A maximum-security prison may not seem like the natural setting for a homegrown theater program. But at Sing Sing Prison in New York, just such a project has inspired scores of incarcerated men to learn and grow through the stories they step into—offering them the chance to be part of a supportive community and equipping them with life skills to carry home when they return to the world outside. People in prison are more than just prisoners, and the Rehabilitation Through the Arts (RTA) program continues to help participants discover new strengths through creative expression. In today’s episode, Michael Semanchik welcomes John “Divine G” Whitfield and Clarence “Divine Eye” Maclin—both former inmates, RTA members, and actors in the Oscar-nominated film Sing Sing—to talk about their experiences on the inside. They discuss the film project and its ability to teach the outside world about the transformative power of community, art, vulnerability, and purpose. Creativity and storytelling can restore dignity, bridge divides, and reveal the humanity that is too often overlooked within the prison system. Please visit www.FreeDivineG.org to learn the details of John “Divine G" Whitfield’s fight for exoneration. John “Divine G" Whitfield is an Oscar-nominated adapted screenplay writer, executive producer, and the compelling inspiration behind the critically acclaimed, multiple Oscar-nominated film, Sing Sing. Oscar Nominee Clarence Maclin starred in the feature film Sing Sing, inspired by his life story as a graduate of Sing Sing’s Rehabilitation Through the Arts program. Divine G and Clarence are friends to another former Sing Sing and RTA-involved inmate, Jon-Adrian “JJ” Velazquez, whose long and arduous exoneration was shared in our last episode. Listen to JJ’s story here: A Murdered Cop and a Mishandled Mugshot – JJ Velazquez’s Wrongful Conviction
In 1998, a retired NYPD officer was shot and killed inside an illegal gambling parlor. Angry cops wanted speedy justice for one of their own, and an overzealous, incautious investigation ensued. A witness to the shooting with a criminal past was put under intense pressure to deliver a suspect. After hours of questioning and over 1800 mugshots, he picked one at random—one that should never have been on the table in front of him. The man in the photo, Jon-Adrian “JJ” Velazquez, was accused, arrested, and labeled a cop killer—despite the fact that there was a complete lack of physical evidence linking him to this terrible incident. JJ was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison for a crime of which he had no knowledge or connection. JJ, along with friend and investigative journalist Dan Slepian, tells the story of his 27-year fight to gain his freedom and clear his name. They dig into the failures of the system that led to JJ’s conviction and how his tenacious advocacy finally led to his exoneration. Jon-Adrian “JJ” Velazquez is an American actor and activist who exemplifies resilience and dedication to legal reform. JJ is the founder of MONUMENTAL MEDIA based in NYC, a mission-driven creative agency and talent incubator dedicated to reshaping the narrative around incarceration and social justice issues. JJ now serves his community locally as the Co-founder and Executive Director of Voices from Within based in New York, and nationally as the Program Director at the Frederick Douglass Project for Justice. Dan Slepian is a Pulitzer Prize finalist and Emmy winning investigative journalist at NBC News whose reporting has helped solve cold cases, exonerate the innocent, and spark legal reform.
At just 17 years old, Bruce Lisker was branded a murderer after being accused and convicted of the violent killing of his mother. He would go on to spend the next 26 years of his life in prison, until a federal judge finally overturned his conviction in 2009. Bruce’s exoneration might never have happened without the investigative efforts of LA Times journalists Scott Glover and Matt Lait and LAPD officer Jim Gavin. In this episode, Michael Semanchik speaks with this trio of truth-seekers about their involvement in the Lisker case. Initially skeptical, each of them set out to poke holes in Bruce’s claims, but as their investigations progressed, the evidence increasingly pointed to his innocence. They share details of their research, explaining how discoveries of both ignored and manipulated evidence in the decades-old case raised red flags in the original investigation, ultimately bringing the truth to light. Matt Lait is Vice President of CNN’s investigative team. Previously, he worked at the Los Angeles Times where he was an investigative reporter, city editor and ran the local investigations team. Scott Glover is a reporter on the CNN Investigates team. Glover came to CNN with 20 years of experience at the Los Angeles Times where he covered the LAPD, federal courts and law enforcement agencies. Jim Gavin retired from the Los Angeles Police Department in August 2020, as the head of Operations Valley Bureau Homicide. He served 32 years with the LAPD in a wide variety of assignments.
In 1983, Bruce Lisker’s mother was violently attacked in their family home. After responding to his frantic 911 call, police quickly drew assumptions from the chaotic crime scene. Dorka Lisker was bludgeoned, stabbed several times, and near death in her Sherman Oaks home. Seventeen year-old Bruce embodied the era’s “stoner” look, he was highly agitated, and his hands were covered in his mother’s blood. The distraught teen, rather than being allowed to accompany his mother to the hospital where she died, was arrested and interrogated as the prime suspect in her murder. Bruce Lisker tells the story of how presumptions, the actions of a dishonest detective, and failures to examine critical evidence led to his wrongful conviction. After years seeking justice through every conceivable avenue, Bruce was finally exonerated through the determined efforts of LAPD Sgt. Jim Gavin and LA Times articles by Matt Lait and Scott Glover that shed light on the mistakes and manipulations that led to his false conviction.
