the courtroom. You know, the odds are stacked
against you when you're poor, when you're Latino or of color. Right,
we know that a higher percentage of people of color
(36:05):
are arrested, are prosecuted, are convicted. There's no justification for that,
There's no evidence that they commit crimes at a higher
rate or anything else. And so you finally got the
scales of justice tipped in your favor and you emerged
to this loving family. But then you still had another
lawsuit to go, right, you still had a case. Now
(36:26):
you have to file a suit against the city and
against the state. Right, yes, so that that has now
been resolved, Right, the first one.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
The first one, but it took me five and a
half years. Let the record reflect.
Speaker 3 (36:40):
Five and a half years. So you're out with nothing
for five no job skills, no resume. No, I mean,
how to get a job right, It's got to be brutal.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
I mean all I had was, you know, an associate's
degree of the concentration in business and working toward my bachelor's.
And then when I got out, I had to go
to college to finish my bachelor's and I had to
take loans. There was no free ride here. I had
to go to college and out there and you know,
like most hard working young men and women do for
their lives and futures. But the thing is, I had
(37:11):
to deal with the psychological impact. I didn't know how
to drive anymore. I had to get a license. People
from my church closed me. They helped me get my
license back. I didn't have money to get a license
or even take driving school lessons. You know, it was funny.
I'm forty years old and I got to learn how
to drive again.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
No, it's interesting.
Speaker 3 (37:29):
For another you know, almost thirty five percent of xenneries
don't get any money right because the compensation statutes are
so different in every state and in some states, it's
impossible to get money. So it's very difficult to get money.
And I think people think that you come out and
society just opens its doors to you and everything's great,
and you get a check and you move on all
(37:51):
your life with five and a half years with nothing
struggling on the outside.
Speaker 5 (37:55):
I mean, I knew you back then, and I know
what you were going through.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
That's got to be just an another almost another major
challenge to get through. But you got through it. I
mean you persevered. I know you went and did three
hundred speaking engages. We talked about that before and just
by cold calling, you've spoken all over the world.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
Yes, yes, we've been to Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Switzerland.
We tell our story. Fine, why to transform the criminal
justice systems?
Speaker 3 (38:23):
So, Feranda, what I wanted to ask you is, what's
the message you want to send?
Speaker 1 (38:28):
Well, certainly, the problem of wrong for convictions is far reaching.
We have over seventeen hundred wrongful convictions that are just documented,
and that's just documented in America today.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
Yeah, seventeen hundred exonerations, I think, yeah, it's almost yes, yes, yes,
close to eighteen.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
Absolutely, close to eighteen hundred exonerations. Those are just the
ones that are documented. And you know, over almost one
hundred and fifty were released from death row, which is
horrible as well.
Speaker 5 (38:54):
And no, that's what Brian Stevenson says.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
I mean, for every person we've executed, we've for every
nine people we've executed, we've had one exonerated from death throw.
And as he says, and he's one of my heroes,
if you had planes and one out of every nine
or ten planes crashed, nobody would fly.
Speaker 5 (39:11):
You can't have this system. So anyway, I'm sorry in
directors to go ahead.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
So yeah, So on that note, there has to be accountability.
You know, prosecutors get this immunity. We understand that we
need prosecutors, and those who do a good job, kudos
to them. But for those that don't, who flell out
the system and our constitution, then shame on them. They
should be held accountable. They have too much immunity. We
need more accountability for those who are responsible. As a
(39:36):
deterrent effect. Law is created to deter crime across the board.
And if it doesn't deter crime or misconduct, then it
doesn't work.
Speaker 5 (39:47):
Why is the law there above the law?
Speaker 1 (39:50):
Right? Yeah, So they shouldn't be. And you know, the
damage that it causes families and the people directly affected
body and costs of is just it's horrible. I mean,
I'm affected today. I'm still free today, but i still
feel like I'm in prison.
Speaker 5 (40:08):
For people who want to help, what can they do?
Should they go online? Should they write letters? Should they donate? Well?
Speaker 1 (40:13):
I think that public needs to connect with their politicians
and voice their concerns that this is an issue that
matters to them. But more than that, they also need to, like,
if possible, to use their resources, talents, and time to
volunteer to their local innocence projects.
Speaker 3 (40:30):
You know, there are fifty five innosce projects around the
country and so there's.
Speaker 5 (40:34):
Probably one near you wherever you are. Don't forget to.
Speaker 3 (40:43):
Give us a fantastic review wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 5 (40:46):
It really helps.
