A Long Time Waiting

beautiful Sunday morning. Jervis's attorneys will go before the California Supreme Court in the Ronald Reagan State Building, which is about a half a mile from where O J was tried back in Jarvis can't be here, not allowed to leave San Quentin's death throw. Most of his friends are in the Bay Area. So I'm here to show my support, along with Connie fam who is a longtime advocate and confidant of Jarvis's. We're meeting my mom and my brother

in the court house. Father Gregory Boyle of Homeboy Industries said that he's going to be sending a bunch of his homies to attend today to show solidarity with Jarvis. For some background, Jarvis filed a petition for his writ of habeas corpus back in two thousand five. It's taken the court fourteen years to hear as constitutionally guaranteed arguments. For perspective, Jarvis was sentenced to death five years before o J was ever even tried. Back in Corrections, Officer

Sergeant Dean Birchfield was murdered at San Quentin. Three of the inmates were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The guy who actually did the stabbing was sentenced to life without parole, the guy who was accused of masterminding the murder was also given life without parole, and Jarvis, who was accused of making the SHIV, was sentenced to death.

Now we'll get into the details of his case and talk to investigators and attorneys who who know it well at a later date, but suffice to say there's a lot of alarming incongruities the suppression of information, witness recantations, destruction of evidence. Also, keep in mind, Jarvis never murdered anyone, that's a verifiable fact, and on top of that, he's always denied that he had anything to do with the

making of the weapon, full and probably obvious disclosure. Those of us producing this podcast believed Jarvis to be factually innocent. We know what we've read, and we've heard from league of scholars who are familiar with the case. Over the years, we've gotten to know Jarvis. We've witnessed his good works, and we appreciate that he's a man of integrity and honesty. We do not expect you to believe him. We don't

even ask you to believe him. We simply invite you to get to know this fascinating man, and to hear about the unusual circumstances of his case, and judge for yourself whether the death penalty is appropriate. As Governor Newsom told us, there are innocent men on death row, and there are hundreds of folks on death row now today whose crimes and convictions are anything but cut and dry.

As the only Western country that still executes its citizens, perhaps you'll consider a worthwhile exercise to question what is in order to answer what can be, or maybe even what should be. Perhaps the answers you draw will help inform your vote in the elections. Is the death penalty a necessary evil to keep our streets safe and too exact righteous punishment, and to deliver a semblance of justice

to victims? There is it too fraught with ambiguity and contradictions and biases to ensure that we're all protected equally under the law. Okay, I've made it over to three D South Spring Street, which is the home of the courthouse. They don't allow recording apparatus in the courtroom, so I will be reporting back later. Jervis Master's case involves a

prosecution that was rotten to the core. Joe Baxter, the appellate attorney who has represented Jarvis for over twenty five years, from a KPF a FM interview four years ago, did two main witnesses against them are chronic lawers. Both of those witnesses ever cantered their testimony. The state failed to disclose that one of its main witnesses against Jarvis Masters was the key suspect in a murder investigation at the time he was on the witness stand and guess what

the investigation was shut down the minute he agreed to testify. Last, and certainly not least, the Marine County d A threatened the life of the other witness who had SINTR candidate if he refused to testify against Jarvis Masters. So this is a case, as I said, that just rotten to the rotten to the core. And it's a total miscarriage of justice. And I can fully understand why Jarvis's frustrated by the delay in his case, waiting for the courts further to come in. I have been waiting twenty six

years for it almost. I think it's a long good anybody on death row by far Jarvis masters. And it wasn't cold shelf. It wasn't on the shelf colde. It was on the docket. It was in their face for many, many,

many years, and they didn't do anything until now. I don't know why they weighed it so long, because think about it, course they could have found I mean, if they really believed I shocked that if they could have just said, you know what, didn't I go to another courting room, go to you to federal courting room and do your appeal. They didn't do that. They didn't do it.

