#303 Jason Flom with Billie Allen

the van caught fire. One assailant, Norris Holder, was arrested at the scene, but the second assailant escaped and was described as a black man about five nine, with singed hair and an injured right hand. Norris Holder told investigators that the escape b was named John, but later changed that name to Bill. Police arrested an acquaintance of Holders named Billy Allen. Other than being black, Billy did not match the initial descriptions, but curiously was somehow identified by

four witnesses, including Holder. Imagine being selected for this jury and hearing investigators testify about an alleged confession, as well as that four witnesses, including the only other assailant, identified Billy Allen. You might feel pretty confident in your verdict, Yet here we are, almost a quarter century later to publicly reveal for the very first time, case breaking exculpatory evidence from the state's own files that was ignored by

both the prosecution and the defense. Did I mentioned they send them to death? This is wrongful Conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. Today we're going to do something I don't think we've ever done before, which is that we're covering a federal death penalty case. And we're honored. I'm honored to have Professor Mark Howard, leader of the Making an Exono Reprogram at Georgetown. So Mark, welcome back to

Wrongful Conviction. Great to be back. Jason, thanks, And with Mark is his distinguished co professor who has also been on the podcast before more than once for the right and the wrong reasons. Marty tank Cliff was wrongfully convicted himself and served seventeen years when Marty was wrong for convicted of murdering his parents, and of course he's been exonerated and we become great friends. And he also is Mark's childhood friend and the co professor now at Georgetown

of the Making an Exono re Program. So Marty Tankliffe Esquire, Welcome to Wrongful Conviction. You know the fact that we're all here today is a beautiful thing, but it's also an extremely troubling thing because we're here today to talk about Billy Allen, who has been on death row in the federal system for a quarter of a century. However, since he was nineteen years old. I appreciate you, you you know, you all taking an interest in my story and wanted

to tell it. Well, Billy, yours is a story that definitely needs to be told, so welcome to the show. But before we get into all the details, I'd love to hear about your life before this horrible scenario took place. You know, I grew up in a house with three sisters on the north side of St. Louis, which was, I guess you can save, flooded with drugs, a lot of violence and stuff like that. Even though I lived in the under privileged neighborhood, I went to school in

a privileged neighborhood. Platon, Missouri is considered probably one of the wealthiest places in Missouri. You know, no matter if I go out to the play school district and I'm around rich people, I still have to deal with my surroundings. When I come home. You're like, where do I fit in in things? It sounds like you had a foothold in these two sort of opposit worlds of halves and have nots, which sounds like it could be pretty confusing.

So after you graduated high school and leading up to March of ninety seven, what were you up to, to be honest with people, You know, I was hustling at the time. You know, I wasn't a big drug dealer or anything like that. I was just hustling at the time.

But at the same time, I was trying to find my way at the time, and that's why I met the you know, the girl I ended up with who I was going to move in with, you know, because basically I was going to get a job, stop selling drugs and just I guess you can say starting my growth not only for her, but she had a daughter, so I was trying to be better for all of them. So you're at a crossroads, and it sounds like you

were choosing a more promising path. But your connection to the old neighborhood happened to bring you into contact with one of the actual bank robbers in this case, Norris Holder. You had met him through job corps once and then had a chance encounter with him years later. Apparently you had sold him some weed once or vice versa, and it was this chance meeting and short lived hang out just just a few days before Holder committed this crime

that even put you into the realm of possibilities. I mean, how well did you even know this older guy? Why didn't know Holder? Per se? I guess you can say the way they tried to, you know, sell the story to my jury. When I was at the club one day order I knew one of his friends he was with, you know, just from my neighborhood, and so, you know, we end up just talking. So he's like, hey, look, you know, let's hook up one day, just being cordial with people. Plus, like I said, I knew the guy

he was with. Then a few days, you know later, I get a call from him, you know, basically like hey man, you know, I'm gonna go to the mall and you know, I got some weed, and I'm like, okay,

well I'm I'm in now. But for them to make it seem like we were friends, we were plot in this crime or anything like that, how can you say that that I would involve myself in a you know, in a crime of this magnitude with somebody I didn't even know, right, it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense until you consider the investigators in this case, one of whom Joseph Nickerson is on the St. Louis d a's do not testify list, which is, by the way, exactly what it sounds like. He's not allowed

to testify in cases because he lies so much. He's the detective, by the way, from another egregious wrongful conviction case out of St. Louis, Lamar Johnson, who is still awaiting justice. And Lamar also did some drug dealing, as did Billy, so they were typical targets for this Nickerson guy. In Lamar's case, Nickerson fabricated a narrative from alleged witness statements, but these witnesses later denied saying any of the things Nickerson had attributed to them, So you know, just sat

around just making ship up. He perjured himself to make Lamar's culpability even plausible. And then there's a cash incentivized eyewitness who was convinced by investigators that the massed gunman in this case was Lamar Johnson, so he went along with the idea which you'll see in a bit, sounds eerily similar to what happened in this case. Now, I believe his partner, a guy named Carol, is actually doing

