Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out.

>> The Joe Rogan Experience.

>> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY

NIGHT. All day,

>> Brother Joe.

>> Good to see you again.

>> Nice to see you, man.

>> What's happening?

>> Everything's happening. I got I got a

lot on my mind. I got notes today and

everything.

>> Beautiful. So, let's kick it off. What

do you got?

No, I I was just um

I was thinking that the more you do this

work, the

more routine the stories would get and

you would start to see fact patterns and

situations repeat.

But I'm starting to think the more you

do it, the more nutty and bizarre it

gets. and you find yourself in these

situations where you're like, that can't

be. You got to check that out. So, I I

have like multiple cases going on where

I feel that way. And um

and they range from

wrongful convictions to why was this

person charged in the first place? Were

you seeking clemency? I mean,

um yeah, it's a it's a weird world.

Yeah. Your world in particular, the

world of wrongfully accused and

wrongfully convicted people is a one of

the darkest worlds in the world because

you're taking away a person's freedom.

>> Yeah.

>> And they do it all the time for

corruption. They they do it because

they're corrupt. They do it because

they're dirty. They do it because they

want convictions. They do it because

they said someone was guilty and then

they just want to [ __ ] lock them up

anyway. You know, I started to read this

um

Malcolm Gladwell just published a new

book called Revenge of the Tipping

Point,

and I'm only like 15 pages in.

And the way he starts it out is about I

I think he's going to come back to it at

the end, but I think it's the opioid

scandal. He's leaving it blank until the

end of the book about how when they

testified, the executives of the company

testified before Congress

that they couldn't bring themselves to

apologize or admit that they were wrong

and they keep on using the words our

drug has been associated with associated

with addiction. And it's almost this so

I'm starting to think that this

inability

to admit

fault

that you're wrong,

um that you're sorry. It it it

transcends the legal system. And you

know, I'm starting to believe that the

cases where these cops are out to frame

someone are far more

um

well, maybe not far more, but they're

less common than the cases where law

enforcement's trying to do the right

thing and a detective has a hunch and

they just get to where they think they

need to be on the evidence by following

the hunch, which is often wrong.

So, yeah, it's a mix of all that [ __ ]

>> Yeah. And people don't like to admit

they're wrong ever, especially when it

comes to something as crazy as

pharmaceutical drug company releasing

some opioid that's going to kill a

million people. Like, they can't admit

they're wrong. They almost have to say

things like associated with especially

during hearings.

>> Yeah. During congressional hearings, I

guess there's a lot on the line if

there's anything that smells like an

admission, right?

>> Yeah. They can't admit it. They have to

not lie, right? Because then they can

get hit with perjury. So, they come up

with different terms like associated

with

>> Yeah. I mean, I'm interested to see

where he goes with it. I listen to his

podcast a lot. It's actually really

good. Um,

some of them are good. revisionist

history because he's he's a curious dude

this Malcolm Gladwell

>> and um you know some of his stuff I

agree with some I don't but I like that

he looks beneath the surface and tries

to figure out what is motivating people

or what they're tricking themselves into

believing

>> and

I just uh I was watching this man of

scalo bit the other day and he was like

can't you just say I'm sorry. He's

talking about his wife. That's all I

want. And him and this dude are going

back and forth. I forget the guy's name

on the podcast. Some other comedian. And

uh it the bit is so [ __ ] funny. And

and so I just find myself apologizing

all the time because what's wrong with

just admitting that you're wrong?

>> Nothing at all. Good. It's actually a a

show of strength. And people that don't

recognize that, they just believe that

they're never wrong or that they want

people to know they're never wrong or

think they're never wrong. So, they just

don't admit it. They just bury it deep

inside.

>> But you find yourself apologizing all

the [ __ ] time sometimes when you're

conscious of it. I'm like, damn, I

apologize a lot. Maybe I do all this

[ __ ]

>> Well, better to apologize for something

you didn't do than to not apologize for

something you did. Well,

I don't know. As

>> long as you mean it.

>> Yeah. Yeah. You got to mean it. That

That helps. Meaning it helps.

>> Yeah.

>> Just saying it just to get it out of a

fight.

>> Yeah. That's not good.

>> It's not good.

>> It's not worth it.

>> Um

Yeah. I just finished uh I just finished

this trial on a case that was super

important to forensic science. It was

actually the namesake of of my center,

the Pearl Mutters,

uh, the Pearl Mutter Center for Legal

Justice at Cardo Law. So, Ike and Lorie

Pearl Mutter's DNA was stolen by a

neighbor and you know, it's a nutty

story. You could read about it online. I

don't

>> I did read about it online.

>> It's crazy.

>> [ __ ] crazy. And but I had a um

I had an expert, a so-called expert on

the stand and there was an email where

they um

it was an unacredited DNA lab

and

someone that worked for him gets the

results of DNA testing, one round of the

results

and she says, "The good news is we have

a full profile. The bad news is it's not

associated with the promoters." And I

and I said to him in words or substance,

um,

why would it ever be bad news for a

scientist

if one particular person was implicated

in a crime or not? Aren't they supposed

to just give the facts? And and in a

moment of cander, I think it's one of

the few times this has happened in all

my years doing this, the guy said, you

know, I wouldn't have used those words

and it had no place. And it wasn't an

email that he wrote. It was an email

that someone that worked for him wrote.

And I almost said right in front of the

Jerry, good for you, man. That's super

rare. And um I mean the case is is um I

think it's an important one for forensic

science because their DNA was stolen at

a deposition over some petty [ __ ] It

was about a tennis dispute in their

community and they're lured to this

deposition

and their neighbor

takes their DNA without their consent.

How did he do it? He had um

he had a former crime scene analyst

and some retired um

deputy chief of police from Toronto

because this guy's from Canada come down

and

the former crime scene analyst sits at

the deposition

and they planned it all beforehand

and They

made sure that they did not handle paper

that Ike Pearl Mutter would handle. And

they made sure that no one touched this

water bottle that Lori Pruter was going

to handle. And they hand him this phony

exhibit. And they had it worked out

before that they would only touch the

bottom corner of it. And they have they

have a water bottle sitting in front of

Lori Promutter. and they ask questions

about this dispute over the tennis

center.

And um

you know when they leave it was treated

like a crime scene and it was like some

vigilante justice type of [ __ ] where

they send all this stuff to an

unacredited lab who then sends it to an

accredited lab and instead of waiting

for the results to come in from this

accredited lab, the unacredited lab

starts interpreting it and they're

having pressure put on them by this man

that ultimately accused Ike and Lori of,

you know, being involved in this awful

crime.

>> What was the crime?

>> All right, so it doesn't make sense

without context. So here's what happens.

Ike Pearlmuter is, you know, the former

chairman of Marvel. He's um very

reclusive by all accounts. He and Lori

don't have children and they live a very

quiet life in Palm Beach. He was an avid

tennis player. This is about 14 years

ago. Avid tennis player and he um

became very friendly with the woman that

was the tennis pro. She was a single

mother. She would set him up with tennis

games and he became friends with her.

