At nine pm on October thirtieth, nineteen ninety four, Marcus Boyd and Greg Elking were on Marcus's porch in Saint Louis when two men approached them. Both were carrying guns and wearing masks that covered all but their eyes. Greg Elking ran off as shots rang out and Marcus was killed. Marcus's girlfriend was upstairs and was immediately available to the police when they asked who might have done it. She claimed that Marcus may have had a drug dispute with
his friend, Lamar Johnson. After the only eyewitness, Greg Elkin, viewed a photo lineup, a man named Philip Campbell, along with Lamar Johnson were arrested, and Elking identified both men in a live lineup. Lamar maintained that he had been miles away at the time of the crime, but at trial, the lead detective testified that a round trip to the scene of the crime could have taken Lamar less than
five minutes, making his guilt plausible. A jailhouse informant also said that he had overheard Lamar confessing to the murder, but the most incriminating testimony of all came from Greg Elkin. Although he didn't see the shooters faces behind their masks. Elking said he recognized Lamar easily because of a distinctive lazy eye. The eyewitness testimony was damning. After all, there couldn't possibly be any incentive for someone to make up
something like that. But this is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to wrongful conviction. I'm Lauren Bret Pacheco, broadcast journalist and host of the podcast's Murder in Oregon, Murder in Illinois, and Murder in Miami, and I am so excited to be filling in for Jason Flahm in today's case. Irrefutable evidence of innocence, as well as an eventual confession from both of the actual assailants were not enough to receive
a new trial. It took twenty eight years a new legislation for justice to finally be done in the Missouri appellate system. And we are honored to be joined by its survivor, Lamar Johnson.
Welcome Heah, thank you for having us.
It's an honor. And the other half of us refers to Lamar's attorney from Morgan Pilot in Kansas City, who's also on the board of the Midwest Innocence Project. Lindsay Runolds, Welcome.
To the show.
Thank you so much.
So, Lamar, if we can just go back. I know that you are forty nine now correct, Yes, and this happened when you were twenty, So just explain a little bit about who you were at the age of twenty, where you were living, what you were doing, and what you were about at that point in your life.
I was kind of like a lot of people from the in his cities at that age. I was, I was working, I was in school, but I was also, you know, trying to hustle a little bit because that was the probably the height of the crackerr and so, like a lot of kids in the neighborhood, I was trying to make a little money on the side, and of course that you know, puts me in the crosshourds of some police officers in my neighborhood. Yeah.
The detective that was leading this investigation, Detective Joseph Nickerson, you know, a long time veteran by the time he retired of the Saint Louis City Police Department. He knew Lamar before there was this group of young men, the usual suspects for anything that happened within that neighborhood. They were brought in, called down to the police station over anything, whether or not they were even just because they were a group of you know, young black men from the wrong part of town.
And our audience may recall the name Joseph Nickerson from the wrongful conviction of Billy Allen, who continues to languish on federal death row, will have his episode linked in the bio so they can further acquaint themselves with Detective Nickerson, who is actually on the Saint Louis DIA's do not
testify list due to credibility issues. And just like Marcus and Lamar, Billy Allen was also dealing drugs, so it seems like Nickerson had a type now, Lamar, I understand it was easy for Nickerson to make a connection between you and the victim in this case, Marcus Boyd. Not only were you guys both selling drugs at the time, but you were really close friends. In fact, you were almost like family through a woman named Leslie Williams, who was the mother of Marcus's child.
Yeah, he was dating Leslie Williams, the cousin of Pamela Williams, and I have a daughter by Pamela Williams. Pam and Lesley lived together, so that's how we met, probably about five years before then. We just really good, came close.
Did you have a falling out of sorts? Before he was murdered?
Marcus and I never had a fallen out on an argument, never.
Yet an alleged rift between you two over drugs was eventually used as a motive for what happened on October thirtieth, nineteen ninety four, at around nine pm. At this time, Leslie Williams was in the apartment that she shared with Marcus Boyd bathing their baby, while Marcus was downstairs on their porch on Louisiana Avenue, and a man named Greg Elkin was there to repay Marcus for some crack. So they were talking when two armed men approached in black
ski masks that covered everything but their eyes. One ordered Greg off the porch. They fatally shot Marcus and ran off, and obviously Leslie came running down to the porch, and.