time now for assaulting someone who was in custody. So it's patterns like these that give a helpful context to what happened in Billie's case. So let's get to that the morning of March seventeenth. Where were you actually that that faithful morning. I had left the house early that morning, like at eight o'clock in the morning. They claimed that I had called holder and told them let's get ready for the crime and all this stuff from the house. But how can I call you from the household. I'm

already gone, you know. So I get to the mall early in the morning, and my first stop is to the hat zone. So I went to foot locker, and I went to another story foot quarters, and right after that, I went to Famous in Bar, which is a clothing store. I went to this tuxedo place, and so as I'm chopping, basically, I see Christagogue. Now Christagogue is a security guard who

was after the mall to pick up his paycheck. He was like, Hey, I'm just going to pick up my checking, and I planned to go to another mall to do some shopping and stuff like that. So I'm like, well, can I ride with you? I was like, look, I just got to drop a few items off to a girl I was dating, and so he was like okay. So he went to pick up his chick and we left them all and I dropped off a few items for her baby and basically gave us some money because

we were moving in together, and left. So you've been out of the house since eight am. At the mall where you visited, several stores, made several points of contact, and I'm talking about people who were disinterested alibi witnesses to people who didn't know you. And there was also surveillance footage. So all the great alibi evidence of places you away from the scene at the time of the crime, none of it was investigated or later presented on your behalf.

So while you were shopping across town, there was this bank robbery going on at the Lindelle Bank and Trust, which is Caddy corner from this huge park in St. Louis that houses the St. Louis Zoo, several museums, landmarks, and golf course, skating rink, and this area is known as far As Park. Again. This is March seven, around five am, when two masked and armed men busted down the door and told everybody to get on the ground.

There were two bank robbers who stole fifty thou dollars and a security guard named Richard Heflin was killed in the process of that robbery. And then the two men left the scene in a getaway van, drove to Forest Park and they had a plan apparently to set the van on fire and then get away in a different vehicle that they planted there. But the van had actually been pre soaked in gasoline and exploded and caught on fire inside the park before sort of the full extent

of their plan and getaway plan could work. And so the driver, a guy named Norris Holder, was still on fire himself and was pulled out of the car, and then the second suspect ran away, so Holder was in custody almost immediately. And I've listened to the dispatch tapes from that morning. It sounds pretty chaotic, but ultimately it sounds like a team of folks trying to bring the bank robbers and murderers of this bank security guard to justice.

And this is so important. Every one of them described a blackmail about five eight to five ten, wearing gray sweats and a blue and red colored jacket, and they said he had singed hair understandably since the pan was on fire, and an injured right hand. They never described the person with a beard. And I had a beard at the time, or if I was the person who walked up to you and asked you for directions, wouldn't that be one of the most descriptive things you can

point out about an individual. Had it actually been you, they would have mentioned a beard, right, That's a that's a pretty big detail for everybody to leave out. But they did not say that. They also would have said over six two instead of around five nine. Big difference there. Six two is tall five nine. Most people would say a short for a man. And when you were eventually picked up, your right hand was not injured and your

hair was not burned in any way. So if you listen to all of the dispatch tapes as we did, the story remains the same. In the immediate aftermath, the assailant came over a hill from the direction of the burning van. He went toward the fence line and allegedly told them that his van caught fire and he needed to get to the metro link. Both park workers, you know, when they first came forward, they claimed that all they

did was gave him directions to the metro link. The thing about it is when we get the trial, both park workers changed their story. They claimed they gave the person a ride outside of the park. Do you know I have their actual recordings or police officer is standing right with them calling into dispatch the Warnestree Division supervisor that forestry workers all the second subject he was running

east from the burning van by a construction trailer. This about Jordie George Easter the heading right over here by the fence line. There's a hole in the sounds floor with who had adaptly win He tugh with them and metro LINKA and afore we got the information. You don't really want that. Everybody's what you happened after we had it.

Loved to the big robber stud in guard that the stubdic would life staying call and understood the new metro Lake that I have it on a plate punds and have on a multi colors y. The park workers just told them that they gave the person directions right, These park workers along with everyone else at this point, we're just feeding in whatever they could to help nab this guy, no other agenda. They pointed him in the right direction and he left got away whatever through a hole in defense. Importantly,

not in someone's car. Giving this assailant a ride outside the park would really make for a much more credible I D. Which is why we believe this story changed by the time of trial. But back to the immediate aftermath. Ultimately, the effort to close it on the second assailant was unsuccessful, and they were hoping to get something out of Holder. Yeah, when Holder was arrested, he said the person wouldn't was

m guy named John. Then they with the defining and say, hey, look, whoever is the least culpable is who might get leniency in this case. So basically you need to provide us you know where the story you know, or something that can help us out or help you out. So all of a sudden, he switches from John and he mentioned my name. So now he's given them something concrete, a full name, and not just a name that feels chosen at random. That's the thing. He didn't even know my

