← CounterClock
CounterClock
Ep 6 of 11: Jurisprudence
00:59:48
The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission convenes and staff investigators reveal everything they’ve dug into over the course of nearly five years. Jessicah, Jermal, Rayshawn, Nathaniel, and Christopher come under questioning again, but maintain their truth. New DNA evidence is presented that blows everyone away, and the course of the case changes yet again.
Loading summary
Transcript194 lines
- [00:01]
Narrator
Looking for perfect gifts for everyone on your list. Ugg, Nike, Barefoot Dreams, Kate Spade, New York and more at Nordstrom Rackstores now find everything on their wishlists all in one place. Head to Nordstrom Racks store to score great brands, great prices, the greatest gifts of all time. Counterclock is proudly sponsored by Amica Insurance. The unexpected can happen at any moment and Amica knows how important it is to be prepared. Whether it's auto, home, life insurance, Amica has you covered. Their dedicated and knowledgeable representatives will work with you to make sure you have the right coverage in place to protect what matters most. You can feel confident that Amica is there for you. Visit amica.com to get started. FOS Feminista is an alliance of 145 partner organizations protecting and providing essential sexual and reproductive health care services to some of the world's most marginalized women and girls. For a limited time, your donation will be matched for five times the impact. For as little as $50, you can provide one woman with a year's supply of contraceptive pills. Visit fosfeminista.org give to learn more. Make a donation and make five times the impact for women around the world. Netcredit is here to say yes to.
- [01:24]
Defense Attorney
A personal loan or line of credit.
- [01:25]
Narrator
When other lenders say no, Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner banks and serviced by Netcredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn more at Netcred Net Credit Credit to the People this is episode 6 jurisprudence Monday, March 9, 2020 was a big day.
- [01:51]
Witness
This week we'll be hearing the Forsyth county cases of State vs Christopher Bryant, State vs Nathaniel Coffin, State vs Jamal.
- [02:00]
Narrator
Tolliver, and State v. Rayshawn Banner. The eight member panel of the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission was officially convened. Good morning Commissioners. This case involves the November 15, 2002 robbery. After nearly five years of digging into the case, which included dozens of depositions, testing the physical evidence for DNA and getting Jessica Black's recantation, everything that had been done behind closed doors was finally going to come into the light. The new evidence uncovered by the Commission staff will be presented throughout this hearing along with all relevant evidence for your consideration. The hearing was scheduled to last five days and the eight members included a sheriff, a judge, a prosecutor, criminal defense attorneys, a few citizens and victims advocates. The panel members didn't hold the power to exonerate Christopher, Jamal, Nathaniel and Rayshawn. They could only decide whether any new evidence discovered in the years since the criminal trials was sufficient enough to move the case into the commission's next and final phase, a three judge panel hearing.
- [03:09]
Witness
At the end of this hearing, you.
- [03:10]
Narrator
Will be asked to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of factual innocence to merit judicial review. Only at that point would exoneration become a possibility for the men. Before things got underway, Jim O'Neill, the current district attorney of Forsyth county, sent a lengthy report to the panel voicing that he was against the commission considering the mins in a innocence claims. He said that because administrators had decided to move the case into the formal inquiry stage and not reject the men's applications at the very start. In his opinion, that clearly communicated they'd taken a side on the matter in favor of the defendants, which by the way, wasn't true. But that's how the DA saw it. He also accused the organization's investigators and executive director of having confirmation bias, which they denied in the strongest of terms. According to the commission's website, they are and always have been a completely neutral agency created by the state's General assembly for the sole purpose of investigating innocence claims. Like I said in the last episode, their vetting process is extremely thorough and most applicants are rejected. However, the commission has actually exonerated 15 individuals who were wrongfully convicted, so the process has proven itself successful to some degree. Defense attorneys Chris Muma, Brad Bannon and Mark Rabel, who'd been kept mostly in the dark prior to the eight member panel proceeding, weren't surprised by the district attorney's critical comments. It was par for the course for a Prosecutor like Jim O'Neill. They've got their finality. They are too arrogant to want to be to risk being proven wrong.
- [04:50]
Defense Attorney
I would never want to be a police officer or a prosecutor who thought for one second that they had participated in the investigation, prosecution, conviction and incarceration of an innocent person. I would never want to believe that. But I also think that when you have the kind of power that police officers, and particularly prosecutors have in our system of criminal justice, you always have to be open to it. Always.
- [05:19]
Witness
We are watching the state of North Carolina defend convictions that could never occur in this day and age.
- [05:26]
Narrator
In 2024, I spoke with a representative for Jim Oneills office, but they declined my request for an interview.
- [05:36]
Witness
The case is still in litigation, so our office is sort of strapped about.
- [05:45]
Defense Attorney
Speaking about it or even that was.
- [05:47]
Narrator
A bummer because I read in oneals bio on the county's website that he started out his legal career in the Forsyth County DA's office in 1997. Just five years before this crime occurred. And he's been working there ever since, so he knows the case well. Despite oneals disapproval of the innocence Inquiry commission reviewing the defendant's claims, he had zero authority over the matter. So the March 2020 hearing continued full steam ahead. The four big things the commission staff planned to present to the panel were one, DNA results from critical items of evidence which had been tested all these years later as part of the commission's investigation. Two, Jessica's new testimony, which she would deliver herself in person. Three, findings from a psychologist who specialized in studying and identifying contributing factors of false confessions. And four, new analysis of the shoe prints found on the hood of Mr. Jones Lincoln. The defendants themselves were also scheduled to testify. They'd agreed to answer any and all questions commissioners had for them, no holds barred. The men considered this their first real chance to speak freely about their side of things.
- [07:00]
Witness
I was so happy. I was like, hey, this is it. I was happy. We were shut down so many times. So for us to be able to really speak our truth, that was a good thing for us.
- [07:11]
Narrator
Nathaniel Cawthon, who's still in prison, was particularly glad for the chance to speak his mind.
- [07:17]
Witness
I'm very unapologetic about anything. I don't trust nobody when it comes to this. I literally stopped talking to the press, period, like, because of the things that they were saying about me and my little brother. And I couldn't get my point across. Y'all talking all this stuff about me, but I can't say nothing to the point where my words are felt or how I felt. So it's like, yo, whatever. When I get my chance, I'm gonna get my chance. And that was my chance.
