S02E02: THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF JEFFREY DESKOVIC (PART 2- WITH SPECIAL GUEST JEFFREY DESKOVIC)

In part 2 of our special 3-part premiere, we talk to Jeffrey Deskovic himself to get all the details on his wrongful conviction- including his interrogations and botched polygraph test, his trial, his experience behind bars and his long overdue exoneration- even recalling the events of his first day post-release.

Jeff's inspirational story is moving and emotional and our interview with him is a must-listen!

FIND US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram:  @crimefamilypodcast
Twitter: @crimefamilypod1
Facebook: Crime Family Podcast
Email: crimefamilypodcast@gmail.com

EPISODE RESOURCES:

Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation For Justice Patreon Page

Watch 'Conviction' on Amazon Prime (US Only)

Follow Jeff on Instagram: @jeffreydeskovic

Follow Jeff on Facebook: Jeffrey Deskovic

Transcript

Coming up on this episode of Crime Family: 

what was the point, the point where you were kind of realizing, oh, this is actually really bad for me. Like, was it during interrogation when you were arrested? Was it in court? Was it, or maybe, did you still have hope kind of throughout that whole thing? Like where was that like? Oh my God moment for you?

 I, I was fully expecting to be found, not guilty because up until that point in time, I thought that only guilty people were convicted.

 It really wasn't a polygraph at all, that this was just an interrogation masked as a polygraph. 

Your own defense attorney was also not good at all, right?

At the end, it was 11 to one for a conviction. There was one holdout juror that thought that I was innocent. And he said that they were all pressuring him.

 I had long since lost touch with anybody and I really couldn't relate or talk to anybody else. I was just sitting there unable to communicate, unable to relate feeling out of place.

Hi, everyone. Welcome to part two of the Jeffrey Deskovic wrongful conviction episode. As we mentioned in the previous episode, we're going to be interviewing Jeffrey Deskovic in this part, and we're very, very excited. So we have a chat coming up with Jeffrey, and we just talk about his case. All of the police misconduct, even more than we discussed in our telling of the case, and also what it was like for him in prison for the 16 years that he was incarcerated and his adjustment to his new life after his release.

So without further ado, let's get into our interview with Jeffrey Deskovic.

 So we are here with Jeffrey Deskovic. So, Jeff, thank you so much for agreeing to come on the show and talking to us , and chatting with us about your story.  So in the previous episode, we kind of went over, a little bit about your case and talked about, you know, the police misconduct involved and the things with your wrongful conviction and your release and everything.

So our listeners are a little familiar with your case, but the three of us just kind of came up with some questions, things that we were just most interested in learning more about, maybe filling in some gaps that we didn't get to in our research. Of the case. Um, so I guess we'll just start right at the beginning of it all.

So, I know one of the major things the police said initially that made them kind of focus on you, was your reaction to the news of Angela's death.  You were very emotional at the funeral and everything. So can you just, uh, talk a little bit about how you knew Angela? 

Of course. Yeah. Thanks for having me on, uh, so Angela was a classmate in two of my classes as a freshmen, uh, one as a sophomore, I knew her name. She knew mine and that was really it. We were not even really on a hi/bye basis. I was a sensitive teenager and this was really my first brush with death. So I did have an emotional reaction, but at the same time, so did almost everybody else in the city of Peekskill to the point that the free mental health services were offered for anybody that wanted.

Yeah. And we, we had talked a lot in past episodes about how people always scrutinize people's reactions to things like if you're too emotional, then it's bad. If you're not emotional enough, it's also bad. So I feel like it's very subjective to look at someone and see how they're dealing with grief and like use that as a way to, you know, say that they're guilty of something just based on one subjective sort of reaction to thing, because everyone does react differently to things like that, right?

Absolutely. Yeah. Everyone does react differently. Sure. 

Yeah. So another thing too is like, so the police kind of over the next couple of months, they were like kind of befriending you and they were having, they were like pitching it as if you were helping them with this investigation. Correct. And you were kind of, you know, doing this semi police work with them.

Uh, but they were kind of using that as a way to manipulate you throughout the whole process. 

Yeah, that's correct. So for about about six weeks, the police, this cat and mouse game with me in which all of my interactions with them took on the dynamic that they would start out talking to me like I was a suspect.

And then when they, when they would push too hard and I'd become frightened, I'd want to get away from them. Then they would switch it up. And Jeff as this junior detective helper theme was articulated by them. They would say things like the kids won't talk freely around us, but they will around you let us know if you hear anything that stop in from time to time, they asked me opinion questions and congratulate me that my opinions were correct.

And that tactic was really effective on me because prior to being a teenager, I fantasized about being a cop when I grew up. So that alone at my age 16 was how that tactic worked out. I would say that another, another dynamic to everything was that I came from a single parent household. My father was never involved my life in any aspect.

And that intersected with the good cop bad cop technique where one officer was pretending to be my friend. So I began to look up to him as a father figure. 

So they, they, they took you around to the crime scene and stuff. Correct. And they were showing you different parts of the crime scene and stuff. And then did they kind of use that later on and say like, well, this information you shouldn't have known unless you had some knowledge of the crime, but in fact, they were kind of feeding you the information the whole time.

That's all exactly correct. 

Can you talk a little bit about like the, um, interrogation with the police? Like, especially specifically during like the polygraph test and stuff, like with the police, you said another interviews, um, the person doing the polygraph was like getting into your personal space. He was yelling at you a lot.

Can you talk about what it was like being in that interrogation room in those moments? 

Yeah, sure. So they got me to agree to take the polygraph in the first place by telling me that they had some new information in the file and they wanted to share that with me, but that, and that would allow me to be more helpful to them, but I would first have to take and pass the polygraph.

So the next day, which was a school day, rather than go to the high school, I went to the police station for the polygraph. Because it was a school day, my mother and grandmother thought I was in school. So they didn't call around looking for me. They drove me from Peekskill which is in Westchester county, uh, the suburbs, uh, ethically diverse middle class.

City. They drove me by a car, 40 minutes away to the town of Brewster, which was in Putnam county. So I had no way of leaving anymore. I was totally dependent upon the police. Uh, there were three cops. I came with me from Peekskill, but they had me ride specifically in the car with the officer who had been pretending to be my friend and the other two cops in a different, in a different car.

So, you know, the ruse continued, the polygraphist himself was a Putnam county Sheriff's investigator. He was dressed like a civilian and he never identified himself as a police officer. He never read me my rights. I didn't have an attorney present. They didn't give me anything to eat the whole time I was there.

And they gave me a four page brochure, which explained how the polygraph worked, but it had a lot of big words in it that I didn't understand. But then I figured, well, I'm there to help the police. So what does it matter? Let's just get on with it. And from there. Put me in a small room and the polygraphist gave me countless cups of coffee to get me nervous.

Then he wired me up to the polygraph and then he launched into his third degree tactics. So as you point out, he did invade my personal space. He did raise his voice at me. He kept asking me the same questions over and over again. And as each hour passed my fear increased in proportion to the time. I mean remember I'm 16 years old.

I'm not used to talking to adult males much less one who's carrying on like he is. And he kept that up for six and a half to seven hours towards the end. He said, what do you mean you didn't do it? You just told me through the polygraph test result that you did. We just want you to verbally confirm it. That really shot my fear through the roof.