Speaker 3 (40:47):
And I'm a proud donor to the Innocence Project, and
I really hope you'll join me in supporting this very
important cause and helping to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go
to Innocence Project dot org to learn how to do
and get involved. I'd like to thank our production team,
Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis. The music in the show
is by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be
(41:09):
sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and
on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast. Wrongful Conviction with Jason
Flamm is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts and
association with Signal Company Number one
I came from a beautiful neighborhood. I had a beautiful life.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I went to sleep because September seventh was the first
day of my high school year.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
I was going to be a senior at twenty two,
I was set to start college. I woke up and
my life was never the same again. Cops came out
with guns drawn, and I never saw freedom ever since
after that. It's like groach mode, Tom, once you get
in and I can't mount.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
I'm Jason Flamm. Today we'll be talking for Nando Bermudez,
a young man sent away for the rest of his life.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
The arrested him and they sew away the key thing
that it did another bit of investigation accusations.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
In nineteen ninety one for Nando Bermudez was arrested for
the murder of a sixteen year old boy in Greenwich Village,
even though he was five miles away with his friends
that had multiple alum by witnesses who placed him far
away from the scene of the crime.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
A young lady said that I looked cute, and that
was enough for her to share the pictures and for
the witnesses to communally agree that I resembled the perpetrator.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
He was convicted anyway, and since the twenty three years
to life in maximum security prisons in New York State,
this is wrongful conviction. With Jason Flumm Fernanda, Welcome to
(01:36):
the show.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Thank you Jason for having me.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
So I want to talk to you about what your
life was like, what happened, what went wrong, what you
learn from it, and where you're at now. So let's
go back to nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Major cities in the nation are under attack from within.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Nowhere are the problems more visible than in New York City.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Bob Fall reports.
Speaker 5 (02:00):
New York has gotten so mean and so dangerous.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
The mayor actually went to church yesterday and pleaded with
residents to come out from behind locked doors.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
What nineteen ninety one was a year where New York
City was crime ridden. The homicide rates were on average
two thousand per year, and it was a time where
I think the city was transitioning into a intention to
get tough on crime.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
I lived in New York my whole life, and so
I remember the only thing growing faster than the crime
rate was the hysteria over the crime rate, right. I mean,
it wasn't like everybody was getting killed or mugged or
but it seemed like it at the time. So but
how were you doing back then? What were you Were
you in high school college at the time, what was
your family situation?
Speaker 5 (02:45):
Where'd you live?
Speaker 1 (02:46):
I lived in Washington Heights, a predominantly Dominican neighborhood, mixed
with a lot of immigrants who had moved to the
other side of Upper Manhattan. And yet there was certainly
a commingling of ethnic groups and so forth. But for myself,
I was twenty two year old, twenty two year old
at the time, and I was a happy person growing
(03:07):
up in a close knit family, four siblings, two parents
who worked hard to achieve the American dream as Dominican
immigrants in coming to this country. And at twenty two
I was set to start college.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
So let's talk about the night that your life took
such a terrible turn. Let's talk about the crime itself,
and then where you were and how you got mixed
up in this.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
Nightmare.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Well, the crime itself, according to documented evidence, is that
there was a shooting at a nightclub, the mock Ballroom,
in the Greenwich Village section the mock Ballroom Misser, and
it was near NYU. And so this kid named From Lopez, sixteen,
who had have sconded it from a work release program,
had gotten punched by another guy named Raymond.
Speaker 5 (03:50):
Blount inside the club.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Inside the club outside, From Lopez had wanted revenge after
telling his friend from the West nineties neighborhood who had
punched him.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
So these two different groups of kids, yes, and they
wanted to start something.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Yeah, Lopez had been punched, though, he was embarrassed and
wanted revenge, and so he told his friends from the
West nineties neighborhood not only inside that he had gotten punched,
but also outside he identified the person who had punched him.
So I'm lay ensued in which Raymond Blount's friends were
attacked by From Lopez's friends and his group from the
(04:29):
West nineties. And in that confusion, under nighttime conditions conducive
to a mistaken that witness identification, Raymond Blunt was shot
and killed and killed.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Right, And so what happens next? So now we have
a murder, it's near NYU. That that puts a lot
of pressure on the cops. Right, So you're where were
you at the time of this?
Speaker 1 (04:49):
So at the time, I'm actually uptown meaning where I lived.
Speaker 5 (04:52):
Did you have alibi witnesses?
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Yes, absolutely, And that's definitely part of the story because
we were together driving throughout the city in a car
that I had just newly acquired. It was like that
same day, August third and fourth, I had just gotten
that car, and it was sort of like a big gift. Well,
it was a big day, not just that the car
was out for the first time, but also that was
the car that I was going to use to go
(05:14):
to college, to drive to for my home, which was
right across in the Bronx where I was going to
go to college. And we were driving around and enjoying ourselves,
oblivious to anything that had happened. And at the time
when the actual crime occurred, we were uptown in my neighborhood,
driving around.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
And so when did you first come in contact with
the authorities?
Speaker 5 (05:35):
How did that happen?
Speaker 1 (05:37):
August sixth, nineteen ninety one. So this is a couple
of weeks, two days, two days right after the murder,
and I'm driving home. I'm with my brother and we
had actually met two young ladies that night. It was
another you know, good moment, and we was driving home
when suddenly cops came out with guns drawn and pointed
(05:58):
them out the window, and everyone just.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Screamed, you were in a traffic light.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
No, we were in front of my home. We drove.
The cops had been waiting for me. They had been
upstairs speaking to my mother and my siblings. When my
mother said that I should be coming home shortly, they
positioned themselves outside. So when we came out, they chew
their guns and told me to get out the car.
