Getting Jnr Home - P8

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Podcast: What I Survived
Episode: Getting Jnr Home – P8
Host: Jack Lawrence
Guest: Michael Leonard (Defense Attorney, Leonard Trial Lawyers, Chicago)
Date: June 9, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode is a legal deep-dive discussion reflecting on the wrongful conviction case of Evaristo Salas Jr.—convicted of murder at 15, and now in his 40s. Host Jack Lawrence and defense attorney Michael Leonard break down why this case is a textbook example of systemic failure in the justice system, exploring the overlooked evidence, procedural missteps, and lasting consequences—not only for Evaristo, but for public faith in the process. The episode also examines the broader issue of children being prosecuted as adults and touches on the critical obligations of prosecutors in remedying wrongful convictions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Immediate Reaction and Systemic Problems

• [03:37] Michael Leonard: “Absolutely absurd. …this case really seems to bring out kind of all the hallmarks of the problems with the system, some of the systemic things we see over and over in wrongful conviction type cases.”
  • The case features every issue typical of wrongful convictions: unreliable evidence, procedural irregularities, and judicial indifference.

2. Federal Appeal & Changing Legal Standards

• [04:36] Michael Leonard explains the different potential outcomes in state vs. federal court and notes the federal appeal’s importance.
• [05:43] Jack Lawrence: Discusses the significance of the federal appellate court in California questioning the prosecution, especially the supposed jailhouse "snitch" who has since recanted.
• [06:38] Michael Leonard: Elevates how federal courts now view eyewitnesses, forensics, and informants much more critically due to widespread recognition of past errors.

3. Hypnosis and Eyewitness Reliability

• [07:58] Michael Leonard: Expresses shock at the hypnotization of a key witness—a fact not disclosed during the original trial.
  • Quote [08:36]: “I’ve never…heard of a case in my 30 or so years where hypnosis has ever been used, let alone found to be credible. … That alone should have been a basis to overturn the case.”
  • Emphasizes the ethical and procedural breach when hypnosis-induced testimony wasn’t disclosed, likely tainting the outcome.

4. Evidence Mishandling & Key Witness Suspicions

• [09:48] Jack Lawrence: Outlines how the victim’s vehicle—a vital crime scene—was returned unsupervised to a potential suspect, cleaned, and sold before police analysis. The suspect then became a key witness for the prosecution.
  • [10:33] Michael Leonard: “I don’t want to keep saying remarkable and absurd. …in what jurisdiction would a car impounded as evidence be released to anybody, let alone someone potentially involved in the crime?”
• [11:39] Chris (contributor): Explains how the cleanup would have been treated as tampering if this was a room or building, implying double standards and lost forensic opportunity.

5. Jury Deliberations and Impact of Suppressed Facts

• [14:16] Michael Leonard: Notes that the case was close, with the jury struggling for a verdict; evidence withheld would have significantly altered juror perspectives.
  • [14:57] Jack Lawrence: Reveals jurors took seven attempts to reach a verdict, and post-conviction interviews show new information would've swayed votes toward acquittal.

6. Systemic Reluctance to Overturn—Career and Political Motivations

• [16:51] Jack Lawrence: Raises the problem of institutional self-protection: overturning the conviction could undermine years of a detective’s work, potentially exposing further flaws.
• [17:29] Chris: Discusses local politics in small, conservative counties—highlighting reluctance to expose flaws in “one of their own” and risk reputational damage.
• [18:20] Jack Lawrence: "A lot of the time it doesn't come down to what's right or wrong. It comes down to what's going to happen if we did overturn this? What are the repercussions?"

7. Broader Examples and the Domino Effect

• [19:12] Michael Leonard: References other jurisdictions where corrupt detectives caused massive conviction reviews (e.g., NYPD's Joseph Franco, [19:37]), illustrating how institutional inertia can stall justice for many.

8. Children Tried as Adults—A Failing System

• [21:06] Jack Lawrence: Points out the injustice of Evaristo, aged 15, tried and sent to an adult prison—forced to join a gang for survival.
• [22:06] Michael Leonard: “Oh, it’s just sick. …to try to say that …they’re beyond rehabilitation is just ridiculous. …That’s enormous factor. And to ignore the fact that these are kids, 12, 15 or whatever, is just mind blowing.”
  • The system’s failure to recognize youth development and potential for rehabilitation is highlighted as a major flaw.

9. Prosecutor Obligations and Integrity

• [24:11] Michael Leonard: Explains ethical duties of prosecutors to pursue justice, not just convictions—prosecutors should advocate for overturning cases where they see fundamental flaws.
• [25:55] Jack Lawrence: Cites "Serial" (Adnan Syed) as an example where prosecutors acknowledged error in court—a model for accountability.

10. Prosecutor Motivations—Belief and Bias

• [29:03] Michael Leonard: Acknowledges that prosecutors, like defense lawyers, can genuinely believe in their cases, becoming "true believers," which makes them resistant to changing course even in the face of compelling new evidence.