And at that point, the officer who has been pretending to be my friend who came in the room and told me that the other officers were going to harm me, but that he'd been holding them off, that he couldn't do so indefinitely. That I had to help myself. Then he added that if I did as they wanted that they'd stop what they're doing, that I can go home afterwards. And I was not going to be arrested being young, naive, frightened, 16 years old, not thinking about the longterm, just being concerned. My safety in the moment I was in fear of my life. The fact that I didn't know where I was that nobody else knew where I was either loomed very large in my mind, there was the, I was overwhelmed emotionally, psychologically, and they're there.

And then it was also the push pull dynamic and then also the possibility of harm and then this false life preserver. So I made up a story based on the information which they had given me in the course of the interrogation that day. And in the six weeks run up to it. By the time everything was said and done, I collapsed on the floor in a fetal position, crying uncontrollably.

Obviously I was arrested, charged with a murder and rape. 

I can't imagine being treated like that now as an adult. So I can't even imagine how it would have felt as a teenager. So I'm wondering like, is that considered police misconduct? Like, was it misconduct back then? Are there better rules about that now?

Do you know anything about kind of like police treatment rules? Have they improved? 

So the threat and false promise was illegal, but everything else was not. Uh, and by the way, the interrogate, but they got away with the threatened false promise because the interrogation was not videotaped or audio taped.

There was no signed confession. And as you might imagine, when they came to court to testify about the confession, they naturally left the illegal actions out of their testimony. He left that out of the story. Uh, in, in general, I would say across the board, I would say that the police interrogation tactics are not really better as a whole.

There are some states that now mandate that interrogations be videotaped, but that's not all of the states and want some of them New York, for example, which is where I'm from and still live now, while it is the law that they have to videotape interrogations, they have exceptions for sex offenses. They have exceptions for drug cases, there's exceptions for certain types of homicides.

So these exceptions kind of make Swiss cheese out of the general rule. There recently were a few states that barred police from. Using from using deceptive tactics when, when, uh, from lying to suspects, because that's determined to be a coercive, but that's only four states that that's, you know, that's not the rest of the country and there's been no improvement worldwide.

So far as I know.

 I just can't really, like, I was always just wondering, like, can't wrap my mind around why, like, what the motivation is for the police to like, keep the real perpetrator on the streets, knowing that they're sending the wrong person to jail. Like, I can't understand why they wouldn't just try to get the right person from the beginning.

Yeah. Do you feel that they knew it wasn't you, but they just wanted to get like a quick arrest? Or do you feel like maybe somehow they maybe thought it was you? Like, what are your thoughts on that as well? I 

don't, I think that they just wanted to solve the case. I mean, I don't, I don't look at all of this as a good faith error.

I mean, if I think about that as a possibility, the bottom drops out of that argument. When you think about it, Things that they did. I mean, it, it was, you know, they gave me information. They claim that I, then they then claimed I ha I knew details that only a killer would know is they might say, you know, they engaged in the threatened, false promise.

The case against me continued once the DNA didn't match me. Uh, what, and the, when it didn't match me, by the way, which was they and the police were told by a prosecutor. Not to arrest me. They were told they consulted with a prosecutor, you know, before I was arrested because they wanted to arrest me. And the prosecutor told them that you have no evidence do not make an arrest.

Wait until you get DNA test results back. So they did not listen to that prosecutor. That was the whole point of why they brought me to this polygraphist. They brought me to him specifically for him to carry out this procedure, which he testified was referred to as GTC, get the confession as opposed to a different polygraph, is that other, other witnesses, other people in the case were, were polygraphed by so that doesn't, you know, that doesn't seem like a accident to me, but then also lying when they came the court about the threatened false promise.

But in addition to that, The, when the DNA didn't match me, the police went back into the field and they interviewed 17 witnesses who knew the victim in one capacity or another. And all of them told the police that she had no boyfriend, that there was no consensual sex. And the police did not document those witness interviews.

And they deliberately did not document that even though they were supposed to. And as a result of them not documenting those interviews, the defense, my attorneys, neither, my attorneys, nor I ever learned about that. We could have used that at the trial. So when I think about, when I think about all of those things, and then I also think about this polygraphist not having been content with playing a large part in coercing this false confession out of me, and then lying about the threatened, false promise, not being content with that.

He also falsely attributed a statement to me. He claimed that I said to him that he heard me say that I didn't know if the perpetrator ejaculated or not. Well, first of all, that word was not in my vocabulary as a 16 year old. And second of all, that statement does not appear in any of their police reports, their early reports about the confession.

It only appears in the reports they wrote after the DNA didn't match me. So it's pretty clear that they fabricated that as part of their effort at helping the prosecutor overcome the negative DNA test result. So when I think about all of those things, no, I don't consider that, that, that this was a good faith, uh, error in terms of why they do that.

I mean, it started with my case and then generalizing out. There was a lot of public pressure on the police to solve the crime. Uh, so that, so for example, there were a number of town hall meetings throughout the city of Peekskill that were held with regards to the case prior to an arrest being made. So, uh, updates were given on the progress of the investigation.

Safety tips were articulated, you know, shared with, with the public. They had the state police breathing down their neck. At some point, the victim's family went to the state police and asked them to take over the investigation because they felt that the Peekskill police didn't really know what they were doing.

They didn't have very much experience. Uh, the state police did not take over the investigation, but they did let the Peekskill police know that they had been contacted. And I think that they just wanted the illusion that they had solved the crime and, you know, made, made an arrest. Uh, I, I don't know that they were necessarily thinking about the implications of what they were doing as far as.

They're just looking at making an arrest. I don't think they're thinking about, well, I'm leaving a criminal on the loose. I'm leaving a murderer and rapist on the loose and this person could strike again and victimize someone else. I don't know that that was really on the forefront of their mind. Um, and ultimately that is what happened.

It did ultimately cost a school teacher, Patricia Morrison her life because this, the actual perpetrator left free, while I was doing time for his crime, he killed her three and a half years later. And it didn't just impact her, but she had two children as I understand.. And she was a school teacher. Also.

Do you know if there was ever any repercussions, um, on the police? Because I mean like, did her family try to do like a wrongful death suit? Because if they had the police had done their job the first time he wouldn't. Been out of jail and their daughter wouldn't have been killed. So it was there any kind of repercussions surrounding that 

There were not. So when I was initially released, I interviewed a lot of lawyers and deciding who I was going to utilize to represent me in the course of my seeking compensation. And every time I met with the lawyer, I also brought, I also brought up the idea, well, what about the second victim's family? Could they bring a lawsuit like on a similar line of reasoning of what you're mentioning and response that I got back from all the lawyers that I met with.

And I think that there were about five or six different firms. They all said to me that they thought it would be a difficult case, but that it would be that it would, it was  you know, it could be possible. Um, but the, at the end of the day, though, the second victim's family did not want to pursue that.

They wanted to leave. They wanted to put everything behind them. I mean, I did meet up with them and I did tell them, you know, what I had been doing that I had been asking that question, like on their behalf in a while I was making rounds, interviewing lawyers, but they, they told me that they wanted to leave that in the past and not pursue it.

And so, you know, that was, that was why that was never pursued. And I would have liked to have been pursued, but, you know, I really, it wasn't up to me at that point. I was only able to make sure the claims that I had were brought, I would give it to, you know, if I could have, if I could have, I would have believed me as it was.

I encouraged them quite a bit to do it. But at the end of the day, they didn't want to. And it was their decision. 

Was there ever any repercussions, like in your case for the police that, you know, did this misconduct and that because of that you were wrongfully imprisoned. Was there anything that ever came.

From that against them, or was there ever like an apology or anything that was like, I know nothing would like make up for it, but did they attempt anything? 

I think the short answer is nothing. Nothing happened to them if I was to put a little color to it. Uh, so the, I mean, I sued them, but that them and the municipality that they worked for, I mean, at the end of the day, that's the municipality that paid money for it.