If me and the guy did. Two of the guys were charged with the same thing, and I found guilty of the same thing, and their appeals were hurt within three or four years. Why it wasn't my hurt, but in the same amount of time. M M. It doesn't make sense in a civil case if you go to trial and the jury flying for the plaintiff. Let's say we know that you have appeals. You can go through the state system of appeals and and then when that's over, that's the end of the case. But we have a trial,

we have an appeal, that's the end of it. If your lawyer committed malpractice, go sue your lawyer, but the case is final. Larry Marshall is a professor of law Stanford University and maintains an active pro bono practice through which he represents individuals and criminal appeals and post conviction

proceedings in the criminal justice system. We recognize that we do need more than just the idea of an appeal that when new evidence emerges or new arguments can be made that could not have been made undirect appeal, then we're going to create a mechanism through which the system

will look at those to see if there are constitutional violations. So, for example, assume that you have a situation where your lawyer was dismal, Your lawyer never investigated the case, never talked to some key witnesses, You get convicted, you go up on appeal. You can't raise that issue because by definition, the case as it stands, looking at what happened at the trial court doesn't say anything about those witnesses, and the direct appeal only deals with what happened at the

trial itself. The appellate court of the Supreme Court is looking to say, did the trial court make any mistakes? Well, the trial court didn't make any mistakes. In my example, it was the lawyer who was dismal. So now what do we do. We say, if you want to raise that issue on habeas, we will let you go out and investigate. We will let you get a statement from those statements from those witnesses saying, boy, nobody ever contacted me.

If they had, I would have testified that this defendant was not the person who you know who committed the murder. I would have testified that readily. And then you'll get to bring in evidence about that your lawyer never did interview those people, and so on. So that's an example of what can happen at habeas. You also have situations where you find out that the prosecutor did not turn over exculpatory evidence as the law requires the prosecutor to do,

and that comes to light afterwards after trial. There again we let you advance that. And these are just two of many, many examples. And another one is the ability to come in and show that there's newly discovered evidence that demonstrates your factual innocence. Jarvis's attorneys they filed the petition previous corpus back in two thousand five. Why would it take so? What is that almost fifteen sixteen years to have the oral arguments? Is that unprecedented? Is that typical?

I can't tell you whether it's unprecedented or not, but I'll tell you it's shocking. Um, it's shocking that how long this is taken. And I can't begin to understand how it's possible that the process has taken this this long. Um. So I wish I had an answer on that. It's just there are delays. Uh. You know a lot of the delays in the in the death penalty in California are due to a shortage of lawyers willing to take these cases. Uh, and that, but I don't believe that

was what caused the delay in Jarvis's case. He had lawyers throughout Um, and Um, the delay is just it's unfathomable to me. Yeah, calling the matter now of Enried arcs j Masters on Abeas Corplasce. The judicial branch of the California Courts does not permit broadcast of their proceedings, so we've produced a dramatization directly from the court transcripts.

At the oral arguments today, Alice Luster, the Deputy Attorney General at the Office of the California Attorney General, argued on behalf of the state, may it please the court new credible evidence is what is required on habeas to overturn what is under this law a presumptively valid judgment, and what we have in this case. The referee found time after time after time that the evidence presented by petitioner at the Jarvis Master's habeas hearing was simply not credible.

Joe Baxter, Jervis's ap Pellet attorney, followed by his second chair, Chris Andrian, argued to the contrary, had the jury known what we now know, the jury would have had far

more than a reasonable doubt about Jarvis Master's guilt. Second, what we now know and what the referee found and what the Attorney General accepted, is that the state's case is founded on the testimony of two inveterate liars Bobby Evans, whom the state's b GF expert described as a spectacular liar, and Rufus Willis, who the referee described as an inveterate liar with selective memory who would do anything to save

his skin. What we also now know, based on the findings is that the remaining piece of evidence against Masters, what the d A called the choke chain around his neck, two kites written by him were probably not authored by him,

your honor, Associate Justices. I didn't play a major role in a in a lot of the briefing, but you probably remember I was the lead counsel at the habeas hearing, and as it came time for closing argument, I sat down with the guys and and we started talking, and I said, you know, I think the role I need to play, the role, the role I'd like to play for you today is to put you into shoes of a trial lawyer like myself, somebody who's been trying cases

for over forty six years now. I'm an experienced trial lawyer, and I've had a chance to take all of this in and take another look at and say to you, if we look the state of the record as it is, right now with the presentation of false evidence, new evidence lead to the likelihood of a different outcome at the trial. And I'm going to say the answer is unequivvabally yes.