- [07:48]
Narrator
When things got going, the commission's lead investigator, Julie Bridenstine, began by explaining how time consuming and challenging it had been to get the Winston Salem Police Department and Forsyth County District attorney's office to cough up all the paperwork related to the case. We made our first verbal request for these files on August 18, 2015. The records file provided included references to recorded interviews in this case. Only later did we learn that the Winston Salem Police Department kept a case file and evidence that was much larger than the file held in records that had previously been provided. And was there a difference between the records file and the full evidence file? Yes. The full file contained over 1,000 additional pages, including handwritten notes, transcribed statements of the claimants and others. Bruton statements of the claimants, some additional reports, and copious other documents that were not in the records file. Even when commission staff thought they'd gotten everything, they discovered more. We also obtained and reviewed a copy of the district Attorney's file in this case, which was almost 11,000 pages. The commission's investigators had also taken possession of the physical evidence in the case. However, by the time they got into the boxes to inventory the stuff, it was quite a mess. The evidence was primarily stored in six brown cardboard boxes. When opening one of those boxes, we noted that our item number 77, which were the shoes that were collected from Rayshawn Banner and Nathaniel Cawthon's house, that could not be excluded from the footprints at the crime scene, that those items were stored in an unseen sealed, ripped brown bag with the victim's closet. Yes, it was all in the same box. Many of the items had not been resealed and the bags were ripped. And the trial transcript also seems to indicate that this was all pulled out at the trial and shown to the jury. Not sure if you caught that, but what Julie just said is that when the Commission staff viewed the physical evidence in Mr. Jones case, after nearly two decades in storage, some of his bloody clothing had been stored in ripped, unsealed bags alongside the shoes taken from Rayshawn and Nathaniel's home in 2002. And not just any shoes. The Nike Air Force ones that prosecutors had told jurors at trial matched the shoe prints found on Mr. Jones hood. This was a big cross contamination issue, and it opened up a whole new set of problems for Commission staff when it came time to decide what evidence they could test for DNA and what items they couldn't. In the end, they settled on a few key things and sent them to Bodie Technology, a private forensics lab out of state. Mr. Jones broken watch. We collected tape collected from his body, pieces of tape from the crime scene, chapstick from the crime scene, three pieces of mail that were found underneath the Lincoln, two floodlights from the carport, a piece of a storm door handle from the carport, and a black hair substance found near the crime scene as well. In preparation for the testing, the Commission had made sure to get DNA swabs from all the surviving defendants. Jessica Black, a previous defense attorney who'd represented Nathaniel Cawthon and the people who'd initially found Mr. Jones in his carport. They'd also retrieved standards of Mr. Jones and Darrell Brayboy's DNA. The goal was to test as much of the evidence that was presented at trial as they could, as well as some items that weren't, but had been brought up a lot during police's original investigation. One of those items that was of great interest was the metal baseball bat police had taken from Jamal Tolliver's house. But after Boddy did their thing, the lab determined no detectable DNA was on it, like, whatsoever. That didn't surprise Chris Muma. There's no injury that fits with the bat being used. It's true. The pathologist who did Mr. Jones autopsy didn't make any notes that he had injuries consistent with being repeatedly beaten with a baseball bat. Boddy also tested two pairs of jeans that had been taken from Rayshawn and Nathaniel to see if Mr. Jones DNA showed up on them, but it didn't. The reason the commission had only sent the brothers pants to be tested was because in Jessica Black's initial confession in 2002, she told police she'd seen the outline of a wallet in the back pocket of a pair of pants Nathaniel had been wearing on the evening of November 15th after the murder. So the commission wanted to know once and for all if Mr. Jones wallet, which most likely would have had his DNA on it, had been in Nathaniel's pants and transferred any genetic material. But the results ruled that scenario out. The lab also ran tests to determine if any of the boy's DNA had transferred onto the evidence found at the crime scene, which would have proved that they'd at least been there or at a minimum, touched something. However, none of the teen's DNA was found on anything. There's no forensic evidence linking any of.
- [13:05]
Witness
The five CO defendants in this case.
- [13:08]
Narrator
Or Ms. Black to this crime scene. That's correct. This conclusion stuck out big time to the defense attorneys. Here's Brad Bannon, who represents Christopher Bryant, and Chris Muma, who represents Nathaniel and Rashawn.
- [13:25]
Defense Attorney
That is very powerful evidence of innocence, particularly when you line it up with the narrative that has endured from the prosecution side about how this crime was committed from the beginning. The narrative that has been pursued about who did that robbery and how that robbery unfolded and has been the basis for the conviction of five kids and the continued incarceration of two of them is just foreclosed, really, by the physical evidence as it exists and the lack of physical evidence.
- [13:58]
Narrator
A teenage boy cannot make a peanut butter sandwich without leading a trail across the kitchen of peanut butter and jelly. And it's a mess. Right. I don't think these boys would have been able to do anything without leaving some evidence behind. In addition to excluding all the defendants and Jessica, another interesting finding from the DNA results was that Boddy had isolated an unknown DNA profile on a piece of black string intertwined with the black tape wrapped around Mr. Jones left hand.
- [14:31]
Defense Attorney
There was DNA evidence and that DNA evidence was identifiable.
- [14:37]
Narrator
Its source surprised everyone. There was a partial DNA profile consistent with a mixture of three or more individuals, including a major female Netcredit is.
- [14:53]
Defense Attorney
Here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit when other.
- [14:56]
Narrator
Lenders say no, Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner.
- [15:01]
Defense Attorney
Banks and serviced by Netcredit Applications subject.
