Upworthy’s book GOOD PEOPLE is coming this year — pre-order now!

Shop
 Explore 

wrongful convictions

Joy

Two friends met for the first time when one was freed after being wrongfully convicted

They've been pen pals for over two decades and finally got to see each other face to face.

CBS Evening News|YouTube

Wrongfully convicted man meets long-time penpal.

Having a pen pal can be really rewarding. In the early 90s, when letter writing was still a required learning objective and classes got to have penpals from another school, it was exciting to build a connection with someone through writing letters. But for most of us, that practice died off as we started making those lasting connections through social media.

But when Ginny Schrappen got word from her church's deacon that a prisoner wanted a pen pal more than two decades ago, before social media was a thing, she stepped up to volunteer. According to CBS Evening News, Lamar Johnson wrote to Schrappen's church hoping that one of the parishioners would write to him while he was in prison.

Others may have been turned off due to the crime for which Johnson was imprisoned, which was murder. But Schrappen figured, "He's not going to come and get me."

Of course, the elderly woman was safe because Johnson was incarcerated and expected to remain there for most of his natural life. Except, after Schrappen began to get to know the then-convicted murderer, the more she believed he couldn't have hurt anyone.

It turned out her intuition was right. Johnson was recently exonerated after 28 years in prison after the Midwest Innocence Project helped fight for his release. The real perpetrator also confessed, clearing Johnson's name.

After Johnson took some time to become acclimated to being outside of the prison, he made the trip to knock on one of his best friend's doors. Schrappen was thrilled to see her friend and planted several grandma kisses on his cheek as proof.

"Especially when somebody is innocent. You want someone to believe in you," Johnson told CBS. "Cause when you have people that believe in you and they won't give up on you, then it makes it harder for you to give up on yourself."

Watch their sweet first meeting below:

From Your Site Articles

acts of kindness

Pop Culture

Wrongfully convicted man proves his innocence using an episode of 'MythBusters'

John Galvan was only 18 years old when he was arrested for a crime he did not commit.

IMDB/Instagram

Justice (and scientific education) served.

The Discovery show “MythBusters” delighted investigative junkies and movie buffs alike in the years following its launch in the early 2000s. The stunt-filled show featured special effects experts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman testing out the validity of everything from duct tape islands to mechanical sharks using scientific methods.

Back in 2007, 39-year-old John Galvan was 21 years into serving a life sentence for a crime he didn’t commit, when he caught a rerun of “MythBusters” on the prison television.

The episode, “Hollywood on Trial,” which originally aired in 2005, shows Hyneman and Savage failing to light a pool of gasoline using a cigarette—a classic action film trope.

Not even a rolling fully lit cigarette could ignite a flame. In other words, the myth was officially “busted.”

This bit of information immediately caught Galvan’s attention, for it would be the very catalyst needed to prove his innocence and reclaim his freedom.

In September 1986, a fire broke out in a two-flat apartment building in southwest Chicago, killing two brothers—one of whom was suspected to be involved in a gang called the Latin Kings. Their siblings managed to escape and told police that a female neighbor had threatened to burn the building down as retaliation for her own brother’s death, an act supposedly committed by the gang.

The woman denied involvement and instead pointed the blame at Galvan, along with other neighbors interviewed by the police. Although Galvan had been asleep at his grandmother’s the night of the fire, he had no other evidence proving his innocence, and was arrested. He was only 18 years old.

Using violence, torture and deception tactics (which remain legal in 46 states), Detective Victor Switski eventually coerced Galvan into signing a confession after threatening that he could face the death penalty and end up “laying next to” his late father.

A photo of Galvan as a child.

Instagram

Galvan’s signed statement claimed he had started the fire by throwing a bottle filled with gasoline at the building and then tossing a cigarette into the pool of gasoline on the porch to ignite it. Which, again, is scientificallyimpossible.

Galvan immediately called his lawyer Tara Thompson, who had serendipitously been watching the same episode. Thompson and Galvan had been working on his third post-conviction petition, and both were thrilled to have stumbled upon some compelling evidence in the most unlikely of places.

“I remember I was excited, I was extremely happy because that just added to the other things that were coming together at that time. I felt like finally this is starting to all come out,” Galvan recalled.

Thompson added, “It was honestly shocking to me … I feel like all of us have seen movies — like Payback is a famous one — where they light the gasoline in the street with a cigarette and a car explodes, and I really had never given much thought to whether or not that might be real.”