last name he just said, Bill, Just Bill. That's it. I'll show you where Bill lives. Now. The thing about the John's situation is this. Throughout the reports, does a person named JB who was connected to Holder? We think JB is his cousin. I can't, you know, I don't want to falsely accuse anybody or anything like that, you know, but that's this is what the reports are basically saying. It's my belief that Holder is using me as escape go to protect somebody who was close to So now

you had no idea what was coming your way. Did you even know that this bank robbery had taken place? Well, I did see the crimes. You go on the news when they arrested Holder, and so I'm like, okay, well, you know, I'm not involving, so it doesn't really draw my attention to it. Next thing, I know, I'm at the apartment, you know, with the girl I was living with at the time, and I hear some banging on the door and don't know what the hell is going

on or anything like that. FBI and police officers come to my door. They arrest me, and the first thing I tell them I had the clothes and everything that I had bought on the couch, and I told the officers, look, you're arresting the wrong person. Here are all the items. The receipts are still in the back, the clothes are still in the back, and I'm like, look, just go to the mall and ask to see the surveillance footage and basically you'll see that I have an alibi at

the time to crime took place. You know, you can't beat a video, and so they were basically just yessing me off. And so they took me down to the homicide office, and that's when I kept repeating the same story and that they can talk to Christian gag who was a security guard at the time, to find out whether or not I was at the mall. Yeah, But unfortunately, they weren't interested in solving the case. They were interested in fixing the facts to match the name that they

got from Norris Holder. So I mean, I'm using facts very loosely there. So you were arrested around two am. What happened next When I was in the homicide office, it's two officers that came and talked to me, Thomas Carroll and Joseph Nickerson. Now I told both officers I'm like, look, you all can go to the mall, you all can get the recordings, and you all can see that I have an alibi. Now, they claimed they went to the mall, yet for some reason, there's no surveillance footage that can

be found. I believe they have this footage because I believe, and here's the thing. I reported about this before the Lamar Johnson case. I reported that they were probably withholding this evidence, and come to find out years later they withhold recordings of Lamar Johnson case. So it's like a pattern down there dealing with these officers, a pattern that is unfortunately valent in St. Louis, and let's face it, around this whole country as our alleged false confessions or

fabricated statements, which we'll get into in a bit. But first, what happened in that interrogation room when I first came in and as they reported their reports, you know, like I told him, look, I didn't have anything to do with the crime. So this is when you know both of them, you know, officers were like, okay, well if you didn't commit this crime and give us your DNA. I'm like, sure, shoot, I ain't gonnaunerdo what did you can have it? When I was in prison, I used

to always ask guys who would say they're innocent. One of the first person I said, would you be want to do with DNA test? And almost ninety nine point nine percent of the people who were really innocent said, I will do a DNA test. I will do any forensic tests that I can do to prove my innocence. And Billy falls into the category who said I want to do anything and everything possible. Next thing they do, they'd sell the van you know that would use in

the crime was soaked in gasoline. You know, so if you don't have any gasoline on your clothes, you know, that can help prove that you weren't there. So I'm like, okay, we're here, you can have all of my clothes. So I willingly gave him my DNA and my clothes. I mean the fact that this entire case was covered in gasoline, so to speak, and Billy has none on him. They tested the co defendant. His clothes were sure enough, every inch of them had gasoline residue on him. Billy had

a credible alibi. DNA test results came back negative. They left open the question whose DNA is it and that hasn't been pursued, hasn't been shown, but it's certainly not Billy's. So take take us back there, Billy to the interrogation and I d process. Next thing I know, FBI agent comes into the room. But agent Jan Hartman, you know, she started reading my rights. This is the first time I was ever read my right. So I'm like, well, look, I want a lawyer from the court period. I'm done talking.

I don't have anything to say. You all are gonna believe me. So, according to her trial testimony, she never told on anybody about my request for an attorney. So one officer comes in, he conducted the lineup. I'm like, well, look, you know where's my attorney at And he was like, you know, you don't need an attorney for this. I'm like, but I asked for one. He's like, well, you can get one afterwards. So they took me to the lineup. And now here's the crazy part about this lineup. I'm

the tallest person in their day. I'm line up. They have nobody close to six two in this lineup, Nobody who looks like me in this lineup. And to make matters worse, he puts me in position number three. I am the tallest person in the thing, and I'm beside the two shortest people inside there. So basically you're giving people the person you want them to pick. Not only is it suggestive, but it's also telling about the description

they had exactly five eight, five ten. And like our line up, a lot of people when they envision lineup, they envision you behind the glass and the witnesses are outside of the thing. The St. Louis if they have a piece of cloth, it's like a black piece of cloth right there, so you can see. You can actually see the damned person who's basically identifying you, you know, and you can hear him. And this is just how

hilarious my lineup was. This lady I'll mcgillion. You know, they were telling her, well, can you identify the person you saw? She picks the person in position number two. Now, if you look at this person in my line up photo, this dude has a freaking full beard. He looks nothing like me, and he fits the description that she gave of the person she saw at the crime. So now I hear this guy he comes in and say, hey, look we think it's the guy in position number three.

