♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Stephen B.

Bright is a Harvey L. Karp Visiting Lecturer in Law.

At Yale Law School.

Bright has tried four capital cases before the United States.

Supreme Court and served as president.

And senior counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights In Atlanta.

Along with James Kwak.

Bright is co-author of The Fear of Too Much Justice: Race, Poverty, and the Persistence of Inequality.

In the Criminal Courts.

Stephen Bright is joined in conversation by James Forman Jr.

The J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale Law School.

Forman is a Trustee of the Council on Criminal Justice.

And was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for his first book.

Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America.

Recorded at the University of Louisville Kentucky.

Author Forum, this is Great Conversations: Stephen B.

Bright And James Forman Jr.

It is such an honor for me.

To be having this conversation with you.

I don't know if you will remember this.

I'm pretty sure you won't But when I graduated law school in 1992.

I moved back to Atlanta and I spent the summer.

at a place called the Southern Prisoners Defense Committee.

And you were the executive director.

And I was a summer intern.

You know, along with a bunch of other summer interns.

And when you went and worked at an office for the summer.

The one thing you were pretty sure you didn't expect.

Was the person who ran the office would come.

And sit down with all of the interns.

On the first or second or third day and have lunch.

And talk to them about their work.

And talk to them about their background.

So, I was plenty astonished when at the end of our first week.

You just strolled in.

You had your sandwich in your hand.

And we were all sitting in the room working.

On our cases and you said, "Hey, what's going on?"

And we looked up, like, this is Steve right here.

He's just asking us, like, "Hey, what's going on?"

And to me, the way in which you treated us.

Just like the decency and the humility.

The way that you would always, you remembered our names.

And you would hug us, and you would reach out to us.

And you would tell us to keep fighting.

When we wanted to give up the fight.

It was so important to me then.

And it really kind of in a lot of ways set my career.

And also establish for me a way that I hope.

That I would always treat people myself.

So, we're going to get into your book I promise.

And I know you don't like too many compliments.

But I just want to say thank you Well, I remember it well.

I remember when you were there.

Of course, I remember it.

Then you went and became a public defender.

And then you became a professor at Yale.

And of course, we were so dependent upon our students.

As you well know.

And you were a critical part of what made it possible.

For us to provide representation in death penalty cases.

And prison and jail conditions cases.

Well, thank you.

And thank you for writing this book.

So, I thought the way i would get into it.

Would be to start with the title The Fear of Too Much Justice.

What does that title mean for you?

Why did you choose that as the title for this book?

Well, I'm sure you remember as we all do.

The case of McCleskey v. Kemp.Warren McCleskey.

Who was a Black man sentenced to death in Georgia.

And there had been a study done and of course.

Those of us who were in the field practicing in Georgia.

We knew this.

But this study, the most sophisticated study.

Of sentencing that's ever been done.

Showed what we saw which was, in a case.

If the victim in the case was White.

There's a much greater likelihood.

That death is going to be imposed.

If the defendant is Black, there's an increased likelihood.

And if you have that combination of a White victim.

And a Black defendant.

Which is what Warren McCleskey's case involved.

There's even greater chance.

That you're going to get the death penalty.

And the argument in the case.

Was that you couldn't have the death penalty.

If there was that kind of discrimination.

And I remember when the case was argued at the Supreme Court.

We actually thought there was a chance that maybe the Court.

Would do what it did in 1972.

In a case out of Georgia as well —Furman v. Georgia— And say you can't carry on the death penalty.

With those kinds of racial disparities.

But as it turned out, the Court rejected the claim 5-4 Very close.

And Justice Powell writing for the majority said, "Well, you know, if we deal with racial disparities.

With the death penalty.

We'd have to deal with racial disparities.

And all other kinds of of sentencing.

And Justice Brennan in his dissent said.

"That sounds like the fear of too much justice."

And I think it was, and I think it explains a lot of other thing That we talk about in this book.

Yeah.

You know, that opinion was so devastating to me.

I read it.

I remember where I was, when I read it.

It had been out, you know, it had been out for a few years.

But I was in law school.

And I remember sitting in the law library.

And I was very interested in race and racial justice.

But I hadn't really thought about the criminal system.

As a place to think about doing that work and I hadn't really.

Thought about the death penalty at all.

And I was talking to an older law student.

And I was just telling them about my interests.

And Thurgood Marshall and how inspirational.

He was to so many of us.

And the student said you need to read McCleskey.

And I went and I read it, and I can remember the carol.

I can remember the day, I can remember the sun was setting.

And I was reading this opinion and I thought.

Wow, this is a case where they really proved that race.

Made the difference in the outcome, right?

They proved it empirically.

Right.

And instead of saying which is what they normally said.

"No, you didn't prove it."

"No, we're not persuaded.

"Right?

The court said what just said, right?

They said, "If we accept the implications of this proof.

Then that would upend our entire system.

"And I just, you know, I wept because to me exactly the point.

That you're making, right?

Yes, that is the implication there.

They're right about that.

So then let's challenge.

let's talk about the whole system.

