Overview of Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom: Pierre Rushing
This episode examines the alleged wrongful conviction of Oakland rapper Pierre Rushing, who is serving 50 years to life for the 2011 murder of DeJuan Taylor. Jason Flom and attorney Marvin Liu walk through how a single, highly unreliable eyewitness identification, combined with missing or suppressed evidence, appears to have sent the wrong man to prison. The episode also features a call with Pierre from prison, where he describes the case as a tragic collapse of due process and evidence.
Case Summary
What happened
- On April 15, 2011, DeJuan Taylor was killed in Oakland after reportedly stealing an iPod from a drug dealer known as “C.”
- According to the prosecution theory, C and others chased Taylor down, then C shot him.
- Pierre Rushing was not known as C, had no connection to the victim, and says he was at his grandmother’s house with his girlfriend, Lauren Richardson, at the time.
Why Pierre was convicted
- The state’s case largely depended on Robert Greene, a passenger in the car that searched for Taylor.
- Greene gave multiple conflicting descriptions of the shooter before eventually identifying Pierre in a photo lineup.
- Pierre was stopped by police while wearing a red hat, which Greene had mentioned in one of his shifting accounts.
- Despite Pierre’s alibi and lack of physical evidence, he was convicted and sentenced to 50 years to life.
Key Evidence and Problems in the Case
Weak eyewitness identification
- Greene’s account changed repeatedly:
- Different heights
- Different skin tones
- Different clothing descriptions
- He was also reportedly using crack cocaine and had been awake for days, which further undermines credibility.
Missing or excluded evidence
Marvin Liu explains that several pieces of evidence that could have helped Pierre were never properly presented to the jury:
- Cell phone records showed Pierre was not on the phone at the time Greene claimed the shooter was.
- Fingerprint evidence from the car used in the killing did not match Pierre.
- DNA evidence from the car seat and cigarette butt was not tested in time for trial, and later efforts to test it were blocked.
Alibi evidence
- Pierre says he was with his girlfriend Lauren Richardson at his grandmother’s house.
- Lauren corroborated that he spent the night there and left early the next morning.
Post-Conviction Developments
Recantation and new evidence
- After the original episode coverage, Robert Greene recanted his testimony.
- Another participant, Patrick Smith, and a co-defendant, Andre Morris, provided statements supporting Pierre’s innocence.
- Most importantly, Pierre’s legal team later discovered that a witness had named “C” to investigators before trial, but that information was not disclosed to the defense.
New legal support
- Pierre’s case was later taken on pro bono by Greenberg Traurig, with attorney Jordan Grotzinger and investigator Grant Fine continuing to press for relief.
- The episode emphasizes that, with Greene’s recantation and the supporting declarations, there is now effectively no credible evidence left against Pierre.
Main Takeaways
- The conviction appears to rest on a single unreliable eyewitness whose story changed repeatedly.
- Exculpatory evidence may have been withheld or never tested.
- Multiple people connected to the case have since supported Pierre’s claim of innocence.
- Pierre’s team argues he is still serving someone else’s time while the real perpetrator remains identified in the record.
Call to Action
The episode urges listeners to:
- Contact the Alameda County District Attorney’s office
- Ask for Pierre Rushing’s release
- Keep pressure on prosecutors to act on the evidence of innocence
The broader message is clear: this is presented not just as a flawed case, but as an example of how tunnel vision, weak identification evidence, and missed disclosure can destroy a life.