Once the shooting store, she ran downstairs and she was able to see the gunman on the porch shooting, but she couldn't make out who they were. And you know, I guess the routine question that officers ask say, well, you know, who do you think might have something to do with and she just, you know, she just said Lamar's. She couldn't think of anybody else. She didn' couldn't think of any reason. And she was asked about that, well, why did you think that I didn't have any reason?
They didn't owe each other any money or drugs or anything like that. So I just think that this in my name that came to her mind.
And it would have been very difficult to identify you because both of the gunmen were wearing masks.
That's true.
Plus you were almost three miles away at the time with your youngest daughter and her mother, Erica Barrow, while also handling some business of your own.
Yeah, I got a call from a guy I had just met, and he wanted to purchase some crime, and I arranged to meet him at a corner of thirty ninth and Lafayette. And it just happens that at that corner of a friend of ours lived at that apartment too, and so I just told Erica to come with us, her and a baby to come with us, and we went to that apartment and so that I could kind of visit the friend and also meet with this person.
And it was during this five minute span where your whereabouts could not be accounted for by Erica Barrow, that the state eventually alleged that you had sped from Lafayette and thirty ninth Street, picked up the actual other assailant in the case, Philip Campbell, changed into dark clothing, put on masks, pulled up at Marcus's, and killed him in front of his apartment at thirty nine ten, Louisiana, which was what like two point seven miles away?
Yeah, two to three miles away.
And so how long would it have actually taken you to get there and get back? Realistically?
I don't know that. I know that Lindsley and I don't have driven at distance. I know the Prosecutor's office has driven. In fact, I mean the Attorney General's office even drove it at different And I know that you couldn't have done it in five minutes, let alone to two to three minutes that Detective Nicholson testified a trial that it could have been driven.
Right, simple Google search sets distance at two point seven miles, taking at least ten minutes by car, making a twenty minute round trip so pure math, this is impossible. Now, Lamar, this was your really close friend who had just been shot. And I understand you found out about it right away.
Well, I learned after I went out and met with this person and made the deal and came back in, I received the call from my oldest daughter's mother and she told me that Marcus had been a shot. She also said that Marcus's girlfriend had said that she thought that maybe I had something to do with it. So I actually, I said, well, what happened to Marcus? And she said he was outside with the white guy and he got shot. And then I said, I asked, well, did you think I had something to do with him?
When she said yeah, I said why did you think that? And she said, well, I couldn't think of anybody else, so.
She didn't see what happened, but for whatever reason, she decided that there was some kind of an issue between you and Marcus, and that started this chain of events. Basically, essentially, that's what happened, and you were all ready a known entity to the lead detective on this case, Joe Nickerson, so that's all he needed to hear.
I mean, the investigation for what it was was started and ended at the scene that night. Honestly, Lamar Johnson's name, you know, is in that first police report from the scene, before the eyewitness had even been identified, let alone found and interviewed. And so when a single eyewitness in a case hasn't even been identified by name, and they have their suspect, I mean, that's not an investigation designed to find facts, in my view.
And when they located Greg Elkin, the eyewitness a couple of days later, what did he say?
He says what would be expected knowing the facts of this case, which is, I couldn't identify anybody. I couldn't see I didn't recognize them. They were masked. I can't help That's what he's saying when he's first contacted, which makes perfect sense.
But then later that day Elkin and his wife met Nickerson at a diner and he was shown in array which included and Philip Campbell, but according to Elking, he made no identification. As it came out later, they had a discussion that somehow changed Elkin's mind about what he'd seen. That evening November third, nineteen ninety four, Lamar and Philip
Campbell were both picked up. Now, during this time, Lamar waved his Miranda rights, spoke to Nickerson, told him where he was across town, and it was impossible for him to have committed the crime. And it was during this time Lamar was alleged to have spoken to another detective, the detective Campbell, but Lamar was completely unaware of this alleged conversation until trial. Lamar knew he was innocent, so he agreed to be in the lineup.
Yeah, they bring Greg Elking down to the station and Lamar's in one of the lineups. There's three fillers just pulled, you know, from the jail to be put into that lineup, and Greg Elking views it at least three times. First time, he can't identify anybody, the second time identify anybody. The third time he identifies a filler from the jail, who, of course everyone knows, and not a suspect and is
got the world's greatest alifi right he's in custody. The lineup containing Philip Campbell, the co defendant and an actual perpetrator in this case. He couldn't identify anyone, didn't recognize anyone from that lineup, and of course within that lineup is somebody that was actually on that porch with Greg Elking. There was no identification made, and not only no identification and identification of someone else, and it should have been the end of.