Right.

And, you know, it wasn't the first time.

I mean, in 1972 when the death penalty was declared.

Unconstitutional in a case out of Georgia.

And several of the Justices in the majority.

—Justice Douglas and Thurgood Marshall— Had talked about racial disparities.

As one of the reasons to strike down the death penalty.

Justice Powell said in his dissent, "Well, we can't deal with the racial disparities.

In the death penalty because there are racial disparities.

In every kind of criminal sentencing.

It was exactly the same thing.

And there was another case involving.

Whether a Black defendant could inquire of prospective jurors.

About whether they had any racial bias.

Whether they were racist or not, basically.

And Justice Powel wrote in that case.

"Oh, no, we can't allow questioning about race.

Because if we allowed it.

Then we'd have to allow questioning about other things.

The interesting thing on that point was that in 1931. a case out of Washington —Eldridge v. United States— That same question was presented And Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, "Well, of course, we're going to question to see whether a juror.

Has racial bias.

We can't take a risk that we're going to have a trial with juror A Black man being tried with jurors.

Who may be racially biased.

"So, we've fallen behind since then.

So, what happened?

How did?

I mean.

I wouldn't normally think of as 1931.

Is like a high watermark for like racial enlightenment, Right?

But you're saying that in 1931 the court saw something.

Right.

That it refused to see or refused to acknowledge.

Or refused to accept the implications of 50 years later.

1976.

Yes.

So, what explains the backsliding?

Well, I think President Nixon's four appointments.

To the Supreme Court explains a lot and I think, you know, The Court just wasn't really as sensitive to race.

With regard to other issues.

With regard to jury selection as well.

So, you lead off and you take the title from McCleskey.

Which is a death penalty case.

But you're talking in this book about.

You know, much more than the death penalty.

And when you think about how it is that we got to a system.

That is so unfair, that is so unjust.

That has so many racial disparities.

That has so many innocent people locked up.

And you try to break that apart, right?

And ask, "Well, how does that happen?"

Like, how do those results get produced?

What are the mechanisms, right, in the system that do that?

And one of the first ones, your first chapter.

Is about prosecutors, right?

And I think that it's not a coincidence that you really want To focus on prosecutors because of prosecutor's power, right?

Because of the impact that they have.

It seems to me you want to make an argument that if we are going To make this system less harsh, less punitive, less racist.

Less unjust, we're going to have to start with changing.

How prosecutors behave.

The decisions they make.

Talk a little bit about the role that you've seen prosecutors.

Playing in producing the unfairness.

That this book documents.

Well, I think one thing that very few people understand.

Is the tremendous amount of discretion that prosecutors have And if you look at the death penalty.

Particularly back in the '80s and '90s.

Which is a real heyday of the death penalty.

300 people being sentenced to death every year.

And if you look for the death penalty, two things.

—a very aggressive prosecutor.

And totally incompetent defense lawyers.

And go to Houston, Texas, where Johnny Holmes.

The district attorney, every opportunity.

Sought the death penalty.

And the judges there accommodated him.

By appointing completely incompetent lawyers.

In those cases and Houston.

Harris County was producing.

10 or 11 death sentences every year.

That's more than a lot of states were producing.

If we look back from now, people sentenced to death.

In Harris County 130+ people sentenced to death.

In Harris County, Have been executed.

That's more than any state in the union except Texas itself.

And the state in second place Oklahoma is only 118.

So here you have one county responsible.

For all of these death sentences And it was because of a very hard charging prosecutor.

And unfortunately a very inept defense for the people accused.

And one of the things that you write about that.

I found so powerful is you talk about.

How many of the people who have been sentenced to death.

Have now been proven to be innocent.

And the reason why that seems like such a big deal to me.

Is that people in the system often say.

"Well, we're going to have the maximum protections.

Before we're going to put somebody on death row.

Right?

Before you end up on death row, you've gotten.

All the fairness that our system has to offer.

And yet, and still, you say.

Is the number 180?

There's a number that's over 100.

Oh, it's 185.

Yeah.

So, talk about how that happens, you're on death row.

And you're innocent.

Right.

Right.

Well, we start off with a case of Glenn Ford.

Who was a man released after 30 years on Louisiana's death row.

And the prosecutor wrote a letter.

To the Shreveport, Louisiana.

Where the new Speaker of the House is from.

And the prosecutor wrote a letter.

To the editor of the paper.

Apologizing not only to Glenn Ford.

But apologizing to the community and saying.

"At the time that I prosecuted that case, I was young.

I was aggressive, I was egotistical, narcissistic.

And all I wanted to do was win.

"And I didn't really think it it was that bad that Ford.

Was represented by two lawyers.

That had never tried a case before.

One was an oil and gas lawyer, and the other was a slip.

And fall lawyer.

And he said, "And I really didn't think about the fact.

That I struck all the Blacks during jury selection.

"So, this Black man was tried by an all-White jury.

And I really didn't face the fact.

That we didn't have a strong enough case to really.

You know, that there were things we should have disclosed.