And let me tell you why. I think the way you have to look at this is take all these different things that Mr Baxter was talking about and say, we have a new state age the stage. The stage has been reset. When you look at Bobby Evans and you look at Rufus Willis as well as you have if we take the referees findings here, you've got these two inveterate liars and Mr Backs are referred to them. You've got these two guys and you can't believe a

word they say. But some guy sitting on death row now because at some point, well that's what they said that day, and because they said something that day, we're going to accept that. And that's fundamentally wrong. I don't think you can say, oh, we're going to accept what they said at the trial when all this other stuff has come out, and that shows that maybe those statements that the murder trial weren't presently aren't enough to convict

Mr Masters at trial. It's my understanding that the defense went pretty hard to impeach both Willis and Evans. Is that not correct? I'm just saying that to you as some one who lived through this case. I see it now as being a whole different case. And as you put this case in my lap today, and as I look at it and say, he's got a good chance to win this case, and she should get that chance. Thank you, Thank you, Mr Andrean He corny He Connie, how do you feel? I feel very disheartened. It's one day.

Connie Famine I sat next to each other in the back of the dimly lit baroque courtroom. She's known Jarvis for over twenty years. We did a little post game on the phone after we return from the hearing. What is your what is your take of the day? You know, it's just it's hard to say. It's hard to say because you know, I'm just I just feel really kind of depleted. I mean, it's a little bit disappointing, but now I just want to hope for the best. You know, Yeah, No,

I feel the same, Lay. I think it was completely disheartening. I was. I was so disappointed that that his case was heard at the end of a long day I mean, how many court cases did we sit through before the the court heard his case. It was like four year four. Yeah,

they're like four cases. Probably we're doing like property management and like you know, labor law, wage stepped and I mean, here we are talking about like a man's life, you know that, you know, I mean, it's it's the difference between life and best for somebody, and they just you know, these cases went on and on and on. You know, in civil law, there's civil law cases is there give each other were money and here we are, like at the end of the day, everyone's exhausted. It's like five

talk and that's when it was hurt. I mean really, I know, and I felt like they almost felt bored or like they weren't paying attention, like they engaged in the civil law cases, but that none of the justices, none of the seven justices, really seemed to be particularly invested or maybe that was just my perception. No, I think you're totally right. I think it was the end of a long day and everyone which was really really tired.

And I mean, but that's scary to think that somebody's life is on the line under those conditions, you know, I know, Yeah, I'm so glad we were we were able to come out and you know, and I'm glad that the law students were there in the gallery to watch at least, you know, some part of the proceedings today. Um, you know, it's always an education. I mean, I've got on several juries previously, but this is I have never

I have never sat on a jury. So that was that was actually my first time ever stepping foot into it, into a courtroom. It's pretty intimidating. Now, Yeah, yeah, I was very formal. I was pleasantly surprised by the diversity of the judges though. I mean there were seven of them and it was did you see that three of those were women and there were several different ethnicities, So

that that was that was a positive. Yeah, I mean, and like I said, I mean, this case is so complicated honestly, Um, you know, we we all believe in Darvice's innocence, but in terms of like what the law limits, in terms of the arguments that were presented today, UM, I think just puts all of it in a difficult situation, and including I think maybe the judges because they can only comment on certain parameters of the case. Um, you know, and and it's yeah, it's it's very technical, and uh,

it's it's it's a hard thing to resolve. Um. I mean if this if this thing goes to the federal level, you know, um, you know, well that's the next step,

isn't it that. I mean, if the if the if the opinion comes back and it's not in favor of Jarvish, then I mean he's exhausted all of his state appeal, so he will be headed to the to the federal level, right, and a whole new team team of attorneys, and it's going to be a whole new move ballet, right, Yeah, exactly, And hopefully at that level there will be new sets of eyes that can you know, look at this case again, you know, and and it's hard. I mean, this case