Can we bring him forward and you look at him? She was like are you sure? You're like yeah, So they tell the number two guys go back, and they take me out of the lineup, and she was like, yeah, I think you might be right. Wow. If you go to my transcripts, she will tell you she picked the guy in position number two. So why would you pick somebody five, a full beard, full head of hair, and yet all of a sudden you switch your account to

somebody six to small beard at the time. So come to find out, you know, in the dispatch tape, she actually is reporting that she couldn't even describe the person she saw. This is on their own recordings. My attorney didn't find it. It was never presented on my defense or anything. But yet this woman was allowed to pick somebody in position number two who was clearly different than I was, and then basically come to court changed her story,

claimed that she never told the officers that. And then we have the recordings to prove that the prosecutors presented false testimony. And this wasn't the only time the prosecutors not only put on false testimony in this case, nor was it the last time that one of the quote unquote eyewitnesses picked someone out when they had no business doing so, because they admitted not having seen the assailant, like the guy who had followed the van from the

bank to the park, William Green. William Green walked in the room. Like I said, you can clearly hear what the person is telling them, you know, talking to the witnesses. He comes in the door and he tells them, look, I can't identify anybody. You know what the officer tells him, just pick anybody, And that's exactly what he does. He just he just get a random pick. He never picked me.

But why would you even take that chance? The same reason we have to remind people that black lives matter, as well as why that statement has ever met with any pushback. Exactly, I'm no for a fact, my life didn't matter. When you're going through that, when you're sitting in this situation that you're hearing these things going on, you're like, man, what did I do to deserve this? Why are these people doing what they're doing when basically

everything shows that they're lying. This episode is underwritten by A I G, a leading global insurance company. A I G is committed to corporate social responsibility and is making a positive difference in the lives of its employees and

in the communities where we work and live. In light of the compelling need for pro bono legal assistance and in recognition of a i g s commitment to criminal and social justice reform, the a i G pro Bono Program provides free legal services and other support to underrepresented communities and individuals. So you have two witnesses who admitted in front of you that their identifications were entirely invalid.

And then you have these two park workers who said that they gave the assailant a ride and that the assailant was not wearing a mask, so they got a good look. As we already pointed out, the dispatch tapes proved that these two accounts were also lies. They were standing there with the police saying that they had pointed the assailant towards the metrolink, But my attorney never presented

this recording. I found the recorder a couple of years ago, so I just found out about them because I kept telling everybody, I'm like, look, I know these guys in line they would be you know. Everybody was like well we you know, you have to prove it. So I knew, um they had turned over these dispatched tape transcripts, but they only gave me six pages. Do you know the actual recording is over an hour and a half long.

My producer transcribed these tapes. The ninety minutes segment you're talking about comes out to thirty nine pages, and that's what the artificial intelligence transcriber missing a lot of the actual words. So basically, they withheld the fact that they knew that both park workers were lying that or they were counting on your attorney not doing his job. So we already heard about al mcgillian and William Green. So what happened when these park workers walked into the lineup room?

When William Green didn't pick me out? The officer walked, you know, William Green out, and you see the two park workers. I literally when they opened the door, you can see the two park workers standard side by side, and they were like, look, you know, we think it's the guy in position number three. Before they even walk into the room, they were like, yeah, yeah, it's the guy in position number three. And the officer tells him, no, you will have to come in and identify him so

we can put it on records. So they come in and pick me in position number three. That's how they got me. So this total sham identification procedure where all the witnesses already and willing to help out the boys in blue with whatever they need, plus Norris Holder, who's incentivized to try to avoid the death penalty, even though that ended up backfiring for him. This is essentially that's all they had against you. All the other evidence, or let's call it, but it is, the actual evidence told

a totally different story. They tested holders clothes for traces of gasoline. I'm talking about the shoes, his sox, his pants, his shirt, his T shirt. Everything he had on came back positive for traces of gasoline. I gave you my clothes. Not a single trace of gasoline was found on anything, and they knew that as well as that you didn't

match any of the physical descriptions. You didn't have the injury your right hand that was described the witnesses, an injury that would have explained the blood left behind on the strap to a bullet proof vest. It was tested for both yours and the victim's DNA, both negative. Yet still, some how, some way they chose to believe holder and basically rigged the I D process. But they didn't stop with just one fix. Your attorney could have found all

of this evidence. So they needed some more, right, you know, they wanted me to confess to the crime, and I told him I don't have anything to do with this crime. So you maintain your innocence throughout your quote unquote I did in that fixed lineup. But now when you're going to trial, you received discovery. Next thing I know, I read a report a few days later basically saying that I confessed the crime. There's get this, not a single

piece of evidence to show that a confession ever took place. Well, to me, it's a perfect example of a larger phenomenon that we know well, which is that when there's this pressure to close a case, they start making ship up so they feel like they need a little bit more on Billy Ell and so hey, he confessed. Well, where's the evidence of this confession? Was it recorded? No? Where their notes? Yes? Okay, then where are the notes? We don't have them anymore. We lost them, we threw it away.

