July 8, 2020 • 35 mins
On April 15th, 2011, an Oakland, CA drug dealer lost his iPod, and an addict lost his life. 5 weeks later, the questionable word of another addict derailed the promising musical career of a young man whom he had never met.
Learn more and get involved at:
https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/with-jason-flom
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
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 (00:01):
Maybe. The early morning of April fifteenth, two thousand and eleven,
Duwan Taylor stole an iPod for an Oakland drug dealer
named C. Two of his other customers, Patrick Smith and
Robert Greene, gave Ce a ride in search of the
iPod thief. They spotted Mr Taylor pulled up next to him,
and C proceeded to shoot and kill him Over this
trivial slight. Nearly a week would go by before Robert
(00:24):
Green would offer cops information and an uncertain description of
the shooter. A few weeks and several descriptions later, Green
would claim to have seen C wearing a red hat.
A few days after that, police would approach Pierre Rushing,
a man who had never been known as C, but
wearing a red hat. They'd bring Pierre's juvie photo and
his name to Robert Green, who went on to identify
(00:46):
him as the shooter, despite a solid alibi, no physical
evidence whatsoever or anything to corroborate Robert Green's highly questionable identification.
Pierre Rushing's burgeoning rap career and promising future were stolen
by Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving
fifty to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed
(01:09):
by a drug dealer needs See. Patrick Smith has since
signed half a davits and testified to Pierre's innocence, and
another of C's customers that night has bravely said a
legal name to the culprit, and even though Mr Rushing
did not name See, we have censored his name from
this episode from Mr Rushing Safety. Meanwhile, the state of
(01:29):
California continues to ignore evidence of Pierre's actual innocence and
to fight his honest attempts to regain his freedom. This
is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flam. Welcome back to Wrongful
(01:53):
Conviction with Jason Flam. That's me and today we're going
to tell you about the case of Pierre Rushing. We'll
speak with one of his post conviction attorneys, Marvin Lou
as well as taking a call from Kern Valley Correction
in California to hear from Pierre himself. This is Global
telling you have a Fred call. From this call and
(02:15):
your telephone number will be monitored and recorded. To accept
this call, say or dial five now, thank you for
you thing Global Hill Link. Hello, good morning, good morning.
I'm glad you're here. I mean, I'm sorry you're here
under these circus stances, but I'm definitely glad you're here.
And I know we have limited time, so let's get
(02:37):
right into it. Today's episode, we're gonna tell the story
of the man we have on the phone now, Pierre Rushing,
who's serving fifty years. The Nightmare starts on April fifteen,
two thousand eleven. A three five am. Um, when there's
a murder. But let's go back to your childhood, because
you had a difficult upbringing and you were coming out
of that and building a career in music when it
(02:58):
all went haywire in California. My father was ass and
tea in and out of prison, um smuggle with addictives,
crack cocaine. So I don't want to say like any
other Oakland kid, but as I mean, a lot of
a lot of kids in the grew up in the
nineties where just products of our environment. We grew up
looking at things that we believe to be right. So
(03:19):
we as we mature, we get to see that they
were really wrong. And how did you get into music?
My auntie used to work for Keith Swift. Her name
was Tracy Russie. She sins passed its two dosan thirteen.
But just being around her, she put me in her wing,
just taking me to the studio with her as I
became addictive music. Is it fair to say by two
(03:41):
thousand and eleven things we're starting to look up for
you in terms of possibly building a career. And yeah,
when I was arrested for this case, actually friends of
mine has said that the police were looking for me
for this time and we all laughed about it because
everybody knew that I couldn't have done and I have
been wrapped in and going to the student you're staying
assist in shooting videos. Um. And actually when I was
(04:03):
arrest and I was over up for Bayery Live by
the Name of Queen, and uh, we had a big
like like like four with my patures on and promoting
my music and everything. So you know it was coming
up for me. Yeah, you were on exactly, You're on
your way up. And then everything went completely haywire. Now
(04:26):
let's turn the conversation to Marvin Lou. Marvin is a
criminal defense attorney of some repute, and he has been
representing Pierre for some time. Now, let's just paint a
picture of what happened. The date was April fiven, and
what happened was two individuals by the name of Patrick
Smith and Robert Green. We're doing crack cocaine for the
(04:49):
day and a half leading up to this young man's killing,
and Patrick Smith and Robert Green went to an apartment
in Oakland to purchase more crack cocaine. How Chrick Smith
was driving, Robert Green stayed in the car while Patrick
Smith went up to the apartment to purchase more drugs.
So Patrick Smith meets up with his drug dealer. Patrick
(05:11):
Smith knows him as C the letter C, who is
the actual person responsible for the murder of Dawan Taylor.
While Patrick Smith was in the apartment, there were several
other people present, and Mr Taylor left the apartment shortly
after Mr Taylor left. Then sees iPod turned up missing
(05:32):
and someone in the apartment said that Mr Taylor had
taken sees iPod. What happened next was Patrick Smith, the
shooter SEE, and another individual who was also charged as
a co defendant named Andre Morris. They all left the
apartment and went and got in Patrick Smith's car to
go find Mr Taylor, who had allegedly taken sees iPod.
(05:57):
Robert Green was waiting in the car, sitting in the
front passenger seat. So pat Smith drives around the corner.
They see Mr Taylor walking down the street and See
or Andre Morris. Pat Smith wasn't sure which told him
to stop the car. See and Andre Morris got out
of the car, confronted Mr Taylor, and See shot and
(06:19):
killed Mr Taylor on the sidewalk in front of a
fast food restaurant. They then got back into the car.
Pat Smith drove a short distance. Both See and Mr
Morris got out of the car and ran away. So
that that's the factual backdrop for this thing. Follow along
here because Pierre, who were on the phone with now
had no connection to viction, no knowledge of the actual perpetrator,
(06:42):
and he was at his grandmother's at the time with
a young lady named Lauren Richardson on the time and
date of the murder. Have you ever had a nickname
of Sea before? Never? Never. I've always went by the
name of Stank or people from my neighbodies to call
me peace, thank me here for my first Ms Pierre,
I've never never went by the name See. So what happened?
(07:05):
How did you end up getting wrongfully convicted here. Well,
one of the pastors, Robert Green, he goes to the
police like five days after he allegedly see at this time,
and he failed them that he's seen his murder and
a guy named Seen committed this murder. He gives the
police multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description is five,
a light skin, a hundred and twenty pounds. I haven't
(07:26):
been a hundred tweet pounds if I was seen years old,
let alone at nineteen years old, and I'm not light skinned.
The second time, I believe you, see the police, he
switches it up again. So allegedly he says he sees
Seed on April thirties, which would have been fifteen days
after the crime, and he went back to the police say,
you know what, I lied again. I believe he was
(07:46):
six foot to brown skinned, and they had on red
shirt and a red hat. I'm not sure what kind
of line up they were showing it, but he still
couldn't identify who they believed to be seen. The police
seen in an area that he said that he had
seen seeing. I believe it was made Bird wearing a
(08:07):
red hat. And they stopped me. And when they stopped me.