So,

she sold real estate on the side. I

mean, this is like a [ __ ] episode of

like Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm at

the beginning, then it like goes off the

rails and descends into the depths of

hell. So,

bear with me.

>> Okay.

So,

a man moves into or a man had been

living at or moves into their

neighborhood and he

um becomes friends with this other

couple who also sell real estate. The

wife sells real estate. And apparently

they approach the tennis pro and they're

like, "We should team up on real

estate." And she's like, "No, it's just

my side hustle. I'm going to do it

alone." So this guy from Canada writes

this memo and in the memo there's all

these accusations about this woman that

she could go to federal prison and she's

committing she could be you know that

that there's bid rigging going on

because they never sent her her um they

never sent her her tennis pro contract

out for bid. It was just kind of like

nutty stuff

>> just because she wouldn't go into

business with him. I mean, that's our

theory. That's my opinion. And yeah,

that was our theory in the case. So Ike

stands up for her. He's a very loyal

guy. Stands up for the people that he,

you know, is friends with. And he

thought she was getting bullied. So she

sued the guy for defamation. And Ike and

another resident in this condo complex

paid for her legal fees. So about a year

later,

mail starts to arrive in this community

and it is the most awful [ __ ] you have

ever heard. And it's accusing the

Canadian guy of being a child molester,

of being a murderer. It's horrific,

twisted sick [ __ ] So, it's about a year

after this tennis center dispute and

there's misspelled Hebrew words and

Jewish stars all over it. So, this guy

thinks naturally that Ike and his wife

are behind it like they have nothing

better to do. All right. So

because he's so convinced that they did

it and or that they were involved and

he, you know, initially suspected that

other people might be involved, this

guy's going around and swabbing DNA

off of with a Q-tip off of cars. He's

digging through trash in the condo

community and he's like on this mission

to collect people's DNA. So he calls

them to a deposition about the tennis

center case and that's where this all

went down. So once they collect their

DNA, this unacredited lab claims that

DNA taken off of the hate mail matches

Lori Permuter's DNA from the water

bottle at the deposition.

The problem was that this unacredited

lab didn't wait for the report from the

accredited lab. And that run of the DNA

that this woman was relying on, the

accredited lab discarded it because the

man that actually did the test and

contaminated the machine and he knew it

so he didn't rely on it. So years and

years and years go by and well after

they knew that Lori had nothing to do

with this. In fact, in 2017, a man got

arrested in Canada and he got arrested

because a package got intercepted at

Homeland at the border by Homeland

Security and it had samples of the hate

mail latex gloves,

you know, in the package and it was a

former business associate of this

Canadian guy and their relationship went

sour and I thought the case was over,

you So in 2019, I believe the guy gets

arrested again and there's a detailed

affidavit. So it's clear that this man

is responsible for it. So in any event,

in 2016, the um I believe it was 2016,

there's an article in the [ __ ]

dealbook in the New York Times saying

that Lori Pearlmutter

DNA is on that hate mail. And then

there's another one in the Globe and

Mail, which is a big Canadian paper. So,

it was a defamation case against this

guy and against this lawyer for Chub

because Chub helped this CHUB lawyer,

Federal Insurance, also known as CHUB,

helps him draw up the blueprints

for collecting their DNA at the

deposition.

So, um it was a super gratifying case.

We won a $50 million verdict and was,

you know, he was found liable for

defamation, abuse of process, which is

abuse of the legal process. And, you

know, it's taken Ike and Lori all of

these years to have their name restored

in court. and they've they'd kill me if

I admitted it and it would be a

violation of their confidence and my

professional obligation, but they've

spent an untold fortune.

And

you know, the case is important for

forensic science because DNA is supposed

to be the holy grail. And you can't have

private citizens running around trying

to collect people's DNA without knowing

what they're doing. You could be

leaning on someone

and have good intentions to get results,

but if I told you or if I said to Jamie,

"Here's my suspect.

Take a look at these fingerprints and

tell me if they match him or her." Or,

"Here's my suspect. Here's their genetic

profile. Tell me if it matches."

You don't realize the I mean

sometimes the error rate skyrockets by

as much as 50%. With fingerprints over

80%.

And fingerprint analysts will agree and

they will say, "Yeah, I know that that

happens." And if someone tells me who

the suspect is

and only who the suspect is, and I'm

comparing it, I think the error rate

goes up. But not with me. Not with me. I

mean, again, it's that phenomenon where

you just can't think that you would be

biased.

So, look, the case was super important

because I think it re beyond restoring

their name and you know, it's the

namesake of the center where we do this

work. It also preserves the integrity of

forensic science and especially DNA

which is really one of the few

um super reliable forms of forensic

science. But even that when put in the

wrong hands or if it's exposed to

subjectivity

and people's belief that they have the

right person, it's vulnerable. And

science shouldn't be vulnerable.

It should be it's either A or B. It's

either yes or no, especially with DNA.

This episode is brought to you by

Visible. When your phone plans as good

as visible, you've got to tell your

people. It's the ultimate wireless hack

to save money and still get great

coverage and a reliable connection. Get

one line wireless with unlimited data

and hotspot for $25 a month. Taxes and

fees included, all on Verizon's 5G

network. Plus, now for a limited time,

new members can get the Visible plan for

just $19 a month for the first 26

months. Use promo code switch26

and save beyond the season. It's a deal

so good you're going to want to tell

your people. Switch now at

visible.com/rogan.

Terms apply. Limited time offers subject

to change. See visible.com for plan

features and network management details.

So,

>> can I ask you a question? Yeah.

>> When you said that her uh the evidence

against her, the DNA evidence had to be

thrown out because the machine was

contaminated.

>> Yeah.

>> How was it contaminated and how did that

implicate her DNA?

>> So, what happens is um when you're I

don't want to go too deep into DNA

analysis, but it is actually

interesting. when you're conducting DNA

testing, the manufacturer of the

machine,

um I think it's called the Power Plex

Plus,

they ask you to run what's called a

positive control and a negative control

to make sure that the machine is

correctly calibrated because it's what

it's doing through electrofaresis.

um it's shooting out what's called an

electrofaroggram on the other end so

that you're able to

um

you're able to do what they what they

what's referred to as calling alles. So

you're recalling you know a chromosome

pairing at a specific genetic marker

right so and they called them there's

various different lossi or locations

where there you either have two alals or

one you get one from your mom one from

your father one from your mom one from

your dad and sometimes the one from your

father might not show but your mothers

will show but there'll be two alals at

most at a specific location. So they

want to make sure that the machine is

working properly. So the manufacturer

has the lab analyst every time you do it

run a positive control. Meaning that

you'll put a solution through the

machine and it should on the other end

give you very specific results.

And he accidentally

pipetted or took the solution from her

DNA mixture instead of from the positive

control mixture. and put that through

the machine.

So when he was running the test, her DNA

is already mixed in there.

