All language subtitles for Death Row Stories S01E05 John Thompson Rough Justice in the Big Easy

On this episode of Death Row Stories...

The murder of a wealthy
young man in the Big Easy,

seals the fate of a petty drug dealer.

That's the guy who did
it and there's no question

in my mind.

And gives two out of town lawyers

a crash course in New Orleans justice.

- First thing I asked them is, "Do you
really understand - what you're up against?"

But when evidence of innocence emerges...

- Something was going on that was
very unscrupulous - and was deliberate.

The system will stop at nothing

to get the verdict it wants.

We had struck out and he was going to die.

There's a body on the water.

He was butchered and murdered.

Many people proclaim their innocence.

In this case,
there are a number of things that stink.

- This man is remorseless.
- He needs to pay for it - with his life.

The electric chair
flashed in front of my eyes.

Get a conviction at all costs,

let the truth fall where it may.

World famous Bourbon Street.

You can buy a song and dance for a dime.

On December 5th, 1984,

Ray Liuzza,
a fun loving 34-year-old bachelor

from a prominent New Orleans family,

was out on the town
celebrating his promotion

to vice-president of one
of the city's biggest hotels.

Ray was the epitome of people
who are true New Orleanians.

The love of the art and the history

and the fine cuisine

as well as the music.

Late that night, as Liuzza returned to his

garden district apartment,

he was approached by someone in the dark.

He was then robbed at gunpoint.

He complied with the perpetrators,

Um... giving them up
everything that he had.

He asked them not to shoot him

and they did five times.

- We got the call that there was
a shooting on - Baronne Street.

The thing that
distinguished the crime scene

was the amount of violence that,
that occurred.

- Remnants of blood,
bullet holes in the side - of the house.

The suspect just kept firing his gun,

every bullet in the weapon that he had.

And he lay there as the ambulance

approached,

and, and the police officers,

he said "why did they have to shoot me?"

He was then transported
to Charity Hospital where

he was pronounced dead.

And my father collapsed
and had a heart attack.

And coded blue and I'll never forget

that night as long as I live.

It was all over the news

as soon as it happened,

it's a tremendous amount of publicity.

It's been a great shock to us.

Ray Liuzza Sr, a well known member

of the community,

was able to recover from his heart attack

and went public to find his son's killer.

Time is a great cure of all

and as time goes on
we will be able to adjust,

but nothing will replace
the loss of our son.

The Liuzza's set up a $15,000 reward

for information

leading to the arrest and conviction,

of their son's killer.

But a month went by and police struggled

to find any solid leads,

until one night,

a local fence, named Richard Perkins,

contacted the Liuzza family.

Perkins claimed he had the murder weapon.

He said it had been given
to him by a man named

John Thompson.

John Thompson was a low-level drug dealer

and fence

grew up in the projects in New Orleans.

Was raised mostly by his grandmother.

His father was a career criminal.

- Richard Perkins confronted
Mr.Thompson after the fact - and got

Mr. Thompson to confess
that he was the one that

killed Mr. Liuzza.

Perkins said Thompson
also had an accomplice

named Kevin Freeman.

Police arrested both Freeman and Thompson.

The story that Kevin
Freeman told police was that

he and John Thompson had
been driving home together

and the car had run out of gas.

Ray Liuzza drove past them,
parked and began to walk

across the street to his apartment.

At that point,
John Thompson turned to him and said,

- "I'm going to hit that guy,"
and pulled a gun - out of his pocket.

And then, Mr. Freeman got cold feet,
if you will.

And decided he didn't
want to be a part of it.

And as he was running away, Freeman said

he heard the shots.

The police charged Freeman and Thompson

with murder.

- The local prosecutor wanted
the death penalty - for Thompson,

But knew it would be an uphill battle

because Thompson had never been convicted

of a violent crime.

That was about to change.

On December 28th, 1984,

19 year-old, Jay LaGarde,

- his sister Mimi, who was 16 and
their younger brother - who was 12

Went to the Superdome
for a college basketball

tournament.

- After the game, as they were getting
- in the car,

A African American man jumped
into the backseat, pulled out

a .357 magnum

- and said, "I'm taking your car, I want
your wallet, I want - your valuables."

