Open Mike Podcast

In 2005, 18-year-old Kenneth Nixon and his girlfriend were arrested and charged with murder, arson, and four counts of attempted murder in conjunction with a tragic Detroit firebombing that killed two children. While Kenneth’s girlfriend was acquitted by a jury, he was sentenced to two life sentences.

A collaborative review by the Medill Justice Project, Cooley Law Innocence Project, and Wayne County Conviction Integrity Unit would ultimately determine Kenneth didn’t receive a fair trial, citing inconsistent eyewitness testimony, opportunistic jailhouse informant testimony, and poor arson investigation. On February 18th, 2021, Nixon was released from prison, 16 years after his conviction.

In this stunning installment of Open Mike, Kenneth reflects on the systemic biases that contributed to his wrongful conviction and provides updates about his post-release life — including inspiring advocacy work with the National Organization of Exonerees.

Show Notes

[00:01] Welcome to Open Mike!

[00:17] Kenneth Nixon’s background and bio.

[01:43] Welcome to the show, Ken! You’ve been out of prison, almost eight months to the day! What was it like walking out of prison, getting your freedom back after sixteen years?

[02:45] So much has changed over sixteen years… what milestones did you miss the most when you were incarcerated?

[03:28] How many children did you have when you were convicted? Did you get to see them when you were in prison?

[04:44] In 2005 there’s a firebombing on Charleston Street in Detroit, Michigan. 20-month-old Tamyah Vaughn and her 10-year-old brother, Raylond were killed. Where were you when this happened?

[05:36] Later on you found out the crime happened around midnight… where was this house in relation to you? Did you know this family?

[06:27] Why do you think the thirteen-year-old brother of the victims told police he saw you commiting this crime?

[08:22] This young boy’s transcripts showed that he was inconsistent all along; he couldn’t get his stories straight!

[09:01] How did his statement come out at trial? Did your lawyer do a good job in demonstrating the inconsistent statements and impeach him?

[09:45] Your girlfriend Latoya Caulford was also charged, so she was unable to testify on your behalf. What was her charge?

[10:03] Did the boy say he saw her too?

[11:30] Latoya was acquitted… is this your children’s mother? Is she still part of yours and the kids’ lives?

[12:31] Let’s talk about the prosecutor, Patrick Muscat — he’s been a prosecutor on several of these wrongful conviction cases. He framed you to be a jilted lover who wanted revenge. When he said that, what was your reaction?

[13:33] There was testimony at your trial that stated you had gasoline on your clothes. Can you explain why that was?

[14:32] Police brought a dog in to identify fire accelerants at the scene of the crime. Muscat didn’t tell the jury that the dog is trained to detect petroleum-based products — a dog doesn’t know the difference between gasoline and perfume, or motor oil and glue, for example. Ken’s possessions that had gasoline on them were taken for testing at the lab and didn’t match any of the evidence at the scene of the crime.

[15:23] Didn’t a cop, Robert McGee, say that his dog linked your clothes to the crime, and his dog is never wrong?

[15:41] Were you satisfied with how your attorney defended you?

[16:31] We’ve done several wrongful conviction stories here on Open Mike, and one of the lynch pins that convicted many people were jail snitches, which are so problematic for so many reasons. And in your case, you had one who claimed you admitted to the firebombing. What do you know about this guy, and did he get a deal for testifying against you?

[17:52] Outrageous! Did he ever come clean and say he lied?

[18:56] Did the student’s interview eventually lead to your exoneration?

[19:51] Did you and your girlfriend get tried together?

[20:44] When you heard the guilty verdict, what was going on in your head?

[21:52] What did you tell the sentencing judge right before you were handed your sentence?

[22:07] How did the Justice Project at Northwestern University get involved in your case?

[25:24] How did the Brady violations come to light? Did the students identify them or did something else happen?

[26:43] The Wayne County Conviction Integrity Unit and the Cooley Law Innocence Project got involved… I assume Northwestern University got them involved?

[27:28] What information was presented to the judge, and what did he do?

[28:09] One thing that’s a little strange here, is that the victims’ family were upset about your release. What do you think about that?

[28:58] You’re still a young man — what’s in store for you ahead?

[29:48] Ken is part of the National Organization of Exonerees which aims to bring awareness to the wrongful conviction crisis.

[30:27] Ken is the 28th person exonerated by the Wayne County Conviction Integrity Unit.

[31:43] Thank you to Kenneth Nixon for appearing on the show! There are so many similarities between all of these wrongful conviction cases, but thankfully the truth came out and Ken is reunited with his kids. Thank you for watching Open Mike — please subscribe, comment, like, and share the episode, we’d love to hear from you! We’ll see you soon.

In June 1993, Navy veteran Derrick Sanders was arrested for the shooting death of a Milwaukee man he had assaulted seven months previously. Although he had no role in the man’s death, inept legal counsel advised him to plead no contest to charges of first-degree intentional homicide, party to a crime, and he was sentenced to 21 years to life in prison.

Over the next twenty-five years, Derrick would be entrenched in legal rigmarole after filing a motion to withdraw his plea. He argued that, due to his attorney’s inadequate explanation of potential punishment, he did not intelligently enter the plea. In August 2018, a Milwaukee County circuit judge granted Derrick’s motion to withdraw the plea. A few weeks later, the Assistant District Attorney dropped the charges and Derrick was a free man.

In this riveting, all-new episode, Derrick and Mike discuss the complex, systemic deficiencies that enabled Derrick’s wrongful conviction. Derrick also reflects on ways he would have advocated for himself more staunchly and drops some firsthand truth bombs about what we should know to protect ourselves from a false accusation.

Show Notes

[00:01] Welcome to Open Mike!

[00:33] Background and bio of today’s guest, Derrick Sanders.

[01:29] Hello, Mr. Sanders! Welcome to the show.

[02:07] You’re a Navy veteran who was honorably discharged, you had a well-paying job. But you got involved in assaulting Jason Bowie — what was that about?