They said, what is your name? I don't lie to
the police year Russian is my name? I said, hey,
we're looking for a guy to beat a guy up.
I haven't been the guy up. And then they leave
when they take that name back to I believe Robert Green,
who was at the police station and they showing the
picture four days after he's seen a guy with a
(08:27):
red head. He said, you know what you had asked
how Bessie? And that's how the whole way of his spun.
Then looking I would have read had four days after
the private rickass, he's seen this guy and a month
after the crime. When they first questioned you, they wanted
to know what you were doing on the day of
the crime. But when they were asking you this question,
it was already five weeks later, right, And this is
(08:48):
a trick that they used. Sometimes you're like that you're
supposed to remember exactly. Like I ask anybody in the
audience right now, what were you doing. Let's go back
thirty five days from whatever day you're listening to this.
Tell me now what you were doing at a particular
time on that day. And I give you a dollar
because that's impossible. But it is very effective because then
they can say you lied, because there's no way anyone
(09:10):
could possibly remember that unless it was their birthday or
some other like really important day. Right April fifteenth, as
you would have it is my father's birthday. So without
me even thinking, you say April fifth, saying hey, there's
nothing I was with my dad, I say my day
on his birthday. Not one time I did any trial
transprit police ever been tourt these famy Do they ever
say where were you three a m? So once they
(09:33):
said no, you weren't what your dad? I also remember
that I had a traffic stop that day and they
win check and it showed that I was something truth.
But if like now not at that time it took me,
I believe my attorney, for about a week of job
of my memory to figure out where did I sleep
at three five him that morning? And I remember it
was my grandma's was because my mom changed me that
(09:54):
morning and said where are you going to get your
dad for his birthday? That's how I was able to
put the pieces of a pleasant together. But by that
time it was trial, so they looked at it as if, oh,
this is a third alibi? Were no I've given you
everywhere I went from April fifteen, So that's how he
played it, which is very nefarious because they see that
(10:15):
I was trying to tell him everything at the time
that this crime was committed at three forty five in
the morning. Now we know what you were doing when
you were supposedly out shooting somebody who you never knew
and don't know and still don't know and never will know. Well,
right before I was shooting a video. If you go
on YouTube right now, the song was called Youngerstake, Take
a Trip. Lauren Richardson was an associate of the cameraman
(10:39):
helped shoot the video. She was also my girlfriend April fourteen,
going to table fifteen. She's came to my h grandma
talk roughly about nine forty five round ten mclock and
we spend the night. We enjoy each other's company. We
uh deal with any other boys for the girlfriend. Hello.
(11:02):
My name is Lauren Richardson. I am an Oakland resident
and current legal apprentice. Um I entered the field with
a lot of motivation from the tragic situation that happened
with Pierre Rushing. Um I originally was into video on
April fourteen, Pierre went to shoot a video. It's called
(11:23):
take a Trip. We were super excited because he had
so much support from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was
a great rapper, so when he finally shot the video,
we were super excited. We went back to his grandmother's
house afterwards just to kind of recap, and we stayed
up all night watching movies, laugh and making plans for
the future. We you know, did what couples do late night,
(11:46):
and I left early in the morning because I had
to take my son to school. And it was weeks
after that he kind of disappeared, you know, when somebody
else found me and was like, um, you know he's
in jail, Like what because I was kind of mad,
you know I was. I thought he ghoes to me,
(12:06):
to be honest, so it was no way that he
could have committed the crime. I have never felt as
powerless as I felt in this situation to express reality
and be believed in. You know that this huge power
structure for them to be able to create a false reality,
(12:29):
Like even with the witness, the witness is not a
credible witness, nowhere near as credible as I am. Because
I'm not gonna go perjure myself. I'm not gonna risk
my life to keep a killer out of jail. So
for me to go up there in front of all
of these people and for them to not take my
word for it when they had no other evidence, it
bothers me to this day. It's a It's a big
(12:51):
part of the motivation for me to go into this
apprenticeship program because I want to learn how to speak
up for other people who can't speak for themselves, because
this has to stop. They ruined an entire family. The
idea that we in this country can sendence somebody like you,
(13:11):
promising young man with his life ahead of him to
fifty years based on the testimony of an admitted crackhead
who was up for two days to change his story
four times, really should make everybody a little scared. Pierre,
can you tell us a little bit about the trial
itself and killing his own camera? When I heard they
(13:31):
added on camera, started to kick my feet up and
just wait for the trial days and I'm like, even
his own camera, I'm I'm going on. I never in
a million years imagine that the camera was being low
quality or you really can't see anything on the camera.
You see a vehicle pull up and it's just it's
just grainy, so you can't really see anything. And I
remember my heart just dropping because I knew that that
(13:55):
was what was supposed to exonerate me. They had no evidence,
no corrob no no physicalness. They have the murder vehicle
with twelve fingerprints inside the car and said I got
in and out of that car four time, none of
the fingerprints mass made. One of the prosecution's witness was
a lady by the name of the Carlo Smith, who
says she witnessed the her and past Smith for best friends.
(14:16):
She had been in that car a week before when
the police forrensic Cathologists became the car in every they
found to call this fingerprints in that car. Therefore, when
she testified she hadn't been in the car seven days
prior to the killing, that means that the car couldn't
have possibly been wiped down. And if the car wasn't
wipe down, you fund twelve the fourteen fingerprints in that car,
(14:36):
And per Robert Green testimony, I got in and out
of that car four times, and I killed this guy
with no gloves. Why I wear my fingerprints on the car? Second,
if Robert Green is too believe. Why would you ever
call me five day light stand a hundred and twenty pounds?
Why would you ever change it to five ten hundred
and sixty pounds? And that preliminary hearing when the judge
(14:57):
allowed me to lead the cour room, they brought Robert
Green and they said could completely describe the killer. This
guy switched it up to six to two hundred and
twenty pounds. This guy is not to be believed. He
was addicted to crack and heron said he had been
up for two days off crack and iron had to
pensively seven time failings. Third, do you have to call
a smith? Another prosecution is with us. I didn't see him.
(15:19):
I don't know who that is. Well, yeah, I mean
our standard in this country is supposed to be reasonable doubt,
and this goes way beyond that standard. I had hoped that,
you know, I would I would be exagerated and did
you have proper representation? Now? I went to trial with
a public defender, and I went speedy trial. I was
arrested in May, I was convicted in August. And the
(15:40):
reason I went to speedy trial because I feel like
I had nothing odd. I didn't do it. So while
when I wait where I see my counting people wait
four or five years to fight the case because they're
trying to wait for the bead deal. The thurs Day
of trial, I remember the judge saying something like, hey,
I know the d is going to give you a deal.
She looked to your left. Get a deal because I
know that he's going to give you one. And I
(16:00):
just remember shaking my head, no, no, no, because why
would I take time for something if I didn't do it.
They know I'm not seen, so they want to know
if a we call in the urban community, if I'm
going to snitch, I know a lot of seas. That's
that's the one for two. It's not my job to
do the police a job for them, you know. So
if I wasn't there, what do you expect me to do?