- [15:03]
Narrator
To review and approval. Learn more@netcredit.com partner net credit credit to the people. Hey, I get it. No one wants to go spend a ton of money every season. Well, you don't have to with Quinn's Quince has beautiful leather jackets, cotton cardigans, soft denim and so much more. And all of their Items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. I have these amazing cozy slippers that literally I wear everywhere. I bought them on quints for literally a fraction of where I could get them anywhere else. And that's what I love about Quince. I can have luxury items, but they're also very good quality. Plus I didn't break the bank. So what are you waiting for? Get cozy in Quince's high quality wardrobe essentials and go to quince.comCounterclock for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U N C E.comCounterclock to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comCounterclock When Innocence Inquiry Commission staff revealed that Bodie Technology had found a female DNA profile on a piece of string intertwined with one of Mr. Jones bindings. The eight member panel had a lot of questions about what exactly that string was. It's been described as looking like a shoestring or maybe like a string from a durag. And it was found wrapped up in the victim's hands along with a tape that bound his hands behind his back. There's evidence photos of the string on the blog post for this episode. To everyone's surprise, this particular piece of evidence had never left the four walls of the police department, like ever. Was that introduced and admitted as evidence at trial? No. Was the piece of tape previously tested by the North Carolina State Crime Lab during the original investigation of this case? No. Where did we get that piece of tape? We got it from the Winston Salem Police Department. The discovery of the dominant female DNA profile on such an incriminating piece of evidence was kind of huge. It was New evidence. Information that had never been known before. As a matter of due diligence, the commission staff had the profile compared against Jessica Black and Tasha Coleman. Tasha is the woman who'd initially called 911, but it didn't match either woman. They also compared it against Nathaniel Cawthon's former trial attorney, who was a woman, just in case maybe she'd ever handled the tape and string. But she, too, was excluded. Which meant the string either belonged to a woman who was at the crime scene and directly involved in the attack. Someone else touched that tape. Or it belonged to someone who'd had contact with the string prior to it being brought to the crime scene. Which wouldn't necessarily mean they were involved in the murder. Or it could be a third option. The DNA belonged to a female who'd handled the tape and string after the crime. Maybe a female emt, for example, or a police officer or someone in the medical examiner's office. For the time being, that remained a possibility because the commission staff didn't have any former emergency personnel or police officer's DNA compared against the unknown profile. See, this is the tricky thing about DNA. Sometimes it tells you a lot, and sometimes it just makes things even more complicated. That major profile basically can be separated from the rest of the DNA, and you can compare to that major profile. And in this case, we excluded everyone from that major female profile. That major profile was then uploaded to codis, and there were no hits. To make matters even trickier, the unknown female DNA was in what's considered a mixture of DNA, and one of the other detected profiles that was with it was much weaker, but seemed to come from a likely source. So, in this case, the female profile was the major or the most heavily concentrated. But there was at least indication at least one male was included in this mixture.
- [19:13]
Witness
The victim.
- [19:14]
Narrator
Bryant, Cawthon, Brayboy, Toliver, Banner, Black, Coleman and Ayer are excluded from the major female profile. Did you take a second look at that minor profile? I did look at the minor profile. There were 11 locations where there were results on that minor profile. And when I compared it to the victim, he possessed all of the characteristics at those 11 locations, and therefore, I would include him as a possible minority contributor to that mixture. The forensic expert's conclusion makes sense, since Mr. Jones was the victim, and you'd expect his DNA to end up on the tape used to bind him as well as anything intertwined with it. But it was that dominant female DNA profile that confounded everyone. To this day. Actually, the identity of its owner remains a Mystery. Brad Bannon's big takeaway from all the DNA findings was that nothing had come back to his client or the other men convicted of the crime. That in and of itself was a big deal to him.
- [20:29]
Defense Attorney
Not only is that possible evidence of a true perpetrator, but I think even more importantly, it proves that the crime the state has always alleged to have happened could not have happened. Because if that's what had occurred, the sensitivity of today's DNA testing would have absolutely revealed at least one of the six teenagers DNA profiles on that evidence. And it hasn't.
- [21:02]
Narrator
The one moment during the hearing that really made everyone pause, though. Can you state your name for the record?
- [21:08]
Witness
Jessica Black.
- [21:09]
Narrator
She was emotional and not in good health, but she answered all of the panel members questions without holding anything back.
- [21:17]
Witness
As I got older and was able to process stuff as it. As it happened and was able to look at it from an adult point of view, that's when the feelings kick in.
- [21:30]
Narrator
And what were those feelings?
- [21:32]
Witness
Horrible.
- [21:34]
Narrator
Horrible.
- [21:37]
Witness
My conscience has ate at me so bad. So bad. And now I have a son who was 14. And I could only imagine if my son was in that predicament and how I would feel. The more I have sat and finally talked about it and thought and talked and thought. I've always thought about it. But the more I have sat here and verbally come out about it and I can hear myself talk about it and being the age I am now, that I can sit here and I can look back and rationalize every single thing that was going on right then. It's stuff that needs. It's just stuff that needs to be set right.
- [22:19]
Narrator
When commissioners asked her why she'd lied in the first place, she detailed a familiar story.
- [22:26]
Witness
Because I was 16 and I did what I thought I was supposed to do based on the law or the police, rather, based on who I thought I was able. I was supposed to trust who I thought I was supposed to listen to. I had no reason not to believe nothing that they said. Because it's the police. You should be able to rely. You should be able to trust them. If you can't trust nobody, what were.
- [22:51]
Narrator
You expecting to happen by coming forward and changing your story?
- [22:56]
Witness
That everything be set right the way it should be and what happened in those rooms and stuff be known. Why do you think they didn't charge? Because I feel like they got what they wanted. I just feel like with the. With the aggression and stuff to come out and the way that they did, I feel like they finally got what they wanted. What do you think they wanted. I believe that they already had a scenario in their mind as to what had happened. And then you got these five young men that constantly. That roam the neighborhood and just hang out and do their thing. I feel like they went ahead and came up with their own scenario, their own story, and that they wanted something that fit that and that anything that I said or them boys said didn't fit it. So they just kept on until they got what they felt fit.
- [23:49]
Narrator
She knew without a doubt her friends had fallen victim to the same thing.
- [23:54]
Witness
It seemed like the more. The more, I don't know, aggravated or made them mad, that the more they swapped off, and that's when I finally ended up with that one that wanted to holler and scream and spit and all that. If they went through anything, what I went through up in there, then I can see why they come to that, because they were probably tired and scared. I know they're scared.
- [24:18]
Narrator
Local journalist Michael Hewlett watched and listened closely to Jessica's testimony. Is she telling the truth now, or.
- [24:26]
Defense Attorney
Was she telling the truth then?
- [24:28]
Witness
Then the question becomes, okay, what benefit.