It, but that, of course wasn't the end of it. We now know that Greg was told who to identify, and later he did. But take us to what happened immediately after this live lineup.
So when I left out of the out lineup room, Detective Nickoson was kind of leaning over a table, and I could tell that he was frustrated, and I remember telling him, see, I told you I didn't do this, And I remember the way that he looked up at me like he had atred in his eyes. That's the
only way that I know how to describe it. But I'd left there knowing that I hadn't been identified, And when they came back later and said, well you've been identified, I knew then that something was going on, that something was wrong.
Greg Elkin's testimony on this is clear. He was told the numbers of the lineup.
You know, it's three and it's four.
Three, of course was la Mar's position, and four was Philip Campbell's position. And you know the train left the station right.
Then, This episode is underwritten by global law firm Greenberg Truid. Through its pro bono program, Greenberg Trowig leverages it's more than twenty six hundred lawyers across forty four offices to serve the greater good of our communities and provide equal
access to justice for all. In the field of criminal justice, greenbrog Triwergy attorneys have exonerated and free demanded Philadelphia represent numerous individuals previously sentenced to life for crimes committed as juveniles and resentencing hearings, and receive the American Bar Association's twenty twenty one Exceptional Service Award for Death Penalty Representation for their work on five death penalty cases. GT is reimagining what big law can be because of a more
just world. Only happens by design.
So they took me and Philip down to the booking area, which was the central holdover, and there's a twenty hour period where the Circuit Attorney's office makes a decision on whether or not to actually charge you, and the jailer came that next day and said that charges had been issued, and.
While you and Philip Campbell were in that holding area, enter in jailhouse snitch named William. Can you tell me a little bit, Lindsey about William Mock.
Well, William Mock had been an informant before. But you know the tall tale that he told in Lamar's case was that while he was in custody in this city holdover area, and that's that place in the jail where people are held before charges are issued. It's a long line of more than ten cells housing up to you know, fifteen folks, loud folks, people coming off of drugs, and that's where they were at this particular period. They're never
selled together. And William Mock claims to hear Lamar and Philip yelling to each other through this holding area, basically confessing to this, saying things like, you know, we shouldn't let the white guy live, and you know we got to, you know, hide the gun. And you know he's claiming, he Mock, that he's hearing this and hearing Lamar yelling out not only hey, I'm Lamar Johnson. My name is Lamar, and here's my information to a Lamont.
It's so absurd, it's so absurd.
It's absurd, even if you know this Lamont person had been in there, right, But there's not a Lamont in that jail. When William Mock is in there talking about these instances, they knew Lamont wasn't in there. Lamar's lawyer brings it up at trial.
And that his testimony was incentivized.
Of course, as they are right. I mean, jailhouse snitches don't work for free, and this particular one certainly did it. But Lamar's jury, Lamar, no one knew that William Mock had a history of doing this exact same thing just two years before he did it in this case.
Since then, letters that Mock wrote to Nickerson and the prosecutor have been obtained. Letters that were written from prison after his own probation had been revoked, in which he was offering his services in exchange for free. And not only were his motivations for testifying exposed in his letters to the prosecutor, but also in his letters to Nickerson, Mock's overt racism was on full display.
Yes, he's writing his letters as again as snitches do, saying this is what I want and calling Lamar and Phil his co defendant, you know, to bt Inward and a number of other comments. And that's important because it shows, of course his bias his motivation for doing some of this, which is why under the rules that would have to be disclosed so that the jury can test that bias.
And you know, that was one of our strongest Brady claims in the case that these letters weren't disclosed to Lamar or the jury.
So let's talk about the trial, which began July tenth, nineteen ninety five, in Saint Louis County Circuit Court. The prosecutor was Assistant Circuit Attorney Dwight Warrant, and Lamar, your public defender was David Bruns. One of the key points brought up a trial was Greg Elkins's eyewitness identification in which he said that he recognized you in the lineup because of your quote lazy eye. That's true, which is bizarre because I'm looking right at you, sir, and you
do not have a lazy eye. So what was all of that about.
