available 24/7 (855) 645-3946
CALL US TEXT US
GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION
Ep 50 with Ken Wyniemko & Jerry Innes

Juror Convicts Man of Rape Only to Find Out He Was Innocent, Victim & Juror Together on Open Mike

An exoneree and a juror who voted to convict him revisit the trial together, discussing a jailhouse snitch, the victim's undisclosed affair, evidence the jury never heard, and how jury selection favored the prosecution.

Listen On

About This Episode

Ken Wyniemko is back for the first-ever part two episode on OpenMike. Ken served nine years in prison for a rape and burglary he didn’t commit. In this episode, Ken is joined by Jerry Innes who was a juror that voted to convict Ken in his original case. Jerry appeared in the Netflix special “The Innocence Files” and has become a friend of Ken’s despite being a reason Ken went to prison for nine years.

This episode is full of unbelievable coincidence and forgiveness. Mike and Kevin ask questions about the legal process and experience of Jerry as a juror and Ken clears up rumors he has heard along the way about the jury. The emotion of both Jerry and Ken is seen throughout this informative and groundbreaking podcast on criminal justice reform.

Show Notes

  1. Introducing today’s guests, Ken Wyniemko and Jerry Innes
  2. How many jurors were there?
  3. Was this your first time on jury duty?
  4. During the trial, was there any doubt in your mind that Ken was guilty?
  5. Did all twelve jurors agree?
  6. The standard to convict is “beyond a reasonable doubt”
  7. Was the jury foreman the same through the whole trial?
  8. What was your impression of Prosecutor Davis?
  9. Did the jury think that Ken had a bad defense lawyer?
  10. Having a brother that’s a cop probably makes you trust cops more
  11. Was the fact that she could pick Ken out of a lineup important to the jurors?
  12. “I didn’t realize how manipulated it was until after I saw the documentary?”
  13. There was no DNA evidence
  14. Ken explains some of the factors that led to his conviction
  15. Circumstantial evidence
  16. The victim didn’t say that the rapist had cocaine, the prosecutor extrapolated that
  17. An expert witness testified that the semen and hair had type A blood, Ken has type O
  18. Jerry met the police officer’s wife after the case
  19. Are you still friends with his wife even after the police officer lied?
  20. The judge implied that there was more evidence against Ken that they didn’t explore
  21. Jerry had a client that went to high school with the actual rapist
  22. What convinced you that Jerry was guilty?
  23. Did you know that the victim was blindfolded during the crime?
  24. Ken explains what happened with the money
  25. What did Jerry find out about the person the victim was having an affair with?
  26. The house was cleaned the day before the rape, so the DNA couldn’t have been the husband’s
  27. The wrong social security number was given to the racetrack that could’ve explained why Ken had money
  28. Has Jerry talked to any other jurors?
  29. Jerry talks about juror bias
  30. Can you guys talk about your friendship?
  31. Do you think something was going on between the police officer and prosecutor?
  32. this case was the perfect storm
  33. Did we ever get the name of who the victim had an affair with?
  34. What advice do you have for other jurors, Jerry?
  35. They want ignorant jurors who will convict
  36. Were any members of the jury anxious to convict?
  37. The general public wants to trust police officers, judges, and prosecutors
  38. Justice has become a game
  39. Is there a way to make jurors aware of how frequent wrongful convictions are?
  40. Why didn’t Jerry believe Ken?
  41. Thank you for joining us today, feel free to send questions for Ken to mike@855mikewins.com

FAQs

Answers to common questions from this episode of Open Mike.
  • How did juror Jerry Innes learn Ken Wyniemko was innocent?

    Innes says that in January 2017 a mutual friend of the author writing a book about the case called to ask whether he would talk to the author. Innes declined, believing Wyniemko had gotten out on a technicality. The friend called back an hour later and told him DNA testing had pointed to another man; Innes says he had to hold onto the wall to keep from falling down, then looked it up and agreed to talk.

  • What evidence was withheld from the jury in Ken Wyniemko's trial?

    Wyniemko says the jury was never told the victim was having an affair and had been with her boyfriend that afternoon, or that her mother vacuumed and changed the bedding the day before the rape. That mattered, he says, because a crime lab expert testified the semen and hairs in the bed came from someone with type A blood; Wyniemko is type O, and the prosecutor suggested they could be the husband’s, though he says the husband had been golfing in Myrtle Beach for eight days.

  • Why does Jerry Innes believe he was selected for the jury?

    He says that after the trial, when prosecutor Linda Davis came back to the jury room, he asked her why she picked him when no one else there had gone to college. He says she told him it was because he was married, had two children, owned a house and had a brother who was a police officer, all of which he says were pro-prosecutorial.

  • How much time did Ken Wyniemko's defense attorney have to prepare?

    According to Innes, the defense attorney told him about two years after the trial that he got a call the Thursday before the trial notifying him of the assignment, received the case that Friday, and the trial began with jury selection that Monday. Innes says the attorney told him the judge would not give him time. Innes says there was no way to prepare a complex case in that time.

  • What role did a jailhouse informant play in convicting Ken Wyniemko?

    Innes says he viewed jailhouse informant McCormack as a drug addict, but the connection was made that only two people knew what happened at the scene, the victim and the attacker, so McCormack must have heard it from the attacker. Wyniemko says jailhouse snitches are involved in 38% of wrongful convictions, calls them professional liars who are used in multiple cases, and says snitch testimony should be banned altogether.