- [24:32]
Defense Attorney
Does she get from recanting?
- [24:37]
Witness
And it doesn't appear that there's a lot.
- [24:40]
Defense Attorney
Part of any trial, part of any.
- [24:44]
Narrator
Hearing is evaluating the body language of.
- [24:48]
Witness
Someone, and that's how you evaluate their credibility.
- [24:51]
Narrator
And so I remember watching her testify, and she seemed genuinely anguished. When Jamal heard Jessica's words during the hearing, he was relieved.
- [25:03]
Witness
I wish she would have did it a lot sooner. I mean, but I. What's crazy is my anger was never really with her. They did her the same way they did us, so it was understandable.
- [25:16]
Narrator
Do you sense that she's genuinely remorseful?
- [25:19]
Witness
I do. I do.
- [25:22]
Narrator
Christopher feels the same way. But still, he has one question for Jessica.
- [25:28]
Witness
Why does she let it simmer so long? Why did you let it simmer so long?
- [25:34]
Narrator
In the end, he's found it better to forgive than hold a grudge. Same goes for Nathaniel and Rayshawn.
- [25:41]
Witness
At first, yeah, it was kind of like, why would you do that? I'm saying that's not right. But then as I got older and I started to think about the situation, yeah, she was done just like we was done. She was put in the same predicament as me. I felt sorry for her. Like, when she came forward and was like, yo, I was wrong. I knew I was wrong. I knew what I was doing was wrong. That made me see her in a better light than what I used to see her in.
- [26:13]
Narrator
Teresa Banner. Rayshawn And Nathaniel's mother goes back and forth with how she feels about Jessica.
- [26:19]
Witness
I did speak with her, you know, and I hugged her, but it still didn't take away what I initially felt. You know, you are the reason why my son is here. I have forgiven her in my heart. I don't want to see anything bad happen to her because now I realize what. What they did to her. So that makes me feel bad for her, too. But still, that's not going to help you in the long run. Your conscience is just tore up, and it's going to be tore up until the day you die, probably. You know, I call it a cancer. This is something that has been eating at me for so, so long, you know, And I can't get out there and express what I really feel towards Jessica Black. You know, you done wrong. You should not have done that, but you did because you were under a lot of pressure. I understand that. I appreciate you trying to make it right. But could you have came forward maybe two years later? You know, this has been 20 some years now.
- [27:25]
Narrator
When you watched her, did you see a genuine woman who was remorseful and wish she had not done what had happened?
- [27:33]
Witness
I did. I did.
- [27:36]
Narrator
The defense attorneys, who were really just observers in the eight member panel proceeding, felt empathy towards Jessyca. They'd read her body language just like Michael Hewlett had. It's incredibly compelling. And saw a woman who appeared to them to be broken and filled with regret. Jessica was a victim in all of this. She was manipulated.
- [27:58]
Witness
Victim.
- [27:59]
Narrator
She lived with the fact that she knew what she testified to was false. Once she found out that they were innocent, it has turned her world upside down.
- [28:12]
Defense Attorney
Jessica Black did the wrong thing when she was a teenager. She was scared when they came back to her and she was in her 30s, and she had had some life experience between that time and she had her own child. And she realized what these officers told me about the evidence had against these kids did not exist then. It's just very clear that that moment was a moment of truth for her and that she had to do what she knew was the only right thing to do, which was be truthful about that. That's just not something that people do for no reason. That's something that people do out of principle. That's something that people do because their conscience, which is what she said, it was eating her alive and she could not live with it anymore. And it has torn her up. And I think that once she told the truth, she committed herself from that point forward.
- [29:20]
Narrator
Something super interesting though, is that just two weeks before the eight member panel even kicked off, something significant happened that could have derailed everything with respect to Jessica, the cops were once again wanting to speak with her.
- [29:36]
Witness
Our badge says Winston Salem. We're a long way from Winston Salem.
- [29:39]
Narrator
So we ain't here to arrest you.
- [29:40]
Witness
We can't arrest you. We just want the truth. Tell us what happened.
- [29:48]
Narrator
Netcredit is here to say yes to.
- [29:50]
Defense Attorney
A personal loan or line of credit.
- [29:52]
Narrator
When other lenders say no, apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks in service by NetCredit applications subject to review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partner NetCredit Credit to the people. Your life will be full of change and the Mod Max modular sectional from the Ashley store is designed to change right along with it. Maybe you change homes or grow your family or you're ready to build the home theater of your dreams. You can configure the Mod Max to fit spaces of any size with add ons like ottomans, storage units, audio consoles and reclining chairs. And ModMax's durable machine washable cushion covers made from next gen Nuvella performance fabric means that you'll never sweat the spilled stuff. Mod Max from the Ashley Store Shop in store or@ashley.com on February 26, 2020, 13 days before Jessica testified in front of the Innocence Inquiry Commission, two Winston Salem police detectives showed up at her job. Here's Brad Bannon.
- [30:59]
Defense Attorney
A couple weeks before the IIC hearing, as is required by statute, the staff members convened the defense lawyers and the prosecutors in the case to forecast what the evidence they had developed was and what the evidence they would be presenting to the commission was. Which of course included centrally and as a key part, Jessica's recantation. I believe that was in the early afternoon that we had that meeting. Within hours, literally within hours, the Winston Salem Police Department was at Jessica's job to talk to her about this. And when she said, I can't talk now, I'm working, they said, well, can we come to your home tonight? And she said sure. And she met them at her home, not with a lawyer, by herself.
- [31:58]
Narrator
Jessica told her story to the officers and explained in detail how she lied back in 2002 and been coerced into falsely confessing.
- [32:07]
Defense Attorney
And it's very clear that in that moment, you know, all the pressure that she might have felt when she was a 16 year old, it was there. But in her 30s she stood her ground by herself and told Those police officers. What I'm saying now is the truth. What I said then wasn't one of.
- [32:31]
Narrator
The detectives who did that interview, Jason.
- [32:33]
Witness
Swaim, detective with the Winston Salem Police.
- [32:36]
Narrator
Department, would later testify before the Innocence Inquiry Commission. He told the panel that it was his professional opinion that Jessyca was not a reliable witness.