11. Tone Lightens: Sports Rivalries and Cultural Banter

• [31:32] Michael Leonard & Jack Lawrence: Share some light-hearted banter about an infamous cricket underarm bowling incident between Australia and New Zealand, lampooning sportsmanship and drawing a tongue-in-cheek analogy to courtroom tactics.

---

Notable Quotes

• Michael Leonard [03:37]: “Absolutely absurd. …it’s so, so disappointing…this case really seems to bring out kind of all the hallmarks of the problems with the system…”
• Michael Leonard [07:58]: “I’ve never…heard of a case in my 30 or so years where hypnosis has ever been used, let alone found to be credible. … That alone should have been a basis to overturn the case.”
• Jack Lawrence [16:51]: “…it’s got to beg the question whether or not someone’s looking at this and going, okay…if we overturn this conviction, this is going to open the floodgates of a 20 year career.”
• Chris [17:29]: “It’s a small town, a small county, real conservative…they all kind of look out for…one of their own officers. … it would look bad if they…overturn that.”
• Michael Leonard [22:06]: “Oh, it’s just sick. …to try to say that…they’re beyond rehabilitation is just ridiculous. We know that’s not true.”
• Michael Leonard [24:11]: “Their job in our system is to do justice. …If they don’t believe and the evidence doesn’t support a conviction, it’s their job to tell the court.”
• Jack Lawrence [18:20]: “I feel like a lot of the time it doesn’t come down to what’s right or wrong. It comes down to…what’s the repercussions of overturning this?”

---

Important Timestamps

• [03:37] — Michael Leonard’s first reaction: systemic failure
• [05:43] — Federal appeal process and hope for review
• [07:58] — Discussion on hypnosis of witness and ethical failures
• [09:48] — Critical handling of crime scene evidence and witness reliability
• [14:16-14:57] — Jury deliberation difficulties and effect of withheld evidence
• [16:51-18:39] — Institutional reluctance: career protection, repercussions
• [19:12-20:10] — NYPD Detective Franco case analogy ("domino effect")
• [21:06-22:06] — Minors in adult justice system: failures and consequences
• [24:11-27:03] — Prosecutorial duty, examples of doing the right thing, and the risk of intransigence
• [29:03] — Prosecutors and defense lawyers as "true believers," bias in the system
• [31:32-33:36] — Cricket banter: "underarm bowl" sportsmanship analogy

---

Memorable Moments

• Michael Leonard’s string of exasperated reactions to the case’s details—“remarkable,” “absurd,” and “I just run out of words”—illustrate the depth of the failure in his expert opinion.
• The cricket analogy ([31:32]) offers a humorous break, but cleverly ties into the ethical discussion about “doing what it takes to win” versus upholding integrity.
• Comparison to real world scandals (Franco case, [19:12]) gives gravity to the potential broader consequences if Salas’s conviction is overturned.

---

Takeaways

• This case exemplifies a confluence of wrongful conviction factors: unreliable witnesses (including hypnosis), mishandled evidence, nondisclosure, prosecutorial inertia, and questionable judicial review.
• Institutional self-interest and local politics can lead to resistance to overturning wrongful convictions, sometimes prioritizing reputation and workload over justice.
• Prosecution’s duty is to seek justice, not merely defend convictions, and positive examples do exist—but failures are damaging.
• Trying minors as adults is deeply flawed, given their developmental stage and the punitive nature of adult facilities.
• Progress is possible, especially as federal courts now scrutinize older standards and emerging evidence types, but meaningful change remains hard-won.

---

This episode will leave listeners both frustrated at the system's failures and hopeful for potential redress, while reflecting on the human cost of legal missteps—and the need for ongoing vigilance and reform.

Transcript

[Commercial Narrator]

Could AI help you do more of what you love? Workday is the AI platform for HR and finance that actually knows your business. We help you handle the have to dos so you can focus on the can't wait to dos. It's a new workday.

[Knox]

Hey, this is Knox from the podcast. The youth mental health crisis is growing and social media is a major driver. Kids are spending up to nine hours a day on screens, often unsupervised. And studies show a direct link to anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts. That's where Gab comes in. Gab offers safer phones and watches for kids. No social media tailored to every age, offering the right tech at the right time or tech in steps. From GPS tracking enabled watches for younger kids to phones with parent enabled apps for teens, each device allows kids to more safely grow their independence. Visit gab.com getgab and use code getgab for an exclusive offer. That's gab g-a b b.com getgab gab tech and steps independence for them. Peace of mind for parents.

[Jack Lawrence]

Okay, caller one wins courtside seats to tonight's game.

[Chris]

What?

[Caller]

I won floor seats.

[Jack Lawrence]

You did?

[Caller]

I've been calling for 13 months.

[Jack Lawrence]

Wait. Chris.

[Chris]

Yes.

[Caller]

I finally did it. What are you gonna wear? Men's Wearhouse. They've got today's looks for any occasion, and I need to look like a celebrity.

[Jack Lawrence]

Don't wanna stick out.

[Caller]

Exactly. They've got Chill Flex by Kenneth Cole, Joseph Abboud, and a tailor at every store for the perfect fit.

