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.
[0:08] Introducing today’s guests, Ken Wyniemko and Jerry Innes
[2:20] How many jurors were there?
[2:42] Was this your first time on jury duty?
[3:13] During the trial, was there any doubt in your mind that Ken was guilty?
[4:17] Did all twelve jurors agree?
[5:45] The standard to convict is “beyond a reasonable doubt”
[7:06] Was the jury foreman the same through the whole trial?
[7:12] What was your impression of Prosecutor Davis?
[8:53] Did the jury think that Ken had a bad defense lawyer?
[13:39] Having a brother that’s a cop probably makes you trust cops more
[14:32] Was the fact that she could pick Ken out of a lineup important to the jurors?
[15:08] “I didn’t realize how manipulated it was until after I saw the documentary?”
[17:34] There was no DNA evidence
[18:37] Ken explains some of the factors that led to his conviction
[22:12] Circumstantial evidence
[24:21] The victim didn’t say that the rapist had cocaine, the prosecutor extrapolated that
[25:20] An expert witness testified that the semen and hair had type A blood, Ken has type O
[26:55] Jerry met the police officer’s wife after the case
[28:24] Are you still friends with his wife even after the police officer lied?
[29:57] The judge implied that there was more evidence against Ken that they didn’t explore
[32:12] Jerry had a client that went to high school with the actual rapist
[33:42] What convinced you that Jerry was guilty?
[34:56] Did you know that the victim was blindfolded during the crime?
[35:42] Ken explains what happened with the money
[39:21] What did Jerry find out about the person the victim was having an affair with?
[42:29] The house was cleaned the day before the rape, so the DNA couldn’t have been the husband’s
[43:06] The wrong social security number was given to the racetrack that could’ve explained why Ken had money
[46:26] Has Jerry talked to any other jurors?
[46:51] Jerry talks about juror bias
[48:30] Can you guys talk about your friendship?
[50:58] Do you think something was going on between the police officer and prosecutor?
[52:04] this case was the perfect storm
[54:26] Did we ever get the name of who the victim had an affair with?
[57:27] What advice do you have for other jurors, Jerry?
[1:00:18] They want ignorant jurors who will convict
[1:01:40] Were any members of the jury anxious to convict?
[1:04:28] The general public wants to trust police officers, judges, and prosecutors
[1:05:55] Justice has become a game
[1:08:01] Is there a way to make jurors aware of how frequent wrongful convictions are?
[1:10:48] Why didn’t Jerry believe Ken?
[1:12:57] Thank you for joining us today, feel free to send questions for Ken to firstname.lastname@example.org