West Memphis Three | When Justice Gets It Wrong | 5

University of Michigan law professor David Moran never planned to spend his career freeing the wrongfully convicted. But after handling several appeal cases that exposed deep flaws in the system, he realized how widespread the problem really was. In 2009, he co-founded the Michigan Innocence Clinic, which has since helped free more than 45 people. Moran joins Lindsay to discuss how the West Memphis Three case reflects the patterns he’s seen across wrongful convictions, why prosecutors sometimes pursue cases built on faulty evidence, and whether the justice system is finally learning from its mistakes. Be the first to know about Wondery’s newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletter Listen to American Scandal on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes ad-free and be the first to binge the newest season. Unlock exclusive early access by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial today by visiting wondery.com/links/american-scandal/ now. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Lindsay Graham?

  Audible subscribers can binge new seasons of American Scandal early and ad-free right now. Join Audible in the Audible app or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts.

• 0:22Lindsay Graham?

  From Wondery, I'm Lindsay Graham, and this is American Scandal.

• 0:45Lindsay Graham?

  In May of 1993, three eight-year-old boys were murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas. And within only weeks, police had their suspects: three teenagers accused of carrying out a satanic ritual killing. There was no physical evidence linking them to the crime. But under pressure to solve the case, police obtained a confession from one of the boys, and that was enough. Damian Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Miss Kelly were convicted and sent to prison for a crime they did not commit. Thirty years later, the story of the West Memphis Three has become a haunting example of how moral panic, media pressure, and tunnel vision can conspire to put innocent people behind bars. Today, we're joined by someone who has spent his career confronting exactly those kinds

• 1:30Lindsay Graham?

  of injustices. David Moran is a retired professor at the University of Michigan Law School. He co-founded the Michigan Innocence Clinic in 2009, which has helped free dozens of wrongfully convicted people. We'll talk about how wrongful convictions happen even in the face of evidence to the contrary, what these cases can teach us about the dangers of certainty, and the cost of getting it wrong. Our conversation is next.

• 1:59Speaker 01

  PrizePix packs are here. Rip digital packs and get real basketball, footfall and Pokemon cards on PrizePix packs. Available now nationwide. Once you see your pool, you have a choice to sell back instantly for real cash or ship at home. Cash from your sale will immediately be added to your PrizePix balance. It's just another way to run your game. New users, download the PrizePix app today and use code WONDERY to get $25 instantly in bonus packs when you buy your first $5 pack. PrizePix, run your game. 18 plus in eligible areas. Terms apply. Collect responsibly.

• 2:30Speaker 02

  If you like YouTube, you'll love YouTube Premium. It's destroying athlete, creator and YouTube Maxer. YouTube Premium enhances how I use YouTube with awesome features like offline downloads so I can download my favorite training videos before I hit the gym. So no wifi doesn't turn leg day into loading day. Plus, I get ad-free videos, background play and so much more. YouTube Premium is like YouTube got some extra gains. Try YouTube Premium for two months free at youtube.com/premium.

• 3:00Speaker 03

  Hey, what's up, guys? It's Haley Bailey. Okay, I need to tell you about something. I just got YouTube Premium. It's got tons of awesome features like offline downloads so I can download my favorite videos before I travel and watch them whenever I don't have wifi. Because we all know airplane wifi is the worst. I get ad-free, I get background play and there's like a ton more in there. You should try it. If you like YouTube, you'll love YouTube Premium. So try YouTube Premium for two months free at youtube.com/premium. Trial eligibility varies. Terms apply. Cancel anytime. That's a mouthful.

• 3:37Lindsay Graham?

  Dave Moran, welcome to American Scandal.

• 3:39Speaker 04

  Thanks for having me.

• 3:40Lindsay Graham?

  So do you remember where you were in your career when you first heard about the West Memphis case? Were wrongful convictions on your radar at that point?

• 3:50Speaker 04

  So about the same time that I first heard of the Memphis Three case, I was working at the State Appellate Defender Office, taking cases from around Michigan. And I had a number of cases that resulted in exonerations without DNA evidence that featured some of the same types of shoddy police work that you see in the West Memphis Three case.

• 4:11Lindsay Graham?