I mean, come on, that's just bullshit. Beginning middle to end. They didn't even say they lost it, which would have Like, you know, they said they threw it away. So I mean they threw away the only evidence that they had that this alleged confession ever took place. Yeah, I know, I'm not um, I'm not really. Usually they say it was lost in a flood. We've heard that in a number of cases. Yeah, we had it, but it was lost in a flood. In this case, they say, no,

we threw it away. They claimed that after the line off, I demanded to speak to a Lieutenant Henderson because I allegedly knew him from a previous case. The previous case they mentioned is a friend of mine. He was murdered. We were the victims in that case. And basically they so they used my friend's murder to say that I confessed to this black officer because I knew him and I trusted him. Now, I kept telling my lawyer's I'm like,

I don't even know this guy. One thing I do know is that when my friend was killed, there wasn't one black officer that came to their climb scene that day. So basically I'm telling my lawyer to look for this police report so I can prove that they, you know, manufactured this line. He never find it. I find this myself a few years later, and come to find out Henderson didn't even worked that day. So how can I ask to confess to somebody that I never even met before?

But we were never able to fund them with that. There was a lot of bullshit slinging at your trial and a near total abdication of duty by your defense attorney, who could have done so much more with what was available to him to discredit this horrendous lide that perhaps even the jury saw through, but they most definitely were not provided with what they needed to see the real

truth in this case. I mean, let's face it, the very least he could have done was present the negative gasoline residue and DNA test results that would have had a big impact on the jury. I mean, the fact that he didn't even highlight this, didn't even make it part of his case, part of his defense. A government forensic expert even testified a trial saying that anyone who had been in that van would have had gasoline present

on their clothing. Yet he just didn't seize that moment, probably because he hadn't done his freaking homework or he would have known to do it. I mean, this was any first year law student would have known to do that. And then there's all these different eyewitnessed discrepancies, right, and as we've mentioned, there were four alleged eyewitness ideas, and considering the dispatch tapes and interview recordings that were available to him, more could have been done to impeach all

of them. Two of the eyewitnesses, after all, said on the tapes that they were unable to identify the purpose. On top of what they said and did at the lineup. Then you've got these two park workers saying that they gave the assailant a ride and identified Billy. But your attorney would have researched and pointed out that that testimony was contradicted by what they had said in their initial

statements via the dispatch tape. He didn't present one piece of evidence he crossed examine these witnesses though that's it didn't present not a single shred of all the evidence I found that he had access to. He didn't even look forward. So, not having done the preparation, his cross examination, among other things, fell predictably short. His public defender did an unconscionably poor job, didn't seek any confirmation of Billy's alibi,

just sort of let it go to me. I mean, you think about somebody goes shopping in a very public place. The first thing you're gonna do is have an investigator to every single store, speak to people, get videos, trying to find witnesses down right, I mean, there could have been receipts from them, all security footage which instantly would have cleared Billy, and he didn't do anything and didn't make any attempt to obtain that. And now, of course

it's far too late. Of course, there was a security guard that gave him a ride as well, Chris shagag How do you not present him or look into when he picked up his paycheck. There would have certainly been a record that showed that this took place at the time of the crime, which would have cleared Billy. But none of this was done. Norris Holder identified you in an effort to save himself and his actual partner in crime from death row little good that ended up doing

for him anyway, though. And meanwhile, there's the first person that he named, whose name was John. This is another lead that could have and should have been developed, But beyond the leaves that could have been developed, there was everything that was already available that Billy has been able to use to prove that the witnesses and the police were lying, Which makes this all so unbelievable that this

ever even made it to trial. Yeah, all the evidence that I'm presented on my behalf is in their own files, So they knew that when they put in at this testimony, when they opted at this story and claimed all these things, they had their actual reports that shows something other than what they were actually testified too, So it wasn't like

it was just a lot concocted about the officers. The prosecutors basically allowed them to tell these lives because they have these fowls with them when they put these people on the stands. Yeah, you think that would make them eligible for attempted murder? And perhaps your trial attorney could be and should be considered for criminal negligence because without the defense you needed, the jury was left with this

pack of lies and not much else. And before we go to this trial's inevitable conclusion, I want to talk about this really makes me sick. This electric stunt belt that Billy was made to wear throughout the proceedings. What in the actual funck is up with that? I don't have words, Jason, I don't know. It's part of the dehumanizing, degrading process that I think often happens to different degrees.

This is extreme to scares into viewing somebody as being responsible and perhaps worthy, so to speak, of getting the death penalty. My thing was, you know a lot of times you want to stand up, you know, you want to tell them, you know, object, or you want to, you know, yell out, hey, you're on our innocent or you want to yell out to the jury, or you want to stand up and you know, kind of defend yourself, especially when you're not being defended by your turn, you know.

But the thing about the Marshalls, they were like, look, if you make any quick movements, we're gonna push the button. Freaking twenty votes of fifty. I don't even remember how many votes this thing is. I don't know, man. I felt even more imprisoned because I couldn't say anything, I couldn't do anything. They were essentially treating you like cattle, and by the way, that's not even the way cattle should be treated. Exactly do you have to realize I

wasn't called Billy Allen. I was called a murderous dog by my prosecutor. Montier Rout. Was never allowed to basically see the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth. They got half of a story that was concocted by officers that could have easily been disputed with evidence. And so that's why I'm kind of hoping that this platform allows my jury to hear this stuff and say, hey, you know what, I think I made a mistake. Did you have any hope that they were going to see

that at the time. No, Honestly, I told my mom, and this is a stadd part about it, um, I told my mom right before the verdict, I say, look, I'm gonna get found guilty. And she was like, no, don't say that. I said, look, mom, my lawyer isn't gonna present a defense, so don't be surprised. I prepared my mom emotionally and prepare my family to accept the fact that I was going to get found guilty. I accepted it, you know. And here's the thing. I wasn't mad at my jury. I was more mad at my

defense attorney for him not defending me. And proving to them that I was innocent. So I wasn't mad at then, because if I were to sit on that jury, I would have to find a person guilty. There was nothing I could do. From the moment I got locked up. That started my mission to prove my innocence. One because when I went into court, you know, the victim's family was there, and I saw people looking at me with so much anger and so much pain and so much hate.

And I'm like, I got people hate me when they have the wrong person. So I'm like, Okay, I'm gonna make it my mission to prove that I'm innocent. And you know, I made that same problems to my mom and they saidly. That started my journey where I started reading all the fouls. I read every single page, every single sentence, every transcript, everything, and I started putting together

this puzzle. And when you see the story that they tell at my trial, and you see all the evidence that they had to to show something different, you start to ask yourself, why would somebody go this far to convict me for something they know I didn't do, where their own evidence proves on this. So that has been the burden that I've had to carry, you know, in a sense, being innocent, being innocent as a burden man. You know, every day you're fighting to live, you're fighting

to prove your innocence. You're fighting to convince judges to do the right thing who won't do the right thing. So your first appeal happened in two thousand and one, and it was based on your Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury. Essentially, the effort sought to get you off of death row. What's interesting is that his sentence was mixed. So the first count, which was bank robbery in which a killing occurs, he was

convicted and got life. On the second, which was using a firearm during in relation to a federal crime of violence which resulted in murder, he was convicted and got the death penalty. Then that was appealed by Billy and it was reversed so commuted to life. But then the state appealed it to the Eighth Circuit and made back to death and put him on death row. But I think the fact that you had these different outcomes just

suggest us there's something fishy here. And also the fact that the state appealed to get it back on death row just shows how hell bent they are on having the highest possible outcome and win for their case based on what they decided to pursue, which was death penalty. The best predictor of whether somebody is going to get the death penalty is the race of the victim. So having a white victim and black perpetrator, suddenly the odds of prosecutors going for death penalty shoot up, as they

did in this case. While we're on the subject of race in the community that was half white and half flag literally split evenly, some are other the jury pool ended up being ten white jurors, so the prosecutors found all sorts of reasons to strike black people from the jury, and on appeal in two thousand nine, Billy Allen's lawyers saw it an evid entry hearing on the race issue, noting that as of the twelfth of May two thousand nine of the four hundred and sixty federal defendants against

whom the U. S. Attorney General had authorized federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, and this will shock no one, but a hundred and nineteen of them were white, and three hundred forty one we're from minority racial or ethnic groups, of whom two hundred and thirty seven were black. So I know today, I don't know the percentages, and is

probably about the same percent American population as black. And yet somehow or other, over fifty of the time the death penalty was used weaponized against people innocent or guilty in the federal system, it was used against black people, and then fully another hundred and four of those four d and sixty total were people from other minority groups. The direct quote from the government to this incredible statistical evidence was quote, there are three kinds of lies, lies,

damn lies, and statistics. This is so nonsensical, it's like cartoonish, but again deadly serious. And a judge, of course, ruled that even if the court would agree with Mr Allen, that these statistics amounted to a compelling indictment of the federal governments using the death penalty against minoriti defendants, which

is basically him almost tacitly acknowledging that it did. He goes on to say, the law is nevertheless clear that the defendant cannot make out a selective prosecution claim under the equal Protection Clause without evidence that there was discriminatory

motive to prosecute him in particular. Yeah. So that's the lasting legacy of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our lifetime, which is seven McCleskey versus Kemp, where there was an overwhelming finding that still exists today and statistical pattern that's indisputable that you have an overrepresentation of people of color, particularly African Americans, who are sentenced to death.

It's undeniable, and the Supreme Court says, even though that may be true, it will not help any individual African American defendant sentenced to death unless they can show that race was a bias in their particular case. And the only way to show that it's basically getting a secret recording of the prosecutor using the N word or somehow something that would be just so egregious that would be caught on tape, and that of course never comes to light.