Jay was instructed to drive away

from the Superdome.

- Rather than do that, he did
something that was - either very brave

Or very stupid and deliberately caused

a car accident.

The carjacker then
leapt forward with the gun

- and Jay turned around and met him
- and they had a fight.

Jay is pressed with his back
against the driver's side door

and manages to kick
the carjacker with his face

and out through the passenger side door.

The carjacker, obviously injured,

drops the gun and gets away.

That crime remained unsolved
until pictures of Thompson

appeared in the paper for
the murder of Ray Liuzza.

When Thompson's photo appeared, all three

of the LaGarde children

identified John Thompson as their attacker.

Thompson went on
trial for the carjacking first

- because prosecutors knew that a
conviction would - make him more likely

To receive the death
penalty for the Liuzza murder.

- This was in keeping with the policies
- of long term,

District attorney for Orleans Parish,

Harry Connick Sr,

father of the famous
musician Harry Connick Jr.

During Connick Sr.'s
nearly three-decade tenure,

his office handled upwards of 30,000 cases

and often faced accusations
of hard-line tactics.

Harry Connick was tough on crime.

- In death penalty cases, I don't
think Harry - would have offered a deal.

Harry would have said,
"No, you can't have it."

'Cause he was very aggressive and he wanted

to lock them all up forever.

Connick's lead prosecutor

was Jim Williams.

Jim took great pride in
his numerous death penalty

convictions.

He even kept a miniature
electric chair on his desk.

- Jim was regarded as one of the most aggressive
prosecutors in - the District Attorney's Office.

He described sliding up behind defendants

in the courtroom and
buzzing in their ears to mimic

the buzz of electricity.

Thompson's carjacking trial lasted

only two days.

The testimony of the LaGarde
children was enough to convict

Thompson of armed robbery.

He was given the maximum sentence.

Your heart just stopped beating

for a minute, you know.

That was my first conviction.
But he gave me the maximum,

Forty nine and a half years.

I realized that I was in some
serious trouble then for sure,

because now,
now we gonna go to the murder trial.

At the murder trial,

both Kevin Freeman

and Richard Perkins testified

that Thompson killed Ray
Liuzza and since Thompson

had no alibi,

- even his defense attorney
thought the situation - smelled bad.

- As you know, I can't make
chicken salad out of - chicken.

The facts are the facts,
the case is the case.

With the publicity,
the nature of the crime,

- the black on white, we were one
foot in the grave - and the other foot

On a banana peel when
we went in that courtroom.

If Thompson took the stand

n his own defense,

Jim Williams would be able to bring up

the carjacking conviction.

- I couldn't defend myself because the first
question - you would ask me on the stand,

"Have I been convicted for
anything?" I'd have to say yes.

"For what?" I'd have to say robbery.

And so my lawyers advised me

not to take the stand on my own behalf,

although we wanted to.

The jury convicted Thompson of killing

Ray Liuzza within two hours.

During sentencing,
the prosecution was able to use

Thompson's carjacking conviction to argue

for the death penalty.

The State called the carjacking victim,

in her little catholic school uniform

and she told a chilling story

of how the person that carjacked them

was holding a gun to the brother's head.

- And she just knew both of them
were gonna be - murdered together.

And she was never gonna see her family.

"And that's the guy who did it.

"And there's no question in my mind".

And with that, the jury decided that

Mr. Thompson deserved to die.

He killed this man and he almost killed

these three kids.

So they decide to sentence me to death

for a crime I didn't do.

John Thompson was sitting on death row

at Angola State Penitentiary

awaiting his execution

when he got an unexpected call.

JT, we found you some attorneys.

- They from Philadelphia. It's a law firm
- from Philadelphia.

They coming down to see you.

The call was from a
non-profit group that devoted

to appealing death sentences.

I'm on death row.

I got a date of execution.

- Then you sending me some lawyers
saying that - they representing me.

I'm like, "Come on, get real."

Gordon and I normally
represent big companies

in employment litigation,

trade secret litigation,

but this was my first case representing

a criminal defendant.