And I never saw freedom ever since after that.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
So obviously you're twenty two and you're scared out of
your mind and they take you in. They tell you've
been charged with murder. Is that right?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
That's correct. I was taken to the sixth Precinct and
and it's interesting because I was so scared, everyone was
so scared. I just got out. I complied, and I
got in the car. And then when they took me away,
the girl was saying, I thought you were a nice guy,
and I said, I screamed back, I said, I am,
you know, And I was taken to the precinct. I
(06:53):
was interrogated for over ten hours, and they want to
know my whereabouts. On the night of August thirty fourth,
nineteen ninety one. I told them, I told them who
I was with. I told them that on no circumstances
I was involved in any violence. I told him what
I was wearing.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
Ten hours.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
That's a tough I mean, that's a long time to
be interrogated.
Speaker 5 (07:10):
So did you did they get you to confess?
Speaker 1 (07:12):
No, I didn't confess. For me, it was surreal experience.
I just felt that if I told the truth that
it would be resolved. If I was just patient, that
it would be resolved. What I needed to do was
remember why I was, what I did, who I was with,
and it would be resolved.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
And well, that's interesting to hear you say that, Frenda,
because there's a lot of distrust among the Latino community
of police nationally. I think the figure sixty nine percent
of Latinos will actually even call the police if they're
a victim of a crime or if they witness a crime, because.
Speaker 5 (07:43):
There is that distrust. But you felt differently.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
You felt that the police were on your side and
that if you were truthful, then everything would work out
all right.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Well, absolutely, cops for me at that point were heroes
to me. I mean, I had gotten It's an interesting
anecdote when I was about maybe ten years old, I
had found the stolen car and we went to the
thirty fourth Precinct, our local neighborhood, and the cops gave
me a bag of jelly beans and put the cop
had on me, and they said, good job for finding
my cops, I mean my father's stolen car. So I
(08:13):
admired them, and plus they were protecting my community.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
As a ten year old, that's a big moment in
anybody's life. Yeah, you helped out your dad, you found,
you solved the crime, and the cops are giving you
big props. I'm not surprised then that you had some
you had a lot of faith in the system. What
happens next?
Speaker 1 (08:30):
So because I refused to confess, I was taken to
the Manhattan Tombs Central Booking in other words, and I
was processed, I was arranged, I pled not guilty, and
from then on. Hours later, I was sent to Rikers Island,
where my nightmare really began in Earnest.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
So you're in Rikers Island now your nightmare is fully underway.
I mean, this is I think this is everyone's nightmare.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Solarly, I had to go into survival mode because all
around me. I mean people were fighting over the phone
to make phone calls. I mean the phones were racially divided,
two phones, one Latino and one Black, and those anyone
who crossed those lines so use those phones will be
cut in the face, smashed in the face with a phone.
These are things I actually saw, and it was black
(09:14):
market operations. They were burgeoning gangs and what would become
groups like Latin Kings and stuff like that. And now
I was terrified. I just tried to mind my business
and all along, in my heart, I still felt that
the American criminal just system would prevail if I stayed patient.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
Was there bail said in your case, no bail, so
you had no hope of getting out it before your trial.
Speaker 5 (09:34):
How long did it take you to get the trial?
Speaker 1 (09:36):
My trial took about seven months to get on their way.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
So you're locked up for seven months, taken away from
your family, taken away from your life, put into this
devastating circumstance was what was Let's just talk about the
jail for a minute. Rikers Island is technically pacified as
a jail, even though but people don't understand that many
jails like Rikers are actually more dangerous than maxims prisons.
(10:01):
So in those seven months, what you know what went
through your mind?
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Sure, well I was there over a year, but it
took seven months to get to my trial. And you know,
during the whole year and change that I was there,
I mean, I was deeply affected by just seeing the
violence perpetuated by not just inmates on inmates, but correctional
officers attacking inmates, and even inmates attacking correctional officers. When
(10:27):
you see someone get stabbed with sewing machine efficiency, you
know there's something in you that dies and yet lives.
It affects your psyche in a way that you're never
the same because you see another human being injured in
a way that just makes an impression, a bad impression
in your.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
Life, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
There's nothing you can do about it, even if it
happens to be someone that you knew and even shared
a meal with for some reason.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
Were you when you went in, would you consider yourself
a tough guy? Were you a guy who could handle
himself in a fight or you what was your I mean,
Fernando as a guy who keeps himself in very good shape.
But I don't know you back then I've known you
now for six or seven years, so yeah, I mean,
how were were you equipped to deal with this situation anyway?
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Well, mentally, I wasn't equipped physically, perhaps I had a
better fighting chance than a more scronier person. I mean
I was a bodybuilder at the time, and that's what
would make also the distinction in this case in terms
of the identification procedure and why they even made me
sit down. They described the perpetrator by the witnesses themselves.
The perpetrator was described as five ten, one hundred and
(11:35):
sixty five pounds. I'm six two, weighing two twenty and
so they made me sit down in the lineup to
hide the identification procedure. But for me, it was a
matter of just trying to adjust because you couldn't even
have a fair fight without getting jumped. That's what happened
to me when I was attacked. I was trying to
defend myself against someone in one instance, and then his
friends came and attacked me. I had no I couldn't
(11:55):
fight three guys.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
And what happened then, were you well.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Went into my locker and stole my food and the
soap and deodorant, that my parents brought me.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
But were you badly beating up at the time.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
I wasn't that badly beating up, but I was very embarrassed.