- [32:47]
Witness
The different stories that she's told at this point, obviously I don't think any of us would can consider, and it'll be hard to consider her credible.
- [32:58]
Narrator
I should note though, Detective Swaim never worked the original homicide investigation. And prior to the eight member panel, he'd only reviewed the autopsy findings and his own department's reports on the murder. Nothing else. The fact that Detective Swaim and his partner were involved at all, as well as the timing of their visit to speak with Jessica, seemed strange to the defense attorneys, maybe even a bit calculated.
- [33:24]
Defense Attorney
It's noteworthy that even though all the lawyers in that room knew this witness is going to be called in a couple of weeks before these commissioners, the state sent out police officers to see her. In the meantime, was there an investigative purpose behind that? I'm sure that an investigative purpose could exist and be articulated about that would be another purpose of that, to try to maybe intimidate her. Who knows? If that was the purpose, it certainly didn't succeed.
- [34:00]
Narrator
This case is fraught with questions about police intimidation, most notably when it comes to the teens interrogations. Back in 2002, Commission staff had to tackle that mountain, too. They'd conducted depositions from all the former detectives who'd worked the case and put them in the hot seat. Recordings of those depositions are not publicly accessible, but lucky for me, a few clips were played during the hearing. Here's the former lead detective over the case, Mark Griffin, answering questions from IIC investigator Julie Bridenstine. What was the purpose of Detective Flynn coming in and confronting Jessica Black with information from other interviews?
- [34:43]
Witness
To get her to be truthful.
- [34:48]
Narrator
Mark was followed by Detective Shawn Flynn. Why did you talk to Jamal Toliver about the death penalty?
- [34:55]
Witness
Elicit a response.
- [34:57]
Narrator
What is the purpose in telling a juvenile who's too young to receive the death penalty that it. That it's a possible punishment that they're.
- [35:06]
Witness
Facing to elicit a response.
- [35:09]
Narrator
What type of response are you trying to elicit?
- [35:12]
Witness
Truthful response.
- [35:14]
Narrator
Another investigator named Mike Rowe was also deposed. Why didn't you tape his statement at that point?
- [35:22]
Witness
Because I believe that we weren't finished talking.
- [35:25]
Narrator
What made you think you weren't finished talking?
- [35:28]
Witness
I've been in interviews with people for hours and hours and hours. I didn't think that we were at a dead end. I wanted to give him time to think, time to decide what he wanted to do. I wanted to glean more information from other interviews. Maybe I could take something else back then. So in my judgment, at that point, the interview wasn't closed. And I felt like there was an opportunity to come back later and continue with the interview and get more information from him.
- [36:08]
Narrator
How did Nathaniel Cawthon appear after his.
- [36:10]
Witness
Mother left, distraught that his mother didn't believe him?
- [36:15]
Narrator
You told him that you didn't believe him either?
- [36:18]
Witness
I did.
- [36:19]
Narrator
Why did you tell him that?
- [36:20]
Witness
Because I didn't believe him.
- [36:22]
Narrator
What was the purpose of letting him.
- [36:24]
Witness
Know that you didn't believe him? To let him know that his story was out there flying solo. All the other information was coming together and he was out there by himself. Everybody else was saying he was involved and kept asking me to tell the truth.
- [36:42]
Narrator
And lastly, audio from former WSPD Detective Randy Weevil's deposition was played. Weevil had been present in many of the interrogations, including Rayshawn and Nathaniel's. Things were an organized cluster that night.
- [36:56]
Witness
Of people being brought into the interview room. And they're saying, so and so is saying this and so and so is saying that. I do not remember any specifics of this. I just.
- [37:06]
Narrator
I remember it was a buzz down there that day. I mean, it was. It was a lot of people. What kind of a response were you trying to elicit when you played the tape to Rayshawn Banner of his brothers?
- [37:17]
Witness
I don't recall playing that, but that would be to Elisabeth, to get him to say whether he was there or not, that to let him know that his brother was saying that you, yes, you are there, and your wrong brother saying you're there.
- [37:33]
Narrator
What was the purpose of killing Darrell Brayboy that he needed to get right.
- [37:38]
Defense Attorney
With the sink, to listen to response.
- [37:42]
Witness
See what he had to say, didn't believe what he was saying.
- [37:47]
Narrator
Retired Detective Chuck Byram was also among the investigators who were deposed. I don't have audio from his closed door conversation with the Innocence Inquiry Commission, but I've got the next best thing, my own interview. He told me that back in 2002 and even before that, the Winston Salem Police Department had an unorthodox practice of obtaining confessions from suspects.
- [38:11]
Witness
Some of the things that got us in trouble with criminal cases were the fact that we would do interviews and interrogations and sometimes get written confessions or statements. And sometimes those confessions or statements would be Redone on tape. It's kind of like, take one. No, that's a bad take. Take two. That's a bad take. It was kind of like, these guys are actors or these people, men, women, and you interview them without taping them. And you take one, take two, or even record them. And there's something in there that you said you don't want on tape. Or they. There's something that they said that you don't want to have transcribed. And you say, okay, let's start it over again.
- [39:14]
Narrator
Christopher Bryant remembers this exact thing happening to him.
- [39:19]
Witness
They shut mine down a few times though, when they was interview. When they was tape recording me, though, like. And then I had to write my statement over and stuff like, oh, you.
- [39:29]
Narrator
Mean they like started it and then stopped it and then restarted it?
- [39:32]
Witness
Yeah.
- [39:33]
Narrator
I asked Chuck why the police department did interrogations like this, because it all just seemed very shady. What do you think that does to people's ability to believe in the full credibility or validity of that conversation? And whether what the person is saying is voluntary or not, it jeopardizes the.
- [39:57]
Witness
Case, it hinders the case, and it could possibly lose you the case. And I've been on both sides. When I say I've been on both sides. I've seen interviews and interrogations that, you know, you can't say that you can't do that. And it's kind of like, well, we'll just leave it up to the da.
- [40:20]
Narrator
But that also could mean you could get the wrong person too.