And so forth.

And so, this man spends 30 years on death row.

I mean, it's really troubling when we're not getting the most.

Fundamental thing right.

Separating the innocent from the guilty.

I mean, you got to do that in the criminal courts.

There are a lot of other things you got to do.

But one thing you really have to do.

And particularly in death penalty cases.

Is make sure that people that are convicted.

And sentenced are actually guilty of the crime.

Do you believe the prosecutor's explanation?

Do you believe what he said 30 years later?

Like, do you believe that he didn't see it at the time.

Or do you think that he saw it and didn't care?

Well, I can't speak for him.

All I can say is I think that 30 years later.

When he reflected on what happened.

He was an older person and he was more reflective.

And I think he, like a lot of of people later in life.

You know, saw himself and wasn't happy with what he saw.

Yeah.

The other thing about that case.

And the example that you're giving of these prosecutors.

Who end up putting innocent people on death row.

Or even if they don't end up on death row.

Right, in prison generally, that I think is so important.

For us to talk about.

And I'm wondering your perspective on it.

You know, I think those of us,you and I.

You know, we're both public defenders.

And when we think about these cases of a innocent person.

Who has been convicted and put in prison and put on death row We tend to think about the person and their family.

Maybe their kids, right, that harm and that sorrow.

But what we tend not not to talk about it.

I think, and I think we have to start talking about it more.

What we don't talk about is the harm to the community.

harm to the community of that de Of that decision.

And I mean, in a direct way that prosecutors.

Are supposed to care about.

Which is to say if there's been a murder.

And you got the wrong person.

And you motivated all those resources.

And you got them locked up and you got them convicted.

And now, you're in there defending.

That erroneous sentence.

You know what is not happening?

Nobody's going after the person who actually did the murder.

And that person is still out there.

And the reason I think that matters is I feel like.

We've made a mistake of giving up the language.

Of tough on crime, like these prosecutors.

—who do this stuff— They call themselves tough on crime.

But how are you tough on crime.

If you're getting the wrong person?

To me, you're causing crime, you're indifferent to crime.

Because that criminal is still out there.

And I feel like we have to kind of claim a little bit more.

Of that language.

And I think you have examples of that.

We do.

Talk about that.

Sure.

I mean, Michael Morton who was convicted in Texas.

Of killing his wife.

Unfortunately, there was DNA evidence.

That would have exonerated him.

He spent 20-some odd years in prison.

And then finally, the DNA evidence.

Not only exonerated him, he did not commit the crime.

But it identified the person who did and tragically that person.

Had committed another murder after murdering Ms. Morton.

So that's your point right there That when you convict the wrong person.

The perpetrator remains at large and so it's very important.

But there's a tendency I think to sort of cling.

To whatever's there And think we got this conviction 12 jurors found guilty on a reasonable doubt.

And, you know, we've got to support it all the way.

And not sort of back up and look at it a little more objectively.

Yeah.

You said earlier that if you look at each one.

Of these cases that in general.

You're going to find a prosecutor.

like I'm not going to use the term tough on crime.

Like I said, because I don't think they deserve it.

But you're going to look at a prosecutor.

Who has that punitive orientation.

That lock-'em-up orientation and you'll find somebody like that.

And you said, you also will find a defense attorney.

That wasn't up to the task.

That you know had insufficient resources.

Or insufficient experience.

Yeah.

Very often.

I'd like you to talk a little bit more.

About the defense attorney side of this story because again.

You and I both started our our careers different times.

But we both started our careers at the Public Defender Service.

In Washington DC.

Which is one of the premier public defender offices.

In the country.

We never thought we had enough resources, right?

But we had a lot compared to other places in the country.

And you have now trained, you know, 40 years.

You've trained generations.

People you trained to become public defenders.

Who are now judges, right?

That's how much of an impact that you've had.

But at the same time.

It feels to me like this book.

Is less about those public defenders.

That is to say it's less about the public defenders.

That you would hold up as having enough resources.

And doing a good job.

And it's more pointing out that.

Those are the exception that in general.

sdsdsthat in generalthat in gene Because of how we've funded public defenders in this country In general, the story is overworked, underpaid.

Caseload's too high.

"Meet 'Em and Plead 'Em" Is a phrase that you use a few times.

So, talk about that.

Talk about the defender side of the story.

And how you see that fitting into the picture.

Well, I think the very sad thing is, of course.

There are a lot of places where there are no public defenders.

Where they just appoint a local lawyer.

I mean, one of the things —back to Harris County— I don't mean to pick on Harris County.

But it's a good example.

In Harris County, you run for judge.

And the lawyers contribute a lot of money.

To the judge's campaigns.

And then the people that get elected judge.

Appoint those lawyers to handle cases.

And pay them a lot of money.

It's the only place I know.

Where you get paid a lot of money to do a bad job.

I mean, some of those lawyers are terrible.

Three cases that people sentence to death in Houston.

Where the defense lawyer fell sleep during the trial.

Now you're really scraping bottom.

When you have a death penalty case.

