YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → A Conversation with Jarrett Adams: From Defendant to Defender

A Conversation with Jarrett Adams: From Defendant to Defender — Transcript

by CIFS · 10,092 words · 1,650 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00so thank you all so much for joining us
0:02on a sunday morning um
0:05it's really
0:06great to have folks and i'm so excited
0:09for the opportunity uh to talk with
0:12jarrett adams about his new
0:14book redeeming justice um
0:17i hope that people have had a chance to
0:19read the book and if not i hope that
0:20your our conversation today um
0:23encourages you to do so
0:25um
0:26i
0:28will introduce jarrett briefly
0:30um but i'm excited for him to tell you
0:33uh his story himself
0:36jarrett was 17 years old when an
0:38all-white jury sentenced him to prison
0:40uh for a crime he didn't commit
0:42and he has in the years since that
0:45happened just become an extraordinary
0:48advocate both for himself and for others
0:50um
0:51after he was freed with the help of the
0:53wisconsin innocence project he went on
0:55to college to law school and now
0:58um to running a growing law firm that is
1:01dedicated to helping people right wrongs
1:03after wrongful conviction so welcome
1:06jarrett thank you so much for joining us
1:08thank you thank you all for having me i
1:10appreciate being here i hope that you
1:12can give folks um on our webinar today
1:15uh a brief um
1:17a brief dis explanation or discussion of
1:21your book and your story and then um
1:23we'll talk a little bit more about some
1:25some specifics and we'll answer some
1:27questions i'm really looking forward to
1:30having this opportunity to tell people
1:32about your book and about your what
1:33you're up to these days yeah
1:36well thank you again and and the book is
1:38is is the journey of you know my story
1:42um and and it's just it's one of these
1:45things where i can recall like when i
1:47when i first came home in february of
1:492007
1:51and
1:52you know just trying to pick up the
1:53pieces and put my life back together and
1:55it was difficult i mean i it was it was
1:58you know you're talking about three kids
2:00is what we were three kids from chicago
2:03who are accused of a sexual assault by a
2:07white accuser and
2:09i i didn't i know
2:11we were not expecting for
2:14when
2:15allegations didn't make sense
2:18and when
2:19you know you know you're telling the
2:20truth we didn't expect that that wasn't
2:23enough
2:24and and we had a rude awakening uh we
2:26didn't realize that it really came down
2:28to how much resources one had um and the
2:31type of lawyer that that me and my
2:35dimitri had so
2:36it was so much going on with
2:39the three of us being charged uh dimitri
2:42never you know uh ravan never spent the
2:45day in prison or being convicted the
2:47severed trials uh me and dimitri coming
2:51home differently i come in i come home
2:53off of behaviors dimitri misses a
2:55deadline so it was so much going on kate
2:58that
3:00i wanted to tell the story
3:02from a perspective of
3:04the ridiculousness that it is sometimes
3:07with these cases
3:09and how difficult it is for for someone
3:12to fight against this monster this
3:14monstrosity that is the criminal justice
3:16system so in writing a book i told the
3:19perspective of
3:21look at the effects that it has on one's
3:23family the community
3:25and look how the justice system is
3:27suffering as a whole as a result of
3:31well i it
3:31to i think that's exactly right and i
3:33hope that that's what people take away
3:34from this book i want to take you back a
3:36little bit to um exactly what you were
3:39talking about your family and your
3:40community i i know that um
3:43you come from a tight-knit loving family
3:46um but
3:47maybe for the folks who haven't had a
3:49chance to read the book it you can
3:50explain a little bit about your your
3:52childhood and your family yeah so i grew
3:54up on the south side of chicago born and
3:56raised and it was this was in the 80s
4:00so
4:01for people who aren't familiar with
4:03these neighborhoods
4:04the 80s is around the the war on drug
4:08it's around the time that crack cocaine
4:11is basically suffocating the community
4:13of the communities of color and so
4:17it was one of these things where from
4:18the front porch you could see
4:21the evolving of the neighborhood in a
4:23bad way so my grandmother and
4:25grandfather they came from down south
4:28mississippi and they came with the
4:30spirit of
4:31family sticks together you know ain't no
4:34such thing as them your keys these are
4:36our kids everyone's gonna be watching
4:38someone uh so that's the type of family
4:41it was so it was just like someone's
4:42always around and stuff like that and
4:45this heartening thing was
4:47i realized that that
4:49when you get in contact with the
4:51criminal justice system they paint a
4:53narrative of you as if you were born at
4:56the scene of your accusation so that's
4:58the reason why i focused on my family
5:00and who i was as an upbringing because i
5:03didn't want people to be confused and
5:04say okay well well those kids and that's
5:07just what happens and stuff like that so
5:10mom
5:11aunts you know they were the people you
5:14know who who raised me when my
5:17grandmother who was the matriarch of the
5:19family had passed away and so it just it
5:22was something else and that
5:25i was fortunate that i had that nucleus
5:28because kate that's how i was able to
5:30come home and reintegrate that
5:31successfully because i had that family
5:34but a lot of people who go through what
5:36i've went through they are the last
5:38leaf
5:39on their family tree by the time this is
5:42over
5:43absolutely yeah
5:45yeah well you know your story is
5:47extraordinary in many ways and and one
5:49way is this loving family who who cared
5:52so much about you and stuck by you and
5:54another way is your own resilience and
5:56resourcefulness so i'd like to talk a
5:58little bit about that um maybe you can
6:00give people some context for
6:03the the case and kind of how it started
6:06yeah
6:07so the
6:07the case
6:09i i just kept saying to myself this is
6:11gonna be over with any minute right
6:14um that's that's the thing that i kept
6:16saying to myself especially so because
6:19you know you you had um
6:21a mistrial declared
6:24we had
6:25a total different
6:27narrative testified to
6:30that
6:31was different from what the police
6:32report was and i mean we were supposed
6:34to to to i encourage people to get the
6:37book because
6:38what i talk about will make sense once
6:40you read the book but
6:42there was this
6:44narrative created and we were just
6:46dropped into it and that's that's the
6:48best that i can i can say is that this
6:50historical depiction of
6:53the over-criminalization of black boys
6:55and and and if it's an accusation it has
6:58to be true because why not they're black
7:00you know that type of thing was going on