Well, so that's confusing because he doesn't verify identification in the photo spread. He actually identifies somebody else in the lineup, and it's only after he had spent some time along with Detective Niggers and that he suddenly said, oh, I know who did it. It was number three or number four. And then in the police before he says that he's got to identify me based on a lazy or crooked eye. I don't know where that came from. I've never heard
that before my entire life. That's the first time that it's mentioned, which is of course when he needs some sort of means of justifying an identification.
I'm sure they knew that this case is weak. Were going to have to explain how somebody makes an identification of fully masked black men at dark you know. And Dwight Warren said that at the hearing right, there was no case without this identification because, as Lamar said, no physical evidence, no motive was ever investigated or presented, because there was no motive for Lamar to kill Marcus. So
Greg Elking's identification was central. And so when he pointed to Lamar in front of that jury and said, that's the guy I was on the porch and that's him, I mean, it was the key.
But you found out much later after your conviction that Elking had been incentivized to lie about identifying you, and that after the trial he'd even tried to come forward with the truth.
Well, I eventually was able to get in contact with Greg and he by then he had already written his pastor had been trying to come forward. He just wanted to do the right thing, and he just wrote out everything that had occurred. He told that him and his family was suffering financially and that as an assentive he had received money new apartment, and they had utilities that
was taken care of. And I mean everything that he said is eventually we was able to cooperate, all the way down to their taking care of traffic tickets van. That's just how detailed it was.
Unfortunately, no one was aware of Greg Elkins's motivation as a trial, nor was anyone besides the prosecutor aware of William Mock's motivations, which were not only racist, but were also entirely motivated by gaining his freedom.
Mack had also claimed, in addition to me supposedly talking with this Lamont about killing a white witness in this case, I supposed to have also robbed and killed some other white guy. And it just split the trial up and for most of that whole second day because of this false other case that Mack had came up with. This just began to talk about the imaginary case, which police had to eventually admit that they looked for this case and it never even happened.
They're being asked on the stand in front of the jury, well, did you investigate this other supposed robbery and homicide of a white guy on the south Side. Yeah, we did. What'd you find? There's no case. So here we are yet again that they have a very big important fact that William Mack is pretending to have overheard that they know it doesn't exist. The case is not real.
And that wasn't the only false testimony that was submitted. There was also an alleged confession from Lamar on the day he was arrested before the lineup to a detective Ralph Campbell, no relation to Philip Campbell, in which he was alleged to say, I shouldn't have let the white guy live. Another conversation that never took place, and the fabrications and misinformation don't end there a trial, a ski mask was introduced that actually had been found in Lamar's
car during a traffic stop. But the problem with this ski mask was when it was found in Lamar's car.
Yeah, it was two months before Marcus was killed, and that mass was put in my car by a friend of mine, guy that I knew, Yeah.
At one of the many times he was curbed as they call it, you know, Saint Louis or to pull up on you and search your car. That happened in August. You know, they came. They took it from the trunk of Lamar's car, along with a number of other items, and packaged and put into police custody down in the property lockers in August of nineteen ninety four, where it sat and where it was on the night of October thirtieth,
so they knew it could never have been used. And it's sitting there on council table as an exhibit for all to see. And you know, it's one of the many, in my view, really intentionally prejudicial things. It's completely irrelevant to this case, is.
One hundred percent. Now. Your trial attorney, David Bruns did point that out, as well as the fact that you did not have a lazy eye. Your girlfriend, Erica Barrow, testified you were almost three miles away from the scene, adding that you were only out of her site for five minutes. But Detective Nickerson rebutted your alibi, testifying that he had driven that route twenty to fifty times, saying that Lamar could have made the trip in no more
than five minutes. This testimony was left unchecked, so your alibi was rebutted. They've got Elkin's identification, Mock's overheard confession, and Detective Campbell offering an alleged confession as well. So how long did the jury deliberate?
They delivered for an hour and a half. They came back in and as most people know, if the jury is not looking at you, that's a bad sign. And none of them looked at me, And I think it was the clerk that read the verdict. Everything was kind of a blur back then, and they said I was guilty first recree murder and arm crome action.
What what went through your body? What went through your head?
I didn't know how to react. It was I just couldn't believe that a jury would believe that, you know, it just it was no motive ever presented, no physical evidence for it. So I was stunt. I was stunt.
Now this is what really got me, because between the time of your conviction and sentencing, something insane happens. And Lindsey can you address that.
