Name: Robert Jones Spent 24 Years in Prison After Wrongful Conviction
Uploaded: 2021-10-05T17:11:26.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Robert Jones Spent 24 Years in Prison After Wrongful Conviction' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2021-10-05. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Robert Jones Spent 24 Years in Prison After Wrongful Conviction' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2021-10-05. Transcript available.

The Joe Rogan experience Robert, can you explain some of the
What you ended up finding out was hidden from you?
What was the exculpatory evidence
They would they would have held that
First of all first of all
Maybe I can explain the crimes right. There was a spree of crime that happened
in the French quarters in New Orleans
It was
Two I think three armed robberies
of raping the kidnapping and
A murder was tied to that so they they it took all these crimes and said it was
a part of a spree
all right, they had a
A car that was involved
in the crime and
They eventually over the period well over a couple of weeks after the crime
happened maybe
They found out who the car
that was involved and
During the time when they was doing the investigation my name came up as it
It's anonymous tip came in right so with it what they did was they eventually
arrested me and
Connected me to the car that was actually using in in all these sprees of crime
including the
The murder the robbery the kidnappings and the rape
and
and
Years later
that eventually found out that
Another guy got arrested for the murder
Uh
And was connected
He hit in his possession he had possessed a
Jewry and articles of evidence from each
crime spree and
From each of the victims yeah, he had jewelry from the woman that was robbed
He had clothing from one of the other women. I think the woman that was raped
right
Um and they never turned this over to him right and so yeah, they would they
would have held that
From me that was that that how did they connect you with the car?
This is what I'm about this plane. They connected me the car how they connected
me with the car
The the prosecutor theory was that like when they arrested this guy they got
him to
say that
me and him was friends and
He he allowed me to use the car
Right at times
The commit the crime but all the evidence suggested
Differently and
So at trial what they did was they charge
He got convicted of the actual murder, right?
He got convicted of murder and it separated him from the other crimes and it
charged me with the other crimes
right?
But I'm unbeknownst to me
On a day at trial that I was
For the rape kidnapping in the armed robberies
that
He told the prosecutor that I had nothing to do with
None of crimes that he I never used a car none of that
Right?
But when I went to trial the prosecutor say something totally opposite
They prosecute me on the theory that me and this guy was best friends
He allowed me to use did you know him I didn't know him at all
Never seen him a day in my life
And this the short answer to your question Joe about what they had connecting
him to the car a
Driver's license you would think a driver's license a registration insurance
someone that had seen them in the car
The answer is they had absolutely nothing they had a word
They had the word of a guy that had been accused and tied to these murders who
was looking to put it on someone else
So how did he put it on you though?
He found out that there was a tip
Right implicating him, right? Mm-hmm, right?
Absolutely, and so he tried to be a snitch to get the heat off of him. I'll put
it on you absolutely
And they let that happen. Yep, even though they knew right and it goes deeper
than that
So after I get convicted
I'm still charged with the with the murder of the British tourists right still
I'm still actually charged with it
Even though I haven't been going back and forth to court with it at this time
I thought I get convicted and I know I was gonna get a life sentence for the
rape
the kidnapping the three armed robbers
So the district attorney
made an offer to my defense attorney and
Eventually brought to me on the day of my sentence and say that okay
We can give him 25 years
21 years for the murder
Give him a manslaughter, right?
And I
Don't know what type of stuff that happens out of my presence between my
attorney and district attorney, but I was scared as shit
I just received a life sentence
I know I was about to you sent this to a life for the the rape and
25 or whatever maybe 99 years for every own robbery. I don't know I was scared
that shit
so I took the 21 year plea but I never admitted anything right and a part of
the evidence was
that
the guy
Who we talking about that that it was initially trying to involve me he was
found guilty of the murder
already
So they were trying you for a crime they already had convicted someone for
absolutely how is that possible it happened?