[Jack Lawrence]

Congrats. You can stop calling now.

[Caller]

Not a chance.

[Jack Lawrence]

Hit any look for every occasion at Men's Wearhouse. Love the way you look.

[Michael Leonard]

Every issue that leads to a wrongful conviction is present in this case.

[Jack Lawrence]

Hello and welcome back to one minute remaining. My name is Jack Lawrence, the host and creator of this show. We just wrapped up the incredible story of Evaristo Salas Jr. The man now in his 40s, convicted of murder at just 15, a crime he has always maintained he's innocent of. Of course, if you are yet to hear this story, time to hit that pause button, head on back and catch up. As I'm sure you're aware, I am in no way an expert when it comes to the law in any country, let alone one I don't live in. I am merely a man producing a show from his children's toy room. Which is why after each one of these cases, we sit down and discuss them with the man they call the voice of reason. Michael Leonard is a defence attorney with decades of trial experience And a practicing defence attorney from Leonard Trial Lawyers in Chicago, Illinois. So it's time to get Michael's opinion on the case of Evaristo Salas Jr. There he is.

[Michael Leonard]

Hey, Jack.

[Jack Lawrence]

How are you, sir?

[Michael Leonard]

Well, I need to talk to you about something. Oh, I think, you know, we didn't have a discussion about your physical conditioning, you know, because you ran that 1.2 miles or so. You seem pretty out of breath, my friend. So maybe one of your Patreons can suggest a Sprint program or something for

[Jack Lawrence]

you, you know, Come on down, mate. Come on. I'm putting my body, I'm putting my body on the line for this show. You're just lucky I don't say. Right. Your turn now. Mr. Leonard, you're the attorney. I want to see what you do for your client.

[Michael Leonard]

Your time would definitely be my time, that is for sure.

[Jack Lawrence]

Now, I'm not going to put any words in your mouth about this case that we're discussing ever. East Osalas Jr. So, as always, let's just get your first opinion on what you've heard.

[Michael Leonard]

Absolutely absurd. I mean, it's so, so disappointing because, you know, obviously we have a pretty large system, state and federal, and varies by state, and it can be such an uneven result depending upon where you are and who represents you. But this case really seems to bring out kind of all the hallmarks of the problems with the system, you know, some of the systemic things that we see over and over in wrongful conviction type cases. So it's really disappointing to hear and. Because when you, when you lay out, every little piece of it is just unsupported. Right. And it's really unfortunate that a reviewing court didn't do something about that. That's, that really does surprise me even more.

[Jack Lawrence]

I mean, Junior has said to me that the judge completely just dismissed all of this new evidence that I think to anyone, whether you know anything about the law or not would make you go, hold on a second, there's something that needs to be looked at here.

[Michael Leonard]

Yeah. And I don't know the full procedural history, but oftentimes, you know, they'll take it up through the state court system in which he was convicted on a, you know, try to revisit based upon newly discovered evidence. But oftentimes people will take it to federal court, which gives them a better shake. So I'm curious as to whether they ever took it to federal court, which, at least in theory, the idea is that it's, you know, hopefully a venue that's uninfluenced by State concerns and maybe a little less biased, maybe a little bit more professional, maybe better quality judges in theory. So I would just wonder if he ever took it the federal route. Maybe that would have been his potentially better hand. I don't know.

[Jack Lawrence]

I've got this coming up very soon he has gone federal and he said finally, because there was three judges, I think he said in this particular, they had a hearing about it and he said finally, the prosecution are finally being questioned over firstly this supposed snitch who's come out since and said that he was made to lie.

[Michael Leonard]

So it sounds like from what you're describing that they are in the federal appellate court out in California. Because what happens in our system is if you get to the appeal level in federal court and typically in state court, then you argue your case oral argument in panel of three judges. And you know, the fun and exciting and scary part of that is they can ask you whatever they want, whenever they want, right? So you're given a certain allocation of time, might be as little as 10 minutes, as much as 30, and those judges can pepper you to any question they want at any time, interrupt you, take over or whatever. So it's kind of a fun experience to go through. It's a little nerve wracking. But that sounds great because you know, any court from an appellate standpoint looking at this objectively would, you know, have grave concerns. And the great thing about this, and it's two sided coin here, the great thing is if they, if they reverse this thing, if they vacate the conviction, there's no way he's going to be retried. But the sad part is he spent all this time incarcerated, he ain't getting that time back, right? And maybe, maybe you'll get a pittance of money recovery from the state, although that's not certain. But you know, one thing that's changed a lot in our system, a lot of these older cases, kind of the standards that were applied years and years ago are quite different now and everything. And we'll get into this when you break down all the different areas and dissect them. But you know, things have really changed in terms of the view of eyewitness testimony, the view of forensic evidence, the trustworthiness of informants, that's all changed a lot. So when you get in a federal appellate court looking at that, they're going to have such a different viewpoint than the trial court did 20 years ago or the state court did when they allegedly reviewed this case.

[Jack Lawrence]

And the thing is, there's obviously so many Question marks over this case itself, not just this informant coming out, but they hypnotised one of the main witnesses and then failed to let anyone know that they did this because of the fact that that would have been thrown out because it's not admissible in court.