Not them. They personally didn't have very many assets. Uh, and so by the way, when people, I'm assuming they're being sued personally and the, that that's, that's just style points, hype as window dressing in, in the short, in the short term, at the end of the day, you know, you have to drop them. The, the people who violated your rights, you have to drop them as individual defendants and just proceed against, against the municipality that they work for.

Because if you don't, you run the risk that the jury will, will. They'll have to pay it personally, and that's not going to be worth the paper it's written on. So nothing happened to the police. Uh, personally, as far as, uh, financially on the civil side, they did not face any criminal charges. Uh, they didn't face any professional repercussions.

I mean, two of the cops had retired already. The, the detective was the lead detective who had pretended to be, my friend had retired. And so did his partner. I mean, in fact, his partner, even that started a second career as a, as a teacher teaching crime scene investigation of all things, uh, the Lieutenant had become the Peekskill police chief based in part on my case.

And even after I emerged, you know, exonerated  with his role being clear, you know, as laid out in my lawsuit, which was eventually settled, uh, against them. The city of Peekskill continued with him for the police chief for another six to seven years. I did sue the medical examiner because of the fraud committed.

Uh, he suffered, he didn't suffer any penalties either. I mean, there was the indirect consequence that, which is that when I brought the lawsuit against him, he suddenly resigned, but that was kind of an indirect again, he didn't pay anything personally. He faced no professional consequences and he didn't face any criminal charges either.

There also was, uh, the, uh, the prosecutor, the trial prosecutor, uh, he suddenly resigned two weeks before I came out and ran to Florida, but that was, uh, indirect. He didn't face anything direct and you know, he didn't face any criminal penalties. Uh, nobody apologized to me. Uh, the apologies I got were from the judge when I was exonerated, but that was not the judge who presided over the kangaroo court in which I was wrongfully convicted. I got an apology from the district attorney, but that was not the district attorney. When I was in the case was brought against me. I got a symbolic apology from the prosecutor in the courtroom that was there when the charges against me were dismissed on actual innocence grounds.

But again, that was not the prosecutor that had wrongfully convicted me. So nobody in involved ever, and nobody directly involved, ever apologized to me for anything. You're right. That nothing can bring back the 16 years that I lost and you know, all these rites of passage. I mean, I didn't graduate high school and I didn't finish the high school prom.

I didn't finish my education at a more traditional age and be on my way to, to a career, maybe having a family, um, you know, the years of 17 to 32, which I spent in prison. These are really your formative years. There's a lot of rites of passage there, which I didn't experience. And me, for example, when I was released, I had, you know, for the first time I had to live on my own, I had to get a driver's license.

I had to go shopping. I had to write a check. I had to balance a budget. I had never done any of those things before. And also the loss was profound. Uh, nonetheless, uh, and an apology would have meant quite a bit. It still would mean a lot, but it's not been forthcoming. 

Yeah, that's crazy. I mean, that's the very least they could do, right.

Is to just say apologize for their role in all of that. Um, going, going back to the, um, just the polygraph for, for just a second, do you know, um, for certain, like they told you that you failed the polygraph, correct? Right. I was, you know, that it, yeah. Do you know if you actually did or if that was just a lie?

I can't, I, I don't know. And we can't know, because this polygraphist conveniently says that he says he lost the polygraph chart, that he gave it the chart to the, to the prosecutor and that he never got it back. But there's one other case where that happened at which is another wrongful conviction case.

We're working on a Andrew prereq case. But other than that, every the, his chart never comes up missing any other time. So there is no way to get another person to evaluate. The chart to verify that I failed it. And I will say that the polygraph expert, that we had to look over everything during the, uh, federal civil rights lawsuit, he did say that they were even conditions just as tests.

That limited just to test the F the things testified to by the polygraphist, you know, he said that the polygraph method  that he used, the polygraphist used at the Putnam county Sheriff's investigator used it, the Arthur method that the Arthur method called for recording of the polygraph, because there was such a high correlation between that method of polygraphing and false confessions.

And, you know, the police polygrapher he, when he claimed that he never missed a day of training and that he read all the literature, but somehow he didn't get the memo that everything was supposed to. Recorded because of that. And in addition to that, the  polygraph expert said that per the polygraph literature, as unscientific as a polygraph, is there are still certain standards, even within that non-scientific instrument, that he violated. For example, the longest they could see somebody being attached to a polygraph is three hours. And here I was three and a half to four hours more than that. So even that was considered to be, you know, like a shocking abuse and, and the way that the police polygrapher detailed the way that he scored the test.

Uh, those, you know, that was not scored correctly per the, you know, my polygraph expert. So there were a lot of things irregular. And at one point, both the polygraphist and a false confession expert say stated that it really wasn't a polygraph at all. That this was just an interrogation masked as a polygraph.

That's about like everyone else. He got, he got away with it. Like everyone else, he got away with it. The municipality that he worked for had to pay money. He paid nothing. Personally. He faced no civil consequences. He face no professional consequences. He faced no criminal consequences. Basically everybody got away with everything.

And honestly, that is something that does bother me quite a bit whenever I do think of it. 

So did all of this come out in court or was it not until you got out of jail that you kind of realized that this is, you know, not acceptable? 

Yeah. That, that, no, the, all the stuff that I'm telling you did not come out when, during my criminal case, it came out in the course of the discovery process of the civil rights law.

No. And that's one of the, what's one of the things I've articulated. I mean, just as an advocate and working to help change the discovery rules in New York, which ultimately we're, we're, we're changed. Um, you know, based on my work and, you know, the work of a lot of my colleagues in the coalition group, uh, it could happen to you, which I'm part of, uh, that was one of the arguments was that I had more rights discovery rights as a plaintiff, bringing a civil suit than what I did when I was a defendant defending myself against these charges.

And so that was one of the arguments that I utilized. I think that that was effective. But having all of that information on the table during the trial, I mean, would that any one of those items could have made the difference. I, I could have been found, not guilty. I didn't have to be wrongfully convicted and spent 16 years in prison.. Just like, I never knew previously that this medical examiner had been complained of in neighboring counties, by authorities for giving untruthful testimony. I never knew that that would have been wonderful information to use in challenging his credibility, but we, they never turned any of that over to us.

Yeah. Cause wasn't it, it was like the prosecutor had asked the medical examiner to lie right. During the trial. 

Yeah. Yeah. He told us, he told the prosecutor, told the prosecutor, the prosecutor, the prosecutor got the medical examiner to commit fraud and he that's why the date. So the day that the day after the DNA test results were officially received by the prosecutor would show that semen and the victim didn't match me a day after that this medical examiner testified that one day after that, that he got a phone call.

But he can't recall who specifically it was, but he said he got a phone call telling him that the DNA didn't match me and that he had to come up with a new theory by which the case against me could continue in light of that DNA test with a conviction still being possible. I mean, he admitted in a deposition.

So my lawyer went there with our medical examiner, to the lab where he was with his lawyer. And he was supposed to, the medical examiner was supposed to show our expert on a microscope, the slide that where he claimed what he saw in order to justify saying that she was promiscuous. And when he was supposed to show our expert, that's when he said that what he claimed existed on this slide.

Did not exist that he claimed he saw it didn't exist. 

And I've heard you, I've heard you also say in other interviews as well, that your own defense attorney was also not good at all. Right? So even these things like, so not only were the prosecution, obviously doing some pretty shady stuff, like your own defense was not up to the task to 

actually exactly. And let me put a little color to that. So he, first of all, he never, he literally asked no questions of this medical examiner. I mean, he stood up in open court and said to him, you're going to be pleased to know that I don't have a single question for you. He never, which is like insane in and of itself.