[03:25] Your friend was Anthony Boddie, who got you involved in this, right? So, you were sticking up for him, beating up on the guy you thought stole the TV… when you left the scene, he was still alive?

[5:00] You decided to start cleaning up at the abandoned house… you had cleaning supplies there?

[05:32] So, you took off and what happened next?

[06:48] At what point did you hear the gunshot, or did you never hear it? Who shot Jason Bowie?

[07:33] Despite the fact that he was your friend, Anthony Boddie told police you were present for the shooting, which you weren’t. Is that correct?

[08:19] Didn’t John Peavey, in one of his eight statements, also claim you were present during the shooting?

[08:42] What did you tell police when they caught up with you in June 1993?

[09:32] At the end of your written statement, you expressed sorrow that this occurred over a television set. Why did you write those words?

[10:15] Both you and Boddie were charged with first-degree, intentional homicide and party to a crime. Did you know what party to a crime meant at that point?

[11:01] Your attorney, was he court-appointed? What kind of job did he do for you?

[12:39] Derrick’s private attorney urged him to plead no contest, which is basically unheard of for a murder case.

[13:19] The judge sentenced you to 21 years to life, with the possibility of parole in 2015. What went through your mind when you heard that?

[13:56] A couple years after you were incarcerated, your mother received a signed affidavit from Anthony Boddie. What did that affidavit say?

[16:49] Did your attorney lose his license after this?

[17:51] You spent twenty-two years in prison after the affidavit was sent. Why didn’t that letter get you out?

[19:38] Who was your appellate attorney throughout this? Because they did a great job getting the conviction overturned and presenting you options.

[20:41] It makes no sense — it seems like your second attorney was as bad as the first attorney! She had you plead guilty to the exact same charges after the appellate attorney got you all these options!

[22:55] One of the reasons we do these shows is to educate people. At the end of the day, you weren’t educated on criminal justice proceedings, and it’s your lawyer’s fault. But there is some responsibility on you… do you take that responsibility that you may not have done the right thing?

[24:31] To everybody listening… if you’re sitting in prison and you don’t agree with your lawyer, and it feels like something is wrong, get a second opinion.

[25:11] Let’s fast forward… what happened in 2018 that got your case reviewed by the police again?

[28:20] You got a new lawyer, and the judge was listening to your story… what happened next?

[30:23] Did the letter you write to the judge make it in the file? Was your attorney combative on the stand, or was she helpful to your cause?

[32:27] What did the judge do after this hearing?

[34:45] The state compensated you a measly $25,000… what was that about?

[37:06] I wish you the best on those lawsuits and claims and hope you get every dollar you’re entitled to. You were treated wrongly by the state and had some incompetent attorneys, never received apologies, and were wronged.

[39:21] It’s been three years since you’ve been out… how are you doing these days? What are you up to?

[41:05] I’m so sorry this happened to you, this is maddening and ranks up there as one of the most messed up stories I’ve heard. All I can do is apologize on behalf of your lawyers and for the failure of the system. Hopefully someone listening to this podcast will learn something and hopefully avoid the type of mistreatment you faced. Thank you for appearing on Open Mike and best of luck in the future. Take care.

[43:11] If you know someone who needs to hear this podcast, send it. Forward it. Please like, and subscribe, and comment to let us know what you’d like to see on upcoming episodes. We look forward to seeing you in the coming weeks. Thanks for listening, thanks for watching.

In April 2010, Eric Anderson was arrested and charged for involvement in a robbery and beating of two men outside their Detroit home. At the time of the crime, Anderson was actually at a Coney Island, ten miles from the scene, where he was shot in the foot, necessitating immediate medical attention.

Despite hospital records confirming his treatment, and Coney Island security footage substantiating his injury, Eric would spend nine years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, asserting his innocence the entire time.

The Michigan Innocence Clinic re-investigated Anderson’s claims of innocence and, following an interview with the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office’s Conviction Integrity Unit, his sentence was vacated on April 30th, 2019.

How did such a convoluted chain of events transpire when multiple pieces of evidence corroborated Eric’s claims of innocence? Why was he allowed to languish in prison for so long when it was clear he couldn’t have committed this robbery?

Tune in to this mind-blowing, all-new installment of Open Mike to find out!

Show Notes

[00:01] Welcome to Open Mike!

[00:20] Eric Anderson’s background and bio.

[02:10] Welcome to the show, Eric. The story is kind of crazy and convoluted but, not to do a spoiler alert, you’re out of prison after spending nine years wrongfully incarcerated. Let’s show how ridiculous this conviction was.

[03:10] April 18th, 2010, about 3:30 in the morning. Tell us about your stop at Coney Island. What happened there that led to you being shot in the foot?

[04:14] You walk into the Coney and almost immediately get shot in the foot. Then what happened?

[06:02] You didn’t want to go to Detroit Receiving Hospital, which was closer, you chose to go to Sinai Grace because that’s the hospital you were familiar with? These facts become very relevant to your trial later.

[07:05] Were you released that night, or did they keep you overnight?

[07:38] At the same time of your shooting, two armed men with their shirts pulled up over their faces robbed 20-year-old Gregory Matthews Jr. and a friend, 19-year-old Stephon Tolin, on the street outside Matthews’s home in Detroit, Michigan. Did you know these two people?

[08:37] This happened a few miles from the Coney Island you were shot, is that true?

[10:05] One of the witnesses said they heard a gunshot as the assailants were turning a corner, which was included in the police report.

[10:30] Ten days later after you were shot, what happened?

[11:23] Police pulled over Eric (and his friend who was driving) and told Eric he was under arrest; they believed he robbed Gregory and Stephon and shot himself in the foot.

[11:44] Do you know how you became a suspect?

[14:25] Two weeks after Eric’s arrest, they transported him to Michigan State Police to take a polygraph test.

[16:28] To this day, you’ve never seen your face on surveillance footage from that Coney Island. But your distinctive, Ed Hardy jeans, tight hair, and other identifying markers could tie you to the scene of your shooting. Is it clear that, when you walk in, that’s you? Does the video show you getting shot in the foot?