(16:21):
Or maybe it could have been this guy, Maybe could
be this guy. If I do that, I'm worse than
Robert Green because you were not there and they know
that and they feed off that. Yeah, jail house snitches
is just sort of become like standard operating procedure. Correct.
It's a nightmare to live a nightmare. But that was
that was the sum of the trail. Yeah, that is
(16:42):
a nightmare scenario. So the jury goes out. When they
came back in, what was that moment like when they
actually found guilty of a crime you didn't commit. When
they came back with it, it was It was weird
because the whole trial, I had twenty to thirty people
every single day of my of my trial, friends from
the neighborhood, family, girlfriend, associates. But on that day nobody
(17:06):
was in the color room, not even the victim's family,
nobody from my frind that dad was just like a
sense of loneliness, of sense and like me against the
world because you're sitting here convictedmy for a crime that
I didn't commit, and I know that you're going to
commit this time. And I couldn't even look back to
look in the eyes of my father, my father and
(17:27):
my grandmother, and I felt like that was already fat
Like why wasn't even the victims family, like where was
It was just it's a feeling that I never want
to feel again. Marvin, take it back to how you
(17:48):
first met Pierre or how you first became aware of
his case, and why you chose to get involved in
this case. You must get hit with cases all the time.
I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney,
Stephen Bedrick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court,
also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State
Court of Appeal. What is the literal interpretation of habeas corpus.
(18:13):
Habeas corpus means to produce the body in Latin, and
what that means is that it's an allegation by us
that Pierre is being unlawfully incarcerated. And once I dug
into the case and reviewed the evidence in Pierre's case
and did some investigation of my own, that very much
turned out to be true. Well went wrong here? I
(18:33):
think a number of things went wrong, but most critically,
there was evidence which could have exonerated Pierre which was
not introduced. The only witness in the case, Robert Greene,
testified that Pierre was supposedly the person who committed this crime.
That is the only evidence in the case, and in
the trial against Pierre, that witness testified that the person
(18:56):
who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone
mirror minutes before shooting the victim. In this case, Pierre's
phone records were available, and that was part of the
habeas petition and got him a hearing subsequently, and those
phone records established conclusively that Pierre was not talking on
(19:17):
his cell phone at the time when the perpetrator was.
And if those records were introduced, I think that it
would be a pretty compelling piece of evidence to establish that,
in fact, Pierre is not the person responsible for this murder.
But they weren't introduced, The jury never heard of them.
What about the fingerprint stuff? How did they manage to
(19:38):
get around that? That seems like that could have been
enough on its own. How did he not leave his fingerprints?
Is he a ghost? Well? The fingerprint evidence was introduced
by way of a stipulation for the evidence technician who
actually gathered the latent fingerprints from the car that was
used in the homicide. That witness did not testify. Rather,
(20:00):
Pierre's trial attorney chose to have that evidence admitted by
way of an agreement with the prosecutor simply the conclusion
that Pierre's fingerprints were not in fact recovered from that car,
And had that witness been called, it would have led
to another important piece which was not introduced and not
known to the jury. That evidence technician also collected DNA
(20:22):
from that car swabbed all of the areas of that
car where the killer sat just before the murder occurred.
In addition, there was a cigarette but that was recovered
from the floorboard of that car, which was also swabbed
for DNA. That DNA evidence was not tested in time
(20:46):
for Pierre's trial, and that was also the subject of
his subsequent Abeas petition. So what happened was after we
obtained an evidentiary hearing in state court to attempt to
prove years innocence. As I started reviewing the case materials,
I realized that this DNA evidence existed which would completely
(21:07):
exonerate him, and no one had tested it. So there's
a procedure under California law that allows the convicted individual
to ask the court to now have that evidence tested
because it would prove that he's innocent. The government opposed
our efforts to have that evidence tested, and ultimately the
judge in this case refused to allow us to test
(21:31):
that evidence. I then appealed that refusal, and the Court
of Appeal refused to allow us to test that evidence.
Why is it that they wouldn't want to have the
DNA evidence in the case tested if they're so confident that,
in fact, he's the perpetrator. Because I never can understand
in any case, especially in the case as serious as
this one, a murder case, why they wouldn't want to
(21:53):
have every you know, stone turned over and have every
piece of evidence tested so that they can find out
not only that in this case Pierre didn't do it,
but they could find out who actually did. Marvin Yolanda
Washington and Patrick Smith are pivotal players in this whole
wrangful conviction. Can you explain their role in what went
(22:15):
wrong here? Sure? Of course Pat Smith was a charged
codefendant in the case at the time of Pierre's trial,
so he did not testify at the trial. He had
his fifth Amendment right. But after Pierre's trial was long
over and after Patrick Smith resolved his part of the
case for accessory affter the fact, he then signed in
(22:36):
affidavit which helped Pierre get an evidentiary hearing. He indicated
both in his affidavit as well as in his testimony
at the evidentiary hearing that his drug dealer is a
man who goes by the name of c and that
individual was not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing
refused to name that individual because he was afraid for
(22:58):
his life. One of the people who was in that
apartment was a woman by the name of Yolande Washington,
and she also did not testify a trial, but after
Pierre was convicted, she signed an affid David under penalty
of perjury, indicating that she, of course, having been in
that apartment, knew who she was. She obviously knew who
(23:20):
Andre Morris was, and what she said in her affid
David was that Pierre Rushing is not the drug dealer
who shot and killed Mr. Taylor. Pierre Rushing is not C.
But that's not all. Indeed, Yolande Washington went so far
as to identify who that person was. Now, before we
(23:41):
get into this, let me make one thing clear, which
is that Pierre does not know the identity of the
perpetrator of this homicide. Yolanda Washington, in her affid David
did name that individual who goes by the nickname C.
In fact, his first name is his name is and
(24:01):
of course it would make perfect sense that he would
go by the nickname C because his name is Pierre Rushing.
Does not have a C in his name, and she
has never been Pierre's nickname because Pierre is not the
person responsible for this killing. That affidavit was part of
what enabled Pierre to get a hearing in superior court. Unfortunately,
(24:25):
Miss Washington was a homeless individual at that time, and
my investigator was essentially unable to locate her to get
her to testifying court. So I filed a motion essentially
asking that her affidavit be considered because she was unavailable,
and that request was denied. Wow, it's pretty courageous, even
(24:49):
after the fact that these two people both were willing
to put their own lives at risk to identify someone
who they know is a killer. And I think that
speaks volumes to the veracity of their statements to me.
(25:11):
And I don't mean to say it like it's because
of the social climate that we have going on in
your klinded station right now, but growing up, our voice
felt I could spend them against us, not because I
grow up in an age and the police, but I
just watch how they need those that look like me. Here,
as we're talking about a guy give a description on
April thirties of a red hat, and you see me
on the dark saying, well, hey, that's a guy wearing
(25:32):
a red hat. Let me stop him. And now my
whole life is his spending in a sparter. Why not
a tread of physical evidence links me to this crime,
and if it could happen to me, it can't happen
to anybody. Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up.