He never explained to the jury, the significance of the DNA not matching me. He never used that to challenge the confession. He never called my alibi as a witness. I was actually playing wiffle ball when the crime happened. He rarely met with me, uh, when he would meet with being, I tried to tell him I was in a, and what happened, interrogation room.

He was always shutting me up. He it, one time he told me he didn't care. If I was guilty, he should have never represented me in the first place because of a conflict of interest. So this other youth that the prosecutor was falsely saying, had slept with the victim, was represented by another person in that same public defender's office.

And specifically by the lawyer who was supposed to be supervising him on my case. And so that conflict prevented the defense from calling him as a calling him as a witness. It prevented the defense from asking him for a DNA sample in order to explode the whole consensual sex theory..

Wow. So did your defense attorney, just not, like you said, he didn't, he said that he didn't care if you were innocent or guilty. So did he maybe think you did it and just didn't care? Like, I can't understand why he wouldn't try. 

At some point he might've started off that way, but later on when the DNA didn't match me, I mean, he, he, he said to me himself that I confess to a crime that didn't happen.

So at the, at least at that point, I know it was clear to him that I was innocent, but, you know, I really don't have an explanation for why he didn't do any, any of the things that I just mentioned to you. I mean, that would all appear to be, you know, kind of like basic 1 0 1 level tactics. I mean, similarly.

You know, he, he, he, he refused to put on a defense, you know, I wanted to take the stand and he was supposed to put, call evidence, call witnesses, and attack the confession. And you, you know, when you're in reality, when you're defending a case where there's a false confession, you have to answer that confession.

You have to explain it, you have to disprove it. You have to then bring it all together, your closing argument, but he didn't do any of that. You know, you would not allow me to testify. He didn't call the alibi as a witness. And in terms of how he addressed it in his closing arguments, at times, he argued to the jury that the confession never happened at other times, he argued that it did happen, but that it was coerced.

And that still other times he argued that it happened, but it was false.It's, you know, I mean, just, you're not lawyers as far as I know any of the three of you, but now doesn't that just sound like he's just throwing mud against the wall and hoping something. I mean, what kind of bill, if you are a jury on a case and somebody did that, an attorney did that.

I mean, are they going to be having any credibility left for you? Are you going to like, just naturally this guy's willing to say anything? Basically. I think, you know, so when he, you know, doing more, all those things, I mean, what, what kind of a chance did I have? I mean, you know, it's, uh, no wonder I was wrongfully convicted..

Yeah, that's kind of unbelievable to hear. I mean, back then as a 17 year old, like, wha what was the point? I mean, the point where you were kind of realizing, oh, this is actually really bad for me. Like, was it during interrogation when you were arrested? Was it in court? Was it, or maybe, did you still have hope kind of throughout that whole thing?

Like where was that like? Oh my God moment for you. 

Well, it might be, oh my God moment was after I was arrested. But at some point after that, just from many conversations with, uh, mother and with other members of their family, I mean, they all still. Believed in the justice system. So they were, you know, always trying to boost my morale and always expressing, you know, confidence that I was going to beat, that the system is going to work, that I was going to be found, not guilty.

So at some point after hearing that often enough, I bought into it and I adopted that viewpoint as, as, as my own. And so I never really realized really up until when I was actually found guilty. I mean, I, I was fully expecting to be found, not guilty because up until that point in time, I thought that only guilty people were convicted.

So I never really realized that things were going, you know, once I adopted that belief from that point forward, I didn't realize that things were going badly for me. I mean, I, I had very limited understanding as to what was going on in the courtroom. And I was a 17 year old and I had never been arrested before and I never.

You know, gone to trial before. And he certainly wasn't explaining very much to me. And he found a way to use the attorney client privilege against me. I mean, he would not, he, he would not allow by mother or any other member of my extended family to participate in any of the discussions pertaining to him explaining the trial or explaining strategic decisions that I had to make such as whether to testify or not, or whether I wanted to have a jury trial or did I want to have a trial where a judge made the decision, he would not allow anybody else to participate in the conversation, you know?

Cause he, as he put it, when you hear the client, nobody else's, but he didn't have to take such a strict interpretation. I mean I'm 17 years old. My capacity for understanding is limited. I certainly could have used input from adults. I mean, not that they were legal beagles either. Right. In any sense of the word, but still they were, they were adults.

There was a mature judgment there. 

Yeah. It's like, it's crazy. Cause yeah, cause you said the three of us aren't lawyers, but like even I feel like someone who's not a lawyer know like very basic things that they should have done during the trial. Like those are just things that I feel anyone would know is like, you have to do that.

Just weren't done by your attorney or were done very, very poorly by the prosecutor and like shady. But do you remember, was the jury decision, was it a quick decision for them to come to that? 

There was not, no, no. It was not. They deliberated for three days. So here's the thing with that. Is that another thing that I've learned since I've been exonerated, but did not know at the time was that at the end it was the.

It was 11 to one for a conviction. There was one holdout juror that thought that I was innocent. And he said that they were all pressuring him. And then they sent a note out, the jury sent out a note, asking the judge, the question of if they did not reach a verdict, would they be kept sequestered you know, over the Christmas holiday.

And the judge said, yes. And so when they went back to the jury room, the pressure increased based on that, and none of them wanted to be there over the Christmas holiday and neither did he. And so that was why he switched his vote 

all for like, so we could have a Christmas holiday, I guess... that's crazy..

Yeah. So you were just convicted in 91, correct? That was when you, 

well, I was convicted in late 1990. I was sentenced in '91. Right. The significant event of the case happened in 1991. Yes. Okay. 

Yeah. Um, so can you just talk to us just a little bit about like what, so you're like 17 years old, you're in prison for this crime you didn't do, can use tell us a little bit about what your experience was like in prison, like at that young age of 17.

Like, can you just tell us a little bit about that? 

Yeah, sure. I want to quickly mention just at the sentencing, you know, that, uh, you know, I have been charged as an adult and tried as an adult and I was, you know, therefore sentence as an adult. I was given a 15 to life sentence, which is an adult sentence.

Whereas if I was not charged as an adult, then the sentence would have been nine to life. And the judge sentenced me. At the same time while, cause I begged him to overturn the verdict, I referenced the DNA and he told me on the record, he said, maybe you are innocent. And he sentenced me anyway. So I want to point that out.

I mean, that's like bizarre in, in, in and of itself and it's clear to me how he would have had it out because the DNA didn't match me. 

Yeah. Well, isn't it supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. So clearly the judge had doubts, so 

that's crazy. But getting to the prison question, which is what you really asked me.

So as a 17 year old going into a maximum security prison, it was frightening. I mean the walls were large. The barbed wire was, you know, intimidating and I'm 17 years old and I'm in a maximum security prison with fully formed adults. Many of whom are guilty of having committed, serious violent crimes. And you know, the guards are abusive verbally and it was kind of like a strange world.

And I always had the fear in the back of my head that people would discover what I was incarcerated for which you know, which was a rape along with a murder. There's a vigilante mentality towards people convicted of sex offenses, uh, the food, it was a lot of violence. There, there were three or four stabbings or cuttings.

Every day. There was, um, plenty of violence that did not involve weapons. There was gang activity. So it was a general atmosphere of violence. They had a system of maintaining order in a prison known as K block, which involved, um, sanctions being imposed on a prisoners. If they were found guilty of breaking a prison rule, they keep you in the cell 23 hours a day out of the 24, they would send less food.