>> Oh,

>> but he realized he made a mistake. So

when he issued his report, he didn't

rely on that run because and when I say

run, it's another

um

it's another you'll run the DNA on

different occasions and sometimes on

different dates because you want to make

sure that your genetic profile will

never change. My genetic profile will

never change. So when you were looking

at somebody's genetic profile, it should

be consistent. So when he saw that, wait

a second, the first run of this doesn't

match the second and third or or the

fourth, he realized he made a mistake.

but without having the lab analyst

that's doing the interpretation,

you know, weighing in on the results and

you're antsy to get an answer and you're

leaning on an unacredited lab saying

interpret the results, interpret the

results. Money's no object. There's an

email that said that, you know, instead

of waiting,

she relies on this run of the DNA and

you know, then what happens happen? But

at some point,

this Canadian guy came to learn what

actually happened and kept on going

>> and kept on going and kept on going and

there was evidence that he wanted

hundreds of millions of dollars from my

clients.

>> You know, I think what turned out to be

a shitty situation for him because no

doubt getting hate mail like that has to

be disturbing and upsetting to the

family. Did it turn out that he had any

sort of relationship with the Canadian

man who was sending him the hate mail?

>> Yeah, that was his former one of his

former business colleagues

>> who he he had a vicious falling out with

and he kept it from everyone.

So I think that the inference in my

opinion the inference is that at some

point and and in fact there's an

allegation in the hate mail which says

you were involved in the murder of these

two people.

He accuses this man in Canada months

after the hate mail began to arrive of

spreading that rumor. So I believe that

he knew it was him the whole time and at

some point I believe he was trying to

shake the promoters down.

>> Uh

>> so

>> so he wanted money from them otherwise

he was going to go public

>> and he went public.

>> Uh how much did he request?

>> You know look there's an article in the

Globe and Mail saying that he wants $600

million.

There was an article he admitted on the

stand that it was a hundred million. his

his um

>> so he was just trying to get paid

>> his Well, that's my opinion.

>> Yeah, that was the jury's opinion.

>> What did he do?

>> He was some embattled in my opinion an

embattled

um businessman in Canada. He had like a

executive recruiting company, but there

was all sorts of public information out

there that he was worked on the Toronto

Harbor Commission and then been involved

in what the press called cloak and

dagger campaigns where he was wasting

public funds. So, you know, he bragged

about all the lawsuits he's been

involved in. So, I think the jury saw

through it and um

you know,

look, again,

sometimes you become really close with

your clients and that's not always a

great thing. Um I'm guilty of that a

lot, but these are wonderful people,

reclusive, they give most of their money

away to charity. And to watch these

people get dragged through the mud for

over a decade. And you know, there was

evidence in the case that this this is

interesting

because I initially fought this

on the day the first day of jury

selection. They had been invited to go

to Mara Lago and sit at the president's

table for a Halloween party.

It was just prospective jurors filling

out questionnaires.

So the defense and it was really I think

the attorneys for Chub or for the lawyer

that worked for Chub wanted to introduce

evidence. They got photos of the party

and they wanted to introduce this

evidence and there was one day during

the trial where they went to the White

House because one of their close friends

um was appointed to be the ambassador

for India

and they used that against them during

the trial and I fought it tooth and nail

and then I finally said, you know what,

[ __ ] it. I'm gonna let it come in. I

stopped fighting it. And I um

I knew that the jurors on their

questionnaire filled out who they

publicly admired most and least. Two of

them wrote they admired the president

the most. One of them said they admire

him the least.

So, I really had to speak to that juror

and say during my closing argument, you

know,

what they're doing here is they're

trying to say that Lorie Pearl Motor's

reputation doesn't matter, that she

can't emote and suffer humiliation or

public ridicule, and that you should

disregard her because of who she's

friends with, who she votes for, the

fact that her husband was came here and

literally with $200 in his pocket and,

you know, ascended. It's the the weird

paradox about success. You know, you get

there and people are like, "Oh, these

[ __ ] rich people, but these are like

they represent the best in all of us."

Um Lori Pruter with her free time

started to work at the gift shop at NYU

and because she liked the feeling of

selling flowers and little gifts to

people that were going through terrible

times and she ends up becoming a board

member at NYU and they give $50 million

to start the Pearl Mutter Cancer Center.

I mean who among us wouldn't want to

aspire to that? And they were trying to

say but she doesn't matter. At one point

she was asked the question, you know,

because with defamation your reputation

is on the line, right? And you have to

argue reputational damage.

And they said, well, isn't your

reputation bound up in your husbands?

And they said this to a jury of like

four or five women. And I I thought,

what a dumb [ __ ] thing to say. In my

opinion at least, it was like and I I

was able to say to them during the

closing, they're saying she doesn't

matter and that she does she's not her

own person, her reputation. So, it's

like these little victories

um help restore my faith in the system

because if billionaires can get awarded

$50 million,

which is what they got awarded, I think

that that's the jury saying her

reputation mattered.

And not only did a reputation matter,

but it mattered to the point where um

you can't just tear somebody down when

you know the facts and which just seems

so insane that he would pursue that. I

mean, the guy literally owns the Ike

ProMutter Center for Legal Justice and

you're like, "Yeah, I'm going to test

that.

>> I'm gonna test that justice and just

[ __ ] my way." I mean, the the the

irony of that is that the center was

born out of their experience in this

case.

>> Really?

>> Yeah. The center was born out of at one

point I was offered this role to start a

new postconviction center up until four

years ago, five years ago, I did work at

the Innocence Project. And when I was

offered this position at the same law

school at Cardo Law where the Innocence

Project was born, they said, "If you get

that role, the Pearl Mutters, we're

going to fund it for the first 10 years

because we realize that if you're

wrongfully accused in this country of a

crime you didn't commit, if you don't

have the resources to fight it like we

did, that you're really in trouble." And

for them to have that kind of insight

while going through this

uh it, you know, it's it's remarkable.

I'm indebted to them for life. I mean,

they've become like surrogate family to

me. But yeah, the center was born out of

their experience in this case.

>> So good came out of it.

>> Does the guy have the money to pay them?

>> I don't know. I don't know, but I'm

gonna find out

about to, you know, we have posttrial

motions that the judge has to decide and

then, you know, once we get hopefully we

get the judgment entered, um Ike is not

the guy to pick a fight with. He was

standing up for his wife's honor really.

And um

look, sometimes you pick a fight with

the wrong person and you what did I say?

you [ __ ] around and find out.

>> There's a lot of people that [ __ ] around

a lot until they find out. And it sounds

like this guy might have been one of

those people.

>> I don't know. I don't know. I mean,

>> perhaps.

>> Perhaps.

>> Allegedly. It just seems like there's

people that are involved in conflict

their whole [ __ ] life, man. And they

never get out of that pattern.

>> I don't get it.

>> Yeah. Unhealthy people. They develop a

pattern. They develop a pattern of

thinking and behaving, you know.