7:03and it was blatant um in our case and so
7:07we're accused of a sexual assault the
7:09only thing is an accusation however the
7:12accusation doesn't make sense and it
7:14never made sense kate from the very
7:16beginning including
7:18that
7:20the police knew
7:22very shortly after this false accusation
7:25they had a witness statement who
7:26basically undermined the entire
7:29narrative of sneaking up a flight of
7:30stairs walking our way into a room and
7:33then we flee the building after a gang
7:35rape as if it was a scene from a movie
7:37and it was just it was just so
7:39ridiculous and i kept
7:41saying to myself
7:43any minute now you know all right
7:44where's the where's the who where are
7:46the pranks at you know other people
7:48coming out and it never
7:50happened until 10 years later and it was
7:53just so difficult and gut-wrenching to
7:55watch how it played out because
7:57co-defendant
7:58uh rovan charges dismissed we thought
8:01for sure that that would affect both me
8:04and my remaining co-defendant dmitry and
8:06it didn't and my mom and my aunts kept
8:08trying to understand and me with this
8:10limited high school chicago public
8:13school education i'm trying to explain
8:14to them and they don't
8:16none of us get it so i went to the law
8:18library okay and i didn't leave that
8:20place until i finally got it and that
8:23that
8:24fortitude
8:25that tenacity that
8:27jared never give up
8:29that came from
8:31watching how my mom and my aunts never
8:33gave up and i said if they can't if
8:35they're not giving up then who am i to
8:37stop fighting
8:40right and it took you a little while to
8:41get there you know just for for folks
8:44who don't know jarrett and his friends
8:45ravan and dimitri were uh kids who had
8:48graduated from college and they went to
8:51a college party they they um they went
8:53to a college party and they
8:55they hooked up with another with a
8:57college student there and that college
8:58student later accused them of a sexual
9:01assault um there were you know you talk
9:04about this in the book there was a um
9:06there was an a witness who was never
9:09interviewed or called um and there were
9:11other witnesses at this party who who
9:13could have corroborated what you guys
9:16were you what you boys were saying that
9:18you know that this was that you know
9:21that you were hooking up with another
9:23student but that's true but that was it
9:26yeah and i wonder if you can talk a
9:28little bit about and we have an excerpt
9:29from the book that i'm going to ask you
9:31i wonder if you can talk a little bit
9:32about the way that um
9:36because i think this illustrates so well
9:38how
9:39different um
9:41people with different resources and get
9:44different outcomes and some of it was
9:46like withdrawal right and some of it was
9:48just rovon's family had more resources
9:51so i wonder maybe do you want to maybe
9:52give just a little bit of context for
9:54that before you
9:55um read from this part of your book yeah
9:58right so we're we're all we're all
10:00charged and rovind had family who stayed
10:04in wisconsin
10:06um and the family called down and was
10:08like look
10:10yeah i know you guys don't know this but
10:12wisconsin locks up more black kids per
10:15capita than any other state this is no
10:18joke you you guys got to do whatever you
10:20need to do to get an attorney and and it
10:23was one of these things kate where all
10:25of our parents had the same
10:27thing the same response
10:29oh you know they didn't do it right and
10:32it was like
10:33it we were the only ones in the room who
10:35didn't realize the truth
10:37didn't matter in situations like this
10:39when you're accused and when and it's
10:41about what you can prove now so
10:44now we're we're
10:47two of us me and rovan me and dimitri
10:50are assigned
10:51panelist attorneys off of a panelist
10:54um when the public defender is
10:56conflicted out if you can't afford an
10:58attorney they appoint you an attorney
11:00off of the panel list of attorneys and
11:02that's the who's who
11:05you don't know who you're getting it's
11:06it's a it's a it's a it's a will it's
11:09you're spinning and you don't know who
11:11you're getting you don't know your
11:12qualifications and you don't necessarily
11:15have a say-so in the matter and who you
11:17choose which is even more disheartening
11:20to think that
11:21there are people on the list appointed
11:23to represent people and there are no
11:25checks and balances we would later find
11:27out that you know my attorney
11:30was like recently barred
11:32didn't have any malpractice insurance
11:35you know it just wasn't qualified to
11:36take on the case and so you know was the
11:38story for a lot of the the qualification
11:41issues with with dimit with dimitri's
11:44attorney so now we go to trial
11:48where
11:49boyle gerald boyle is hired by
11:52rovan's family and
11:54boyle was pretty much just leading the
11:56charge he was asking all the questions
11:58he was impeaching he was following all
12:00the motions so at a certain point we
12:03were declared a mistrial because of what
12:04the prosecution did the prosecution
12:07didn't want to let the case to go to the
12:09jury at the first trial because
12:11everything in the police report was not
12:13testified so it was actually inaccurate
12:15and it was all over the place with the
12:17accusation
12:18so
12:19it was then cape where the fork in the
12:21road
12:22happened right where
12:25we had no idea that rovan's attorney was
12:28filing motions based on
12:31dismissing the charges in a case
12:33outright because of double jeopardy and
12:34things like that our attorneys didn't
12:37join in and more importantly they never
12:39they never told us kate until we made it
12:41to trial the day of
12:43and
12:44that made us make a horrible decision
12:46that changed the trajectory of me and
12:48dimitri's life forever
12:51yeah yeah
12:53so i hope that you'll read this brief
12:55passage from um
12:58from it starts on page 115
13:00um about
13:01the dismissal
13:03um
13:04of the charges against rovan yeah
13:07so this is phase 115 through 116. the
13:10prosecutor dismisses all charges against
13:12rovan my friend goes home he never
13:15spends a single night in prison boyle's
13:17excellent expensive lawyering and i like
13:19to think the three letters i write set
13:22roman free i'm jubilant this case is cut
13:24and dry
13:25rovon is walked soon i am sure so will
13:28dimitri and i but we don't the
13:30prosecutor doesn't dismiss the charges
13:32against us he says that because our
13:34lawyers went for no defense strategy and
13:37didn't call any witnesses he doesn't
13:39feel that we should be given a new trial
13:43yeah
13:44so
13:45i want to talk about two things related
13:47to that so so one is um we hear all the
13:51time about
13:53you know in the media and sort of
13:54colloquially about people getting off on
13:57a technicality yeah right and this is