Because that what they were trying to say is that if two people are in a car
and you're both out committing crimes
Right you're both responsible. You're both responsible
There's something called the felony murder rule and the felony murder rules
that if you're in the commission of a crime and somebody dies
So if you and I went and robbed the bank and I go in and start
You know shooting up at the tellers and kill two tellers you're responsible for
the murder also
So the theory of Roberts prosecution was that they were friends they were on
this crime spree together and that even though he was convicted of the murder
Um you know
He was still responsible and guilty of murder. It's no different than the James
Daly case which I've talked about before
They convicted one guy Jack Peercy, and then they tried my client after that
One guy got sentenced to life one guy got sentenced to death. It's crazy
They don't have to have any evidence whatsoever that you even friends with that
guy right right and had his word
Right isn't his word enough and and the the the piece of evidence another
article evidence there were hell is a report
that uh
That when he made a statement like the money on my trial as I say
That I didn't have anything to do with the murder. He never knew me and
different things of that nature
And they withheld that and it and it would have held that and that was very
important to change the outcome of my trial because
They went they took me to trial on the theory that we were friends and that I
knew him and that I had connection to him through the car
But had I would have had that piece of information
The the interjecting my trial I wouldn't have probably got found guilty to that
extent and they also would have held
various different um
uh uh
Statements and evidence as relates to the witnesses that was very inconsistent
that was very favorable to me
And that could have actually turned it back to the to the guy who was actually
uh uh uh
Convicted of the murder
uh
And attached to all those other spree of crimes
um
Yeah, so it is this was a a lot of stuff man that they would have held that
That almost made it impossible
um
For me to unravel
And to uh to obtain my freedom and you know, I'd like to say that that's
uncommon too, but it's not
so in other words when
prosecutors are working on one theory
full steam ahead right and
And
They then are met
With you might be wrong. We might have been wrong all along
The instinct
99 times out of 100 is to plow ahead and rationalize
Why the true perpetrator in robert's case?
Why did he all of a sudden say robert had nothing to do with it?
Oh, well, maybe he
Is making this up because he feels guilty that he implicated his friend who
really wasn't his friend
I've in clementia gary's case which we've talked about and your listeners know
about
The true killer confessed
She confessed over and over again to friends to neighbors drunk not drunk to
police
In denying him post-conviction relief now, this is a judge
The judge chalked it up as survivor's guilt
So in other words whether it's a prosecutor's judges they'll make an excuse to
protect
The prosecution because it's all about winning or losing let's talk about that.
What is that? Is that human nature?
Is it like do people just want to confirm their initial suspicions?
And they rationalize all sorts of reasons
Why what they initially thought was right and this new evidence that shows that
it's not right is wrong like what what is it?
Is it they don't they don't just don't want to be
They don't want to lose. I think it's a fundamental flaw
That we have as human beings that I share as a taurus. I especially share it
How dare you bring up astrology
But but I um
I'm stubborn, but I think as I see this time and time again and I'm watching juries
deliberate because I do mock trials and focus groups
Or speaking to people post verdict, but you can apply it to politics anything
to anything anything
I think of one fundamental flaw we have as mammals
Is our inability to be flexible in our reasoning and I think that once we make
a decision about
Something it's very very difficult
To get people to reconsider
I see that and really intelligent people too and it makes me sad. It's maddening
It drives me crazy
Yeah, because it's like you aren't
Part of the problem I think with police with prosecutors with the whole legal
system is that
It becomes a game and I don't mean a game like it's a joke. I mean a game like
you're trying to win
Yes, and whenever someone is involved in something where they're trying to win
They do whatever the fuck they can people cheat they move golf balls, right?
They do whatever the fuck they can don't look at Jamie
Whenever I hear people moving those fucking whenever I hear golf ball well
people cheat man
They they find ways to pretend that they didn't do something when they did it
They find ways to justify the things they did do they find ways to
Pass the buck and put it on if if they can score that w right and you see cops
do it
They they they plant evidence on someone they think was probably guilty, but
they don't have enough evidence on them
They find rationalizations
And it's because there's a game going on
It's a win or lose and it becomes a real problem and not only that with a lot
of cops
There's quotas like you literally have to arrest a certain amount of people,
right?
Which is insanity like what the fuck do they do if no one commits a crime?
What do they do if no one speeds if you have a quota?
Where you have to arrest a hundred people for speeding what the fuck do you do
if everybody makes an agreement?
We all get on Facebook and we say hey
With everybody drive the fucking speed limit for the next 60 days and let's
crush the legal system
Because these cops have to they have to make a certain amount of pullovers
They have to pull a certain amount of people over write a certain amount of
tickets they have quotas
You don't meet those quotas. They get in trouble. So what the fuck kind of game
is that right? I would say
A lot a lot of that a lot of
Just like we have structural racism, right?
And with when I say structural racism meaning like institutional
uh
uh things that set up through
uh
Regulation rules and policies like redlining, right
uh
And you just have like, uh
Flawedness in a variety of different systems. They got people that work for
companies. They got a lot of
Flawedness and they don't really they don't really understand that you're
employed in a system
That that that treat people unfair calls people home and you can't even see it
And some people can be a part of a system or a part of a program or part of an
organization
That uh
Have that win mentality
Right that when women by all cause mentality and
They lose their empathy for people, right?
And and when people lose their empathy when you know when we define those
things and a lot of people don't like
Uh, they hear this this type of shit
But when you lose your empathy for people
You become technically a sociopath
Watch the entire episode for free only on spotify