>> IT'S BEEN 5 YEARS SINCE A JUDGE VACATED THE MURDER
CONVICTION OF MARK SHAND WHO SPENT 27 YEARS BEHIND BARS FOR A
MURDER HE DIDN'T COMMIT.
NEW ENGLAND PUBLIC RADIO SENIOR REPORT KAREN BROWN HAS REPORTED
ON SHAND'S CASE FOR YEARS.
SHE SPOKE WITH ME IN THE STUDIO ABOUT THE INJUSTICES HE ENDURED
EVEN AFTER HIS RELEASE AND HOW A RETAIL EMPIRE HE BRAINSTORMED
YEARS BEFORE HIS ARREST IS TAKING SHAPE TODAY.
>> WELL, I FOUND OUT FROM A PRESS RELEASE PROBABLY ABOUT 3
OR 4 YEARS AGO WHEN HE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST SPRINGFIELD,
HARTFORD AND SOME POLICE DEPARTMENTS OVER HIS WRONGFUL
CONVICTION, AND AT THAT POINT I THOUGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO FIND
OUT WHAT HIS LIFE IS LIKE GETTING OUT OF PRISON AFTER 27
YEARS.
>> YES. >> AND SO I MET WITH HIM AND I
LEARNED JUST A LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT LIFE IS LIKE AFTER YOU'RE
RELEASED AS SOMEONE WHO IS WRONGFULLY CONVICTED.
>> RIGHT, AND SO SOME OF THE FINDINGS THAT YOU FOUND -- OR HE
FOUND AND THEN YOU REPORTED OUT, THERE'S A SYSTEM IN PLACED IF
YOU'RE IMPRISONED AND YOU SERVE YOUR TIME AND YOU'RE RELEASED
THERE'S SOME HELP FOR YOU; RIGHT?
>> RIGHT, THERE'S A LOT OF REENTRY SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WHO
HAVE -- WHO WERE FOUND GUILTY AND SERVED THEIR ENTIRE SENTENCE
BUT IF YOU'RE RELEASED BECAUSE THEY DETERMINED YOU WEREN'T
SUPPOSED TO BE IN PRISON, YOU WERE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND
INCARCERATED THEY KIND OF JUST PUSH YOU OUT OF THE SYSTEM AND
THEY BASICALLY SAY YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN OR AT LEAST THEY DID AT
THAT POINT WHEN HE GOT OUT. >> AND SO WHAT WAS HIS REACTION
TO FINDING THAT OUT.
HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE HIS LIFE IN CONNECTICUT AT THAT POINT.
HE HAD MOVED OUT OF SPRINGFIELD; RIGHT?
>> HE WAS SHOCKED JUST LIKE I WAS SURPRISED.
I WAS LIKE NO HOUSING ASSISTANCE, NO JOB TRAINING, NO
NOTHING, YOU KNOW?
I HAVEN'T -- YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE
IMPRISONED, HE STILL HAD 30 YEARS OF NOT BEING IN SOCIETY
AND THERE'S A LOT YOU NEED TO LEARN, AND IT'S HARD TO GET A
JOB.
EVEN IF YOU EXPLAIN, WELL, I SUPPOSED TO BE IN PRISON, NOT A
LOT OF EMPLOYERS WANT TO HIRE YOU IF YOU'VE BEEN IN PRISON FOR
WHATEVER REASON FOR 30 YEARS.
>> YOU HAVE THAT GIANT MARK ON YOUR --
>> YEAH.
>> THE STIGMA THAT COMES WITH IT.
>> HE ENDED UP TELLING PEOPLE, GOOGLE MY NAME AND YOU'LL SEE
WHAT HAPPENED AND SOMEONE DID THAT AND HE WAS ABLE TO GET JOBS
THEY WERE HARD JOBS THEY WERE MANUAL LABEL, UPS, ASSEMBLY LINE
FOR A GUN MANUFACTURER AND, YOU KNOW, HE WAS TRYING TO GET SOME
KIND OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BUT IN THE MEANTIME HE HAD TO WORK.
>> AND IT WAS ALSO A VERY DIFFERENT LIFE THAN HE HAD
PLANNED FOR HIMSELF; RIGHT?
HE WANTED TO BE AN ENTREPRENEUR WHEN HE WAS YOUNG.
HE EVEN SIGNED A LEASE YOU REPORTED?
>> YEAH, HE WAS ON THE WAY TO BECOME THE OWNER OF A CLOTHING
STORE WHEN HE WAS ABOUT 19 WHEN HE GOT ARRESTED FOR THIS
NIGHTCLUB SHOOTING THAT HE'S CLAIMING HE WAS NOWHERE NEAR.
SO HE FEELS LIKE GETTING BACK INTO BUSINESS TODAY SORT OF
STARTING OFF WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 30 YEARS AGO.
