The Joe Rogan Experience - #1774 - Josh Dubin

Episode Date: February 9, 2022

Josh Dubin is a criminal justice reform advocate and civil rights attorney.

The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day. Hello, Joshua. Hello, Joseph. Good to see you, man. I've never called you Joseph. That's okay. I never called you Joshua.

I think I did like five minutes ago. That's all right. My mom and my wife call me Joshua. Oh, well, I'm sorry. That's all right. Depends on the context. Um, first of all, uh, we should, uh, we should talk about the people that got off because of the last podcast we did, because that's an amazing thing. So let's talk about that because, because of you and your work, there's two men out there that would still be in jail.

Because of you talking about it and you putting the heat on whoever was responsible, now these two guys are free. Yeah, and it's hard to determine with any certainty the various factors that go into an exoneration or, you know, prosecutors dropping charges. But there are two immovable truths here. Two young black men have a new lease on life and have had horrific nightmares end. And I know that this platform and this show not only helped that, but were a driving force behind it. And I know it not just based on what I think. I know it based on empirical evidence because there was a time when I was asked to come to Lawrence, Kansas and sit at the Lawrence Police Department on the case against Ron Torres Washington so that the Lawrence Police Department could tell me,

here's the evidence we have against your client. And before the meeting started, the district attorney walked in the room and instead of saying hello to me, she said, welcome to the armpit. Now, that was a direct reference to something I said on this podcast that I quickly, right after saying it, caught myself and corrected myself because the context in which I was saying it,

and I said that was a horrible way to put it or whatever I said, but the context in which I was saying it was in my mind that if you are a black man or woman and caught in the criminal justice system in Lawrence, Kansas, that is the armpit. So I knew then and there that she was paying attention and not just paying attention, paying attention to this podcast. And she knew full well that I had the cavalry behind me. Now, how much that factored into the story I'll tell later about how those charges against Ron Torres Washington were dropped and what happened to Albert Wilson, who was the same prosecutor's office,

we'll never know. Isn't there also an argument for you expressing the facts of the case outside of a courtroom setting where they're trying to win, right? Isn't there a problem with prosecutors and defendants and the system that's set up, that's set up like it's a game? And I don't mean it's a game like it's trivial. I mean, it's a game like people are trying to win.'s a game like it's trivial. I mean, it's a game like people are trying to win. Yeah. Yeah. There's a part of that. But I think that in recognizing, and you and I have spoken about this, in recognizing that sort of fault that exists

amongst us as mammals, as human beings, that is especially so when you're talking about prosecutors, in my opinion, that have this tunnel vision that we'll talk about. I think you just have to recognize that pressure breaks pipes in these cases. If you think about what's going on with Purvis Payne right now, what's going on with Julius Jones, with Rodney Reid. I mean, Purvis Payne is going to get out in five years. Julius Jones, Rodney Reid is facing a new trial. Those results were brought to bear by pressure, public pressure. So one immovable truth, or I referred to two before, but one sort of overarching known is that this works. And it's because I want to tell you the spirit in which I'm here today. And, you know, I am here not on behalf of the Innocence Project.

I don't speak for them, even though I'm the ambassador advisor. There are other organizations that I'm involved with that pay attention to news cycles and media. I'm here as Josh Dubin, the human being, that is doing my part. And it's not for me to judge whether it's small or large. Doing my part to help in whatever way I can, whether it's a drop in the bucket, a grain of sand, or something more. And that's for someone else to judge, to help free people that are wrongfully incarcerated, period, full stop. This show has been a critical part of telling these stories and getting that out there. I'm not here to have a debate about people's perception of things other people say or past judgment or anything like that.

That's not my role and that's not what I'm here for. And I think that we need to have a discussion about race in the criminal injustice system. And I know enough about you to know your heart and that we're going to have that today. And that is the spirit in which I'm here and I know the direct results because two young black men were exonerated as a result at least in part to show how many cases are you dealing with like concurrently how many cases do you have on file like right now where you have to go over the details of someone who may be innocent? The answer to it is thousands. I get mail every day from jails all across the country. Well, we were talking about this earlier, about how much your business has exploded because of these kind of conversations.

How do you manage that? because of these kind of conversations. What would you, how do you manage that? Okay, so the Innocence Project, which I am, again, I can't speak on behalf of them, but what the Innocence- You work with them. Yes, I'm the ambassador advisor to the Innocence Project, which makes me sort of, you know, somebody that,

it's a unique role because I have done so much pro bono work and awareness raising that there was a decision to give me that title. They have a remarkable mailroom center that processes mail from prisoners from across the country. Then there is a network called the Innocence Network, which are franchisees, if you will. There's the Midwest Innocence Project, who was my co-counsel in the Ron Torres Washington case. And there's one in New Orleans. They're all over the country that operate on their own, and they are constantly getting mail. And then there are just people like myself, Jason Flom, that are constantly getting mail. And it's so much to keep up with

that you need to be able to have a network of resources. So I have decided to take on a role at Cardozo Law School, which is where the Innocence Project started as what they call a field clinic of law students over 25 years ago, founded by Barry Sheck and Peter Neufeld. I was offered the role of becoming the executive director of a new program called The Redemption Project. And look, again, this is why not only the show, but being able to find common ground with people we disagree with is so critical in this process. The founder, or excuse me, the chairman of Marvel, Ike Perlmutter, and his wife, it's going to be called the Perlmutter Center. He's the chairman of Marvel Comics? Yes, Marvel Entertainment. And he's a right-leaning Republican that was friends with

President Trump. And we otherwise wouldn't have much to agree on, but we found common ground in this. And that is a role that I'm going to be taking on where we're going to be focusing, and it's going to start in the fall. Now I'm going to have more resources to help more people because Ike Perlmutter and his wife, Lori, have agreed to fund it for 10 years. How did they get involved? What is his interest in criminal justice? It's the craziest thing.

It's like an episode of... I can't talk too much about it because the case is still pending. But what is out there publicly I can talk about. It's like an episode of like Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm gone way off the rails. His DNA, his wife's DNA was stolen. DNA was stolen. There was a condo dispute about the tennis pro that descended into chaos. It started as this crazy civil case where he was accused of spreading misinformation. There was one faction of people that want the tennis pro removed. The tennis pro was very good friends with him right and the and he cared about this woman she was a single mother he's a very philanthropic guy when no one's looking he just not he he went to

iron man in a disguise because he doesn't want people to know who he is he's just a very private guy so there is this faction in this condo community that wanted the tennis pro removed because she was selling real estate out of the tennis pro office. And this faction wanted her to partner up with another couple that sold real estate. It was crazy. It was a condo dispute right out of Boca del Vista in a Seinfeld episode. So he took the opposing side and said, you're not removing her. And in any event, about a year later, this hate mail against the people that wanted her removed, this one individual starts to arrive in the community and it's accusing him of all sorts

of awful shit, accusing this other man of being a child molester and a murderer and all kinds of craziness. And there's Jewish stars on it and like Hebrew slang all misspelled. So this guy gets in his mind that Ike Perlmutter is behind it. And they have Ike and his wife subpoenaed as third party witnesses in connection with the tennis center lawsuit. Subpoenaed to sit at a deposition. And they framed him and his wife and they stole her DNA from a, they gave her water to drink.

And they falsely claimed, and it was published in the New York Times, that her DNA matched the hate mail. They set her up from giving her a glass of water? And him. They gave him this paper to touch that apparently to get his epithelial skin cells, phony exhibits. Holy shit. So the famed criminal defense lawyer, Roy Black, brought me into the case just to really help with trial strategy, which is allegedly my forte. And then it descended into DNA. And I have some expertise in that for my work at the Innocence Project, because all the cases that we do at the Innocence Project

are using biological evidence to get people off. So when Roy had sort of hit his limit on what he knew about DNA, he said, now I need more from you. And will you join the case? So I figured out how they had set her up. I figured out that it wasn't her DNA. And the case ultimately got dismissed. The only thing that exists now is his case against the insurance company for setting him up because the allegations in the lawsuit now, he's suing Chubb because it was a Chubb lawyer that engineered this. So they know, they have the actual correspondence, like the actual evidence where someone said, we're going to get his DNA? Yes. And it's all a matter of public record. Jesus Christ.

And one of the guys was a matter of public record. Jesus Christ. And one of the guys was a Chubb attorney. That should land you in jail for a long fucking time. One of the things we were able to do is I testified before the Florida House Judiciary Committee and used this case as an example and the testimony is out there publicly to change the law in Florida,

citing this case from a misdemeanor to a felony, and we were able to get that done. So it is possible that someone could do something like that where they could set you up for a crime and steal your DNA, and that would be a misdemeanor in some cases? Not anymore. Not in Florida. Not in Florida. But they didn't prosecute this man for it.

What? No, they did not prosecute him for it. Palm Beach did not, decided not to prosecute him. But to answer your question, so the way Ike Perlmutter, a strange bedfellow, if you will, with me and criminal justice reform and his wife got interested, is he is a very hands-on guy. And why aren't you paying attention to my case? This was five years ago and I said, there's no trial date. And by the way, I have a man sitting on death row in Florida and I became lead trial counsel for him. And I'm going to be busy with that. And it was the Clemente Aguirre case. So Ike started to pay attention to the case in the media because it was in the Orlando Sentinel every day. And I guess the Palm Beach Post has some affiliate.

He started to read the media attention. So I ended up – the story about Clemente Aguirre has been told so many times, but I ended up getting – my phone phones off. I ended up getting him exonerated with a village of people. I don't want to make it like it was just me. And the day that I walked him out, Ike had called me so many times that I thought there was an emergency. And he said, can you please come to Palm Beach before you leave Florida? And I said, sure. So I drove down to Palm Beach a couple of days later, and he sat me down. And you know, he's a very stoic, older Israeli man. And he had a tear in his eye. And he said, I realized that if I, his case was still very much alive, we hadn't figured out the DNA. He said, I realized that if I – his case was still very much alive. We hadn't figured out the DNA. He said, by watching what just happened with this man in Orlando, I realized that if I didn't have the resources and the means by which to have you and Roy Black, that I might have ended up like him.

And I'm like, well, you wouldn't have ended up on death row, but it was like his moment of clarity and his epiphany. And then he has been just, he's been by my side and my partner in this. And that's why I always stress the importance of, you know, we're never going to see eye to eye with everyone. And we're certainly not going to see eye to eye with anyone in a two party system. That's a problem. And it's a huge problem. I think that's the major problem, honestly, because when you have a two party system, you have people that feel like they have to subscribe to all the opinions on one side if they agree to the critical ones. Like what's critical to them, whether it's a woman's right to choose

or whether it's freedom of speech or whether it's gun control, like whatever it is on the one side that you feel like you need to be aligned with. And then you'll accept all the other nonsense that goes with it instead of what most people are. Most people are in the center. I think the vast majority, but that's not an option. There's no center option. So a guy like Ike Perlmutter, he seems like a very compassionate guy,

but he's also a businessman. And when you're a businessman and you want your taxes taken care of correctly and you want loopholes in place and you want you know you want to do what these guys have been doing forever with their money yeah that's a right-wing thing yeah listen with for full disclosure ike is very conservative and abides by every law when it comes to yeah no i don't mean it in a negative way i don't mean it no i know and you know that's what i found now i was just joking i mean look that is what I've found. He has become like family to me. He knows my children. You know, I love the man and I love his wife. That's great that there's common ground, man. There's more

common ground than there's not. People, they get ideological and they get tribal and they find themselves segmented off in these groups that can't communicate with other groups and that's one of the things you see like even in the podcast world as weird as it is there's certain people that like you can't go on that guy's show because he's right wing or a you know a right wing person will say like why do you talk to that person they're a libtard. Like they have these like ridiculous ideas of what you should and shouldn't be doing. And like, I feel like the more opportunities we have to just find common ground, the better off we're all going to be. Yeah. And that's why I'm, that's why I will continue to be here and talk to you

because I've always like, this is the biggest problem with our society. And I don't even want to go near. I hate even saying the word cancel culture. That's just like an easy thing to do. Yeah, it's an easy word. It's an easy phrase. And the more difficult thing to do is take a step back and hover above the moment and think about it this way. Like, what's on my mind

right now? And if people can't get this, they just can't get it as far as I'm concerned. This situation with this young man, Amir Locke, who is just executed in Minneapolis by officer, in my opinion, I guess you always have to say that these days, who... I don't know this case. Okay. So this is the best example, current example of why this is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. It is a human rights issue. Amir Locke is a young black man in his early 20s who lives in Minneapolis. Carjackings in cities are in the news cycle quite a bit lately. You hear about him in LA. You hear about him all over the place, right? And in Minneapolis, he goes out, no criminal record, and legally buys a gun. Why? Because he's a door dash driver. So it's obviously

a concern to him. He's sleeping at a friend's house. This happened just last week. He's sleeping at a friend's house and either four or five police officers execute what's referred to as a no-knock warrant. Okay? Within three or four seconds, apparently, he is sleeping. Five seconds later, by second number nine, he's dead. Now, when the doors blow open and five cops come in. You don't know who they are at first. And you go to reach for a gun that you legally have. And you get blown away.

That is a problem. And here's the problem. I want to go back to this no-knock warrant. no-knock warrant. But this is not, this is an epidemic happening mostly to people of color, to black men and women, and they're not all no-knock situations. But Breonna Taylor was a no-knock warrant situation. And wasn't it a no- no knock situation about marijuana as well. Yes. Yes. Botham Botham Jean was not a no knock situation, but it was the same type of thing right here in Texas where this female white female officer said he's eating ice cream in his own place and she comes in and thinks she's in the wrong apartment and blows them away. Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Fontability, Philandro Castile, Dante Wright, the list goes on and on. It sickens me. And I'll tell you something, you know,

these are all men and women of color getting blown away and executed. Now, look, some of these people, their families are dear friends of mine. Botham Jean's sister is a dear friend of mine. So I see that her name is Elisa Finley, and she's become an amazing voice and has somehow summoned the strength to be an activist. Antoine Rose's mom, Michelle Kennedy, as well. And these are people that to me mean something. I cry with them. I try to console them. I try to help their causes. But let's take like a step back and look what these no-knock raids are about. And by the way, the difference

between a knock raid and a no-knock raid is the difference between a few seconds. A knock raid and a no-knock raid is the difference between a few seconds. So let's forget about Democrats and Republicans. No-knock raids were born out of the 1980s just-say-no Nancy Reagan war on drugs campaign and the rationale behind it, not that she was responsible for the legislation or the phenomenon. But the rationale behind it from law enforcement standpoint was we want to surprise drug dealers and people involved in narcotics trafficking and we want to prevent them from being able to grab a gun or from destroying evidence. So they have warrants, no-knock warrants? Yeah.