Yeah, the verdict came down on July fifth of nineteen ninety five, and Phil Campbell knows, of course that Lamar had nothing to do with this, and they start writing letters back and forth to each other Lamar and Phil Campbell, and Phil Campbell is saying, I know you didn't do this. It's really screwed up that you got convicted when it was me and BA James Howard his nickname, and I'm sorry, man,
but you know that's how the game goes. And we can't tell on BA our friend, and Lamar writing back saying, you know, you guys got to help me tell the truth on this. Lamar finally writes to Judge Shaw, his trial judge and the judg who's getting ready to sentence him. He says, I'm getting these letters from my co defendant. I didn't do this. Somebody helped me, basically asking for help in the way that he knows how to do it.
Dwight Warren, the prosecutor in this case, applies for a search warrant LO and behold, here are all the letters that Lamar's been talking about. They're filed on the court docket. They're put into the record, they're the basis of motion for a new trial, and it is completely and utterly ignored by everybody.
Not only did Campbell acknowledge that you had nothing to do with it, he cut a deal for seven years. They knew that he was guilty, and he's serving less time than you are, and they know you're wrongfully convicted. But if I'm not mistaken, Campbell had two affi Davids, one in ninety six and then another one shortly before he died in two thousand and nine. Correct, and James Howard or BA, the man Campbell named as his accomplice,
also signed AffA David stating that Lamar was innocent. In fact, he did so on three different occasions between two thousand and two and two thousand and nine.
So that's why you've got multiple Affi Davis over the years. And I was constantly trying to present those to the course and they just weren't hurt.
So now we know that two people, the people who were actually responsible for the murder, came forward, not once, but multiple times and confessed to it and said you had nothing to do with it. I cannot imagine how you must have felt like punching air thinking that every single time you can prove your innocence, and it's falling not just on deaf ears, but it's being completely ignored. Right,
and you're twenty when you went in. You were sentenced to life without parole, and you had two young daughters. And months turned to years, which turned into decades.
Decades.
Yes, you gave an interview that actually broke my heart. You said that you had never been to the beach and you had never been on a plane. What was it like watching the time that you had spent in prison exceed the time that you had lived outside.
The biggest thing was just the relationships with my daughters that I lost. You know, I wasn't able to develop that type of bond with them that you know most fathers have with their daughters. I guess just the relationship with family than children. That's the thing that hurts the most.
What kept you going the truth?
I knew that if ever I could be heard, I believe that any any foreign impartial person would they would They would have any choice to find that I was at least didn't receive it for a trial. But I knew that they couldn't find that I was actually innocent because to deny, you would have to step over a lot of things. You'd have to ignore a lot of stuff. You'd have to ignore the confessions, you'd have to ignore the trial I received, You'd have to ignore that what
we knew about Mock. I mean, when you've got one thing after another after another, it's just hard to say that none of this is the truth.
So, lindsay, let's fast forward to twenty fourteen, which I believe is around the time you and your firm, Morgan Pilot got involved in Lamar's case along with the Midwest Innocence Project. And one of the things you were trying to do is to verify what Lamar had heard from Greg Elking that he received financial compensation from Saint Louis for giving false testimony, and so you were trying to confirm the existence of those payments.
Yeah, he was telling Lamar and through his letters they paid me. They did this, they did that. And Lamar was requesting of the Attorney General's office, the Circuit Attorney's office, the Saint Louis City Police Department, the Victim's Crime Fund. We were writing and asking where are the documents showing compensation to this particular witness. And the response is overwhelmingly were there are no records what you're asking for does not exist, or ignored us and didn't respond at all.
But then in twenty seventeen, Kimberly Gardner became the new Saint Louis Circuit Attorney and a year later she forms the Saint Louis Conviction Integrity Unit. What happened when you brought your request to them?
She directed them to investigate, and in February of twenty nineteen, Tony Box, one of her employees, found the documents, sixty plus pages of them showing more than four thousand, nineteen ninety four dollars of compensation to Greg Elking and his family. So it wasn't until right before the filing of the motion for new trial in the City of Saint Louis that the actual documents were produced that corroborated mister Elking.
And in July of twenty nineteen, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed a motion for a new trial. All of this evidence is presented, the affidavids from Campbell and Howard, the compensation to Elking, proof of William Mock's unreliability, and at that hearing, Kim Gardner recommends that Lamar began to the new trial. That should have been the turning point for you.