Sometimes it would be three or four days old. They would give you one hour in a small cage area with maybe a pull-up bar in it. If you were lucky you could shower two days, one week and three, the next rather than every day could not use the phone or purchase any groceries either when you were on that status.

So in the course of my 16 years, I was a beat up maybe five or six times. And beyond the physicality of that, I was also subjected to those sanctions. But I would say beyond that, it was very hard as a 17 year old to adjust to just being in the cell. I mean, it was hard to be in the cell and the cell walls were there and the cell bars and I had to, I had to fight off feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, thoughts of giving up, um, suicidal ideation.

It was, you know, it was very, uh, difficult. 

So when you were like in prison, like through the years, did you ever think that you would ever get out or would you just like, uh, lost hope or did you try and like have that like high hopes of trying and getting out and trying 

to fight for you, like fight for your life? Or was it just like. Just like denial after 

denial?

 It was denial after denial for sure. But, uh, I had hope throughout the overwhelming majority of my time. I mean, that's how I got through. I mean, I lost seven appeals that, that got me through 11 years. And when your appeals are, are exhausted, the only way back into court is if you can find some previously unknown evidence of innocence.

And so, because I didn't have any money to hire an attorney or an investigator, I began a letter writing campaign. I wrote letters for like four years. And at that point, my hope was based on those letters that those letters became my legal work, uh, then at, at some, you know, and I rarely got responses other than the occasional no.

Uh, then I went to the parole board where, because I maintain my innocence rather than expressing remorse and take responsibility. I mean, I was denied parole, largely based on that. Uh, so by that point I already had 15 years in it. So that's when that's when my hope, uh, you know, began to start blinking and I struggled with it.

I almost had no help, but then, uh, it seemed like, so I placed the ad in the newspaper or the, uh, Sacramento bee and looking for a pen pal. And he seemed to have shown up right in the Nick of time. I mean, the last two years and, you know, in the last year, my incarceration with what turned out to be my last year, you know, after I got turned down for parole, I mean, I was asking the stranger really, that they'd really know from anywhere you think I should just give up.

Should I just, uh, you know, I should just commit suicide. I mean, did I just quit this effort? I mean, I'm never going to get out of here. So my hope flickered quite a bit at that at that time. 

And I believe I, you mentioned it. In other interviews that the, um, Jeanine Pirro was the DA um, during your, was it during your appeals process and all that. And she refused 

to like, yeah, yeah, right, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I understand. I know what you're getting at. So Pirro as she often likes to say, when asked about my case was not DA when I was convicted, however, she did take office prior to the first appeal being decided. So it was her office that fought the seven appeals with our prosecutors, arguing that, you know, argue arguing against my innocence claims based on the DNA.

I think one time that the argument that one of the arguments they made was. A negative DNA test result is no insulation to a guilty verdict. I mean, that was one of the ridiculous arguments that they made against me. And, uh, it was her office that when my lawyer was given the incorrect information from the court clerk, it was her office that urged the federal court to simply rule that I was late without getting it without making the decision on the merits of the issues I was arguing.

And that was what the court did, you know? And then there was her office that, you know, defended that decision. The next three courts, it was her office that blocked me from getting further DNA testing, uh, several times because the DNA data bank had been created in 1997, 98, and it was her office. And I wanted further tests.

Through it, and it was her office that, you know, refuse to give me the testing. So my rhetorical question to Jeanine Pirro who, you know, does a lot of commentary on television now is, so you're telling me that in all of that, you don't bear any moral culpability. You didn't help keep the ball rolling against me, nothing at all.

Like she could have, she could have helped shorten your scent, you know, your time and and stuff by years. 

She could have allowed me to get the further testing. I mean, I was asking for that in 1997, you know, I, I asked for that, then I asked again for it in 1998 and the federal court documents and she refused. And when I later got the testing, because she left office, I was exonerated and that was all from 97 to 2006 that's nine years.

I could have saved nine years. That that would have been huge. 

That's crazy. So she had a major role in that too, which is she did anything. 

Why would you refuse, like, what is the reasoning behind that? Just like it costs money and time and it's like, unlikely anything's going to come out of it. Like, what was the purpose of that?

Well, the written rationale that I got, it just said that the DNA issue was already in front of the jury, which convicted me and, and in front of the appellate courts, which affirmed the conviction. I mean, that was that, that was what they wrote. I mean, you know, what was that just subterfuge or is that just what they wrote?

But there was a lot more to it than that thinking wise on their end. That, that, that, I don't know. 

Well, I feel, it seems like clearly she didn't know anything about your case. Cause I feel like if she knew like the circumstances surrounding all of the police misconduct that happened, like she would have been more, you know, willing to meet.

Do the new testing, but that's crazy. So in 2006, uh, the Innocence Project takes on your case. Can you talk about how they, like how you got in touch with them or how they knew about your case? 

Sure. So one of the letters that I wrote, you know, worked out, I wrote a book, author and care, the publishing company with someone at the publishing company, uh, sent the, sent the letter to, uh, instead to Claudia Whitman, who's an investigator.

And when she wrote me and when I sent her the DNA test results, it, uh, you know, she was convinced in my innocence. You actually never saw a case before that, where somebody was excluded by DNA and that they had been convicted anyway. Uh, so she suggested I write the innocence project. Lobbied them from outside the organization to take the case.

And she got other respected legal entities to lobby them to take my case. And then also I got lucky that one of the intake workers, uh, Maggie Taylor, she, when the attorneys didn't want to take the case, she presented the case, re-presented the case. So, and all she re-presented it twice after originally presenting it, eventually getting them to agree, to take the, take the case.

So that was really the first key to how I was exonerated. Getting that representation. Second thing was second key was Pirro left office. And the third thing is we got lucky that the actual perpetrator's DNA was in the data bank. So it took the crime scene DNA, which already did not match me. And they entered it into the data bank and it matched the actual perpetrator.

Whose DNA was the only there, because left free while I was doing time for his crime. He killed the second victim three and a half years later, as I mentioned earlier,in the interview. 

So they work on your case. And then in September, right, September of 2006 is when you're officially exonerated and released.

Well, my conviction was overturned September 22nd, 2006. Uh, my official exoneration was November 2nd, 2006. You know, that was when, so what happened was that they wanted the district attorney, wanted some confirmatory test to be, to be run. And so exoneration, you know, w it was the second step was, uh, November 2nd, 2006, which they agreed to, by the way, they, they agreed to exonerate me on actual innocence grounds.

And the perpetrator was actually arrested and convicted for the crime.

Wow. So can you tell us a little bit about what, like your first, that first day out after 16 years behind bars, like, I'm sure you probably remember it quite clearly, your very first day. 

I do. Yeah. Yeah. And, and, and some very real ways that it was like my birthday. Well, I mean, there was a press conference when I was released and, and on my first words there at the press conference where, you know, is this, is this really happening?

I think it was, I felt kind of surreal and everything I'd ever wanted to say, but he could never get anybody to hear me say, you know, just kind of came to my mind. And so I held them there for two, two and a half hours. A good off the cuff presentation from there, we went to, there was a luncheon that the Innocence Project had arranged.

And, uh, you know, I, my, my first meal I had, uh, mussels with a froggy Avalose sauce at a side of a angel hair. And we got, um, we, I had, I had some Neapolitan ice cream, you know, they, they only sold strawberry one way, or you could have a combo vanilla and chocolate. So I told him, well, can you just put it all in one bowl for me?