Calvin Burdine's case only took two days and his lawyer slept.

During the penalty phase of the trial, you know.

I take it that wasn't a strategy No, that wasn't a strategy.

I'm sorry to say that I don't think there was a strategy.

In that particular case.

But, you know, I represented a woman in Alabama, Judy Haney.

And Judy was represented by a lawyer who at some time.

During the trial fell over on the floor in the courtroom.

And couldn't get up because he was intoxicated.

And the judge had the sheriffs come.

And pick him up and take him to jail.

Held him in contempt, left him there overnight.

And the next morning, the lawyer And Judy both come back from the jail.

And they resumed the trial.

And go on as if nothing ever happened.

Now, those are really extreme examples.

But what you see a lot is just in places.

Alabama, Texas, the places that are really sentencing.

A lot of people to death.

Lawyers who are appointed, who don't specialize in criminal law Don't really know anything about death penalty law Don't understand what kind of investigation has to be done.

And so, their clients end up being sentenced to death.

Not because they committed the worst crime.

But because they ended up getting the worst lawyer.

The subtitle of your book is Race, Poverty.

And the Persistence of Inequality.

In the Criminal Courts.

And I want to ask you about that word.

"persistence" because it feels to me.

Like I don't want to assign motivations to you.

And you fortunately can tell me if I have this wrong.

But it feels to me like part of why you've written this book now .

why you've written this book now Is about this question of persistence of inequality.

Which is to say, you wrote an article in the early 1990s.

About the sorry state of public defenders in this country.

Right?

They're court-appointed lawyers.

Of court appointed lawyers.

They're not public defenders.

Right.

They're court-appointed lawyers.

Of court-appointed lawyers.

And it got a lot of attention.

I think it was one of the most cited articles.

That the Yale Law Journal published and that was.

You know, 25-30 years ago.

And a lot has changed in those decades.

In some ways, there's a greater understanding.

Of some of the issues in this book.

Maybe than there were 30 years ago.

But I feel like one of the things you're trying to tell us.

Is that some of this unfairness persists.

Right.

And we shouldn't assume that just because.

There's a movie about Bryan Stevenson.

Where he's played by Michael B. Jordan, right?

Just because The New Jim Crow is assigned.

On most college campuses, just because Ta-Nehisi Coates's Work on policing is so well known.

Please do not assume, you seem to be saying.

That the day-to-day reality in criminal courts.

Around the countries and all these nooks.

And crannies and counties has changed.

The unfairness, you seem to be saying, is persistent.

Do I have that right?

Well, I think two things.

And I think your first point is that, you know.

I think with regard to representation of poor people.

Accused of crimes.

I think there, there's a real fear of too much justice.

I think there's a lot of fear that if we really gave people.

Good lawyers, well-resourced with investigators.

And paralegals and social workers and all that.

Well, there'd be more trials, there'd be more acquittals.

Of course, more acquittals might be a good thing.

If we're convicting a lot of innocent people.

But there really is to some extent a fear of that.

One of the things we try to point out is.

That with a lot of these areas including that.

We know what needs to be done.

We can look at New Jersey.

And we can see very good public defender offices.

We can look at Washington DC.

Where you and I were public defenders.

We can look at Colorado and we can see it can be done.

And there are places that have done it.

But the sad thing is how many places aren't willing to do it.

And many places aren't willing to even take step one.

To even create a defender system.

So, you've got Alabama and you've got lots of places.

In Texas and you know, in Louisiana.

Goodness gracious, I mean, in Louisiana.

They're appointing lawyers who are, you know.

Real estate lawyers.

And divorce lawyers.

And people like that to handle criminal cases.

And not paying them anything.

And that passes for "representation" in those courts And that's still going on.

We know better.

But the courts are unwilling to order it.

And the legislatures are unwilling to fund it.

I'm sorry to say.

How much of that do "we" have to take responsibility for?

And by "we" I mean, how much of that is a "We the People" story.

Like how much of what you just said.

Do "we" have to own in the sense of "we" as citizens, as voters?

Are "we" responsible for the fact that legislators.

Won't fund this?

Well, I don't think people see that as the situation.

You know, Robert Kennedy said when he was the attorney general "The poor person accused of a crime has no lobby."

And I think that's true.

I think, you know, the Supreme Court.

Said that every person facing a loss of liberty.

Is entitled to a lawyer.

But they didn't say how you're going to pay for it.

And you know, a lot of this is done at the county level.

So, is the county commission in Pennsylvania.

Going to fund a public defender office?

I mean it's just probably a no.

They'd rather blacktop a road or do something like that.

Is a county commission in Bay Minette, Alabama.

Are they going to, you know.

Provide adequate compensation for lawyers?

There are other things they're going to pay for.

And the same thing is true of the state legislatures.

But I think there does need to be more realization.

I always say to everybody who becomes a lawyer.

That at least the legal profession is responsible.

For the integrity of process.

And we can't spend all our time rearranging.

The assets of the upper 1%.

I mean, we have to worry about what's happening to poor people.

Accused of crimes.