>> Well,

I don't know if it's the empath in me,

but I try to see like what are you

thinking? Why can't you realize I've

I've gone down the wrong path? Let me

course correct.

>> And you just end up

with theories. I mean, look,

I um I can understand why a former

detective

might be concerned about liability.

So, they can't just say, "Well, here's

what I was up to all this time." I guess

I can understand that,

but

I can understand the thinking in not

just saying

I've gone down the wrong path. And some

people start to believe their own lies.

I think some people start to believe

their own

theories. Um, human psychology is like

it's vast and abstract and so

complicated on

>> it and varies varies from individual to

individual what they can justify what

they can sort of rationalize in their

head.

Look, I told you at the beginning that

there's only been like a handful of

cases where I was like, "Yeah, that

can't be. There's some there's got to be

something missing from that story that

you're not telling me." But what watch

this

two officers in 1998 were on patrol in

New York City in Brooklyn on Pickin

Avenue.

gunfire breaks out

and literally as they're rolling down

the street, the gunfire breaks out. One

of the officers looks to his left and

sees the muzzle flash of the gun

that was used to kill this young man,

Trevor Vieira.

He exits the patrol car, draws on the

man, and says, "Drop the gun."

The guy's pointing the gun still that

was used to shoot Trevor Vieiraa

and there's a tense moment

and this officer has testified that

there was a 14year-old girl in the area

or he otherwise would have just shot the

guy.

So he literally catches the murderer

with the gun smoking in his hand. Why

you've used that expression over the

past two decades? Oh, it's a smoking

gun. This is the [ __ ] smoking gun.

He finally drops the gun. His name is

Eduardo Eduardo Rodriguez.

He's put in handcuffs.

And

you know, you get documents as you're

going through the discovery process

during postconviction. You get it from

the prosecutor, from the police, and

there's a radio call

by a a sergeant, a detective that says

per in custody,

contemporaneous with the arrest. They

arrest two men. one guy standing next to

him and the guy that Eduardo Rodriguez

that shot the gun. He's placed under

arrest.

He's brought to the precinct

and he's delivered into the arms of no

other than one of the most corrupt,

sadistic

detectives to ever work homicide in

Brooklyn. In my opinion, Lewis Garcella.

No. Why should that name sound familiar

to you or to others? Because Lewis

Garcella is the guy that framed Derek

Hamilton, who's the deputy director of

the Pearl Mutter Center for Legal

Justice at Cardoza.

Lewis Garcella and his partner, I think

his his name is Shiml or Chiml. Kimmel,

it's C H I L. Um,

these guys were so notorious for

framing people for murders they didn't

commit

that there have been 21 cases

where people's convictions were vacated

where they were the lead detectives. 21.

Derek's is one of them.

So Edar Eduardo Rodriguez is delivered

to the precinct smoking gun in his hand

and a couple of hours later

he's brought to the home of Nelson Cruz

who was 17 years old at the time 16

turning 17.

And

it's the story of these cops that while

he was in the precinct

that he was yelling and screaming and

tearing the place up, I didn't do it. Uh

Nelson Cruz did it. He shot him and ran

and dropped the gun and I just picked it

up.

The officer that arrested him never saw

Nelson Cruz. He didn't see someone shoot

and drop a gun. The story is literally

ludicrous.

Nelson Cruz is arrested and charged with

murder.

So when I heard the story, I was like,

there's no [ __ ] way that this is what

happened. You're leaving something out.

And I then read the trial transcript.

There's another guy that shows up at the

precinct named Andre Bellinger. And

Andre Bellinger

says, "Yeah, I saw Nelson Cruz do it,

too."

And he shows up at the precinct and he's

told what kind of gun was used. He's

told that Nelson Cruz is the suspect.

And then he picks him out of a lineup

after being told, "We're going to put

Nelson Cruz in a lineup."

All three of those things are gross

violations

of um

investigatory practices and this has

been established for decades.

So

this guy ends up

put on trial

and

they somehow claim

that they don't have um

they can't locate this guy that is

saying that he witnessed the crime. They

can't locate him.

He's not around to be located.

So this the the person who had the gun

in his hand that is shooting the gun who

they believe who who says Nelson Cruz

did it at Nelson Cruz's trial. He's

nowhere to be found.

Wouldn't you think that the prosecutors

would put that man, Eduardo Rodriguez,

on the stand so he could explain how he

picked up the gun? He could explain,

"What did you see? You saw Nelson Cruz

do this?" And he ran and dropped the

gun. And he's never put on the stand.

It's like a three-day trial. The only

person put on the stand that claimed to

have been a witness is this guy, Andre

Bellinger.

So,

I mean, some people have like bad luck,

shitty luck, or cataclysmic [ __ ] um

apocalyptically bad luck. And Nelson

Cruz just happens to have, you know, won

that [ __ ] lottery.

Nelson Cruz ends up before a judge

about eight years ago and about six

years ago

and it's a postconviction hearing

and this guy Andre Bellinger who claims

that he watched Nelson Cruz do it

um is outed as a liar.

There are eyewitnesses that were with

him that night who said he wasn't at

that murder scene. He was like blocks

away with me.

He was outed as a liar on so many

different occasions. It becomes like it

would become laughable if it wasn't so

serious.

After these postconviction proceedings

during which 20 some odd witnesses were

called, the courtroom is packed on the

day of the decision because the

expectation amongst the press and in the

legal community is Nelson Cruz is about

to get exonerated.

this judge had exonerated people that

had been um investigated by Lewis

Garcella

and she's acting kind of weird and

erratic

and she rules against Nelson Cruz

and contradicts herself on multiple

occasions

and this is in 2019

and we later or 2020 and we later

learned

She never takes the bench again

and she resigns because she has advanced

stage Alzheimer's disease.

>> Oh Jesus.

>> I have an affidavit

that from an investigator that says her

husband said that she had been suffering

from these symptoms for years before.

There was a judicial

um complaint filed because she wasn't

showing up to court. Uh there's a

ProPublica article about it about this

whole debacle

and you know it's stories like this and

so the promoter center for legal justice

um is working on the case and you know

thankfully we're before the conviction

integrity unit in Brooklyn and it's led

by a really special guy Eric Gonzalez is

the district attorney in Brooklyn and he

listens to these cases. He has a real

conviction integrity unit. So, I'm

hopeful that once we present the case to

them um that we'll get him some relief,

but to think about he was parrolled in

2023.

He's a mess. He walks around nervous.

He's got terrible anxiety and paranoid.

A wonderful guy. And he's he's so stone

cold innocent. And you just wonder how

and why this [ __ ] can happen to someone.

And you know, it's like the the perfect

constellation of like you got this these

crooked detectives who have already been

found to have ruined a bunch of people's

lives. You have the smoking gun found in

the hand of the murderer who

mysteriously disappears.

And if you're wondering, so why why do

they believe this guy? How does he go to

the precinct

and he raises hell and says Nelson Cruz

and I picked up the gun even though

there's no evidence of that. What would

be your guess?