So you would go in front of a judge and you would say, this is probable cause, this person's selling drugs, and they have guns, and we want a no-knock warrant. It's a specific type of warrant. Correct, correct. So that's exactly right. And so it was born out of the 1980s, quote-unquote, war on drugs. So in the wake of the devastation that

it's caused specifically to people of color, because there is some, whether you call it institutional racism, whether you call it whatever it is, we're just not living in reality if we are not recognizing the fact that there are many white folks that see someone of color and think danger, and typically African Americans. They think danger. They think there's a problem. They have all of these conscious and unconscious biases. This is not a coincidence that all of these people that are being killed in these situations, whether it's a no-knock warrant, knock warrant, a black person running from police. So if you get back to these no-knock warrants, you know, the failure is not on the part of Republicans or Democrats. It's on the part of all of them as human beings and politicians. as human beings and politicians. The George Floyd Policing Act, for which Joe Biden and Kamala Harris championed, and I think Tim Scott, who is the only African American Republican,

really got behind, it ultimately failed. And that failure is not a Democratic failure or a Republican failure. It's a failure of all of us. What was in it? to do away with no-knock warrants by telling municipalities, we are going to cut off your access to state and federal funds unless and until you stop this practice. So when an act like this is proposed, how does it get reviewed and what makes it get denied? And what makes it get denied? So it passed the House because the vote was largely on party lines. And then it didn't pass the Senate because they could not get enough votes for it. So what ends up happening is that when you involve, this is my theory, anytime you involve human beings in any endeavor, it gets messy, right?

Yeah. Egos, power plays, insecurities, all this messy stew of emotions comes into it. Am I pleasing my constituents? Am I going to anger police unions? Is it going too far in this area? So it encompassed many things. Did it come close? No, it was 12 or 14 votes shy. So the problem is, is that, you know, it passes the House,

it fails in the Senate, and the votes were largely along party lines. And, you know, Democrats are quick to say, oh, but the Republicans didn't do it. And Republicans are quick to say, well, Democrats put all this other stuff into it. Did they? And. Do they add things to the act? Yeah, of course. It covered other things.

But it takes people on both sides to say, well, where can we find common ground? Because when I think of Washington and I think of politicians and I think of Capitol Hill and legislate any of those words, I get a fucking headache right here without even knowing what the conversation is going to be about. Just because it's such a quagmire. Yeah. It just conjures up a visceral response in me of people that just cannot figure out a way to sit across the table or at the table or next to each other and figure shit out. And I don't know. You know, it's like I guess a fair question would be like, all right, Dubin, if it's that easy, why don't you go run for office and solve it?

I'm not, you know, I don't have the answers. I just know what I see. And I know that we all need to step away from what we think our allegiance is in this two-party system. Because I'm ready to just like register non-declared or independent you know and i'll i'll you know everybody is so like you don't ask people about their age you don't ask them who they voted for you know i voted for joe jorgensen as did i because i just feel like that was my way of saying no Yeah, saying no, this is a nonsense situation But do you think that in our lifetimes we're ever gonna see like a legitimate third party candidate?

because it seems like There's no people at least the general consensus in this country is that anyone who's independent is not serious That's not a serious person for president. There's no one who's been independent where it stands out since Ron Paul. Excuse me. Ross Perot. Ross Perot, I meant. That's what I meant, actually. Sorry.

But when he was running, he was in a very unique situation where he had massive amounts of resources. And so he could actually buy, this is pre-internet, he bought entire half hour blocks on network television to explain why you're getting fucked Do you remember that? Yeah, of course wild shit. I remember it and I remember I Remember being a kid a teenager whatever I was and rooting for him. Yeah, he was this little guy. Mm-hmm and Great way of talking Yeah, he was a character

He had those droopy ear lobes you know and I was like this little motherfucker speak see this is like why I am hopeful because you just brought me back to like you know when you hear a song or smell something yeah

I don't know why I just like went back to my living room couch as a kid hopeful daysful days. Hopeful days. Yeah. Oh, shit. Well, I think we have hope. I think there's still hope, but we have a problem.

We have a major problem in this country when it comes to the way we feel about leaders and politics and the shenanigans that go on behind the scenes, like what's really operating the machine versus what we would like. We would like is it to be a representative of the people and everyone working together to make this world a better place, to make the environment better, to make the economy better, the infrastructure better, make the inner cities and the communities better. It's not what they're working for. They're working for the people that got them into office. And those people are just trying to make the most amount of money possible.

And that's what money is. You know, that's when I was with you vis-a-vis hope until you got to the last part of the sentence, and that's where I start to lose hope, right? Yeah, it's a problem. But I think people realizing that this problem will exist forever unless we change the way we view things and one of the problems that we're having is we think along ideological lines and when you do you will

you will not judge people that are on your team that are fucking it over for everybody else you'll give them a pass you'll give them a pass. You'll give them a pass for doing all the same things the Republicans did or doing all the same things the Democrats did for doing all the same things for their special interest groups and, you know, whatever the lobbyists are setting up for them. And you'll, you'll forgive them for padding these acts with these ridiculous measures and nobody wants to vote for them. Like when you look at the Build Back Better, I forget who the politician was,

but they had that Build Back Better bill, and he brought it up in front of these press people. He showed how thick it is, and he goes, do you really think they've read this? He goes, who do you think has read this? There's thousands and thousands of pages. Has anybody combed over this and they know all the details upon which we form not only opinions, but make decisions and decide how will I act and who will judge me for acting that way based on whatever decision I come to. And I question whether when people tell me they have an opinion

about something the same way I question myself. It's a bit of a mind fuck, you know? Do I really feel this way or do I feel this way because I'm afraid of whatever backlash I'm going to get? Yeah, that's the thing. Everybody's worried about backlash now and it's designed that way. It's engineered that way. This system is engineered that when you step outside the lines,

they will attack you and that will force a lot of people who are watching that to stay quiet. Yeah, and I think that, like I said, the easy thing to do is to stay quiet or to go with the crowd and out of fear of whether it's being canceled, retribution, losing relationships. If we can't have these discussions and be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be introspective enough to say, you know what, I'm not going to be a Democrat or a Republican. I'm going to be a free-thinking human being. And the way that I try to apply that, and look, I'm not trying to be a, you know, one of the things that I have like a real, this is my psychiatric issue among many.

You know, I worry about coming off self-righteous or that I'm trying to save the planet or, you know, it's like I worry about other people feeling that way about me. That's good. That's humility. That's smart. I hope it is. No, it is. I know you. Yeah.

That's exactly what it is. You don't want anybody to think you're pompous. You're not. And I'm, you know, sometimes it's in my heart in a way that it hurts me to even think about that. But I understand that people will come to whatever conclusions they do. So I'm not trying to be a martyr or anything like that. I just feel like, like, I don't not here today speaking on behalf of the Innocence Project, but it's in that's in my DNA. I will take that with me. That's a that was a bit ironic to say it was in my DNA since we do DNA, but I will take that experience with me to this new role,

which I'll talk about later. But I just feel like it requires us to take a step back. And, you know, if you just look at no-knock warrants, as just the example we're using, and you look at the Amir Locke case, there's example after example in the South of this happening, not just in the South. You know, there was a kid during one of these no-knock warrants where they threw a flashbang through the window and it landed in a baby's crib. Yeah. Yeah. And a cop got, you know, all caught up in it. I think her name was Nikki Autry. You know, there was the case of Marvin Guy, who is still in jail. Marvin Guy, this case was another no-knock warrant.

And, you know, look, it's here in Texas. Yeah. Think about, like, talk about mind fucks. 5 a.m., your house gets stormed. You don't know who it is. He's got a legal gun. He starts getting fired at. He fires back and there's an explosion of gunfire. And I encourage people to look these cases up. up. You know, the one that I mentioned earlier with the baby in the crib, Nikki Autry, just how it sounds, was the police officer that was charged in that case. I think she got acquitted. And the baby's name was Boo Boo. And, you know, you could read online about the settlement that the family got. No, but horrific injuries. Marvin Guy has been sitting in prison here in Texas. And, you know, the guy, there's a hail of gunfire and a white officer is killed. And he wasn't the one that hit the officer.

It was one of the other officers bullets oh jesus but he gets blamed for it because he shoots back and it's like we this is this is a human rights issue and this is a state of emergency as it relates to people of color in this country and these you know there is a uh i hate when people toss around statistics with me because i'm always like, yeah, where'd you get that stuff from? Especially in an age where, you know, you got to check your sources. percent in the u.s and roughly half of the wrongful incarcerations exonerations are are black men and women that should blow people's fucking minds right because that's just the exonerations how many people don't get exonerated that's right yeah right what I mean what is the percentage of people that are wrongly accused convicted prosec, prosecuted, put in jail, and they lose their lives.

We'll never know because we don't, you know, the people that have studied this have estimated that range to be anywhere between one and 3%. And 1% should blow your mind. 1% is nuts. That means out of every 100 people that get prosecuted, one person didn't do anything wrong. Right. So I know that's a solid statistic.

Yeah. One I just gave you was a study done by the rate that South Africa did during apartheid. You know, we just need to be real about. So this is not about martyrdom. It's not. This is just this is a human rights issue in this country. And you see it when we go back to the two cases that we – I'll say it. I'll go as far that you helped save two men. this show helped save two men and in whatever way it did

well that's amazing that's an amazing thing and you know you're here so we could keep doing this so we could do more but I can tell you in those cases that you know, Ron Torres Washington was accused of a horrific murder that he did not commit. he was good for it because he was quote unquote the black guy because someone testified that there was a black guy in the parking lot downstairs

and the whole case was built on there was stunning evidence that the the husband of this woman that was butchered did it. And there was her blood on his clothing. I've talked about it. His hair in her dead hand. The police knew that she had been beaten by him and was afraid of him and had told people, if anything happens to me, he did it. Ron Torres Washington was threatened by this man that committed these murders with a knife. Days before this happened or a week before got a problem. And the entire case was built on what I now know was a problematic

timeline of, and the police suspected the victim's husband of doing it. And they had this timeline that they constructed through cell phone records. And the husband got into an argument with the victim. A heated argument in which there was pushing and shoving and witnesses. And she ends up murdered an hour later. And they based not charging him but charging Ron Torres Washington on this – the husband's cell phone traveling down a highway the guy takes a picture of himself in a rest stop bathroom takes a selfie of himself because that's just a natural thing anybody does I'm taking a piss let me just take a selfie it was clearly done to try to conjure up an alibi. And they based ruining a young man's life. He sat in pretrial detention for six years, which is another issue in and of itself. Before he saw

a trial, he ended up getting tried. There was a hung jury. And they're going to retry him again, right? Based on this cell phone timeline. They're still going to retry him? No, no, no, no, no. They were. So I went in and listened to this presentation, the details of which are I'm not allowed to talk about. And I got one of the best cell phone experts in the world that taught the state's expert this theory. And he said he's got it wrong he's got it wrong there was evidence that they should have caught that that husband stopped on that freeway and headed back in the other direction and you could see it from the way the cell phone towers are pinging and i figured it out with him, with his help, that he had plenty of time to go back and commit the crime. And so I had the Midwest Innocence Project as my co-counsel. I had been discussing the case and getting – and there was a lot of activism that this show and other people that got behind it as a result of this show, it started to generate

that pressure. So, and then the Albert Wilson case, which you know about, which is this young black man that was at KU and gets accused of, you know, sexual assault of a white girl who I believe strongly in his innocence. I had already won him a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. So I had staring down, my 2022 was going to be retrying both of their cases because Albert was offered a deal, which would have been no jail, and he wouldn't take it because he said, I'm not confessing to something I didn't do. And Ron Torres was facing a retrial as well. So I had been in discourse with the DA's office. And I think that they finally realized the problems with these cases. the problems with these cases. And they will never come out and say, these two men are innocent, and we fucked up here. She was a new DA, and I give her enough credit to do what she finally did. It didn't feel good along the way, because I was not treated very well, but this wasn't about me.

She would alternatingly be kind to me and understanding. And then she would also walk into a room and say, welcome to the armpit. There was a lot of passive aggressive stuff. But I know it was an indication to me like, aha, this works. And the ripple effect of it is such that – so here's one for you I try very hard to keep up and I'm not great at it with Instagram Messenger with the messages I'm getting on Instagram

that come as a result of being on the podcast there's one guy and I can go months without looking at it but there's one guy that reached out to both me and Jason Flom his name is Jordan Grotzinger and he works at a big firm called Greenberg Traurig and he had never done

this kind of work before, but was like, very relentless and pursuing, I really want to help, I really want to help. And, you know, he literally, he just took on a case in California. California. I'm trying to remember the case. The Pierre Rushing case. And it's throwing the full resources of his firm behind the case. And, you know, he called me, he was hiking with Jason Flom in LA. And he's like, this is amazing, the way this works. Look at the ripple effect of what you're doing. So there are more people to save. And I just think that it takes, there's a lot of, of what can I do to help? Whatever you're doing, keep doing it. Whether it's writing letters, serving on juries, and we'll talk about that, but not trying to get out of it. Because there is a movement taking place here.

And you made a promise to me that I wasn't expecting. And that is bearing fruit in a way that is the sweetest fruit you can imagine. Because, you know, I want you to hear and speak to these men. And you met Robert last time I was here. But when I called Ron Torres Washington and told him that they dropped the case against him, I cried like a child. He fainted. He fainted. And to hear the relief and the joy, and out of the i i've said it before i'll say it again there's no drug material but there's just no way to match that feeling and the fact that we're doing it and making a difference just you know is um very gratifying it is very gratifying and i should

also tell people you don't believe everything. Because I brought a case to you. I've talked to you about several different scenarios and situations, but there was one case where a guy came up to me, and he had a family member that he said was innocent. And I said, well, get me your information, tell me who that person was, and I'll send it over to Josh. We'll see what's up. And we have a phone call a couple days later. I think this person's guilty as fuck.

Yeah, and I don't, you know, look, I thought that about Clemente for a second until I scratched the surface and I said, not only is he innocent, he's innocent as fuck. Because it's until you hear the whole story. That is the problem, right? When you're researching something, you're only going to get what's been printed. Yeah, or what somebody is telling you in that moment.

I can tell you that I'm OCD enough, and I guess I have enough existential angst that I literally just printed three articles about that case two nights ago. Really? Knowing I was coming here just thinking, you know, I deserve to give that a closer look. Okay. So I will. And I'm not the only arbiter of, you know, what is or what isn't.

I know like in Clemente's case, I can't talk too much about it because I'm handling the federal civil rights case. I can't talk too much about it because I'm handling the federal civil rights case. But some of the shit that I have found out that the police knew at the scene is so infuriating. And some of the lies that I believe they've told that I've never known and I've lived that case as much as you could live a case, you know, it's like you think you've heard so much about so many different scenarios and prosecutorial misconduct, cover-ups, lies that your mind can never be blown again. And, you know, when your mind keeps getting blown, it's fuel for me. And I just don't know, you know, like, it's hard to know how to feel about different reform issues sometimes because like, you know, there's an argument that I heard. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that.

Police aren't needed for traffic stops. That's a weird argument because sometimes they are right. I've seen people get pulled over for traffic stops and then they pull out a gun and start shooting at the cop. So what happens there? I don't know. And I was talking to someone actually this morning that asked me how I felt about it. And he said, you know, there's some Western countries where police handle traffic stops but they're unarmed. And I said, well.

That's not good either. That doesn't seem effective. I don't know. What if you're pulling over a mass murderer? Like what if you catch someone, what if you, someone's got a unlicensed vehicle or whatever, and it turns out the person inside, I mean, this is a, I have a friend who's a cop and we had this conversation recently because there's, they're trying to pass some new rules for cops in Los Angeles and one of the things that he's saying is they don't want to pull people over for like bad Tail lights they don't want to put people over pull people over for failure to signal for all these different

transgressions and he was saying that the problem with that is this is often how we these different transgressions. And he was saying that the problem with that is this is often how we catch a lot of people that have warrants out for them and oftentimes very dangerous criminals. Right. And I've seen videos of people- Shooting at cops. Shooting at cops on a routine traffic stop. I just saw one the other day. I saw one yesterday, in fact. This guy pulls the guy over. The guy hits the hazard lights, pulls over to the side of the road, totally complies, and then cracks, opens the door, turns behind him, and just starts firing at the cop.

And then they're in a fucking gunfight, like out of nowhere. So if you're a cop and you pull somebody over, there's the very real possibility that you might be in a situation where this person is going to he's gonna fight for his life because he's guilty of something or he's got a warrant out for him he's done something and he's armed and it was a wild video it's wild because they the guy got out of the car and he's shooting the cop and the cop got out of the car and he's hiding behind the cop car it's fucking crazy yeah and it's like you just see see that convinces me that it's like kind of, you know, so is the solution that there needs to be better training, um, before we go handing a

police officer a gun? I think that's a hundred percent true. I think there needs to be better training. I think there needs to be better qualifications. And I think there's a long road to get to this point, but I think we got to get to a place where people respect police because the police are better than they are now. And I don't mean all of them. I mean, there's for sure bad cops, just like there's for sure bad bankers and, and every other profession. The problem with a bad cop is someone who cuts corners and lies and fucks with things and fucks with the rules. As a cop, you make other people's lives hell because you put other people in jail that aren't supposed to be in jail.

You lie about evidence. You withhold information that would exonerate somebody. All that stuff should be a horrific crime, and it's far too commonplace in the world of prosecutors and police officers and all of this world that we live in where the people that are supposed to be withholding the law and upholding the law are actually breaking it. Like that's a giant problem. And I think the only way to fix that is careful examination, massive training. I think you have to treat cops. And my friend Jocko said this very well,

Jocko Willink, who's a Navy SEAL and just embodies leadership and basically every cell in his body. And he said, these guys have to go through real training and they should be spending a large percentage of the time they're on the force training, whatever that is, 20%, whatever it is, but they should be training the same way tactical troops train, the same way someone would train if they're in special forces operation. You have to be prepared for everything. And you also have to understand this extreme position in society that you have. And it's an extreme honor, but it's also an extreme, the job and the obligation and what it means to serve as a police officer. And that's what it is. You're serving. That is

an incredible position of power and influence. And it's got to be treated with far more respect than it's treated today You know I drove down the street in LA last time was in town. There's a billboard hiring Well like they're looking for cops and it was like talking about how much you get an hour You know how much you get a year and I was looking at that was like that should be the last thing you think of If you want to be a cop not saying that you shouldn't get paid Well, you definitely should get paid well. But you shouldn't be saying, oh, I need fucking 80 grand a year. That's not what you should be,

to go and be a cop. That is the last fucking thing you should be thinking of. You should be called to service and duty. It should be something where you're thinking, you know, I want to do better for my community and I think I would be a good police officer because I'm a fair person and I'm a kind person

and I really care and I think I can protect people from bad guys. Yeah. And it's interesting because I've seen similar ads and I've thought you got to try to induce people somehow to want to do this, especially now when it's tough to be a cop. Yeah. Yeah. And I hate one of my biggest pet peeves is broad generalizations of people. Yeah. There's bad cops. There's great cops. There's bad judges. You know, there was just video of this judge, this white woman using, you know, the most horrific racist language looking at a video in a clearly racist way. And it's like you're sitting there shuddering. She's on the bench, you know. judges like Judge Galluzzo, who was in Clemente Aguirre's case, and is like, I'm not on my watch.

Are you going to abuse this man's constitutional rights? But there's great cops, and it's a hard job. But everything you said made total sense to me. I guess the part of it that becomes much more complicated. As you come to that job. With certain life experiences. Value beliefs. You know. Philosophical leanings. That inform. That training. And how you're going to act.

So this whole. You know. Driving while black phenomenon. Is a to act. So this whole, you know, driving while black phenomenon is a real thing. So I worry that I guess my my what gets left sort of out of the mix or lost in the shuffle is, you know, I don't know what the solution to this is, is how do you is how do you teach racial sensitivity? And I've often struggled, and I have lately, with trying to figure out whether it is nature or nurture. For police officers?

No, for human beings to look at someone as dissimilar to them and decide whether or not they when i see something or someone dissimilar i equate that with not good i think it's almost always nurture and not nature because if you look at little kids when little kids have a friend that's white or a friend that's black they don't give a fuck that's just my a friend that's black, they don't give a fuck. That's just my little friend. There's a famous video of these two little four-year-olds that haven't seen each other in a while. You've seen it? It'll make you cry. Someone sent it to me and I... It'll make you cry.

They're just this little boy and his friend. And one of them's black, one of them's white. And they run toward each other and they give each other a giant hug. And you're like, this is supposed to be the world. This is not supposed to be separation by looks or by economics or by neighborhood or by state. It's nonsense. And there's a problem with people that there's so many variables in life to take into consideration when you're dealing with other human beings. It's easier to generalize.

It's easier to put people in groups. And I think when you're a cop, there's a real problem when you're seeing the same crimes and the same situation over and over and over again, and you get calloused. And I think the root problem with that is that the source of what's causing a lot of the economic despair, a lot of the rampant crime and drug dealing and gang members, that's never addressed. No one ever goes into these neighborhoods and says, think about the amount of money that Halliburton got with no bid contracts

to rebuild Iraq. Fucking insane amounts of money to go build up shit that we blew up right why wouldn't they do that with Baltimore why why wouldn't they do that with the south side of Chicago why wouldn't they Brownsville exactly hire giant corporations to go in and clean them up make them safer get present a plan and put a shitload of money into it so it becomes a profitable venture and then everybody profits from it. Everybody benefits from it

because I've said this before, I'll say it again. You want to make America great? Have less losers. What's the best way to have less losers? Have people start from an even position. Have people start from a place where they have a community,

where they have some sort of role models or guidance or a safe place to be, where their community is more safe because whatever, whether they have better police presence or more compassionate police presence, figure out a way to stop people before they commit these horrible crimes. Do something to make these places better places economically. Give people more opportunity. It's totally a possible thing to do. It's not like

you're asking people to breathe air underwater. You're asking people to do things that have been done in other cities, right? Cities have sucked and they've gotten better and cities have been great and they've gotten bad. We kind of can figure out what causes both of those situations and throw a bunch of fucking money at it. No, I don't want to step on your words. No, it's, it's, um, this is why I like, I love these conversations because I'm sitting here listening to you and thinking that, that is, that is a potential real solution. It's a real solution.

It's a real solution. And what And what frustrates me also is that, you know, then you get, what does that look like? What does that feel? You know what? Here's what it looks like. Last summer, when all these corporations were feeling guilty that they hadn't done enough for social justice causes, I can tell you it was probably one of the biggest fundraising pushes for social justice reform organizations across this country to the point where they raised more money than they probably ever did. Right. And it was like the summer of like white guilt. Right. Or the summer of corporate guilt. like white guilt, right? Or the summer of corporate guilt. And I bet you that amount of money eclipses the billions. Because I can draw on examples and organizations that I may be involved in tangentially or otherwise, that benefited from that. That's only that's that's to make a company or a corporation feel good in the moment and check the box that I'm doing that.

But what you just said, if you look at what Bill Gates and the billionaires pledge have done, whether it's for clean water or for other public health endeavors, this is a public health human rights crisis. At every level the way that race um the the the disparities and the treatment of people of color in this country um is it solvable ever who knows but what you're suggesting seems to me like if you're going to make an investment in anything how about make an investment of that? And it makes total sense because when you, it was funny because when you said how you make America great again, make less losers. It's true. It's like, I'm tired of hearing these stories of after the fact people realize that it was my upbringing and the nightmarish situation I was born into that had I had the perspective I have now,

if I was able to overcome that, I may otherwise have been on the path I'm on now. And it's like it makes you sort of feel helpless and hopeless inside that, well, yeah, you're right. And how do you solve that problem of someone being born into a circumstance? I mean, I've managed a bunch of professional fighters that are from Brownsville and sort of started with no chance. But thank God they found fighting because fighting gave them at least some kind of an opportunity to do better. A lot of people never find anything. And this idea that just because someone does it, this is what drives me crazy.

When someone says, oh, look at this guy. He made it into the NBA. He lived in a shit neighborhood. Look at this guy. He became a rapper. He made it out of the streets. Like, so what? How many people don't?

Do you know that that's the craziest path ever? The path of being a world championship fighter to get out of the ghetto as a person who uses his knuckles to punch another guy in the face. That is one of the craziest ways to become successful ever. And there's so many variables that are outside of your control, like genetics, speed, fast twitch muscle fibers, whether or not you can take a punch. There's so many different things. Whether or not you have good coaching, whether or not you have a trainer that gives a fuck

about you that doesn't send you to the wolves right away the idea that a guy should be able to do it because this guy did it or Mike Tyson did it you're out of your fucking mind it's so hard but it's easy for people to say if they've not come from those circumstances

all the people that I know that are all those pull yourself up by your bootstraps never had to fucking do that. They never had to do that. When we've talked about this is the most frustrating thing to me is like, oh, this guy did it. That guy did it. Shut the fuck up. I mean, listen, I have direct experience with this. I managed Zab Judah for a period. Now, Zab was, and you know, like I light up when I talk about him because there's something about him that I just love. There is something magnetic and different and in a way righteous. And has he made his share of mistakes? Yes.

I mean, if you see what the circumstances that this guy was born into and what he had to overcome, and he was so gifted as a fighter, but he didn't have a chin, right? But he also took punches that people didn't see. But putting all the boxing part aside, did it work out for Zab the way it should have? Partially. He became a world champion. He's famous, but world champion he's famous but well respected well respected and i love the guy and we don't talk as much as we used to but you know and then he had this brain bleed because he stuck around too long and it was like oh i didn't know about that oh my god he was in a real bad situation but for every zap judah and shannon briggs and mike tyson and i mentioned those examples because they're all from that neighborhood, and they all happen to be dear friends of mine, right?

You know Shannon Briggs is going to fight Rampage Jackson? Yeah, and he won't listen to me or anyone else. He'll just do it. What do you mean? He just shouldn't do it. Well, aren't they going to fight like one round boxing, one round MMA? I don't know. Is that what they're doing?

I don't know. I don't talk to him enough about that because all we do when we talk is laugh. I might have made that up. Now that I'm thinking about that, I think that's Demetrius Mighty Mouse Johnson and he's fighting Rod Tang and that's how they're doing it.

One round Muay Thai, one round MMA. Shannon just like, it just ends up being like a laugh fest. Find out that's true though, Jamie. He might be, I might be right about that. They might they might have that's might be what quentin agreed to i know that they were beefing back and forth yeah rampage is a dangerous man if if i don't doubt it that's not a joke fight like if if he gets into an mma fight with rampage rampage is a fucking serious wrestler. He's so strong. There's a video of Rampage Jackson.

It's one of the most horrific slam KOs in the history of the sport. He's fighting Ricardo Arona. Ricardo Arona was this badass jiu-jitsu guy. And Ricardo Arona catches Rampage Jackson in a triangle. You know what a triangle is? Okay, so he's got his legs wrapped around Rampage's arm, one arm, and his neck. Rampage picks him up off the ground like a pillow over his head. I've seen it, and slams him down.

All the way down, and then headbutts him from the impact. As he's driving him down, his head slams into Ricardo Arona's head, and then he punches him a couple times, and he's out cold. Ricardo Arona was never the same again. Was Shannon Briggs, is he able to do that to Shannon Briggs? Yeah, Shannon Briggs is enormous. Big, strong dude. So is Ricardo Arona.