So I, I did that. And from there, I went to my aunt's house who was in a neighboring county, uh, because my mother had moved for like three hours away north. She was no longer in the same county. So we went to my aunt's house and I would love to tell you, we had an incredible party that, that, uh, lasted to the crack of dawn.

Uh, but the truth of the matter is that by then I had long since lost touch with anyone. And I really couldn't relate or talk to anybody else. I remember that we sat around this big table and people that, you know, there was a few family members there that had coffee and there was another family member or two that came over that, you know, wasn't has not been able to attend the court proceedings.

And so they were sitting around the table talking, and I was just sitting there unable to communicate, unable to relate feeling out of place. And so I, at some point I just decided to do something that I hadn't done in a really long time, which was just, I just wanted to be able to sit outside in the dark.

You know, my uncle had a little bit of land there and so I was able to sit outside the door in the dark, but in the prison you go to the yard when it gets dark, they make you go inside. So I sat there and for a little while, Uh, I took a bath at night. Uh, it was my first bath in like 16 years. And that was really the extent of the highlights.

I mean, honestly, I just felt out of place and I didn't feel like I belonged out there and I couldn't share or express anything that I was feeling because I didn't the people had become strangers to me at that point. And the ones that had not, uh, had, you know, sporadically visited with me and, you know, whenever I would get a visit, I mean, not only would they be spread out quite a bit in terms of time, but the conversations, the conversations were generally speaking, the conversations were really about my being preoccupied with, you know, what is the next thing I can do to try to get out of here? I'm not, you know, did you call this? When did you call that? When did you look this up? Did you take this step? And that's all the conversation was about. It wasn't about any of the trauma I was experiencing while I was in while I was in prison or the trauma of being wrongfully imprisoned or people keeping me up to date on the whole world as it was evolving technologically.

And what's the latest and greatest with, you know, family members and friends that I knew it wasn't about any of those things. So, you know, the end result of all of that is it was hard to, it was really hard to communicate and really that's typical of people who've been wrongfully imprisoned. It's hard to relate or talk to, you know, people that have not been incarcerated.

It's hard to because you, you know, I know. Very, you know, nothing in their background would really enable them to understand what it was like to be arrested for something I didn't do or, you know, and to be exposed to the, you know, the prejudicial pretrial media coverage, going into the trial or losing a trial or being in prison or even all of these difficulties.

I mean, it felt like in re-integrating it felt like I was in a parallel world where technology was different GPS, cell phones, internet. I had not been, hadn't been created before. Culture was different and neighborhoods look different and different people live there and cumulatively, it felt like I was in a parallel world that I didn't belong.

So that was very hard. Just like the stigma of having been in prison, wrongfully. Yeah. But in prison for 16 years, nonetheless. So how much of that rubbed off on me? Is it safe to be alone someplace with me? You know, so it's hard to deal with that stigma. It's frankly kind of frustrating because I'm just as innocent of the murder and rape of Angela Correa as any of you three are. The only differences I had the misfortune of being arrested, wrongfully convicted of it, but I didn't do it. I was innocent and it was proven, but I, so I feel like in some ways it's unfair to be stuck with that stigma, but I am, I had to go to mental health professionals four times a week for six years and dealing with the aftereffects of my experience.

It's common for people to experience post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, anxiety. Fear on seeing law enforcement, a feeling of processing things at a slower speed. The feeling of having been frozen in time, I was released when I was 32 and I felt like I was 17 years old because that was the age that I was when I was last free and then being released with nothing and being always passed over for gainful employment.

And, you know, I was making money doing speaking engagements, but that's not a consistent form of income I caught on as a weekly columnist, but, and I was making good money, maybe like $250, $300 for an article, but it was only a weekly paper. So they wanted one a week and that was it. So it was very, and I didn't have any other means open to me on how to earn additional money.

So it was a struggle financially. It took five years for me to receive any financial compensation. So that was a big, that was a big challenge as well. And it was quite lonely. It's, you know, maybe that's part of what still I experienced now in terms of being able to fully establish a social life. I mean, it feels like most of the people out here already have their primary and secondary relationships already put together.

So there's not much space for me to be anything other than somebody on the peripheral, you know, the hobbies and things that I want to, I still, you know, when I play basketball or, you know, throw a ball around or go on the bumper cars or, you know, experience nightlife or go on trips or do a lot of energy based things.

And that's really not what most I'm 47 now. And I still feel. That's not what most people might, who am I to do that with? That's not what people my age are doing. They did that in their twenties. So where am I? Who are my peers to do that with? So the lack of commonalities in, in hobbies and interests and things you like to do for fun, for fun.

And I don't feel like most people in the society out here are really all that committed to living a balanced life. It feels like most people do their job, come home, eat something, watch an hour or two of TV and go to sleep. But I know that adults can have fun. So at six o'clock or seven o'clock, I'm ready to go to the recreation.

You know, it, there's no reason why you can't, you know, and maybe around 10 or 11 or later, I'll go to sleep. But, but that's not how people are. That's not how people are, are, are thinking. All those things, you know, prove to be challenges associated with, uh, you know, trying to start build a new social circle with really no human assets to start out with.

I mean, it's not, it's not even really like an immigrant moving to another country that finds other immigrants of the same ethnicity or the same country. And they introduce them to everyone else in that community. And those people introduce them to other people and suddenly they have a circle of people that they can chat with and interact with and socialize with.

And those people lead. I don't, I don't w where's my first key person like that. Where's my community at to get me started in the same way. You mean it doesn't, it doesn't exist. 

My understanding is there's very little resources for. That sort of thing out there, like even, you know, um, you know, programs for like education for people who've been in prison or housing or getting jobs and stuff like that.

So there is there, like I know it was probably, there was nothing in 2006 for you. Is there anything even remotely close now? 

Uh, the short answer is no. I mean, it's recognized as a need, but there really aren't any organizations that really have a comprehensive program to address all of that. There's plenty of nonprofit organizations that deal with prisoner re-entry, but that's, that's for people on parole or probation, not for exonerees.

And there certainly isn't governmental help. I mean, I feel strongly like that, uh, housing things like housing, medical care, mental health services. Job training, job, job placement classes on technology, access to public transportation. I feel strongly that that should be provided immediately upon exoneration, you know, but as of now, it's not even states like New York that do have compensation, you know, it's, it's a lawsuit and it's a process.

It took me five years. I mean, it's now the average length of time is two or three years. So it's gotten speedier, but there's still nothing in place between the point of release. And so until a compensation claim is resolved, so that's still largely unaddressed. 

Wow. Yeah. It's just crazy to me that it's still so far behind in that, you know, there has to obviously be something you think by now, in this day and age, there should be. but obviously not, um, for you, you, so you went on and you, I believe you took some of the money from your settlements to start the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation. Can you tell us a little bit about that? 

Yes. So when I was released, as I've mentioned, I did the off the cuff presentation at the press conference. And at that point I realized, well, you know, I could be part of the innocence movement without necessarily being an attorney. And so I embarked on an advocacy trail as an individual advocate for about five years. So I was speaking, I was writing, I was doing media appearances. I was meeting with elected officials, uh, and I did that while in the middle of all those other struggles that I mentioned at one point being a couple of weeks away from a homeless shelter, but then mercy college, which extended a scholarship offered to me to finish the bachelor's degree because I had gotten the GED and associates and I completed a year towards the bachelor's at the time the funding was cut. So it made it into one of the newspapers as a human interest item that I was 10 classes short of a bachelor's degree and mercy college allowed me to, they gave me a scholarship to finish the bachelor's.

And I did go on to get a master's degree from the John Jay college of criminal justice. My thesis is on wrongful conviction causes and reform. And that was really how my advocacy work was limited, uh, you know, to those four ways. And I did nibble on the edges a little bit in terms of trying to free people.