To this day, some still believe Amanda Knox is guilty of the horrific murder of Meredith Kercher in 2007. However, this belief appears to stem entirely from the wildly sensational media coverage surrounding her supposed involvement. Thorough examination of the facts of the case have clearly shown that Amanda was wrongfully convicted of this terrible crime. This time on For the Innocent, Michael Semanchik welcomes a panel of experts to explore how Amanda Knox’s case gained such incredible notoriety and how the truth was obscured by a series of mistakes, assumptions, and media distortion. Michael is joined by Martina Cagossi, Justin Brooks, and Mark Olshaker to walk listeners through the facts of the case, explain the prevalence of false confessions in high-stress situations, and discuss how Amanda’s “trial by media” ultimately overshadowed clear evidence that should have set her free. Martina Cagossi is a criminal lawyer based in Milan, Italy. She is the co-founder and Program Manager of the Italy Innocence Project. Justin Brooks is a Professor at University of San Diego School of Law. He is a board member of The Innocence Center and co-founder of the California Innocence Project. Mark Olshaker is a writer and Emmy-award winning filmmaker. He authored the international bestseller MINDHUNTER, the basis for the acclaimed Netflix series. 🎧 Listen Amanda’s Story on Apple, Spotify, Youtube, or your favorite podcast app.
Suffering is part of the human experience, but most of us are granted the dignity of processing our pain and healing in private. For Amanda Knox, that has never been an option. As she herself puts it, “The worst experience of my life is the thing that most people know about me.” Amanda recounts the harrowing story of her wrongful conviction for the murder of her roommate while studying abroad in Perugia, Italy. The 2007 crime sparked a global media frenzy that vilified Amanda at an international scale, branding her as guilty despite the absence of evidence connecting her to the crime. A combination of her own naiveté, coercive police interrogations, language barriers, and critical errors in the investigation process led to Amanda’s wrongful imprisonment. And yet, since her eventual acquittal, Amanda has found a way to live in hope and transform her painful experience into a force for good. She now focuses on finding meaning in the aftermath, using her story to expose the realities of wrongful convictions and to advocate for others who have been falsely accused. Learn more about Amanda through her books, “Waiting to Be Heard” and “Free", and her podcast, “Hard Knox”. Watch the Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox on Hulu.
At the moment of conviction, the incentive to safeguard evidence diminishes in the eyes of the Criminal Justice System. That’s why it is critically important to act quickly to ensure evidence remains available for future appeals. Without it, your fight for freedom could be over before it even begins. In this episode, host Michael Semanchik is joined by Raquel Barilla, former Staff Attorney and Volunteer Coordinator at the California Innocence Project; Alissa Bjerkhoel, former Litigation Coordinator at the California Innocence Project; and Alex Simpson, former Associate Director and Resident Expert for Evidence Preservation at the California Innocence Project. Together, they discuss methods for preserving evidence. Tune in to learn what to do if the unthinkable happens.
Luis Vargas was wrongfully convicted after three separate witnesses misidentified him as the “Teardrop Rapist.” Sixteen years later, DNA linked to the uncaught serial sex offender was found in one of the victim’s clothing from the crime. But for that evidence being preserved, Luis Vargas would have spent the rest of his life behind bars. This is his story.
In the first 325 DNA exonerations, false identification accounted for 72% of the wrongful convictions. But how is that possible? The simplest explanation is that we are not as good at identifying each other as we think. Add to that a frightening encounter with someone of a different race with no time for the mind to process and you have the perfect formula for getting it all wrong. Host Michael Semanchik sits down with retired Los Angeles Detective Greg McKnight, Distinguished Professor of Psychology John Wixted, and California Innocence Project Founder Justin Books to discuss the science of misidentifications and why so many people who were so sure got it so wrong.
