outrageous so after the dna was already thrown away so all of these cases where the dna completely and this is one of the great problems of the innocents at the u.s. supreme court has said innocents is not a ground to be somebody from prison. that is what the court case said. they say there has to be a mistake in the legal process factual innocence is not enough.

>> a mistake or new evidence. so we approach these completely different the also you can see that the problem with the united states where they don't always go for the truth they just want to win. but the most important part to say that we are innocent and look at the evidence and

then to be reserved for this person. >> sometimes they say okay?. >> but of course, with a miscarriage of justice and the stories of what we can see in these cases into say this is another person so

maybe you're not telling the truth with based on the dream but to react to what you said that is not the reason for a new trial but the new information is so with that innocence project and to do everything that they can and it is proof that he is in the system that is what i don't understand.

>> the most difficult part of the job was the footnotes. so be proud americans we have more people in prison in this country than any of their country in the world with 2.3 million people in prison. one-third of the women prisoners in the world are in american prisons. it is not because we have corrupt people populating the united states because we have a law enforcement mentality that says people should be arrested or convicted or put away and unfortunately that has led

to a culture as a successful prosecutor that means clearing your cases and finding someone who can be convicted it is not about seeking the truth or finding the real perpetrator. and that is unfortunate leading to the problems so of those evil people with those law-enforcement officials they are humans and make mistakes but the system encourages them to cover that up. >> something is very

fundamentally wrong. >> they are the most heartbreaking things you could ever imagine because political and legal obstacles to get a new trial somebody convicted of something serious where you get 48 years or those three murder cases they are eagerness and there is so much ego involved. there is also the ego of the courts that least in denver in most every warehouse are loath to would mitt that one of their brethren screwed up gore gave somebody of wrong trial or left in evidence

because when it comes to putting people in prison for life unjustly, it is heartbreaking to do these cases and hopefully, generally sometimes they come out okay. and then to go to trial again because now there is more new evidence because i found out they can use the dna evidence for their convictions that was faulty back in 1995 and in 2005 proven to be completely erroneous and now to let us do our own dna testing.

i cannot emphasize enough or with the heartbreak for the victims and the families for those lawyers it tears your heart out. unless you have a slam dunk dna evidence on daybreak case which clarence would have had had they not thrown his dna away but the district attorney was not a big enough person to say he screwed up and that he threw it away so we will have a new trial. they will not do that you

could ask that but then there is a huge liability. period every $80,000 for each year they were locked up when they were absolutely innocent but the burden is so high to get that kind of money that nobody has done that yet. >> what is the burden of proof?. >> it is the strangest thing by the proponents then to clear and convincing and then to show those to standards the jury could not have found this person guilty by prove beyond a reasonable doubt there are 30 states and they have

gotten some awards and with those budgetary issues but there are 20 states where there is no compensation system. and when the government takes their time but also of the dna evidence when the vote at the national registry of accelerations the think tank by university of michigan which was 2000 exoneration in is that we know of taking place in the last 25 years 25% of those are dna evidence many of

those cases involve false confession to be extracted under various circumstances including torture or misidentification by witnesses that is the most common element not all of them say they had a dream or they recanted the testimony there is other credible evidence so the person they said they saw was some girls at the same time with other witnesses to identify. >> people are claiming to be experts using their scientific evidence and a veracious manner to say they were guilty. this in just tunnel vision by the prosecutors but also

to the defense counsel and those that showed up drunk and it is just shocking. >> got a call from a reporter called the innocence deniers about this exact issue but i have to say pretty quickly there are some egregious examples of prosecutors is very trump quite it is flip-floping every have a case is in the chicago that we have worked

with the they were arrested for rape and murder of a woman in the first curvy rudimentary dna did not match so then the judge may say maybe of all five of them don't match it really is not them but instead our state attorney decided to present a theory that an necrophilia act must have happened upon the body in between the time and murdered the up for a woman within the time that they found it so why does and the evidence match because this day and time necrophilia neck and is completely circular reasoning but with

this denier peace i did say there are great prosecutors who do say we got it wrong for one such gentleman recently as a successful prosecuting attorney had said case that was wrong in he help to get the case out so when the professionals said the you have a concern? he said michael evans but michael evans was released he tried and he was shunned by those attorneys in the office at the time allotted people he had grown up with

so talked-about heartbreaking that is sort of heartbreaking all around yet acosta ec grey states attorney's it isn't meant to be a slam on the justice system might have been to china and they haven't edison's project now in china. granted the first exonerate did they check him behind the alley and shot than one month later but in malaysia i was there to speak about those romantic comedies we had a little press conference i thought that was so fantastic that it was causing such an uproar but that was because malaysia at the time had laws you could

be picked up in never be charged sunday picked up and never to be seen again they were fascinated by the system we do not need to indict. >> there are many prosecutors we don't know anything about not enough evidence so how many wrongful convictions are there? we don't know and don't have the exact figures but people say the same five for 10% over 100,000 people in our american prisons. >> we have wrote this book

to try to help people of those who was wrongfully convicted and there is one thing you could tell people and those that did not have general experience of this for what would that be?. >> first i will say that each person eventually exonerated released at the court decision or ruling each individual has a unique story. so the things that i speak about dealing with my

personal experience there are so many things. that is really hard. >> i want people to understand there really is not that simple to deal with been wrongly convicted not from the physical sense when you deal with the five physical sciences. that is not the part that

you have to deal with. you have to have some type of insight of what you want to do and have the first. because then you could start calling out the steps to achieve that goal. several things that i did come my started to look at what is happening right here?. >> what will you do? i will start scheerer -- hear but those are the things that i

started to incorporate at the same time i had to focus on the psyche because once you lose sight and control of your mind to employ a rational thought to give birth to your behavior. so though strong person psychologically because you're not just dealing with the charges but a whole lot of things that come with that in the prison inmates from a people who come to prison for sexual crimes. you could literally go to prison for murder there and get more respect than for a

sexual assault or a crime so you have to deal with that psychologically because people make all kinds of threats. then you have to deal with the court system because it places the stigma on you through the conviction there is just so much you have to do with it is not easy. >> people ask me what do i want them to do? what is the take away? and i have two answers. my 60s supreme -- upbringing but i really believe what i read in the paper about this person's conviction.

i am not saying don't respect your law enforcement but ask questions. second, because it is of a project to raise money, i say by the book. end share it with your friends and spread the word because people need to understand what is going on. television is radio they are helping is starting to get that public awareness the idea of the book is to raise the awareness why we're so glad to be here. >> i think just speaking with you is the exact example why the eggs honorees are my rock stars and celebrities because of a

chapter in the book one of the most famous innocent cases in the world because attorneys new he did not do it but they would not let him talk because of the attorney client privilege 26 years after he died there is the chapter by segregation because you will deal with that if you are in prison. but what is so amazing that they really learn how to choose their thoughts but i will not give you a choice of what each or a blood -- a of went to get up but this is your only choice you get to make is there headspace i call it emotional tenacity invest be so amazing so can

we please just give him a round of applause? i am so proud of him. [applause] >> i was really moved what he said the other day he was answering why he was cutting three about what happened and he said they took 28 years away from my life everyday a greek is a day wasted and i can control that. >> do we have questions. >> can you explain the dream ?. >> i guess the reason, i am just guessing, other reason

to say it is the dream is to say that they're using that for identification because eventually a played a significant role among other things that landed me in prison if played a very significant role of me being found not guilty. put it that way which i see it was all about and identification they had to make a connection. >> the woman was beat up she lost consciousness and when she woke up she said she was attacked by clarence because if you are unconscious that

means that was before and after you lost consciousness so they could have dismissed that from whole beginning. >> right after she was beaten and she identified jackson the guy really did it as the perpetrator but she went through this ; and said it came to me in a dream she was mad at clearances' wife at that time so that was set in that is our happened. >> it is usually a bizarre confluence that causes an innocent person to be convicted that there is a bizarre confluence so the