And whether or not we are sorting out.

The innocent from the guilty.

And whether when people are sentenced.

Are they getting reasonable, fair proportional sentences.

Or are they getting excessive sentences?

And are decisions being made by all-White juries.

Even in communities that have very substantial.

African American populations?

All those things are still going on.

Let's talk about change for one second, moving from persistence.

And I want to talk about the death penalty.

Because part of your book is about that.

And I think that as we think about, you know.

The struggles ahead of us, it's also worthwhile.

Taking account of successes, at least partial successes.

Yes.

Now, in the '90s, not long after I met you in the offices.

Of the Southern Prisoners Defense Committee.

We were executing, we were sentencing hundreds and hundreds Of people to death every year.

I think that, if I have the number right in 1996.

Was the record high of 315 people.

Sentenced to death that year.

Right.

Now, you're part of a group of people.

Not sure how big you would say the group is.

But I mean, I know you're a modest person.

But I'm going to say that we —who are not Steve Bright— Will all unanimously say you're a leader amongst.

A group of people that fought principally first.

And foremost against that, against the death penalty.

And you did it in lots of different ways.

Last year—and you'll correct me if I have this wrong.

But I think last year 20 people were sentenced to death.

In this country.

So, from 315 to 20.

Right.

Now, I know you're not going to, you know.

let there be balloons and celebration.

But I think that a lot of people would say.

That is almost unimaginable.

I think that if we'd had this conversation here and in fact.

You had a conversation with Sister Helen at this book forum.

In the '90s.

And I bet if somebody had said in the audience and said.

So, listen.

My prediction is in 2023.

20 people will be sentenced to death.

I think y'all would both looked at that person and said Well, you know, we're prayerful people, but you know.

I don't see that happening.

So, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about.

What lessons you think we could draw from that success.

you know?

What can we draw from that to then apply.

To the rest of this system.

That is still so brutal and so racist.

And so harsh in so many dimensions?

Well, and it's remarkable—the change.

When I started doing this work in 1979.

38 states had the death penalty.

Today, 27.

And of those 27, two don't have anybody on death row.

And many of the others haven't sentenced anybody to death.

In 10 years.

So, way down.

And as you say, the numbers have gone down.

From when we were about 290-315.

That one year, and down in the last several years.

Less than 40 a year, people sentenced to death.

I think part of that was that a number of people.

Just took on the death penalty.

People at law firms took on the death penalty.

People like friends of mine, George Kendall and other people.

People that came down to our shop, Bryan Stevenson.

But suddenly these systems that had relied upon.

Inadequate Representation.

Suddenly there were a lot of lawyers.

There were actually very good lawyers saying we're going.

To represent the person whether you like it or not.

I mean, I remember after Tony Amadeo's case got reversed.

In the Supreme Court, one of my clients.

And we came back to trial, and the judge appointed.

These two ne'er-do-well lawyers to represent him.

I said.

"Wait a minute.

Wait a minute.

We just represented this fellow in the Supreme Court.

Of the United States.

And we won a new trial.

And Tony was a smart young man and he said.

Judge, I don't have anything against these guys.

But you know, Mr.

Bright, Mr. Warner, they're the people that You know, got me back here.

But we had to appeal that to the Georgia Supreme Court.

The judge did not want to let you be appointed?

Right.

He did not.

And he was going to have.

In fact, one of the lawyers told me that the judge had told him.

He said "We're going to appoint.

You the 1st or the end of December.

And we're going to have the trial.

The end of January.

They were going to have him back on death row in 30 days.

But we completely disrupted that And that started happening.

We were representing people.

I remember the case we had in Mississippi.

Where we got the case reversed, go back to the trial court.

I think the judge thought he was really going to show us.

By appointing us to represent the person.

And then he found out that actually Palmer Singleton.

And I've tried a few cases and have a pretty good idea.

How to try a death penalty case and we ended up getting out.

Of there alive in that case.

So, you know, I think there was people.

I mean, one of the most interesting thing.

Was in Virginia.

In Virginia for years, people had terrible lawyers.

And they executed 113 people.

And you know, there are only two states over or three states.

Over 100.

That's Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas of course, 500-and-some odd.

But then suddenly in the early, you know, 2010.

They established these capital defender offices in Virginia.

And now all of a sudden people are being represented.

By competent lawyers with the resources to represent them.

With social workers and investigators and all that.

And Virginia goes for 10 years.

—From 2011 to 2021— Without a single person being sentenced to death.

And at that point, some people looked around and said.

We don't really need the death penalty, do we?

And Virginia is an interesting state.

Because Virginia carried out the very first execution.

In the history of the United States, 1607.

And executed more people than any other state has executed.

More people.

But in 2021, Virginia repealed the death penalty.

So that's really remarkable.

I mean, it's a remarkable change and a lot of it had to do with The right to counsel.

A lot of it had to do with the right to counsel.

So, we're talking about persistence.

And persistence of this injustice.

And I want to talk about persistence in a little bit.

Of a different way now, if we can.

And I want to talk about your persistence.

