Dr. Nicky Ali Jackson on treating the trauma that stems from being wrongfully convicted

of victim. I found that people who have been wrongly convicted have been really ignored in the space of victimology. The key differences in a domestic violence situation, the batterer is typically a significant other. In a wrongful conviction, the abuser is our criminal justice system. But the impact and the effects of the abuse really are quite parallel. Right now on Righteous Convictions, Dr Nikki Ali Jackson, Welcome back

to Righteous Convictions with Jason Plant. My guest today has a PhD in victimization and as a criminal justice professor and warrior at Purdue University Northwest in Indiana. She started

her career focused mainly on domestic violence. In fact, in two thousand and seven she published the first ever encyclopedia of domestic violence, but in two thousand sixteen she experienced an Aha moment, and I'll let her tell you about that later, But that moment led her to a career pivot that bridges the gap between victim and Asian and mass incarceration. Now she's hard at work writing some of the wrongs that come about as a result of rawful convictions.

Dr Nikki Ali Jackson, Welcome to Righteous Convictions. Thank you. So, NICKI tell us how you got started on this incredible journey. Start at the very beginning, if you would. Okay, Well, I was actually I was born in Pakistan and my father is a professor, and we end up coming to Canada for him to finish up his PhD. And then he got a job at Ball State University. We moved to Muncy when I was I think I was five, and so I pretty much grew up in Muncy. And my father is an academic, so I grew up in

this whole sphere of academia. My uncles are professors, so I was very fortunate. I went to a high school that was a laboratory school and my teachers were all professors, So again, academia, it was just right in front of my face. So I went to college and I started off as a social work major, and I recognized that that really wasn't what was of interest to me. And I end up taking a criminal justice course literally down

the hall, and that was it. I had just like fell fallen in love with this course, and I changed my major after one criminal justice class. And then you end up as doctor Jackson. So how does that title figure into it? So I have my PhD in sociology with a criminal justice kind of concentration and my dissertation and my research has really focused on domestic violence. That's really where I've spent the bulk of my career is

in the space of domestic violence. And you've published a couple of books on the sociological and psychological factors surrounding domestic violence as well. So what is it about this field that fascinates you? Particularly what I wanted to do in the space of domestic violence? And I think this is just who I am. I know that there's research out there, but I know that there's more work to be done. And back in the day, when I started doing research in the early nineties on DV issues, I

recognized that males had been ignored. I recognized that same sex partners were were ignored in the in the literature. Therefore, I wanted to bring something to life which acknowledged a host of different types of victims of domestic violence. Keep in mind, when I was in college, I started in very long time ago. Domestic violence wasn't something people were talking about. Shelters were just starting to emerge. We just

didn't know a whole lot about it. So back in in the early eighties, this was really a new area of victimology. So fast forward, you end up with the wor you're doing now in the wrong conviction space, and it seems like you made kind of a sudden career pivot here, although I'm sure there's all kinds of connections we can talk about and maybe you can help us connect those dots. So what is it that brought you here?

I think I've always had this real care for people who are victimized, and I found that people who have been wrongly convicted have been really ignored in the space of victimology. And that is why I think my work, my research, all of the media that I do is really important because I want people to understand that they, just like domestic violence victims, have been victimized the key differences. In a domestic violence situation, the batterer is typically a

significant other. In a wrongful conviction, the abuser is our criminal justice system. But the impact and the effects of the abuse really are parallel. And then, as I understand that, there was one case that really got under your skin and got your full attention and sent you down the path here on right now, tell us about Willie Donald. Sure, So, about six and a half years ago, I was reading an article in a newspaper about a man who had

been wrongly convicted and released here in Indiana. He had spent almost twenty four years in prison for robberies and a a homicide he did not commit. I couldn't believe what I was reading. I've been a professor for so many years, and all of a sudden I understood that people had been wrongly convicted. But for whatever reason, this case just like literally stood out. Maybe seeing a picture of him in his prison uniform, um looked really um just it