- [40:24]
Witness
Like, bad cases are not done solely by the police department because we have to present them to the district attorney's office. And it's kind of like, well, in a couple of cases, I'm not saying this one in particular, but, you know, you asking somebody to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
- [40:43]
Narrator
I disagree with Chuck on this. Conducting a by the book interrogation without deceptive tactics should be the norm. A criminal investigation is no place to roll the dice and do a questionable interrogation, only to wash your hands of it after someone's been convicted. And then you blame the district attorney's office. That's wild to me. I don't know if Chuck shared any of what he shared with me during his Innocence Inquiry Commission deposition, but if he did, I imagine their jaws had to be on the floor. The expert who testified to the eight member panel about the dynamics of the teenagers interrogations and whether or not any of them had falsely confessed was Dr. Haley Cleary, a developmental psychologist from Virginia who specifically researches police interviews with young people. And Adolescent Development in Legal Contexts. The commission had her review the transcripts and audio recordings of Jessica and the five defendants interrogations, as well as the young men's school records from when they were teenagers and when they'd pursued educations while incarcerated. What she concluded was powerful. She determined all of the boys had intellectual disabilities. And that fact, combined with their young age at the time, had made them all extremely vulnerable to coercion during their interrogations. She also concluded that the multiple inconsistencies in each of their accounts of what happened, combined with the lack of corroborating evidence, essentially confirmed that the stories they'd provided police were likely made up to appease detectives. In her opinion, the fact that detectives had threatened several of the juveniles with the death penalty during their interrogations played a major role in why they may have complied. This is what's known as a maximization technique, and it's meant to heighten a person's anxiety and make them feel as if denial is a futile effort. Dr. Cleary also concluded that Jessyca had suffered from interrogative suggestibility too. And there were numerous potential examples during her interrogation where she'd guessed at details of the crime in an attempt to make the detectives ease up on her. Mark Rabel, Jamal Tolliver's attorney, felt Dr. Cleary's findings were not only earth shattering, but extremely helpful in understanding what went down in those interrogation rooms all those years ago.
- [43:01]
Witness
Her testimony went not only to why did these five young boys say what they did, but why did Jessica say what she did? And so it covered all of the witnesses.
- [43:12]
Narrator
Brad Bannon saw the bigger picture that Haley Cleary's findings painted, and it wasn't pretty.
- [43:18]
Defense Attorney
This case demonstrates how spectacularly the criminal justice system can fail the most vulnerable people in this society. And there aren't people much more vulnerable than intellectually disabled children of color who do not have the means and have never had the resources to defend themselves when they're falsely accused of a crime. To this day, I don't sit here and think any of these police officers meant to frame innocent kids. Like I don't believe the police set out to find five kids that they could absolutely, knowingly falsely accuse and frame for murder. I just think that the way they went about doing it accomplished exactly that.
- [44:12]
Narrator
Despite what the expert psychologist had to say, Chuck Byram remains unconvinced that any of the teenagers falsely confessed back in 2002 to him or any other detective. Do you think for a second that they could have been fed any of that information or tricked or that what they said was just to satisfy law enforcement. Because that is a very big argument they are making now.
- [44:39]
Witness
I can say that I've been made aware of such instances with our department. This is not one of them. Somebody confessing to something that they didn't do. I mean, people don't understand that that happens all the time. And there's a lot of people in prison right now for confessing to a crime that they did not commit.
- [45:01]
Narrator
But you don't think that applies to these defendants?
- [45:03]
Witness
No. No, no way. I'll say this. I don't think that I in particular would have done anything different than what I did. I might have done it differently, but not any different. I feel confident that these guys were the ones that were involved in it.
- [45:26]
Narrator
He's unwavering. Despite the fact that Jessica Black has publicly recanted. If she was telling the truth and everything that she said back in 2002, 2004, 2005, was a lie, wouldn't that change your perspective of these defendants? Guilt?
- [45:48]
Witness
No. Sometimes people will be convinced, coerced, whatever. But in this particular case, she was telling the truth. I believe she may have embellished, but for the most part, she was being truthful. Then.
- [46:10]
Narrator
Another big moment during the eight member panel hearing was when an independent Leighton print and footwear examiner named Marty Ludus testified. Marty had been asked by the Innocence Inquiry Commission to re examine the partial shoe prints taken from Mr. Jones's car hood, along with the size 9 Nike Air Force ones that police had seized as evidence from the Banner Cawthon household. What he'd been tasked with was difficult. As he explained in his testimony in.
- [46:37]
Witness
This case, these were negative impressions. So the shoe was pulling away and leaving a negative. And it's like looking at a negative, the old fashioned negatives, and then look at the picture and it's confusing. So in that process, it makes the comparison very difficult.
- [46:56]
Narrator
And the.
- [46:57]
Witness
You don't see the very intricate details that you can see in a positive transfer. So it's a negative impression, which means it took something away. Something being dust, pollen, whatever else.
- [47:11]
Narrator
Right. Marty concluded that the impressions had likely come from someone walking across the hood of Mr. Jones's Lincoln from the passenger side of the vehicle toward the driver's side. He told the commissioners that in his professional opinion, the Nikes from Rayshawn and Nathaniel's house could have been the source of the footwear impressions. But it was possible another pair of Nikes may have also deposited the prints. There simply just wasn't enough quantitative data to have absolute certainty.
- [47:39]
Witness
Wear pattern interpretation is very subjective, and it needs to be just part of the comparison process so you don't get carried away and make a mistake.
- [47:50]
Narrator
He emphasized that just because Rayshawn's Nikes were the right size and had similar wear pattern to the partial shoe prints, that didn't mean it was his shoe that made them or that he'd ever been at the crime scene. Marty said that kind of thinking was where police and prosecutors had gone wrong in 2002.
- [48:09]
Witness
What was happening is police officers were looking at it and they had an idea that that shoe, that was the guy that did it. And they're seeing things and making recognition and the wear patterns look good. And there was too much emphasis on that, and that was not. And it was like a red flag that people are putting emphasis on this and because they want the shoe to match, it does.
- [48:37]
Narrator
The key, Marty said, was understanding that there is a fundamental difference between a quote, unquote, match or identification and wear pattern compliance. I know that's a bit technical, but here's how he articulated it to the commission.
- [48:52]
Witness
The shoes were consistent in shape, size, sole design, and also reflected a compliance of wear patterns. Therefore, that shoe could have made those impressions. Was it misleading for a lawyer to say or argue that that was an identification? Absolutely. It's not an identification.