You're from Danville, Kentucky.

Mm-hmm.

We're at the Kentucky Author Forum.

This is your home turf.

And it's great to have you in Kentucky, James.

It really is.

I wish I could take you to the farm.

Well, you can in a way because I want to ask you about the farm.

I want to ask you a little bit about your own upbringing.

And how you came to be Steve Bright who's sitting here.

On this stage.

And I know you're a humble person and I know you're.

You know, to a certain extent, a private person.

And you don't like to, you know, take too much credit for things.

But I feel like it's important to talk a little bit.

About your influences.

And how you became who you are.

So, you graduated from high school in 1960s?

Right.

1967.

Talk about growing up in Danville.

And I guess here's why I'm going to ask this question.

I'm just going to put it out there.

Okay.

You know, my parents civil rights workers.

My dad was the executive secretary of SNCC.

You heard about him in the introduction.

My mom was a worker in SNCC.

You knew my father.

My mom's mom was, you know, an activist.

And member of the Communist Party in the 1950s.

like me doing what I do is kind of like.

Yeah, okay.

That's not original.

That's just like the family operation.

Right?

But you grew up in Jim Crow Kentucky as a White person.

I don't think that you went into the family business.

No.

So, talk about that.

Well, you know, I've often said it is great to grow up.

And different people have different things.

To say about the 1960s.

But I thought it was a great time to grow up.

And I grew up, right during what I call the Martin Luther King.

Era in American history.

Between the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1968.

When Dr. King was assassinated.

It was a time when people were all about justice.

Racial justice, justice for the poor and all of that.

And I did grow up in a segregated community.

The barber shops, the schools, everything, when I grew up.

Were segregated.

But I also was there when the change came.

And one thing that I didn't think about it.

That much at the time.

But the more I look back on it, the more remarkable I find it.

Was that my father was a farmer who got up every day and worked.

From morning till night on the farm.

My mother tried to keep up with four rambunctious children.

And yet they were very involved in the efforts to integrate.

The schools and everything else in the community to be a part of Racial justice coming about there.

And you know, most people liked it just the way it was.

Or if they didn't, they didn't.

They didn't say anything about it.

They certainly didn't.

But my father particularly.

He spoke out and he just thought it's nothing complicated.

It's just you don't treat Black people differently.

Than everybody else because of the color of their skin.

I mean, how complicated is that?

And he didn't mind telling you that.

And a lot of people didn't like to hear that.

Well, yeah.

I was going to say.

It was very complicated for a lot of people for a long time.

Yeah, it was.

And so, you know.

And fortunately I went to University of Kentucky.

And when I went to law school, the tuition for law school.

At the University of Kentucky.

When I was there was was $250 a semester.

And let me tell you.

Per credit?

No, per semester.

$500 a year.

And so, the result of that was when I graduated.

I was free.

I didn't have this huge debt that students have today.

And I was working legal services And my debt of law school was was $3,000 which I could pay off Even working legal services.

And so, I did, and I was free to do whatever I wanted.

And so, I did.

Do you think, that Your father's message that he was giving to you.

It sounds like it wasn't.

—and if I have this wrong, correct me— It sounds like he wasn't necessarily an activist.

In the community or maybe he was —If he was, please say so— It sounds like it was something he was though repeatedly.

Reminding you all in the home.

So, do you attribute-- There were meetings in the community about what to do.

We went to those meetings.

I remember going to those meetings.

They went to Frankfort when Dr. King came to Frankfort.

A big rally there in the State Capitol in Kentucky.

And so, you know, they were moving things.

I mean, Danville is an interesting town.

Centre College is there and so there were college professors.

And there was a minister.

Particularly the minister at the Presbyterian Church.

Where we went.

Who very much felt like.

We had to be about dealing with race and poverty.

Something that was not very popular.

And so, yeah, they were a part of moving things too.

To where they got, by the time my sophomore year of high school The county schools integrated.

Well, we might have to amend your bio, It sounds like you grew up as a child of activists as well.

Well, mostly what my father did was farm.

And it was hard work.

Hard work.

Were you any good at it?

I wasn't particularly good at it I think that's why I went probably in the right direction.

So, I just want to ask you one more thing.

About your growing up.

And then we'll get back and talk a little bit more about the book But you go to the University of Kentucky.

And there you are a student activist.

And eventually in your senior year you become elected.

Student body president.

And I think that's when you experienced.

Your first court case.

Could you say something about that?

Well, sure.

I expect Sheryl Snyder.

—my lawyer—is here.

I was both prosecuted for being in a demonstration.

In court downtown.

And then they tried to throw me out of university.

For violating the student code.

And I was charged with five violations of the student code.

And fortunately, there was a brilliant third year law student Named Sheryl Snyder.

Who I had seen advocating in some other capacity.

And I asked him if he would please for the price of zero.

Come represent me.

And he did and he did a great job.

And that's why I got out.

That's why I graduated from college and went to law school.

All right.

Well, I'm glad that you got that representation.

Lawyers make a difference.