was a very sad photo to look at. He was super vulnerable, and I just I wanted to know more about this man. I called our prosecutor, who was a very good friend of mine. He was at my wedding twenty seven years ago, and I asked him, I said, Bernie, did this guy commit this crime? And he said he did not innocent, and I asked him, what are you doing? What? What? What is the state doing? And after I screamed, you

locked up the wrong guy. Oh my god, you locked up the wrong guy for twenty four years, and he's like, yeah, we did. And I'm like, what are you gonna do for him? And they're really The answer was nothing, There's nothing we're gonna do for him. And I was outraged. I have to tell you, it takes a lot to get me that angry. I was angry. I was on fire. You lock a kid up at twenty two, you release him at the age of forty six, and there's nothing, there's zero you're doing to help this man. It was

just it was mind boggling. And that's when I reached out to the attorney and asked to meet with Mr Donald UM and thankfully Mr Donald agreed to meet with me and UM. We met in a diner, and UM I learned of what had happened to him, his entire ordeal. Um. Actually, I learned pretty I thought I learned it all, but every time I speak to him, I learned another little piece of the of the ordeal. And I get more annoyed and more aggravated every time I hear something um

about his case or other people's cases. So Mr Donald shared um the fact that he had been wrongly convicted on a mistake and witness identification. And Mr Donald's picture was in this photo lineup, and it should the photo shouldn't have even been in there. It was a photo from when he was picked up by the police for what they believed was an auto theft. When the police recognized that the car had not been stolen, the damage had already been done. They had already taken his photo

and they put it into wherever they store it. And then they brought that photo out into this lineup, and for whatever reason, two women picked Mr Donald out, even though he did not match the description of the actual perpetrator based on five different witnesses testimony. I mean, five different witnesses had described him in a whole different way than what Mr Donald looked like. All right, so you've just met with this guy, he's told you this this

unreal story. You've seen what happened to him. What did you do next? Well, the first thing I did was sitting my my truck and I just broke down crying. After I met Mr Donald, literally left the diner, sat in my truck and was like, oh my god, this man has been locked up for twenty four years. He doesn't probably trust, he doesn't know me. How am I going to gain his trust? What am I gonna do? Remember I worked with domestic violence victims, not people who've

been wrongly convicted. And yet here I'm sitting at this bread us with this man making all of these promises to him. I'm going to get a compensation bill started here in Indiana. I'm gonna do X, Y and Z. I'm gonna do this. And I'm sitting in my car literally having a complete ugly cry because I don't know what I'm gonna do, how I'm gonna do it. But I made a promise to Mr Donald, and I keep

my word. The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode of rawfle Conviction and of the Last Mile organization, which provides business and tech training to help incarcerated individuals successfully and permanently re enter the workforce. The Pacers Foundation is committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers across Indiana, supporting organizations that are dedicated primarily to helping young people

and students. For more information on the work of the Pacers Foundation or the Last Bile Program, visit Pacers Foundation dot org or the Last Mile dot org. Once I heard about Mr Donald's ordeal and the fact that there were no reparations for this man or any man or woman in the state of Indiana who had been exonerated, I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. So what I did is I literally got home. I emailed Barry Scheck with the Innocence Project and said, I need some

help here. I didn't think he was going to respond to me because he doesn't know me and doesn't know my university. And in the next morning I got a response from Mr Check and said, thank you for being a voice for the voiceless in Indiana, and our office will help you in any way we can. I decided I wanted to reach senators and I sit onto prison boards. So what I did was I went up to my prison boards and looked to see what senators are sitting on the board. So I emailed the senator and I

emailed another senator and a state rep. And had them come to a dinner before I even talked to the Innocence Project. So I decided, we're going to meet him one day. I'm gonna bring three exonorees with me and they're going to tell their stories too, who were from Illinois who had been the victims of the Chicago torture case. Once spent thirty even years wrongly convicted, another was twenty eight years in prison. And then I had Mr Donald,

who was still really nervous. You have to also understand Mr Donald had only been out of prison for a few days after I met him. I mean, it wasn't very long, you know, after he got out when I met him. So you've got three legislators, three exonorees including Mr Donald, and you've got an attorney from the Innocence Project and you're all sitting down together. That's quite an extraordinary group. What happened at that dinner and what was the outcome? We talked about the problem and what's needed