>> INTO THE DETAILS OF THAT CONVICTION -- SO HE WAS
INCARCERATED FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS FOR A MURDER OF A WOMAN HERE IN
SPRINGFIELD A STRAY BULLET KILLED A WOMAN OUTSIDE OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
HOW DID HE CONVINCE THE SYSTEM -- HE REMAINED WITNESSES
WERE COERCED.
I WASN'T EVEN IN SPRINGFIELD AT THE TIME THE SHOOTING TOOK
PLACE.
YOU KNOW, WHAT DID HE HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO PROVE TO THE STATE?
>> YEAH, HE HAD SEVERAL LAWYERS WORKING VERY HARD ON HIS
DEFENSE.
AND HIS CASE WAS NOT DNA-RELATED SO THERE WEREN'T AS MANY SORT OF
INNOCENCE PROJECT GROUPS THAT WERE WILLING TO TAKE HIS CASE ON
BUT THERE WAS A GROUP CALLED CENTURION MINISTRIES THAT WORKED
WITH HIM AND THEY DID A LOT OF RESEARCH AND THEY LOOKED UP SOME
OF THE WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM AND THEY
DETERMINED -- OR THEY WERE ABLE TO CONVINCE A JUDGE THAT THE
WITNESSES WERE NOT TRUTHFUL.
THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF PRESSURE AND PERSUASION AND THAT WAS THE
REASON THAT BASICALLY HE WAS RELEASED.
>> AND SO NOW HAVING BEEN RELEASED AND AS HE'S NAVIGATED
THE SYSTEM HE FOUND THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR SOME COMPENSATION
BUT EVEN THERE, THERE'S MORE SORT OF RED TABLE AND LEGALESE
THAT HE HAD TO GO THROUGH.
I UNDERSTAND THROUGH YOUR REPORTING, HE EVENTUALLY GOT A
SETTLEMENT BUT TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS HE HAD TO GO THROUGH.
>> RIGHT, WELL, HE INITIALLY THOUGHT WELL, ONCE THE STATE
RELEASES ME, THEY'LL WANT TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT AND THERE
IS -- THERE WAS A STATUTE BACK THEN THAT SAID YOU CAN GET UP TO
HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IF YOU WERE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED TO
HELP YOU GET BACK ON YOUR FEET.
WHAT HE DIDN'T REALIZE YOU HAD TO FIGHT FOR THAT HALF A MILLION
DOLLARS.
YOU HAD TO PROVE -- EVEN THOUGH A JUDGE LET YOU OUT, YOU STILL
HAD TO PROVE THAT YOU WERE INNOCENT BECAUSE THE LAW IS SUCH
THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY OUT IF IT TURNS OUT YOU WERE
RELEASED ON A TECHNICALITY SO YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO GO TO
COURT AGAIN.
IT TOOK HIM ABOUT 3 YEARS AND HE STILL HAD TO SETTLE LESS THAN
FOR THE MAXIMUM AND HE STILL HAD TO GIVE MONEY TO HIS ATTORNEY SO
HE ENDED UP WITH ABOUT $300,000 AFTER ABOUT 3 YEARS.
BUT HE TOOK THAT MONEY AND HE BOUGHT A RENTAL PROPERTY WITH IT
TO GET SOME INCOME AND HE USED IT TO START A CHAIN OF SMOOTHIE
STORES.
>> SO THAT'S THE SORT OF BUSINESS TRACK THAT HE'S COME
BACK TO NOW, WHICH HE'S DOING IN CONNECTICUT WHEN YOU VISITED HIM
FOR HIS STORY.
>> RIGHT, RIGHT.
>> HE HAS HIS FAMILY INVOLVED, RIGHT AND THEN HE HAS SOME MORE
PLANS TO MAYBE BRING IN OTHERS TO HELP WITH THE BUSINESS AS HE
MOVES FORWARD?
>> RIGHT, WELL, HE HAS A VERY SUPPORTIVE FAMILY AND HIS SON
WHO WAS IN UTERO WHEN HE WAS IN PRISON IS NOW IN HIS EARLY 30S
AND MOST HELPING HIM PASS OUT FLIERS TO PROMOTE THE BUSINESS
AND HIS GRANDCHILDREN ARE PASSING OUT, YOU KNOW, FREE
ICE CREAM SAMPLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
HE SAID HE WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO HIRE INMATES, EX-INMATES,
THOSE WHO WERE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND THOSE WHO WERE
PROPERLY CONVICTED, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE GUILTY NEED HELP, AND
SO HE WOULD LIKE TO EVENTUALLY INCLUDE THOSE IN HIS BUSINESS.
BUT THIS WAS I THOUGHT KIND OF A FUNNY PART.