is is over what almost thirty five years old? Um, so yeah, but you know it's not impossible. So keep the faith. I mean, we've heard of some really egregious cases where uh, people have been released and people have been exonerated after thirty five forty years. This is a really great political moment to really shine a spotlight on what's going on in our justice system. Dear Governor newsom My name is Connie fam and I am a public

school teacher in southern California. Twenty years ago, when I myself was in high school, I read Jarvis J. Master's book Finding Freedom, Writings from Death Row. It had a profound impact on me as a young person, a Buddhist and an Asian American. It was awe inspiring to see an example of how someone who shared my own spiritual convictions could live their ideals and craft an amazing life of service even under the most tragic of circumstances. Well

lear me to say this. I'm a lot older than County, but I still think Connie is my big shield. It kind of stick over me. The power of Ris's books lie in the fact that they serve both as mirrors into our own lives and as windows into the lives of others. I meant her when she was in high school. I think Finding Freedom. It just came out and I had been outful a while, and she wrote me a letter and shared a lot of commitments that I thought was inspiring. She wanted to be a teacher, she lived

in a Buddhist community. I heard the Buddhist in her. It was not just words than I heard but a commitment to the practice. His writings have helped open a whole new world to people, young and old. Governor, I write to you knowing I represent hundreds of school teachers, social workers, counselors, and professors from across the country. We have read, been inspired and transformed by Jarvis's essays, stories and articles, and have gone on to share them with

our students. This is not someone who's going to, you know, find another path in her life. This is someone who's going to keep a path she's on, and however it brings something new to her, she's gonna be that way. Through his personal correspondence to our classrooms and offices, he has become a friend, a mentor, and her brother to so many people, and through his guidance and compassion, he has helped to inform our life's work and dedication to others.

So we started writing each other and we wrote. We wrote. Most times it was not about Buddhism, but a lot of times it was about how she deal with certain things and how I explained to her what I deal with every day. And she thought that was very, very powerful because she lives in a community that was more, more comfortable, more structured, and when I was in and I was on death row, these people visit me. Blah

blah blah. It's an ongoing travesty that Jarvis spends any more time in prison for a crime that he did not commit. I believe in Jarvis's innocence not because I was physically present at San Quatin in when Sergeant Halbert Field tragically lost his life. I believe in him because of what my lived experience tells me that anyone who can muster the courage and clarity of mind to precisely articulate suffering and redemption in the way that Jarvis does,

cannot also falsify their innocence. But she stated in the background, you know and really really became my big sister over the years, and actually have a feel good calling that you know, Governor and issuing your moratorium. You have gone on record stating there are innocent people on death row. Well, Jarvis is one of them, and I urge your office

to closely examine his case as soon as possible. On behalf of my friend Jarvis and in faith and solidarity, Connie fam Jarvis has been very transparent about the fact that he is a much different man now than when he first walked through the gates of San Quentin in nineteen one. He was on a fast track to prison from the moment he left the womb. By his late teens, he was bitter and angry, had a chip on his shoulder, and he made many ill conceived choices that eventually landed

him in prison. Next week, as we anxiously await the opinion from today's habeas hearing, we'll learn about those crimes as Jarvis reflects on that dark time in his life, whether he has any regrets, and how he was able to make such a dramatic transformation. Today's episode was written and produced by Donna Fazzari and myself Corny Cole. Our theme song sentenced his compliments of the band stick Figure

from their album Set in Stone. Stu Sternbach has composed of the original music and provided voice work for this episode. Special thanks also to Sue Cardon and Tim Carton for their voice work. Nate Defort did the sound design. Visit free Jarvis dot org to find out more about Jarvis's case and to sign your name to our dear Governor newsom petition and if you have questions for Jarvis, please leave a message on our hotline at two zero one nine zero three thirty five seventy five. That's two zero

one nine zero three thirty five seventy five. Dear Governor. Newsom is a production of I Heart Media and three Months Media. For more podcasts for my Heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows,