The Joe Rogan ExperienceJoe Rogan Experience #2287 - Josh Dubin & J.D. Tomlinson
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 0:58
Setting the stage: JD Tomlinson joins to revisit the “Ohio Four” case
Joe welcomes Josh Dubin and introduces former Lorain County (OH) prosecuting attorney J.D. Tomlinson, whose office controls the fate of the Ohio Four. They frame why Tomlinson’s perspective matters: he’s the rare prosecutor willing to re-open a case publicly criticized as a wrongful conviction.
- •Who JD Tomlinson is and what a “prosecuting attorney” means in Ohio
- •Why the Ohio Four case is back on JRE
- •The stakes: two men still incarcerated; others paroled but labeled murderers
- 0:58 – 3:31
Ohio Four recap: how suspects were chosen before evidence existed
Tomlinson summarizes the core injustice claim: four men were targeted early, largely due to community pressure about out-of-town drug dealing. He outlines the brutal 1990s murders of Marcia Blakey and Epps and how investigators quickly focused on the wrong people.
- •Victims and crime scene basics (Blakey; similar second murder)
- •Early suspect selection driven by community panic over drugs
- •Lack of initial leads and the prosecutor’s reward announcement
- 3:31 – 7:08
The informant turns case-maker: William Avery Jr.’s evolving story and extortion attempt
The case hinges on informant testimony from William Avery Jr., whose narrative repeatedly conflicts with physical evidence. Tomlinson describes Avery’s demand for money, his initial admission he “made it up,” and how his story later morphs into an eyewitness account.
- •Avery’s account doesn’t match the pristine apartment evidence
- •Reward incentives and informant handling failures
- •Courtroom extortion attempt and contempt jailing
- •Story evolution from “confession” to “I witnessed it”
- 7:08 – 11:47
Red flags ignored: Secret Service warning, later FBI recantation, and a collapsed post-conviction hearing
Tomlinson recounts a major credibility bombshell: the Secret Service warns prosecutors Avery is lying in other investigations, yet convictions proceed. Years later Avery walks into the FBI to recant; at a post-conviction hearing he refuses to testify after perjury warnings but tells reporters the men are innocent.
- •Secret Service correspondence undermining Avery’s reliability
- •2004 FBI-documented recantation and conscience-clearing claim
- •2006 affidavit efforts and the judge’s perjury warning
- •Public statement: “I made the whole thing up”
- 11:47 – 17:50
Why Tomlinson was hard to reach: political pressure, then a sudden call after the “Rogan effect”
Tomlinson explains he repeatedly tried to contact JD while being ignored—until the prior JRE episode aired and public pressure surged. JD calls the same day, describing intense stress and a criminal case against him, and agrees to meet, saying, “If I don’t at least meet with you, then who am I?”
- •Being “ghosted,” then immediate contact after the episode airs
- •Public pressure on the prosecutor’s office after JRE exposure
- •JD’s moral pivot toward at least hearing the evidence
- •Plans for a meeting and rally in Ohio
- 17:50 – 32:27
JD Tomlinson’s own “lawfare” story: relationship fallout, felony charges, and exculpatory texts held until after the election
JD describes how workplace relationship drama was weaponized into three felony accusations (tampering, intimidation, bribery). He claims investigators and political rivals exploited the situation, withheld exculpatory text messages until after Election Day, and derailed his re-election campaign.
- •Origin: office relationship, arguments on video, public embarrassment
- •Charges filed 30 days before election; impact on family and career
- •Alleged conflict: detective investigating him allegedly pursuing the same woman
- •Exculpatory texts delayed until after election (Brady-type concerns)
- 32:27 – 36:01
From personal case to Ohio Four focus: JD clears space, then dives into the evidence
After charges are dropped but JD loses the election, he has bandwidth to re-engage the Ohio Four case. Tomlinson describes giving a long, trial-record-driven presentation and JD re-reading transcripts, visiting the scene, and stress-testing every angle before deciding the convictions can’t stand.