[Michael Leonard]

Absolutely incredible. When you, when I was listening to your show and you kind of teased us as listeners because you, you didn't disclose the fact right away, that was just absolutely remarkable. Number one, you know, there's a huge problem in our system which has been recognized that eyewitness testimony is very oftentimes unreliable. So people have this idea in their heads that, oh, it's an eyewitness, so it must be true. And studies have shown court cases have held that oftentimes eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable. And there's a lot of reasons for it that makes sense. You know, it's the fact that you have such a brief period of time that you're in a heightened emotional state. You're not really looking at the person. And then the problem is exacerbated by the fact when you're shown pictures or given information, then you may fill in the gaps with what you're fed by others, even if it's unintentional. Right. So there is a big question mark already about the reliability of this eyewitness. And then when you get to the hypnosis part, which is just ridiculous, almost unheard of, I mean, I've never been involved in a case or heard of a case in my 30 or so years or hypnosis has ever been used, let alone found to be credible. And so, you know, to make an, to make an identification under those circumstances is just so improbable and no court would allow that. Which goes to the great point you made in your show. Really the big problem was that the non disclosure of that, okay, so even if that were to have happened, the hypnosis, of course it had to be disclosed. The prosecutors had an obligation to disclose that. And that's just a clear breach of their ethical duties. That alone should have been a basis to overturn the case and grant him a new trial.

[Jack Lawrence]

Not only that, we have more issues again. I mean, then we look at the same lady, the partner of this guy, four days after this crime has happened, the truck where he was killed is in an impound, which she turns up to, and she takes the car back, takes it away, has it cleaned and then sold. And the car had not even been looked over by police yet. They had not gone through that car sweeped that car for evidence it was cleaned out and sold and got rid of. A report is actually created for rendering criminal assistance against her and it's sent to the prosecutor's office with a suggestion for charges and it goes away and she becomes their key witness. What is going on?

[Michael Leonard]

Like, I'm running out of words. I don't want to keep saying remarkable and absurd. I need a new word for your listeners. But absolutely incredible. I mean again, not only the fact that in what jurisdiction would a car impounded as evidence be released to anybody, first of all, let alone someone who's potentially involved in the crime. Right. Never would happen. And then secondly, you know, to, to have that person then engage in activities which are, you know, certainly subject suggestive of a cover up and would make that individual a suspect, but would also eliminate all sorts of forensic evidence that could have been gathered from the scene. I just run out of words to, to talk about that. And then to make it worse is the non disclosure right to not disclose that and to not disclose that she was possibly facing criminal charges. I think he said it best himself when he was talking about that. The jury would have looked at her quite differently. He was so on point with that.

[Chris]

The weird thing about it too is like let's say that situation took place in an actual room or a building or whatever. If she came in there and sanitized that whole room prior to them even looking at it, they would have treated that whole situation different, it seems like, because it's like it's the same exact thing. But they seem to like just brush over like it was nothing, you know, and they didn't even. And proud. They didn't literally didn't even mention it, didn't even hear about it, didn't know nothing about it, that she went in there and cleaned the truck out and all that kind of stuff that came later. And so it's like had the jury heard that that would have made a difference because then it had been like, well, she did all these things, she was a suspect. And then she lied, even said right there that she's lying, she's making up stories, all these kind of things. Then the image of her just being this, you know, the victim and everything and just, you know, seeing things that that would have changed because now you have her doing these things that don't make sense for a person to do.

[Commercial Narrator]

A better help ad.

[Michael Leonard]

Hold on one second.

[Commercial Narrator]

I just need to. What if you had a room where

[Michael Leonard]

no one interrupts, no notifications, no expectations,

[Commercial Narrator]

just space to talk with betterhelp therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy. Now more people than ever can bring in their bill for a better deal at Verizon. Got AT&T or T Mobile. We got you Xfinity or Spectrum. You too. So tell your friends, friends, your family, your quirky neighbor Jeff, grab your megaphone and yell it from the rooftop. Get a better deal at Verizon because chances are anyone in shouting distance is included. Bring in your at&t t Mobile, Xfinity or Spectrum bill and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. Come by Verizon today. Best network based on RootMetric's best overall mobile network performance. US second half 2025. All rights reserved. Must provide recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person redeeming the deal. Additional terms, conditions and restrictions apply.

[Jack Lawrence]

Okay, Caller one wins courtside seats to tonight's game.

[Caller]

What? I won floor seats.

[Jack Lawrence]

You did?

[Caller]

I've been calling.

[Jack Lawrence]

Wait, Chris.

[Chris]

Yes.

[Caller]

I finally did it. What are you gonna wear? Men's Wearhouse. They've got today's looks for any occasion. And I need to look like a celebrity.

[Jack Lawrence]

Don't want to stick out.

[Caller]

Exactly. They've got Chill Flex by Kenneth Cole, Joseph Abboud, and a tailor at every store for the perfect fit.

[Jack Lawrence]

Congrats. You can stop calling now.