  Of those early cases that you were working on, are there any that stand out in particular? What were the similarities that you discovered to the West Memphis case?

• 4:19Speaker 04

  One of those cases was a man named Curtis Showers. Curtis was convicted of robbing a Hungry Howie's Pizza Store in suburban Detroit. A black man who the two employees described as short, fat, and about 18 years old, came in and said that he was a Satanist and waved a gun around and robbed the store. And the two witnesses, both of whom were white, young people, gave pretty consistent descriptions that the robber was short, fat, and around 18 years of age. And those descriptions did not match Curtis Showers. Curtis Showers was about six feet tall. He was in his 30s, not 18 years old.

• 5:04Speaker 04

  But despite all of that, the witnesses, by the time of trial, changed their descriptions and said, yes, yes, it was Curtis Showers who robbed the store. And he was convicted and sentenced to life. And we were suspicious of a lot of things about this case. One of the things was, why did Curtis become a suspect in the first place? And the sole reason was, somebody called the pizza store about 40 minutes before closing and ordered a pizza, and they never came and picked it up. And so the police became interested in that phone number, and that phone number was registered to Curtis Showers. And so that's how he became the sole suspect in the case. But what we discovered was that the phone number was registered to Curtis Showers, but it was actually in an apartment where his girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, lived.

• 5:48Speaker 04

  They had broken up. Curtis had taken out the landline, and the landline was still in his name, but he wasn't living in that apartment anymore. And it turned out that the girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, had a new boyfriend, who was a short, heavyset, young, black man, who perfectly fits the description. And we did a little more research and discovered that that guy had robbed another restaurant in suburban Detroit, where he came in and announced that he was a Satanist, just like the robber of the Hungry Howie had done. But despite all of that, that wasn't enough to win the case. What did win the case was, the victims had pointed that out to the police, the robber had come behind the counter and leaned against the pizza oven in order to reach a bag of

• 6:33Speaker 04

  cash. And at trial, the Livonia police officer testified that they lifted that print, that palm print, and it was just too smudged, they couldn't do anything with it. So we hired a ex-cop to go in there to see what that fingerprint or palm print really looked like. And he reported back to us that the palm print wasn't smudged at all. It was clear as could be. And it didn't match Curtis showers and it didn't match any of the store employees. And even with all of that, the prosecution wasn't willing to give in. And we had to fight them all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court, but the Michigan Supreme Court ordered a new trial. And then very quickly, the prosecution dropped the charges because there's no way they could win a retrial against Curtis with all that new evidence.

• 7:18Speaker 04

  And so Curtis was exonerated.

• 7:20Lindsay Graham?

  So in the showers case, in the West Memphis case and others like it, it seems that there is a willingness to just explain away what seems like obvious inconsistencies or even contradictions. Is this a common pattern in wrongful conviction cases?

• 7:34Speaker 04

  Absolutely. In case after case that we've handled in Michigan Innocence Clinic, we see the most convoluted efforts to explain away evidence that does not fit the narrative. And I'll give you one example of a case that we have not won to date. We represented a man named Timogen Kinsu, and he was convicted of a murder that occurred in November 1986, and he's still in prison today. And that murder happened in Port Huron, Michigan. But at trial, the defense established through nine alibi witnesses that Timogen was in Escanaba, Michigan, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. And he interacted with all these people. He interacted with a waiter at a big boy restaurant. He bought a car part for his car.

• 8:19Speaker 04

  He interacted with three people who were in a karate studio. And several of these people had documents proving that the interaction occurred on that particular day, which was the same day that a young man was shot and killed in Port Huron, Michigan at 9:00 a.m. So it was physically impossible for him to have been the murderer. And in response to that, the prosecution said, well, okay, fine. He must have chartered a plane to get from Escanaba to Port Huron and back because the alibi witnesses established that he was in Escanaba five and a half hours, six and a half hours before the murder, and he was in Escanaba three hours after the murder. Therefore, it's a simple matter, he must have chartered a plane. And they called a pilot who unbeknownst to the defense, had actually been the pilot

• 9:04Speaker 04

  for the prosecutor when the prosecutor ran for statewide office the year before. And the pilot testified that you could just walk into a, an airplane hangar in a small airport like in Escanaba or Port Huron and find somebody who would be willing to fly you back and forth for a few hundred bucks, no questions asked and not file a flight plan. But there was absolutely zero evidence that it happened. It is just risible that the prosecution presented that theory and got a jury to buy it.

• 9:33Lindsay Graham?

  It is, for anyone listening, astonishing, the contortions that the prosecution and the police go through. Jesse Miss Kelly's defense attorney, Dan Stidham, said that he came to believe that the prosecutors were actually evil because he couldn't otherwise explain their behavior. What's your take on why the prosecution, the police can be so determined to pursue a guilty verdict despite a lack of evidence?

• 9:56Speaker 04

  Well, I think it's, it's not evil in most cases. I think it's a simple matter of human frailty. And the frailty is tunnel vision. The typical wrongful conviction case involves the police coming to a conclusion very early because they want to solve the case as quickly as they can. And then, once they reach that conclusion, they're becoming capable of considering fairly other evidence that points in the other direction. So in Timo Jin Kinsu's case, they contacted the murder victim's fiance and asked her, who might have wanted to kill your fiance? And the only name she could come up with was that of Timo Jin Kinsu, whom she had dated about five months earlier.

• 10:40Speaker 04

  And they'd had a bad breakup and she told the police that she thought Timo Jin Kinsu was a jealous and violent man. And so he became the prime suspect, even though, after the breakup, he took up with another woman and moved way up north in an upper peninsula of Michigan to the Escanaba area. And he had made no contact with his ex-girlfriend nor her new fiance in the five months between when they broke up and when the fiance was murdered.

• 11:08Lindsay Graham?

  I want to dig into that because I can understand, having found your theory, applying your expertise and your training properly, you come across some evidence that leads you to a suspect, and it might be difficult to reverse your opinion, to keep an open mind, especially if you exerted yourself. But in the examples that we're talking about today, there hardly seems like any exertion. It seems like that is pure laziness.

• 11:34Speaker 04

  Well, I agree, because the last thing that the police want to do after solving, in quotes, "a murder case," is reopen and start over again, because a lot of hours have gone into it. They've done interrogations, forensics, scene visits, and as humans, it's discouraging to be told that all the work that you've done is crap. It's wrong. The person has a rock-solid alibi, or the person doesn't fit the description, or the person, in the Kershaw's case, doesn't live in the apartment anymore where the phone call was made from. And so they cling to it. It's a natural reaction to want to cling to your pre-existing theory, and it leads people to ignore really powerful evidence.

• 12:13Lindsay Graham?

  The West Memphis case hinged almost entirely on Jesse Ms. Kelly's false confession, and most people find it hard to believe even today that someone would confess to something they never did. But it does happen more often than we think. How is it possible?

• 12:28Speaker 04

  About a fifth of all exonerations that have been documented by the National District of Exonerations, and a similar proportion of ours here at the Michigan Innocence Clinic, have featured false confessions. Many people think, "There's no way that I could falsely confess to something as serious as murder if I didn't do it." And the fact is, is that just about anybody's vulnerable to it. And some of the people that we've had, whose cases that we've taken, and cases we've won, are not people you would expect to be likely false confessors. They're not people with mental defects. They're not people who are young, or intoxicated, or senile. They're people who don't have much experience with the criminal justice system, and panic under a relentless assault, being told over and

• 13:12Speaker 04

  over again that, "We know you did it." And eventually they cave, because they come to believe that the only way out is to tell the officer what they want to believe. In some cases, they will tell the officer what the officer wants to hear, thinking that this won't stick, because there'll be physical evidence that will show it wasn't me. And oftentimes, there is no such physical evidence.

• 13:32Lindsay Graham?

  Also an influence on the West Memphis Free Case was the hysteria of the Satanic Panic. How do external pressures, media tension, public fear of this or that affect cases?