- •How JD approached the decision: skepticism and self-verification
- •Crime-scene visit and transcript comparisons across four trials
- •Central alibi: evidence placing Al Cleveland in New York
- •JD’s conclusion: Avery may be the worst witness he’s seen; no physical evidence
- 36:01 – 48:09
System design problems: grand juries, one-sided charging, and prosecutor immunity
Joe asks whether an independent review panel could prevent “bullshit” prosecutions; the conversation turns to the grand jury’s limitations and low threshold. They argue the deeper structural issue is lack of accountability—especially prosecutorial immunity and failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.
- •Grand jury as intended “screen,” but defense can’t present evidence
- •Probable cause threshold and near-automatic indictments
- •Idea: independent attorney review panels vs constitutional/logistical barriers
- •Core reform demand: accountability for Brady violations and misconduct
- 48:09 – 1:02:23
The Nancy Smith & Joseph Allen exonerations: a template for courage—and the backlash it triggered
JD explains exonerating Nancy Smith and Joseph Allen (a sensational child-abuse panic case) changed his life and created enemies. He details coached-child allegations, impossible “basement” claims, and how exculpatory evidence dominated the file—plus the shock that prosecutors rarely even apologize.
- •How moral panic and coached testimony drove a false case
- •Impossibilities (e.g., alleged basement in a slab home)
- •Sentences served: 15 years and 25 years
- •Innocence Project leader tells JD he’s the only prosecutor he’s heard apologize
- •Same assistant prosecutor linked to multiple wrongful convictions
- 1:02:23 – 1:16:26
The joint motion to free the Ohio Four—and the courtroom/political counterattack
Tomlinson describes filing a joint motion (defense + prosecutor) for new trials and dismissals based on new evidence (recantations and alibis). The response: press messaging by the incoming prosecutor, Attorney General involvement, contradictory judicial orders, and eventual withdrawal of the state’s motion as the new administration takes over.
- •Joint motion mechanism: new trial first, then dismissal
- •AG amicus brief urging delay until new prosecutor takes office
- •Judge Cooke’s initial order rejecting delay—then a sharp reversal days later
- •One judge denies relief without a hearing; others “punt” past the transition
- •New prosecutor Tony Sillo withdraws the joint motion early in tenure
- 1:16:26 – 1:24:14
Public accountability push: open hearings, public-records requests, and an invitation to Tony Sillo
Tomlinson calls for public-facing review: if there’s evidence of guilt, present it openly; if not, release the men. He outlines planned meetings, suspicious timing, public records requests to uncover communications, and newly found documents hinting alternative suspects were raised long ago.
- •Offer: give Sillo a public seat to present any evidence of guilt
- •Request: make meetings/openings public to restore community trust
- •Public-records strategy to uncover AG/prosecutor communications
- •Newly surfaced document tying Sillo to investigating alternative suspects
- 1:24:14 – 1:39:08
Beyond the case file: poverty, race, caste, and how communities judge “criminal” lives
The conversation widens to how environment and inequality shape criminal behavior—and how that bias can fuel wrongful convictions, especially for people of color. Tomlinson recommends Isabel Wilkerson’s *Caste* and Joe argues society punishes symptoms of poverty instead of causes.
- •Wrongful convictions disproportionately impacting people of color
- •“Bootstraps” narratives vs real-world environmental constraints
- •Book recommendation: *Caste* (Isabel Wilkerson)
- •Crime as a symptom of poverty, trauma, and historical policy (redlining/Jim Crow)
- 1:39:08 – 2:01:31
After exoneration: compensation fights, political futures, and closing reflections on justice vs winning
They discuss how even proven-innocent people face ongoing resistance when seeking compensation, and how politics can punish officials who correct past wrongs. The episode ends with broader reflections on humility, avoiding tribal thinking, and the need to prioritize truth over “winning.”
- •Exoneree compensation processes and why states still fight payouts
- •JD’s uncertainty about running for office again after being targeted
- •Prosecutor culture: adversarial “winning” mindset vs justice mission
- •Respect for police while acknowledging rare misconduct; media sampling bias
- •Final thanks and renewed commitment to free the Ohio Four