[Caller]

Not a chance.

[Jack Lawrence]

Hit any look for every occasion at Men's Wearhouse. Love the way you look.

[Michael Leonard]

And this was such a close case to begin with. It sounded like the jury struggled mightily. And of course, if they knew any of these things, it would have had a huge impact upon their deliberations. Which again, points to the fact that when you appeal a case or ask a court to revisit it based upon newly discovered evidence, that's what they want to hear. They want to hear, is it possible or is it probable or is it likely that if the jury had known about this evidence, it could have materially impacted their decision in this case? Of course, that fact alone could have materially impacted the jury's decision. It would have bombed her credibility, particularly on top of hypnosis. She would have absolutely no credibility.

[Jack Lawrence]

Two of the juror members who have been interviewed post this conviction and have obviously found out this information. Both of them have said that this would have completely changed their opinion. And they've said it took seven attempts to come to a final decision on guilty or not guilty, seven attempts for them to all come to the same realisation, and one of the, the jurors said that he initially voted not guilty, but he said eventually he came back to her testimony and her, you know, he just looked at her obviously as this now widow who's got a child that she's gonna have to raise by herself. And you know, and looked at her and said, you know what? She was so adamant, so adamant about this. It was this young man that committed it. And that's basically the only thing that really swayed him the other way.

[Michael Leonard]

If the hypnosis issue had been even disclosed to the court, okay, she probably doesn't even testify. So think of the gargantuan effect that would have had huge. But you know, the second issue, which is strange though, when a reviewing court is considering, you know, whether it could have changed the outcome, they're not even, they wouldn't even allow juror testimony like that. But it's just a reasonable standard, right? You know, what would reasonably expected to, to influence or affect the outcome of case. And there's no doubt either of those facts would have the hypnosis and then the identification, the absconding with the truck and wiping away the evidence. I mean, it's like one of those cases, you just don't know where to begin. And it's so sad. You said it yourself in one of the episodes, you know, if it wasn't so sad, it'd be laughable because it really is. I mean, you couldn't create a case with more holes if you fed this to a bunch of law students and had them dissected. It would be kind of a hallmark of every problem we have in our system. Every issue that leads to a wrongful conviction is present in this case.

[Jack Lawrence]

And the biggest thing I think we need to look at here is the fact that 20, he's nearly served his entire sentence. He's got two and a half years left on his 30 year sentence. The fact that he is still in prison after all this has come out and that no one has gone, you know what, this has got so many holes in it. It's got to beg the question whether or not someone's looking at this and going, okay, there is obviously issues here, but we've got a bigger issue here, guys, because this was this detective's very first case. How many other cases did he work on pass this case? If we overturn this conviction, this is going to open the floodgates of a 20 year career.

[Chris]

Like I said, it's a small town, a small county, real conservative, you know, and the last thing I think one of them wants to do is, you know, to question one of their own officers. Because I think that right there not only shows that it's a, you know, it's, it's a deeper issue, but that kind of paints the whole county in a certain light, you know, And I think that they all kind of look out for now. Now, this is just my opinion. I'm not sure. You know, I'm not saying that every cop there was that way. I seriously doubt. I'd probably be like 99% of them were good cops. You know what I mean? But it only takes one. So in that sense, you know, it's, it's, it would look, it would look bad if they, you know, this judge was going to be like, okay, I'm going to overturn this, overturn that.

[Jack Lawrence]

You know, if it comes out that this detective falsified stuff to get you put away, then that just opens the floodgates to anyone he's ever been involved with when it comes to an arrest.

[Chris]

Yeah, that's 20 years, 20 plus years of work there too.

[Jack Lawrence]

Yeah. It doesn't just open up to, for retrials on everything or to re. Look at every case, but then it opens up to lawsuits, I think. I feel like a lot of the time it doesn't come down to what's right or wrong. It comes down to what's. Hold on, what's going to happen if, if we did overturn this? What's the repercussions of overturning this?

[Chris]

And that's so sad too, because.

[Jack Lawrence]

Oh, of course. Yeah.

[Chris]

Like I said when I, when we got this evidence, you know, I was, okay, here it is. They're gonna see. And to, to, you know, to. Their response on every level has been the opposite. And I'm thinking, like I said, I still had this mindset in my head, you know, that, that, that justice was a thing in the system. You know, know that the reason they got it that way is because, you know, well, they didn't have this then or they didn't know this then, but if they know it now, they're going to be able to see through it. But instead it's the opposite. It's like, oh, let's, let's band together because it's easier for us to fight it than to admit we're wrong.

[Michael Leonard]

Well, it's a good question. I mean, that sometimes happens in cases where. And there's been really well documented instances of this. There was a, actually a really good podcast about a detective in New York who engaged in wrongful conduct over A period of years, over decades. And once they kind of. The one when the first case fell and they understood, you know, what was going on here then. Like Domino's.

[Jack Lawrence]

Yeah.

[Michael Leonard]

All these other convictions felt. Former NYPD detective Joseph Franco is on trial accused of lying about witnessing drug deals to secure convictions.