here in Indiana. One of the senators really was interested in well, they all were interested, but one took action and he said, I'm going to connect you with some folks at Indianapolis. So he took me to the capitol and he let me speak to all these different people about what I wanted done here in Indiana and through

the Innocence Project of New York. One of their attorneys, Beth Powers, she came to Indiana and she met with me and we worked on We had conversations basically about what needed to be done in terms of a compensation packet. After hearing about Mr Donald's or deal, I realized that they needed money first and foremost right and initially the bill um that was drafted was for dollars per year of wrongful conviction. I told them I was not going

to accept that. They also initially in the bill had it where the exonrees, our current exonres would not be eligible for compensation. It's only for future exonrees. That's unacceptable. So a year later, came back to the table, met one of the authors of the bill, State Rep. Greg Stuart Walt, who was very passionate about making things right for people who've been wrongly convicted. He and another Senator drafted the bill. Beth Powers flew in from New York.

I came and I invited our prosecutor from Lake County to come. I thought it would be really important to have a prosecutor sitting at that table. So we all sat around and we talked about what the tenants of

the bill should look like. I didn't agree with some pieces of the bill, and I was told that, um, even though I wasn't happy with some of the the elements of the bill, that it would not get past if I added the pieces that I wanted particularly, and that bill ended up being HB eleven fifty, which was signed into law in twenty nineteen, making Indiana one of thirty five states with a law to compensate the roughly convicted, which of course still means that there's fifteen that don't

have one, which is absolutely mind blowing and terrible. Anyway, as great as it is that that law was finally passed and signed, you've said that you feel the bill is still flawed. What are some of the things you'd want changed. I did not like the fact that these axonrerees would have to choose between mean compensation and litigation. I absolutely still and angry about that piece of the bill.

We are re victimizing these victims that we've already stolen so many years from and I wanted it to be where they get compensation from the State of Indiana, but they also were able to pursue civil litigation. I explained to the people sitting at the table that listen, if you and I got hit by a car, we have the right to sue that driver. We have that right. We were injured and we want to be made as

whole as we can through civil litigation. We are now telling axonorees in the State of Indiana, we're not going to make you whole through through litigation. So what's really happening at the end of the day is axonrees have to now choose between except in compensation or accepting a settlement or whatever they would get from a lawsuit. Um, they can't do both. And I was told that's because it's double dipping. I don't view it as double dipping.

I think there's different parties that have injured them, and the state has injured them, and then there's also individual actors and agencies that have injured them. And I think those actors and those agencies have been given a passive. You will because if Exonoy takes compensation, no one's going to be held accountable in that particular agency that may have caused the wrongful conviction. That is outrageous. So I would love to see us come back to the table

and remove that piece. And so those individuals who harmed Mr Donald or any exon e E. In the state of Indiana intentionally, they should be held accountable. We held a man in prison for something he didn't do, but then the actors who intentionally did something, we're not doing anything to them. That doesn't seem fair to me. So when you say actors, you're talking about the prosecutors here

who are pretty much immune from being sued in these cases. Right, Yes, So I'm not a fan of absolute immunity for prosecutors. I think prosecutors they are untouchable. And I think that is a problem of a prosecutor who's a friend of mine said to me, Nikki, you have to understand that if we go with the absolute immunity, prosecutors are going to be afraid to prosecute. And I said, okay, so

what's the problem. I think that's okay, then maybe it's going to scare you enough to say I'm only going to prosecute a case where I have, without question probable cause that this individual committed this crime, and unfortunately police, some police and prosecutors are very tunnel vision, and that's how we end up with one or two of our prison population being actually innocent. That's a huge problem. And I don't think prosecutors go into their careers saying, oh,