[18:30] When you got the polygraph, did you have an attorney yet?

[18:56] For anyone watching… the second you are under arrest, stop talking and get an attorney, and let the attorney walk you through this process.

[19:10] You took the polygraph… did they tell you right then and there that you failed it? What did they say to you?

[19:43] In September 2010, Eric was offered a plea of probation. He declined because he didn’t commit the crime.

[20:40] Eric was confident that people upholding the system of justice would do the right thing, and he declined to hire an attorney to save money.

[22:59] Two months later, Eric went to trial with a court-appointed attorney who improperly represented him, and didn’t show the jury the surveillance footage, despite Eric’s urging. He provided the jury video stills instead.

[24:39] One of Eric’s friends who was also implicated in the crime, yet not arrested, testified on Eric’s behalf.

[25:21] What was the prosecution’s case?

[26:44] The angle of Eric’s bullet wound proved that he didn’t shoot himself. His court-appointed attorney didn’t recruit any expert medical witnesses to verify.

[27:40] Who did the prosecution put on? These witnesses who said they saw you pistol whip and rob these guys?

[29:47] Did your defense attorney cross-examine these witnesses?

[30:45] The location of the robbery in respect to Sinai Grace seems to be what hurt you in trial. Where about did the robbery occur? How many miles is that from Sinai Grace?

[32:11] How did they argue that you would have even known about that shooting while you were at Sinai Grace? How is that even possible?

[33:17] Despite all of these defenses, you were convicted on November 5, 2010, of two counts of armed robbery, assault, and illegal use of a weapon. What did you think of that guilty verdict?

[34:18] Did you ever think the truth would come out after that massive sentence?

[34:32] Two years later, the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated your assault conviction, because it was multiple punishment for the same offense. But upheld the other charges and resentenced 12 to 20 years plus two years for weapons charges. That was basically a technicality issue. But you did something smart and, in 2018, got the Michigan Innocence Clinic involved. How did you do that?

[36:40] The Michigan Innocence Clinic convinced the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Conviction Integrity Unit, upon their own investigations, to vacate Eric’s convictions.

[37:46] Tell me about the person who admitted to the crime you were accused of committing. How did you find out who did it?

[38:47] The actual perpetrator was serving prison time for a different time and offered to admit to the crime. But you didn’t take him up on the offer. That’s curious to me!

[40:05] The perpetrator also sent Eric a signed affidavit saying he committed the robbery.

[41:01] You’re doing twelve years of prison time for a crime you didn’t commit, and you have compassion for this guy to not add on to his sentence! It sounds like a smoking gun that could have gotten you out sooner. Did the Michigan Innocence Clinic use this information?

[43:32] A breakdown of the hospital records demonstrated that Eric couldn’t have committed the robbery.

[44:12] How long after the Conviction Integrity Unit interview were you released? Can you tell me about that day?

[47:53] Did anybody from the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office apologize to you?

[49:17] Eric and the National Registry of Exonerees are pushing for greater awareness of the wrongful conviction crisis that has been plaguing the American criminal justice system.

[50:53] You’ve been out for two-and-a-half years… how difficult has it been to reacclimate to society?

[51:21] You did receive some compensation from the state of Michigan, correct? What about the federal government?

[54:48] One of the reasons we do these shows is so that potential jurors will do the right thing, look at things with the right skepticism, and put the proper weight behind their decision. Because these wrongful convictions happen all the time and people need to hear about these stories.

[55:29] Did the man who committed these crimes ever get convicted? Have you spoken with him?

[56:23] Thank you for coming on the show. I’m sorry for what you went through and am grateful for your advocacy work to help change some of these laws.

[58:10] Thank you for watching Open Mike with another wrongfully convicted person, right here in Michigan. Eric Anderson spent nine years in prison for a crime he absolutely could not have committed. Another heartbreaking story. Lots of thanks to Eric for sharing his story. Like, share, comment, subscribe, and give us feedback on what you’d like us to cover next. Until next time!

Eli Savit is a nationally recognized attorney, public servant, and civil rights advocate who currently serves as the Washtenaw County Prosecutor. Prior to his term, he served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was a civil-rights and public-interest attorney, and also had a career as a public-school teacher. In addition to serving as Washtenaw County's Prosecuting Attorney, Eli is a faculty member at the University of Michigan Law School.

Eli has been an integral part of several major, successful civil rights and environmental initiatives in Michigan and across the country, including a successful effort to have the Michigan Civil Rights Commission recognize discrimination claims against LGBTQIA+ Michiganders, and assisting New Jersey, Maryland, and Puerto Rico in their quests to hold corporate polluters responsible for waterway contamination.

In this inspiring installment of Open Mike, Eli discusses his close relationship with late Justice Ginsberg, and how her tutelage helped inform his decision to carve out a career shaped by public service. Additionally, he and Mike consider the inherent problems with the American cash bail system (one of two for-profit bail systems in the world) and reflect on Eli’s recent, successful elimination of Washtenaw County’s cash bail program!

Show Notes

[00:09] Eli Savit’s background and bio as Washtenaw County Prosecutor.

[01:26] Welcome to the show, Eli! There was a prosecutor for how many years prior to you?

[2:03] How was taking over an office from someone who had been there for twenty-eight years?

[03:46] You were born and raised in Ann Arbor, went to U of M Law School, and were clerk for two United States Supreme Court Justices, is that right? Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That had to have been amazing — what was that like?

[06:05] The same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, wasn’t that a Michigan case?

[07:50] The way that last year went down with the former president getting that appointment… that was such a horrible way that went down, and I’m sure it was sad for Justice Ginsberg’s legacy. Do you have any opinions on that?

[10:50] After working as a clerk for two icons, you could have had any job that you wanted, ones that pay more lucratively. What was that thought process like?

[12:46] The way you chose to run your campaign, one of radical inclusivity, was really impressive. When I read that, I wondered how you were going to make everyone happy — I’ve never heard of a campaign like that! Can you take us through that?