And you know, it was a turning point because I
was at a point where I was waiting for my
trial to occur. I'm waiting for the American criminal just
system to work in my case, and I'm being patient,
and this is something that really tries your patient. And
when once the Latino groups saw what had happened to me,
someone tried to pass me a razor and they say, yo,
(12:27):
you could resolve it this way, and I declined because
I want to go home. If I stab or hurt
someone even worse, I could end up in prison even longer.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Yeah, I mean you were already facing a very long
sentence and you knew it at the time, right. So,
And it's interesting too, the eyewitness identification. I just want
to touch on that for a minute, because there are
a lot of tricks that they play, right, and we
know that eyewitness identification is a factor in seventy five
percent of the DNA exonerations that have happened nationwide. So
there's a lot of movement now on the Innis's project,
(12:59):
The Spearhead this along with some other groups to reform
how I wouldn't identifications are done everything from videotaping to
other procedures what we call a double blind. But in
your case, they obviously just wanted to get you, and
they were willing to do some dirty tricks in order
to get a conviction, so they weren't really interested in
(13:19):
the truth.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Is that fair to say that's correct?
Speaker 1 (13:21):
I mean, as proven, the witnesses were placed in a room,
these teenage witnesses at that who have been beaten, who
were hungry, who were tired, who were joking around, who
by their own accounts did not want to be there,
and they were placed in a room and allowed to
just shift through pictures, and three friends of deceased who
were in a separate identification procedure, correctly identified who would
(13:44):
become the state star witness. And the four of the
witnesses who were in another room selecting pictures, then selected
my picture, and a seventeen year old young lady said
that I looked cute, and that was enough for her
to share the pictures and for the witnesses to uh
communally agree that I resembled the perpetrator and that was enough.
Speaker 5 (14:03):
They looked at the pictures together.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Yes, which is illegal.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
Of course it's illegal.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
It's one of the reasons I got read it.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
Oh my god, that's it.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
That's I've heard a lot, but I hadn't heard that
particular story before, you know, having having you know, been
being that I'm familiar with so many of these cases.
But that's that's just straight crazy. So there you are,
you're you're stuck there.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
And you go to trial.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
And and you were you were represented by a public
defender at the time.
Speaker 5 (14:32):
You weren't a wealthy guy, right.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
I wasn't a wealthy guy. But my parents, uh got
scared and they hired a private attorney based upon word
of mouth, particularly because he spoke Spanish and he had
a son named Fernando. Okay, so that was like for
them for some reason that he had like a sign like,
you know, and so they hired him. And you know,
(14:53):
he was hoodwinked from the start in that the prosecutor
didn't turn over excopolatory evidence, and when he did turn
over boxes of evidence, it was after my jury was selected.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
So this is where so he had no time, no time.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Even when he asked he was not allowed.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Right, And we know that the Supreme Court ruled in
Brady that they have to turn over exculpatory evidence, but
it seems like it's almost routinely ignored by prosecutors, which
is shocking. Should be shocking to everyone in America, right,
I mean, everyone who watches TV, watches crime shows, knows
that that's the responsibility of the prosecutor. And most people,
i think, believe that the prosecutor wants to get the
(15:30):
right guy and would want to get the right guy
because who would want the wrong guy to still be
out there? Right? That's always crazy to be fre nanda
that when you aside from the human tragedy of locking
up the wrong person, the idea that the real perpetrator
is out there and is going in many cases, in
almost all cases, he's going to commit more mayhem, be
(15:51):
responsible for more mayhem and hurt other people should be
enough motivation in itself for law enforcement to want to
do the right thing. But obviously in your that was
not the case. I'm sure these guys were feeling a
lot of pressure, so much crime, so many cases they
deal with, they want to get it off their desk.
You were victimized by that mentality and that lack of morality.
(16:12):
I would say, as well, so now you're at trial,
you have your alibi. Witnesses there were they called to
the stand.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Yes, matter by witnesses came forward. I testified, and even
three friends of deceased came forward and said that I
wasn't the guy who shot their best friend.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
And so then people are listening, They're going, well, wait
a minute, wouldn't that be enough, wouldn't that be.
Speaker 5 (16:34):
The case closed? No?
Speaker 1 (16:35):
Well that's what I thought, That's what I had hoped.
But what the jury didn't know, and I didn't even
know until the investigation unraveled on my behalf, was that,
for example, from Lopez, the state start witness sixteen years old,
who knew the actual perpetrator had told the police and
prosecutors who actually committed the crime, but they suppressed that
(16:57):
evidence and where he could be found. In exchange for
his false testimony, he named me as someone I totally
was not, and the police still did not go investigate
the neighborhood. He got, after over twenty hours of interrogation,
an opportunity to escape from murder charges, and the witnesses
the teenage witnesses as well. In addition, who didn't know
(17:19):
it from Lopez, but who did say that it was him.