14:00like the opposite of that
14:02yeah this this is
14:04you guys are kids who got sent to prison
14:07sort of because of
14:09technicalities it didn't have anything
14:10to do with whether or not you did
14:13something wrong
14:14yeah this was this was
14:16you know one of the things that i talk
14:18about in the book is this and this
14:19happens a lot in in criminal cases
14:21involving um the accused being of color
14:25and the accuser um being being white
14:29or other you know for the most part and
14:32so
14:33what happens is
14:35there's a filling of the voids
14:39in the case
14:41where you know common sense will tell
14:42you otherwise there's a feeling of that
14:45with the narrative of
14:47well well why would why would she why
14:50would he these with these black boys
14:52with these black you know and that thing
14:54continued out throughout like the entire
14:57trial and it was it was it was just
15:00it was so
15:02so eye-opening to realize
15:05that that was what they were doing and
15:07the court was allowing it to be done
15:10you know um you know a prosecutor who
15:13has a discretion right then and there
15:16and and i and i and i focus on that for
15:18a second and i say right then and there
15:20to do the right thing because
15:22because
15:23the discretion
15:25was all in the power of the prosecutor
15:28he was the one who decided to dismiss
15:29the charges against rovana he didn't do
15:32this for nothing he did this because the
15:34police officer withheld the the full
15:37statement and
15:39he knew its impact on the jury and so at
15:42that point it was an opportunity to
15:45allow us to have at the very least a
15:47fair trial with the evidence of our
15:49innocence that the jury never heard
15:51and the prosecutor used his discretion
15:54not to do it
15:55not because he felt that we were guilty
15:58he did it simply because he cared more
16:01about a victory
16:02and that's the problem and it's a
16:04problem that sweeps across our criminal
16:07justice system
16:09that's right yeah
16:10so i i think um that we we talk a lot
16:14about the inadequacy of your
16:16representation and how your lawyers went
16:18with a no defense strategy
16:21um i mean now you're a lawyer right
16:23you're seeing cases and defending cases
16:25and working on cases yeah have you seen
16:28that before where the lawyer took a no
16:30defense strategy and and what do you
16:31think about that yeah so little kate
16:33that was a that was never a strategy you
16:35know that was ineptness you know and
16:37downright negligence um and failing to
16:40do do one's job that's what that was
16:42about and that was the excuse that was
16:44used all in all we went with a no
16:46defense theory but to answer your
16:48question absolutely there's a problem
16:50with adequate representation
16:52and
16:53the problem is
16:55is is systematic and there are things
16:58that could be done to fix it but they're
17:00just not simply being done because the
17:02totality of its of its disproportionate
17:04effect is happening mainly to people of
17:07color and what i mean to dig deeper in
17:09that is this so you're talking about
17:1270 if not 80 if not higher
17:15percent of folks accused of of criminal
17:18crimes are in these impoverished areas
17:21are
17:22reliant on public defense
17:25you're talking about a public defense
17:26system where on average lawyers
17:29single public defenders are managing
17:3240 to 70 cases
17:35at a time okay if you and i did that in
17:38the private practice we would be in
17:39front of the board of bar examiners
17:41explaining how in the heck could we be
17:43effective with that much of a caseload
17:45so you know i look at that and i look
17:48and i say to myself that there are there
17:50is designs and flaws in this system that
17:53is allowing
17:55and setting up
17:56unjust convictions wrongful convictions
17:59over sentencing people pleading guilty
18:02okay you know how many times i've come
18:03across people pleading guilty just
18:05because they want to get out of the
18:07county jail absolutely because they're
18:09guilty
18:10absolutely
18:11yeah and i think there's an additional
18:13wrinkle in in the way that your case was
18:15handled that people might not understand
18:16if they're not you know they've never
18:18been system involved and they don't
18:20um
18:21you know they don't really understand
18:22the ins and outs of how this works but
18:24you were assigned a lawyer from a panel
18:26which means that a career public
18:28defender a person who was employed by
18:31the public defender's office didn't
18:32handle your case your case was handled
18:34by
18:35a private attorney who had agreed to
18:38accept some public defender cases and i
18:42mean until recently um it's so it's
18:45still bad in wisconsin but until
18:47recently wisconsin was the lowest uh had
18:50the lowest reimbursement rate for
18:51private attorneys so they were getting
18:53paid 40 an hour
18:55um to take these cases and that might
18:58sound significant to people who have
19:00like to get like a regular salary but
19:02the truth is
19:03that's that's not enough to cover
19:06overhead plus if you have clients who
19:09are paying
19:10your regular rate if you're a lawyer who
19:12has clients who are paying your regular
19:14rate then you know those people are
19:16going to take precedent and
19:19yeah i just want people to understand
19:20that because like again like there are
19:21plenty of panel attorneys who are great
19:23who do a really good job regardless of
19:25the low reimbursement rate because they
19:27feel passionate about justice and they
19:28want to make sure people get a fair
19:29trial but you know two
19:32lots of other scholars have talked about
19:34how
19:35um
19:36having a having a panel has its own
19:39set of problems its own slew of problems
19:41yeah i mean it's it's it's one of these
19:43things where cake the panel idea was
19:45necessary it was needed but the problem
19:48is the checks and balances now you know
19:50the problem is the lack of the lack of
19:52resources and then i'll write this
19:55why can't we have an equal fare system
19:58that allows resources
20:00and and and training and re and
20:03investigative you know resources and
20:05stuff like that
20:07on the public defense side on the side
20:09where a person why does it matter
20:11that if a person isn't able to afford
20:15then that distance them from justice it
20:17shouldn't be i mean in the to to even
20:19revisit the situation about
20:22the prosecutor in my case
20:24you're talking about someone who has
20:26the the discretion and the authority and
20:29if people believe if people watching
20:31this
20:32believe that the prosecutor's job
20:34is solely to prosecute
20:37you're wrong
20:38it's not
20:39it's to protect the community it's to
20:42enforce the laws
20:44and it's it's it's for justice right and
20:47that doesn't require someone to do
20:49nothing but prosecute that requires
20:51someone to use the power that is that
