“My freedom hasn't come yet,” said 51-year-old Darrell Jones.
Despite being out from behind bars for more than a year, Jones does not consider himself free until he is exonerated from a crime he maintains he never committed. “Although I've been happy to be around my family and friends,” explained Jones, whose original conviction was vacated after thirty-two years in prison, “it just hasn't been freedom.”
Now, his physical freedom might once again, be at risk.
Read more: 'What I Fear Is The Idea Of Lack Of Justice': Darrell Jones, After Serving 32 Years, To Be Re-Tried
In 1986, Jones was convicted for the Brockton murder of Guillermo Rodriguez. There was no physical evidence or motive linking him to the shooting, but eye witness testimony — including recorded testimony of a key witness — led to Jones' conviction.
“Darrell and this man didn't know each other, didn't communicate with each other,” explained Jones’ defense attorney Paul Rudof. “He was literally sitting in a bar, eating a sandwich when this all happened.”
Jones’ defense has raised doubts about the fairness of the original trial and the contradictory statements of witnesses and detectives.
Recent reporting by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, uncovered not only evidence of racial animus by at least one member of the all-white jury that convicted Jones, but witness testimony that may have been the result of police pressure. A court also determined that the video recording an investigator described during the trial had been tampered with by Brockton Police. It had been edited so that pieces of the video tape were missing.
After these developments, a judge overturned the 1986 conviction and called for a new trial.
Jones was looking forward to the chance to clear his name — until he learned that the jury would likely hear only the testimony from his original case. Witnesses, advised by their own legal counsel, could invoke the Fifth Amendment and choose not to testify during the retrial.
“The idea of me having a new trial was to get the people to come forward and say whatever they want to say, whatever they had to say,” said Jones. “[The court] basically found a way to exclude those witnesses, once those witnesses came forward and said you made me do it. You told me you're going to take my baby.”
Rudof has filed motion to throw out the case altogether, claiming that it would be “a virtual replay” of 1986. As of now, the retrial is set to begin on Monday.
Jones could face a return to prison, even though he was once offered the chance to serve just six to eight years if he pleaded guilty. According to Rudof, the prosecution has presented multiple plea deals over the years. Jones has refused them all.
“Why would I be taking a manslaughter when I didn't do it. Period,” said Jones.
Supporting his client, Rudof added, “He's maintained his innocence from the day he was arrested.”
Jones explained that part of his reason for moving forward is because he believes the court system in Massachusetts needs to be examined. The attention on his case has given Jones a platform to advocate for others who may have been wrongly convicted.
“And if I didn't do this, what about the other brothers and sisters and women and people that are incarcerated that are sitting in prison now that are innocent too? What about them?” Jones added. “What about all of us?”