They got that that part right. They had gotten charges
dismissed on the eve of their trial. Two had unrelated
criminal charges pending it which were dismissed right before my
trial began.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
So it's amazing that prosecutors have this much power, right.
The fact is that people think that the judge has
a lot of power, or that the police or the
defenders have power. The fact is that an overwhelming amount
of the power rests with the prosecutors, because they can
decide whether to prosecute or drop charges against anyone for
(17:54):
any reason.
Speaker 5 (17:55):
Is that right, yes, sir.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
So it's interesting because we know everyone who follows is
even aware of anything to do with criminal justice, knows
that you can't bribe a witness, right, But yet the
state is able to offer the best bribe that there is,
which is that, Hey, you got a lot of trouble
on your hands, kid, right, you're facing a murder charge
or you're facing assault or other things, and you know what,
(18:19):
we're just going to ask you to do us a
little favor here, you know, tell us what we need
to hear, and you could go home and we're going
to clean it up and keep it moving, right, I mean,
what could be better than that? And I think that
a lot of people would have trouble resisting that if
they're looking at a long period in prison, a long
many many years they're facing. They're scared too, and they
want to go home, and they go, well, I don't
(18:40):
even know this guy, Fernando, but you know what, screw him,
you know. So I think that's something that's important for
people to understand. People who are going to be serving
on juries, people who are involved in the system in
any way, I think they need to know that well absolutely.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
And it's also how the system sets up the vulnerability
of this case. Teenage witnesses, you know, who haven't even
had their prefrontal cortex meant for good judgment even fully developed.
In my case, for example, two of the witnesses, one
of whom had one of the charges dismissed, told the
prosecutor that didn't want to come testified. They didn't believe
I was the guy, and yet they were arrested, physically
(19:18):
taken from their home as material witnesses.
Speaker 5 (19:20):
That doesn't sound closer either.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
I mean there's just so it was really a series
of mistakes that read to you that led to your
both both deliberate and accidental, but mostly deliberate. Right, Yes,
so you're now you get convicted. The moment of that,
the jury coming back in, I can't imagine the pressure,
(19:43):
but you're you're standing there, You're still hoping that this
is going to be you know, the system's going to work,
and you're going to go home and try to forget
this whole thing. But then they come back and they
read off the verdict, and then.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
What And at that moment, I just had an out
of body experience because I couldn't believe that, you know,
all my hopes and dreams were shattered in the American
criminal justice system. I really had believe in the system.
I told the truth, honestly, and I was just shattered.
I mean, my mother started crying. My six year old
(20:16):
sister at that time fell to the floor, and you know,
my grandmother, she like nearly fainted. I couldn't turn around
because the hand of the bailiffs was shifting me now
to not being able to look at my family, but
to look directly at the jury or the judge. And
I was just I was terrified. I didn't even feel
like I was there. I felt my body, but I
(20:36):
felt myself floating away.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
The nightmares now fully underway. You're in a maximum security prison.
Is it as bad as people think it is?
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Yeah? It is. It is. You're living in a six
by night foot cell. It's very small. I mean I
could stretch out my hands and almost touch the cell walls.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
And there's two of you in there.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Well, there was one at times there was too. Throughout
my years, I would be forced to be with someone else,
but in the beginning I was by myself. They didn't
have double bunking in the beginning of my inconserration.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
And so there you are, facing the possibility of spending
the rest of your life there. And then things took
a very interesting turn. And this is the story again,
one of the many things that makes your story so
unique and makes you such an inspiring character to me.
So your story is national news, right it became. It
(21:43):
got a lot of coverage. I mean there's a lot
of murders at this time, but your story got a
lot of coverage.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
Fernando Bermudez five people testified against him, and the judge
put them away for life, but was he wrongly convicted
of murder. Fernando Bermudez had an alibi. He says he
was driving around with friends.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
There was no physical evidence against him, no blood, no gun,
but there was no getting around those witnesses. Maryann de Berry,
with the father's help, was able to track down all
the witnesses who testified against Fernando and get them to
admit that under pressure, they gave false testimony.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
And so then you received a letter. Let's talk about
this because this is really and you wrote a lot
of letters, but this letter that came in you probably
remember pretty well what it said, right.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Well, absolutely. I was in my cell and I was
working out, and I just finished writing another legal letter
because I was always writing letters to try to get help.
And a young lady wrote me. She had saw my case.
She was living in Oklahoma at the time, and she
wrote me and she says she believed in me. She
said that she wanted to pray for me. And I
(22:48):
was just amazed that at her persistent persistence in continuing
a relationship.
Speaker 5 (22:54):
With me, and she had to go to some trouble
to find you and gave your address on the TV.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Show, Oh no, no, no, yees. She had to investigate.
At the time, there was no internet and things like that,
and so she had to go. She was working for
the phone company, so she had to actually call places,
and finally she called Rikers Island and they got so
fed up with her after calling so many different departments
they already had heard about her that they just scribbled
off some numbers and you know, some more information that
(23:20):
when she was able to see on the TV apart
from my name, and then she wrote me a letter.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
So you get this letter, and there was no picture attached, right, So,
as far as you knew, could have been anybody, but
just you didn't know that this was going to be
the woman of your dreams at the time, right, right,
But then things progressed.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
That's right. She sent me a picture and she was
beautiful apart from her description, and most importantly to me
was that she brought the word of God in my life.