Lamar, Yeah, I mean I was hopeful that that would be enough. I mean, I don't know what else you could what else you could have that would justify relief in this case. But unfortunately the judge that it was assigned to had a different position or belief decid you didn't have any authority to act in the case except to.
Deny because at that time, Missouri law said that outside of the initial appeal what is known as a twenty nine to fifteen in Missouri, which happens within ninety days of trial, where you can raise any issues in effective assistance, breedy, violations, new evidence, et cetera, after that period, neither the prosecutor
nor the trial court has the authority to challenge the conviction. So, I mean, Lamar, even with the circuit attorney and virtually all the evidence on your side, the system still failed you. But rather than the end of the road, you and your team saw this as a challenge and you made the decision to take this fight all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court. Lindsay, what made you want to take this case forward? Did you feel like you could actually win?
So we knew it was going to be an uphill battle. But Circuit Attorney Gardner was, you know, at that time, the only prosecutor that was willing to test the bounds of this and highlight the real gap in Missouri law here. And we had long conversations about that with mister Johnson, you know, saying test litigation is important, but can be real pain in it because you know, sometimes you must lose in a very public way before things can change.
His case was chosen because of the strength of these facts. This innocence case is unimpeachable, like it has it all at every level where there was supposed to be some protection for an accused person, the system fell apart in this case. Nonetheless, the questions before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with those those amazing facts. It was
is he too late for justice whatever that means? And is Missouri law big enough to recognize that a prosecutor, no matter when she comes into information credible, reliable, and cooperated, that a conviction obtained by her office is false? Does she have the authority and the duty to do something about it? Those were the questions, and.
When it came time to decide those questions.
The Supreme Court, in a gutting decision, said no, under Missouri law today, there is no such mechanism, and for that reason and that reason alone, Lamar Johnson's motion and petition for a new trial are denied. However, in this opinion, you know they called on the legislation. We agree with mister Johnson and Miss Gardner. This is unfortunate. It's worse
than that. But Lamar Johnson's case had garnered so much national attention that people were having the reaction that you had, which is, how does this happen in the United States of America that a prosecutor goes to court says, this person's innocent, yet here he sits in custody. All that mattered because the legislature that had been unwilling, uninterested, passed legislation in record speed. That opinion came down on March second, two and twenty one, and with six weeks left of session,
it was past. But it was because of the way we lost, in my view.
And then on August twenty eighth, twenty twenty one, please tell me what law was enacted in Missouri.
The Johnson fix was signed by Governor Parson in one of the reddest of red states in all the land. And now a prosecutor in Missouri, whether in the city of Saint Louis or in an outstate rural county, can go to court at any time, whether it's ten years or twenty five or twenty eight, and go to court and say our office made a mistake. I'm here to fix it.
And I believe one of the first to be exonerated under the Johnson fix was Kevin Strickland, right, whose wrongful conviction was overturned in November of twenty twenty one after he had spent forty three years in prison.
And there's others pending. He will not be the last, There's no doubt. And what a legacy for Lamar to leave. And we were so happy that it would help others. That was the whole point of it.
And we've seen this same issue in another case that we've covered on this podcast, Ken Middleton. His trial judge Edith Iss granted him a new trial in twenty four but this issue halted that new trial on appeal. Now, his current district attorney, Jean Peters Baker, who has acknowledged Ken's innocence. Even with this new statute refuses to act,
we'll have his episode linked in the bio. So with this lawn place, Kim Gardner filed a new motion repeating the claims made in the previous filing, and Judge David Mason held five days of hearings in December of twenty twenty two. And there is this wonderful moment from those hearings where Judge Mason is questioning Detective Nickerson about your non existent lazy eye, Lamar. I want to quote from it because it's just a masterclass in dismantling a witness
on the stand. So basically, the judge was asking whether this lazy eye identification was enough that even if Nickerson thought that you know, Lamar, you had a lazy eye, which you do, not that this is this is the exact quote from that exchange, Judge Mason, you didn't think you needed to dig any further Nickerson dig into what, Judge Mason, maybe a little more corroboration, something that could
corroborate a little more than just the eye Nickerson. Well, mister Johnson matched the height, weight and age of what the witness had given, and Judge Mason says that gentleman back there does too you want to arrest him. I mean, I probably didn't do it justice, but it really is worth watching. It's epic. You can find it on YouTube. In fact, we will link to it in the bio.