I mean, we you know, every day there's more information
coming out, and I'm grateful that the public is starting
(25:53):
to have a really heightened awareness to the fact that
black people, It's just put it right out there, are
so much more are likely to be victimized by not
just police brutality, but by rawful convictions, by rawful prosecutions,
being forced into taking plea bargains two things they didn't do.
The whole system is stacked rawful convictions, though, do happen
(26:15):
to people from all races, all nationalities, all different creeds,
all different religions. I mean, we've had people on the
show from every walk of life. I mean, you can
take the case of Bryan Ferguson in a two thousand
one Columbus, Missouri killing. He was wrongfully convicted, and he's
a white man, you know, what I mean, like wrawerful
convictions don't have a skin color. I mean, it's just
(26:38):
usually what I'm going through. I witness misidentifications on valid
forensic science, false confessions, police or prosecutor misconduct. This is
a slew of things on why rawful convictions happened. And
then there's just laziness too. It's like, oh, we got
a guy with a red hat, good enough, you know
what I mean. But the idea that the justice system
at every level, now we see it on video of
(26:59):
how the system treats people like yourself, like George Floyd,
like so many others, as expendable, disposable, and yet I
mean there are very very real consequences. That's why we're
on the phone with you from prison now, or you
and I might be working together on a record instead
of Pierre. What would you want people to know about
(27:30):
you and what would you want them to do if
you could give them an action? Stem Um, I would
want them to know that could be your son, I
could be your brother, I could be your nephew, I
could be your cousin. I could be your friend. Um,
I'm innocent. If you have any doubt in my innocence,
I would actually just think on these key points. If
(27:54):
I wasn't innocent, with ulty, person would push for DNA
testing up the materials that were saw out of the vehicle.
If I wasn't innocent, what guilty man would plash for
the enhancement of the of the video if I wasn't innocent,
or man, I'm going to push for the phone records.
I'm innocent, I didn't commit this crime. I have nothing
(28:16):
to do with this crime. I would ask that you
just look inside your art and find the empathy and
the compassion to sign a petition that my family is
organized the Justice for Peer Rushing to Change dot org.
And I would ask that you stand up, that you
would reach out to the local authorities, your local police department,
(28:38):
const legislation, and just trying to try to make change.
So again, that's Justice for Pierre Rushing un change dot org.
As the petition will also have a link in this
episode description, so you can sign a petition there. Please,
everyone go and sign it. I already did. I hope
you'll join me and let's bring him home. And now
(29:00):
I want to introduce what our listeners have come to
know is my favorite part of the show and I
think a lot for a lot of them. It's true too. Um.
This is a part of the show where first of all,
I thank you for being on the show and sharing
your experience. Hopefully it will make a difference in the
lives of others, Um, and the difference in your case
(29:20):
as well. So thank you again, Pierre for being here.
And now I'm gonna kick back in my chair, turn
my microphone off and just basically shut up and listen.
So closing arguments, we're going to go first to Marvin
Lieu and then we're gonna hear from Pierre. What has
happened to Pierre is a systemic failure. These are problems
(29:41):
which are built into the legal system that need to
be fixed on the systemic level, you know, in terms
of next steps, you know. Fortunately, uh, Pierre continues to
be represented by Bob Bellis in his ongoing federal habeas matter,
and I wish them the best and I hope that
ultimately through the legal system they're they're able to generate
(30:03):
some relief and review for Pierre. But what I will
say is that in light of the failures of the
system relating to Pierre over and over again, what I
would say is that this venue is an opportunity to
go outside of and beyond the legal system to attempt
(30:24):
to find a way to free Pierre from from this
wrongful conviction. And one of the things that can be
done outside of the legal system is to put pressure
on the government to either test at DNA evidence or
provide it to Pierre's attorneys so that they can test
(30:44):
it for him. Even though they have resisted that and
actively opposed that throughout these proceedings, nonetheless they retain the
power to change their minds and agree, and they are
the Alameda County District Attorney's office and the californ On
Your Attorney General's office. So whether they're forced to do
(31:04):
that through some legal proceeding or whether they agree to
do that by virtue of public and political pressure, that
is something that that can be done and that they
continue to have the power to do. Pierre. The mic
is yours for closing arguments. Thank you. I would like
to uh first off saying thank you on behalf of
(31:25):
me in behalf of my family to a few people first,
starting with you, Jason Flaner. You creating this platform that
is reaching millions and millions of people. Um, right, now
we're living in a climate where a lot of people
are making it a black and a white issue right now. Yes,
black lives do matter, but it's not a black and
a white issue because they have a lot of people
that are Caucasian race that are standing up and you
(31:48):
are are one of us. All. Thank you. I thank
Marvin lou for fighting and champion in my innocence. I
like to thank Gloria Saudi. I'd like to thank Josh
Swindle for helping my family out. And I'd also like
to thank you came when she's doing for justice reform.
And I'd like to thank the Innocence Project and those
that are are are standing up for these carss. And
(32:09):
finally I'd like to just also thank my father. They
tried to make my father and try to transfers look
like a guy who was trying to persuade witnesses, you know.
And to the other fifteen, the driver of this case,
Patrick Smith, came in. He said, you know, I took
them guys to do that stuff, and I was a
part of that. And I can't live with myself knowing
that a man is doing life for something that I did.
(32:32):
He's not the guy. And when They asked him, why
are you coming forward now? He said, because his father
reached out to me, and they tried to make my
father look like like like he was persuaded, when all
he was doing it was fighting for his son. What
have you done if your son was arrested to some
men and do you would fight for him? So you
know they're gonna throw smoking mirrors and try to make
it seem like this and try to make it seem
(32:53):
like that. I don't care about the smoking mirror. I
don't care about the facts. And the fact is I
didn't commit this time. With that being said, you know,
it's a lot going on right now. So I just
asked for people to just educate yourselves on these type
of situations. They could happen to anybody here. I was wrapping,
so I was attending the Laney in Marrion College. I
didn't do too good. I ended up dropping out, but
(33:13):
I tried. You know, I don't know a lot of
people that come where I come from not even try
to go to college, let alone do it while they're
doing music. I was trying to make a change in
my life. I didn't grow up squeaky clean. I would
be the first one to tell you, like I told anybody,
I've had a check pass. That doesn't define me, that
doesn't make me a killer, that doesn't make me anything
but a man that grew up looking at something that's wrong,
(33:36):
believing that it was right. There is no physical for
friends and to give it is that links me to
this crime. So if you need any reason to to
fight for this cause, just look inside the case. Pull
the case up. You're gonna see listen. Is an atrocity
and it could happen to anybody, anybody. They say in
the Wikipedia at two point three million prisoners, like a
(33:59):
hundred twenty prowfully convicted people in prison. Something is wrong
with that. Likely there's something terribly wrong with that. Don't
forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you get
(34:20):
your podcasts. It really helps. 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 donate and get involved. I'd like
to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin wardis
the music in the show is by three time OSCAR
(34:42):
nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flam is a production of Lava
for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number One.