I mean, I was. Limited really, to, like I wrote about article, I wrote about cases in my capacity as a columnist while the injustices were happening, because that's really when the coverage is needed. I mean, more so than after someone's been cleared. And I would, I would show up in the courtroom for the visual effect on the judges.

You know, I was a recognizable figure to some extent then, you know, the theory was, if a judge saw me there, then he would pay a little bit more closer attention to that particular case. And I allowed my name to be utilized in, um, press releases and media advisories with the idea of my name, being the hook for more media to come to inevitably covering a case that was being litigated.

But, but once I was compensated after five years, I wanted to be more involved in freeing people. And so I did, I did take a million and a half dollars from what I got and I did start the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation For Justice. And, you know, we have been able to get 11 people home that were wrongfully imprisoned and then we help pass three laws aimed at preventing wrongful conviction, uh, DNA, database expansion, videotaping interrogations identification reform.

Uh, I am an advisory board member of the coalition group, It Could Happen To You, which the foundation is part of and we helped pass an additional five laws. Most of them in New York, uh, independent oversight, independent for, for prosecutors and discovery reform. And we helped pass a law in Pennsylvania. So currently the foundation is working on 10 cases and, uh, we are doing policy work through that coalition in New York, Pennsylvania, and California.

And at some point it became not enough for me to sit in the front row of the courtroom. I wanted to be able to sit at the defense table and represent some of the, some of the clients and make some of the arguments, hence going to law school and becoming an attorney in pursuit of the dream of exonerating others as an attorney.

And I feel like I've gotten a lot, you know, a lot of additional opportunities through having the additional credential and I've entered three of the cases as co-counsel and you know, it certainly being an attorney has helped the policy work that I, that I do as well. And I've been able to position position justice reform as about accuracy and justice, rather than, uh, uh, anti-cop or anti- prosecutor.

I mean, it's not a few bad apples. It's a hell of a lot more than that. Or we wouldn't have all those, uh, cases documented by the, uh, national registry of exonerations. Uh, but at the same time, you know, it's, uh, at, uh, at the, at the same time, there are a lot of good, uh, people in law enforcement as well. And, you know, so, uh, you know, I've been able, I've been able to position it that way and I've gotten some, uh, buy-in, uh, from some unusual, uh, circles.

 So, for example, I did serve on the Peekskill police task force reform group. You know, that I was assigned to the policy subcommittee, uh, with the, uh, sitting police chief, a county police officer and the retired detective. And we were able to get consensus on some, uh, changes to the police manual. I served on the transition team for the incoming Westchester district attorney's office, you know, helping to draft memos on what procedures they should establish and having a conviction review unit in the district attorney's office.

Uh, I've been able to speak in front of judges. Uh, four or five different judicial groups addressing different wrongful conviction related topics. You know, I've given a lot of presentations in front of defense attorneys. I mean just where I'm not there telling my story, I'm substantively instructing on some new tactics that they should consider utilizing in defending actually innocent clients.

I mean, considering these conservative, uh, tactics really haven't been working when it comes to innocent people. And so I've been able to do those things with... and for the last, uh, seven and a half years, uh, twice a year I've I've, uh, been able to co, co-teach police academy, the ethics, the ethics class there.

So I really, you know, the law degree has really helped out, uh, helped out quite, uh, quite, quite a bit. 

Wow. That's like an incredible that you're able to you're now you are an attorney and you're helping it on the other side. From the experience that you had, and now you can kind of be on the other side and help other people who were in your situation.

It's like you came full circle. 

 Totally full circle. Yeah, you're right. Yeah. But it's pretty far. Yeah, sure. I do. Yes. 

Yeah. And did, did you ever, um, like reconnect with anyone from your high school or did you ever, um, speak with like Angela's family after you were released?

 Um, uh, both. Both. Both. So, uh, first off Angela's family. Uh, so I did, I did meet, so Angela's mother came to court at the sentencing of the actual perpetrator as did I, and when everything was finished, we were in the hallway and, uh, she sent the investigator that had been assigned to her over to speak to me, to ask me if I was willing to speak with her.

And of course I was. And so, you know, we had a, kind of a tearful embrace in the hallway and we exchanged contact info and about a month or so after that, I spent a couple of weekends at their house at their invitation. And it was really a kind of a powerful healing moment. They accept the idea of my innocence.

I mean, the law enforcement told them I'm innocent. The actual perpetrator was arrested and convicted of the crime, but they still wanted to know, well, you know, why, why did I falsely confess to it? And I was able to share that with them. And I did want to tell them myself, listen, I am innocent. I didn't, I didn't do it.

And so that was really kind of healing and powerful and cathartic. In terms of other people- a few years ago, maybe during my first year of law school, I was invited to attend my first high school reunion, you know, with the class that I would have graduated with, had my life not been interrupted.

And, you know, that was an amazing experience also. And I felt like at the culmination of that night that, you know, I, I found a missing part of my life that night. And it was clear to me from that, just from the warm embrace that I was given and the meaningful conversations that happened, it just became clear to me that my being ripped away from, you know, the school and people I knew and you know, that that was traumatic for them as well.

 Wow. Wow. That's what a such incredible story though, like that you're able to. You've like, you're an attorney, you're helping people and your foundation is like doing such great work too um, helping other people.

So it's really, really awesome.

I think it's remarkable that, you know, when you got out and maybe you were like, you could have been angry with the world and just kind of had that energy in a negative way, but instead you've kind of turned it around to make a difference, like a real difference in the world. So I think that's like amazing how you're able to kind of step out of that and, you know, put that positive energy out there. So that's remarkable. 

So in the first week that I was home, I did feel angry and bitter that first week. But so I remember shortly before I was exonerated, somebody else was, and I saw that on the press conference on television while I was still in prison.

And he was saying that he was not angry. And, you know, I thought that was just like the silliest thing ever. And , I'd made a mental note that I am not going to do what he did if I get my moment. Uh, but after the first week of being angry, or bitter, you know, I felt like it was destroying me.

And I remembered back to what I had saw him say. And I realized that I want to enjoy my life as much as I can. And I can't do that if I'm angry or bitter that I've lost so much already, why would I want to in effect, lose the rest of my life? And then if I was angry at bitter, it's not like I would be adversely impacting anybody.

You know, I would really be the only loser in that scenario. And for all those reasons, I decided, you know, not, not to be angry and bitter and the vehicle that allowed me to actualize that as I take the energy that I feel and I channel it into the advocacy work that I do. I do make sense of everything that happened to me in a kaleidoscopic type of way.

My purpose in the world is to free wrongfully convicted people and to prevent what happened to me,  to happen to other people and the, you know, the fight for broader justice reform and that's my place in the world. And that's how I make sense of what happened to me. And within that, I find that my suffering counts for something. It's healing, it's cathartic, it's meaningful and, and it makes a difference.

And I feel like I have some inner peace with that. 

That's awesome. Um, so I think that's pretty much it . Steph, Kate, either of you have any other questions or comments, or... 

I just want to say thank you so much. It was such an interesting conversation with you. So thank you. 

Yeah. Thank you very much. I really enjoyed it. I'm just like in awe of how this whole story came about and it just your attitude towards the whole thing. It's just incredible. 

Just some couple of quick points. I just want to make just for ending everything. If people are interested in hearing more about my story, if they liked the conversation today that we just had, there is a documentary short about me, on Amazon prime called "Conviction". So they can watch it there in terms of people want to keep up with the advocacy work that I do. There is the website www.Deskovic.org, D-E-S-K-O-V-I-C.. Um, I do have a public figure page on Facebook I'm on Instagram and LinkedIn. And so I can be messaged in that way. 