Michael Banks and Gordon Cooney were

high-powered corporate lawyers

with an interest in pro bono cases.

The case itself did not suggest innocence.

There was nothing we
read that caused us to say,

"Wow, this guy didn't do it."

I was skeptical of his innocence,

but I remember feeling a very strong sense,

from reading John's file,

that things that happened
in John's trial were just

fundamentally unfair.

Banks and Cooney went
to meet their new client.

The first time I met John Thompson

was at the Louisiana
State Penitentiary at Angola

and frankly,
we had a bit of a hard time communicating.

They didn't know nothing

about New Orleans.

We have a criminal justice
system here that locked up

- more people than our state penitentiary
- could hold.

And so the first thing I asked them is,

"Do you really understand
what you're up against?"

Neither Michael or I had any idea in 1988

- that we'd spend the next quarter
century working - with John Thompson.

Michael and Gordon
began preparing an appeal.

Their key argument was that
the prosecutions star witness,

Richard Perkins,
had a hidden motive in the case.

Mr. Perkins had been promised reward money

by the prosecutors.

And that information never made its way

in front of the jury.

Michael and Gordon hired Elisa Abolafia,
who knew

New Orleans inside and out,

as a defense investigator on the case.

And if something smells fishy,

there's a reason.

Humans lie and they do things
for their own advancement

in their careers or for some cash.

People are very unscrupulous.

Seeking a reward that today would be worth

more than $30,000.

Richard Perkins requested a meeting

with the representative
of the Liuzza family.

The conversation was recorded by police.

People were paid to testify.

You give a tip and if it
leads to a conviction, you get

a chunk of money

and it's very enticing.

- Perkins received over $10,000 in
reward money immediately - after the trial

And told by the police
not to mention the payment

of the reward to anybody.

Surely if Perkins is saying

that he received the $10,000

to do this, the jury would have thought

different about that.

They wouldn't even have
counted his testimony.

Gordon and Michael filed their appeal

in June of 1989.

After five years of waiting,
the court finally agreed

to hear their case.

We were able to prove beyond any doubt

that in fact a reward

was promised and paid
and that the prosecutors

failed to disclose it.

And yet despite that
the judge said there was

enough other evidence

of John's guilt that the
reward issue would not

have made a difference.

Michael and Gordon appealed the decision

to the US District court,

the 5th Circuit Court
of Appeals and finally

the US Supreme Court.

They all denied the appeal.

Matters became desperate.
Now we had no more

appeals or challenges.

On April 19th of 1999 the
final death warrant was issued.

We had struck out. We had failed,

and he was going to die.

The state set an execution date.

We drove over to Angola.

- John came into the room. We
didn't tell him - we'd be coming,

But he knew why we were there.

And he looked at us and he said,

"What's the date?"

We looked at him and said,
"John, it's uh... May 20th."

which was basically a month off.

I've been around death row at that time

long enough to understand

- what was going on. I was like, "Wow,
- I'm... this is my turn.

"This is my time." And so,
I was trying to be strong.

I was trying to, like,

understand what's getting ready to happen.

I'm getting' ready to die
for a crime I did not commit.

Boy, anxiety kicked in. I didn't know how

to accept the reality

that they're getting ready to kill me.

And then John did a
really remarkable thing.

He said, "My youngest son,
John Jr is the first person

in my family

"who's going to graduate from high school,
on May 21st.

"Will you please go to his
graduation and make sure

he's okay after I'm gone?"

And then he spent the
next 20 minutes trying

to make us feel better.

It was not,
"How could you let this happen to me?"

It's not,
"What are you gonna do to save my life?"

It was about making
us feel better about what

we had done for him

and making sure his son was gonna be okay.

That's the kind of guy John Thompson is.

We were mostly silent
on the way from Angola

to New Orleans.

There was very little to be said.

On the way, Gordon checked his voicemail.

Gordon had a message from Elisa Abolafia

So they're driving very solemnly like,
It's over.

As they're exiting Angola and they had no

cellphone coverage

for miles and miles and miles.

- And I of course, calling their office
- in Philadelphia.