[Commercial Narrator]

Prosecutors say the undercover narcotics detective. Detective exhibited a pattern of lying about what he saw to secure arrests, sending innocent people to jail and jeopardizing hundreds of cases. Franco made thousands of arrests in his 20 year career. The charges against him led to the scrutiny and vacating of more than 300 drug convictions in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx.

[Michael Leonard]

So it really would take a lot of work, Jack, on your behalf and probably an entire new podcast series. But it'd be really interesting to look at that detective's cases historically. Did he use the same informants? Was there any sort of pattern of, you know, did he ever use his hypnosis again? I mean, it really raises what we would call a big kettle of fish here. On the other hand, you know, a reviewing court is not necessarily thinking that way. Like the, the court that denied his appeal, apparently, I think that was a state court and I don't know whether they had that thought process. But look, there's all sorts of interesting things that go on in the system and it's very possible that a judge is familiar with the detective. He might be a former prosecutor. There's all sorts of links here which really need to be examined and I hope you do a show just on that.

[Jack Lawrence]

Jack, mate, don't give me more work. So the other thing we need to look at with this particular case, not just all the miscarriage of justice and all the wrongdoings of this case, it's also looking at children being tried as adults. This was a 15 year old child who was tried as an adult. And it happens a lot. I mean, obviously covering this story, I've looked at other stories and I came across a 12 year old that was given a life sentence for conspiring to murder. And the system seems to go well, these children are so far gone they can never be brought back from where they are or whatever. But they're getting sent to adult prisons where they're surrounded by gang members and criminals. And it blows my mind that you can send a 15 year old, because that's. Evaristo was 15 years old. He was sent to a men's prison. He was very lucky. I say lucky, but I mean, he was taken under the wing by a gang and ended up getting involved in gang stuff inside the Prison because it was the only way for him to survive because he's a child.

[Michael Leonard]

Oh, it's just sick. Yeah. I mean, it varies state by state here in our country, so it can be remarkably different from one jurisdiction to another. But some places would incarcerate him in a juvenile facility, and then when he reached majority, they'd put him in a real prison, which is the way to go. But certainly there's been a recognition in our system about charging children as adults, about punishing them as adults. There's a lot of great scientific work that's been done by expert witnesses that's been brought to the courtroom about the development of the brain and what a child's capable of doing and the decision making and the fact that they don't have those capabilities yet. But. But to ignore the fact that These are kids, 12 or 15 or whatever is just mind blowing, because that's enormous factor. And to try to say that, oh, wow, it's such a severe crime that they're beyond rehabilitation is just ridiculous. We know that's not true. So. Yeah, I mean, listening to this particular cast really you know, kind of depressed me a little bit. And I did want to assure your listeners that this really is kind of a great, you know, case to show all the ways the system can fail, but I want to cure them. That, you know, I've been involved in so many other cases where, you know, I felt like, wow, this system works. A jury found in favor of my client. They heard this evidence. Sometimes a long trial, sometimes complex stuff. And when you win, when you get to not guilty, you definitely say to yourself, wow, this system really does work. This was really a fascinating one. I'm just really hopeful that if you're right and he was before that federal appellate court that, wow, it sounded like you would have a good chance of a vacated conviction, new trial. And I can't imagine this case is ever going to go to trial again, that's for sure. Especially after the amount of time he served.

[Jack Lawrence]

Yeah. I mean, it would be hard pushed to see anyone wanting to send him back to a trial when he's only got. He's got less than three years left on his sentence anyway.

[Michael Leonard]

Yeah. But let's touch upon one other thing if we can. So two huge failures here. You know, the reviewing court you talked about, where the judge, you know, really wasn't interested in concerning, considering the newly discovered evidence. And then the second appeal that's pending right now. Okay. Both those cases have prosecutors offices involved. So the appeal that he talked to you about where the judge was apparently disinterested and dismissive, There was a group of prosecutors assigned to that case. Okay. Their job in our system is to do justice. Okay, that sounds high minded, but that's true. They actually owe an obligation to the court and to everybody involved in the system to do justice. Meaning if they don't believe and the evidence doesn't support a conviction, it's their job to tell the court, look, you know, it wasn't us, but we have grave concerns. Here's why. It's their job to do that. They didn't. It's their job to tell the court, no, we agree the relief he's requested should be granted. So the prosecutor in our system, even though it may seem that way from tv, they have actually a higher duty, a higher calling, and they're called upon to do that, to examine the evidence. And if it's not there, they're supposed to tell the court, we don't support this conviction. They could tell the judge, we support the reversal of this conviction. Of course, we know that they're human. There's political factors. And Jack, you might be right. They might be worried about the domino effect of whoever these members of law enforcement, detectives were and other cases getting reexamined and thrown out. That very well could be possible.