I really see wrongful conviction as a worldwide problem, not, not simply a American problem. And so my ultimate dream is to have a chapter of the foundation in each state and ultimately in each and each country, you know, countries that we do not hear as much or anything about wrongful conviction. It's not because the injustices aren't happening. It's because you know, few to no people are being exonerated.

Few to know people are doing this work.  The best, the best movie, the actual best actual movie on wrongful conviction based on real life events, the setting is actually the UK. And, uh, the name of the movie was called, uh, "In The Name of the Father", which was kind of a double entendre play on words there.

Uh, and I'll just say this about it, that, uh, so the, this dogged defense attorney who was trying to exonerate. So the father has passed away. He's been wrongfully imprisoned with the son and with a bunch of other people, uh, the father passes away. And so this lawyer who did not give up on the case, he goes to the two, goes to a records office and, you know, asked for the file, asked for the file.

Cause she's still desperately trying to find some new angle and. Uh, the clerk gives her the wrong file. They give her the file that belongs to the father's case and through the father and the son like have the same name. And there was a, you know, per the movie, there was a document in that file, which had information pertaining to the innocence.

And it was marked do not show to the defense, hence the name and the name of the father, you know, so, you know, it was kind of a dramatic and touching, um, movie and my, you know, kind of affected me just now just thinking about it, but that's something to think about. 

We do have a crowdfunding page on the Patreon website, which is for people that are willing to be recurring monthly donors.

And you know, what if 25,000 people, what if a hundred thousand people, in order to help free wrongfully convicted people, what if they were willing to sacrifice $3 or $5 a month on a recurring basis? I mean, that would enable us to work on more wrongful conviction cases and to pursue, you know, policy changes in more than just the three states that we are pursuing things on.

And when we get enough public support, that sets how we would, we would be able to expand, you know, and open chapters into other states and ultimately in other countries. But I definitely need people that are drawn to the cause that are willing, that are willing to help in any number of ways. And if you are an attorney out there thinking about taking one wrongful conviction case on pro bono in, you know, in the course of your lifetime. And if I was to just leave an actionable item. For people listening, something that they can apply directly to themselves.

I think. And I, and I, and I think that not just by wrongful imprisonment, but even the five years of difficulty afterwards and the struggle to get into law school and the hardship, it was to graduate graduate law school and the hell that it was to prep for the bar exam and pass. So I think based on all of those things, you know, I've, I've drawn some lessons which can be, uh, I've extrapolated and can be summed up this way.

Um, have a goal, you know, and, and have, have a realistic plan. So you should be able to look at the plan three or four different ways and say to yourself, yeah, I could see how this would work. And if you think about it, it makes sense because who wants to carry out a plan that you don't think has a chance to be successful?

Uh, be flexible. Remember that the goal is the goal, the plan, that's not the goal. So if an unexpected door or opportunity opens for you, that is not part of your plan, but moves you towards that goal, then you need to walk through, through it, take advantage opportunity to keep moving towards your goal, no excuses.

So there might be reasons why something is daunting, why it's a challenge, why it's more difficult, um, but no actual reasons why it can't be done. You just have to want it enough. And that brings me to my next point, which is, you know, don't be afraid of hard work. Uh, it's probably not going to just drop into your lap.

I believe you have to work really hard. To use a sports metaphor, you leave it all out on the field. And if you do that, then if you put yourself in position for a miracle to happen, that's when usually something happens or a door opens for you, catch a break or the right person comes along.

 And lastly just never give up. And when you can't go on anymore, like I reached that juncture several times, along with, I just mentioned, remember that you could be, that could be the key moment right there. You might be on the verge of the breakthrough, but because you quit, it won't happen. So even though you can't go on anymore and you can't go on anymore, you have to do so anyway, just to see what happens on the other side. And I've told myself that quite a few times, and that's enabled me to keep going and eventually get to the point where things are now. And once you survive, once you overcome, you know, you have to reach back and try to help other people into the same position, do some work on the preventative side.

And from 50,000 feet away, I've seen people in other walks of life that have applied that, you know, I've seen people that we used to be incarcerated and now they're working with at-risk youth, diverting them from, from their people that at one time were homeless. And now they're working with homeless population and, uh, people that have been sexually trafficked or sexually abused that now do work, uh, towards, towards that goal.

And, uh, people that have survived, domestic abuse that are now working with, um, you know, women that are being domestically abused or somebody that might have suffered some sort of debilitating illness or affliction that was not curable or somebody that's faced, uh, discrimination or sexism. Uh, racism. So at anything else, these are all extreme things that, that happen.

Uh, but you know, there's other things that are not as extreme as that, but still difficulties in general. So we need people to apply that formula and, uh, you know, help people in the same position and do some work on the preventative side. And I do think that that makes everything, you know, it, it could be a way of trying to improve the world.

So, and you know, maybe that sounds corny to say that, but that's kind of my vibe. That's my wavelength. And, uh, I live that way and you know, I love seeing other people do that and it would make my heart feel good to hear one day through some random email or social media, whatever that somebody heard me say this on this podcast and they decided to apply that. You know, and I don't know, to, to give them encouragement to keep going and whatever the challenge was, but now they're doing some meaningful work and, you know, that would really make me feel good to hear something like that. Yeah. 

Thank you for that. Yeah. Thank you so much. Um, it was a pleasure talking to you and hearing your perspective and yeah, it's really, really interesting. So thank you so much. 

Thank you for asking. Thanks for having me on sharing your platform and all the research and work that it took to do the interview. And by all means share the link when it comes out and I will do my part to promote this, uh, promote the episode on all of my social media and encourage people to follow your show as well. 

Awesome. Thank you so much. 

Thank you. Thanks, Jeff! 

Thank you. 

So once again, thank you so much to Jeff for taking some time out of his very busy schedule and coming to chat with us on the show, we very, very much appreciate it and we hope that you enjoyed our conversation with Jeff.

So as he said a little bit towards the end of the interview, you can find him on Instagram at Jeffrey Deskovic. He also has a public Facebook page. Um, so you can find him on Facebook. And if you would like some more information about his foundation, that he was able to start after his exoneration, you can find more information at Deskovicfoundation.org. We're going to link that in the show notes. And also you did hear him mention about his Patreon page. So if this story spoke to you and you're really passionate about wrongful conviction cases, then definitely check out the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation For Justice on Patreon and become a monthly patron.

You know, for as little as a dollar 50 per month, you can join the fight for wrongful conviction cases and help Jeff and his foundation exonerate more innocent people.

 As always, you can find us on all the social medias, Instagram at @crimefamilypodcast, Twitter@crimefamilypod1, and on Facebook at Crime Family Podcast. We also have a Gmail account. Email us any of your feedback, comments, or case suggestions at crimefamilypodcast@gmail.com. We thank you so much for tuning into part two, and there's still more coming up. We're also releasing part three today as well. And in the next part, we're going to be interviewing Jia Wertz and she is an award-winning documentary filmmaker who made a short film about Jeffrey's case.

So you heard Jeff mention a little bit about the short film towards the end interview there. And if you are in the U S you can find that short documentary on Amazon prime, it's called Conviction, check it out because it's very, very, very eye-opening and interesting. So we're going to be talking with the filmmaker of that documentary ,Jia Wertz, in our next episode.

So we really hope you'll tune into part three and hear what she has to say. Cause it's going to be a really great interview as well. So thank you for listening and take care. .