Just berserk. I'm going nuts.

There on my voicemail

was a message from Elisa,

saying, "I found something very important.

"I think this is really
big. You have to call me

right away."

End of message.

This city is like, the perfect storm

for lots of crime.

There's a lot of poverty.
There's a lot of corruption.

There's a lot of drunk tourists.

- There was so much crime in the
paper and in the news - on a regular basis,

I actually never paid
attention to the murder of

Ray Liuzza Jr.,

until Michael Banks and Gordon Cooney

contacted me.

With John Thompson scheduled to be executed

in less than a month,

defense investigator
Elisa Abolafia desperately

searched for answers.

I, of course, was a complete nervous wreck,

because John was facing an execution date,
May 20th.

So I began with the carjacking case.

First, I read the police report.

In 1985, John Thompson was convicted of

carjacking three teenagers at gunpoint.

- Without that conviction Thompson
would have - been much less likely to get

The death sentence for the murder.

Elisa found reports from the first officer

to respond to the carjacking scene,
Warren Pope.

When we got there two cars were involved

in a traffic accident

and I noticed some spots of like fresh,
wet blood on one of

the victim's shoes.

- There was also some blood on one of his pants legs.
- He was uninjured

And so was his brother and sister.

So we assumed that it
was the perpetrators blood.

Police files confirmed the carjackers blood

had been recovered from the victim's pants.

But Elisa wondered why
that evidence had never been

introduced at trial.

So I went to the evidence room

and I see that the pants were checked out

by one of the DA's and not returned.

I'm like, "Hello?"

If they were so sure that John Thompson

was the carjacker

you would have tested his blood and gone,
"Ta-da,"

- waved your crime lab report around the courtroom.
- That would have been your nail.

- So I knew that something was
going on that was - very unscrupulous

And was deliberate, deliberate.

The defense was never told that the blood

had been tested.

So that revealed quite a bit
about the prosecutors who had

been handling Thompson's case.

So my next move is to go to the crime lab

and you know, act kind of blase.

- You can't tip off people that
work for the - police department

That you're onto something naughty.

I just go in and go, "I need to see uh...

this old report, please."

I then get the crime lab report,
which tells me that

the blood type is blood B.

We were incredibly excited
because we now knew the

perpetrator had type B blood.

But we didn't know what
John's blood type was.

So what we did first was we called John.

My blood type? I say, "I don't know."

They say,
"You don't know your own blood type?" No.

They say um,
"You think your mama know?" I say

"I dunno, call her and ask!"

- I spoke to his mother,
please tell me you know - his blood type.

"No I don't."

So I'm racking my brain.

- I ask John,"Did you ever have
surgery at any time - of your life?

- "'Cause if you did they had
to draw your blood - and test it.

- "'Yes, when I was a teenager, I was at Charity Hospital.'"
- I'm like, thank goodness.

Again, scramble, scramble, scramble.

- Go to my connection there who
was the director - of the records room.

- I said, "Three weeks from now,
this man is going - to be executed.

"It is a matter of life and death.

"Please dig it up for me." And she did.

The hospital records showed that

Thompson had blood type O.

It was a smoking gun. It
demonstrated that Thompson

was innocent of the
carjacking beyond question.

And there's no question
that the prosecution

had a clear obligation

to turn over evidence that's favorable

to the defense.

The carjacking victims had clearly

misidentified Thompson.

Eye witness testimony is so unreliable

and the more traumatic
the event is that they witness,

the more likely it is that
they're gonna be wrong

in their recollections
and their identifications.

With clear evidence of
prosecutorial misconduct,

Michael and Gordon
now felt they had no choice

but to go after the
legendary district attorney

of Orleans parish,

Harry Connick Sr.

Harry Connick Senior was certainly

an iconic figure.

He was a big fan of jazz
music and actually had a regular

singing gig in New Orleans.

- But he also was thought of as
being fairly aggressive - as well.

- It was a stated policy in his
office to provide - the defense

- the minimum amount of information
required by law, - and nothing more.

We talked about the
right way to handle this.

And rather than hold
a big press conference,

- and point the finger at the district
attorney's office, - we thought that

The right first step was to
go to Mr. Connick himself.