Oh, okay. I mean, not as big, but Ricardo Arona was jacked. But it's interesting you raise that example, because the next person I was going to talk about was actually recently in a video when Shannon Briggs and Rampage Jackson were going back and forth. His name is Curtis Stevens. And he was another kid from Brownsville who was like a little brother to me. And he was one half of what they called the chin checkers. Back in the day, my brother, who you know, was a ring announcer and used to do all the local shows and actually was on HBO as a ring announcer too.

And he did Pauly Malignaggi's first world title fight, my brother's debut on HBO. Wow. So the great Dubini, shout out to the best magician. He's a great fucking magician. His magician skills are top notch. I was very impressed. We were all hanging out at dinner and he was doing shit.

I was like, what did you just do? And you're a guy that is like got a good eye for magic and catching it. He's very good. He's very good. And that happened naturally. So yeah, check him out. It was fun. Dubin Magic, the great Dubini. Is that his website? He's got an Instagram, yeah. Is it with Dubin Magic, the great Dubini. Is that, is there a website?

He's got an Instagram, yeah. Is it with Dubin Magic? I'll look it up and we'll get it in. We'll get it in. But he, so. Look it up now because people aren't going to remember. Yeah, let me do it now. So what happens is in the video,

Shannon Briggs and Rampage Jackson are going back and forth. You know, I don't know if it was playfully doing it. It was a little playful, but also a little serious. So one of the guys in the video is this kid, Curtis Stevens. So Curtis, and the reason my brother came up is that he is one half of the chin checkers from Brownsville, Brooklyn. Curtis Showtime Stevens. Brooksville, Brooklyn, Curtis, Showtime, Stevens. And my brother would announce him at these small club shows at the Hammerstein Ballroom. And he was the most devastating one-punch knockout power for a welterweight and a 54-pounder. And he created a buzz in boxing that was so unbelievable hey there you go

that was that was the great dubini blowing joe that's hilarious and tony's mind yeah that's tony's got a card he's holding a card that your your brother did something to so we're like oh my god so it is dubin magic, it's Dubin magic on Instagram. He will, he will blow your mind. And there's my wife giving him the black hearts at the bottom.

That was right after we did Madison Square Garden. Yeah, it was awesome. So, yeah, that was a great night. That was a fun night.

Because Greg just happened to have, he had magic about him and we were all out getting hammered, having dinner, celebrating your epic conquest of the garden. And he was like, show us some fucking magic. Yeah, that was dope. So this kid, Curtis Stevens, was like going to be the second coming.

He was like a little Mike Tyson. going to be the second coming. He was like a little Mike Tyson. And, you know, whether it was personal issues, career issues, you know, he didn't make it. And he's got a comeback fight coming up. He must be 35, 36, whatever he is. But there are way more Curtis Stevens. Yes. That still are like, fuck, what am I going to do now that boxing didn't work out? Yeah.

Did he make some money? He fought, you'll recognize who he is. He fought Golovkin. Oh, okay. And he got hit by Golovkin and he was the guy when he was on the ground,

he was like, had this look of shock, like, what the fuck did I just get hit with? Mm. So. Golovkin does that to people. He does that to people.

I don't know if he still does it to people. He looks a little saucy lately. He looks, I don't know what he looks. He looks a little like he's been going down to Tijuana for special medication. He looks good. Looking jacked for a guy his age. He's like 37 now, and he looks as good. No, he looks better than he's ever looked.

His last fight, he looked fantastic. Yeah, and the energy level has you a little suspicious. Well, you know, boxing is not, you know, the UFC has its problems with supplements. I mean, and I use that term loosely. But the vast majority have to be clean because USADA just knock on your door at 6 o'clock in the morning. Boxing doesn't have that. That's not true. Well, you do if you sign up for WADA.

WADA. WADA, sorry. But the thing is UFC has it built in. So all the fighters get tested and you get tested randomly. You don't get to opt out, right? So there's certain fights where people decide to opt out of VADA testing. Really? Yes.

You know, all boxing is not VADA tested. I was just being facetious. Listen, Shakur Stevenson, I manage him with James Prince. Shout out to the big homie James Prince. And, you know, I personally think that Shakur is the best fighter on the planet. He's fantastic. He's absolutely fantastic. He has got everything. Everything. And when I say everything, I mean, dare I say, Floyd Mayweather-esque. He's something special. So Shakur is fighting Oscar Valdez to unify the 130-pound titles on April 30th at the Garden.

I would love to have you there if you're in town. And look, Oscar Valdez failed the drug test before his last fight. And it was for an amphetamine called Phenermine. And it's a weight cut. I had the opportunity to get very well versed in VADA because Andre Ward thought Kovalev was on something or suspected it. So I educated myself as much as I could. And I joined the REC where you could run any supplement through it. Margaret Goodman I got to know very well, who runs VADA.

But look, he has been in a random drug testing program that's been sanctioned by the WBC for a while. And then Shakur, you know, if you have good management, which I'll give myself at least that much credit, which I'll give myself at least that much credit, James Prince and I made sure that there's never a lapse in the testing from September all the way through the fight. It should be that there is a central governing body that dictates that. But when you're in different states and different sanctioning organizations. And that's what frustrates me when, like, I'm not like some Dana White groupie or fan, but people don't get the benefit of having the UFC being the central governing body. You can make rules like that that can protect fighters. So in any event, that's a whole other conversation. I agree with that as well. And I think that the argument against that is that the UFC is a monopoly, right? But

that's not real. The reason why that's not real is because there's all these stories about guys going over to Bellator and making more money in Bellator or guys going over to the PFL. There's a lot of organizations now. There's one FC. If you're a championship level or a high level professional fighter, you can go to these other organizations and you can get paid, especially if you have a name. They're willing to give you a bigger chunk of the pie because they're trying to build up their organization. Yeah. I don't.

Yeah. But the point is UFC, they check the fuck out of the fighters. But even through that, have you ever seen the YouTube page More Plates More Dates? No. It's a funny name, but the guy who runs it, his name's Derek, and he's a brilliant guy, like really brilliant, and knows so much about human chemistry and about ways that people use performance enhancing drugs and cheat. And he talks about it openly because he's done a lot of steroids.

He's done a lot of performance enhancing drugs. He understands what they, and he also runs a hormone clinic, which is like hormone replacement therapy. So he knows what you can and can't get away with, can and cannot get away with. So he analyzes some of the blood work by some of the people that have passed USADA and he calls bullshit And he breaks it down very scientifically and he talks about it Like why is this person's testosterone level so low and they have like some trace amount of this steroid? That's in their system that seems to indicate to me that they were doing something Oh, that's and then their testosterone dropped and why would a super athlete of the highest order have such a low testosterone?

A blood level testosterone, right? He said that's deep. Yeah. Well, he's on top of it dropped and why would a super athlete of the highest order have such a low testosterone a blood level testosterone right he's like that's deep yeah well he's on top of it it's also the testosterone to epitestosterone there's a there's a testosterone ratio right like where they're looking for testosterone to compared to estrogen testosterone compared to all these other hormones and there's a balance it has to be, there's like a natural level of balance. But he's pointing out, like a lot of these balances are way off. Like there's nothing that would make them off other than cheating.

So what you need is like a far more comprehensive examination of that individual to find out what's causing that. Because Vata, I know speaking for them, and they do a fantastic job for what they do, is just telling you if there's the presence of a substance. So I went deep down a rabbit hole on it before with the Catlin Institute in California, and I spoke to Oliver Catlin because I just wanted to make sure that if I was in charge of policing,

not policing it, but understanding the testing procedures for a guy like Andre Ward and now Shakur, that I had as much knowledge as possible. Have you ever talked to that Balco guy? What's his name, Jamie? Victor Conte. Victor Conte. We had him on the podcast for it. Very interesting guy because here's a guy that used to do that, right? He used to give people undetectable steroids.

What was it, the clear? The clear. Yeah, I mean he gave it to Barry Bonds. He manufactured this stuff. He actually came up with a formula to give people something that would evade testing because it's a molecule removed or it's like something that's different from... This is one of the reasons why the Olympics and even the UFC, they hold on to these samples of blood and urine, rather.

And then they test them when new technology becomes available and when new knowledge of new supplements become available because there are things that can avoid detection initially, and then they come up with new methods to check. And because of that, there was a bunch of medalists, and I believe gold medalists from Russia in wrestling had their medals removed because they went back and looked into old samples and they go, well, look at this. This guy's pissed hot. Like, we just didn't have the ability to detect it back then. Yeah, no, it's tricky.

Did you ever see Icarus? No. Fucking amazing documentary. You need to see it. You need ever see Icarus? No. Fucking amazing documentary. You need to see it. You need to see it. The second person that's told that. Icarus is Brian Fogle. And Brian Fogle, this is the most fortuitous combination of events while one was filming a documentary.

So this is what happens. Brian Fogle is filming this documentary about himself. Brian is an athlete and he's a cyclist. So he decides to enter into this cycling competition and he's going to do it two times. He's going to do it one year completely clean and then he's going to hire someone to dope him up so he can see and document the effects and put it in this documentary. He's like, let's see what it does. And did anybody know that he was doing it? Yes.

Yes. I mean, not the people in the race. Right. That's what I meant. No, I think he did it. He wanted to do it like a cheater would do it, but he was documenting it. So I don't think he had a chance to win, honestly. I think he's a very good cyclist, but he's not elite.

So it's not like he was a Lance Armstrong or something like that. So he does it once this way, and then he hires this guy, Gregory Rechenkov. So he does it once this way, and then he hires this guy, Gregory Rechenkov. And Gregory is the guy who runs the, air quotes, anti-doping program for Russia. But really, he's just doping everybody. So what Gregory does is he gives him this protocol. He tells him what to do, how to do it, what to happen. And while this is all going on, it turns out that the Sochi Olympics had been rigged and they find these microscopic abrasions in the urine jars. And it turns out that these urine jars that were

supposedly untamperable, you couldn't get into them. The Russians had figured out a way to get into them. And they devised this wild scheme where they made literally a fucking hole in the wall and one person would hand out the good urine and the other person would give them the tainted urine. During the Olympics? During the Olympics. Holy shit. So they would swap urine. So they had this place where they stored the urine.

They swapped the urine and according to Gregory Rechenkov, the Russians doped everybody except the figure skaters. It turns out for the figure skaters, these fine movements, there's actually like a negative consequence of giving them testosterone and all these things. They're the only people who are clean. But they did this through trial and error. So what they did was they doped everyone. And is this part of the documentary?

He goes into this? So while this is going on, this guy gets caught and he has to flee russia so he flees russia while this documentary is being filled he's in protective custody right now in russia the russians want to kill him because he gave up all the goods and they get removed from the olympics so in brazil when the russian athletes went to compete in the rio olympics they were not representing Russia. They couldn't represent Russia because Russia was banned from being able to have teams sent.

So like so many of their athletes were not able to compete anymore. And through this documentary, he really captures the moment where all this stuff is exposed. That's fascinating to me. It's a fucking wild documentary. Because I was just, somebody told me that they cycle recreationally with Lance Armstrong now up in Aspen.

I thought you meant cycle drugs. I was like, damn, Lance is still hitting the needle? And I was like, wow, that must be interesting. And I was like, it's like fucking, what is that like? I don't even know what to say to that. I mean, this was just like a couple of months ago in Atlanta. That was one of Shakur's fights. You should meet Lance.

He's a complicated person. He's a very interesting guy, very smart guy. He was in a dirty sport. Bill Burr had a fucking great bit about it. He's like, they were all doing drugs. He goes, he was just the best. Out of all those fucking psychos, he was the best. And he's dead on.

He belongs in the, I can see Burr saying, he belongs in the first ballot Hall of Fame fucking doper. Well, they were all doping. Here's the thing. When they take away Lance Armstrong's jersey and they say that he didn't win, you have to go back past 18th place to find someone who didn't test positive. No shit. Yes. It was that deep.

It's a dirty sport. It's a 100%. I don't want to say now. I don't know anything about it now. But when Lance was competing, it was a fucking dirty sport. That's why, you know, he's a good example. Like, he's before this whole phrase cancel culture came about. Right. But here's a good example of a guy that without context, without frame of reference, we write we write people off so easily. from the Equal Justice Initiative. But I really do believe this. And it's hard to live it all the time, is that we are all better than the worst thing or things we've done. If you took anybody's

life and put it through a mild microscope, you'd find way worse shit in mine or the next person's and what Lance Armstrong did. And that is the problem. Like I feel so conflicted about media and social media and just how everybody's life is in our veins, other people's lives, your life. That's why it's, it's difficult to understand and, and, um, process the world these days. Yes. Well that make sense? There's a guy named Alan Levinovitz. He's a brilliant guy. I've had him on podcasts before.

And he has a phrase for it. And he said, he calls it processed information. The same way you have processed food and it's bad for you. Yeah. There's processed information. And when you're getting a tweet, you're reading a tweet rather than like being around a person, talking to that person or experiencing their whole life. You can like, someone can say something abrasive in a tweet and they're just trying to be funny or they're just in a bad mood and you can

just decide, well, fuck that guy forever. But what he is trying to say is that I've seen it happen. I've seen it happen too, but it's, it's not good for the person that does that either, for the person that writes people off like that. For you to have the least charitable impression of someone possible and just decide right away that you're done with them, it's unhealthy. It's unhealthy for everybody because you either are not thinking or you're thinking and you're dismissing complexity. You're dismissing emotions. You're dismissing emotions. You're

dismissing circumstance. You're dismissing all the different aspects that make a person so variable. People vary so much depending upon the stress that they're under, depending upon what's going on in their personal life or private life. There's so much going on with human beings. You can't just look at a tweet. You can't just look at a moment in time. And we're doing that now. And we're doing that to the detriment of discourse and to the detriment of friendship and compassion and community. We're just deciding that this person is a bad person or this person's irredeemable. And irredeemable is a very dangerous thing. It's a way of othering people.