20:53discretion to make the right decision
20:56and and it wasn't it was horribly abused
20:59in our
21:00case yeah it definitely sounds like it
21:04um and and certainly now looking back we
21:06can see you must have been able to see
21:08that at the time how did that how did
21:10that feel to you as a kid
21:12you know you were very perceptive at
21:13that age i think i wasn't processing
21:16like like i am now and who would expect
21:18me to right when i was a kid i mean kate
21:20literally i'm sitting there and i'm
21:22thinking about the chores that i needed
21:23to do you know once the trial was over
21:25because i just was assured that it was
21:27going to be over and end in the fashion
21:29you know i don't i've
21:31i've i've been able to take
21:34what pains me and turn it into a passion
21:38you know to help others
21:39but make no mistakes about it it's
21:41exhausting you know what i mean like
21:43like dimitri came home three three
21:45months after i did
21:46and
21:47you know he didn't want to get into this
21:49field and i can understand you know why
21:52because it is exhausting i just felt
21:54like i offered
21:56you know an insight on something that i
21:58that
21:59would be helpful to us all if we if we
22:01listen
22:03yeah absolutely this is a powerful
22:04message that you've you've crafted here
22:06and i and i hope people
22:08um get a chance to to really dig into it
22:11because it's it's so so important and
22:14i mean who better to explain it to
22:16people who've never been system involved
22:18than somebody who was wrongfully
22:19convicted and can tell you exactly about
22:21how it felt and what it was like
22:23um after your conviction uh you
22:26struggled and then ultimately and i
22:28don't know how much you want to talk
22:29about that but then ultimately you were
22:30able to get
22:32um
22:33you helped yourself a
22:35really significant amount and then you
22:36were also able to secure some help from
22:38the wisconsin innocence project um
22:40before we read about the outcome of that
22:43do you is there anything else you want
22:44to share with folks yeah i mean i want
22:47to make sure that this doesn't go
22:49without being um said
22:51um
22:53my story is is
22:56is amazing in that how i've been able to
22:58get to where where i am
23:00but
23:01um
23:03it's also amazing that it took all of
23:06this to get to where i am right and i
23:08think that we're losing now
23:10on
23:11talent
23:13on folks who can contribute to society
23:15and
23:16i'm not here based all on myself like
23:19the community invested in me and i was
23:22given the opportunity and so
23:25i took that opportunity and just worked
23:27my butt off like is is where i am and so
23:30now the thing is
23:33it's important to document how difficult
23:35it is so that way
23:37it makes the role
23:38smoother for those coming behind and
23:41kate you know as the work that we do
23:43with sips and in the advancements of
23:45science and stuff like that we see that
23:48we're still learning we're still being
23:50corrected by the science so we know
23:52people are going to still continue to be
23:55to be litigated out
23:57and and we need to educate as many
23:59lawyers as possible in the courts and
24:01the judges and the prosecutors and the
24:04experts themselves right
24:06right to make sure that we get this
24:08thing right and i hope people understand
24:11you know i i don't i don't know if
24:12people understand how much
24:14chance goes into an exoneration because
24:17not to ever diminish the hard and
24:19difficult work of
24:21of people who've been wrongfully
24:22convicted of their lawyers
24:24um of their families and their
24:26communities
24:27there's a significant degree of chance i
24:29mean just one example is this in order
24:32to uh get the help of many innocence
24:35efforts
24:37an accused or i'm sorry convicted person
24:40has to be able to
24:42communicate their story yeah and for
24:46some folks you know
24:47for here's a great example so people who
24:49are um deaf and disabled in prison
24:53may not not only not be able to write a
24:55letter
24:56they might not even be able to to get
24:59someone to write a letter for them yeah
25:01a little bit further too kate so as i
25:04started to to
25:06just set myself up in this law library
25:08right and
25:10i'm there because i needed to learn
25:12myself but i'm also tutoring folks and
25:16and stuff like that
25:17and there's a difference between
25:19being able to read the words in front of
25:21you and being able to comprehend
25:24you know everything and
25:26i realized that that a great you know
25:30majority of folks who are trying
25:33you know and have
25:34logical innocence claims just think
25:36about that
25:37it's hard to follow the legal terms so
25:39how do we expect people to know the
25:42terms of the new advancements in science
25:44right and they're faced with something
25:46like this that's right that's right
25:49so let's um what i really want to
25:51especially focus on and people should
25:53feel free to put questions in the q a if
25:55you have questions for us um i've got a
25:57few already but uh you know if you if
26:00you want to uh send us some questions
26:01we're happy to answer them um but you
26:03know jared one of the things that we've
26:04talked about before you and i and like
26:06at other events that we've done is that
26:08you know what happened to you in prison
26:11is only and and and with your you know
26:13involvement with the criminal justice
26:15system is only one part of your story
26:18and i do sort of see
26:20you know and you should uh correct me if
26:22you don't feel the same way but i do
26:23sort of see this moment that i'm going
26:26to ask you to read about
26:27um from page 170 as the beginning of the
26:31next chapter of your story yeah yeah no
26:34not is and i don't like listen
26:37it's not easy talking about about what
26:39happened all the time like you're
26:40literally talking about it all the time
26:42about what happened and i i don't i want
26:44people to understand that that
26:46um
26:47there is there is trauma in each word
26:50you know of this story of this of this
26:52journey
26:53i think back on how like you just said
26:55kate how easy it could have been
26:58for us to be buried in that place like
26:59my mandatory release would have been
27:02like 2020 or something like that
27:04february right now would have been what
27:06turning 40 registering as a sex offender
27:09um it just it just i i just i
27:12you know i shimmer just thinking about
27:14it um really do but in this this moment
27:18is is you're right this is when
27:20uh
27:22this is when the transformation
27:24from
27:26you know jared
27:27prison lawyer
27:29trying to get out
27:31to
27:32jared
27:34getting ready to get out
27:36and needing to get himself
27:38uh
27:40some some some help in order to go help
27:42other folks that's really the best way i
27:44can sign this up so this is page 170.