Connick's reaction initially was that

he wanted sometime to think about it.

We told him that he had a matter of two,

maybe three hours.

We've got an execution
date in less than two weeks.

And we said,
"If you can't agree even with these facts,

"we'll, you know, take the next step that

we think is appropriate."

Mr. Connick realized he had no alternative.

The evidence was all too clear.

It was physically and
scientifically impossible

for Thompson to have been the carjacker.

Michael, Gordon, and Connick met with

Judge Patrick Quinlan,

who had presided over
both of Thompson's trials.

Upon learning of the hidden blood evidence,

Judge Quinlan grew furious with Connick.

- And he said he was going to
hold a hearing - in open court

To try to determine exactly
how this had happened.

He wanted all the citizens
of New Orleans to see.

At the hearing,
attorneys questioned the key

prosecutors involved

with Thompson's case,
including Jim Williams,

the man with the little
electric chair on his desk.

A colleague testified
that Williams was given

the blood results.

But Williams denied it.

- Williams's story is that he never
received it, - that he never saw it.

- And so at the end of the day, the choice
is between - dishonesty and incompetence.

They can either be the prosecutors who knew

that evidence

- was being withheld in their case,
or they can be - the prosecutors

Who weren't in charge of their cases when

a man's life was on the line.

Visibly upset,

Judge Quinlan overturned Thompson's

carjacking conviction,

he also ordered a stay of execution

and ordered Connick

to turn over every file
on record to Michael

and Gordon.

That was the first time
we really got a full look

into the district attorney's
files in the murder case

against John Thompson.

And it was a moment
that Gordon and I looked

at each other and said,

"He's really innocent.
He did not kill Ray Liuzza.

He was not there."

We knew who the murderer was.

We knew how it happened
for the very first time.

John Thompson had been
on death row at Angola

State Prison for 14 years.

By 1999, Michael and Gordon

had proved Thompson had not committed

the carjacking outside the superdome,

but they had yet to prove
their client was innocent

of killing 34-year-old
Ray Liuzza in cold blood.

However, material Michael and Gordon

finally received from the
New Orleans DA's office

provided ample grounds for appeal.

The daily police reports showed

us that these witnesses,

Freeman and Perkins,
had told very, very different stories

in 1985 before the trial as

as compared to what they
said on the witness stand.

And we began to see how
their stories were contrived

to secure a conviction of an innocent man.

There were numerous pieces of evidence

inconsistent with John's guilt,

were consistent with Freeman's guilt

and that showed that Freeman

had lied at trial in his testimony

on behalf of the state.

After testifying that he saw Thompson

murder Ray Liuzza,

Kevin Freeman was given
a plea deal and only served

10 months in prison.

We also received leads
from the police reports

about potential witnesses
who would be helpful.

- There was a woman who lived
across the street - from Mr. Liuzza

And she got a very good
look at the perpetrator.

Miss Kelly and other witnesses testified,
they saw a man,

with a blue steel revolver,
six feet tall with close-cut

hair running past them.

John Thompson was 5'8" with a big,
bushy afro.

Kevin Freeman was six feet
tall went by the nickname 'Kojak'

because of his close-cut hair.

Once all the evidence was examined,
it was clear

beyond imagination

that Kevin Freeman acting
alone murdered Ray Liuzza.

Michael and Gordon now
believed they had a strong

case for a new trial.

We had an evidentiary hearing

in front of Judge Quinlan.

And Quinlan vacated the death sentence.

But he refused to vacate guilt.

Judge Quinlan refused to grant
a new trial. We were devastated.

Yes, it was wonderful to
have John Thompson spared

from execution,

but we were still looking
at a man in his 30s

who was going to be facing the rest

of his life in jail.

- So you gonna take the death penalty
back and give me - a life sentence.

I was scared to death, even more so now.

You telling' me I'll never go home again?

That didn't give me no relief.

None whatsoever. I was doomed.

Michael and Gordon
appealed the Judge's decision.

They knew this would be
Thompson's last chance

for a new trial.