The Woman was Worth
Maybe. The early morning of April fifteenth, two thousand and eleven,
Duwan Taylor stole an iPod for an Oakland drug dealer
named C. Two of his other customers, Patrick Smith and
Robert Greene, gave Ce a ride in search of the
iPod thief. They spotted Mr Taylor pulled up next to him,
and C proceeded to shoot and kill him Over this
trivial slight. Nearly a week would go by before Robert
(00:24):
Green would offer cops information and an uncertain description of
the shooter. A few weeks and several descriptions later, Green
would claim to have seen C wearing a red hat.
A few days after that, police would approach Pierre Rushing,
a man who had never been known as C, but
wearing a red hat. They'd bring Pierre's juvie photo and
his name to Robert Green, who went on to identify
(00:46):
him as the shooter, despite a solid alibi, no physical
evidence whatsoever or anything to corroborate Robert Green's highly questionable identification.
Pierre Rushing's burgeoning rap career and promising future were stolen
by Green and the criminal legal system. He's currently serving
fifty to life for a frivolous and tragic crime committed
(01:09):
by a drug dealer needs See. Patrick Smith has since
signed half a davits and testified to Pierre's innocence, and
another of C's customers that night has bravely said a
legal name to the culprit, and even though Mr Rushing
did not name See, we have censored his name from
this episode from Mr Rushing Safety. Meanwhile, the state of
(01:29):
California continues to ignore evidence of Pierre's actual innocence and
to fight his honest attempts to regain his freedom. This
is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flam. Welcome back to Wrongful
(01:53):
Conviction with Jason Flam. That's me and today we're going
to tell you about the case of Pierre Rushing. We'll
speak with one of his post conviction attorneys, Marvin Lou
as well as taking a call from Kern Valley Correction
in California to hear from Pierre himself. This is Global
telling you have a Fred call. From this call and
(02:15):
your telephone number will be monitored and recorded. To accept
this call, say or dial five now, thank you for
you thing Global Hill Link. Hello, good morning, good morning.
I'm glad you're here. I mean, I'm sorry you're here
under these circus stances, but I'm definitely glad you're here.
And I know we have limited time, so let's get
(02:37):
right into it. Today's episode, we're gonna tell the story
of the man we have on the phone now, Pierre Rushing,
who's serving fifty years. The Nightmare starts on April fifteen,
two thousand eleven. A three five am. Um, when there's
a murder. But let's go back to your childhood, because
you had a difficult upbringing and you were coming out
of that and building a career in music when it
(02:58):
all went haywire in California. My father was ass and
tea in and out of prison, um smuggle with addictives,
crack cocaine. So I don't want to say like any
other Oakland kid, but as I mean, a lot of
a lot of kids in the grew up in the
nineties where just products of our environment. We grew up
looking at things that we believe to be right. So
(03:19):
we as we mature, we get to see that they
were really wrong. And how did you get into music?
My auntie used to work for Keith Swift. Her name
was Tracy Russie. She sins passed its two dosan thirteen.
But just being around her, she put me in her wing,
just taking me to the studio with her as I
became addictive music. Is it fair to say by two
(03:41):
thousand and eleven things we're starting to look up for
you in terms of possibly building a career. And yeah,
when I was arrested for this case, actually friends of
mine has said that the police were looking for me
for this time and we all laughed about it because
everybody knew that I couldn't have done and I have
been wrapped in and going to the student you're staying
assist in shooting videos. Um. And actually when I was
(04:03):
arrest and I was over up for Bayery Live by
the Name of Queen, and uh, we had a big
like like like four with my patures on and promoting
my music and everything. So you know it was coming
up for me. Yeah, you were on exactly, You're on
your way up. And then everything went completely haywire. Now
(04:26):
let's turn the conversation to Marvin Lou. Marvin is a
criminal defense attorney of some repute, and he has been
representing Pierre for some time. Now, let's just paint a
picture of what happened. The date was April fiven, and
what happened was two individuals by the name of Patrick
Smith and Robert Green. We're doing crack cocaine for the
(04:49):
day and a half leading up to this young man's killing,
and Patrick Smith and Robert Green went to an apartment
in Oakland to purchase more crack cocaine. How Chrick Smith
was driving, Robert Green stayed in the car while Patrick
Smith went up to the apartment to purchase more drugs.
So Patrick Smith meets up with his drug dealer. Patrick
(05:11):
Smith knows him as C the letter C, who is
the actual person responsible for the murder of Dawan Taylor.
While Patrick Smith was in the apartment, there were several
other people present, and Mr Taylor left the apartment shortly
after Mr Taylor left. Then sees iPod turned up missing
(05:32):
and someone in the apartment said that Mr Taylor had
taken sees iPod. What happened next was Patrick Smith, the
shooter SEE, and another individual who was also charged as
a co defendant named Andre Morris. They all left the
apartment and went and got in Patrick Smith's car to
go find Mr Taylor, who had allegedly taken sees iPod.
(05:57):
Robert Green was waiting in the car, sitting in the
front passenger seat. So pat Smith drives around the corner.
They see Mr Taylor walking down the street and See
or Andre Morris. Pat Smith wasn't sure which told him
to stop the car. See and Andre Morris got out
of the car, confronted Mr Taylor, and See shot and
(06:19):
killed Mr Taylor on the sidewalk in front of a
fast food restaurant. They then got back into the car.
Pat Smith drove a short distance. Both See and Mr
Morris got out of the car and ran away. So
that that's the factual backdrop for this thing. Follow along
here because Pierre, who were on the phone with now
had no connection to viction, no knowledge of the actual perpetrator,
(06:42):
and he was at his grandmother's at the time with
a young lady named Lauren Richardson on the time and
date of the murder. Have you ever had a nickname
of Sea before? Never? Never. I've always went by the
name of Stank or people from my neighbodies to call
me peace, thank me here for my first Ms Pierre,
I've never never went by the name See. So what happened?
(07:05):
How did you end up getting wrongfully convicted here. Well,
one of the pastors, Robert Green, he goes to the
police like five days after he allegedly see at this time,
and he failed them that he's seen his murder and
a guy named Seen committed this murder. He gives the
police multiple different descriptions. I believe his first description is five,
a light skin, a hundred and twenty pounds. I haven't
(07:26):
been a hundred tweet pounds if I was seen years old,
let alone at nineteen years old, and I'm not light skinned.
The second time, I believe you, see the police, he
switches it up again. So allegedly he says he sees
Seed on April thirties, which would have been fifteen days
after the crime, and he went back to the police say,
you know what, I lied again. I believe he was
(07:46):
six foot to brown skinned, and they had on red
shirt and a red hat. I'm not sure what kind
of line up they were showing it, but he still
couldn't identify who they believed to be seen. The police
seen in an area that he said that he had
seen seeing. I believe it was made Bird wearing a
(08:07):
red hat. And they stopped me. And when they stopped me.
They said, what is your name? I don't lie to
the police year Russian is my name? I said, hey,
we're looking for a guy to beat a guy up.
I haven't been the guy up. And then they leave
when they take that name back to I believe Robert Green,
who was at the police station and they showing the
picture four days after he's seen a guy with a
(08:27):
red head. He said, you know what you had asked
how Bessie? And that's how the whole way of his spun.
Then looking I would have read had four days after
the private rickass, he's seen this guy and a month
after the crime. When they first questioned you, they wanted
to know what you were doing on the day of
the crime. But when they were asking you this question,
it was already five weeks later, right, And this is
(08:48):
a trick that they used. Sometimes you're like that you're
supposed to remember exactly. Like I ask anybody in the
audience right now, what were you doing. Let's go back
thirty five days from whatever day you're listening to this.
Tell me now what you were doing at a particular
time on that day. And I give you a dollar
because that's impossible. But it is very effective because then
they can say you lied, because there's no way anyone
(09:10):
could possibly remember that unless it was their birthday or
some other like really important day. Right April fifteenth, as
you would have it is my father's birthday. So without
me even thinking, you say April fifth, saying hey, there's
nothing I was with my dad, I say my day
on his birthday. Not one time I did any trial
transprit police ever been tourt these famy Do they ever
say where were you three a m? So once they
(09:33):
said no, you weren't what your dad? I also remember
that I had a traffic stop that day and they
win check and it showed that I was something truth.
But if like now not at that time it took me,
I believe my attorney, for about a week of job
of my memory to figure out where did I sleep
at three five him that morning? And I remember it
was my grandma's was because my mom changed me that
(09:54):
morning and said where are you going to get your
dad for his birthday? That's how I was able to
put the pieces of a pleasant together. But by that
time it was trial, so they looked at it as if, oh,
this is a third alibi? Were no I've given you
everywhere I went from April fifteen, So that's how he
played it, which is very nefarious because they see that
(10:15):
I was trying to tell him everything at the time
that this crime was committed at three forty five in
the morning. Now we know what you were doing when
you were supposedly out shooting somebody who you never knew
and don't know and still don't know and never will know. Well,
right before I was shooting a video. If you go
on YouTube right now, the song was called Youngerstake, Take
a Trip. Lauren Richardson was an associate of the cameraman
(10:39):
helped shoot the video. She was also my girlfriend April fourteen,
going to table fifteen. She's came to my h grandma
talk roughly about nine forty five round ten mclock and
we spend the night. We enjoy each other's company. We
uh deal with any other boys for the girlfriend. Hello.
(11:02):
My name is Lauren Richardson. I am an Oakland resident
and current legal apprentice. Um I entered the field with
a lot of motivation from the tragic situation that happened
with Pierre Rushing. Um I originally was into video on
April fourteen, Pierre went to shoot a video. It's called
(11:23):
take a Trip. We were super excited because he had
so much support from our neighborhood. Everybody knew he was
a great rapper, so when he finally shot the video,
we were super excited. We went back to his grandmother's
house afterwards just to kind of recap, and we stayed
up all night watching movies, laugh and making plans for
the future. We you know, did what couples do late night,
(11:46):
and I left early in the morning because I had
to take my son to school. And it was weeks
after that he kind of disappeared, you know, when somebody
else found me and was like, um, you know he's
in jail, Like what because I was kind of mad,
you know I was. I thought he ghoes to me,
(12:06):
to be honest, so it was no way that he
could have committed the crime. I have never felt as
powerless as I felt in this situation to express reality
and be believed in. You know that this huge power
structure for them to be able to create a false reality,
(12:29):
Like even with the witness, the witness is not a
credible witness, nowhere near as credible as I am. Because
I'm not gonna go perjure myself. I'm not gonna risk
my life to keep a killer out of jail. So
for me to go up there in front of all
of these people and for them to not take my
word for it when they had no other evidence, it
bothers me to this day. It's a It's a big
(12:51):
part of the motivation for me to go into this
apprenticeship program because I want to learn how to speak
up for other people who can't speak for themselves, because
this has to stop. They ruined an entire family. The
idea that we in this country can sendence somebody like you,
(13:11):
promising young man with his life ahead of him to
fifty years based on the testimony of an admitted crackhead
who was up for two days to change his story
four times, really should make everybody a little scared. Pierre,
can you tell us a little bit about the trial
itself and killing his own camera? When I heard they
(13:31):
added on camera, started to kick my feet up and
just wait for the trial days and I'm like, even
his own camera, I'm I'm going on. I never in
a million years imagine that the camera was being low
quality or you really can't see anything on the camera.
You see a vehicle pull up and it's just it's
just grainy, so you can't really see anything. And I
remember my heart just dropping because I knew that that
(13:55):
was what was supposed to exonerate me. They had no evidence,
no corrob no no physicalness. They have the murder vehicle
with twelve fingerprints inside the car and said I got
in and out of that car four time, none of
the fingerprints mass made. One of the prosecution's witness was
a lady by the name of the Carlo Smith, who
says she witnessed the her and past Smith for best friends.
(14:16):
She had been in that car a week before when
the police forrensic Cathologists became the car in every they
found to call this fingerprints in that car. Therefore, when
she testified she hadn't been in the car seven days
prior to the killing, that means that the car couldn't
have possibly been wiped down. And if the car wasn't
wipe down, you fund twelve the fourteen fingerprints in that car,
(14:36):
And per Robert Green testimony, I got in and out
of that car four times, and I killed this guy
with no gloves. Why I wear my fingerprints on the car? Second,
if Robert Green is too believe. Why would you ever
call me five day light stand a hundred and twenty pounds?
Why would you ever change it to five ten hundred
and sixty pounds? And that preliminary hearing when the judge
(14:57):
allowed me to lead the cour room, they brought Robert
Green and they said could completely describe the killer. This
guy switched it up to six to two hundred and
twenty pounds. This guy is not to be believed. He
was addicted to crack and heron said he had been
up for two days off crack and iron had to
pensively seven time failings. Third, do you have to call
a smith? Another prosecution is with us. I didn't see him.
(15:19):
I don't know who that is. Well, yeah, I mean
our standard in this country is supposed to be reasonable doubt,
and this goes way beyond that standard. I had hoped that,
you know, I would I would be exagerated and did
you have proper representation? Now? I went to trial with
a public defender, and I went speedy trial. I was
arrested in May, I was convicted in August. And the
(15:40):
reason I went to speedy trial because I feel like
I had nothing odd. I didn't do it. So while
when I wait where I see my counting people wait
four or five years to fight the case because they're
trying to wait for the bead deal. The thurs Day
of trial, I remember the judge saying something like, hey,
I know the d is going to give you a deal.
She looked to your left. Get a deal because I
know that he's going to give you one. And I
(16:00):
just remember shaking my head, no, no, no, because why
would I take time for something if I didn't do it.
They know I'm not seen, so they want to know
if a we call in the urban community, if I'm
going to snitch, I know a lot of seas. That's
that's the one for two. It's not my job to
do the police a job for them, you know. So
if I wasn't there, what do you expect me to do?
(16:21):
Or maybe it could have been this guy, Maybe could
be this guy. If I do that, I'm worse than
Robert Green because you were not there and they know
that and they feed off that. Yeah, jail house snitches
is just sort of become like standard operating procedure. Correct.