I want to convict innocent people. I don't think that at all. But I do believe it happens, and it shouldn't happen. And I think there are times when prosecutors have information and they withhold that information. We know that now, um, and when you commit a Brady violation, you should be held accountable. You shouldn't have that absolute immunity. And I believe that the person you injured you should be able

to sue you. You can charge them criminally, but they can't come back and get you civilly because you went after them knowing that they probably were innocent. I mean, I'm not saying prosecutors do that routinely, but I do believe it happens, and I believe it happens more than it should. So that's one fixed that's absolutely needed. What else do you feel needs to be fixed regarding this legislation? The other piece that, you know that's problematic with our

compensation bill is the actual application of the bill. Um. So the way that exonorees would if they decided to take compensation, they have to fill out an application. And you can imagine this isn't really an easy task for somebody who's been locked up for decades, who's probably trying to navigate a computer learning how to you know, Google, use word and everything else. But you know it's all electronic.

I'm sure you could probably downloaded and print it. But again some axonorees will have to have some help, right, But regardless of that part of it, the reality is the axonre ee has to prove his or her factual innocence. Think about that, The exonary has to prove his or her factual innocence. So what the state is saying is that if you want to receive compensation, the burden is on you to prove that you're factually innocent. Well, do you think axsonorees have money for DNA experts or other

forensic experts. Know they don't. So basically what we're doing, they're being retried for this crime. They've already been exonerated and now we're saying, if you want to receive the fifty dollars per year of your wrongful incarceration, then you're going to have to prove to this board that you were wrongly convicted and you are factually innocent. That's a heavy burden for an exonery. It's a really big hurdle, and I would believe that it might detour some honorees

from applying. Well, I mean, I I just don't understand why it's so challenging. You know, there aren't that many eggshonorees. Will there be more coming out of Indiana prisons? Of course there will be, hopefully there will be. We know there are innocent men and women sitting in prison. We need to get them out of prison. But again, it's very difficult to get them out. It's easy to get them in, but it's really a challenge to get them out.

I sit on to prison boards and last week we had a board meeting and I was at the Indiana State Prison, and I was very grateful that the warden allowed me to speak about this new initiative that I

have established. But one of the things that I wanted to impress upon all of the board members sitting at the Indiana State Prison, including wardens from other prisons, is that we have innocent people sitting in prison, and because we have innocent people sitting in prison, we need to do better and we've got to make sure that we help these folks get out of prison. And I heard somebody say, well, we don't have that many, and I

was like, wow, one is too many. I mean you should have seen my face, Like really, I mean, this wasn't a private conversation, it wasn't during the entire board meeting, but somebody just did say to me, it doesn't happen that often. That's really a really horrific statement. It's like, what are you saying to me? What if it was your mother, what if it was your brother, what if it was your child? That one would be too many? And do you feel like you got through to them?

I mean, did what you were saying actually land and didn't make any difference? I think I I think I think I think I got to some of them. I think some of them were really listening to me um, and I don't think they understood not. I mean, obviously they all care, they're human beings and they do care, but I think they just didn't understand that this is a real problem. And you know they refer to the inmates as offenders, right, that's what we we go from

prisoners to offenders to inmates. We have all these different terms for people who are locked up in in prisons, and when somebody uses the term offender, I stopped them because they're not all offenders. They're not They're all prisoners, but they're not all offenders. So I don't like the use of the word offender to describe people who are in a carceral state. Okay, let's talk numbers, because I

know you've crunched these statistics. How many wrongfully convicted are currently incarcerated conservatively, Conservatively, there's about a hundred sixty six thousand people who are sitting in our prisons who are and this is so important for your audience to understand. These are people who are factually innocent, not that they have they're they're sitting in prison because the police didn't properly mirandize them, that they were wrongly convicted because of

a technicality. They're in prison and they didn't commit the crime. That nothing to do with it. And that's this is a low guestimate about a hundred sixty six thousand people. And that's out of a total which this number should shock everyone into action, over two million people in prison, right, I think we've dropped to two point one Now we're down to two point one d because of COVID, So we we have lost some UM, which is a good thing UM because we we did see releases of inmates

during UM during the COVID period. So the last I looked a few months ago, there were two point one million. I mean, I'm not gonna lie. This wasn't really an interest of mine when I was in school, when I was teaching. I mean, as a professor for decades, I should have been talking more about these issues. And until I met Mr Donald, I don't think it really hit me.