[17:19] Let’s talk about cash bail… last year, we filmed an episode with two young ladies who are reforming the system via Bail Project Detroit… it was such an eye-opening thing for me as an attorney. You’re the first prosecutor I personally know who has eliminated cash bail. Could you explain to our viewers why you believe so strongly cash bail should be done away with?

[25:57] Entire states are now abolishing cash bail. Washington D.C. got rid of it in 1992, and New Jersey got rid of it in 2017. Crime rates in New Jersey subsequently plummeted.

[27:55] Research shows that people will still show up to court, even without cash bail as an incentive! Something like 90% of people show up to their court dates, either way. Is that what you’re finding in Washtenaw?

[30:42] After the bail situation, what are some other initiatives your office is working on?

[31:09] On the first day of his term, Prosecutor Savit banned all zero-tolerance policies in favor of adopting a more holistic, case-by-case approach to various crimes and conditions under which they occurred.

[36:00] On Open Mike, we’ve had at least ten guests who were wrongfully convicted. As a prosecutor, what does your office see as your role in helping to free innocent people who were wrongfully convicted in Washtenaw county?

[40:28] There’s a lot of discussion about blanket immunity which completely protects people from prosecution for crimes related to testimony they provide… what are your thoughts on blanket immunity for people who are bad actors in processes that result in wrongful convictions?

[43:57] We see a ton of jail house snitches and bad IDs from police misconduct… have these two areas of potential problems been examined by your office?

[47:18] Where did you teach in New York City?

[48:28] You’re doing so many amazing things in Washtenaw County, and I can’t commend you enough. I know it’s not easy, and I can’t thank you enough for your service. We’ll have you on in a year or two to touch base on all the incredible work you’ll have undoubtedly done. Thank you again for being on Open Mike!

[49:20] What a life, Eli is leading! Doing amazing things to change the criminal justice system for his constituents, and hopefully the world! Comment, like, and subscribe to Open Mike! We really appreciate you; stay tuned for new episodes coming up soon.

On December 27, 1988, North Carolina resident Gilbert Poole was arrested and charged with the murder of a Michigan man he had never met. Due to faulty evidence, inaccurate eyewitness testimony, and inept defense counsel, he would ultimately be wrongfully convicted of murder and spend the next 32 years of his life in prison.

After independently maintaining his innocence for the first 14 years of his incarceration, Mr. Poole was represented by the Western Michigan University Cooley Law School Innocence Project for the next 18 years. Post-conviction DNA testing was conducted on crime scene evidence that matched neither Poole’s nor the victim’s, prompting the Michigan Attorney General’s Conviction Integrity Unit to conduct a full investigation that resulted in his exoneration on June 15th, 2021.

In this stunning and heartbreaking episode of Open Mike, Mr. Poole reflects on the profound personal losses he experienced because of his wrongful conviction, the little-known, harsh realities of the American criminal justice system, and how he intends to spend his remaining years as a free man.

Show Notes

[00:22] Welcome to Open Mike!

[00:25] Gilbert Poole’s background and bio.

[01:19] Welcome to the show, Gilbert! It’s so nice to have you here. We interviewed your attorney, Marla Mitchell-Cichon a few weeks ago and then you sent me a really nice email… tell our listeners and viewers what you thought of that interview and why you wanted to come on the show!

[03:19] May of 2021, Oakland County Judge Rae Lee Chabot set aside your conviction… we saw the photos of you exiting prison with your arms raised in victory — what was it like to walk out a free man after 32 years in prison for a crime you knew you didn’t commit and proclaimed your innocence over from day one?

[04:46] You went in at age 22 and came out at age 55… that’s a lifetime! What were some of the things that happened to your family while you were incarcerated that you can never get back?

[07:25] Did you have any siblings growing up?

[09:44] Who was Gilbert Poole at 22 years old when you were arrested? What were you up to at that point in your life?

[11:12] When you were arrested, you had a girlfriend who played a horrible, pivotal role in all this… what was her name? Were you living together at the time?

[12:59] About six months after the murder of Robert Meija, the date of which Gilbert was in Michigan instead of his native North Carolina, Gilbert’s girlfriend went to the police and implicated him in the murder — so she could have a ride from North Carolina back to Michigan.

[15:11] You get arrested for Robert’s murder; he was last seen leaving a bar where several patrons provided a description and composite sketch of a suspect some said looked like you. Did it look like you?

[17:02] Had you ever heard of Robert before? Or even been to that bar before?

[21:32] As you’re sitting there, listening to this bogus testimony, your head must just be exploding?

[24:30] Since Gilbert’s trial, bite-mark evidence has been debunked by countless leading forensic organizations. Prosecutors still try to bring it into trials, based on bad laws.

[26:29] Your lawyer didn’t give the jury a reason to disbelieve any of this shoddy evidence or testimony, no expert witnesses were called, nothing. What were they supposed to do other than believe it?

[27:27] 11 of the 12 exonerees we’ve had on Open Mike didn’t take the stand at their own trials.

[27:59] Your ex-girlfriend lied about what you told her… how did she get the information about this murder? Did she even know about it, or did she make it up when she was talking to the police and falsely claimed you had previously killed?

[29:54] Did she testify at trial?

[32:31] Due to Gilbert’s education level and lack of “finesse” in presenting his arguments as opposed to a license lawyer, the concerns he repeatedly voiced to the court of appeals were not taken seriously and dismissed.

[33:06] The blood and hairs at the scene of the crime didn’t match you, bite-mark evidence didn’t match you, and some blood-stained pebbles were also found t the scene of the crime. Were those tested?

[37:29] Is your defense attorney still practicing?

[38:11] Let’s fast forward 28 years… DNA samples confirmed your blood was nowhere at the scene of the crime. This is five years before you were released… tell us how that made it through the appellate court.

[39:52] What was the evidence that convinced the Michigan Attorney General’s Conviction Integrity Unit that your conviction was a mistake?

[42:23] We learned on our last episode that while there are 6,000 prosecutors’ offices in America, there are only 100 conviction integrity units (CIUs).

[46:50] You were away for 32 years and have been released for not even three full months… you’re not upset! You said you could barely find any malice in your heart, which is such a wonderful thing… that you’re able to forgive quickly and try to enjoy your life. It’s mind-blowing, and it’s a lesson to us all. Listening to you is really beautiful.

[49:18] What are your plans, now that you’re out?

[50:21] I’m happy that you’re out, and that justice came for you, even if it was late. I hope that you find peace, happiness, and the mental health treatment that you deserve. If there’s anything we can do to help, we’d be honored. Do you have any parting words for viewers of this show?

[51:19] Thank you for coming on the show, Gilbert! Take care of yourself.

[51:41] You heard it — Gilbert’s story from his own words, his own voice. That was an intense one. I thank him for coming on the show, and I thank you for watching, commenting, and listening. We’ll see you back on Open Mike… until next time! 

Marissa Boyers Bluestine is an award-winning criminal justice attorney and reform advocate who serves as the Assistant Director of the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. As Assistant Director, she oversees policy and public awareness by promoting reform through cutting-edge data, public education, and legislative reform for issues and outdated laws that beleaguer the criminal justice system.

A former public defender, Marissa has helped facilitate the release of fourteen Pennsylvanians convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, in addition to proactively working with law enforcement to train, update, and include them in investigative techniques empirically proven to exceed obsolete practices that lead to wrongful convictions.

In this all-new installment of Open Mike, Marissa and Mike discuss the ever-growing need for conviction integrity units, holistic methods to help prosecutors’ offices prevent and rectify wrongful convictions, and how the prosecutorial function must be extended past merely convicting and incarcerating people.

Show Notes

[1:38] Introducing Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Assistant Director of the Quattron Center for the Fair Administration of Justice from University of Pennsylvania School of Law!

[01:48] We’ve talked about conviction integrity units (CIUs) on the show before… for our viewers who aren’t aware, could you tell us what they are and what they do?

[03:59] Why is it such a novel concept for prosecutors to hold their staff accountable, that they’re not railroading defendants?

[04:36] The prosecutorial function doesn’t end at conviction and incarceration. It even continues once justice is served — there’s no element of finality until justice is served.

[05:18] So, the enlightened prosecutors who aren’t out solely for convictions are taking justice seriously and digging into credible evidence that manifests decades later?

[07:46] How many prosecutors’ offices are there in this country?

­[09:19] I love that you’re hearing about new conviction integrity units, even though there are only 100 for 6,000 prosecutors’ offices. You have to have some political clout to pull this off, and be in the right jurisdiction!

[10:47] Karen McDonald, the Oakland County Prosecutor, is opening a conviction integrity unit in October, 2021.

[11:42] Visit convictionreview.net to check out a resource center designed for conviction review/integrity units in their beginning stages!

[12:29] Who are some of the exemplary conviction review units around the country?

[14:41] What does a conviction integrity “done wrong” set us up for?

[16:08] For the thousands of prosecutors’ offices that don’t have CIUs… how do you convince them to put aside the politics and mistakes that may have been made in favor of doing the right thing?

[17:42] There are a lot of common threads that link a lot of these wrongful convictions… what are some of the most frequent patterns you see?

[19:26] Prosecutors are protected from being sued by absolute immunity, even if there are bad actors involved. As a result, there are never any learnings that help fix the problems at hand.

[23:07] Under Brady law, exculpatory evidence submitted for review must be material; material evidence is the caveat.

[25:34] Tunnel vision in the criminal justice context is a tendency of participants in the system, such as police or prosecutors, to focus on a specific theory of a case and to dismiss or undervalue evidence which contradicts that theory.

[28:19] One of the key issues with CIUs is that they receive information and bring it to light — without them, the information would likely never see the light of day and the wrongfully convicted person would likely never be released. There’s a shocking parallel between the amount of cases go through CIUs and the amount of cases that involve withheld evidence violating Brady standards; it’s an extraordinarily high percentage.

[28:51] How many people are sitting in prison because exculpatory evidence was withheld? It has to be in the thousands.

[30:18] In the 28-year-long wrongful conviction case you mentioned… is that prosecutor’s office now going back and reviewing every single file they have to ensure they’ve gotten the right suspects?

[30:53] There should be a root cause analysis done of every exoneration case with people who have stakes in the outcome —  prosecutors, police, judges, defense, etc. No exoneration is ever one person; it’s a system with multiple players.

[32:31] How often, or how rare, is it for someone to give a false confession?

[33:18] The way police are trained to conduct interrogations is driven to get a statement of inculpability — to get a statement that self incriminates, regardless of actual truth. And the first step of this process is to confront a suspect, talk over them, and relentlessly hound them until they stop denying.

[36:35] Will Bendan Dassey ever get out of prison?

[37:15] What’s wrong with the judges who’ve studied that case, watched the show, and still remain unmoved and do nothing?

[38:27] The word “innocent” doesn’t appear in The Constitution. It’s about guilt or not-guilt. If the courts determine there wasn’t constitutional error — even if the person is innocent — they will remain in prison. We need to respond to cases of innocence. 43:56]

[40:32 I think most states now mandate recordings of confessions to avoid false confessions, is that correct?

[41:36] Make sure to visit convictionreview.net for resources on wrongful convictions and to connect with a conviction review unit, and the Quattron Centre’s website for more holistic materials addressing all needed, long-term, structural improvements to the justice system.

[43:32] The Macomb County Prosecutor is also opening a conviction integrity unit.

[43:44] Marissa, thank you for being on the show, this was incredibly eye-opening! I really appreciate you educating me and our audience, this was really great.

[44:02] If you know somebody who needs to hear more about CIUs and Innocence Projects, like this episode, share, comment as you usually do, and thank you for watching! I look forward to seeing you next time on Open Mike.

Professor Marla Mitchell-Cichon is an attorney, advocate, and criminal justice expert who has helped facilitate the release of seven wrongfully convicted Michiganders. As Executive Director of the WMU-Cooley Law Innocence Project, she and her team, largely consisting of law students, work to secure the release of factually innocent people solely through post-conviction DNA evidence, the only innocence organization in the state of Michigan to do so. To date, the WMU-Cooley Law Innocence Project has screened over 5,800 cases, several of which are actively being prepared for court.

In this compelling, all-new episode of Open Mike, Marla discusses her 18-year-long work on the wrongful conviction of Gary Poole, a Michigan man who was falsely accused of murder and spent 32 years behind bars. Tune in to learn how she helped get him exonerated, how we can best protect ourselves if wrongly accused of a crime, and how WMU-Cooley Law Innocent Project can help if someone you know is falsely incarcerated!

Show Notes

[00:24] Background and bio of Marla Mitchell-Cichon.

[00:43] Marla, welcome to Open Mike!

[01:11] Can you tell us a little about the Western Michigan University Cooley Law Innocence Project?

[01:47] Most Innocence Clinics focus on cases without DNA or have a mixture of cases where DNA may or may not be involved. WMU Cooley’s only takes on cases where there is a DNA component. 

[02:47] What role do the students play at the Innocence Project?

[03:31] How did you personally become interested in helping the wrongfully convicted?

[04:14] The WMU-Cooley Law Innocence Project has helped a number of people, including Kenny Wyniemko who was on several of our episodes, including our 100th Episode Special. How gratifying is it when you’re able to free an innocent person?

[05:19] I’m familiar with your work, specifically the case of Gilbert Poole… how did he become a suspect in that case?

[06:59] Weren’t there cigarette butts and underwear that weren’t run through DNA testing prior to the trial?

[08:38] DNA is one of the best tools to prove innocence… but it’s performed by people, and people can make mistakes.

[10:38] Bite mark evidence has never been scientific, yet it’s a very common forensic practice that prosecutors lean on to convict people.

[15:16] Contrary to popular belief, hair samples aren’t scientifically accurate, unless the piece of hair has a root attached to it.

[16:51] In Mr. Poole’s case, can you discuss the fingernail evidence that excluded his culpability?

[18:33] When you get involved in the Poole case, what eventually led to you convincing the state Attorney General’s integrity unit to make the motion to release?

[23:31] When you have a criminal trial, that is the only opportunity you have to put the facts on a court record. Once that record is made, most of the time, any reviewing court will be limited to reviewing what’s on the record.

[24:31] Now that these conviction integrity units are around, you went to them… what was the smoking gun that allowed you to convince them everyone got it wrong?

[26:36] In Poole’s case, no one actually saw who killed the victim. Poole was never put in a line-up or independent identified. The government also introduced a composite drawing that was created after Poole had been arrested.

[27:29] Will Gilbert be compensated for the time he spent in prison?

[28:40] Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and members from her office attended Mr. Poole’s release reception and sincerely apologized for the struggles he unjustly experienced.

[30:58] There are still so many innocent people in prison. What can we, as a society, do to help the wrongfully convicted?

[32:21] Make sure to check out the WMU-Cooley Law Innocence Project’s website for more information on the cases we discussed in this episode!

[32:47] Eighteen years of dedication on this case, Marla. It’s frankly mind-boggling to me. I commend you, I respect you, and we’re lucky to have you working on behalf of those whose voices have been silenced.

[33:31] If you have a loved one in prison, or are in prison yourself, the WMU-Cooley Law Innocence Project only accept inquiries and applications from the individuals who are incarcerated. Write directly to their office for assistance!

[33:58] Marla Mitchell-Cichon, thank you for being on Open Mike! I hope to talk to you again.

[34:06] What a smart person, and what an incredible clinic she and her students run! Visit their website if you want to donate, educate yourself, or contact them for help. Thank you for being here on Open Mike! Like, subscribe, share, spread the word on this crucial issue. We’ll see you next time!

Mike Ware is the Executive Director of the Innocence Project of Texas, where he champions the rights of the wrongfully convicted and tirelessly fights to overturn their sentences. In this compelling installment of Open Mike, he discusses the egregious case of Lydell Grant, a Houston man who was convicted on the basis of six false identifications, only to be released from prison a decade later once crime scene evidence was finally run through proper DNA testing.

How can faulty identification processes be improved upon to avoid these miscarriages of justice? Why did it take a decade for DNA evidence to be reviewed when a man’s life was on the line?

Find out, on this all-new episode of Open Mike!

Show Notes

[00:11] Mike Ware’s background as director of Innocence Project of Texas.

[02:28] Welcome to Open Mike! So, tell us, how and why did you get involved in the Lydell Grant murder case?

[04:50] Was that a flat-out lie?

[05:34] At trial they determined the fingernail evidence was inconclusive?

[06:23] Did the defense have the DNA looked at by their own expert?

[07:39] Mr. Grant was identified by six eyewitnesses… the reason you were able to get him out of prison was due to the DNA. But the reason he was locked up to begin with was due to the eyewitnesses… Is the way that the murder happened relevant to his story?

[11:01] Lots of people saw the perpetrator… I assume there was some kind of composite done?

[12:24] How did the police find Mr. Grant?

[13:29] The identification process wasn’t videoed or recorded… were the suggestive tones, or finger pointing from the police? We don’t know because these IDs were conducted in people’s homes and other locations.

[15:06] The identifications weren’t conducted in a double-blind manner, meaning the detective presenting the photo spread to the witnesses knew which person in the spread was the suspect.

[16:22] How did Lydell’s trial go? From what I read, he had court-appointed counsel.

[18:00] In Mike Ware’s experience, jurors never believe alibi witnesses. 

[19:32] Lydell was sentenced to life and wrote a letter to your offices, where it was vetted by law student staff. And what’s really impressive is that one of the students found the DNA anomalies. This law student saved this guy’s life!

[21:33] How quickly after finding the DNA anomaly were you able to get the actual suspect’s name?

[29:22] So, rather than investigate the actual suspect, they want to keep investigating Lydell, who’s been in prison all this time? That’s very strange.

[30:24] Did Mr. Grant know what was going on throughout all these months that there was another suspect? Or did you keep him in the dark as to not get his hopes up?

[33:49] The technology was there in 2011. Had they properly tested the evidence back then, they would’ve found the suspect in the system then.

[35:24] You mention the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals sat on the case, but I have a note that they refused his exoneration request, and then asked the six eyewitnesses who falsely identified him to respond to his claims of innocence!

[37:22] It took ten years for the judges to get affidavits from the eyewitnesses explaining their current position.

[41:12] Is Mr. Grant going to get some money in the state of Texas for his wrongful conviction?

[41:50] Under Texas state law, Mr. Grant is entitled to $80,000 per year for every year he was locked up.

[43:21] You mentioned this law you got passed… not even half the states have proper identification law, stating it has to be blind on both sides… how do we get that passed in every state?

[46:12] I saw a statistic that over 5,000 or more people in Texan prisons are innocent. Is that true?

[46:55] You’re in a tough state, a conservative state, and the fact that you have an Innocence Project is astounding. You’re doing great work. I appreciate it, and I’m sure the people of Texas appreciate it. If people watching want to help, how can they do that?

[47:19] Make sure to visit their website, or even call Mike Ware on his cell phone! 817-992-1132.

[47:36] Thank you, Mike, for being on Open Mike. These stories are so important to tell. I think Mr. Grant is really lucky you set up such a great team to review his case. Congrats on all your success and thank you for coming on the show.

[48:29] Texas Innocence Project came through for Lydell Grant. Six eyewitnesses says he killed a man, and they were dead wrong! The actual killer, proven by DNA evidence, is currently on trial. Let us know what you think about this case. I’d love to hear from you. If you know someone who needs to hear this episode, pass this along, comment, like, and subscribe. Thank you for being a fan of Open Mike, and we’ll see you next time!

In 1988, Alfonzo Riley’s friend asked him if he wanted to make some money. As a broke college student, he said yes. Little did he know that simple decision would shape the rest of his life.

Alfonzo ended up transporting drugs from Brooklyn to Albany in a transaction gone awry. Two men ended up losing their lives and, while he was in a different room when the shootings occurred, he was charged under New York’s controversial felony murder law and sentenced to 71 years to life.

It would take overcoming two malicious judges, three decades behind bars, and multiple applications for clemency for Riley to be given a second chance — his sentence was commuted by Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2018.

Having earned multiple degrees during his incarceration, Alfonzo is now a paralegal case handler in the New York Legal Aid Society’s wrongful conviction unit, attempting to judicial wrongdoings like that he experienced.

Why are felony murder statutes allowed to harshly punish people who didn’t commit murder? Several states have already abolished them — is a federal ban next? Were the judges on Alfonzo’s case ever held accountable for his excessively harsh sentence?

Show Notes

[00:01] Alfonzo Riley’s background and bio.

[1:51] Alfonzo, welcome to Open Mike! I’m so glad you’re here, I’ve read so much about you. Tell our listeners and viewers about the day that changed your life.

[03:27] Was this the first time you were involved in anything like that?

[04:18] I assume it probably sounded like easy money at the time! Getting paid money to transport… what was it, marijuana?

[04:59] You were the first person in your family to go to college. Went to New York Institute of Technology, got good grades… and it just sounds like you made a dumb decision. Take us through how everything went down. Were you the driver? Why were you needed on this drug run?

[5:54] Were you armed?

[06:27] I know you were on another level of the building when the shooting occurred… tell me how that happened?

[07:32] What did you think when you heard gunshots? You were there to show your support during the transaction, so what was going through your head?

[08:11] The drug sale took an antagonist turn when people were being declined the cocaine they wanted to purchase, which is when the shooting occurred.

[09:34] When did you know you were being charged with felony murder?

[09:22] In New York City, a typical murder trial will take between 12-18 months to go to trial. Alfonzo went to trial in 6 months in Albany, which was hugely accelerated, especially in 1988.

[10:43] On Open Mike, we’ve interviewed over ten exonerees, but yours is a different type of story. The fact that you weren’t in the room, but were charged under the felony murder rule nonetheless… have you ever denied that your presence or any actual involvement?

[12:47] Did the trigger man get the same exact sentence?

[13:26] Did you have a jury trial? Were all the other participants convicted?

[14:26] I remember in law school learning about felony murder, and it’s a bizarre statute. It was used as a deterrent for even being in a bit part in a crime. For example, if you drove someone to light an empty house on fire, and that house had a person inside who was killed, the driver will get the same charges as the person who actually struck the match.

[16:35] You’re sentenced to 71 years. You’re coming right from college, probably a decent dorm at a good university. Can you even describe the change, going from college, to prison for 31 years?

[18:55] What’s amazing to be is all you accomplished in prison. You got an Associate’s Degree, a Bachelor’s Degree, a paralegal degree, worked in the law library, volunteered at a children’s center, and — what’s most interesting to me — is you became a chess champion! So you definitely made the most of your time, which is pretty unusual — wouldn’t you say?

[20:26] Alfonzo is currently studying for the LSAT.

[20:42] Let’s talk about your chess championship! Did you know how to play before prison?

[21:13] Who taught you how to elevate your game in prison?

[21:56] What was your standard, opening move?

[22:00] What did you think about The Queen’s Gambit?

[23:35] Are you still playing? Have you ever been in a tournament?

[23:33] Let’s talk about your clemency. For our viewers and listeners who don’t know the difference between a pardon and clemency, can you explain?

[25:39] After various application attempts, on December 31st, 2018, Governor Andrew Cuomo commuted Alfonzo’s sentence.

[26:03] How did you get Cuomo’s attention? He has about 7,000 clemency applications sitting on his desk and has let out less than twenty. How did you get his attention?

[30:42] There were only two criminal judges in the court that Alfonzo went through, and they had a mutual competition going in which they would see who could sentence defendants to more time before they retire.

[32:08] I’m going to assume they were never disciplined? Holding judges accountable is nearly impossible. It’s reprehensible, and I’m sorry you had to deal with that.

[32:57] You had some great people who got the governor’s attention, you found out about your release on New Year’s Eve… and it’s only been two years! I heard you still had to remain in prison for four weeks even after the governor announced your commutation? That had to have been excruciating!

[34:24] You’ve been out for two-and-a-half years. What are you up to now? How’s life?

[35:20] These days, Alfonzo is a paralegal case handler at the Legal Aid Society in New York in the wrongful conviction unit. The unit started in May 2019 and they’ve already experienced success with clients Carlos Weeks and James Davis.

[36:20] What a perfect job for you. I mean, how lucky are these guys to have you working on their cases. Someone who cares and takes it seriously. I’m really impressed. I also heard you got married in prison in 2014, not knowing if you’d ever get out! You’re still married and living with your wife now, congratulations!

[37:12] I wish you the best of luck in law school, and if you ever want to bring an exoneree on Open Mike to help generate publicity for the ills of our criminal justice system, I’d love to have you back on the show. It was super nice to meet you — keep in touch!

[37:59] What a nice guy, Alfonzo Riley. Really impressed with what he did in prison and how it’s serving him now. If you know anybody who needs to hear this episode, send it to them! Like, comment, subscribe, and let us know the types of things you want us to address. We really appreciate you listening and watching. We’ll see you next time.

We’re making a departure from our standard format for a very special Father’s Day exclusive! In this heart-warming episode, Mike is joined by his daughters Jillian, Ella, and Lexie who flip the script on their dad and ask him the burning questions you’ve always craved the answers to. What career would Mike have if he weren’t a lawyer? Which professional snafu has he learned the most from? If he were a salad ingredient, which one would he be and why? Unlock the Morse Code and learn more about your favorite attorney-turned-podcast host in this all-new installment featuring three very special guest hosts.

Show Notes

[00:56] Mike Morse: Welcome to a special, Father’s Day edition of Open Mike! You can see I have my daughters, Ellie Morse, Lexie Morse, and Jillian Morse who’s in Brooklyn. Thank you for coming on today!

[01:19] MM: We’re doing a special episode where my daughters wanted to ask my questions. I don’t know them, these haven’t been pre-screened, and everything is fair game. So, we’ll see how they do! Jillian, you’re the oldest — do you want to go first?

[01:49] Jillian Morse: Yes! How old were you when you knew you wanted to be a father?

[02:34] Ella Morse: What are some of the fondest memories you had with your dad?

[03:29] Lexie Morse: What’s the biggest thing you’ve learned from your dad?

[04:16] EM: He taught you well — you’re the best dad in the world!

[04:23] JM: If your dad wasn’t a lawyer, do you think you would be in this field doing personal injury?

[05:08] MM: You’ve stumped me, Jillian! I’ll say yes because I’ve been doing it for thirty years and love it. But would I have done it if my father Joel wasn’t one? I’ll say yes, but truly I have no clue.

[05:30] EM: What do you enjoy most about being a father to us?

[06:18] LM: Okay, I have one. What is your favorite tradition we have as a family?

[07:37] JM: As a kid, how did you and your dad celebrate Father’s Day?

[08:46] EM: Super cute! This question is kind of unrelated to Father’s Day, but it’s one I’m curious… if you could travel one place you haven’t been before, what would it be?

[09:45] LM: What’s your favorite hobby?

[10:24] MM: I took Lexie golfing recently, and she almost killed a kid. She hit a ball right into another kid and was like, “Alright, I’m done! Never doing this again!” Isn’t that basically what happened?

[10:41] JM: What are the top two items on your bucket list for 2021 and 2022? Are you going to write another book?

[12:52] EM: What is a mistake or failure that has taught you the most in life? What’s a downfall that brought you back up?

[14:09] LM: Where is your favorite place to travel to?

[14:32] JM: I feel anywhere warm with mountains, you’ll be happy. What’s your favorite game to play as a family?

[16:08] LM: This is one I really want to know the answer to… which one of us gets on your nerves the most? And you can’t say me!

[17:11] EM: I have a question that you ask often! I’m curious — if you could be any part of the salad, which part would you be and why?

[18:11] MM: I ask that question in interviews sometimes, and that’s where Ella got that question!

[18:21] JM: I have a question that’s not fully developed, but… how would you feel if you had a son instead of three daughters? Do you think you’d be more prepared to raise a son?

[19:21] MM: Would I have been equipped? No, I wouldn’t have been equipped! I wasn’t equipped to raise a daughter either, but I did an okay job. I would have been happy with a boy, and I was thrilled with a third girl. Three girls is special, it’s unique, and I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

[20:19] MM: I’m now seeing questions from my staff that I’m going to ask YOU guys. One final question, and then we’re going to end. What’s your favorite memory growing up, focused on your Dad?

[21:04] JM: This was a couple summers ago and we went on a Daddy-Daughter trip, you visited me while I was out there for a couple days. And we would walk the old, cobblestone streets together, ate some amazing sushi on Chelsea Street, then we went to Berlin, had an amazing time, and then we went to Prague. Every second on that trip was so fun, never a dull moment.

[22:11] EM: That really jogged my memory! I think traveling in general is something we all value and love. And I think it’s rare to go on a trip, just one parent to a daughter. One of the trips you and I did was canoeing in Green River, Utah. And we had so much fun, we laughed, we had no idea what we were doing.

[23:46] LM: I loved going to Daddy-Daughter dances with you! Getting dressed up and dancing all night.

[24:14] MM: Girls, thank you so much for coming on Open Mike, and being yourselves and asking questions. I love you all so, so, so much.

[24:36] MM: Thank you all for watching this special episode of Open Mike. Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there, and we’ll see you next time! Thank you.