- [49:18]
Narrator
It's.
- [49:19]
Defense Attorney
It's.
- [49:19]
Witness
It's a. It. It's compliance, limited compliance, not an identification. It's class characteristics as opposed to individual characteristics.
- [49:33]
Narrator
The fact that Nike Air Force Ones were such a popular shoe in 2002 made it difficult for innocence inquiry investigators to really dig any further into the shoe print evidence beyond just, well, nobody knows. And it wasn't like Nike had been much help either. Nike could only provide wholesale sales data since their shoes are sold at so many different retailers, and they could not provide sales data broken down by size of shoe or even region. The last few investigative avenues that were discussed in the hearing had to do with the Willard Cab Company phone calls and a string of robberies that had occurred in southside shortly before Mr. Jones was murdered. A few references to the prior robberies were dotted throughout some of the Officer's reports from 2002.
- [50:20]
Witness
That is critically important that it shows that there was activity, criminal activity in the area.
- [50:26]
Narrator
Innocence inquiry investigators tried their best to follow up on this information, but they were two decades behind the eight ball and they never got anywhere. That was likely because police had never filed any more paperwork about their efforts to solve those crimes. And the reason for the lack of a paper trail was because the investigation into that matter had been abandoned as soon as Mr. Jones murder happened. That fact really bothers the defense attorneys. I mean, they knew that there were three people who were suspected of committing robberies in the area, and they just dropped those as potential suspects.
- [51:03]
Defense Attorney
It just puts anybody who was in a position in 2024 or was in a position in 2022 trying to prove who the true perpetrator is or what happened from moment to moment that night, it puts them in an awful position. And it, you know, reveals that the last best opportunity these kids had to be able to identify a true perpetrator in their own defense, which they never should have been, nor they should be required to do, was back in 2002 when law enforcement walked away from the investigation.
- [51:39]
Narrator
Same goes for the Willard Cab Company calls. Law enforcement seemingly dropped the ball on that, too, because by the time they received the business's phone records and could have dug further into the data, they'd already arrested the boys. And so that lead wasn't pursued.
- [51:54]
Defense Attorney
The police were never able to obtain evidence about who was this person doing this? Why in the world would a series of calls be placed to a cab company to come to Mr. Jones? I mean, that's not a coincidence. Who could ever believe that's a coincidence? And when you rule out coincidence, then you have to conclude that it must have something to do with this crime.
- [52:16]
Narrator
The cell phone records just don't exist that far back, which is the problem when investigation is not done at the time. Right. Evidence is lost. You can't go down some of the investigative avenues you could before they could have gone to the carrier and gotten the detail on what the number was that was coming through. Had they done it then? But they didn't. They didn't. And those records no longer exist. That's exactly why investigators with the Innocence Inquiry Commission couldn't really do much when it came to Willard Cab Co. And those suspicious calls. There just wasn't anything there to find, according to them. On the fifth and final day of the hearing, it was time for Christopher, Jamal, Rayshawn and Nathaniel to take Questions from the eight member panel. Good morning, Mr. Toliver.
- [53:06]
Witness
Good morning.
- [53:07]
Narrator
Jamal went first. He wore a pressed dress shirt and a friendly smile, despite the difficult subject matter at hand. Did you rob Nathaniel Jones?
- [53:17]
Witness
No, ma'am.
- [53:19]
Narrator
Did you kill Nathaniel Jones?
- [53:21]
Witness
No, ma'am.
- [53:22]
Narrator
Were you involved in any way in the robbery and death of Nathaniel Jones?
- [53:26]
Witness
No, ma'am.
- [53:28]
Narrator
His false confession claim took center stage. If you didn't commit these crimes, why did you tell police that you did.
- [53:36]
Witness
Because they wouldn't accept that I didn't. They wouldn't listen to nothing else. I don't know. I figured I had to say something that they didn't like. They didn't accept the fact that I was like, no, I didn't do it. So then they started asking me who I hang around. That's how they got all my co defendants. Can you explain why you implicated yourself and then your friends? I thought I was going home. I did exactly what they asked me to do. I was a kid. I don't know. I just thought if I did what they said, they were going to return me to my mom. And as a man, now I know I was a fool.
- [54:15]
Narrator
This reality that Jamal had served his buddies names up on a silver platter for police to go out and find is something that still weighs heavy on his conscience today.
- [54:26]
Witness
If I didn't ever go down there and see them or talk to them, they would. We would never have been locked up. All I had to do is keep saying, no, we didn't do it. But I didn't know any better.
- [54:39]
Narrator
The commissioners were extremely curious about something else, too. His mother. Had Jamal ever asked Arlene why she'd called police in 2002 and allegedly brought up his name? He didn't have an answer. To this day, he still has no idea why his own mother made herself the catalyst for his name coming onto law enforcement's radar.
- [55:00]
Witness
I don't know. I think she was worried. I can't really say I'm not upset with her for it. I never was, but I didn't understand it, But I was like, I'm trying to. Like, I can't. I can't. There's no way I could ever put myself in her head and wonder why she done that. So I just decided to leave that like that.
- [55:22]
Narrator
Mark Rabel, Jamal's lawyer, has left it like that, too.
- [55:27]
Witness
She's the mom doing the best she can with what she has. Really, all we can settle on is it is a fact that she called. The why I think, will continue to be a mystery. I know that she doesn't deal with the world like the way the rest of us do. So why did she make that call? I. It's anybody's guess. It's unlikely that any of these boys would have been charged, much less questioned, if she hadn't made that call.
- [55:56]
Narrator
Brad Bannon's opinion is that Arlene's reason for calling the police was rooted in the fact that there had been those string of Robberies going on in Southside. And she'd remembered that police had come by her house a week or so before canvassing for information. Detective Rose had even left a business card behind.
- [56:14]
Defense Attorney
That experience stuck with her, and he gave her his contact information. I just talked to Detective Rose. He asked me to get in touch with him if I ever knew anything about anything that was going on in the neighborhood. And I called him.
- [56:28]
Narrator
But somehow her words had gotten sorely misinterpreted.