27:48the guard leads me on on the long walk
27:50to the phone
27:51he hands me the receiver and backs away
27:54i expect to hear silence as i wait to be
27:56passed into the call but i pick up the
27:58phone and i hear laughter over his
28:00speakerphone it's as if i'm broken into
28:02someone's celebration a private party
28:05the voices speak happily over each other
28:08and after a moment i make out keith's
28:09voice and carls and andy's and i swallow
28:13and say hey it's jared
28:14jared andy says draw my name out almost
28:18as if he were singing or shouting at me
28:20across the room carl keith says why
28:23don't you tell me wow sure carl pauses
28:27jared we got some good news
28:30we won
28:31you won the habeas appeal
28:33i cannot speak
28:34and that was the last word that i wrote
28:36about about that and i mean i mean it
28:38was
28:39it was one of these things where i think
28:40that even and i i know um
28:43i was talking to carl about this so carl
28:45and andy were the law students assigned
28:48to my case um in the innocence project
28:50and for people for people who are
28:51watching who don't know so the innocence
28:53projects and organizations
28:55they are in large part supported and and
28:58can only do what they do because of the
29:00students and so
29:01uh the students that i have at the end
29:04were carl and were andy and they uh carl
29:08and andy check the website of the
29:10seventh circuit almost every day to see
29:12if my decision had been made and and uh
29:14my decision was made
29:16uh
29:17and
29:18they called and they told me about it
29:20and so
29:21i remember you know there was an
29:23expectation for me to just you know like
29:25hit me parade but it was just
29:27i wanted to see
29:29the bars
29:30and my rear view mirror
29:32getting smaller and smaller because it
29:34just it wasn't going to feel real until
29:36then okay
29:37yeah yeah
29:39but that kicked off a new life for you
29:41and and you went out of there with
29:45just this incredible drive to
29:47change the system so that it didn't
29:49happen to others um and
29:52i want to talk about a really
29:53significant accomplishment um that's
29:56both
29:57you know admirable but also
30:00poetic and so i think you know where i'm
30:01going i want to talk to you about
30:03richard buranik yeah can you tell folks
30:05about your client richard buranik please
30:08so i um i come home
30:12i come on february 2007
30:14uh
30:15you know i get the much needed help that
30:17i needed mental health care
30:19uh family love you know and care you
30:22know and and then i go on to get my
30:25associate's degree
30:26bachelor's degree law degree i did a
30:29dual fellowship where i clerked in the
30:30southern district of new york as well as
30:33the seventh circuit the same circuit
30:34that overturned my conviction then i
30:37went on to to work at the innocence
30:39project with barry shack peter neufeld
30:41and i uh was assigned a case along with
30:44bryce vincent and bryce uh who's now at
30:47the queen's district attorney's office
30:49running the conviction integrity unit
30:51a lot of of
30:53how i'm able to practice now
30:56what i'm looking for in cases i learned
30:58it from bryce you know i was with bryce
31:00for a significant part of the time that
31:03i was there i also worked with vanessa
31:05uh nina morrison and and you know a few
31:08more attorneys who are are there but i
31:10spent the bulk of my time in court with
31:12bryce and we were there for three cases
31:14kevin bailey richard baranek and also
31:17rodney reed's case that's still being
31:19litigated right now
31:20and so
31:21um
31:22you know
31:24i just
31:25i i'm it's like it was an out-of-body
31:28experience to be home now it was okay
31:32well i know i'm not the only one who
31:34went who who's went through this so what
31:36is god trying to tell me right
31:38so i just started to go to school and
31:39continue to go to school and just before
31:41you knew it boom i'm here so then once
31:44i'm with the innocence project we get
31:46assigned a richard barana case we make
31:48our way back to wisconsin kate
31:5110 years to the month
31:53that i'm released
31:5410 years to the month and released in
31:57february of 2007
31:59february of 2017 i'm representing
32:01richard buranik along with bryce benjat
32:05and co council is none other than keith
32:07finley you know the guy who argued you
32:10know the reversal of my case in the
32:12seventh circuit so it was it was is
32:14apropos the right word to say or or or
32:17in this um
32:19boy it's something right it's poetic
32:23it's beautiful yeah it's a wonderful
32:25story it really is and that story was
32:27about science kate yes that's what that
32:30case was about yes
32:32and would you say this kicked off your
32:33your your passion for making sure that
32:36um for that there are organizations like
32:38the center for integrity and forensic
32:40sciences and making sure that fair
32:42evidence fair scientific evidence is
32:44what's brought forth in courts not only
32:46fair but it also this case was the case
32:48that this is where i got you know my dna
32:52bones so to speak right this was my my
32:55uh i think i said second because kevin
32:57bailey was a dna case too
32:59but this was the one where you know we
33:01had the results we're down in the
33:03minutia
33:05what is the mitochondr what is
33:06mitochondrial dna and you know and there
33:09used to be a time where we could only
33:10get dna from the hair if the pope was
33:12included but now it's like boom the
33:14science is advanced how do you explain
33:16it how do you t and again what i what i
33:19said before was key
33:21okay courts are learning judges are
33:24learning they're learning too and so
33:27that's why i realized how important it
33:29was to have organic organization like
33:31sips because you're talking about
33:34not just
33:36what's going on now but the irreparable
33:39sometimes damage that was done as a
33:41result and that's why this is so
33:44important that richard buranick case
33:45taught me this
33:47investigators
33:49fbi investigators
33:51used as experts were testifying to
33:53things that they had no right to
33:57they were not well founded
33:59and studies in science has shown that
34:02they were horribly wrong
34:04and in those cases
34:06they're so spread out
34:08and
34:09we need to equip lawyers with as much
34:11knowledge so that way we can teach the
34:13courts as well as prosecutors need to
34:15learn and so do the experts who will
34:18falsely testify to this stuff yeah well
34:21so for people who don't know richard
34:22burnick was accused um
34:25with hair comparison microscopy
34:29um
34:30which is and feel free to jump in but
34:31that's a a procedure that's not used
34:34very much anymore where um an analyst
34:37looks at the two hairs under a
34:38microscope and compares their features
34:41and then makes a a statement about how
34:44likely they think that it is that that
34:46the hairs are from the same person
34:49um and it's problematic for this wide
34:52range of reasons right um but one thing
34:55that that
34:57is a vein that goes through not only
34:59microscopic hair comparison analysis but
35:01also all sorts of other forensic
35:03sciences
35:04is that experts
35:07consistently almost every time they were
35:10in court
35:11overstated yes the accuracy of their
35:14conclusions and the value
35:17of the evidence um and i assume they did
35:20that in richard's case too right
35:21absolutely and think about it like not
35:23only did they do it but i mean
35:26they they did it too to the point just
35:27think about this you're in front of
35:29juries
35:30the jury pool is impressionable
35:33when you get a fbi agent
35:35testifying and saying i've been with the
35:38fbi for
35:39you know 37 years and i've looked at
35:43thousands and thousands of hairs and
35:45this hair when you compare it it looks
35:47like the juries are eating that up right
35:50you know so they're they're they're
35:51they're buying that they're going with
35:52that and in richard's case rich's case
35:54was first of all
35:56it was an identification
35:59that was made
36:01months
36:02you know if not over a year and i i
36:04don't recall exactly it's not in front
36:06of me months though after it was it was
36:08an identification made with a photo so
36:12that was suspect on its own right
36:14um there was
36:16uh evidence of
36:18who we believe was a true perpetrator
36:20calling
36:21the victim's house and doing crank calls
36:24that wasn't richard burenick either and
36:26it was just it was something so crazy
36:29that they would rely on on this hair and
36:31then what we found out through other
36:34litigation and i believe that if i'm
36:36stating this right
36:38um
36:39it was a memo
36:40that we were able to find
36:42through litigation that i believe that
36:45peter newfield and another group of
36:47attorneys were doing on other cases and
36:49that's how that's how we realize and
36:51came to find out that the fbi themselves
36:54had issued a memo saying hey look guys
36:57we were actually wrong stop testifying
37:00about this here and you would think that
37:02that would trigger right
37:04you think that that would trigger
37:06uh a mass
37:09overhaul
37:10and a mass review of the cases before
37:14and the testimony before and literally
37:16it has not
37:18right
37:19right
37:20yeah and that's really significant right
37:22because the what the lessons we learn
37:24from
37:26from wrongful convictions especially
37:27those involving
37:29dna exoneration
37:31is that
37:32the sub we can't trust the science right
37:35and so we should be going back whenever
37:38we find one we should be going back and
37:40looking at other similar cases i mean
37:42and the innocence efforts are of course
37:44trying to do that but it is you know
37:46it's this long slog
37:49you know like we shouldn't be doing the
37:51innocence world and the innocence
37:52network should not be doing the job of
37:56of of the cleanup um you know should we
37:59be assisting absolutely right um
38:03you know but we shouldn't be doing this
38:05alone it has to be real criminal justice
38:08reform
38:09can only happen if everybody has an all
38:12hands on deck approach like that's
38:14that's it you know real criminal justice
38:16reform starts with really doing it right
38:19and the way that you really do it is
38:21working hand in hand to go back and fix
38:24what you know was that memo shouldn't
38:25have been a memo that was internal that
38:28memo should have been an announcement to
38:30the entire criminal justice field yep
38:33yeah and i want to talk a little bit
38:34about that um especially in the context
38:36of richard's case and then i have a
38:38question from james didcock that's a
38:40very good question so i'm excited to get
38:42to it but um
38:44but one thing i want to ask is that you
38:46know we have you had this case
38:47and there was new dna testing done that
38:51you know technology that that arose that
38:53you could now test the dna and you found
38:55out it was somebody's dna and then
38:57surely the prosecution let him out right
39:01no and it goes back again kate to that
39:04thing about discretion right you know
39:06and
39:07now
39:08the argument
39:10in the in the shift the goal post type
39:12of fashion now the argument is well
39:15that's not the perpetrator's hair
39:16anymore that was a hair that could have
39:19been you know in the washing machine or
39:21uh floated on there from another item
39:24but that's not the theory that was at
39:26trial the theory was at trial was this
39:28hair was the head left by the
39:30perpetrator it was on the bed you know
39:32clothing uh bed you know uh uh sheets
39:35and this was the perpetrators on on a
39:37post conviction when dna adamantly
39:40definitively shows that they were wrong
39:44now all of a sudden well no it's not the
39:46same here well maybe not the same here
39:48maybe not the same person maybe we got
39:49that wrong but we got everything else
39:51right and that's again you know i want
39:53people to understand that
39:55that when prosecutors decide
39:58to fight
39:59cases as clear as this
40:02they're doing it on your dime
40:04are done
40:06that's what they're doing
40:07and it's it's a problem like these cases
40:10take way too long richard you know
40:12richard's case
40:14in the dna was known for years kate
40:17we literally were litigating what we
40:19knew for years
40:20and
40:21we had to do it
40:23or or or richard would still be sitting
40:25in there yep yeah
40:28yeah i mean it happens far too often
40:30right you get this incontrovertible
40:32powerful evidence and then instead of
40:35turning to
40:36remedying the wrong
40:39um as as we would do in in any other
40:43disaster which is exactly what these are
40:45right when we have you know plane
40:48crashes or horrible medical errors
40:51we don't fight about whether the plane
40:53crashed we look at the root causes and
40:55try to make it better because we know
40:58that this bad thing happened yeah and
41:01and so i want to get to james's question
41:03because i think it's excellent and maybe
41:04we can discuss it a little bit so he
41:06talk and because this is really
41:07important so he said asks while dna
41:09evidence is key to providing relief for
41:11those wrongfully convicted there are
41:13many cases of wrongful conviction that
41:15can't be
41:16given relief due to the lack of that dna
41:19evidence
41:20so how can or should innocence efforts
41:24you know of course rely heavily on dna
41:26evidence um try to move forward in
41:28seeking justice when there isn't that
41:31incontrovertible dna evidence so i mean
41:33it's a great question and it's also what
41:35what what we're doing like it at my
41:38organization with life out of justice we
41:40are actually litigating cases
41:42that will lead to precedent you know
41:45setting things within our system and we
41:48don't just focus on dna um and i think
41:51that right now what's going on is this
41:54and i know this from my contacts you
41:57know my work in the conversations that
41:59i'm having
42:00innocence projects right now
42:02are now moving towards
42:05handling more cases that don't
42:07necessarily just have dna as as it's you
42:10know claimed to innocence um they they
42:14of course you know we focus on the
42:16science because the science teaches us
42:18and it helps us with the with the
42:20unrefutable uh uh argument um sometimes
42:23in these cases even though in richard's
42:24case it was still
42:26refuted right but i think that right now
42:30you're seeing organizations start to
42:33take on more and argue now um false
42:36eyewitness or miss eyewitness
42:39identification is one thing right i
42:42think that uh right now we're starting
42:45to evolve and start to investigate where
42:48multiple claims of rome doing by
42:51officers are now being looked at and
42:53deemed as new evidence for other
42:55people's cases to be revisited as well
42:58and that that's important as well
42:59because police misconduct
43:02um
43:03you know lab misconduct
43:06you know most certainly should be
43:08considered as new evidence in these
43:09cases and to the question that was a
43:12great question because there are some
43:13folks who
43:15the evidence just isn't there anymore
43:17you can't find it
43:18i'm dealing with a case right now in new
43:20york where the evidence is just lost
43:22it's unfortunate kate but you know like
43:24i know laws of preserving evidence were
43:28not always on the books throughout the
43:29many different states and in some states
43:32they still don't have laws that preserve
43:35the evidence to be tested on appeal so
43:38it's a struggle to answer that question
43:40but the movement is starting to move
43:42into handling cases where you know and
43:46you can say to yourself look if if if
43:48you have a conviction integrity unit
43:51i want people to focus on integrity and
43:54what that means
43:55you know sometimes from reviewing these
43:58cases whether it may not be dna evidence
44:01or or or dna testing or scientific
44:03evidence
44:04you know when the case lacks integrity