It's the most dangerous thing because, look, a big part of what I am, this new endeavor that I'm taking on is clemency. And, you know, at the Perlmutter Center, if it's going to be called the Perlmutter Center for Forensic Science, Education and Criminal Justice Reform, we haven't arrived at a name. But clemency is a very important process that has at its heart and soul not only I will grant you clemency because I think you may not have done this or didn't do this, but because I think you are worthy of redemption and forgiveness. And instead of throwing out your life or a large portion of it, I'm going to see past it and redeem, help redeem you. And it's up to us as the public at large to start putting pressure on politicians regardless of because you know how easy it is it's it's so like you just you just sort of crystallized it the easiest thing to do is to say fuck it i'm done with that person and then put them out of your mind and consciousness it's easy when you hear someone was accused of committing this crime to say, fuck them, they deserve it. power, maybe even on a higher plane than police officers and other members of law enforcement,

to say, you know what? I'm going to treat this clemency process as a real thing. And I am not saying this as a Democrat because I don't know that I am any longer one. I don't know what I am. I think I'm an independent human being. But if you take Ron DeSantis, for example, in Florida, the clemency regime in Florida needs to be overhauled and there needs to be human pressure, not from Democrats and from human beings. One of my clients is one of the oldest men sitting on death row in this country, James Daly. I've talked about him before. And he's one of three people in their 70s and 80s that are sitting on death row. And the clemency regime in Florida is one that exists but is not in practice in any real practical way. Don't you think that if a governor does have the ability to pardon people, and they do, they also have almost, I mean, next to the president, the president has the most obligations,

right? Because they have to deal with international issues. But the amount of issues that a governor has to deal with, the amount of things they have on their plate, the idea that we're asking them to go over thousands and thousands of cases just in their state where people might be innocent, there should be some sort of a program that examines all of these cases. Don't think there should be like each state, if you're going to have like, you know, defendants and you're going to have prosecutors and you're going to have incarceration and the death penalty and all the various things that go along with that. Shouldn't you have a wrongful incarceration department? Like an actual organization that can go over all the pertinent facts, the DNA, witness testimony, everything. Find holes in it.

the DNA, witness testimony, everything. Find holes in it. Someone who's completely dedicated to truth, not dedicated to winning or losing. Winning on each side, right? Yes. Yes. That's what they need. The answer is yes. It should be a part of the criminal justice system. And here's the thing, Joe. It exists in some municipalities. There are these things called conviction integrity units that re-review old cases, and they are an arm of the district attorney's office. Now, in New York, we just put one in place, and I believe it's being headed up by Terry Rosenblatt, who is, if I'm not mistaken, is being headed up by her as an old friend of mine, where they re-review old cases, but they're an arm of the district

attorney's office. There's one in Jacksonville, Florida, that has been responsible for helping get people exonerated. But those are exonerations. And those are re-reviewing cases. But getting to your point about the governor, you're A, absolutely right. And B, it exists exists he doesn't act alone ron desantis or any other governor they have a clemency board and then there are all the statewide top statewide elected officials are have a staff they have a lot of resources to re-review these cases. So here's how this works. Nikki Freed, who is the secretary of the commissioner of agriculture. I went up to Tallahassee to try to lobby on James Daly's behalf, not to set him loose. Just give me a fucking hearing, just the hearing. I can live with the result. If you just let me lay bare for you the facts of this case, this case was on, there was

a whole 2020 devoted to it. I'm on it. You can read about it. I've talked to you about the James Daly case on this podcast before. There's stunning evidence of his innocence. I've presented it in an evidentiary hearing in Florida, and it keeps on getting denied on procedural grounds. No one wants to look at the facts.

If there was ever – it's time barred. You're bringing it up too late. The real killer confessed to me in a jail cell. He has nothing to – no reason to do that. And then he doesn't want to testify in open court because his mother is in the courtroom. But check out the 2020 special on James Daly. And so when you're failing in the courts, clemency becomes, OK, let me present it to you. When I was up there trying to talk to people on the clemency board, Nikki Freed was the only one that would give me a meeting at a time where she wasn't running for governor. Now I'm supporting her because she gives a shit. I spoke to Ron DeSantis.

It was a favor for him to meet with me. He was two and a half hours late. And his decision was like reading a tweet. What about the wet pants? I said, well, he goes, and I have 30 seconds. 30 seconds. I said, what about the wet pants and you have 30 seconds? I said, Mr. Governor, sir. And he said, and take off your mask. This is like at the height of the pandemic. And I was like, what did my mask have? Take it off. And I'm like, okay. It was so bananas. take it off. And I'm like, okay. It was so bananas. And I was like, I'm not in a mask debate with you. In 30 seconds, you want me to tell you what about the pants? If you give me the benefit of a hearing, all I'm asking you to do is listen. He's like, you don't really think that I would let him go. What are you asking me to do? Commute his sentence? I said, I'm asking you to listen.

By this point, he had turned his back and begun to walk away from me down the hall. And I said, so that was our meeting? And he didn't answer. And his aide goes to me, that went great, right? He engaged with you. I said, if that's your definition of great, we're really fucked here.

Really? Yes, and I'm not there. If anything, I am tempering the story. It was so bizarre to me that just listen. And then if at that point you want to do something, let me get the facts out there. There's another guy that's sitting on death row in Florida named Nelson Serrano. All right. Nelson must be in his 80s by now. This case is nuts. Nelson has a flat out alibi. These murders were committed in Miami. I think it was a former business partner

of his. Look at the Nelson Serrano case. He is in Atlanta. He has the strongest alibi possible. And the state of Florida argued that he had time to get on a flight, make it to Miami, get back on a flight, make it back to Atlanta and commit this crime without anyone having seen it. They don't take into account the fact that the flight was delayed. Don't they have flight records? They have flight records. And they cobbled together a timeline in which he could have gone under an assumed name. What?

It is bizarre. What year is this? This must have been in the 90s. Oh, okay. But the murders happened. Oh, okay. him and he's sitting there on death row. And if you were ever going to listen, I mean, this is the state in the country that has the most death row exonerations by far. So there was 39 people have been exonerated from death row in Florida. Let's give these guys a clemency hearing and your listeners, what can we do? I'm going to get to a case in a minute that's happening in Texas,

a woman that is on the verge of being executed. But what can you do? You put pressure on governors, Ron DeSantis. It's not just Ron DeSantis, Gavin Newsom. You put pressure on Democratic governors, Republican governors. Take yourself out of this party affiliation and think about the human beings. What's going on with the woman in Texas? I'm going to faint if I don't go to the bathroom. Yeah, I can see it in your face. We'll be right back. And we're back.

How was that? Good? Relief? Sweet relief, right? It was like a supernatural relief. Because I was so into the conversation, and I didn't want it to end. I know, but it's like a lot of resources thinking about holding back the pee.

I got a weak bladder, man. It's not always weak. It's normal. Well, I'm on this medication to help relax it so then medication to relax relax my bladder apparently i have something called bladder neck syndrome which causes the you have of all the muscles that i should be proud of being shredded shredded it's not my fucking bladder neck. So your bladder neck tenses up too much? Thank you, Mom and Dad, for blessing me with that genetic.

Is that a genetic thing? Yeah. Is there a side effect to that? No, it's just like you have a strong bladder neck and you need to relax it. Oh, so the medication makes you pee more? It relaxes your bladder neck, yeah, so that you can – it doesn't make you pee more, but it allows you to fully eliminate. Oh, okay.

The more you know. That's sort of those NBC things, the rainbow. The more you know. I'm old enough to remember. Yeah. So this woman in Texas. Oh, so – I mean, look, if there were ever anything that, I don't know, I keep giving Texas references, but. That's where we are.

That's where we are. Maybe that's why. Melissa Lucio is set to be executed in less than 90 days. And there is hopefully forming and will continue to form enough of a groundswell of support for her. Um, she's been on death row, uh, more than a decade, I think close to 15 years. And she's accused of killing her child. And I want to, I want to preface the story of Melissa Lucio by saying, if you're inspired by anything I say, and you want to preface the story of Melissa Lucio by saying if you're inspired by anything I say and you want to do anything, if you just Google Melissa Lucio and it's L-U-C-I-O and Innocence Project, right on the landing page of the Innocence Project, you will get the information about how you can support right now. about how you can support right now. But, you know, here's someone, and this goes back to rebuilding communities and why this is so important, right? This is someone that was

born into awful circumstances, history of sexual abuse that started when she was six years old, and finds herself being interrogated by the police. And why I reference why it's so important to building communities, not that that's going to cure all instances of sexual abuse, but oftentimes sexual abuse happens in lower socioeconomic, depressed areas where there isn't the social, emotional intelligence that people – it's proliferated through generations. It's not always, but she was born into awful circumstances and not very well off, and she's at the hands of this terrible abuse. Why I tell that story is with stronger communities, I think we get less instances of that and many other things. But the reason why I raise that is because someone that has had past trauma like that is way more susceptible to being broken down during an interrogation because they have a certain vulnerability to them. So she is

the mother of 12 and is pregnant with twins and is accused of killing her child. There's no physical evidence of any abuse whatsoever. And she's interrogated over and over again. And you can watch clips of the interrogation online. And the culmination of this five-hour interrogation was, I guess I did it. And you really have to invest in just understanding why people confess the crimes they didn't commit. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. A lot of wrongful incarceration cases start with a false confession.

And the false confession is hard for people to understand because the reaction that it invokes in folks is that I would never confess to a crime I didn't commit. I don't care what you do to me. I don't care what pressure you put on me. That's just A, not true. And B, you have no idea what it's like unless you have been through it. And the best example is a starting place that I can give, and we'll get back to Melissa in a minute. And I'd like everybody to think about and really sit through this emotion. You're driving in your car and you hear the sirens and see the lights go on. Think about what that feels like. For most people, it's a rush of adrenaline. It's a raise in your blood pressure. It's a rush of adrenaline.

It's a raise in your blood pressure. And it's the release of hormones that you probably know the names of and I don't. Even if you weren't speeding, didn't run the stops on whatever it is for a minor traffic violation. So start there. When you were having an interaction with law enforcement, it is a stress-inducing event even if it's because you're being pulled over for speeding. There is no one among us that will deny that. where on the day of losing your child or in the weeks or months following losing your child, you are being accused of doing that.

And try to wrap your head around the grief and the depth of the pain, the spectrum of emotions that comes along with trying to cope with that, and add that to your already existing vulnerabilities. And the psychology that goes into that is very complex and very well documented and well studied. and very well documented and well studied. There's a professor at John Jay College in New York named Saul Kasson, who has done some of the most famous experiments about this. You can read about why people falsely confess. There's tons of great stuff to read about it. But she was one of the most vulnerable candidates for it. And she finally said, I guess I did it.

And the way you determine whether or not somebody is falsely confessing to something is you start to match the physical characteristics of the crime to what they say they did. And if you're not seeing that they match up, it's a strong indication of a false confession. Popular example that most people can latch on to is Brendan Dassey, who my dear friend Laura Nyreiter, you know, who was in Making a Murderer and runs this really amazing social justice organization for the wrongfully incarcerated up in at Northwestern and is handling his case you know Brendan Dassey you know he was Steven Avery's nephew and the making the murder you know the things that they were getting him to say didn't Matt he was saying okay I did X but really why happen they say no say why happen so you start to match the disparity between what they're confessing to and what happens to Melissa Lucio is something similar they're trying to supply her with details they're trying to force

her to say things she doesn't know the answers she's dealing with the enormity of the death of her child she's pregnant and she finally says I guess I did it. What are they accusing her? Killing her child. But of how? I think it was manual strangulation. You can read about the case on the Innocence Project. Do they know what the kid actually died from? They know now and her experts show that it was not, you have, I don't want to speak about the case in details without giving people a chance to read the details and decide for themselves because getting behind something is not something you should do because somebody says it on a podcast. I encourage people to do their own research. And frankly, I don't know enough about the details of the nooks and crannies

of the case. But I know enough to know that the people that I'm close with that are working on her case have done the amount of due diligence that I would do and way more. And what I do know is that they had CP, Child Protective Services records to go through that didn't document a single instance of physical violence toward kids. And as a starting point, the statistic on this is staggering. The statistic on this is staggering. 70% of women that were exonerated are exonerated for crimes that never happened. 70? So let me say that again.

Of the women that have been exonerated in the United States for crimes they did not commit are exonerated of crimes that never actually occurred. They either turn out to be accidents, suicides, or no crime happened at all. So that's the starting point. You know, I just think that if you go and read about her case and if you were ever like, I want to do something right now, you know, that is something that the governor's name here is Governor Abbott, I believe. Yes. You know, and a lot of people lose hope. But, you know, when it came to Rodney Reed and others, you know, things happen. And when there's a groundswell of support, things can happen. And before we go, taking the life of a mother of 14 kids, she had to deliver her twins from in jail, from death row. Jesus Christ. You know, we better be really sure. And she's been in jail for how long?

14 years on death row. And, you know, before we go, if we have any pause, any pause at all, we stop. You know, it's interesting. pause at all. We stop. You know, it's interesting this, this, so go to the, the innocent, if you Google innocence project and Melissa Lucio, L-U-C-I-O, there's a very specific way that you can sign on to a petition and a very specific way you can contribute and learn about her case. And, you know, I deal with this often. And this is more of a question for you because I don't know the answer, and it's a riddle I've been trying to solve for more than 20 years. We like to think of ourselves as impartial, right?

So whenever I'm an alleged expert in jury selection, that was like my initial claim to fame. I wrote a book with a federal judge called The Law of Juries and that was like the sexiest part of what I did, right? I was the jury expert. And when you're picking a jury, you're not really picking a jury. You're deselecting people because you don't have the ability to say, I want Joe and Jamie and Mary and Cindy. You only have the ability to say, I don't want Joe and I don't want Mary and I don't want Jamie. So it's really deselecting. behind that is let me get rid of the people that I think are not in a criminal case, for instance, are not going to presume my client innocent. And the great fallacy of our system of justice, perhaps the biggest fallacy is this notion that we presume people innocent until proven guilty. It's something we like to say, and it's something that we like to trot out there as what makes us different from the rest of the world. And we say we're the only system of justice. It's just not true. If we're honest with ourselves,

the first thing you think about when someone has been accused of a crime is that they must have done it. And now I don't accept my own opinion on it. My firm, there are tons of independent studies on it. I had my firm conduct a study on it with thousands of participants. And close to 90% of people polled, when they respond anonymously, say, if I hear someone is accused of a crime, I assume they are guilty. All right? So there is no presumption of innocence. So my question is, there have been decades and decades of lawyers far more gifted than I'll ever be that have tried to crack this code. And I can encourage you to serve on juries and not look for ways out.