- John was going to go free or
spend the rest - of his life in prison.

Our arguments were basically two fold.

First,
that carjacking conviction had been used

to keep John

- from being able to testify in his
own defense - in the murder case.

- And secondly, we argued that all of
the evidence - that we had amassed

Had shown that John Thompson was innocent

of the Liuzza murder.

Michael and Gordon filed their appeal

in February of 2002.

Five months later,
they received the decision.

- I'll never forget it. A reporter called
- and said,

"What do you think about this decision?"

And I asked her to
read it to me and I said,

"Skip to the end. Skip to end."

The last line read

"Conviction and Sentence reversed."

I called Gordon into my office. I couldn't

get the words out.

I remember. It was July
17th at 4:30 in the afternoon.

- I... it was... I was tongue tied. I said, "No...
- new... new... new..."

I... I couldn't... he said, "New trial?"

I said, "Yes." We hugged. We were ecstatic.

- But as Michael and Gordon began preparing
- for the retrial

They got an unsolicited
offer form the DA's office.

Harry Connick Sr. had retired,

and the new DA had run for office on

an anti-corruption campaign.

Now, he wanted to make a deal.

The district attorney's
office was not really

eager to go and try

this case again based on
the evidence as it then existed.

John could plead to some lesser offense

and be immediately released from prison.

I'm like, "Hell no. I'm not
pleading guilty to nothing.

"After all this stuff we did prove,

"these people still trying
to make me plead guilty

to something I didn't do."

A jury got it wrong twice before,

there was some risk that a jury

- would get it wrong again no
matter how strong - the evidence was.

Much as we were
convinced of John's innocence

we had to think about
getting him out of jail

as our first priority.

Michael and them was like,
"John. We not talking to you

no more as attorneys.

"We getting ready to
talk to you as a friend.

"We can't control the mind of 12 people.

"We can only present them the facts.

"If 12 members come
back and say you're guilty,

could you handle that?

"Is it fair on your ma'?

"Is it fair on your children?

"On one hand, you could walk out that door.

"On the other hand, you might stay here

the rest of your life.

- "So, before you make a quick decision
like that, why don't - you think about it?"

In April of 2003,

- John Thompson faced the decision whether
- to plead guilty

And walk away from prison,
or stand trial and risk

the rest of his life behind bars.

I'm like, "Man,
I didn't kill nobody. I'm not pleading

guilty to nothing.

So I got on the phone My mom said,"Baby,
I want you home.

"I don't care what them
people say. I know you ain't

do it. I want you home."

So I called the attorneys and say,
"Come on.

Let's do it.

"It's time for me to be with my family."

Gordon and I went down to New Orleans

to be there when John
got out of jail to have

our big celebration.

I was figuring out where

John was going to go

after he was released from prison.

- And a criminal defense lawyer
walked into the - conference room where

I was working,
and all the color had drained

out of his face.

- And he said "The district
attorney's office has pulled - the deal."

- We had thought John was
walking out of jail - the next day.

This was five days
before the trial was to start.

And the DA. said,
"No deal. We go to trial."

- As it turned out, the victim's
family had learned - of the plea deal

And voiced their objections
to the district attorney.

Michael and I go to the
prison and John again,

put on a very brave face

and he said, "You know,
I didn't want that plea.

- "It was going to hang over my head
over my head - for the rest of my life.

"I didn't do this,
you guys are going to win this case."

"But we've just lost four days
of preparation because we

thought there was no trial."

We need some more
time to prepare for the case.

- And he said, "You won't do
that. We're gonna - win this case.

"I can't spend another day in this place."

As we walked down a very
long corridor we turned around

and looked back.

And there was John
with his head in his hands.

He thought he was getting
out of jail the next day.

And now he found out
that he had to stand trial

with a risk of spending
the rest of his life in prison.

On the morning of May 7th, 2003,

John Thompson stood before the same judge

in the same courtroom where
he'd been sentenced to death

18 years earlier.

- But Michael and Gordon had a problem,
they couldn't - attack the damaging

Testimony of Kevin Freeman,

the man they believed murdered Ray Liuzza.

Freeman was shot dead in
1995 while committing a robbery.