THEY'RE JUST NOT YET GOOD ENOUGH AT MAKING SMOOTHIES AND HE WOULD
LOVE TO PROTECT HIS BUSINESS.
>> HE SAID SOMETHING IN YOUR STORY -- SMOOTHIE FOLKS ARE
PRETTY PICKY IS WHAT HE'S FINDING.
>> YEAH >> IT'S VERY, VERY NEUROSCIENCE
THERE.
FOR HIS PART HE HAS A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE CITY.
>> RIGHT, THAT'S A SUIT THAT'S ONGOING AND VERY, VERY
SLOW-MOVING, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT, YOU
KNOW -- THOSE CASES ARE VERY HARD TO PROVE.
THERE'S, YOU KNOW -- THE EVENTS HAPPENED 30 YEARS AGO.
IT'S HARD TO LOOK UP EVERYBODY THAT WAS INVOLVED SO THAT'S A
VERY SLOW-MOVING PROCESS SO THE STATE STATUTE IS SUPPOSED TO BE
MUCH QUICKER AND SO FOR HIM IT STILL TOOK 3 YEARS.
NOW THE STATUTE HAS CHANGED.
>> UNDER THE NEW CRIMINAL JUSTICE LAW; RIGHT?
>> RIGHT, AS PART OF THE OVERHAUL THAT HAPPENED LAST
YEAR, THEY CHANGED THE COMPENSATION LAW FOR THOSE
WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND NOW THE CAP IS A MILLION DOLLARS, NOT
HALF A MILLION DOLLARS AND IT INCLUDES ATTORNEY'S FEES AND IT
ALLOWS FOR MORE REENTRY SERVICES LIKE JOB TRAINING AND HOUSING
ASSISTANCE, SO IT SHOULD BE BETTER NOW FOR PEOPLE IN THE
FUTURE WHO ARE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED.
>> AND IS THAT SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF MR.
SHAND'S CASE OR IS IT A CONVICTION OF CASES?
DO WE KNOW?
>> WELL, IT'S PROBABLY A COMBINATION BUT MARK SHAND'S
COMBINATION DEFINITELY HAD AN IMPACT ON SOME OF THE
LEGISLATORS TO WHO PUSHED TO CHANGE THE LAW.
ONE OF THEM TOLD ME SPECIFICALLY THAT SHE FELT TERRIBLE FOR WHAT
MARK SHAND HAD TO GO THROUGH AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE ALSO
WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED, RELEASED AND THEN HAD TO TAKE UP
A COLLECTION JUST TO BUY A WINTER COAT.
>> FOR HIS PART, WHAT DOES HE SAY ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT HE'S
GONE THROUGH, BEING WRONGFULLY CONVICTED, BEING RELEASED,
NEEDING TO FIGHT FOR EVERY PENNY?
IS HE ANGRY?
WHAT DOES HE SAY ABOUT THE STATE OF AFFAIRS?
>> HE SAYS HE'S -- DOESN'T WANT TO SPEND TIME BEING ANGRY.
HE SAYS HE'S NOT BITTER.
HE'S CERTAINLY MOVING FORWARD.
HE JUST WANTS TO GET HIS BUSINESSES TAKEN CARE OF.
HE WANTS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
HE WANTS TO KIND OF CARRY ON FROM WHERE HE WAS.
I THINK HE'S REALLY NOT HAPPY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM.
I THINK HE'S TRYING TO NOT TO BE BITTER BUT HE'S VERY CLEAR THAT
WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM WAS NOT RIGHT.
HE'S NOT OKAY WITH IT BUT HE JUST DOESN'T WANT -- FOR HIS OWN
SAKE TO DWELL ON THAT.
>> DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO TALK WITH HIM ABOUT THE CHANGES TO
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE LAW AND IF HE THINKS THE MILLION DOLLAR CAP
IS EVEN SUFFICIENT?
>> I DIDN'T TALK SO MUCH WITH HIM ABOUT HOW THINGS WILL BE
DIFFERENT FOR HIM IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK HE'S GLAD THAT PEOPLE MADE SOME CHANGES.
I DID TALK TO HIS LAWYER WHO SAID IT'S DEFINITELY GOING IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I ALSO TALKED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO LAWYER, YOU KNOW,
BLAMED HER OFFICE FOR DRAGGING THEIR FEET FOR MAKING IT SO
DIFFICULT.
HER POINT IS THAT THAT'S THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN.
IT'S ADVERSARIAL.
THAT YOU HAVE TO FIGHT TO GET THE MONEY AND SHE WOULD BE FINE
IF THEY CHANGED THE LAW SO THAT IT WAS MORE OF A CLAIMS PROCESS.
YOU'RE RELEASED FROM PRISON.
YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE IN PRISON, YOU GET COMPENSATION BUT
AT THE MOMENT THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN.
EVEN THE NEW VERSION. ♪