I mean, I was at a point where I didn't
know what to believe anymore. The American criminal justice system
had failed me. I felt that God had abandoned me.
And here was this young girl speaking about God to
me and bringing about faith. You know, renewing it, and
(24:00):
that's what she did, and she came to visit me
and we got married.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
You got married at the prison in prison, so I
couldn't believe it.
Speaker 3 (24:08):
Wow, that was And that's Crystal Now, Crystal is. I've
met Crystal several times. She's an amazing person, beautiful, has
such a great disposition, so positive. And then you had kids, yes,
while you're in prison. Yes, And your daughter was born
in what ninety six, ninety five.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
In the early nineties, and then we had another We
had our second daughter, who was born in two thousand
and one, followed by my son in two thousand and five.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
So as much as it's a blessing to have kids
and have another reason to live right and to be
you know, motivated to get out of bed every day
when you're in this impossible situation, how difficult is that
to grow up apart from your kids, And how does
that affect them when they're that that is, you know,
(25:01):
not accessible to them.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
What was extremely difficult decision for myself because first I
told Chris, I said, Chris, I said, we shouldn't get married.
You know, you really even shouldn't bother with me because
I don't know what I'm getting out.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
You don't know if you're getting out, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Yeah, And so she was like, I have faith in
God that it's going to turn out. And then came
the decision to have kids. For me. I didn't want
to have kids because I didn't want to bring more
burdens to not only ourselves in the situation we were in.
But if I didn't get out, then the children would
essentially almost be fatherless apart from me being alive in
prison if I survived. But also I was so angry
(25:37):
at the system and what it did to me and
the confines and controls that I found myself in that
I said to myself, Wow, you have to do something
that means if you have a kid that can survive
if you don't. So it was that decision as well.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
Yeah, and listen, it was a great decision because you
have a wonderful family, have three kids, right, yes, Yeah,
it's fantastic. So then let's talk about how you so
when things turned for the better and how you did
get out.
Speaker 5 (26:06):
What was the breaking tipping point?
Speaker 3 (26:08):
Who was it, what organization or person or combination of
things and others take it through.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
When you were released.
Speaker 6 (26:18):
Well.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
The foundation of my case leading to my exoneration, upon
which all the good intention and no well spoken lawyers
who fought hard for my case. The foundation begins with
Marianne the Barry, who was a former nun turned attorney
in her late forties, who began investigating my case as
(26:39):
early as nineteen ninety three, nineteen ninety two and so forth.
And she began investigating my case, and she started laying
the foundation of all the misconduct that occurred and everything.
And even though I was denied ten appeals, you know,
with her help and all the different lawyers, including Hellerstein
(27:00):
you know, and got rest Marianne's soul as she passed
away last year. The tipping point became around two thousand
and eight when I had gotten help from another attorney
from Seaton Hall Law School, and she was involved in
my case, and she got what would many prisoners would
call a dream team, including lawyers from Washington, d C.
(27:23):
New York law firms and other people from New Jersey
as well. And she also got involved on New York's
Innocence Project and together we all went into court in
two thousand and nine after I had rejected a plea
bargain from the District Attorney's office. So for me, that
was a turning point because I finally got to test
(27:43):
the evidence before a new judge in Manhattan stan Supreme Court.
And it was a moment where I felt good because
I had rejected a plea, a plea bargain and off
for plea. But I was also scared because it meant
that if I had lost this eleventh a pal, I
would definitely or most likely, I should say, die in prison.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Well, that's an unbelievable amount of pressure, and an Alfred
plea for those of you who aren't aware, means that
you're the state basically comes to you and says you
we kind of they kind of give you like a wink, right,
like we kind of know we mess this up, but
we're not gonna admit that we're wrong, which means you
can't sue us, but we're gonna let you go home. So,
(28:24):
I mean, that's a tough decision to make, right, I mean,
as bad as you want to get out of there.
But at the same time, it's a it's sort of
like a I mean, it's I don't know if you
call it like a Sophie's choice. But it's a brutal
decision to have to make. But you made the right decision.
And yours was not a DNA case because it was
a shooting, so there was no physical evidence at the time.
(28:45):
There was actually no physical evidence of any kind that
connected you to.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
The crime, none whatsoever.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
Never was never.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
So you go to trial with this dream team innocence projects,
this group of dedicated individuals, and now you got the
full Now you got the odds a little bit in
your favor, right, it's fair to say. And so you
go to court. Let's have let's talk about the opposite experience.
(29:16):
You're there saying, you know, different kind of pressure, right,
You've been through everything that they can throw at you.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
What happens, Well, I'm in court and I'm just like
glad that I rejected that offer because I really wanted
to get down to the matter of these witnesses coming forward.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
And NBC News investigation shows if those witnesses are now
telling the truth, and Fernando Bermudas is the wrong man.
Speaker 5 (29:41):
Your kids are there, wife is there.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
My wife was there, and all a lot of the
past lawyers throughout the years were there as well. Mary
Anne was actually in a cave and Israel praying for me.