I can encourage you that when you stare at the person sitting in that seat at the table, you look at an innocent person and say, that is an innocent man or woman. And there are all sorts of tricks and, you know, devices of persuasion, the great criminal defense lawyers from Clarence Darrow to Ted Wells to, you know, Roy Black and Barry Sheck and, you know, every great Jerry Shargel, Jerry Lefcourt, you know, Lisa Wayne, the best criminal defense lawyers I know have tried. You are shrouded in a blanket of innocence and that that shroud does not fall from your shoulder, not a bit, unless and until the government can tear it away

from you. And when you go back into that room to deliberate, you should walk through that door saying we are dealing with an innocent man or woman, unless and until the government can meet its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. But these are just words. And the problem that we have is that if you look at the rate of conviction in most federal jurisdictions across the country, it's over 98%. And that can't be. It just can't be. So my question to you is, and I don't know that you know the answer, or invite people to sort of what is how do you impress this notion of the presumption of innocence? Because if we don't breathe life into it through our deeds, through verdicts and through saying, if I have a matter of pause in my own life in a moment of importance, that is reasonable doubt, and I must acquit, which is what the jury instruction usually is.

How do we make that happen with more regularity so that it's better to have 10 innocent, 10 guilty people walk free than one innocent person go to jail for a crime they didn't commit? And I don't, I've run out of fresh ideas today, but it's something always on my mind. I think we have a problem with human beings just in general that we don't really know if someone's being truthful. It's very, very hard to tell and it's one of the reasons why when people are consistently truthful like when you know for a fact they're truthful when you know for a fact you can count on them for truth we value them so much because we don't know there There's always this chance, you know, you meet someone, they're charming and they turn out to be a serial killer. You don't

know. I think we're going to come to a point in time with civilization where there is going to be a technological innovation that allows us to bypass what we're looking at as a bottleneck now, which is like what is your intent? What's going on actually in your head versus what you're saying? Really? Yeah, I think that's gonna happen. I don't think it's gonna happen soon.

In what form does that take? It's probably gonna be a neural transplant. It's probably gonna be something like Neuralink. It's gonna be something, when I say transplant, I mean I meant implant. It's gonna be something that interfaces with the mind that allows you to share ideas without the use of words. I think there's a problem with words. I think the problem with words is that you can use them to manipulate perspective.

You can use them to manipulate the way someone feels. That's what charm is and personality and all that charisma shit. It becomes a problem. And the lack of charisma becomes a problem as well. When people are nervous and they're not good at communicating, that becomes a problem.

It's like we don't know if someone's telling the truth. A problem in that we equate it with them being dishonest. Yes. Yeah. Well, some people just lock up. Like some people, if like you're talking about the cop behind you, some people have a cop behind them. If they've never done anything wrong, they fucking feel guilty and they're terrified for no reason. Just they have this fear of authority. And if a cop is behind the lights go on, they're a babbling mess. And if you pull them over and if you're quick to judge or if you think you're smarter than you are, you think you're more perceptive than you are, you might decide this is a guilty person and you might detain them. I think we need some – because, look, most of what you're dealing with here is a lack of truth. Most of what you're dealing with here is a lack of truth.

If you arrest someone and convict someone for a crime they didn't do, that's not truth. If you say that you did something because you were coerced into confessing, that's not true either. And we need to figure out a way. Obviously, these are like long solutions. We're not talking about like very recent in the future or very soon in the future. There's going to be something where we're allowed to see into the contents of someone's mind without the use of verbal language. he's working on because essentially what that is it's going to be some sort of an interface that allows you to have much more access to information and also to share this whatever this frequency is or this thing's transmitting with other people that have the same device and what he said to me is you're you're not going to have to use language to talk anymore. That to me is the gateway to ultimate truth. I don't think it's good. Like, let me, let me be real clear on this. I'm not like happy about this. I like humans.

I like the messiness of people. I don't like it when it comes to being incarcerated wrongly, or when it comes to someone getting away with a terrible crime because they're a good liar. But I do like it because the messiness of humans, that's where romance comes from. That's where intrigue comes from, mystery. That's where charisma, like I love talking to a charismatic person, an interesting person. I love like listening to someone's words,

how they craft their thoughts together and express them to you. I think it's one of the more fascinating aspects about human communication. It's just, I love it. And trying to find out and trying to solve the mystery of that person. And it seems like Neuralink, he'd be a fascinating guy to talk to about this. It sort of, it robs you of the romance that surrounds the mystery of solving the riddle of another human being i think we are destined to become cyborgs and i don't think there's any way around it i think what our reliance upon technology is so extreme and so overwhelming and i think

one of the answers to the solution that we were talking about earlier about this the the social media aspect of about this the social media aspect of communication like the social media aspect of the way we talk about people and share information and write people off this the only way we're going to pass this is better technology we've embraced that shitty technology so much it's so overwhelmingly a part of people's lives, whether it's text messages or social medias, that I can't imagine there's going to come a world where people wake up and go back to flip phones and say, this is too nuts. This is not the way people are supposed to be interacting with each other. But am I crazy to think that, I wonder if you have this feeling and maybe it's like a misery loves company thing

where you're with someone we've all had this experience and they're i feel like a hypocrite because i'm sure i do it too but where you're with someone and their face is buried in their phone and you're trying to talk to them oh it's brutal and it pisses you the fuck off well you know when that's really clear um when i do podcasts because i do so many podcasts where i don't ever have that happen we just sit and talk and occasionally i'll have a guest that picks up their phone starts going through their text messages while the podcast is going on and i'm like what are you doing and do you maybe it just hasn't happened in a while but when when it does happen you're like like, hey, junkie, put your phone down for a little while.

We're here for a couple hours and millions of people are going to listen to it. And it feels great just to have this conversation. Yes. We're sitting across the table from each other and it's like, why can't my phone's off? And, you know, it's like I don't, I'm not jonesing for it right now, but I'm not going to lie. right now but I'm not gonna lie are there times where like I I went to this like I went to this talk at my kid's school years ago from this she was uh I wonder where she's at with it now this psychologist at Harvard that was doing a study on what this what this technology and specifically phones do to kids minds but more so what you being on it in front of them

does to their minds. And it was really scary. And she had these like tips that were real practical and interesting about when you get home, there should be a period of time between five and seven or six and nine that you leave your phone in a drawer because what emergency can't wait if you're with your family right and I started to try to do that it's not always easy well you're busy that's part

of the problem so your life doesn't end when you come home you're still getting text messages and emails you have to respond to and there's a important case that you have to follow up on yeah with most people it's just bullshit you know most people it's like just bullshit. Most people, it's like someone sending them a meme, LOL, and you got to respond, I don't want to be rude, I got to respond. But I'm curious as to what you said, because you're right, it is a longer term solution, this idea of being able to read into people's minds. But I don't know what it is about us as human beings that assumes guilt. Because I'm not a big like founding fathers had it right guy.

But I'll tell you one thing. The presumption of innocence is a fascinating concept. It's a fascinating concept because what it reflects, if you really think about it, is a belief in the best about another human being. It presumes not that they're innocent, not that they're benevolent. It presumes the best about humankind. It presumes that you wouldn't do this awful thing that someone is saying you did. And it presumes that before we go ruining a life, and I can tell you that whether it's someone being accused of a white-collar crime, a robbery, or a murder, until you have lived the emotional toll of human destruction that any prosecution leaves in its wake for the family and friends of the person accused, you just have no frame of reference. And I, you know me, I'm like emotionally overwrought about a lot of things. And that's one of them is that sometimes, you know, I'll go through the process

of, well, even if they did what they're being accused of, isn't it enough at this point? I mean, this person has suffered enough. And I'm not talking about violent crimes. I'm talking about like white collar crimes and, you know, what motivates U.S. attorneys to do these things. And, you know, it's a hard issue to solve because if you've ever been through and in thinking about the psychology of it, you know, I don't know if you guys, Jamie, if you guys have been involved in jury selection ever. Have you ever been called as a juror? dominating exercise in human behavior. Because I'll tell you two things that this might scare people so much and alarm them so much that the next time they think, shit, I got a summons to serve on a jury. How do I get out of it? I cause them to reevaluate. I'm going to start with the federal system. If you were accused of a federal crime in this country, 99% of federal jurisdictions do not allow the attorney to ask a single question of a prospective juror. What?

When I say it out loud, I feel like I'm getting pulled over and I get the rush of adrenaline. So you have a bunch of people that are going to be on the jury. How do you select or deselect? So what happens is in most cases in federal court, the very, very vast majority, the judge will ask the questions. Okay? You can submit questions that you want the judge to ask. They will ask maybe 1% of those questions. And then they seek to rehabilitate people and talk them out of whatever bias they are willing to share, which is rare, and I'll tell you why in a minute. And you have to base it on their occupation. You have to base it on how you think they might think based on just very general demographic information, where they work. Do they have experience

in finance or accounting, if it's an accounting fraud case? Because a lot of federal cases or white collar cases. And in the rare case like the El Chapo case, the Glenn Maxwell case, there'll be a jury questionnaire, which you'll get information. But when it comes to following up with the jurors, look, the Glenn Maxwell case is a great example. The last two pages of the questionnaire in that case asked if you have ever had any experience or been the victim of sexual abuse. And there was one juror in that case that checked off no. outlet and said that when they were deliberating, that the way that he was able to get the other jurors to understand that these alleged victims weren't lying was to recount his own experience with being sexually abused. So he lied about the most fundamental question that the defense was interested in. And whether you think she's guilty or innocent, you followed

the trial or you didn't. She, in any universe, should get a new trial. So the answer to your question is most of the follow-up is done by the judge 99% of the time, if not 100% of the time. 99% of the time, if not 100% of the time. So you think about this. You are in a situation where somebody's liberty is at stake, and you can't stand up trying to defend that person and protect their presumption of innocence by saying, look, and this is my shtick in state court, when you can ask questions. And it comes from a place of understanding that when you are in a room full of strangers, you want to view yourself as being fair and impartial, and you want others to view you that way. That's who we are as mammals. That's Psych 101. So I always start by saying, look,

That's Psych 101. So I always start by saying, look, bias can be a dirty four-letter word when you apply it to someone's ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so forth. But it's not always because we all have biases, all of us, based on our life experiences, things that happened to us during childhood, our value beliefs. So I give an example. Like, for instance, if I was in a case where I was asked, would you believe the police and give them equal weight if they were on the stand? I might say no because my experience has been in situations that skew my perspective because I've been involved in cases where police have covered things up. So I get people's guards down.

That's my first to tell them that it is okay. We just want to know. And it's totally fine, ladies and gentlemen, if you feel this way. And we just encourage your honesty. And if you want to talk to me off to the side with the judge, you can. But just please take a look at my client. And please stand up. And just search yourselves for a minute.

And how many of you feel that he must have done or she must have done something to be here? Must have done something wrong. You know, they don't just prosecute people for no reason. And if you feel that way, that's't just prosecute people for no reason. And if you feel that way, that's fine. And I always get a hand. And then I say, I say, thank you so much for your honesty. That is so important that you did that. And all of a sudden people start to see that that's okay. And they feel comfortable. And then you see more hands. And now that is what this process should look and feel like. You cannot ask that question in federal court, period. Why? Because it's just become

accepted not to. And, you know- And the Ghislaine Maxwell case was federal court? It was federal court. But so there was a questionnaire that asked if this person had been sexually abused? Yeah. So in cases where there has been a ton of media attention, totally up to the judge, totally up to the judge, they can grant what's called a supplemental juror questionnaire. So they granted one, and then you have to worry about people lying. And then, you know, if you say to the judge, I'd like to follow up on questions X, Y, and Z, oftentimes the judge is like, no, we got enough. That's why you did the questionnaire. And the question becomes,

in most federal cases, jury is picked by lunch. I didn't misspeak. There's like a race to get the most critical. These kids, the wheels of justice grind slowly. Right. know, you should be so careful, so careful. You know, the Michael Avenatti case is another example. He just got convicted in New York again. And watch what happens in this case. And I've been on a panel with this judge before. Years ago. And his attitude seemed like to me any old 12 will do. It was kind of like an arrogance.

And in that case, the jury comes back and says that they're deadlocked. Okay? And then he gives what's called an Allen charge, which is a pretty standard instruction to a jury. Go back, begin deliberating again. Don't let emotion factor in. And then they get a note from the judge. They get a note. The judge gets a note from the jury saying that there's one juror that doesn't want to look at any evidence and is just going on their emotions and can't even show evidence to prove her side of it or his side of it. And then the judge goes back and says, you need to put emotion aside and you need whatever instruction he gave. It was obviously a juror that wanted to acquit.

The defense has no burden to put on evidence. It's the prosecution's burden. So the judge should be taking their time there and being very careful. And this judge essentially didn't put a finger on the scale, smashed the scale down with his foot. And that's not saying I believe or don't believe in Michael Avenatti's innocence. I just think that these are high-profile examples. So in federal court, if you say attorneys have to start making a record and saying, Your Honor, I really need you to ask how many people assume my client must be guilty, and I need to be able to be the one to ask it.

And, you know, as for your listeners, if you're summoned to go sit on a jury, you know, remember these stories of the wrongfully convicted and God forbid it could be you or someone in your family and really think about the human life and take a long, hard look at the person. And, you know, I think we know by now the fucking government gets it wrong. They get it wrong. They get it wrong when they're dealing with pandemics. They get it wrong when they're dealing with budgeting. They get it wrong when they're dealing

with the criminal justice system. And they get it wrong more often than you think. They usually assume guilt and work backwards from that assumption and focus, as you have correctly identified, on the win. So that is the process in federal court. And it should be – it is one of the biggest threats to the presumption of innocence that is not talked about enough. And the way I connected with the co-author of my book is that she was a federal judge in – it's a very prestigious position. They were appointed by the president. She was a federal judge in Boston.