[Jack Lawrence]

Interesting, you say, because one of the most famous cases made via a podcast, serial podcast, Adnan said in that case, the prosecutor did come to court and said, you know what? I'm in agreeance that this man should not be incarcerated right now. This needs to be further investigated because

[Michael Leonard]

something's not right here and they should be applauded. I think, you know, we take shots of prosecutors all the time, especially on my side, but oftentimes they do the right thing just like that. I had a federal gun case that was supposed to go to trial. This was last fall. We were on the Friday before the trial, the trial was supposed to start Monday in federal court. And they called and told us, to our shock and disbelief, that they were dismissing the charges. They had gotten some additional reports, including from our expert, and some they had conferred with their own expert and they made the decision to dismiss the case. And I have to applaud them because that's hard to do. You put all this time into it. You've got an indictment, you're supposed to go to trial. It doesn't make anybody look good. And they had the guts to call us and say, we're dismissing this case. It takes. It takes a lot. It really does.

[Jack Lawrence]

So then the question is Then you talk about these other prosecutors in Evaristo's case. We've spoken about the domino effect and all that sort of stuff. But as you said, their job is justice and to uphold the law. If they're not doing that and they're still trying to fight this, then who turns around and says, okay, guys, we need to have a chat here? Because you're trying to fight something that's indefensible. So what's going on? Why, why are we doing that? Because they're gonna. Their job then is to continue to look at cases. So if they're doing this with this case, you know, what's to stop them doing it on multiple cases?

[Michael Leonard]

Yeah, that's the crazy part, because, you know, remember, prosecutors too are generally, especially at the state level, they're generally elected public officials, right? The chief prosecutor of the office and then that chief prosecutor is overseeing an office. Could be two prosecutors, could be 500. Right. And so, you know, most, in most larger jurisdictions, there's usually a unit that reevaluates cases and looks at innocence cases. There's lots of, you know, more liberal minded prosecutors that have been put in office across the country. And they typically have something like a conviction Integrity unit, which re examines cases that have been brought to their attention. And again, Jack, you got a problem here because the prosecutors who are arguing to try to uphold this, you know, in some ways they're defending their own offices because think about that. We don't know much about this detective. So we're just saying hypothetically, but if it's true that detective continue to work on cases for their office for a period of two years or 20 years. Right. That's a lot of cases that might have to be looked at again. So there's all sorts of reasons and motivations why they would want to be fighting to uphold a conviction which everybody from any objective standard would say is absolutely unsupported.

[Jack Lawrence]

But how you can, how you can fight so hard to keep a man behind bars, if you know in the back of your head that there's an issue with this case purely because you're worried about the repercussions? I mean, I just don't understand how you can do that.

[Michael Leonard]

Yeah, well, let's also not discount the fact that, look, prosecutors, much like defense lawyers, you know, we're sometimes true believers, right? So they, whoever the assigned prosecutors are to defend this case on appeal or on review, they may legitimately believe that the evidence was sufficient, that there's no reason to overturn it. For instance, they may believe this detective from other experiences with him is highly credible and well thought of. They may believe that the evidence in this case was strong. They may actually believe that. So just on my side of the bar, from the defense lawyer standpoint, you know, I'll have a case where I absolutely believe my client is either innocent or not guilty. And, you know, sometimes, you know, I just had a case, for instance, in January of this year, 2023, in federal court, two week trial, we won, got the not guilty. And I was talking to some people who were affiliated with some of the agents who testified at the case, and they were 1000% sure my client was guilty. They were like taking shots at us and the arguments were making as if we were off base and this person was 100% guilty. So it's weird how you get entrenched on your side, whoever you're representing, and you really do become very invested because you really do believe it to be true. Right. In this case, we never know the truth. We know what we think happened. Right. Or suspect, but we never really know. And you find that both sides can have really, really strong attachments to a case which can never really be shaken.

[Jack Lawrence]

I always try and stay on the fence with these cases that I talk about, but just looking at this one, I'm just like, for me, this is even worse than our Michigan man, Anthony Duke. Like, I mean, you know, it's just.

[Michael Leonard]

I would, I would, I would agree with you. Yeah, it's funny because as I was kind of wrapping up the last one, I was thinking, God darn it, I'm gonna have to go and agree with Jack again, you know, because you were, you were on and your insights on all the issues were right. It's kind of how they get framed in, in our court system when. When there's an injustice, the things you're hitting upon are really kind of the Achilles heels sometimes in cases. I do want to take the last minute of your show, though, to alienate all your. All your listeners in Australia. Can we do that for a minute?

[Jack Lawrence]

Go for it, mate. Alienate away.

[Michael Leonard]

So. So my neighbor, I think I might have told you this already, but my neighbor down the street is from New Zealand.

[Jack Lawrence]

Oh, yeah, his name is.

[Michael Leonard]

His name is Hamish. So apparently there's a lot of tension, apparently, between you New Zealanders and your Aussies. Right. So what he said I should bring up to you is this famous or infamous incident from the 80s with someone using an underhanded cricket throw.

[Jack Lawrence]

Come on.

[Michael Leonard]

That's what he said I should bring up. Can you do like a show on that. Explain to the American listeners what the heck we're talking about.