She went out, she was already out there, and the
hearing came and she was just there and she sent
word that she'd be praying in the cave, okay, and
so that was good. I felt confident with that. And
we were there and the EVIDENTI hearing under the leadership
(30:06):
of Barry Pollock from Washington, d C.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
It went well.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
It went well. I mean, the detective I don't know
what kind of problems he's had in his past, but
he did have, for example, past the rest for drunk
driving in which he hit two girls. He came into
the courtroom seemingly drunk. The prosecutor, who up until this
point was so smug and confident in his position about
(30:32):
his case against me, now was shaken, visibly shaken. They
brought in a surprise detective who they said would now
testify that he was observing the witnesses and that they
were not engaged in the illegal identification procedures, which we
already were on the verge of proving. And he couldn't
remember any details. So it's like they even made a
(30:53):
mistake bring him in because he couldn't remember.
Speaker 5 (30:55):
Because everybody could see he was lying, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
We demonstrated through cross examination. So I was just like, wow,
all this is finally coming to the point where my
faith told me that my enemies would become my footstool. Wow,
And that's what was happening. That's what was happening.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
And this was a judge, not a jury.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
This was before a judge. And after a two week proceeding,
I waited a month because the judge says he needed
more time to make the decision. And I was like, wow,
I was stuck at Downstate correctional facility, starving. I mean,
I was so hungry. I was actually taking rations from
the mess hall and saving it in myself like a squirrel,
(31:36):
just to get through because there I was like in
between my irregular prison and rikers, waiting to be called
back to court. So it was crazy. I came back
to court and it was the big moment, this was
my eleventh appeal. I walked into the courtroom and there
was just like a hushed suffocation. All you could hear
was the whirl of recorders of television cameras, reporters furiously scribbling,
(32:04):
You could hear people breathing. The clock seemed to be
just ticking so slow you could just hear that. And
I was just like I was. I was nervous because
this was a moment. And finally, finally the judge asked
me to stand, and I stood, and my knees were shaken.
(32:24):
I felt a touch of global warming under my shirt.
I was just so nervous. And the judge declared me
actually innocent, and the courtroom erupted in applause. And then
the judge didn't stop there. He said that in this case,
the prosecutor, James G. Rodriguez, knew and should have known,
(32:45):
that he was relying upon perjured testimony, that the identification
procedures were illegal and constitutional and should not have occurred,
which a federal judge I previously ruled in my favor on,
And that the State of New York admitted that its
state start witness from Lopez had committed perjury, and he
declared me actually innocent.
Speaker 6 (33:04):
Fernando Bermudaz was falsely accused of murder after a fight
outside of Manhattan nightclub. He was convicted, though sent to prison,
exonerated and released after nearly twenty years when a judge
found misconduct in his case.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
This wrongful conviction was predicated upon perjury, was predicated upon manipulation,
was predicated upon coercion and deceit of New York City
District Attorney's Office and New York City Police Department.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
And then you walked out of the court room of
free men. TV cameras there.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Yes, yes, soon after that, I walked out.
Speaker 5 (33:37):
And that must have been like a crazy mixture of
emotions too.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
I mean, your wife is there, You're able to hug
her like a normal person, like a man, not in
any nobody overseeing you or watching or anything else, right,
But then you're out in the fresh air, and like,
what's going through your mind?
Speaker 1 (33:57):
Well? I was scared because the world had changed so much.
I mean by eighteen years, eighteen and a half years,
several presidents and governors later. I mean, now there was
the Internet. People were walking around, cell phones, Yeah, they
were walking before I went to prison. The cell phones
with the size of shoe boxes, assuming you even had one,
you know, it was very rare, you know, And now
(34:18):
everyone had one. People were talking to themselves on the street.
I realized it was bluetooth technology. The fashion had changed
from baggy pants to now skinny jeans. Besides that, I
was just scared because it didn't even feel like I
had permission to be outside.
Speaker 5 (34:33):
I was, I was psychologically Were you worried that they
were going to send you back in, that this was
all a dream, or that there was someone was going
to grab you and go no, go back to your cell. Whatever.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Well, I certainly felt that this can happen again. I
felt that, but I've had trouble crossing the street. I
got Disney in department stores because there were so many
colors and choices.
Speaker 5 (34:53):
Like a PTSD kind of Well, then that's when I realized.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
After a while, I said, well, what's wrong with me?
Why am I waking up in the middle of the night,
getting up and feeling like I'm still in a prison cell,
pacing and Crystal would tell me, you know, you got
to get back to bed. You're not in prison anymore,
you know. Walking the family dog at the point at
that time was an issue. I felt like there was
gun towers outside. I mean, it was just a lot
of stuff. So I realized after I went to psychiatric
(35:18):
evaluation that I have post traumatic stress disorder, and I
didn't think I would have that.
Speaker 3 (35:22):
Well, you served, you know, of the of the in
the DNA exoneration cases with homicide as the as a crime,
the average time served a thirteen years, so you served,
you know, significantly longer than the average one, although we
had a couple of recent exonerations of guys who had
served thirty four years, which is unbelievable, numbers.