It's a nightmare to live a nightmare. But that was
that was the sum of the trail. Yeah, that is
(16:42):
a nightmare scenario. So the jury goes out. When they
came back in, what was that moment like when they
actually found guilty of a crime you didn't commit. When
they came back with it, it was It was weird
because the whole trial, I had twenty to thirty people
every single day of my of my trial, friends from
the neighborhood, family, girlfriend, associates. But on that day nobody
(17:06):
was in the color room, not even the victim's family,
nobody from my frind that dad was just like a
sense of loneliness, of sense and like me against the
world because you're sitting here convictedmy for a crime that
I didn't commit, and I know that you're going to
commit this time. And I couldn't even look back to
look in the eyes of my father, my father and
(17:27):
my grandmother, and I felt like that was already fat
Like why wasn't even the victims family, like where was
It was just it's a feeling that I never want
to feel again. Marvin, take it back to how you
(17:48):
first met Pierre or how you first became aware of
his case, and why you chose to get involved in
this case. You must get hit with cases all the time.
I actually came to represent Pierre after a different attorney,
Stephen Bedrick, who was handling his direct appeal in state court,
also filed the habeas corpus petition in the California State
Court of Appeal. What is the literal interpretation of habeas corpus.
(18:13):
Habeas corpus means to produce the body in Latin, and
what that means is that it's an allegation by us
that Pierre is being unlawfully incarcerated. And once I dug
into the case and reviewed the evidence in Pierre's case
and did some investigation of my own, that very much
turned out to be true. Well went wrong here? I
(18:33):
think a number of things went wrong, but most critically,
there was evidence which could have exonerated Pierre which was
not introduced. The only witness in the case, Robert Greene,
testified that Pierre was supposedly the person who committed this crime.
That is the only evidence in the case, and in
the trial against Pierre, that witness testified that the person
(18:56):
who committed this crime was talking on his cell phone
mirror minutes before shooting the victim. In this case, Pierre's
phone records were available, and that was part of the
habeas petition and got him a hearing subsequently, and those
phone records established conclusively that Pierre was not talking on
(19:17):
his cell phone at the time when the perpetrator was.
And if those records were introduced, I think that it
would be a pretty compelling piece of evidence to establish that,
in fact, Pierre is not the person responsible for this murder.
But they weren't introduced, The jury never heard of them.
What about the fingerprint stuff? How did they manage to
(19:38):
get around that? That seems like that could have been
enough on its own. How did he not leave his fingerprints?
Is he a ghost? Well? The fingerprint evidence was introduced
by way of a stipulation for the evidence technician who
actually gathered the latent fingerprints from the car that was
used in the homicide. That witness did not testify. Rather,
(20:00):
Pierre's trial attorney chose to have that evidence admitted by
way of an agreement with the prosecutor simply the conclusion
that Pierre's fingerprints were not in fact recovered from that car,
And had that witness been called, it would have led
to another important piece which was not introduced and not
known to the jury. That evidence technician also collected DNA
(20:22):
from that car swabbed all of the areas of that
car where the killer sat just before the murder occurred.
In addition, there was a cigarette but that was recovered
from the floorboard of that car, which was also swabbed
for DNA. That DNA evidence was not tested in time
(20:46):
for Pierre's trial, and that was also the subject of
his subsequent Abeas petition. So what happened was after we
obtained an evidentiary hearing in state court to attempt to
prove years innocence. As I started reviewing the case materials,
I realized that this DNA evidence existed which would completely
(21:07):
exonerate him, and no one had tested it. So there's
a procedure under California law that allows the convicted individual
to ask the court to now have that evidence tested
because it would prove that he's innocent. The government opposed
our efforts to have that evidence tested, and ultimately the
judge in this case refused to allow us to test
(21:31):
that evidence. I then appealed that refusal, and the Court
of Appeal refused to allow us to test that evidence.
Why is it that they wouldn't want to have the
DNA evidence in the case tested if they're so confident that,
in fact, he's the perpetrator. Because I never can understand
in any case, especially in the case as serious as
this one, a murder case, why they wouldn't want to
(21:53):
have every you know, stone turned over and have every
piece of evidence tested so that they can find out
not only that in this case Pierre didn't do it,
but they could find out who actually did. Marvin Yolanda
Washington and Patrick Smith are pivotal players in this whole
wrangful conviction. Can you explain their role in what went
(22:15):
wrong here? Sure? Of course Pat Smith was a charged
codefendant in the case at the time of Pierre's trial,
so he did not testify at the trial. He had
his fifth Amendment right. But after Pierre's trial was long
over and after Patrick Smith resolved his part of the
case for accessory affter the fact, he then signed in
(22:36):
affidavit which helped Pierre get an evidentiary hearing. He indicated
both in his affidavit as well as in his testimony
at the evidentiary hearing that his drug dealer is a
man who goes by the name of c and that
individual was not Pierre Rushing. Pat Smith at the hearing
refused to name that individual because he was afraid for
(22:58):
his life. One of the people who was in that
apartment was a woman by the name of Yolande Washington,
and she also did not testify a trial, but after
Pierre was convicted, she signed an affid David under penalty
of perjury, indicating that she, of course, having been in
that apartment, knew who she was. She obviously knew who
(23:20):
Andre Morris was, and what she said in her affid
David was that Pierre Rushing is not the drug dealer
who shot and killed Mr. Taylor. Pierre Rushing is not C.
But that's not all. Indeed, Yolande Washington went so far
as to identify who that person was. Now, before we
(23:41):
get into this, let me make one thing clear, which
is that Pierre does not know the identity of the
perpetrator of this homicide. Yolanda Washington, in her affid David
did name that individual who goes by the nickname C.
In fact, his first name is his name is and
(24:01):
of course it would make perfect sense that he would
go by the nickname C because his name is Pierre Rushing.
Does not have a C in his name, and she
has never been Pierre's nickname because Pierre is not the
person responsible for this killing. That affidavit was part of
what enabled Pierre to get a hearing in superior court. Unfortunately,
(24:25):
Miss Washington was a homeless individual at that time, and
my investigator was essentially unable to locate her to get
her to testifying court. So I filed a motion essentially
asking that her affidavit be considered because she was unavailable,
and that request was denied. Wow, it's pretty courageous, even
(24:49):
after the fact that these two people both were willing
to put their own lives at risk to identify someone
who they know is a killer. And I think that
speaks volumes to the veracity of their statements to me.
(25:11):
And I don't mean to say it like it's because
of the social climate that we have going on in
your klinded station right now, but growing up, our voice
felt I could spend them against us, not because I
grow up in an age and the police, but I
just watch how they need those that look like me. Here,
as we're talking about a guy give a description on
April thirties of a red hat, and you see me
on the dark saying, well, hey, that's a guy wearing
(25:32):
a red hat. Let me stop him. And now my
whole life is his spending in a sparter. Why not
a tread of physical evidence links me to this crime,
and if it could happen to me, it can't happen
to anybody. Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up.