• 13:44Speaker 04

  There was a belief before DNA exonerations came around that while wrongful convictions may be a thing, they're much more likely to happen in low stakes cases, you know, a routine burglary or a theft than they are in a case like a murder or a multiple murder, a high-profile case. And the theory was is that the system will provide so much more in a big case like that. You're going to get a better lawyer to defend a murder case. You're going to have a top-flight investigation in a murder case instead of a rookie cop. And it turns out that none of that's true, that what the exonerations have taught us is that you're actually more likely to have wrongful conviction in a high-profile case

• 14:26Speaker 04

  because of the pressure, because the police are under pressure to solve the cases. Now, here in Michigan, about half of all felony convictions in Michigan come from Wayne County, which is where Detroit is. And the Detroit police were, for many years, completely out of control and under tremendous pressure to solve as many homicides as they could. And what they started to do was to take unconstitutional shortcuts. They would go to the scene and they would arrest the witnesses. And then they would hold the witnesses in filthy, rat-infested cells until they agreed to implicate somebody. And then they would go after that person on the basis of the confession from somebody who oftentimes would come to trial and recant the confession and say, "I only signed that

• 15:09Speaker 04

  statement," not a confession, "I only find that statement implicating this other guy because the police told me that I was going to be locked up and possibly charged with the murder unless I did." And in case after case after case, we've seen in the Michigan Innocence Clinic, the prosecution would then roll their eyes at trial in response to this testimony and say, "Oh yeah, sure, right, that you honestly believe, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that the detective here is going to risk his career to get somebody falsely convicted for this crime? He's going to force somebody to implicate a random person?" And it turned out that's exactly what they were doing. And eventually, the Justice Department obtained a consent decree against the Detroit police to stop them from unconstitutionally arresting and coercing witnesses to make them confess.

• 15:59Speaker 05

  A dark night, a quiet house, but inside, danger was lurking.

• 16:03Speaker 06

  Oh, not really. We have Xfinity Shield, so we're not worried. What if protecting your home and devices could be drama-free? Xfinity. Imagine that. Restrictions apply. Not available in all areas.

• 16:14Speaker 07

  Hey, I'm Cassie DePecce, the host of Against the Odds from Audible Originals. In each episode, we share thrilling true stories of survival, putting you in the shoes of the people who lived to tell the tale. In our latest series, we track the story of Hugh Glass, the real-life revenant that inspired the 2015 film starring Leonardo DiCaprio. In 1823, Glass was brutally mauled by a grizzly bear in present-day South Dakota and left for dead. His survival depended on trekking through 350 miles of wilderness, alone, with grave injuries. But he was driven by his thirst for revenge. Follow Against the Odds wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can binge all episodes of Against the Odds early and ad-free right now. Join Audible in the Audible app or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts.

• 17:06Lindsay Graham?

  An additional frustration for the West Memphis Three was that prosecutors and judges were resisting allowing new DNA testing, even as recently as 2021. Why would a state block more advanced testing in any case, especially one that's already so controversial?

• 17:23Speaker 04

  The only answer I can give to that comes straight out of A Few Good Men. You can't handle the truth. That's why, in some cases, the prosecution will try to block testing of forensic evidence. Now, my clinic is primarily a non-DNA innocence project, but we've run into this sort of thing with testing fingerprints. So there's fingerprints from the crime scene that don't match our client, and we'd like them to run through AFIS, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, to see if they match other people who have criminal histories and therefore have fingerprints on file. And time and time again, the prosecution resists that. They don't want to know. Now, of the 45 cases that my clinic has won since 2009, one of them was a DNA case, and...

• 18:06Speaker 04

  That was a case where at the time of trial, they knew that the DNA didn't match the defendant. But after he was convicted some 30 years ago, more advanced DNA testing came online. And so there were repeated efforts to have the DNA tested. And time and time again, the prosecution made bogus fabricated arguments against the testing, saying, for example, that the DNA is probably contaminated by now, which just simply isn't true. It's not the way that DNA works and and there's no way the prosecution could have believed that. They just did not want to have this conviction overturned. Just in this particular case, our client was convicted of murdering an elderly woman, raping her orally and vaginally, and then murdering her by stuffing her in the trunk of her own

• 18:51Speaker 04

  car in her garage and turning the car on and leaving. It's a horrific, terrible crime in a small town in northern Michigan. And they obtained a confession from our mentally impaired client, Jamie Peterson, even though the DNA didn't match. And so they just theorized that, well, Jamie must have had a an accomplice. And so you would think that if that's their theory, you think that when more advanced DNA testing comes available, they would definitely want to retest the evidence and see if they can identify the supposed accomplice. But they fought it successfully for nearly 20 years. And we were able to obtain that testing only after the prosecutor died. And we got a new prosecutor who agreed to the testing. And right away, the testing hit on a young man who had been a suspect at the time of

• 19:36Speaker 04

  the killing, but had been dismissed. And there was zero evidence that that man ever met Jamie Peterson. And so the accomplice theory fell apart. I will say that after Jamie Peterson was exonerated, the prosecution did charge and convict that man of the murder.

• 19:51Lindsay Graham?

  What gets me most is that the prosecutor and the investigators, whose job is to find the perpetrator, their resistance to test new evidence necessarily means they are aiding and abetting the actual person who committed the crimes, even as horrible as the murder of the elderly woman you just described.

• 20:11Speaker 04

  Right, exactly. The prosecutor in that case would rather leave a person who at least participated in the murder and rape of an elderly woman out on the streets than admit that they may be wrong about Jamie Peterson. To his credit, the new prosecutor rejected the position of his predecessor and agreed to the testing, though he didn't agree for a while that the testing exonerated Jamie Peterson. He initially took the position that it just showed who Jamie Peterson's accomplice was, but a state police investigation confirmed that these two people had never even met.

• 20:43Lindsay Graham?

  Now, speaking of exoneration, that is actually not what happened to the three men convicted in the West Memphis Three case. They entered an Alfred plea. But just in the last few months, a judge did rule to finally allow DNA testing to move ahead, and the defense argues that this could definitively exclude all three men from the crime. What would it mean legally, though, for these three men, given that they've already entered their Alfred plea?

• 21:10Speaker 04

  I don't know, because the laws from state to state vary about the effect of an Alfred plea. In Michigan, it's possible to overcome plea. Two of the 45 victories that we've had in the Michigan Innocence Clinic were people who pled. In one case, no contest, and in the other case, guilty. And in both cases, we were able to show why they made it a rational decision to enter a plea even though they were not guilty. But it is a much higher burden to overcome. And in some states, as I understand it, you can overcome it. Even the most impeccable new evidence is not enough to overcome the effect of a guilty or NOLA contender or Alfred plea. The only thing in those states

• 21:55Speaker 04

  that could be done is to get a pardon from the governor.

• 21:58Lindsay Graham?

  I know your work doesn't focus on DNA, but we often regard DNA evidence as a ultimate truth-teller in criminal justice. It is chemical evidence. How has this technology changed the landscape of innocent work in general? And are there limits to it?

• 22:14Speaker 04

  Well, DNA was foundational to the innocence movement. DNA came on the scene in the late 1980s as a way to solve crimes and almost right away, participants in the system realized that you could use it as a retrospective way to test the veracity and validity of previous convictions. And almost as soon as that kind of testing started, we started to see the parade of DNA exonerations. Now, a DNA exclusion does not always mean innocence. There are sometimes situations where there are explanations for why DNA not belonging to the defendant could be found. But in many, many, many cases, it is dispositive of guilt or innocence. So it is a great tool. And once we started to see these parade of DNA exonerations, we started to realize

• 22:59Speaker 04

  that the criminal justice system was not as reliable as we thought. There was a paradigm that existed before DNA testing, that we have an extremely reliable criminal justice system, that, yes, wrongful convictions sometimes occur, but it's really rare. It's like getting hit by a meteor. It's not something we really have to worry about, especially, as I said earlier, in big, high-profile cases, because the system will bring its best behavior to bear, to find the right person, and give that person every right to defend themselves before convicting them of a serious crime like a murder. And we just know it's not true, that actually those are the crimes where wrongful convictions are most likely to occur because of the pressure to solve.

• 23:39Lindsay Graham?

  So I suppose the new DNA technology, as you indicated, changed the perception of the American criminal justice system and revealed that it's far more fallible than first thought. And that's perhaps why your Michigan clinic focuses on exonerating people where there is no DNA evidence. Just the fact that DNA evidence doesn't exist doesn't mean that the same problems didn't occur in their cases.

• 24:04Speaker 04

  Right, and that's the lesson I learned from my eight years in the state appellate defender office in Detroit, is I had these five exonerations, none of which involved DNA, and I came to realize that there's no reason to think that the same problems that cause false convictions in cases where there is DNA to test, wouldn't also be present in situations where there is no DNA to test. And the experience I had proved it. And so I realized that in the vast majority of cases, there is no DNA. The vast majority of cases where there is a DNA exoneration involve sexual assault. And so if there's, if it's not a sexual assault, it's unlikely that there'll be DNA to test. I mean, after all,

• 24:45Speaker 04

  the typical American homicide is committed by a person with a gun. And shooting somebody to death from a distance does not leave behind any DNA evidence. Now, other kinds of murder are likely to leave behind DNA evidence, for example, strangulation. But most homicides don't leave behind DNA evidence. Most robberies don't leave behind DNA evidence, and many other crimes don't leave behind DNA evidence. And so my intuition was that we need to have a clinic that will take the non-DNA cases, and the National Registry of Exonerations confirms there are far more innocent people who don't have DNA than do. It's about a 10 to 1 ratio right now of the number of people who've been exonerated without DNA versus those who have.

• 25:32Speaker 08

  Ghosts aren't real. At least, that's what journalist Tristan Redmond always believed. Sure, odd things happen in his childhood bedroom, but ultimately, he shrugged them off. Until he discovered that he wasn't alone, that everyone who lived thereafter him also had bizarre experiences they couldn't explain. And it gets even weirder. It just so happens that his wife's great-grandmother was murdered in the house next door. Is this ghost somehow connected to her murder? He decides to go where no son-in-law should, digging up a cold case and asking questions that nobody wants answered. Like, could his wife's great-grandfather have gotten away with the perfect crime? This is a podcast about family secrets, overwhelming

• 26:14Speaker 08

  coincidence, and the things that come back to haunt us. For the best bingeable series like Ghost Story, listen to the Audible True Crime Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can get all episodes early and ad-free right now. Join Audible in the Audible app or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts.

• 26:33Speaker 09

  There are books that change how you see the world, and there are books that change how you see yourself. In a new podcast series, A Great Book with Barack Obama, President Obama sits down with a series of surprising and sharp guests to explore six books that have shaped his life and perspective on the world. From Song of Solomon and the Fire Next Time, to All the Pretty Horses and Gilead, the president is joined by guests like Tom Hanks and Ta-Nehisi Coates to reflect on how these timeless stories shaped his thinking on everything from fatherhood to leadership, and discover together what they tell us about the world we live in and the world we want to create.

• 27:16Speaker 09

  Audible subscribers can listen to all episodes of A Great Book with Barack Obama ad-free right now, plus access each audiobook discussed in the series. Download the Audible app today.

• 27:41Lindsay Graham?

  The West Memphis Three were in prison for nearly 30 years, and it's hard to imagine what that would be like. But you might. Do you have a sense from the people that you've helped? How does someone get back on their feet after that kind of experience?

• 27:54Speaker 04

  Everyone is different. The average length of time that our clients, whose cases we've won in Michigan Innocence Clinic, served is about 16 years. The longest is 46 years. Richard Phillips, who was convicted of a 1971 murder in Detroit, where he was framed by the real murderer. But Richard is doing spectacularly well. His case and his work as an artist have been covered by CNN and CBS Evening News, and he's had a thriving career as a brilliant watercolorist ever since he got out of prison in 2018. But other people struggle. People who've served much less time than 46 years, many of them come out, they've lost contact with their families, they've lost contact with their communities.

• 28:39Speaker 04

  They don't know what to do. So one of the priorities that we had at the Michigan Innocence Clinic was getting a decent compensation law passed so that at least our clients would have some money that could help get them back on their feet. And we got the Michigan Legislature and the governor in a very bipartisan effort to pass a decent compensation law.

• 29:01Speaker 04

  And so that our clients, when they're exonerated, are entitled to $50,000 per year of wrongful incarceration, which is not enough, but it certainly is better than nothing, which is what they were getting before.

• 29:14Lindsay Graham?

  Speaking of your clients, how do you decide which cases to take?

• 29:18Speaker 04

  It is a three-step process that we have. So we created a questionnaire, and when somebody writes us and says, you know, "Help, I'm a Michigan prisoner, we only take cases from Michigan, and I'm innocent," then we send them the questionnaire, they fill it out, and then we have two law students, because after all, the law students do the lion's share of the work in the Michigan Innocence Clinic. This is a law school clinic, and they'll go online and learn everything they can about the case, they'll read prior judicial opinions, news articles, whatever, and they each write memos, independent of each other, about, is this a case where there is a plausible chance the person is innocent, and if so, could we plausibly expect to find evidence

• 30:03Speaker 04

  that might prove it? And if the answer to those two questions is yes, then we will go ahead and investigate the case, we call it further investigate. Only about 10% of the 7,000 applications we've received have passed that first step. So we've had about 700 further investigations. And then, we will then assign the case to a team of two students, usually not the same two who did the initial inquiry, and those two students then will work up the case. So they'll read the transcripts of the trial, they'll talk to the prior attorneys, maybe, they maybe go visit the crime scene, may file FOIA's to get physical evidence, they may talk to experts in various forensic fields. And ultimately, the goal there, and this can take months, sometimes years, is for

• 30:48Speaker 04

  them to come to us and say that we are now firmly convinced that this person is actually innocent, didn't commit the crime, didn't participate in the crime, and that we have the evidence that can prove it. And if we get to that stage where we can answer those questions yes, then we take the case. And again, it's only about 1 in 10. So we've taken about 70 cases since the clinic opened, and 145 of them so far.

• 31:13Lindsay Graham?

  But that's 1 in 10 of the 1 in 10 from the original 7,000 applications?

• 31:19Speaker 04

  That's right. So 7,000 applications became about 700 further investigations, became about 70 cases, became about 45 victories so far.

• 31:28Lindsay Graham?

  So that 1%, is that because that is the number of persons who are truly innocent? Or that are the numbers of persons whose circumstances you can probably prove?

• 31:39Speaker 04

  The latter. Many, many of the further investigation cases we've closed, the 90% that we've closed, we think the person is probably innocent. We just can't prove it. Maybe the new evidence, the best new evidence has already been found and it's been rejected by the courts. And so there's nothing more we can do. We can't just go back to the court and say, "Hey, the jury got it wrong," or "You got it wrong on a prior post-conviction motion." We have to go back with something new. But if we do believe somebody is innocent, we'll try really hard to find new evidence to support it. But sometimes we can't. And those cases really, really are tough, where we have to tell somebody, "You know, we can't help you even though we think they're innocent."

• 32:19Lindsay Graham?

  Working on this season about the West Memphis Three, and you can probably hear my tone in this interview, it's astonishing, it's aggravating, it's frustrating beyond measure to learn of these cases of wrongful conviction. But how do you feel about it after having done this work for so many years?

• 32:35Speaker 04

  Well, there are many very frustrating moments in this work, but the victories are very, very sweet. They really make it possible to do this work. Because if we did this work and we just lost case after case after case, it would be hard to do it for very long. But once we started winning cases, when the clinic opened, Michigan Innocence Clinic opened in 2009, we won a few cases, but we lost a bunch of cases because there was so much skepticism amongst the prosecutors and the judges, and they would come up with all kinds of crazy reasons to rule against us. But as we started to win more and more cases and we publicized the victories, I think the judiciary in particular started to see that we are selective. We're not just, you know, picking any person who says, "Help, I'm innocent."

• 33:19Speaker 04

  We're doing a very thorough investigation before we take the case. And so we started to win more and more. And so on balance, the joys of this work, I think, far outweigh the frustrations.

• 33:31Lindsay Graham?

  Earlier in our conversation, you said that most people don't believe that they would be compelled to make a false confession, but it happens. So let's say that I'm arrested for a crime that I didn't commit. What can I do to ensure that I don't utter a false confession, that I'm not convicted?

• 33:48Speaker 04

  Well, as I've taught my students here at Michigan Law School and before that Wayne State Law School for years, ask for a lawyer over and over again, absolutely clearly. Don't say, "Maybe I should get a lawyer." Do you think I should get a lawyer? Say, "I want a lawyer. I want a lawyer. I want a lawyer." I'm reminded of an episode of Better Call Saul, I believe it was, where Mike, who's a former police officer himself, is brought in and the police start to question him and he says, "Lawyer." And they ask him another question, he says, "Lawyer." That's what you should do. You may be innocent. You may be eager to explain to the police the proof that you're innocent. You know, you know where you were at the time of the crime and you want the police to understand that you

• 34:29Speaker 04

  have an airtight alibi, but you need to wait. You need to wait until you have a lawyer. You can tell the lawyer about the evidence of your innocence and then have the lawyer go to the police and hopefully persuade them that they're barking up the wrong tree. Don't try and do it yourself, is my advice.

• 34:43Lindsay Graham?

  You've retired from the clinic and you are retiring from teaching. What is the future of innocence work?

• 34:51Speaker 04

  I think that the DNA projects and then the increasing use of other forms of investigation in the non-DNA projects have transformed the criminal justice system, and I don't see them going away. There was a time early on in, when the DNA exoneration era started, where the thinking was, "Well, new cases will, there'll be DNA testing, so there's just this finite universe of old cases where there was no DNA testing and the innocence projects will work on those cases and will free all those innocent people and that'll be the end of it." But what happened is the DNA exoneration showed that there were these serious problems with the criminal justice system and those problems extended to the

• 35:32Speaker 04

  great majority of cases where there is no DNA to test. And so there's endless work for projects. When we started in 2009, we were the nation's First exclusively, Non-DNA Innocence Project. Now, there are many, many projects that do a mix of DNA and non-DNA work, and many of them do mostly non-DNA work now. And so I think that unfortunately, this work will never end. But on the other hand, you know, the criminal justice system can't be perfect. We can argue for reforms. We can try and make the criminal justice system more accurate than it was before, but there will always be these problems. There will always be human problems. Problems like tunnel vision are going to be very, very hard to stamp out, and so there

• 36:14Speaker 04

  will always be a need for projects, clinics, organizations to do this kind of innocence work.

• 36:21Lindsay Graham?

  Well, Dave Moran, thank you so much for talking with me on American Scandal.

• 36:25Speaker 04

  My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

• 36:27Lindsay Graham?

  That was my conversation with Dave Moran, a law professor and co-founder of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, which has helped exonerate nearly 50 wrongfully convicted people. From Wondery, this is episode five of our series on the West Memphis Three for American Scandal. In our next series, a fan favorite. In 1974, wealthy heiress Patricia Hearst was kidnapped from her home by a group of radical political activists. The crime was already a national sensation, but it would take an even more dramatic turn when Hearst apparently joined her captors. She'd go on to commit armed robbery, prompting debate about whether Hearst was a victim trying to save her own life or whether she had become a hardened criminal.

• 37:11Lindsay Graham?

  American Scandal is only possible because of listeners like you, so thank you. And don't miss an episode. Be sure to follow American Scandal on Audible or wherever you get your podcasts. And Audible subscribers can binge new seasons of American Scandal early and ad-free right now. Join Audible in the Audible app or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts. And to find out more about me, including my other podcasts, my live show, the history tours I'm arranging, and all sorts of other things, go to historyishuman.com. That's historyishuman.com.

• 37:45Lindsay Graham?

  American Scandal is hosted, edited and executive produced by me, Lindsay Graham, for Airship. Audio editing and sound design by Gabriel Ghul. Music by Thrum. This episode was produced by John Reed. Managing producer Emily Burke. Development by Stephanie Jens. Senior producer Andy Beckerman. Executive producers are William Simpson for Airship, and Jenny Lauer Beckman and Marshall Louie for Wondery.

• 38:14Speaker 10

  For decades, two legendary brands fought for the hearts of American bikers: Indian Motorcycle and Harley-Davidson. The battle looked a lot like Coke versus Pepsi or Ford versus Chevy, but tastes changed and Indian didn't adapt fast enough. The icon all but died. Then came the con men, the dreamers, a string of spectacular failures that kept Indian in the grave, until one company finally got it right. This is the story of an improbable revival and the reignition of an old rivalry. Hey, I'm David Brown, the host of the podcast Business Wars. In every season, we bring you the true stories behind the companies that shape our world. Indian's new owners are going all in, but an existential crisis looms. Can Indian and Harley recruit enough younger riders to survive?

• 38:57Speaker 10

  Make sure to follow Business Wars wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can binge all episodes of Business Wars early and ad-free right now. Join Audible in the Audible app or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts.