Everything They Missed

Episode: Fourteen Strangers

Date: September 25, 2025
Host: Stephanie Tinsley (StephTown Studios/Audacy/TFTV)

Episode Overview

In "Fourteen Strangers," Stephanie Tinsley revisits the 2007 murder of Danny Harris in Memphis and the controversial conviction of Andrew Hayes—a man with documented intellectual disabilities. The episode traces overlooked and contradictory elements of the investigation and trial, focusing especially on the experiences of the jury, the conduct of attorneys and police, and new revelations from those who played pivotal roles. Tinsley seeks to unravel how the justice system failed both the accused and the victim’s loved ones, as the show highlights the pieces "everyone missed."

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Jury’s Ordeal: Fourteen Strangers (01:20 – 03:16)

• Stephanie interviews sequestered jurors from Andrew Hayes’ 2010 trial, uncovering the trauma, isolation, and confusion they felt.
• Jurors, “school teachers, health care workers, one on military leave…” (02:13), were unprepared for the weight of the decision.
• Recounting of sequestration discomfort:

  “We didn’t have no telephone, no radio, no nothing... just a dark room." – Juror 48 (01:37)

• Multiple jurors express trauma:

  "I truly want to forget it." – Juror 63 (03:13)

• A sense emerges that most jurors deeply regretted their participation and felt unqualified.

2. Inside Defense: Attorney Coleman Garrett (04:01 – 09:26)

• Stephanie meets Coleman Garrett, Andrew’s 81-year-old court-appointed attorney.

  “This is not a job. This is a commitment... I get just as psyched about this business now, as I did 35 years ago.” – Coleman Garrett (05:39)

• Garrett frames the prosecution as hasty and unjust:

  “Indicting and... putting Andrew Hayes on trial... is the greatest miscarriage of justice since Gregory Peck played Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird.” – Garrett reading his opening (07:52)

• Garrett’s defense: No physical evidence tied Hayes to Harris’s murder; claims the state sought a tidy, media-friendly resolution.

3. The State’s Case: A Tidy but Flawed Story (10:24 – 14:13)

• Prosecutor Missy Branham asserts a motive based on “robbery” with little supporting logic; her argument is dissected by Stephanie and her husband, trial lawyer Mark Tinsley:

  “And, oh, the state’s motive of robbery was for what? A TV that nobody could carry... makes no sense... the state didn’t meet its burden.” – Mark Tinsley (11:20)

• Trial testimony highlights included Sarah Lucas—Danny’s stepdaughter—brought in as a witness only after having her open warrants cleared (13:39), and whose denials and obfuscation raise more questions than answers.
• Sarah’s cross-examination reveals inconsistencies, particularly about her whereabouts on the day of the murder.

4. Police Interrogation: The Case Against Andrew (17:24 – 23:13)

• Lt. Bart Ragland, lead interrogator, testifies that Andrew’s story kept shifting.

  "His story kept changing and changing..." – Lt. Bart Ragland (17:24)

• Garrett presses Ragland on interrogation methods; Ragland describes the use of the Reid technique and refuses to accept that an intellectually disabled person might falsely confess.

  “If you’re not involved, there’s no reason to be scared.” – Ragland (21:54)

• Ragland admits Andrew couldn’t read his rights waiver, but claims no special tactics needed.

5. Andrew Hayes Testifies: A Risky Move (25:51 – 32:28)

• Hayes takes the stand after little explanation of his rights, contrasted with high-profile cases like Alex Murdaugh’s where rights were clearly read and explained (26:03 – 27:20).
• Mark Tinsley questions the move:

  "It’s a catastrophic example of why you remain silent, why you don’t take the stand." – Mark Tinsley (27:20)

• Andrew describes hours of screaming, intimidation, and the moment he confessed:

  “I just told him. I just like, yeah, I did it. That’s what you want to hear? Yeah, I did it. I killed him.” – Andrew Hayes (28:27)

• On the stand, Andrew’s distress becomes a liability, as the prosecutor goads him:

  “You’re not gonna make me say that. I do when I don’t.” – Andrew Hayes (30:20)

6. Garrett’s Reflections on Defense Mistakes (31:16 – 31:38)

• Garrett confesses philosophical missteps, regretting not having prepared Andrew for aggressive cross-examination:

  "I should have grilled him... I knew how good [the prosecutor] is. I didn’t do it. I neglected to do it because I didn’t see it coming.” – Coleman Garrett (31:16, 31:38)

7. Whose Story Counts? The Contradictions of Tammy Vance (33:20 – 35:49)

• Tammy Vance, Andrew’s co-defendant, testifies that her own daughter Sarah killed Danny Harris, not Andrew.

  “She hit him again. A couple of times. I tried to stop her, but she hit me with the hammer.” – Tammy Vance quoting from her statement (34:10)

• Tinsley and Mark note the prosecution relies on Tammy's earlier statement implicating Andrew, but now wants the jury to ignore her recantation.

8. Jury Deliberations and Verdict: Flawed Process (37:16 – 39:50)

• Jury’s decision appears rushed and impacted by personal motives and dominant personalities:

  “Some of them was getting tired... they was trying to rush it up anyway... I went along with those other people.” – Juror [paraphrased] (38:48)

• Serious conflict of interest revealed: one juror worked for the same sheriff’s office as the victim’s son, yet remained on the panel—a fact not disclosed during voir dire.

9. Aftermath and Regrets (40:01 – 41:55)

• Garrett rues his failures in preparing Andrew, reporting a juror told him:

  “You were doing fine until he... showed his true colors. And that’s what got him convicted. So, my God, I didn’t do my job.” – Coleman Garrett (40:04)

• Andrew’s mother “sank to the floor.” No closure, no real answers.
• Stephanie concludes:

  “There was no physical evidence linking Andrew to the murder. ... Only a confession. One pulled from hours of yelling, of threats, of a man with a seventh-grade education... And that was enough.” (40:58)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

“What they won’t be able to show you is that there’s any evidence whatsoever that Andrew Hayes was ever there. No fingerprints, no hair samples, no fiber samples, no independent eyewitnesses, no DNA, no motive.” – Coleman Garrett (09:03)

“I should have grilled him. I should have grilled him... I didn’t do it. I neglected to do it because I didn’t see it coming. And I wanted him to be himself. I didn’t want him to be coached. I just wanted him to be Andrew.” – Coleman Garrett (31:16)

“If you’re not involved, there’s no reason to be scared.” – Lt. Bart Ragland (21:54)

“There was no physical evidence linking Andrew to the murder... Only a confession. ... And that was enough. It was enough to take his freedom. It was enough to keep him in prison for the next 18 years.” – Stephanie Tinsley (40:58)

“This was worse than a fumble. This is when you score against yourself. You dribbled the ball back down the court and you scored it in your own basket.” – Mark Tinsley (40:47)

Jury Confession:

“I didn’t want to take the future of anyone’s life... and then some of them was getting tired. ... [A juror] had to go somewhere, do something, whatever... I went along with those other people.” (38:48)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:20 – 03:16: Jurors describe sequestered isolation and regret
• 04:01 – 09:26: Coleman Garrett’s background and defense opening
• 10:24 – 14:13: Prosecution’s flimsiness, testimony critiques, Sarah Lucas cross
• 17:24 – 23:13: Interrogation tactics; the issue of Andrew’s confession
• 25:51 – 32:28: Andrew Hayes’s testimony; his breakdown under questioning
• 33:20 – 35:49: Tammy Vance’s alternative confession
• 37:16 – 39:50: Jury deliberations and revelation of conflict of interest
• 40:01 – 41:55: Aftermath, attorney’s regrets, and the haunting impact on families

Tone & Language

The episode adopts a confessional, contemplative, and occasionally raw tone. Stephanie Tinsley interleaves investigative rigor with empathy, drawing out the vulnerability of the participants and the stark inadequacies of the system.

Summary for New Listeners

"Fourteen Strangers" unpacks a murder trial gone wrong, spotlighting ignored evidence, dubious police tactics, and a jury unprepared for the magnitude of their task. Through detailed interviews and reenactments, Stephanie Tinsley exposes how a community sought easy closure—at the cost of due process—for a crime awash in ambiguity. This episode is vital listening for those concerned with justice, wrongful convictions, and the power of overlooked stories.