it was a man who lit himself on fire feet away from me and a public park and i say i was shocked, would be an understatement. you must remember. i didn t come to this anchor desk in a traditional way. i was a federal prosecutor who was gone in and out of a courthouse more times and i can remember inside those courtrooms, you get witnesses to recount truly horrific details and stories to a jury who will decide the fate of the accused well, today it was us who bore witness and my instinct told me to tell you what i was seeing my mouth narrated my eyes but my eyes i wish i could unsee it my nose wishes to smell it my heart breaks for that man and his family and my mind what has the same questions you have? who is this man? well, he happened to be someone that we think we saw milling around earlier and throughout the week near the courthouse where we were and tonight, we know a little more police say that he was a conspiracy theorists and while his theories run the gamut, the
He acted as his own attorney and file the motion to vacate the conviction based on inadequate legal representation. finally, in 20 1920 years after his initial arrest, the first district illinois appellate court vacated his conviction and ordered a new trial, and burrell was finally released on bond but it wasn t until just last month that the prosecution finally dismissed the case, preventing borrell from having to stand trial. again, joining me now, is that man frank borrell and his attorney, david owens, of the exoneration project at the university of chicago law school. gentlemen. thank you both for joining me this evening. evening. frank, let me begin with you because i cannot believe your story. and what has happened and i thank you for joining us tonight to share what your personal journey has been. welcome. how are you doing tonight? i m doing pretty good. thanks for having me. well, i m glad that you re here to tell this story and i want you to tell us about your
Imagine? let me go to robert from shy town, chicago. robert, what s your question hi, laura. thanks for taking my call. so i know it s very unusual for there to be two attorneys on the jury why do you think this happened? and which side will benefit more? well, you know, it s interesting because as most people have this assumption that a lawyer should not be or cannot sit on a jury. but more often than you think they really do, the risk of having lawyers, though on the jury if you re the prosecution, is that people might differ to the lawyers in that deliberation room, as opposed to the evidence presented, the statements of the attorneys they don t want that deferens. they don t want somebody else to be the expert when they have presented a full case. on the flip side, there might be deadly for the defense they may want a lawyer on that particular jury who can say, you know, they didn t meet these elements are in my experience, you know, i m a lawyer that might be the cause of all
Initial trial because you had the desire for a jury trial, but you ended up with a bench trial, meaning a judge was the soul decider of your fate what happened? i m going to actually feel the question about what happened at the trial. and so one of the issues is that people, when they come into the legal system, they re given advice by their attorneys about whether to take a bench trial or a jury trial. and because the witnesses in the case were so so obviously bad, a lot of attorneys would say, look, there s these gang members, they are bad. this, judge, i know from my practice, this judge used to be a public defender like the one in this case. and so they re like yeah, a bench trial makes sense. and when you re young and you re teenager in your 20s and you re really reliant upon the things that the attorney said& their advice because they re the ones who opt into the system. what was that like when you learn that would be a judge and
Stealth might be a little closer to reality in most cases the unpredicted juror is the juror. we worry about. but in this case we can all agree probably one of the following that just his name divides most groups, divides the country 50% feel one way, 50% feel another. and i think because of that unique circuit substance, you have more of the potential for an agenda. juror, then you do in most cases. but unpredictable or stealth, that s the scary juror i agree with you. well, that s maybe the phrase the agenda. and of course the process intended to weed out those who could not set aside whatever presumed agenda they may or may not have to follow the facts in this case. it s really important. i ll tell you one clear dividing line though, bill, if you look at the questions and answers for the jurors, who were the original 12th, who will deliberate versus the questions and answers for the set of alternates if i m trump s team, i bet i wanted