Speaker 5 (35:42):
Almost twice as long.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
But it affects everyone differently, and it obviously is going
to infect anybody to go through this. So I think,
you know, and it's interesting too, thinking back to that
scene in the courtroom. You know, the odds are stacked
against you when you're poor, when you're Latino or of color. Right,
we know that a higher percentage of people of color
(36:05):
are arrested, are prosecuted, are convicted. There's no justification for that,
There's no evidence that they commit crimes at a higher
rate or anything else. And so you finally got the
scales of justice tipped in your favor and you emerged
to this loving family. But then you still had another
lawsuit to go, right, you still had a case. Now
(36:26):
you have to file a suit against the city and
against the state. Right, yes, so that that has now
been resolved, Right, the first one.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
The first one, but it took me five and a
half years. Let the record reflect.
Speaker 3 (36:40):
Five and a half years. So you're out with nothing
for five no job skills, no resume. No, I mean,
how to get a job right, It's got to be brutal.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
I mean all I had was, you know, an associate's
degree of the concentration in business and working toward my bachelor's.
And then when I got out, I had to go
to college to finish my bachelor's and I had to
take loans. There was no free ride here. I had
to go to college and out there and you know,
like most hard working young men and women do for
their lives and futures. But the thing is, I had
(37:11):
to deal with the psychological impact. I didn't know how
to drive anymore. I had to get a license. People
from my church closed me. They helped me get my
license back. I didn't have money to get a license
or even take driving school lessons. You know, it was funny.
I'm forty years old and I got to learn how
to drive again.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
No, it's interesting.
Speaker 3 (37:29):
For another you know, almost thirty five percent of xenneries
don't get any money right because the compensation statutes are
so different in every state and in some states, it's
impossible to get money. So it's very difficult to get money.
And I think people think that you come out and
society just opens its doors to you and everything's great,
and you get a check and you move on all
(37:51):
your life with five and a half years with nothing
struggling on the outside.
Speaker 5 (37:55):
I mean, I knew you back then, and I know
what you were going through.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
That's got to be just an another almost another major
challenge to get through. But you got through it. I
mean you persevered. I know you went and did three
hundred speaking engages. We talked about that before and just
by cold calling, you've spoken all over the world.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
Yes, yes, we've been to Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Switzerland.
We tell our story. Fine, why to transform the criminal
justice systems?
Speaker 3 (38:23):
So, Feranda, what I wanted to ask you is, what's
the message you want to send?
Speaker 1 (38:28):
Well, certainly, the problem of wrong for convictions is far reaching.
We have over seventeen hundred wrongful convictions that are just documented,
and that's just documented in America today.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
Yeah, seventeen hundred exonerations, I think, yeah, it's almost yes, yes, yes,
close to eighteen.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
Absolutely, close to eighteen hundred exonerations. Those are just the
ones that are documented. And you know, over almost one
hundred and fifty were released from death row, which is
horrible as well.
Speaker 5 (38:54):
And no, that's what Brian Stevenson says.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
I mean, for every person we've executed, we've for every
nine people we've executed, we've had one exonerated from death throw.
And as he says, and he's one of my heroes,
if you had planes and one out of every nine
or ten planes crashed, nobody would fly.
Speaker 5 (39:11):
You can't have this system. So anyway, I'm sorry in
directors to go ahead.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
So yeah, So on that note, there has to be accountability.
You know, prosecutors get this immunity. We understand that we
need prosecutors, and those who do a good job, kudos
to them. But for those that don't, who flell out
the system and our constitution, then shame on them. They
should be held accountable. They have too much immunity. We
need more accountability for those who are responsible. As a
(39:36):
deterrent effect. Law is created to deter crime across the board.
And if it doesn't deter crime or misconduct, then it
doesn't work.
Speaker 5 (39:47):
Why is the law there above the law?
Speaker 1 (39:50):
Right? Yeah, So they shouldn't be. And you know, the
damage that it causes families and the people directly affected
body and costs of is just it's horrible. I mean,
I'm affected today. I'm still free today, but i still
feel like I'm in prison.
Speaker 5 (40:08):
For people who want to help, what can they do?
Should they go online? Should they write letters? Should they donate? Well?
Speaker 1 (40:13):
I think that public needs to connect with their politicians
and voice their concerns that this is an issue that
matters to them. But more than that, they also need to, like,
if possible, to use their resources, talents, and time to
volunteer to their local innocence projects.
Speaker 3 (40:30):
You know, there are fifty five innosce projects around the
country and so there's.
Speaker 5 (40:34):
Probably one near you wherever you are. Don't forget to.
Speaker 3 (40:43):
Give us a fantastic review wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 5 (40:46):
It really helps.
Speaker 3 (40:47):
And I'm a proud donor to the Innocence Project, and
I really hope you'll join me in supporting this very
important cause and helping to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go
to Innocence Project dot org to learn how to do
and get involved. I'd like to thank our production team,
Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis. The music in the show
is by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be
(41:09):
sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and
on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast. Wrongful Conviction with Jason
Flamm is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts and
association with Signal Company Number one
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.