With Freeman dead, his previous

testimony stood as evidence

that Thompson had
committed the Liuzza murder.

We had all this evidence

that Freeman had lied
in his original testimony

and we wouldn't be able to
use that evidence effectively

if we couldn't cross-examine
him live on the stand.

Michael and Gordon proposed

an unorthodox solution.

After Freeman's testimony
was read into the record,

they would cross-examine
the empty witness chair

as if Freeman was on the stand.

We took evidence of the
lies and put them into the form

of questions.

You told the jury you didn't
know that John Thompson

was going out to rob someone.

Isn't it true, however that you set out

to rob someone?

Silence hung in the air after each question

was posed,

giving the jury time to
imagine Freeman's response.

You suggested in your testimony

that you stole nothing
from Mr. Liuzza at all.

- But you admitted you stole all of
Mr. Liuzza's property, - didn't you?

- We asked a series of questions like that,
culminating - in the final one,

Which was, "Isn't it true,
Mr. Freeman, that you

and you alone

"murdered Ray Liuzza?"

The jury knew where we were coming from

- and they were able to see the lies
in Kevin Freeman's - original story.

Informant Richard Perkins

also took the stand.

This time, his testimony was
devastating to the prosecution.

Perkins admitted that

one of the prosecutors

put him in a room with Kevin Freeman

- before they testified at the
original criminal - murder trial

And said,
"You guys get your story straight."

Perkins also admitted receiving $10,500

after Thompson was convicted.

We were able to show why
Perkins implicated Thompson.

Perkins was a street kid who
needed money desperately.

He saw a chance for more
money than he had ever seen

or imagined in any one place in 1985

and he went for it.

And for the first time in 18 years,

John Thompson was
finally able to take the stand

and proclaim his innocence.

You could hear a pin
drop. I mean literally.

He finally had a chance
to explain to a jury

why he had the murder weapon.

John Thompson's testimony

was that he did have the gun,

but he had bought that from Kevin Freeman.

Kevin Freeman sold the
murder weapon to an unwitting

John Thompson.

John was involved in
buying and selling some

stolen property.

It's not something he's proud of.

I was a dope dealer. He was

a burglar, he was a robber

- and you wanted dope. You need to bring me
- some type of collateral.

They were bringing' me TVs, guns, jewelry.

That was a part of a drug trade.

Being a fence.

I'm sorry, that's how that I came about,

being in possession of the murder weapon.

The defense rested and the case was handed

over to the jury.

The jury get up and they leave
with your fate in their hands.

And you try to smile, while they leaving

all them passing right by you.

- All them looking you in your face, like,
- for the last time.

The pressure was enormous. It was almost

like you couldn't breathe.

- There is a lot of nervous energy
and small talk - that goes on.

But before we could sit
down and order food the jury

reached their decision.

Boy, I was so scared because I say,
"What? They did that...

what... how"

The jury took only 35 minutes

to agree on a verdict.

- So the jury files back in. And
whenever a jury - comes back,

You're looking at every juror,
trying to look for some hint.

And it seems like an eternity.

And the heart, meanwhile now,
is racing faster

and faster and breathing
is becoming increasingly

challenging.

- This was the most agonizing moment
either of us had ever - had in our careers

And in our personal lives.

Then the judge asked that
the verdict be read aloud.

The retrial of John Thompson

lasted only a day and a half.

The jury took 35 minutes
to return their verdict.

When the jury come back
the judge asked them, "Have

the jury reached a decision?"

And jury say, "Yes,
your honor." And then said,

"Would the defendant rise?"

There is incredible tension

and nervous energy.

You just don't know because
juries can do anything.

Each word slows down in time.

It's "we, the jury,

"find the defendant, John Thompson

"not guilty".

I can't describe it.

I literally felt like I
was lifted off my chair.

I looked around at my mom

and my sons and them.

The relief I felt of knowing
that I'm going home.

This is finally behind me.

This is finally over with.

We each gave him a big hug.

It was uh, it was a moment.

After 18 years in prison, John Thompson

was finally going home.

But aside from his freedom,
he was walking away

with little else.