Her name is Nancy Gertner. And she was the only judge in that federal district that would allow attorneys to conduct jury selection. And she heard about my work and I heard about hers and we came together in that way. And we co-authored this book and it just should be, you know, something that happens more often, but as for your jurors, and I get a lot of interest from aspiring lawyers as a result of being on your show, whether you're going to be a prosecutor or a defense lawyer, this is, these are things you need to keep in mind because we're dealing with real people and real human beings. And it's easy to talk about them like they're numbers with real people and real human beings and it's easy to talk about them like they're numbers but it's like you didn't know that this was the process in federal court right yeah scary isn't it it is scary the idea that you can't ask any questions

doesn't seem any that doesn't seem to serve any purpose yeah and you know and if you juxtapose that with state court, I mean I had this dentist that was accused of poisoning his lover's husband to death with midazolam. And bedazzling lamb is some, you know, relaxation amnesia agent that is administered by dentists. And, you know, when they're pulling teeth to get them to get people to, you know, it was a it was an anesthetic. And I was I conducted the jury selection in the case. And it was one of the great criminal defense lawyers of our time, Jerry Shargel. It was one of the last cases that he tried. where I was able to get their guard down and say, look at him, Mr. Nunez, stand up. You know, he must have done something, right? And the hands would fly up. And I would say, Your Honor, excuse, let's go on to the next panel. And that's what should happen.

And we need that kind of reform to happen in the federal system. Let's go on to the next panel." And that's what should happen. And we need that kind of reform to happen in the federal system and we would see a lot less convictions if that happened because people lie because they don't want to be viewed as unfair. How does the selection work in the federal system then? Like say if you were a defense attorney, how do you help pick a jury or deselect? So it's an interesting question. So what the judge will typically do is say, have you heard anything about the case or read anything about the case?

And that's not enough. Tell you why. Because the description they were given of the case, Tell you why. Because the description they were given of the case, the names may not ring a bell, right? But if you like, if I know that the media coverage of the case was such that two men were from X bank were accused of trying to fix the market by spoof by this process called spoofing and make it look like there were trades happening that weren't to drive up the market price. If the judge says, have you heard of John Q. Smith or Mike Q. Public before and charges against this bank? And no one says yes. charges against this bank and no one says yes, okay, how about, well, have you ever heard about a case where people were accused of doing what I just described? That sometimes raises hands. And then they realize, oh, I have heard about this case. So what happens is that you'll get a chance to submit questions. And oftentimes I'll submit the question, please ask how many of you assume the person's guilty. And the judge will just using their own judgment, say, I'm not asking questions one through 17, but I'll ask question 19 and 20. And then the judge will go through two rounds. One is called for cause. And you have an unlimited

amount of what they call cause challenges. So if somebody knew one of the parties, if somebody was a former FBI agent, if they had a family member that was, those are usually grounds that you have cause to get rid of someone. Or if someone has read about the case, right, and all they've read is that the person's guilty. So watch this. A high percentage of judges used to be prosecutors. A very high percentage. Oftentimes, they were prosecutors in the same office that they are now presiding in cases over. I mean, I have three trials coming up where that's the case.

And what they will do is they will say, I understand, and I am not shading this a bit. This is exactly what happens. I understand that you've read about the case and you may have formed an opinion. I'm going to instruct you that you are only to listen to the evidence in this case and you are only to consider that evidence and put aside whatever it is you have read or heard. Do you think you can do that? So let's just stop for a second. Think of the psychology here. You have someone that is physically standing above you on a bench, okay, in a black robe appointed by the President of the United States. These federal

courtrooms are very regal. You have this authority figure. And the psychology there is, of course, I want you to view me as being fair. And I want to view myself as being fair. So 99.9, repeating 9% of the time, the person will say, yes, I can do that. That is not getting to the truth about that person's bias. That is rehabilitating someone that needs to be struck because someone's freedom is on the line. So if I'm ever given the opportunity to inquire further, I can usually get them there. I understand this is, are you nervous? Yes. So are you a little intimidated? Would you mind if we should all step back a little bit, give you some space? But I really want you to give this some thought because is it fair to say that might be difficult for you to just forget it or put it aside? And I would say 80% of the time, I will get the person to a place of honesty and say, yeah, I think it might be a problem.

And the person should be excused right then and there. The very vast majority of judges won't even allow that, and federal court will not even allow that follow-up. And to the extent they do, they will. And I could send you example after example. It happens all... It's like the kind of joke in circles of criminal defense lawyers that is, you have to laugh or else you'll cry. Circles of criminal defense lawyers that is, you have to laugh or else you'll cry. And that is what happens. So you then just end up being relegated to, if you can't make an argument and get the judge to agree that person needs to go for cause, which you should have an unlimited number of challenges, you then have the peremptory phase, which are what are best way to describe

it as free strikes. And for certain felonies, you get six, you know, others, you get three, you just get a number of strikes that you get to get rid of people. And if you have eight problems, but only six strikes, you're going to be left with two shitty jurors. And shitty, meaning that they're not there with the presumption of innocence. They're there with the assumption of guilt. So I had a situation once where I got so fed up with the judge because I was a former prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, he's now sitting as a judge in the Southern District of New York. And the perspective juror said, I've read about the case. I think your client's probably guilty. And he said, OK, well, I'm going to instruct you.

And he went through that whole bullshit routine and then said, you know, so I'm going to ask you, can you put that aside? So I said to him, I asked the prospective jury to leave and I said, Your Honor, with all respect. impossibility and departure from the most basic tenets of human psychology to ask someone to put something aside and erase it from their mind. We don't think that way as human beings. We're not cyborgs yet. We can't compartmentalize things in the manner in which you're asking these jurors to do. So I would respectfully ask that you not ask it that way anymore. And he said, I'm going to ask it the way I want to ask it. And I have this all on the record. So the next time he did it, I just, I said to myself, you know what, next time he does this, I'm going to ask the next logical follow-up. So he did it. And then he said, can you put it aside? And she said, yes. And he said, anything further, Mr. Dubin? I said, yes. Where are you going to put it? I don't know. And he got so red in the face and screamed at me in front of her.

Don't you do that. I want and called the marshals back into his chambers. And I didn't know whether I should take my shoelaces off because I was going to get arrested. But if I say to you, Joe, I know that you've been a UFC commentator and that's been a huge part of your life, but I'm going to ask you to sit in judgment on something that requires you to put that aside and not consider that. Where the fuck are you putting that? Right. Especially if it's relative. Right. Where are you putting it? I mean, where are you putting it? You read about the case and assume my client's guilty.

Right. But can you put it aside? Where are you putting that? That's crazy. Yeah, well, that's a power thing, right? When you're a judge and you have that, I mean, a judge is such an ultimate position of power. And you see some of them, they wield it with such arrogance. And some of them wield it with dignity.

And some of them wield it with dignity and some of them wield it with humility and honor. But there are people just like, again, there's bad everything, bad flight attendants. There's bad judges. And it's just a part of being a human being. So you should have at least some sort of fail-safe mechanisms in place to stop the intentions of a bad human being from ruining somebody else's life. Yeah. And I don't know if the answer, I don't know if one of the solutions is for people that are listening to say, you know what, my job will survive without me for two weeks. I'm going to really, A, be honest, going to really, A, be honest. Even if I'm not asked the question, I just want you to know,

I think if the federal government would go to the point of convening a grand jury and indicting someone, they must have the goods on them. I think they're probably guilty. Just say it. Because think about it. Wouldn't you want to know that if it was you sitting in that chair? Yeah. Joe, wouldn't you want to know it? Of course. So it's like, you know, there's so many issues to tackle and things to, you know, get excited about in terms of good excitement and bad where you, you, we all can make a difference because the one rare thing that we can agree on that is different about our system of justice related to really the rest of the world and most of the western world is we do bring our disputes to each other to resolve. Yeah. It's pretty fucking rare and scary. Yeah.

It's definitely scary when you let other people decide if you're telling the truth. And you have a woman like this woman in Texas that is vulnerable and has been coerced into confession. You know, I've had Amanda Knox on the podcast. Yeah, a friend of mine. And she's brilliant. And, you know, I would not want anybody to go through what Amanda Knox has gone through. But because of what she's gone through, she's this insanely intelligent, aware, compassionate human being. Like very uniquely intelligent.

She's faced a level of uncertainty and of conflict and of just chaos in her life at 20 years old being accused of a horrific murder that she had no connection to. And they knew who did it. I mean, you know the whole story. I'm sure you've seen the Netflix documentary. Amanda is a dear friend of mine. Yeah, it's horrific. But for people that are just listening, it's a horrific miscarriage of justice that she was tried not once, but twice for this crime. And if you haven't seen the Netflix documentary, you should, because

it will give you insight into how absolute power can so corrupt absolutely and a prosecutor who just decided that she must have been good for it because he didn't like her reaction at the scene. Yes. And you know, Amanda and I had dinner with her fiance, who's now her husband, who's a really fascinating dude that you would love right and amanda and i talked about like how people process um tragedy and shock and how she the last thing from her mind on in that moment when she's standing out in front of that apartment is if she's being judged for how she's interacting, right, or what her reaction was or wasn't. Yeah. And, you know, wow, she's a force of nature and just such a brilliant person and a really important voice in the movement. important voice in the movement you know that the thing that's uplifting about this if we were going to like leave it on a note of positivity and and like sort of triumph is that you know

you never know how strong you are until you go through some shit and i look i personally could be going through something at the time and And I draw strength from thinking it's never remotely close to what some of these men and women have endured. Right. And they, you know, I remember speaking to a woman named Deborah Milkey, who was exonerated in Arizona of killing her son or having him set up to be murdered. And I remember asking her one time how the fuck she survived. And she said, you know, it sounds cliche, but you don't realize your strength

and how strong you are until you're put in a situation where you're either going to succumb to it or figure out a way through it. And I draw so much strength in my personal life from, and that's why I think people are attracted to this movement of the wrongfully incarcerated, because they end up on the other side very damaged. And you've met Amanda, and you've met Robert, and you've met others that have been wrongfully incarcerated, but there's something special about them that you feel. Well, that's the same thing we were talking about, people that grow up in bad neighborhoods or people that grow up in challenging circumstances.

They develop character that you don't get if your parents are billionaires. There's something about going through adversity and coming out on the other end of it. They're more compassionate. They're more understanding. There's something there that exists because they've had to endure.

I mean, it's maybe not the best analogy, but the only way you get good at running is to run. The only way you get good in shape is to push yourself. These people have been pushed emotionally. They've been pushed psychologically. And they've developed this resiliency that the average person doesn't have. And that's what it is. And that's one of the reasons why they're so compelling.

That's why they're so fast. She's so fascinating to talk to. She's so brilliant. But I would never want anybody to go through that. I would never want my worst enemy to go through what she went through, to be unjustly accused of a horrific crime. And because of that uncertainty and that chaos, and also she became this famous person, famous for being accused of a crime, and most people don't look past the headlines, right? So most people look at her and probably thought, oh, she killed that girl.

That's instantaneous, right? Yeah. So she has to live with that. So everywhere she goes, she has to overcome this initial bias that people have that she's a murderer. So they don't want to trust her. bias that people have that she's a murderer. So they don't want to trust her. Or, you know, there was so many things about that case that were connected to like devious sexual practices and Satanism and all kinds of wacky shit that prosecutor devised to try to justify his bias towards her. You know, there's an important book that people should read, and he would be a fascinating guy for you to speak to at some point. His name is David Rudolph. He's a very prominent criminal defense and now civil rights attorney, and he just wrote a book called American Injustice.

I'll write it down. David Rudolph, American Injustice. Yeah. And he has this terrific podcast with his wife, who's also a criminal defense lawyer. Her name is Sonia Pfeiffer. But his book, American Injustice, you remember the Peterson case where, you know, the Netflix documentary, The Staircase? Yes. I didn't watch it though. So you got to watch it. So David was the star of that. He represented that guy, Peterson. And Peterson was accused of shoving his wife down those stairs, the staircase. And David allowed Netflix this wild access to the whole process and embargoed the whole thing until after his appeals were exhausted so he wasn't violating privilege. So you get a real interesting look behind the scenes. And he's my co-counsel in Clemente Aguirre's federal civil rights case. And he's someone that I've known since I was like a baby lawyer for 20 plus years. And he wrote this book, American Injustice, and he has made a lifetime about telling the stories of these cases.

And the book is so fascinating because it takes you into the belly of that beast of cases that maybe didn't get the headlines, like the Peterson case and the Netflix doc, The Staircase. But his perspective on it is really one that explores the power dynamic and why law enforcement gets it wrong. So he's, you know, I used to think early on that the way to get across to juries and federal civil rights cases where I was trying to get compensation for someone that had been wrongfully incarcerated was to demonize the police. And it's not, it's first of all, it's not factual, because I don't think that most cops, and in fact, I think the very vast majority of law enforcement in wrongful incarceration cases don't set out to frame someone or to put something on someone. I think that they succumb to their biases, subconscious or not, and their gut or their hunch that someone did it, and then they make it try to fit. And when that light switch went off for me, I became far more effective advocate because you don't need to demonize people and take on that burden, A, because it's probably

not true, and B, because you have to understand the phenomenon of tunnel vision. And David really explores that in the book is that you become incapable of seeing evidence outside of your tunnel of vision, which is you did it or they did it. So I will not consider this fact over here. I can't even see it. I will not consider this evidence over here or this witness statement because I can't see it. So it's an important read and he's an important guy to consider that perspective because I think you know like often like my mom sometimes how could they have done that to him those fucking assholes bastards they are and I'll say mom I don't think that they set out to do it I think that Mom, I don't think that they set out to do it.

I think that, yeah, they did, those motherfuckers. But no, Mom, I'm telling you, it's not that. And that's the reaction without the Brooklyn accent. You know, that's the reaction that a lot of people have. That's not always the psychology. They need to understand psychology and human nature and then the pressures and then this thing that we were talking about about winning and losing yeah I have that problem with all things that involve power like police and judges and any and even teachers like there's this thing

where people want to win or lose you know they want to be able to decide that what how how things go down and then they want to walk away with it with a victory right and this is when you have something set up as simple as pulling people over were you speeding you know uh i caught you going 65 miles an hour in a 55 and you're like no no i wasn't going that fast. Fuck you. Like, I'm going to win. I have the thing. I'm going to write, well, see you in court. I'm like, oh, great. And then this guy gets, I mean, maybe you were speeding and you weren't paying attention, or maybe you really weren't. I mean, I know people that have been pulled over that were not speeding.

I know people that pulled over that swear they stopped at a stop sign and the cop said you rolled right through the stop sign. They're like, the fuck I did. Because the cop has a quota. And that's a real thing. That's a real thing. There is pressure put on some cops in some places, not saying everywhere, but I know I've talked to cops who tell me that you can get shit on if you don't arrest or you don't write a certain amount of tickets or you don't have a certain amount of interaction.

That's a fact. Which is crazy because my perspective was, what if we all decided no one's going to commit a crime for the month? For one month, no one's going to go over the speed limit. Everyone's going to stop at every red light. Everyone's going to stop at every stop sign. No one's going to do anything for a month. What the fuck happens then? You know what happens? What? The municipality says,

where are we going to generate money from? Yeah. That's the problem because a lot of them are glorified revenue collectors. And that's the argument for when people pull people over that you shouldn't have cops do it. But then who are you going to have? Yeah. Leader maids? Well, it's funny too, because you said that they are the ones that wield the power. I don't know if they had this when you were in elementary school, but you remember safety patrols? Yes. So I don't know what the fuck they were thinking because I ended up being a bit of a problem child. But I remember when I got that orange, it was like a belt with something in the middle of your chest.

I became a cop. I remember thinking, I remember going like this. It's all, I was in third grade. It's all motherfuckers. Dude, I had a similar thing happen when I became a security guard. I was a security guard at this place called Great Woods, and I talked about it in that video that I made about the whole Neil Young controversy. When I was a kid, I was 19 years old.

I worked as a security guard. And I saw right away from my first day on the job that there's this very clear separation between us and them. Because the first day on the job, somebody stole one of the golf carts. We drove around these golf carts and some kid stole it. And there's a guy named Alley Cat. Alley Cat was running the security thing and he was a hardened older dude who'd been around the block for a long fucking time.

They tackled this guy off the golf cart and they beat the fuck out of him. And they beat him with a walkie talkie. And I watched it happen. And I was like, oh shit. Like this is like, this is a serious job. And what I'd said about it is that one of the reasons why I quit, the main reason I

quit was actually a Neil Young concert, which was hilarious. Like Neil Young's concert, while it was going on, it was kind of cold outside. And so a bunch of people, there was a, like, it was an amphitheater. So there's a covered area and there's an outside area that's not covered. It's a lawn area. And on the lawn area these neil young fans started bonfires and we were told to go put out the bonfires and tell them to stop and we went out there and then chaos broke loose brawls and shit exactly and i put a hoodie on i zipped it up over my security outfit and like fuck this job and i quit i quit on a Neil Young concert and I walked home I walked out to my car drove home singing keep on rocking to the free world or in the free world that's that's the

that's the that's a crazy irony that's really what I did I mean I was literally drunk keep on rocking in the free world because I was a Neil Young fan and then here he is playing and I get to see him while I'm working there and then a a brawl breaks out, and I have to help put the fires out. So why did you, because you were just like, fuck this. It was $15 an hour if I was lucky. I mean, I'm not exactly sure how much I got paid. This was 1986, I believe, when I was 19. So I was like, I'm not going to get my ass kicked for $15 an hour.

I'm not a big guy. Me being a security guard is not like a wise move anyway It's all for you it. What are you doing? Oh? Yeah? Oh? Yeah? Well they're all black belts all the people that work with me were all black belts from my taekwondo school That's how we got hired But I'm not fighting people for 15 bucks an hour Like random psychos at a Neil Young concert that are lighting bonfires get the fuck out of you were just like I'm out yeah Quit the job. I'm like, I have a

feeling of self-preservation. Like, this is not wise. This is not smart. Like, the whole thing was wrong. Did you watch the rest of the concert? I did not. I don't think the concert continued. I think they shut it down. Because the fires got out of control. It was pretty crazy. But I remember chaos was going on. I remember

my friend Larry, who's like one of the most peaceful guys I know, punched this dude. And I was like, well, I'm out of here. Because if Larry's punching people, then I'm next. And I am not getting my fucking brains kicked in, you know, for this fucking stupid job. And I was also like realizing that there was this separation between us and them that you would have. Like when you tell a car, hey, man, you can't park there. They'd be like, fuck you.

You're like, no, fuck you. And you're like, bring other guys over. And then it was like. And then it would happen. Yeah, when you tell a car, hey man, you can't park there. They'd be like, fuck you. You're like, no, fuck you. And you're like, bring other guys over. And then it was like, And then it would happen. Yeah, it was like, this is so.

And at that age, that probably felt good. Well, it did, but I was also, like, if I ever lost my temper, always,

I would always be like, I was always disappointed with myself, always. And then I would always be like, why was that? Like, what happened there?

And then I would think about it it and I was like what this is like a thing that's happening where I'm separating the people work as security from the people that are the the people in the crowd the audience members like this is weird like this and then I was like this is probably what happens with cops on a much grander scale but isn't isn't there something about how power makes even the most innocent and pure-hearted amongst us intoxicated in some way? out and they were i don't know there's something to that but it's not shocking when you hear about people having power to tell people what to do and not to do and abusing it and you see it at tsa you know you see it at uh you could see it almost everywhere like there's certain people that are abusive when it comes to power and you know this is a strange time when it comes to power when it

comes to police and because the respect for police has waned considerably since the George Floyd murder. Everybody is like, if you think about the way people view the police from 2019, from that moment, I guess it was 20, right? 2020, when he was killed. From 2020 to now, it's a very different world in terms of the way people see the police once those they started lighting cop cars on fire in la and you started seeing some of these crazy riots and then you started seeing these smash and grabs all throughout new york city where that fucking goofy mayor told everybody to not do anything and to let stand down and let this all take place let them burn it out of their system, you're like, oh my God, this is wild.

We literally have a different world now. It's a different world in the terms of perceptions, like how people think about law enforcement. Well, and it has a corrosive effect on the good cops that are out there that are afraid to get accused of something when they're actually enforcing real crime. So it's complicated and it is complicated in it This the I think defund the police is an easy thing to say and I understand them the motivation behind it and I agree with The motivation and the sentiment behind it, but I think that a better Better way of looking at it is let's find out what the fucking root cause of all these problems are let's fund that Fund fund whatever it is that's causing all these problems and then when it comes to police

Let's find out why they behave so poorly when they do and in fun better training and also Come to grips with the concept of PTSD Because how many cops have seen the videos that I was talking about earlier like where the guy pulls over and pulls the gun out Start shooting at the cops all they've all seen those because that's their job Every cop has seen a video online of a cop getting shot Because he makes a mistake or they have a buddy where it happened to them every time they pull someone over and they have tinted Windows they have no idea. They have no idea what's it must be frightening and shit It's got to be and they've probably seen so much violence.

I mean, I have friends that have worked as EMTs, and they'll tell you that there comes a time where you've seen too many people dead. You've seen too many people that have been shot, too many people that have been hit by cars, and you have like a numbness, a horrible numbness that can come upon you now imagine if you're a cop and you're 10 years on the job 15 years on the job how many murders have you seen how many people have you seen fucked up i mean how many times have you seen this how many guys do you know that have been shot how many times have this has this happened

where your whole life is like centered centered around mitigating the threat to yourself and trying to get home every day. We don't think about it because we just think of these cops doing these terrible things. And there are cops that do terrible things. That's real too. But there's also the psychological burden of being a police officer. First of all, managing that ultimate power that you have over civilians, or citizens rather, and then also worrying about your own life. Yeah, no. And that's why I get really frustrated with people that I know that make these blanket assertions about whether it's cops or whatever other profession.

About anything, right? About anything, yeah, because there are shades of gray in between it. One thing I do know is that not being a person of color, you know, I guess I'm more, I'm the kind of person that always wants to solve the problem and I get frustrated if I can't in my personal life, even professionally. And I know that the problem as it relates to police is more complex for a person of color, and their feelings about it are something that I can't speak to with any sense of empathy because I'm not them. So I am, I guess where I'm at, like you hear defund the police, which I get and understand and identify with aspects of, and then I also know some great cops. And I know one that was, you know, has been in some horrific circumstances who, and I know his that was you know has been in some horrific

circumstances who and I know his heart and he's such a good man so I'm I think I'm finding myself in situations like that quicker to listen and slower to speak and learning as much as I can because I don't know that there's one easy solution that's a good attitude and I think that's a good maxim for how I want to continue to live my life. As someone who talks too much, which is what I do, yeah, that's good. I listen more.

I wish I listened more. I try to listen as much as I can. I've listened more now than I used to. Like I've gotten better at it, but it's a process. It's a process of, I think one of the things that I've gotten out of this podcast is this process of understanding people, that I understand people way better than I ever did before, just from having these long form conversations with them and just different

people. You're different than the guy who was here yesterday, who's different than the guy who was here before. It's like there's this constant interaction with different minds, with different life experiences and different circumstances. And, you know, and I'm different every day, too. So it's like these things are just layers upon layers upon layers of education. That's what's come out of this podcast for me that was very unexpected. You know, when I first started doing this this it was really just talking shit with my friends

We just get high and say stupid shit and just laugh and joke and just talk just have fun just to hang and It then became something very strange like what it is now where it's this it's too big It's like it's it's just two people right? It's just you and me and you know Jamie's in the room, but it's you and me talking just two people, right? It's just you and me. And Jamie's in the room, but it's you and me talking. Just two. But it's not two. It's two with an audience of millions and millions and millions and millions. And it's hard to see.

That's a hard thing to see. It's a hard thing to even conceptualize. Because if you saw what 11 million people looks like, if you saw them in a room you'd be like holy fuck if we had to have this conversation on a stage with 11 million people in the audience you'd be like what the fuck is this there's no room big enough to hold that many people that's how staggering it is and look i could tell you as somebody that is a student of and going through therapy right now, which I think is good mental, it's like going to the gym for your mind. As a friend, I'll say to you that you are a good listener. And I've even seen a difference in the amount of listening you do

from the first time I met you to now. And I'm learning to be easier on myself and that's a process. It is a process, right? I think that we both share that trait that we're hard on ourselves. Maybe I won't get into a competition. I feel like I'm a little harder on myself than most, but you hang in there, friend. No, I'm okay.

It's strange, though. It's very strange to be me, but it's always been strange to be me. It's not anything though. It's very strange to be me, but it's always been strange to be me. It's like this is not anything that much stranger. My life is very odd, you know, but somehow or another it seems to make sense. And whatever challenges you do face, I really firmly believe that you come out of them on the other end more educated and more resilient and better for it. I hope so. I think so. I think that's the case with most people with most things. I think, I don't think it's a golden rule or steadfast rule, but I think it's possible. And it depends entirely upon how you look at these circumstances while they're taking place.

how you look at these circumstances while they're taking place. But that's, again, so much easier than what we're talking about with these cases with the Innocence Project, with these cases that you've helped get these people free. These cases where these people on their own do not have, not the resources, there's no possibility of them getting a new trial, no possibility of them getting exonerated. You know, I was just to leave you with this. I just notified someone that I was going to take their case on pro bono and it's not important who it is. And he started to weep. And today's Tuesday? Yeah. He surrendered yesterday to begin serving time.

And he was crying and he said, I just needed some hope. And, you know, I think that when you give people hope, when that's all they have, there is a cavalry. And it's not just me. It is this amazing, I hate to say village because I feel like Hillary Clinton stole that word from the world. It takes – it does take a – it takes a network of beautiful people that are kindhearted human beings that are in this for the right reason. And I'm one grain of sand. and I'm one grain of sand. And I have like, there are these two women at the Innocence Project that are like dear friends of mine. One is Vanessa Potkin and one is Nina Morrison. Nina Morrison was just nominated to be a federal judge. And there needs to be more federal judges like her because she's someone that comes from not a prosecutor's office, but the Innocence Project.

So she's awaiting Senate confirmation. And those are my heroes, because I do this, you know, as now probably with 60% of my time or 40% of my time, they do it with 190% of their time. And one thing that the podcast has done is help provide a lot of people hope. So I encourage people to keep reaching out. And now the bandwidth to help more people is here as a result of you giving me this platform that will continue, hopefully. Yeah, let's keep doing it. We plan on doing it like once a quarter.

So in between now and then I'll have other cases. So we went over, you know, Melissa Lucio's case today. You know, the Amir Locke situation. We gave the update about Ron Torres and Albert, which were amazing outcomes. And certainly the situation with Nelson Serrano and James Daly in Florida. There's also a girl who could really use it. I'll close with this. Um, that is in Las Vegas. I don't want to get her name wrong. Christina Curling or Christina Curless. Um, it's one or the other. um, it's one or the other. Um, Christina Carlos, I believe, who is accused of shaken baby syndrome death. And I know the case is very important to Jason Flom and it is, uh, one that he really, really is convinced of her innocence. And I've read, you know, some, some of the materials and she could use the help and support now. So, thank you again brother for having me. Thank you, thanks for being you man.

Thanks for what you do. You give me hope, you really do. You make me think that there's good people out there that care only about doing the right thing and helping people who are innocent and that makes the world a better place. Thank you man, that hits me in all the right places. Good.

Tell people, website, Innocence Project. Yeah, for Melissa Lucio, you can go to innocenceproject.org or just type in, there you go. There it is right here, innocenceproject.org. So there it is. You can learn all about her case on that website. And it tells educate themselves and find out more about her case. And then you can add your name as you just passed it to the petition. And we know that we can stop this execution.

And there's detailed information on this page. And then I'm at dubin.joshua on Instagram and anything you guys can do to help get the word out. Because I now have the resources to help sift through some of the contacts that I'm getting and address some of these cases, because some of the cases are coming to me through Instagram. Jordan Grotzinger, who's handling this Pierce rushing case and has put a lot of resources behind it, came to us through Instagram. So reach out and I'm excited to come back with more good news. And I thank you again for everything and particularly for your part in the exoneration of Ron Torres Washington and Albert Wilson. I couldn't be happier. So let's plan on June.

Do it again in June? Beautiful, man. Beautiful. Thank you, brother. Thank you. All right. Bye, everybody. Thank you.