And here I am somebody who's you know, supposed to be you know, educated and as an expert, has a PhD. And if I don't get it, how could a lay person get it? And that is why it is so important for for this show. This is why it's important for the media to share these stories of of people who've been wrong be convicted, so people can better understand that it does happen, and it can happen. To anybody,

it's really important. I mean, I take all of my classes now, and somewhere in that class I discussed the miscarriages of justice that are happening within our criminal justice system. In the old days, I talked about how the system works, and now I talked about how the system is supposed to work. So my students understand the system is fallible,

and the system is fallible because humans are fallible. People are fallible, And I think because we are fallible, we have to open our eyes and say, Okay, we've made an error. Now how do we fix this error? How do we right or wrong? And I think that's the part that's hard for a lot of folks to wrap their heads around. You know. It's people feel ashamed, people feel guilty that somebody has been wrongly convicted. I've had prosecutors say, well, you know, we get it right most

to the time. Well that's not a good response to me. That's unacceptable. Most of the time. That's unacceptable. Tell that to Mr Donald, and tell that to every other exonery and every person who's sitting in prison right now, who is factually innocent most of the time. Doesn't cut it. And I think I hope. I believe through my voice things have started to change here in Indiana and people are starting to listen, and people are starting to say

there is a problem. These senators and state reps before that dinner, they didn't think about these things, and they said, we didn't even know this was happening. We didn't even understand it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. And so through education, we can make a difference and we can change what's happening. And I do. I firmly believe that. And this is why I come and I talked to you, and I go and talk to other people in media because it's so important to let the

world know that. Listen, not only are we wrongly convicting innocent people, but we continue to victimize those people when they get out of prison. And that has to end. Once we realized we walked up the wrong person, what we should be doing. We should be supporting them and assisting them, just like we do other victims. We do that for rime victims. Why aren't we doing that for victims of a miscarriage of justice? So tell us about

some of the things that are going on now. The work you're doing with the Center for Justice and Post Exoneration Assistance and how you got that started. I understand you've got a little help from a very close brandom mind somebody really admire. So thank you Jason for the introduction to Mr Steve Simon, owner of the Indiana Pacers um. Your kind introduction really helped me change what I could

do in terms of helping exonorees here and Indianna. So Mr Simon contacted me and said he was very interested in the work that I was doing. And when I went to meet him at the Pacers office and I showed him all the letters that I had received for help, I told him I can't do this alone. Consequently, he offered to help fund this. I guess he gave me some seed money to start the center, and the university also helped so we could open up the center, which

we did. Uh. The center is called the Center for Justice and Post Exoneration Assistance, and we look at a host of different things. But really there's four things that we're we're doing. One is clearly we're reviewing cases that are brought to our attention, and Mr Donald is our project manager. There's no better lens than an exonoree in investigating these claims. The second piece that we're doing is education. As you know, Professor, so education is important, and I

believe education is the key to change. So we will be hosting forums and we will be doing media things like this to inform the public of what is happening. The other thing we're working on is policy reform. There's a lot that needs to be changed here in our state and in other states. So I'm hoping that we're going to be a model, a good model for other

states to implement their own changes. One of the things that I would like to do, for example, is to see that the read technique is not used, particularly with juveniles. I'd like to see it not used for anybody. But um, I know that's going to be impossible, but it would be great if police officers couldn't lie to those they're interrogating.