“When I watched this MythBusters episode, as a lawyer, it made me realize that there are things you have to look deeper into — you can’t assume that you understand the science until you’ve looked into it,” she added.

Tara Thompson (left) and John Galvan (right).

Instagram

The show’s findings were echoed by experiments conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). It made more than 2,000 attempts to ignite gasoline with a cigarette under various conditions and every attempt failed.

It wouldn’t be until 2017 that Galvan got his evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction claims. Thompson not only presented their findings, but also seven witnesses—including those who attested to also being tortured by the same detective who had interrogated Galvan, and an arson expert who testified that what Galvan falsely confessed to was scientifically impossible.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, prosecutors still denied that the science was correct.

“Even then, they really did not want to accept that this was not possible,” Ms. Thompson recalled. “I find that very telling about the state of science and the law … that these things that we probably should accept as true in the legal space, the system does not always want to accept.”

Galvan would have to wait until 2022—and after several appeals—to gain his freedom. He was exonerated largely based on the fact that he was abused into involuntarily signing his confession, rather than any changes to the science of the case.

Rebecca Brown, director of policy for the Innocence Project, says it speaks to “the critical importance of establishing mechanisms for people to get back into court when science changes or evolves, or when experts repudiate past testimony.”

“A ‘change-in-science’ statute here would have allowed for a presentation reflecting those changes in arson science and could have likely expedited Mr. Galvan’s exoneration,” she explained.

He'll never get those 35 years back, but he's going to make the best of the time he has left.

Instagram

Adjusting to a new life outside the prison walls after 35 years has been no easy task, but Galvan is nonetheless taking his newfound freedom in stride. He’s most looking forward to having his own space to call home and getting back to drawing and painting. If you would like to support Galvan, check out his Amazon wish list.

From Your Site Articles

good news

What if it's not about whether he's innocent or guilty?

A documentary has gotten people all over the world riled up.

SPOILERS ABOUND. You've been warned.

In the past few weeks, the Netflix-watching community has been gathered together in a virtual town square — social media — to express strong feelings produced by the documentary "Making a Murderer."

If you haven't seen it, it's the story of how Steven Avery, wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years for sexual assault by a shortcut-taking municipality in Wisconsin and then released when finally exonerated, gets convicted again (for murder). There are all sorts of good questions raised about how he was found guilty the second time.

Images from Netflix's "Making a Murderer," used with permission.

It's the stuff nightmares are made of.

First, the accused is not necessarily an easy-to-like character. Avery is an uneducated guy from "the wrong side of town" and a family not very well-respected — their family tree of various bad behaviors is probably a couple of typed pages long.

Grudge-wielding authorities targeted Avery immediately as a suspect in the first case, a sexual assault, in 1985. He spent 18 years in prison for it until the Wisconsin Innocence Project intervened and helped present new DNA evidence showing someone else committed the assault.

It was later proven that the police department had ample evidence that should have led them to investigate others, which they didn't pursue. Not only did their dogged insistence on locking up Avery wrongfully deprive him of a huge chunk of his life, but it also resulted in the real perpetrator, Gregory Allen, remaining free to violently rape in the ensuing years.

Avery was released and returned home to try to move on and live his life. That should have been the end of the story, right?

But just as Manitowoc County was facing the possibility of paying millions of dollars to him in restitution, a search for a missing woman named Teresa Halbach seemed to point to Avery.

Her body was later discovered. Evidence seemed (at least on the surface) to damn Avery and his nephew, and they both went to prison for it.

After 18 years of his life wrongfully spent in prison, Avery was right back there.

Did he do it or didn't he? That's the question, right — or is it?

There are fierce debates happening on Facebook and in living rooms around the world. Netflix's documentary presents a lot of troubling aspects to the prosecution's murder case, and the prosecutor, since disgraced for other salacious, character-destroying reasons, argues that the film leaves out crucial evidence the public should be considering. There are lots of split opinions and some who don't know what to think.

I do not understand how the people involved in the prosecution of this case sleep at night. Horrible people. All of them. #MakingAMurderer
— Josh Charles (@MrJoshCharles) January 2, 2016

Video: Teresa Halbach's friends find documentary reaction upsetting https://t.co/eI8wLCvEA8 pic.twitter.com/J4xMRMrcAy
— WISN 12 News (@WISN12News) January 8, 2016

But what if the moral obligation of the viewer isn't to try to get to the bottom of whether Steven Avery committed the crime?