>> Well, he's probably some sort of a

witness and something else.

>> It was pretty well known back at the

time that Lewis Garcella, other

detectives in Brooklyn homicide and all

the burrows had informants.

I mean, that's my best guess. Why else

would you just believe? And they they've

gone as far as to try to discredit

their own and say, "Well, Potti must not

have seen him drop the gun and run."

This guy has been consistent throughout.

He hears the gunfire, looks, sees the

muzzle flash. He literally witnesses the

murder.

So, you know, there was an F there was a

joint FBI task force with the NYPD going

at the time. So, yeah, they relied on

informants. Where's what's the state of

the guy who actually committed the

murder currently?

>> He's out.

>> Jesus.

>> He's running around the streets. Who

knows where he is?

>> So,

if your guy gets exonerated,

does this guy get tried?

>> No, that very rarely happens. that fair.

I mean,

>> so that guy just committed murder and

he's free.

>> Oh, that's happened. You know how many

times that's happened to anyone that's

done postconviction work?

>> So you But you don't even think that's a

possibility. You're you're just

dismissing it like, "No, the the

murderer is going to go free."

>> Yeah. Uh because

in order for me to

um expect that that would happen will be

to defy logic as I know it in this

world. Because think about what happens

if a municipality

um admits we did something horrible and

it was a mistake and we did the wrong

thing. um

there's going to be a civil rights

lawsuit. I mean, look, to Brooklyn's

credit with this DA, they have done that

and done the right thing. But in terms

of then going after the person that they

think did it, you know, it's 20 almost

26 and this crime happened in 1998. It's

30 years later. to be able to reassemble

the witnesses and some of whom are

probably dead or hard to find.

But it's very rare that

once there's an exoneration and you're

able to point to who the true killer is.

Very rare that um

law enforcement will go after the person

that defense council has established

actually did it.

>> That's insane.

>> Is it?

>> Yeah. Because if the defense council has

ruled that this other guy is innocent

and that the police officer did see the

guy execute that person, how do you not

try that person with murder?

>> Now you're you're stumbling into the how

could that the the how could that bees

of our legal justice system.

>> It just

it doesn't happen. I mean, Clement

Clementia Giri, who I've talked about

before, who was exonerated from death

row. Um,

you know,

if there's any doubt about this

phenomenon of children killing their

parents, I think that that was laid to

rest a few days ago. It happens happens

a lot more than than was recently

publicized.

You know, the real killer was the

daughter of this of her mother and her

grandmother. Clementia Giri gets, you

know, charged, put on death row, and in

the middle of his retrial, you know, she

all but confessed on the stand to me,

they have her blood mixed with her

mother's blood at the crime scene. And

in a trail leading to the bathroom where

the killer cleaned up, she confessed on

six or seven different occasions, not

under duress, not to law enforcement, to

various people around town. She's

roaming the streets that the day that

Clemente got exonerated, I I you know,

like I I said,

you know, I think I might have quoted

like Jim Morrison. And I was like,

there's a killer on the Rome and she's

in Kentucky and you better go get her,

you know. And they were like, ah,

objection, you know. But yeah, it

happens. I mean, it's my belief that

she's

she's stone cold guilty and they haven't

gone after her. And that happens a lot.

I mean, look, the word exoneration is

thrown around, but

it's like Derek's case is rare. He was

declared actually innocent.

Sometimes the conviction gets vacated.

Sometimes it um

you know they decide not to retry the

person and agree to time served. But

you're pushing a massive boulder up a

steep hill every time. Like Nelson Cruz

should not have to carry this weight

around anymore. He's had other lawyers

that have done a great job representing

him. You know, we've come in now.

>> How much time did he wind up doing?

I think 26 years.

>> Jesus.

>> Yep. Yeah. It's horrifying.

>> Jesus.

>> I mean, when you've done so much time

that you've parrolled out and are still

trying to prove your innocence.

>> Jesus.

Oh,

I I hate to give you indigestion. I

don't

I mean, but it's this is like

I'm past tears at this point. I'm I'm

more like

we just got to keep going and keep

fighting. And when you get these little

victories here and there, like we've had

a few releases recently

that were super encouraging

where you're able to get people a second

chance where you're able to, you know,

get get it to the point where they could

even though they didn't do it, plead

guilty. We just had a a release. Um she

was actually my co-consel in the

Clementia Giri case. Mari Palmer and her

client plead guilty. But we believe he's

innocent. He did it to get out. He had

done 24 years and he'd had enough. But

for her to get it to the place where he

could even plead guilty

after serving all that time, you know,

innocent people plead guilty all the

time.

>> Yeah, they do. Just to get a lighter

sentence.

>> Yep.

It's a dirty business you're in, buddy.

Filthy.

It's filthy. And it's got all these

tentacles

because if you're doing postconviction

work,

um

it's not just the wrongfully

accused and convicted, it's also, you

know, we do clemency work, commutations

and pardons. we um

you start to wade into the the human

mess

and you see that like people have made

mistakes

and are worth a second chance. What they

do with it is up to them, but some of

the stuff you can't explain. Some of

these prosecutions are political.

Look, I'm dealing with a case right now

that's like at the intersection of

wrongful conviction

and what the [ __ ] are we doing with our

immigration policy in this country?

And I don't even want to mention his

name because I don't want to, you know,

or the state because I don't want to

sacrifice the good work that we're doing

to get him a public hearing. But

I can say this much.

This is a guy from Albania that

came to this country in the early 70s

and had to sit in a refugee camp in

Italy

for damn near a month

under horrid conditions just to come

here to try to live a a life.

He's in his early 20s. He's at a gas

station.

He has a $100 bill

for $5 of gas. He goes into the gas

station. The guy takes the $100 bill. He

doesn't have change.

He says, "When you get $5, come back.

I'm going to hold on to this $100 bill."

And they get into an argument.

He won't give him back the $100 bill.

So

he leaves and goes to get his brother

and he tells his brother about it.

They return to the gas station.

They have a gun in the backseat of their

car. His brother tells him, "You stay

here. I'm going to go in

and try to talk some sense into this guy

and get your money back and give him

five bucks."

My client's sitting in the car and

gunshots erupt.

He goes in the back seat, gets the gun,

goes around to the side, comes into the

gas station,

it comes into the um you know the you

remember back in the 80s where they you

would go in to pay.

>> Mhm.

>> And there would be like a little a

little front desk area.

>> Mhm. And the gas station attendant is

holding the gun and he looks to his left

and his brother is bleeding out. The gas

station attendant had shot his brother

in the stomach.

Still holding the gun shaking, he shoots

him one time dead. Shoots the gas

station attendant dead.

His brother miraculously survives

and he's put on trial for murder.

And

He

goes to trial the first time. Remember,

he's in his early 20s and it's a hung

jury. Most of them are in favor of a

quiddle. Goes to trial a second time and

gets convicted.

The judge must have seen that this was

damn near as close to self-defense as it

gets. He got sentenced to like four to

seven years. He was out in just under

four years.

He had become an accomplished boxer in

prison.

He's lived the last 51 years of his life

without so much as a traffic ticket.

He goes to New York,

joins the union as a super for

buildings.

He pays taxes, social security,

pays into his pension, builds a life for

himself, has five kids, eight

grandchildren,

and he's living in upstate New York,

leaves the country a couple of years ago

to go to Albania to see family,

comes back and gets stopped

at the border,

somehow

is not detained at the border, but they

start removal proceedings on him.

>> Why?

>> Because

>> is he a citizen at this point?

>> No, he's not. But he's a green card.

>> Yeah, he's a green card holder. This

episode is brought to you by The

Farmer's Dog. Recipes, cooking methods,

even portioning. It all makes a

difference for your dog's health. And

The Farmer's Dog is pouring a ton of

resources into new research studies.

They've also just started sponsoring a

residency program at the University of

Tennessee's College of Veterinary

Medicine, which aims to contribute new

research and help shape the future of

pet health. You can see their dedication

to sciencebacked dog nutrition in their

food. Every recipe is developed by a

team of boardcertified

veterinary nutritionists, and they offer

tailored plans for dogs of all ages,

sizes, and breeds. They do all this on

top of offering a high quality product

of real meat, fresh vegetables, and

essential nutrients. They even portion

the food to your dogs specific caloric

needs because keeping dogs at a healthy

weight can help them live up to 2 and

1/2 years longer. Try the Farmer's Dog

today and get 50% off your first box of

fresh, healthy food. Plus, get free

shipping. Just go to

thefarmersdog.com/rogan.

This offer is for new customers only.

>> He's exactly who we would want in this

country. A guy that comes here and m and

by the way, I want to mention the state.

There are self-defense laws that did not

exist then. Many states have stand your

ground laws. I think under different

circumstances. He doesn't even and if

the laws had evolved, he doesn't even

get charged. I mean, you see your

brother shot and the facts are not in

dispute about this. I've researched it

exhaustively,

you know,

isn't that the type of person we want

who has contributed to this society for

51 years and built a family?

>> What What happened with the brother and

the attendant? They got into an argument

and he called the attendant called him

some al some some slur against Albanians

and they started to argue and he just

shot him in the stomach.

There's this isn't even it's not in

dispute at all what happened

and

there's a law that if you committed a

violent crime you're removable. But for

51 years, he was not removed from this

country and he lived here um as a green

card holder and he paid taxes and he

built a family and a life and now

>> So this removal was all during the Biden

administration.

>> No, unfortunately it was during the

Trump administration.

>> But you said it was two years ago.

It was

when he was first

um when he was first asked at the

airport

and they flagged him. I believe it was

during the Biden administration, but no

enforcement action was taken. It was

during the current and this isn't an

indictment of the president. This is

just during the current administration

that they started removal proceedings

against him to try to have him removed

from the country. So, did did they just

go through all the old cases and find

out anybody that had any sort of a

violent offense?

>> I believe I believe that that's what

happened. I nobody knows, but that's

what I believe happened. So, again, I

made the mistake or maybe it's a virtue

at this point um of getting to know this

family.

And

um I I've met every sibling. There's two

boys and three girls and they're

literally like some of the most

wonderful people I've ever met. I wish I

didn't like them as much as I did. And I

stay in close contact with um one of the

I mean I guess I could give first names

with with one of the sons Anthony and

his sister Joanna. and to see the love

that they have for their father and the

the fear that they're living under that

this man could get deported and sent to

Montenegro.

>> Why Montenegro?

>> Because that's where you you get sent if

you're Albanian, if you have Albanian

citizenship.

>> Why Why there though?

>> I think that that's the protectorate of

Albania at this point.

>> Okay. So,

um, and to watch them, they went to one

removal proceeding and the judge, I have

the transcripts of the proceeding, and

the judge is like saying to the

prosecutors at one point, he said, "What

are you doing here?" He starts speaking

Albanian to my client.

And look, I don't know immigration law

that well, I'm not an immigration

lawyer, but I spoke to the immigration

lawyer and he's like, "Look, I'm afraid

that they're going to take him. I mean,

ICE is waiting outside courouses

and they're going to take this guy. He's

in his 70s,

take him away from his family and his

grandchildren.

So, again, you don't just see these

wrongful conviction cases, you see cases

that are like, "This man has built a

life." And if you start to get beneath

the surface and you see the pain and

agony and fear that people are living,

um,

it's it's they're living it dayto day.

We were able to get a delay into

February for his removal proceeding. So,

I'm now trying to get him pardoned

because if he gets pardoned,

there's no

basis upon which to remove him. And, you

know, we have a team at my center that's

working on it. And you want these are

the kind of people you want to fight for

once you get to know them. So, I um

there's like I don't want to just

tell nightmare after nightmare. But the

reason why it's important, I think, for

people to hear this is it's not just

what you're seeing on TV or what you're

hearing about. I mean, what basis do we

have to remove a grandfather who's lived

here for 50 years and contributed to

this society and paid his taxes and paid

into social security and was a part of a

union and just like I'm looking for a

flaw.

I really am. I'm looking for like a

reason for me not to like them and I

just get drawn in more and more. They're

just wonderful people and these are the

kinds of things that are like worth

fighting for. I think what's going on

with ICE is one of the things that's

going on with quotas for speeding

tickets and things along those lines is

that they have numbers that they want to

achieve and they've openly talked about

this that they want to remove a certain

amount of people per week. And when they

do that, I think everything's on the

table. Then they start showing up at

Home Depot instead of like looking for

gangbangers and looking for criminals

and cartel members. They they go to

whatever's easiest pickings so they can

get numbers up.

There's um Do you know Ed Calderon? Do

you know who he is?

>> Um he's uh he worked uh he was a Mexican

military guy who uh now is an American

citizen, but he reports extensively on

the cartels and just was telling me some

horror stories about ICE raids. And one

of them was they took this guy who had

been brought over here when he was a

baby but didn't have American

citizenship. His family, you know, came

over here illegally, lived here for 20

years, can't speak Spanish. They deport

him, send him to Tijana,

>> can't speak Spanish,

>> can't speak Spanish, does not speak

Spanish. He is essentially an American

citizen. He just never lived anywhere

else. He just doesn't have the

paperwork. He's not a criminal. They

sent him over to Tijuana and now he has

to live in Mexico. He He doesn't know

what the [ __ ] to do. He's on the

streets. Has no idea. He doesn't have

any money.

I Yeah, I don't understand. I wish that

there was it's it's sort of a black box

immigration um

in terms of what is

what the policy exactly is and why do

you want to continue

this narrative that seems to be again

more of a human rights issue than a

political issue? Like what is the

endgame here? The endgame is to get as

many illegals out as they can because so

many were brought in over the last four

years.

>> Well, that's that's a fair argument.

I understand that.

>> But do we want to be getting rid of 70

year old men that

>> No.

>> Really? I mean, I got to tell you,

I have an older brother, and if someone

had did something like that to him, I

can't tell you I wouldn't have done the

same [ __ ] thing. Of course, almost

anybody who has family would say that.

Go and you see your brother shot and you

know the whole circumstances surrounding

it.

>> Yeah.

>> So I don't I just don't and and it's not

these immigration judges I've come to

learn don't have much flexibility. You

know they're hard and fast statutes

about whether or not someone is

considered removable.

And

you know, my appeal is really to the

prosecutor is like, why are you doing

this? But then they're following orders

from someone above them that's telling

them, this is your case. You're assigned

to it. Do the best job you can. So that

kind of [ __ ] just rolls downhill,

unfortunately.

>> Yeah.

And and you know, I try not to I try not

to wear this um

for my own mental health. I'm trying to

keep

the empath in me

in check a little bit more because

but sometimes it's difficult like

Nelson's case, this case that I'm

talking about. And the only reason I'm

not using names in that case is I don't

want to alienate. There's great people

in the state that this happened in which

wasn't New York that I think actually

care and have shown that yeah, this is

doesn't seem right and we want to make

sure that you get a public hearing. Um

I'm confident that we will before

February and I like my chances if we do

because I think that the story he's

worth pardoning, he's worth saving.

Um, but you know, I don't I don't

understand

I mean that's what I what I meant by

this human mess. It's like I wish there

was a more transparent process of how

and why people kept pardons

certainly on the state and on the

federal level. I don't get it.

Well, I mean, the the nuttiest thing is

that the president can pardon people

that you could just decide

because you're the president or the

governor, you can just decide this

person um I like them. It's an it's an

amazing um

responsibility

and

it's kind of an awesome power to have

and how you go about exercising it

becomes

challenging, right? Because

>> well, it gets real weird. Like how about

during the Biden administration when

some of them Biden clearly didn't even

sign the pardons. It was all autopen and

he had the most pardons of any president

ever. So you have political influence,

you have people that would like to get

someone pardoned and you know someone

inside. You think you can make this

happen? Well, he's pardoning 9,000

people. [ __ ] it. Let's just throw that

one in there.

>> Yeah. I mean, I don't think he's I don't

really know the autopen issue that well.

I don't know if he saw those, didn't see

them. I don't know what

it's like organized chaos for for every

presidency.

>> You know, Bill Clinton pardoned people

at the end of his terms that

[ __ ] bananas when you look at them.

Biden did it with his son. You know, the

>> Biden did it with his with family

members that weren't even accusing.

>> Preemptive pardons. I don't even know

that that was a thing before.

>> It never was. He did it with Fouchy.

preemptive back to 2014.

>> Yeah. Listen, I don't Some of the

pardons that the current administration

issues are like, "Good for him."

>> Yeah.

>> Others are like head scratchers and

you're like, "What the [ __ ]

>> right?"

>> But like I, you know, what makes

one person deserving and another not is

a difficult thing to understand. Like I

have

I've been to the White House. I've I've

advocated for pardons. It's a

frustrating experience because you know

that there are thousands of people doing

the same thing

and you try your best to say this is why

this case means something but where it

goes from there is hard to understand. I

think I have tremendous respect for and

admiration of the current pardons are

Alice Johnson because she's been there

before. You know, she was actually

incarcerated and pardoned by the

president and she's now in that role as

the pardons are.

>> Who was she pardoned by?

>> President Trump.

>> Wow. During his first term.

>> Yeah.

>> Wow.

>> Yeah. And she's um

>> What was she wrongfully accused of?

>> Some drug offense.

and she did a ton of time and she's gone

on to become this amazing

um

not just human being but advocate for

people to get second chances and he

designated her the pardons are now I

think between her and getting to the

president and making her case for

pardons is difficult because there's

layers of influence in between

but you know I have I have cases for

them right now that um have very

prominent people backing them and you

know you would hope that they end up

you know

on his desk and seeing um

getting some relief. I have one client

that I know Mike Tyson

is backs him publicly privately. He was

a childhood friend of his. His name is

Spencer Bowens. And um you know,

he's one of many people that

were sentenced under these crazy

regimes of like let's weigh

weigh the drugs.

So what's heavier, crack or cocaine?

>> Cocaine.

>> All right.

What's heavier, heroin or crack?

>> Heroin.

>> All right. So, they start to weigh and

what's more destructive? Who [ __ ]

knows? Crack was pretty damn

destructive.

>> Yeah. And you know they Spencer's been

in prison for more than three decades

on and he would have been out if these

nutty drug laws didn't exist. And if

they applied retroactively since they

have been abolished and he's a guy

that's sitting in there and I speak to

and I start to lose hope. Um I don't

lose hope. I start to feel his

hopelessness over the phone because he

should have been granted relief in the

courts and he's someone that just really

really deserves to be out. um you know

and I I have there's a bunch of cases

like that where we're trying so hard and

you have to at the same time at the same

time you express you know confidence in

the people um that are responsible for

this stuff but you also want to make

sure that you're not offending them by

saying look I know you have a bunch of

cases um Emry Emry Jones is another one

I you know I do a lot of work with

Jay-Z's mom and Jay-Z, we have a found,

he has a foundation, I have one, and we

mentor college students together in the

summer, pay for their last year um of

college. And Emmery is a a childhood

friend of um of Jay-Z's

and has his full support Rock Nation,

you know, Jay-Z's company, they're

behind him. and he's another one that

was convicted and spent decades in

prison for some drug crime. And he's

come out and checked every box. He's a

mentor. He's a pillar of the community.

He's done so many amazing things. but

he's under the weight of this old

conviction

and he's denied job opportunities and

you know you just you just got to keep

pushing and keep fighting and hopefully

your timing is right and you speak to

the right person and you get good news

one day

>> but the odds are so

the odds are so

I don't want to say stacked against you

but yeah it's who you know who has

influence at that particular time with

the right person in the administration.

>> What kind of punishments are there for

people like the the corrupt guy in

Brooklyn that you were talking about?

Whatever happened to him?

>> He's roaming the streets.

He's roaming the streets.

And and look, that's the most,

you know, the the cop Lewis Garcelo.

>> Yeah. He denies any I mean in the face

of these 21 cases that have been

vacated, he denies any wrongdoing.

>> So 21 different people.

>> 21

>> he incarcerated them.

>> Yeah. And you know, you know, one of the

things that I'm thinking might be a good

idea because we can all go on the

internet and look this [ __ ] up. Like if

you look up Lewis Garcella on the

internet, I bet you there's a Wikipedia

page that talks about his corruption and

lists all the people.

We could all go on the internet. One of

the things that I think has been um

underused

and I think should be part of people's

calculus rather than reading a headline

or listening to me or you or anyone is

read the trial transcripts.

Make your own judgment.

I mean,

I don't um

I don't know what better way there is if

you want to say, "Well, what actually

happened? What happened at this person's

trial that you're

and why do they deserve a second

chance?" Listen, there's there's a a

dear friend of mine who runs an amazing

organization called the Reform Alliance.

Her name is Jessica Jackson. fantastic

lawyer and I mean is in is in the the

the bowels of the system fighting for

change and right now there's a bill that

the president's own pollster forget the

guy's name has found that 80% of MAGA

voters support this act. It's called the

Safer Supervision Act and it it's

actually a system that rewards people

for when they get out for doing the

right thing. So that if you want to make

sure that you're

you know when you get out there are

terms of your supervision, how many

times you check in with your parole or

probation officer, how often are you

being subject to drug tests, is there an

end in sight?

This act actually is a merit system and

it's heavily supported

um by Republicans, by Democrats, by

everyone in between. And you would hope

that something like that would get

passed and and get pushed through

because the Safer Supervision Act is a

way that we can reward people for doing

the right thing and hold people

accountable that aren't doing the right

thing when they get out.

But but your question about like what

happens to the cops or the prosecutors

that do this, they have immunity.

It's one of the most frustrating things

in the world is that most of these most

of the time qualified immunity applies.

I mean, I could see immunity for a

mistake perhaps, but if there's a

pattern and it's clearly corruption and

you have a person that is taking away

people's freedom, how is there not a

crime committed? How is how are they not

convicted or at least charged with

crimes? Well, listen, for those

listeners that want to get involved in

the process and actually make a

difference, you got to get involved.

This isn't just like

activist speak. You can make a [ __ ]

difference. the person that ends up in a

position

to actually exercise their executive

authority, executive clemency, whether

it's a governor

or a president, you should be a little

more invested.

I mean, I had this situation. I gave

this guy every benefit of the doubt and

I thought I made a breakthrough.

And

I mean, this is almost sadistic, I

think.

And I'm sure I'll get a bunch of hate

mail about this that I could really give

a [ __ ]

I went through this process with

Governor DeSantis in Florida

and

I think he was actually [ __ ] with me

to be honest with you and he listened to

the case as a favor.

And there's a public hearing of

the clemency board

and this guy's name is Michael Giles.

And again, read the transcript. Um, as a

matter of fact, I brought a passage to

read here. This is a another mindbender.

This guy's in the Air Force.

He is in Tampa.

He ends up um

taking leave for the weekend

and goes up from Tampa to FAMU in

Tallahassee.

Never been there before.

He has a firearm that he's licensed to

carry. He actually went into a police

station to get his carry license.

military guy, never been in trouble in

his life,

goes up to Tallahassee and a massive

fight breaks out in this club where

they're at.

Literally zero testimony that he has

anything to do with this fight.

Fight spills out into the parking lot

and it's being instigated by one guy.

And this guy that's instigating the

fight was thrown out of the club and his

own friends testified in the trial. We

were afraid he was going to hurt someone

bad.

My client, Michael Giles,

ends up in a car with the people he came

there with, waiting for the person that

had the keys to the car to come out and

emerge from this melee.

And this fight is going on all around

him. People testified, they were

petrified.

and he takes his gun and puts it in his

pocket. He's standing there

like on the outskirts of this fight

after he gets out of the car and goes to

look for his friend that has the keys to

the car. The car was left unlocked, but

they couldn't leave because there was no

ignition key.

And he gets sucker punched

and the guy that punched him says,

"Yeah, I look for the first person I

could. Don't take it from me." Here's

what he said at the trial.

Here's what he said at the trial.

First of all, there his friends are

testifying. This is from the trial,

right? That he was act that this man was

acting quote crazy, that they were

afraid he was going to quote attack

someone. He was excited and acting crazy

and talking and cursing and upset and

agitated.

Were you concerned that he was going to

attack someone? Question. Answer, yes, I

was. Or get in a fight? Answer, yes, I

was.

That's why I told him to leave. And

that's why he was told to leave the club

because he was wanting to fight someone.

Isn't that correct,

witnesses testify?

Question. You saw Courtney Thrower, this

is the guy that punched my client, jump

on the individual with the plaid shirt,

didn't you? The guy with the plaid shirt

is my client. Yes, I did. Your testimony

is Courtney Thrower leapt and attacked

Mr. Giles from the front.

Yeah, I was. That was the thing.

Courtney then leaps toward Mr. Giles and

takes a swing at his face. And it goes

on and on and on that he took a running

start, left his feet, and punched my

client in the face. And look, there's a

melee going on.

So, he's on the ground

after getting punched and and the person

that punched him didn't hold back. He

was asked at the trial, "Question, Mr.

Thrower, is it your testimony that you

ran with your entire body to strike this

person?" Answer: Yes. Question. So, you

at a full run or a sprint used the

weight of your body to impact this

person in the head? Answer: Yes.

Question: Was it your intention to knock

him out? Answer: Yes, it was.

Question, and is there any doubt in your

intention? Answer, no. Question, had

this person actually done anything to

you at any time whatsoever?

Answer, physically, directly, no.

Question, was it your intent to hurt

this individual? Answer: Yes. That's

normally what you do when you punch

someone. So on those facts,

as my client is laying on the ground and

there's a melee going on where people

are getting punched and kicked, is he

justified at that point to take his gun

out and shoot in self-defense?

He shoots this guy in the leg

and fragments of the bullet hit two

other people. That's the case.

That's it.

He is sentenced under Florida's

mandatory minimum

to 25 years in prison.

25 years.

He's been in for 15 years.

I have gone to visit him. He is the only

client that I've ever represented that

has never got a ticket in prison. What

is a ticket? you know, didn't listen to

a corrections officer when they said get

against the [ __ ] wall.

Um, you didn't have uh, you know, you

didn't follow the rules. You didn't do

that. Not a ticket.

So,

various powerful people that know the

governor finally got him to listen. Now,

before I got involved in the case,

the family was told that the governor

was prepared to grant him clemency

and traveled to Tallahassee the day that

they thought he was going to get

released. And we're told on that day,

the governor changed his mind.

So, I knew this all going in.

I went and I appeared at a clemency

hearing and

I was as um

what do they say? You're um

the words escaping me when you're not

subservient but you're

I'm trying to think articulated the

right way. I mean,

I was not only respectful, but

you know, I

understood the gravity of what I was

asking for. This is a governor that has

never granted clemency,

commuted a sentence to someone that was

currently incarcerated.

And you know,

he went through a laundry list of things

that he would like me to do.

His

parents live Michael Giles parents live

he's that's the name of my client

Michael Giles. His parents live in

Georgia. Could you con the governor

could you get in touch with the state of

Georgia? I mean this is all at a public

hearing. It's online

and see if their governor has any

problem

with abiding by the terms of release.

You want me to contact the governor of

Okay.

submit a supervised release plan that is

exhaustive and runs all the way through

the term that he would serve out his

incarceration so that he should be on

supervised release for another 10 years.

Contact this one, contact that one. So,