first one that i did that the defendant loaned his two best friends to guns and there was a contract out on that and angelo and behold they were killed in one of the guns that killed him was kennedy's gun. that was its and ballistics did him in despite the fact we had several confessions from those you knew who really did it in the real perpetrator had confessed so it was amazing how these things happened. >> but with that first confession to identify the person who really did it. >> to see him on tv to say

the victim was the does for a woman with glasses thicker than, coke bottles but as a victim's advocate she said i grabbed him by the shirt but i looked at him and i saw it was clarence and that's did it in favor convinced he was the man. >> so that original identification was not indicated to you does jury?. >> so by virtue of the fact by the way they said it to

look you right in the face to feet away that was better than the first payment. >> what kind of help did you receive once you were released or did you receive compensation or does somebody help you find a job?. >> from donations individuals that i could connect you with clothing

and things like that. as far as us compensation and things like that there are still ongoing proceedings. >> bay got engaged. >> in them leaving the house of how. [laughter] because prison is not all about the physical. and to say once upon a time

it takes us very mentally strong to go to prison to maintain your sanity of was there for 28 years. you don't have people still maintaining their sanity like me. and then to become attached to so many things. but while i was there to discipline myself i was in the army. so i had to learn how to navigate and then to have all whole lot of concepts.

end firsthand for roast. >> bay are different but as an indictment john this system but shouldn't we get some time because the judges say we have the greatest system in the world like malaysia and china and so people tend to feel like this system is okay at least we're not dom. so the second question so initially for example like the denver crime lab is 1,000 times more likely as

opposed to 5,000 times more likely that it is a positive results are there issues to help the jurors understand what it means?. >> this is part of those dna statistics. but with that dna then it becomes complicated with this mixed profile.

[inaudible] >> and now it is even more complicated because if you have five people love the idea of a mixture edits complicated. >> so like this approach but

but to present the right hypophysis. >> but for that suspect of a the perpetrator of that hypothesis that you can test labatt is where it goes wrong very often. >> so working now with the innocence project but then

it turns out the blood in the car was not the victim. very simple. this is so simple and that is not even allowed but that is the whole case. >> maybe you can explain it? >> so that has been used to dump the body -- the body of the victim in fact, there was one juror who said if that was the case and never would have found thompson guilty that was in 1993 your

94 when the trial occurred and it was found there was a 0 percent chance the victims' blood was in of the end so it is a very difficult thing but then the victim to have a shady dna evidence and then they

changed the story then made the day had the wrong guy? with a convicted person so all the evidence is not adding up any more. we should do more dna testing. >> but then you get to the problem of the crime labs which is the terrible shortage of competent crime lab san the underfunded so it is great to have dna testing but who will do it?. >> there are cases and then

to refuse to work with the evidence. >> and that is of willingness to have some good experiences and those to say we screwed up. >> and to do this on a regular basis know i did not. so let's just see how hard it is so oh i am loaded to

indict the system the same reason the cops and the prosecutors don't because i am a third generation lawyer with my identity rap dollar rounded i just had the honor to join my family's offer and i really do it is of the most amazing system but i do think that one of the answers might to be that the prosecutors should not perhaps have absolute immunity but that makes it the question of the they cannot be disbarred to have this massive pattern that

with that evidence to show that he did not do what the surgery agreed through the louisiana courts all the way through with the united states supreme court who said no. unless you can have day pattern of conduct so i think at absolute immunity and we as of her back to is that wrongful conviction the it did those assets are to be independent perhaps that even from that office.

>> you can have the last word. >> the chapter's called but with the death penalty in what he talks about in his essay is how a young man or young boy 18 years old was accused of raping and murdering his mother later by a lack of evidence came out he was seen by law enforcement officials across town and that evidence only came out because the prosecutor dropped dead and a new prosecutor going through his door found this evidence. how can we have a system when you cannot say sorry if there is a mistake? of 5% of the convictions are bad

we cannot morally do that. >> thanks for coming. [applause] >>. >> even if you don't buy the book. [inaudible conversations]