I mean, we you know, every day there's more information
coming out, and I'm grateful that the public is starting
(25:53):
to have a really heightened awareness to the fact that
black people, It's just put it right out there, are
so much more are likely to be victimized by not
just police brutality, but by rawful convictions, by rawful prosecutions,
being forced into taking plea bargains two things they didn't do.
The whole system is stacked rawful convictions, though, do happen
(26:15):
to people from all races, all nationalities, all different creeds,
all different religions. I mean, we've had people on the
show from every walk of life. I mean, you can
take the case of Bryan Ferguson in a two thousand
one Columbus, Missouri killing. He was wrongfully convicted, and he's
a white man, you know, what I mean, like wrawerful
convictions don't have a skin color. I mean, it's just
(26:38):
usually what I'm going through. I witness misidentifications on valid
forensic science, false confessions, police or prosecutor misconduct. This is
a slew of things on why rawful convictions happened. And
then there's just laziness too. It's like, oh, we got
a guy with a red hat, good enough, you know
what I mean. But the idea that the justice system
at every level, now we see it on video of
(26:59):
how the system treats people like yourself, like George Floyd,
like so many others, as expendable, disposable, and yet I
mean there are very very real consequences. That's why we're
on the phone with you from prison now, or you
and I might be working together on a record instead
of Pierre. What would you want people to know about
(27:30):
you and what would you want them to do if
you could give them an action? Stem Um, I would
want them to know that could be your son, I
could be your brother, I could be your nephew, I
could be your cousin. I could be your friend. Um,
I'm innocent. If you have any doubt in my innocence,
I would actually just think on these key points. If
(27:54):
I wasn't innocent, with ulty, person would push for DNA
testing up the materials that were saw out of the vehicle.
If I wasn't innocent, what guilty man would plash for
the enhancement of the of the video if I wasn't innocent,
or man, I'm going to push for the phone records.
I'm innocent, I didn't commit this crime. I have nothing
(28:16):
to do with this crime. I would ask that you
just look inside your art and find the empathy and
the compassion to sign a petition that my family is
organized the Justice for Peer Rushing to Change dot org.
And I would ask that you stand up, that you
would reach out to the local authorities, your local police department,
(28:38):
const legislation, and just trying to try to make change.
So again, that's Justice for Pierre Rushing un change dot org.
As the petition will also have a link in this
episode description, so you can sign a petition there. Please,
everyone go and sign it. I already did. I hope
you'll join me and let's bring him home. And now
(29:00):
I want to introduce what our listeners have come to
know is my favorite part of the show and I
think a lot for a lot of them. It's true too. Um.
This is a part of the show where first of all,
I thank you for being on the show and sharing
your experience. Hopefully it will make a difference in the
lives of others, Um, and the difference in your case
(29:20):
as well. So thank you again, Pierre for being here.
And now I'm gonna kick back in my chair, turn
my microphone off and just basically shut up and listen.
So closing arguments, we're going to go first to Marvin
Lieu and then we're gonna hear from Pierre. What has
happened to Pierre is a systemic failure. These are problems
(29:41):
which are built into the legal system that need to
be fixed on the systemic level, you know, in terms
of next steps, you know. Fortunately, uh, Pierre continues to
be represented by Bob Bellis in his ongoing federal habeas matter,
and I wish them the best and I hope that
ultimately through the legal system they're they're able to generate
(30:03):
some relief and review for Pierre. But what I will
say is that in light of the failures of the
system relating to Pierre over and over again, what I
would say is that this venue is an opportunity to
go outside of and beyond the legal system to attempt
(30:24):
to find a way to free Pierre from from this
wrongful conviction. And one of the things that can be
done outside of the legal system is to put pressure
on the government to either test at DNA evidence or
provide it to Pierre's attorneys so that they can test
(30:44):
it for him. Even though they have resisted that and
actively opposed that throughout these proceedings, nonetheless they retain the
power to change their minds and agree, and they are
the Alameda County District Attorney's office and the californ On
Your Attorney General's office. So whether they're forced to do
(31:04):
that through some legal proceeding or whether they agree to
do that by virtue of public and political pressure, that
is something that that can be done and that they
continue to have the power to do. Pierre. The mic
is yours for closing arguments. Thank you. I would like
to uh first off saying thank you on behalf of
(31:25):
me in behalf of my family to a few people first,
starting with you, Jason Flaner. You creating this platform that
is reaching millions and millions of people. Um, right, now
we're living in a climate where a lot of people
are making it a black and a white issue right now. Yes,
black lives do matter, but it's not a black and
a white issue because they have a lot of people
that are Caucasian race that are standing up and you
(31:48):
are are one of us. All. Thank you. I thank
Marvin lou for fighting and champion in my innocence. I
like to thank Gloria Saudi. I'd like to thank Josh
Swindle for helping my family out. And I'd also like
to thank you came when she's doing for justice reform.
And I'd like to thank the Innocence Project and those
that are are are standing up for these carss. And
(32:09):
finally I'd like to just also thank my father. They
tried to make my father and try to transfers look
like a guy who was trying to persuade witnesses, you know.
And to the other fifteen, the driver of this case,
Patrick Smith, came in. He said, you know, I took
them guys to do that stuff, and I was a
part of that. And I can't live with myself knowing
that a man is doing life for something that I did.
(32:32):
He's not the guy. And when They asked him, why
are you coming forward now? He said, because his father
reached out to me, and they tried to make my
father look like like like he was persuaded, when all
he was doing it was fighting for his son. What
have you done if your son was arrested to some
men and do you would fight for him? So you
know they're gonna throw smoking mirrors and try to make
it seem like this and try to make it seem
(32:53):
like that. I don't care about the smoking mirror. I
don't care about the facts. And the fact is I
didn't commit this time. With that being said, you know,
it's a lot going on right now. So I just
asked for people to just educate yourselves on these type
of situations. They could happen to anybody here. I was wrapping,
so I was attending the Laney in Marrion College. I
didn't do too good. I ended up dropping out, but
(33:13):
I tried. You know, I don't know a lot of
people that come where I come from not even try
to go to college, let alone do it while they're
doing music. I was trying to make a change in
my life. I didn't grow up squeaky clean. I would
be the first one to tell you, like I told anybody,
I've had a check pass. That doesn't define me, that
doesn't make me a killer, that doesn't make me anything
but a man that grew up looking at something that's wrong,
(33:36):
believing that it was right. There is no physical for
friends and to give it is that links me to
this crime. So if you need any reason to to
fight for this cause, just look inside the case. Pull
the case up. You're gonna see listen. Is an atrocity
and it could happen to anybody, anybody. They say in
the Wikipedia at two point three million prisoners, like a
(33:59):
hundred twenty prowfully convicted people in prison. Something is wrong
with that. Likely there's something terribly wrong with that. Don't
forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you get
(34:20):
your podcasts. It really helps. 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 donate and get involved. I'd like
to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin wardis
the music in the show is by three time OSCAR
(34:42):
nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flam is a production of Lava
for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number One.
The Woman was Worth
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.