- [56:32]
Defense Attorney
Why in the world would this woman have called us about her son perhaps knowing about this crime, unless he actually did? Because he actually did it, basically. If the one who gave you up is your mom, then you must be guilty. That's the way they received that telephone call, regardless of what actually was said in that telephone call. And that's the way they acted on that telephone call. And even decades later, some of the officers, when deposed, said, well, you know, his own mom thought he did it. Absolutely false. She didn't think he did it. She's never thought he did it because he didn't do it.
- [57:14]
Narrator
When it was time for Rayshawn to testify, deputies brought him in in his prison fatigues, a bright orange and white striped Department of Corrections jumpsuit. Were you involved in any way in the robbery and death of Mr. Jones?
- [57:27]
Witness
No, ma'am.
- [57:28]
Narrator
The commissioners had one really specific question for Rayshawn. Why had his older brother thrown him under the bus? That was a pretty crappy thing to do. No.
- [57:38]
Witness
Did you ever ask him why he lied?
- [57:42]
Narrator
Yeah. What did he say?
- [57:44]
Witness
He just lied.
- [57:46]
Narrator
If you didn't commit these crimes, why did you tell police that you did?
- [57:51]
Witness
Because I was. I heard the recording that the detectives played for me that stated that my brother seen me hit the man first. And so I figured he lied. I lied, and I just wanted to go home.
- [58:06]
Narrator
When it was Nathaniel's turn to take the stand, he held nothing back, even though he was also clad in his prison jumpsuit. It was his passionate personality that commissioners saw on full display. Mr. Cawthon, if you didn't commit these crimes, why did you tell police on November 19, 2002, that you had committed them?
- [58:27]
Witness
Because I was scared for my life.
- [58:30]
Narrator
Why were you scared?
- [58:31]
Witness
Because I thought the police was going to do something to me. I was a child. I was 15 years old. I was forced to say something that I didn't want to say. And the only way I knew to get out of the situation that I was in was to comply with what they was asking me for. And I'm like, what else Could I tell these people to get me out of this room? What you want me to do? I'm 15 years old. I can't read or write. I know no better. Only thing I know is my mama's at home. I don't know where I'm at. What you want me to say? Any kid would do that. Any kid will actually sit right here and lie to make a situation better so they can go home. But, see, now, I'm a little older. My mind has developed. I have knowledge of the situation. I know who I am. I understand the situation. So if you ask me again, did I harm Mr. Jones? No, ma'am, I didn't. Did I have any implications of knowing what happened to Mr. Jones? No, ma'am, I didn't have. I had any intentions of harming Mr. Jones? No, ma'am, I didn't, because I wasn't there. Why did you tell the police that Rayshawn was the first person that hit Mr. Johnson? It was just a lie. So you told a lie to get your little brother and your best friend in the world implicated in this? Not necessarily, but it was the first thing that came to my mind, and the first thing that. It was just a lie. That's all it was. You understand how difficult that is to understand at this point, being 33? Yes, sir.
- [60:13]
Narrator
When panel members asked him what he wanted most out of the Innocence Inquiry Commission process, he, of course, said he'd like to be exonerated. But he took it one step further.
- [60:24]
Witness
I would actually like for somebody to actually come forward and tell the truth. I would actually like for somebody to plead, because I don't like being in chains. I don't like being in shackles, and I don't like my name being put in something that I did not do. Yeah, I was wrong for saying I did a crime, but I had no other choice. In my mind, at the age of 15 years old, now that I'm 33 years old, yeah, I would like for somebody to please come forward. I would like for somebody to please actually take their guilt.
- [60:58]
Narrator
When Christopher Bryant testified after Nathaniel, he said the same thing. Exoneration would be great, but there was something else just as important that needed to happen.
- [61:09]
Witness
I didn't have nothing to do with Mr. Jones murder. I never was involved. I never participated in it. I would never do nothing like that to nobody. And I wouldn't hang around nobody that would do that. I want justice for not just us, but for him as well, though. Like, he didn't deserve that. And I'll go to my grave until the day I'm dead, knowing that I didn't do this. I didn't have no part in it. The ones that's locked up for this like they in prison for something they didn't do.
- [61:38]
Narrator
And with that, the hearing came to a close. The eight members retired to deliberate. But right before they did, Charles Paul, Mr. Jones son in law, read the following statement. On behalf of my family, I just want to let y'all know we appreciate it and thank everybody for being here. But a lot of times during this process, it's been tough, mostly on my wife and her sister, to relive this all over again. We're standing strong, but we just wanted to let you all know that it always gets lost as Chris Paul's grandfather. But this was my wife. This was my wife's dad and her sisters, somebody that they loved very much. And I just want y'all to know that we appreciate it and that on behalf of my wife and her sister, this is a man we loved and miss every day. And there's nothing we can do to bring him back. We just want to let y'all know that. It didn't take very long for the panel to return with their decision. The final vote was 5 to 3 in favor of sending the case in front of a three judge panel. The defendants had won the battle, but not the war.
- [62:49]
Witness
It ain't never over. It's never over.
- [62:53]
Narrator
Four men, part of the group known as the Winston Salem Five, are seeking exoneration. It was officially time for the defense attorneys to go from sitting on the sidelines to jumping into the arena. You don't ever know what the judge is going to be like. And the stakes could not have been higher. That's a huge, high legal standard. Rhonda Hairston and Robyn Jones Paul, Chris Paul's mother, both women saying they believe the killers are in the courtroom right.
- [63:23]
Defense Attorney
In front of them.
- [63:25]
Narrator
We're going back to court again. In episode seven, Judgment, NetCredit is here to say yes, because you're more than a credit score. Apply in minutes and get a decision.
- [63:39]
Defense Attorney
As soon as the same day.
- [63:40]
Narrator
Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and service by NetCredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partners NetCredit Credit to the people. Your life will be full of change. And the Mod Max modular sectional from the Ashley store is designed to change right along with it. Maybe you change homes or grow your family or you're ready to build the home theater of your dreams. You can configure the Mod Max to fit spaces of any size with add ons like ottomans, storage units, audio consoles and reclining chairs. And ModMax's durable machine washable cushion covers made from next gen Nuvella performance fabric means that you'll never sweat the spilled stuff. Modmax from the Ashley Store Shop in store or at ashley.
- [64:27]
Witness
Com.