And then, on February fourteenth, twenty twenty three, Valentine's Day, Judge Mason found you factually innocent and vacated the conviction. You walked out of the courtroom that day a free man. Take me to that moment.
It just felt like a heavy weight was being lifted. It's just the weight of like losing a close friend of mine, the weight of everything I'd lost over the last twenty eight years. It was just slowly lifting, and I was coming to believe that it actually was true. So that was that's how I felt.
Can you tell me a little bit about your life today.
Well, it's been fast, the Innocence Project, working with a very generous firm and people who kind of loan me an apartment to try to, you know, get me started, and I can actually take some time and decide what I want to do and how I can best use this experience to try to, you know, help others who are are either going through it or help them to avoid going through it. And that's ultimately what I want to do, is to just do my part and trying to make the system better, because it can be better.
And have you been connecting with your daughters.
Absolutely. My daughter is going to get married next month and she wants me to walk her down now, and I think that's something that every father looks forward to doing, so I'm very grateful at the timing. Oh and my other daughter she's engaged too, so I get a double a double daddy duty.
That's wonderful. And if any of our listeners want to help support you in getting your life restarted, I know that the Midwest Innocence Project has set up a GoFundMe page for you, and we'll have links to that in the episode bio. So at this point, we have something on that podcast called Closing Arguments. And first of all, I want to thank you so much both of you for spending this time with me. It's just a mind blowing, heartbreaking and yet very inspiring story. And I commend both
of you for your perseverance and your resilience and your fight. Really, if I could ask you, guys to make your closing arguments in terms of what your takeaway is from your experience, and I'll ask you, Lindsey, to go first.
You know, the motto of the Johnson team, which included so many incredible advocates at the Midwest Innocence Project and Lathrope and our little you know army, I guess, would continually would tell the press, tell ourselves the truth always finds a way, you know. And there were moments where we were amongst ourselves wondering if that was really true, if our mantra was going to be proven. You know,
you know this was going to be right. And the deep relief that I have that it has has restored some of that old faith and fire that I had before. Because this system is a brilliant and beautiful system that we have. The Constitution provides everything that we need to ensure reliability, to ensure fairness, to conduct trials in a way that honors this uniquely American idea that is a
really beautiful thing to be proud of. But the things that freed Lamar Johnson existed in nineteen ninety four for him, the sixth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, all of those things that are just brilliant protectors of these life and liberty and fairness and against overreach. Those things existed, but the levers weren't working. The people in charge weren't doing their job. This case couldn't have gone worse. At
every single stop along the road. It failed. Every check, every safety valve that's built into this system failed in this case, and on the on the second time around. It took too long, but it did work, and what happened out of it was the shining the crown jewel of the American system, which is it is touchstone of due process, truth, fairness and all of that righteousness. It
took too long, it took too much. We should be ashamed, we should be angry, we should be motivated, but we should be proud still of this system that it can do it if we demand it. And we need folks to get in the game and demand it of their elected officials, of their prosecutors, of their state officials. I mean, it's the voters that demand the stuff, and this system's worth fighting for. It can get it right, it can do great things, and it did it in this case.
Finally, Oh, I would start by repeating what Lindsay said, it is troubly the truth. We'll find a way and then you know that people can lie about it, deny it, or try to hide it, but it's there. It's going to them out. What I guess what I would add is that is gratitude. I mean, in spite of all that has happened and all the bad things that happened, there's still a lot to be grateful for in the end, and that's what I choose to hold on to at
this point in my life. No, I mean, I've always said that just holding on to that anger is just trading one prison for another. And I've given too much of my time to that. And I would anybody who's going through that struggle of what I went through, there's hope they should be comforted in that and that my case is a testament of what can happen.
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your guest host, Lauren Bright Pacheco. I'd like to thank executive producers Jason Flamm and Kevin Wardis for inviting me to be here. Special thanks also to our wonderful production team Connor Hall, Annie Chelsea, Lyla Robinson and Jeff Cliburn. The music in this production comes from 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 Lava for Good. On all three platforms. You can find me online at Lauren Bright Pacheco, and you can find my podcasts Murder and Oregon, Murder and Illinois, and my latest Murder Miami wherever you listen to podcasts. Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number one