44:07you know when the representation
44:09representation is so porous where you
44:11can see you know what was what was done
44:14wrong in the case um so
44:16the innocence networks innocence
44:18movements are starting to move towards
44:20doing cases where there isn't a lot of
44:23dna and evidence and what's happening as
44:25a result is the cases of dna the cases
44:29of science that are supported
44:31they're making it easier for the
44:33arguments of non-scientific based
44:36innocence cases which we know there are
44:38a lot of okay
44:40absolutely yeah and i think this is a
44:42neat thing to be able to talk about with
44:43you because this is part of why
44:45our two practices and our two
44:47organizations work well together and you
44:49know have this unique partnership
44:51because you know as um james alluded to
44:54in his question
44:56you know more than 95
44:58of criminal cases do not involve any dna
45:01evidence yes right
45:03but what we can do and what our
45:06organizations do is take the lessons
45:09that we've learned from the cases that
45:12do have dna evidence and then apply them
45:15broadly right so let me give you an
45:17example by of what i mean by that if you
45:19um have a case um as jarrett did in his
45:22early in his practice with hair
45:25comparison microscopy they were able to
45:28get dna in their case that showed that
45:30the hair comparison was incorrect
45:32but that doesn't make any other hair
45:35case
45:36any more correct exactly right yeah so
45:39now we can look at all of the hair cases
45:42and say whether or not there's dna we
45:44know this process is flawed
45:46and people who get flawed process
45:49deserve new trials everyone should get a
45:51fair trial
45:53absolutely i mean you know i'll use this
45:55analogy right
45:56so people so hopefully people can
45:59understand what i'm saying
46:00i want you to think about the busiest
46:02car wash
46:03you've ever been to just think about
46:06that for a second
46:07so
46:08the car wash
46:09man-made
46:11uh
46:12machinery
46:13uh that sees a lot of vehicles go
46:15through
46:16you know on on a rotating basis all the
46:19time right
46:20and sometimes kate
46:23those those machines miss a window
46:26mr bumper and when you get there at the
46:30end of the line you tell the attendant
46:32that usually the attendant right away is
46:34like you can go back through or we'll
46:36give you a ticket to come back at your
46:38own convenience um and you can go back
46:40through and get your car wash
46:42when it comes to wrongful convictions
46:44you go through this man-made process
46:47where people are rotating through
46:49with so many frequent numbers where
46:52where where things happen
46:54where mistakes do legitimately happen
46:56sometimes where where where where bad
46:59apples do happen as well
47:00mistakes happen more often than the bad
47:03actors in these criminal justice cases
47:06and wrongful convictions right so the
47:08difference between these two man-made
47:09things is this
47:12with the car wash people will will get
47:15to a resolution like that
47:17when it comes to wrongful convictions
47:19you literally may not get back to the
47:21attendant
47:22for 10 years if you're lucky
47:24and it's an issue it's a problem we
47:27can't care more about
47:28uh the bumpers of our cars and the
47:31windows of our cars than we do about the
47:33lives and i think that that it speaks
47:36volumes to
47:37you know just our acceptance of what
47:40science
47:41has taught us
47:42what past cases have has taught us you
47:45would think that that would speed us up
47:47in terms of making decisions in these
47:49cases but it just gets so bogged down
47:51with the litigation and it's just it's
47:53heartbreaking to think that
47:55no one has created a task force to go
47:58back
47:58and
47:59relitigate all of these hair analysis
48:02cases where
48:03the hair expert was
48:07the thing that pushed it over
48:09right
48:10they're not there for a reason kate
48:12they're not there just just as
48:14decorations they are used
48:16to to be the nail
48:18you know in the coffin in these cases a
48:20lot of times
48:22yeah absolutely
48:24so i want to look forward a little bit
48:26in the time that we have left and i want
48:27to encourage people to put questions in
48:29the chat if you have them
48:31um
48:32and we'll try to get to them in the time
48:33that we have left
48:35um but you know what what you've just
48:38said brings up this really important
48:40point right which is that right now
48:42what we're doing um you know before the
48:45the the advent of sifs and before your
48:49organization was formed a big part of
48:51what we were doing the way we were
48:52writing these wrongs was fighting the
48:55cases one at a time one at a time
48:58whether that's in post-conviction or
49:00whether that's you know once we've
49:02discovered the errors in the system
49:04trying to litigate them on the front end
49:05at trial
49:07but doing it one at a time
49:09and i don't know about you but that
49:11feels like banging my head against the
49:13wall it is you're spooning water out of
49:16the ocean and that's why this is why
49:18it's so important
49:20and kate mean you had this conversation
49:22you know
49:23it's so important for us to always
49:26work with each other
49:28because
49:29because
49:30divide division is is conquering right
49:33um and so you're talking about a system
49:36where
49:37you you're up against you know a
49:39government or or you know a prosecuting
49:42body that has at his disposal all type
49:45of investigators and investigating
49:47bodies and stuff like that that's why
49:49it's important for us in the innocence
49:50world in an innocence network all folks
49:53who are defenders to to to share our
49:56synergy and energy with each other
49:58having conversations like this on a
50:00sunday is important somebody might send
50:02us an email kate and say look i want to
50:05help you know how do i get what you guys
50:07are doing and
50:09and put it out there publicly we have a
50:10brief bank we have an expert bank as
50:13sips there are there are tools there are
50:15things that people can find and i'll
50:17also say this okay before i before i go
50:19because you had mentioned something that
50:20made me think about this
50:22even though there are cases where
50:25there's no dna and stuff like that
50:27there's not a case
50:29that doesn't involve
50:31some form of science and science is the
50:35study right of things so you think about
50:37it
50:38we think about the study of eyewitness
50:40identification we think about the study
50:43of trauma um explaining things to to to
50:47juries or how folks to get it wrong
50:48right we we think about you know the
50:51study of people in general we think
50:53about mitigating factors and stuff like
50:54that that's why i beg to beg to argue
50:57this
50:59science is in every fabric of the
51:00criminal justice system
51:02so if we want to change it
51:05we need to listen to the science
51:08absolutely
51:10yeah we've gotten another question
51:12um we hear things like this all the time
51:15why are things not these things not
51:16considered a denial of fundamental
51:18fairness and why are prosecutors so
51:20hellbent on conviction versus justice
51:23um that's a great question i i don't
51:25think that
51:26i'm just speaking for myself i don't
51:28think that i have the answer uh the
51:30total answer right but i think that
51:33there's um a real problem with the way
51:36the culture of prosecuting cases has
51:38been set up right i think that the
51:40playing field is not level and so when
51:42prosecutors have all the power
51:44um there's not a lot of motivation to
51:47change and the truth is i think probably
51:49quite a bit of the time prosecutors get
51:51cases where they've identified the
51:54correct person the perpetrator of the
51:55crime people are caught in the act
51:57people are you know reported by folks
52:00who know them well
52:01um
52:02all sorts of things so they're getting
52:04it right enough of the time that they
52:06feel like they're right all of the time
52:09i think is a huge part of it
52:11i i agree but i i also uh will say this
52:14as well too
52:15um
52:16you're also talking about a culture
52:19right
52:20and culture is it is important with with
52:23you know
52:24the atmosphere inside of these
52:28offices okay
52:29you know oftentimes i'm dealing with
52:31prosecutors
52:32who i can tell in their hearts apart
52:34they don't want to argue make the
52:36arguments that they're making their
52:37paper and stuff like that but they're
52:39doing it just because it's coming where
52:40from the top right so i think that this
52:43is a cultural thing this is a cultural
52:46shift that is happening right now in our
52:47society and i think that we what we have
52:50to understand is this
52:51the criminal justice system is so huge
52:53we have to take incremental steps just
52:55because it's not happening all at one
52:57time doesn't mean that we're not making
52:59progress and we are making progress with
53:01what we're doing i think that what's
53:03important is for us the state of course
53:05the more hands come on debt to help you
53:07know push this thing along but i think i
53:09think to answer that question i think it
53:12starts with with with this how do we go
53:14from
53:16prosecutors standing up and saying
53:19put me in office
53:20because i got a 99.99 conviction rate
53:23and i believe and lock them up and throw
53:26away the key
53:27how do we go from that
53:29getting people almost always into office
53:31to
53:32vote for me because i'm about what's
53:34right i'm about making sure that i
53:35protect the community while at the same
53:37time protect you know impoverished
53:39people who are taken advantage of by the
53:41criminal justice system i will use my
53:43discretion to make sure that that it's
53:45right we don't vote for the latter guy
53:47as much as we vote for the first one so
53:49i that if the answer to that
53:52question
53:54in the answer to that that solution for
53:56that problem is how we get to to a
53:58better criminal justice system we have
54:00to literally invest in law schools
54:04to invest in our students
54:07to give them a well-rounded course of
54:10legal experience so that way when they
54:12don't go on when they go into these
54:14offices they don't go in jaded to just
54:16believing they know and have an
54:18experience that not all things
54:21are are right outcomes and sometimes
54:24you know as difficult as it is you just
54:27gotta do what is right okay
54:30that's right i completely agree yeah and
54:32i think specifically as it relates to
54:33forensic science you know we've seen
54:35prosecutors organizations like the
54:37national district attorney's association
54:39when faced with this
54:41just objective scientific evidence that
54:44certain techniques and processes are are
54:46unjust are wrong far too much of the
54:49time they've been so unwilling to
54:51abandon these tools that they've gotten
54:53used to using and when a tool doesn't
54:55work we have to discard it you can't
54:57just keep using the old busted tool yeah
55:00yeah i mean you're absolutely right you
55:02know all i act what i what we i think i
55:04speak for the innocence world when i say
55:06this in the innocence network innocence
55:08world all those uh supporters as well
55:12um
55:13we saw
55:15a ridiculous amount of money
55:17spent on
55:19uh the war on drugs and then resulted in
55:23a mass incarceration
55:25we just want to see a fraction of that
55:28money
55:29spent on
55:30the systematical things that we no need
55:32changed
55:33the the the allowing
55:36um science to lead us to a better
55:39criminal justice system in our society
55:42uh using experts to explain the trauma
55:46that is in these communities because
55:47these communities aren't dealing with
55:49post-traumatic anything it's persistent
55:52traumatic stress persistent traumatic
55:54stress creates you know the
55:56over-incarceration and and allowing the
55:58people to look at a certain group of
56:00people and say oh well they probably
56:01deserve it or anything like that i i
56:03just want to see what's fair kate and i
56:05don't think that we're asking for for
56:07for too much for for the the playing
56:10field to be level i don't think we're
56:12asking for too much i don't think we're
56:13asking too much by requesting and
56:15requiring a prosecutor's office a fbi
56:18organization
56:20of whoever it is to to take the lead
56:24on fixing
56:25the mistakes
56:26that science has told us we made we've
56:30just gotten this incredible uh layup in
56:33the chat thank you
56:34shahbaz
56:35uh that says even the guilty deserve
56:37justice and that's exactly right that's
56:40a huge part of our mission here at the
56:42center for integrity and forensic
56:43sciences we are not exclusively an
56:45innocence organization
56:47because everyone deserves a fair trial
56:49even if you seem really guilty at the
56:52outset of your case you still deserve to
56:54have nobody lie during your trial nobody
56:57hide evidence from you nobody used
56:59techniques that are now known to be
57:01wrong to prosecute you also it is kate
57:04there's the study there's this here's
57:06science again
57:07so science is so important in cases
57:11where
57:11there is guilt
57:13because it explains who the person is it
57:16explains you know why a crime was
57:19committed it explains how
57:22locking people up for decades at a time
57:24doesn't make us safer it explains how
57:27the investment of people who are
57:29incarcerated needs to be or repairing
57:31people and not warehousing them so trust
57:33me great question great point and i hope
57:36we didn't come across as if we're just
57:38focused on the the innocent scientists
57:41because that's not we're focused on the
57:43science
57:44making us a better society
57:48exactly i can't couldn't have said it
57:49better myself my friend
57:51i'm i'm so grateful to you for not only
57:53joining us today but also
57:55serving on our board and helping um lead
57:57our organization into the right in the
57:59right direction and into the future so
58:01thank you so so much
58:04the opportunity i really do i uh
58:07you know um
58:09there aren't many
58:11exoneree-led
58:13um
58:15attorney-driven
58:17you know
58:18wrongful conviction battling um you know
58:22people like myself
58:23so
58:25i pray that what i'm able to do
58:27in in in how you guys are are are
58:30supporting me and partnering with me i
58:33pray that it's inspiration
58:35for more to join the cause
58:37um as well because diversity equality is
58:40how we get to a better society a better
58:42criminal justice system and we need to
58:45allow
58:46scientists and research to lead the
58:48charge in there
58:50that's exactly right yeah
58:52so i want to encourage folks who are
58:53interested to
58:55um
58:56to learn more about the work of the
58:58center for integrity in forensic
59:00sciences and also the work of jared's
59:02organization life after justice um
59:05please
59:06follow us on social media
59:08and feel free to follow our youtube
59:11channel this um
59:13this
59:13oops this talk will be posted on youtube
59:17and you'll be able to take a look at it
59:18and share it with others um so i
59:21encourage you to do that and and you
59:23know learn more about this struggle
59:27thank you so much jared thank you thank
59:29you for having me i look forward to
59:31doing this again
59:32um and and i look i look listen i'm at
59:35science talking about science again yep
59:37that science leads us into this new year
59:40i pray that everyone goes into this new
59:42year happy healthy and safe um and i
59:45look forward to doing this again so okay
59:47thank you so much jarrett and thank you
59:49to everyone have a great rest of your
59:51sunday

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of A Conversation with Jarrett Adams: From Defendant to Defender by CIFS, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 10,092 words across 1,650 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.