[Jack Lawrence]

So it's a famous cricket game and they needed a certain amount of runs to. So in cricket, it's a run basis. You know, I'm not going to explain cricket to the American audience, but basically they needed a certain amount of runs off this final bowl of this ball. And the Australian bowler did an underarm bowl so that the cricket. So that he couldn't basically get the runs that he needed. And New Zealand's only hope now is a six off the last ball for a tie.

[Michael Leonard]

Long discussion.

[Jack Lawrence]

Well, it looks to me as if

[Michael Leonard]

they're going to bow underarm off the last ball.

[Jack Lawrence]

Rodmarsh is saying, no, mate, but I'm sure he's going to bow an underarm

[Michael Leonard]

delivery from the last ball and follow

[Jack Lawrence]

it along the ground and be sure

[Michael Leonard]

that it has not been hit for six.

[Jack Lawrence]

The umpires have been told, the batsman have been told, and this is possibly

[Michael Leonard]

a little bit disappointing.

[Jack Lawrence]

So people are saying it's unsportsmanlike, but,

[Michael Leonard]

you know, would you, Would you, would you concede there's unsportsmanlike throwing it underhand

[Jack Lawrence]

or no, as you know, from a trial court situation, Mr. Leonard, you.

[Michael Leonard]

You.

[Jack Lawrence]

You do what you need to do in order to get the win.

[Chris]

Wow.

[Michael Leonard]

Sounds like you're justifying underhanded prosecutorial conduct just to get the conviction. Wow, that's really changed the whole focus. Well, I'm glad that, you know, we could get that. We'd vet that. Although maybe your listeners from Australia would never allow me back on the show. So I'm sorry, everybody, but it's just a great story, actually.

[Jack Lawrence]

It's. It's amazing, actually. You say Hamish is from New Zealand. There's a very, very good podcast called who the Hell is Hamish? About a. A guy from New Zealand who was a scam artist who called himself. Really called himself Hamish. So just be careful. Mr. Leonard, did he.

[Michael Leonard]

Did he relocate to River Forest?

[Jack Lawrence]

I don't know. Possibly. I mean, he did disappear.

[Michael Leonard]

Jack, we're. We're spawning so many new. We better stop.

[Jack Lawrence]

Yes, well, I mean, those Kiwis, mate. Watch em, watch em.

[Michael Leonard]

All right, he's gonna be tuning into your next show.

[Jack Lawrence]

Oh, good, good. I appreciate it, man. I need all the listeners I can get, so spread the word. Look, as always, Mr. Leonard, truly appreciate your time and insights on this particular case. And look, I would like to say that I'll bring you one that you can disagree with me on, but that's not the plan. The plan is from here on forward is due.

[Michael Leonard]

Yeah, you're doing a great job and I would just Recommend maybe a 2 mile run a couple times a week.

[Jack Lawrence]

Yeah, no, great. Thank you. I get onto that.

[Michael Leonard]

All right, my friend. Thanks a lot. Enjoyed it.

[Jack Lawrence]

Thank you, buddy. I'll talk to you soon. As always, a huge thank you to Michael for taking time out of his incredibly busy schedule to chat with us about this case. And of course, looking forward to chatting with him after our next story. One Minute Remaining is a Mash Pumpkin production produced, hosted and created by Jack Lawrence. Editing and sound design by Jack Mac Lawrence and Dom Evans. This show is part of the Acast Creator network.

[Knox]

Hey, this is Knox from the popcast. The youth mental health crisis is growing and social media is a major driver. Kids are spending up to nine hours a day on screens, often unsupervised. And studies show a direct link to anxiety, depression and even suicidal thoughts. That's where Gab comes in. Gab offers safer phones and watches for kids with no social media. Tailored to every age. Offering the right tech at the right time or tech in steps. From GPS tracking enabled watches for younger kids to phones with parent enabled apps for teens, each device allows kids to more safely grow their independence. Visit gab.com getgab and use code getgab for an exclusive offer. That's gab. G-A B-B.com forward slash, get gab. Gab tech and steps. Independence for them. Peace of mind for parents.

[Jack Lawrence]

Okay, caller one wins courtside seats to tonight's game.

[Chris]

What?

[Caller]

I won floor seats.

[Jack Lawrence]

You did?

[Caller]

I've been calling for 13 months.

[Jack Lawrence]

Wait. Chris.

[Chris]

Yes.

[Caller]

I finally did it. What are you gonna wear? Men's Wearhouse. They've got today's looks for any occasion and I need to look like a celebrity.

[Jack Lawrence]

Don't want to stick out.

[Caller]

Exactly. They've got chill Flex by Kenneth Cole, Joseph Abboud and a tailor at every store for the perfect fit.

[Jack Lawrence]

Congrats. You can stop calling now.

[Caller]

Not a chance.

[Jack Lawrence]

Get any look for every occasion at Men's Wearhouse. Love the way you look.

[Commercial Narrator]

Finding ways to be financially savvy is a smart move. And knowing you could be saving money for the things you really want, like that dream home or new ride is a great feeling. That's why the State Farm personal price plan can help you save when you choose to bundle home and auto bundling. Just. Just another way to save with a personal price plan. Head to statefarm.com to get a quote. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings, and eligibility vary by state.