It's a kick in the behind and $10.

- They didn't have no compensation
available - for nobody like myself.

- No matter how many years you do in prison,
you get out, - you got to fend for yourself.

So we approached the district
attorney's office. And we said,

"Look,
John lost the last 18 years of his life.

"You all nearly executed
him eight times. You all need

to do the right thing.

"And we were told in no
uncertain terms that we

could just jump in the lake."

So we filed a lawsuit
against the New Orleans

district attorney's office.

They proposed a settlement
of $500,000 hoping

to get half that amount.

Under the United States
Constitution prosecutors are

required to give the defendants

evidence that is favorable
to the defense. And these

prosecutors did not.

Your job is to prosecute the
guy and seek a conviction.

That's your job.

ADA Bruce Whittaker received the

blood report showing

Thompson didn't commit the carjacking.

In a deposition,
Michael asked him if prosecutors

were obliged to disclose evidence.

The understanding was you
disclose exculpatory evidence.

"Exculpatory" meaning what?

That's a good question.
I don't know if that...

That's the kind of stuff
I think that was never,

perhaps, clarified to the extent it should

have been clarified.

Was there training for prosecutors

on what that obligation meant?

I don't recall there ever
being training on that.

I don't recall there being training,
period.

Jim Williams, who prosecuted, Thompson,

was asked who decided what
evidence would be shared.

It was up to the attorney

trying the case,

we were expected to follow the rules.

Were there any other
guidelines that you can recall

as to how you were to
make that determination?

No.

When we asked the prosecutors about

their knowledge of the law

that requires that favorable
evidence be produced,

they got it all wrong!

The district attorney's
office had a handbook.

It was flat out wrong.

Their failures of understanding
were frankly pretty surprising.

A jury concluded that under

Harry Connick's leadership,

the DA.'s office failed to
provide pertinent evidence

and violated John
Thompson's constitutional rights.

In 2007, the jury awarded

John Thompson $14 million.

But the DA.'s office

would appeal the decision

for the next four years.

Meanwhile,
John Thompson transformed his life,

building an organization called

Resurrection after Exoneration

to help exonerees
adjust to life after prison.

He's also become a
leading spokesman against

prosecutorial misconduct.

It's really extraordinary to
see John as a tenth grade

high school dropout

become a really very compelling
advocate the way he has

taken this tragedy
that happened in his life

and turned into it a
force for positive change.

After years of appeals, the DA.'s office

finally argued their case

to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2011, the bitterly divided justices

voted 5-4 to deny the $14 million award.

- Five justices of the Supreme Court believed
the New Orleans - District Attorney's Office

Could not be liable

because there was not a prior
pattern of similar misconduct.

The majority opinion, written

by Justice Clarence Thomas,

found that even though Connick's office

withheld evidence in the Thompson case,

that was not enough to prove a pattern.

And yet a study done in
2008 reported that during Harry

Connick Sr.'s tenure,

in one out of every four
cases where the death

penalty was imposed,

evidence was withheld.

That was crazy. If that is not a pattern,
I don't know what is.

So who is going to get the
last laugh? Jim Williams.

In the photo of Jim Williams with

the electric chair

of the five faces visible,

all of them were released from death row.

In my mind, we should have charged him

with attempted murder.

This district attorney using
false information that he know

is false, to kill you.

It's premeditated.

- So we're saying that he could get away with murder?
- What make him so special?

The only thing he was
hiding behind was district

attorney badge.

Unfortunately,
the Thomas opinion is the law of the land.

And it gives me great concern.

Make no bones about it. Prosecutors are now

a lot less accountable

for what they do because
they know that if they don't

produce evidence,

there is virtually no
sanction for them or the office.

John Thompson's activism continues to sound

the alarm against

the Supreme Court decision

and innocent people being found guilty

and executed

for crimes they did not commit.

- Now, I'm thinking about my children.
The same thing - could happen to them.

A person could have that
much power over your life

and without being hold accountable for it.

I can throw the evidence
away and still try to kill you.

Whether you did it or not,
without no consequences!

That's scary. That's should
be scary to everybody

in the whole world.