But we know the overall pattern is there. We're letting these biases run rampant, and the Supreme Court, unfortunately it's given a green light to them and that continues today. Yeah. And while this argument was less about Billy's case in particular and more about the bent of the entire system against black defendants, it was also one that became more pressing at the time. There was a moratorium on executions on the federal level that started in two thousand six,

but it was lifted in two thousand nineteen. The previous occupant of the Oval Office spent the last gasp of his power overseeing the first seventeen executions in a generation on the federal level, sixteen by lethal injection and one

by elextecution. He's the same person who sought to bring the death penalty back in New York State many years ago, seeking the death penalty execution of several young men that were wrongfully accused in New York City in Central Park five from the Central Park five now known as the Exonerated five. And the fact that Billy Allen bore witness to these executions from his vantage point as one of

the long serving people on death row. In spite of this remarkable body of exculpatory evidence, so Billy also raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for the reasons that we've already laid out here, And of course the gasoline residue and DNA test that truly do exculpate Billy. Let's face it, I wrote a letter to my attorney, and I framed it this way for a reason. I said, basically, I about to file on appeal. I located DNA evidence,

I located gasoline results, I located all this evidence. Had you known about these things before I went to trial? Which you have presented these things on my behalf. And he in his letter, in his response to me, he specifically says, yes, he would have presented these things. Eddie known about them before trial. Now here's the thing about it. These things were in the in the records that he

handed over to me. There was no way in hill that my trial was fair when I had an attorney who specifically responded to a letter that had he knew about these things, he would presented them. But yet he had these things in his possession and never looked for Yeah, we've seen some pretty grotesque examples of ineffective assistance of counsel before, but this is a whole new level. But yet somehow you were denied on that front as well. All those denials and basically the rejection, it becomes a

burden on your shoulders, you know. So that has been my burden for the last few years, you know, trying to find all the evidence, and now that I found it, I can't get people to listen. What what what does it take for people to care? What does it take for situations to change? And to me, I guess that goes to the Georgetown project. The Georgetown project, I felt like ignited a whole and a flame that has you know,

basically dimmed over the years. And that was my first introduction, you know, to market Marty into the you know, the students at Georgetown. And I asked, you know, I think I asked Mark. I was like, well, what is your process of picking people? And he was like, we go through thousands and thousands of applications and only pick five and yours stood out. And that meant everything to me.

And of course, you mean Georgetown's making an Axondore class and remarkably, it's an undergraduate course, so you don't have to be a law student, of forensic scientist or a private investigator to look at some of the evidence and say, wait a minute, how did this actually even go forward

to trial? How much less result than a conviction? And Marty, you know, I watched the remarkable video that you and your students put together with the making Axondo re class, of course, and those it is in that class never ceased to blow my mind with the amazing, amazing work that they do semester after semester, class after class, and of course their work has led to the actual freeing of four people now, right, I mean Keith Washington, Valentino Dixon,

Eric Rittick, and now Orlando Trey Jones. Right, these kids are doing absolutely phenomenal jobs. Some of them have even come to work for us or have gone on to law school working as paralegals on pro bono cases or other nonprofits. They are truly incredible assets to this movement for justice, and I'm so glad that you all landed on Billy's case. Billy's case, to me, it was just a multitude of things that went wrong. Every week that we live, we see another man or woman become exonerated.

And what we also see is that something from the original case went wrong, and it was either from the prosecutor. To Lisa's point of view, there were some wrongdoing, forensic misconduct, or incompetent lawyers. And in Billy's case, I think he had a little bit of everything. You know, there was someone else who was seen with Holder planning the bank robbery, but that was just never pursued. There was an anonymous

tip that we don't know much more about. We just know that the initials of the suspect are d M, and obviously that's not Billy Allen DM, but we don't know more and haven't been able to find out more because it's been kept you under wraps. But that very well could be the second person who Holder is protecting. There's d M, there's JB as Billy mentioned, and a whole lot of potential avenues if you could just access these materials, but they've been fighting it every step of

the way. Now there was renewed efforts to test the DANNI evidence against other potential suspects, which was the focus of your filings. Not only is there this bloody strap that excludes you and the victim that they refused to run through CODIS or test against anyone else, there's also the matter of a damp cloth that was found near the fence where the second suspect escaped from Forest Park. They tested it for d n A and it excluded you,

but have since sealed those results. I'm sure if they had matched Billy, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. So how have those efforts gone thus far? Thanks stopped every year from the first year I filed pro say, my lawyers have filed, We've done everything we could to get them to basically do all the testing, and my judge basically is has refused every single request and the prosecutor has opposed every prium of testing. In my case,

I can't get nothing tested. If we could test that DNA against other possible suspects, who knows what would come up in this case. But there's such a conspiracy, I mean, that's not too strong a word to say that police and prosecutors have in just sealing tight a conviction, even if it's the wrong one, even if there's evidence that proves that it was a mistake. My case is in one of those where I'm just asking people to, you know, take a chance on me. I'm asking people to believe

in my evidence and fight for me. So that's where this is at right now. And Billy and his team are fighting this on two fronts, trying to get access to those biological materials as well as seeking a pardon from President Biden. There's a petition among so many other action steps linked in the bio, but go there now, don't wait, go to the bio, click on it, signed a petition, and in addition to all of that, there's the making an exonery video. Please check all of it out.

We also encourage you to join Billy Supporters this November and Washington, d C. For a rally. You can follow Billy on Instagram. It's free Billy b I L l I E Allen A l L E n so free Billy Allen to receive updates. And now we go to our closing work. First of all, I thank all of you for joining us. I'm just gonna kick back in my chair, turn my microphone off, and just listen for any closing thoughts that you all have. Let's start with Mark, then Marty, and then and then Billy over to you

to close this out. Thanks, Jason. Billy is an extraordinary person. He is warm, he is caring, he is funny, he is compassionate, he is dedicated, hard working, and he's incredibly talented. And I got to see a lot of his artwork. I actually have some of it now in my office at Georgetown. But Billy is himself a beacon of light

and hope for this world. And what I really hope more than anything is that the rest of the world will discover the Billy that I've come to know and love, and to recognize his talent and to appreciate his humanity, and that hopefully he'll have that opportunity to connect with the world as a freeman soon. There's just two things I want people to understand. Well, is an epidemic. We had one and seventy three exonerations that were recognized by

the National Registered Exhonery. We already have a hundred and seventy three. Billy should be added to that list in the near future. Our system can't function if we keep convicting innocent people, and when there's evidence that somebody was denied justice, we let them languish in prison day after day after day. The day has to come where Billy

gets his day for justice. And I look forward to the day where Mark, myself, our students can be waiting outside of a prison somewhere like we have for four other individuals to watch Billy walk out of prison. I'm not just somebody who's saying they're innocing, you know. I'm somebody who can show you that I'm in a sing and to me, I feel like that should ignite people to say, you know what, let me go to bad

for this guy. You know, I'll get, you know, letters from people saying, hey, I'm praying for you, and I'm like, okay, well, you know, I appreciate the prayers, but I need you to speak out, you know, because you need those voices in the high places to be able to hear that

you do care. And I feel like the more people who show that they care, the more the system is going to have to care and gonna have to give us the testing that we're looking for and allow the evidence to be the thing that motivates you to want to go out there and fight for me to want

to go out there. And you know, every time you're on social media, instead of posting about the new foods you're eating, to be able to say, hey, you know what, free Billy Allen period, you know, And and November will be going to d C, you know, to basically do

a march on d C to present my case. And I'm hoping that people start raising their voice and have an influence when we do follow our petition of biding to be able to make him say, you know what, we're always asking another country to do right by their citizens. We fail this guy right here. Let us do the right thing now and return him to his family. And I guess I'm I'm going to read you something that I think it will help you kind of gather who I am and my journey. And it's called long soldier.

To find myself engaged in the conflict that some have deemed to be a battle between good and evil, and it is I who they have labeled the ladder. This battle is not one worth on the reward will be heard thought about a stench of gun smoke charred flesh, nor where bloodstains will take the same brown with footsteps

travel to the froe. No, this battle was one that is rooted in the bloodlines and bloodshed that painted the stripes red, and in the blue sky that weighed fifty stars, which are a time saluted or drape over the caskets of fallen heroes. Now, because I know that there are those who like to take one's word out of context with malicious intent, No, there's no way in my claiming the role of hero. I'm just one who has been wrathfully imprisoned, and who wishes defend myself against those who

have brought this battle to my doorsteps. And in doing so, I planned to defend myself against the lies ms represent Patian in advances to take my life in the pretense of justice. Now, after I expose this injustice, if you then deem my actions to be that of a hero, know that it is I who will not make such a claim. This battle will take place on what many have deemed to be sacred ground, or what some have said to be the foundation of our society, without which

will cause chaos and leave in its path destruction. And that battleground is the constitutionists amendments to oversee this battle and to ensure that it's conducted without a hint of bias, favoritism, nor that it will be tainted with the temptation of

power or financial gain. Is Lady Justice yet, to my disbelief, though she is supposed to stand out front of the symbol of fundamental fairness, I could have sworn that I saw her trip of scale of justice and favor of my foes, who already have superior power, resources, and who attack without malicious forethought. Though I know that the other again. It's me. I do not waiver on my stands, and I hold tight to the hilt of my sword of truth and evidence, where my evidence is the material which

it has been forced me. I closed my eyes, say a prayer, and I can only hope that God here. My please is I throw stones at Goliath, and it is I who am the long soldier. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburn and Kevin Wardis, with research by Lila Robinson. The music in this production was supplied

by three time Oscar nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On all three platforms, you can also follow me on both TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason flom Rnful Conviction is the production of Lava a Good Podcast in association with Signal Company Number one h