I learned that right then.

I learned lawyers make a difference.

Yeah, I can see that.

Let's talk a little bit about where we are.

Now as a country on this question of criminal.

Justice reform.

Because we talked a little bit about this in the context.

Of the death penalty.

But I think more broadly.

We're at a moment where there is this persistence.

That you're writing about so powerfully of this unfairness.

That you see when you go into criminal courts.

And yet at the same time, there has been a change.

In the conversation.

There's been a change in awareness.

I think of more educated populace today.

Then maybe it was true in the '80s or '90s.

About some of this unfairness.

And there's been in my view—again, if you disagree.

You should say so.

It feels to me like rhetorically things have shifted.

You don't have this same kind of blood thirst language.

On the part of legislators, and you know.

Prosecutors running and saying.

Listen, I'm running on a campaign of executing.

As many people as possible and if I don't kill him.

Locking up the rest for the longest possible sentences.

I mean, there were people who ran like that in the '90s.

And won.

And so there has been something of this rhetorical shift.

And there's been something of this greater consciousness.

And obviously, you know, since we're here in Louisville.

We have to talk about the Black Lives Matter movement.

And this is part of the birthing ground.

Launching ground for that and Breonna Taylor's death.

And so how do you feel like then in this moment?

How do we translate some of this awareness of unfairness.

Kind of knowledge about unfairness?

How do we begin to do a better job of translating.

That into the day-to-day, on the ground reality?

Right?

Because that's the disconnect.

You're writing about the unfairness.

Is happening every day.

Yet we know the conversation has shifted.

At some level rhetorically.

How do we push down into your everyday criminal courthouse.

And foster some of that change?

Well, you know, I think one thing is.

I think today one of the places where there's a great deal.

Of more awareness is with regard to policing.

And all the issues of policing.

Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, I mean, your book about policing.

Our own, you know, of course, New Jim Crow, all that.

What we wanted to try to talk about is what happens.

After you get arrested.

What happens when you come in and the prosecutor decides.

What to charge you with, what plea offer to give.

And how the cases get processed through the system.

And I think that's trickier in terms of being involved with it.

But I think people have to understand.

That they need to know what's going on.

At their local courthouse.

And they need to go down and just watch.

I used to tell my students just go to court and watch.

See what's happening, see how people are being treated.

I remember one Dartmouth student I sent down to a county in Georgia.

And she went to the county jail there and somebody said.

"Oh, you ought to talk to this guy Samuel Moore."

She goes to meet Samuel Moore.

He had been arrested 13 months earlier on the charge.

Of loitering.

That's standing around.

You've heard of driving while Black.

Loitering is, you know, standing around while Black.

And so, he had never seen a judge.

He had never seen a lawyer.

And he's in jail.

She goes over to the courthouse to find out what is going on.

With this man, 13 months in jail for loitering.

And finds out the charges had been dismissed four months.

Earlier, but nobody had called the jail to tell them.

That they no longer had a legal basis to hold this man.

Now, that's what you find when you go to places, you know.

You were talking about "Meet 'Em and Plead 'Em."

I go to courtrooms where I see all these people pleading guilty After talking to a lawyer about five minutes.

There's no interview, there's no investigation of the case.

There's no assessment of the prosecution's case.

There's nothing.

It's just processing people through the system.

I see people put on probation and told to pay a fine.

They can't pay and then told.

Well, we'll put you on the installment plan.

We'll let you pay every month.

But what they don't tell them is you have to pay $40 a month.

To a private probation company.

That's going to take your money order every month.

And that probation officer is not going to do anything.

To try to help you with what caused you to get in trouble.

Or why you're in the court system.

The only thing that person's.

Going to do is take that money order.

And if you can't provide it.

Then they're going to report you to the court.

And you're going to get locked up in debtors' prisons.

And we have debtors' prisons all over the country.

And so, people need to know if that's going on.

In their communities and doing something about it.

The Supreme Court said you can't do that, but places do that.

If there's no lawyer there to assert the right of the person.

Being locked up.

So, wait a minute.

You can't lock this person up He can't afford to pay the fine And then extra $40 that they have to pay a month.

And of course, two, today, we are seeing in a number of places Elections for prosecutors where people are talking.

About using the incredible discretion.

That prosecutors have differently.

And I think people need to be watching out for that.

Paying attention to those elections.

But so many of the things that happen in the court.

Are down-ballot.

And nobody's looking those offices.

And what's going on there.

We need to pay more attention.

And just on that prosecutor's part.

If you can just go a little bit deeper on it.

I feel like, you know, 5-10 years ago.

Maybe somewhere in that range, was really the first time.

I started hearing about this idea.

That of a progressive prosecutor.

Or the idea that somebody would run to be prosecutor.

Would seek that office .

And they would do it on a campaign that said.

"I want to look for mental health treatment options."

"I want to look for drug treatment options."

I don't think we can incarcerate ourselves out of this problem.

I want to decriminalize low-level drug offenses.

Possession of marijuana.

Or some small amounts of other drugs.

That was breathtaking to me, you know, because again.