And I Illinois just passed a bill where they prohibit police officers from lying uting deceptive techniques to get a false confession from somebody or any confession, right, So I'd love to see that happen here in Indiana. But there's all sorts of other things that need to be changed. Um. We're working on looking at the thirteenth Amendment where we want to abolish slavery here in our state as well

as the country. So I actually sit on a board called Free at Last Coalition dot org, where we have people, very influential people, um, who are working and fighting very hard in their states and at a federal level, so we can remove that piece of the thirteenth Amendment which allows for convicted people to to really to engage in involuntary servitude. That has to be removed. So that's the

other piece that we're working on. Another piece that we're working on is obviously divide assistance to those who have been exonerated um. In fact, right now I have a guy his car got hit a couple of weeks ago, and he doesn't have a car, and so we are helping pay for the repairs of his vehicle. The other piece that we're doing that I don't believe any center in the world is doing this, is that we're offering services to family members of Axon are ees. They are

the forgotten victims of a wrongful conviction. I want to be mindful and respectful that there are children, there are spouses, there are parents who suffered alongside the axonoree and many of them are still suffering. So part of our work to the center is to help any family member who may need help in terms of mental health support, um even financial counseling, financial advising. Whatever we can do, we we well. We are working on creating an assessment to

see what we can do to help. And we're going to bring these exonorees and their family members together to recognize them here and in Sienna and say you have not been forgotten. You are just as important. That's amazing. And for our listeners who want to help or show their support or want to get some support for that matter, because it works both ways. We'll put the contact information and links to the websites and all of that stuff

in our bio. But before we go on, I want to let our listeners know about next week's very special guest, Brittany White. Brittany went from incarceration and Alabama prison to being an organizing fellow with Harvard Law School. I mean what, and the decarceration director for Live for USA. How she managed to do that is an amazing story. So be sure and tune in now. Dr Nikki Jackson. It's been so great to talk with you today. Thank you again for all the amazing work you're doing. And now we

come to the final segment of our show. Well, there's two really. The first one is a question and it works like this. Let's pretend. Let's let's wish that I had a man g wand and I wish I did, and I could grant you one wish anything you want. What would you wish for if I had a magic wand, then I could just change one thing I guess at the end of the day with if I had this magic wand, what I really would wish is that the criminal justice system is really founded on truth, truth more

than justice. Truth. I would love to see that truth would prevail over the lies that are being fed and created in our system. So if I had this magic wand and somebody said to me, I've been wrongly convicted, I wish there weren't so many barriers out there to get that person out of prison. I think it would be great to not have so many barriers to get that individual out of prison. And I couldn't agree with you more. And now we're going to close out with

I love this part. It's a segment we call Words of Wisdom. And here's what's going to happen. I'm gonna turn off my microphone, turn up my headphones, and kick back in my chair and just listen to you and anything else you want to share, anything you feel is left to be said. It's called words of wisdom. And

thank you, Dr Nikki Jackson. So what I would love for people to understand is that the folks who have been wrongly convicted, they have experienced something that those of us who have never been wrongly convicted can ever understand. And we need as a society to embrace them, to make sure that they feel welcome when they enter society. We need to provide services for them, We need to hold their hands, and we need to look at them

as if they are human. And I often hear people refer to axonrees as ex offenders, and we have to strip that. We have to humanize these individuals because they are human beings and they have been injured, they have been traumatized. And what I would love to see as a victimologist is that we can call them survivors, just like we do with other types of victims. We want the word victim to be replaced with survivor. And I

would love for all of us to work collectively. We are a village, to work together to help these folks become survivors. They can't do it on their own. They don't have the tools. We must embrace them and make sure that we help these folks get back into society the way they should and recognize them and make sure that we are there for them when they need us. And that's gonna take hard work from all parties, including police, prosecutors,

the media. The media is really important too, because the media tells us they flash pick tuers of people who suspected of crimes, and all of a sudden, we believe that this person is a criminal and we'll be run with that. And so the media also has to be really cautious with how they create their narratives of their crime,

of their cases that they're they're presenting. I think what I'm really trying to say is we have to remember we wronged a man or a woman, somebody's child, somebody's husband, somebody's parents, and we have to do the right thing. And sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy, but we must do the right thing. Thank you for listening to Righteous Convictions with Jason flam. I'd like to thank our production team Connor Hall, Annie Chelsea, Jeff Clyb, and Ila

Robinson and Kevin Wardis. The music in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter at Lava for Good. You can also follow me on both TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason flom Right. Just Convictions with Jason Flom is a production of Lava for Good podcast and association with Sigma Company Number one