Guy Miles was wrongfully convicted after being misidentified by an eyewitness during a robbery investigation in Orange County, California. Although he had once been involved in gangs during his youth, he left that life behind and moved to Nevada for a fresh start. Unfortunately, his past followed him when his photo was included in a “six-pack lineup.” An eyewitness mistakenly identified him as one of the perpetrators, which ultimately led to a life sentence. It would take a random speeding ticket, admissions from the true criminals, DNA evidence, a recanting investigator, 18 years in prison, and a “Dark Plea” deal to finally set him free. Tune in to hear this harrowing real-life account of wrongful incarceration from the man who lived through it. Episode Chapters: 00:00 Introduction 01:42 Guy Miles Sets the Scene 05:16 Why Police Use a Photo Lineup 07:27 The Trial 09:53 His Family's Response 11:15 Finding an Innocence Group 12:18 Meeting the Real Perpetrator in Prison 13:17 Six Alibis Testified 14:32 The Speeding Ticket 16:25 "The California 12" 17:33 The Court of Appeal 19:22 From Rejection to Rejection to Plea Deal 25:14 Guy's Release from Prison 28:48 Life After Prison
Imagine being in prison for decades. You’ve been fighting your appeal for many years. Your lawyer believes you’ll get a new trial but there is no guarantee that you’ll win your freedom. Suddenly, the prosecution offers a plea deal. You can go free but there’s a catch... You have to admit you’re guilty.
On November 20th 1999, Angela Garcia’s home caught on fire. Surprised and crawling in the dark, she was not able to find her children before the blaze forced her to jump out of a 2nd floor window. She ran to get help but tragically her children would die before anyone could reach them. The State wrongfully accused and convicted her of arson and murdering her family. After nearly 20 years in prison, the prosecution’s case began to fall apart for lack of evidence. A “dark plea” was offered to Angela in May of 2016. If she accepted, she would be released from incarceration in 5 years. But there was a catch, she would have to admit to guilt. What would you do? This is her story.
Believe it or not, there are many reasons to plead guilty when you’re not. ----- Plea deals are necessary to fight crime. Without them, our criminal justice system would grind to a halt, and the bad guys would run free. The downside is that plea deals can ensnare innocent people. Even more scary, once you admit to a crime you didn’t commit, it can take decades to get you out of prison. So why would anyone plead guilty to something they didn’t do? Tune in to hear why with host Michael Semanchik and special guests Justin Brooks, founder of the California Innocence Project, and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor Wayne Little.
Marilyn Mulero was wrongfully suspected of a Chicago gang murder in 1992. Naive to the criminal justice system, she was frightened into signing a statement by threats of the death penalty from law enforcement. Failing to adequately investigate the case, her attorney pressured Marilyn into making a risky blind plea deal with the court. That gamble turned into the death penalty. This is her story.
When forensic evidence gets it wrong, how do we free the innocent? ----- In our history of criminal prosecutions, some types of evidence ended up being unreliable. Forensic sciences like bite-mark identification, arson investigations, and shaken baby syndrome sent many innocent people to prison. So where does that leave us? How do we make it right? Lindsay Herf, executive director for the Arizona Justice Project joins host Michael Semanchik to discuss junk science and ways to protect innocent people. Special thanks to our sponsor Clio.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) was a popular medical theory used to arrest and convict innocent parents of fatally abusing their children. Unknown at the time, this theory was severely scientifically flawed. Unfortunately, erroneous data collection led experts to believe certain brain injuries in children could only be the result of abusive shaking. What they didn’t realize was that those “signature” injuries could also be caused by short-falls and disease. It would take decades to unravel their blind faith in this junk science. It is unknown how many innocent parents remain behind bars for a crime they didn’t commit. Host Michael Semanchik is joined by Katherine Bonaguidi. She is nationally recognized for her expertise in Shaken Baby Syndrome. Formerly a staff attorney with the California Innocence Project, today she works as a San Diego County Public Defender. Special thanks to our sponsor Clio.
What happens when forensic science is later found to be false? ----- Forensic science is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, not all sciences used to prosecute people are reliable. So what happens when forensic science is later debunked? Does that mean everyone convicted by it goes free? The short answer is no. Tune in to hear why.
A Minor Accident Turns Fatal ----- Zavion Johnson was bathing his four month old daughter when she slipped from his grasp and hit her head on the tub. He immediately checked her for injuries but found nothing. Tragically, she harbored unseen internal injuries that Zavion was unaware of. Later in the day, his daughter suddenly turned color. Zavion rushed her to the hospital but it was too late. She died shortly after. Moments after his daughter’s funeral, Zavion Johnson was arrested for murder under a medical theory called “Shaken Baby Syndrome”. It would take 17 years for the criminal justice system to realize its mistake. This is his story...
Despite best intentions, parents can be their child’s worst enemy during an investigation. And innocent people can know the same facts that only guilty criminals do. But how are these things possible? In this part two of two, we talk all about it with Making a Murderer’s Laura Nirider, Certified Forensic Interviewer David Thompson, and former Washington D.C. Police Detective James Trainum.
It’s the most intriguing question about our criminal justice system. Why do innocent people confess to crimes they didn’t commit? As strange as it seems, it happens regularly and for a variety of reasons like investigator deception, false evidence, and interrogation tactics. In this part one of two, we hear from Making a Murder’s Laura Nirider and Certified Forensic Interviewer David Thompson about why people send themselves to prison for decades even though they are innocent.
L D
excellent episode