Instead, the audience can use its collective power to ask the right questions: Are people all over America getting fair trials based on unbiased investigations?

Or do overworked, under-resourced, and potentially undertrained police departments fit evidence to a favored theory rather than collect all the evidence that could lead them to the truth — truth that could potentially disprove their theories?

Do pressured prosecutors use the media and the law to gain outcomes that favor their own track records and careers, rather than protect the "innocent until proven guilty" core tenet of our judicial system?

The potential for wrong judicial outcomes seems more and more obvious lately.

Consider:

Sandra Bland, pulled from her car by a Texas officer under falsely reported pretenses, leading to arrest and, subsequently, her suspicious death in jail.

Adnan Syed, a teen boy whose inability to account for his whereabouts and ailing, overwhelmed lawyer caused him to be convicted of his ex-girlfriend's murder — perhaps unjustly, as the radio podcast "Serial" highlighted.

Glenn Ford, who spent 30 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit, causing his prosecutor, in a public show of humility rare for prosecutors, to express extreme regret at how he handled the case and doubts about the way cases are routinely handled.

Upworthy screenshot.

"My mindset was wrong and blinded me to my purpose of seeking justice, rather than obtaining a conviction of a person who I believed to be guilty. I did not hide evidence, I simply did not seriously consider that sufficient information may have been out there that could have led to a different conclusion. And that omission is on me."
— Marty Shroud, former prosecutor who tried the Glenn Ford case

When I asked the national Innocence Project's Paul Cates whether cases like these are outliers, he gave me unsettling news:

"Since 1989, DNA evidence has helped to exonerate 337 people of crimes for which they didn’t commit," Cates said via email. "The National Registry counts another 1391 [exonerated] by other means. And these represent just a fraction of the wrongful convictions as it is extremely difficult to prove innocence once you’ve been convicted."

That's why the Innocence Network hopes these lightning-rod moments in pop culture will prompt citizens to reflect and act.

If you get addicted to "Serial" and "Making a Murderer" partially because it's so scary how vulnerable any of us could be to a wrongful conviction, then some part of you knows that the justice system in America is in need of deep, expansive overhaul.

These are a few of the many methods for overhaul, according to the Wisconsin Innocence Project's Keith Findley:

"We ... need to change the culture in police departments so they see themselves, and are rewarded accordingly, as neutral investigators into the facts rather than agents of the prosecution whose job it is to build a case against a chosen suspect. Likewise, we need a change in the culture in prosecutors’ offices so that the search for justice is a higher priority than the drive to obtain convictions."

We can rally around our TVs every time a talented filmmaker exposes one of the many cases like this, and then quickly move on. Or we could see it as the wake-up call it is. It disturbs us for a reason.

What happened to Teresa Halbach is unimaginably horrible. What adds so much insult to the injury, though, is that because of poor police work and shady prosecutorial conduct — even if Avery really did commit her murder — there will always be the possibility that her real killer went free.

We can insist on a better justice system, and we should encourage all of our neighbors to do the same.

Here's the trailer for the documentary. You really have to see it to believe it.

wrongful convictions

Wrongfully convicted man proves his innocence using an episode of 'MythBusters'

John Galvan was only 18 years old when he was arrested for a crime he did not commit.

The real reason 'Making a Murderer' disturbs us isn't about sussing out whether he did it.

What if it's not about whether he's innocent or guilty?

A documentary has gotten people all over the world riled up.

It's the stuff nightmares are made of.

Did he do it or didn't he? That's the question, right — or is it?

But what if the moral obligation of the viewer isn't to try to get to the bottom of whether Steven Avery committed the crime?

The potential for wrong judicial outcomes seems more and more obvious lately.

That's why the Innocence Network hopes these lightning-rod moments in pop culture will prompt citizens to reflect and act.

Music savant Kodi Lee gives a completely new version of 'Bohemian Rhapsody' on 'AGT'

Nonprofit exposes 'housing cartel' behind sharp rent increases across the country

What will Earth look like if all its land ice melts? Here's your answer.

Expert says there's only one laundry cycle you ever need, no matter what's being washed

Nicole Kidman shares the unconventional marriage rule she has with husband Keith Urban