I had come of age in the '90s when that was unimaginable.

The only way you became prosecutor was by saying.

Exactly the opposite.

Now, in 2023 I feel like there's almost like two tracks.

So, in some parts of the country It feels like we still need to do that.

What we just talked about, like the whole idea of running.

As a reform minded prosecutor is still kind of unheard of.

And then there's other parts of the country.

Where it's almost become a little bit like a cliché.

Like you say, you know, to get elected.

You have to use those phrases that we just talked.

You know, you can't get elected without talking about.

Treatment over prisons.

But when you come down to actually.

What are people doing once they've been elected.

The change is not always as great as the campaign promise.

Now, maybe you know, that's just a story of politicians.

And in a country that elects its prosecutors.

It's going to some extent be electing politicians.

Even though I want to think of them as lawyers first.

But how would you advise people to sort through that.

You know, how do I know, what are the metrics or, you know.

What's the litmus test?

What are the things that I look at to try to figure out if this.

Person is just talking the talk or are they walking the walk?

Well, it's a big country.

And there are a lot of different people.

Doing different things in different places.

And George Gascón in Los Angeles The biggest prosecutor's office in the United States.

It is doing all sort of things there.

And getting a tremendous amount of push back.

From a lot of the staff people that are there all the time.

Larry Krasner did the same thing in Philadelphia.

One of the things that's impressed me about Krasner.

is he created.

As many of these progressive prosecutors have.

A Conviction Integrity Unit.

Going back to our early discussion of people.

Who are not guilty, people who are innocent.

They've had over 30 people who've been exonerated.

Because the prosecutor's office has gone.

And investigated the cases.

And found the evidence that can be tested with DNA.

And all those sorts of things.

I met a man who had spent 34 years on death row.

In Pennsylvania who's out today because of Larry Krasner's.

Conviction Integrity Unit.

Well, that's no small thing particularly for him.

Yeah.

Well, I could have this conversation with you for hours.

But I don't have that long and so I'm going to just really ask.

You one kind of final question.

You know, we haven't talked about this that much.

But one of the things that I know about your career.

Is that it's hard to do the work that you do.

You know, some of the people that you write about.

In this book are people you represented.

And then you talked about representing.

Some of them in this conversation.

And one of the things that I think is so important about.

What you've done over the course of your career.

Is you've gone into the most hostile environments.

That a lawyer can go into and try to argue for change, right?

You've represented people, some of whom have committed.

The most serious offenses.

You've faced judges, like the judge we talked about before.

That didn't even want to let you be appointed.

I know you've had that feeling of walking.

Into the courtroom and having every single person.

Not just the judge, not just the prosecutor.

But the court staff and the bailiff.

And the clerk and everybody.

Looking at you, like.

"How could you even think to do what you're doing?"

And you and I think that that it's righteous.

But not everybody in those environments has always thought.

That it's righteous.

And yet after 40 years of doing that, you have the same smile.

And warmth and good cheer.

Maybe not when I'm in that courtroom where nobody.

Is speaking to me.

I'm not sure.

I'm not sure I have the same smile then.

Okay, maybe you're not smiling then.

But the fact that you keep going back, right?

And that you smile later.

It has not beaten you down.

And I know because we teach.

And I never thought I would say this, but it is.

We teach at the same law school now.

So, we teach some of the same students.

So, I know because I talked to our students.

That you treat them the same way you treated me.

And the other interns back 30 years ago.

With that same generosity and that same spirit.

And that same warmth.

So, my last question for you is what are your resources?

What do you turn to?

How is it that you have been able to stay in this fight.

With this intellect and this vigor and this love?

Because you bring a lot of love to every interaction.

How do you do that?

Well, thank you James.

You're very generous and very kind and I appreciate it.

You know, it's a challenge and you and you take the challenge.

I tell my students in the first class.

I say they're going to be a lot of things we're going to cover.

In this class, and some are going to be pretty discouraging.

But I don't want you to be discouraged.

I want you to be challenged.

And I think what we have to do.

When we see these things is take them on.

And we have to go to the places where the need is the greatest.

At least that's, you know, what I tried to do.

Needs change and there are a lot of needs.

But there's still a lot of needs in the criminal legal system.

I think it is really where the civil rights fights of this era.

Are taking place with regard to what's happening.

And you know, it's a privilege to be a part of it.

And it's a privilege to represent people.

Like Tony Amadeo.

who I mentioned A client whose case I argued in the Supreme Court.

And, you know, just the other day I went out and visited him.

He's now, you know, running a ranch in Texas.

Believe it or not.

Here's a young man who the State of Georgia said.

Was so beyond redemption.

He ought to be eliminated from the human community.

Sentenced him to death and almost executed him.

Came really close.

38 years in prison.

But now he's a useful and productive citizen.

He's running this ranch and I'm glad to call him a friend.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This has been such a wonderful conversation.

So, thank you for welcoming me to Kentucky.

Great to have you.

And for coming to the Kentucky Author Forum.

Great to have you.

Thank you.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