Defending People on Death Row: John Mills, JD ’08, is founder of Phillips Black, a nonprofit law firm representing people facing capital punishment

[0:00]Hello, the guest today is John Mills, JD 2008. He is the founder of a law firm that that works on death penalty cases. So hi. Hi John. What does your law firm? Do Hi, Tony. Hey, it's great to be here. I really appreciate. You and your enthusiasm for Cornell. So as you said, I'm an attorney at Philips Black, Inc. It's a law firm that represents people on death row across the country in post conviction cases, which just means it's the first opportunity for them to present new evidence about why their sentence of death is unconstitutional for one reason or another. We do that in state, in federal courts, and I have had clients in in over 30 states by now. Wow. So it's like a national law firm has all over the country. And the focus is on extreme punishments. Broadly, we have clients who were sentenced to 100 and. 60 years for a first. Offense which they committed as a 15 year old. We've had clients who are sentenced to death for crimes they committed as a 18 year old and we've had everything in between but the through line. Really for our cases. Is trying to insist on the dignity of each of our of each of our clients and recognition that they're a person of value and you know whether that means of focus on they're innocence. That is obviously top. Of mind, but it can also just mean emphasizing that they're a person who is someone's son or. Daughter, brother or sister? And worthy of love. Gotcha. Like how different are the cases from each other usually? Like are they are there like different evidence to what's present for each one? Are there different arguments? Yeah, they can be as. Different as each one of our clients. So sometimes we have cases such as Richard Glossops where we have really strong claims related to state misconduct and the person's innocent. And so that will become the emphasis in the case. In other instances, we'll have clients who, like Terry Pitchford, had a jury that. That was the subject.

[2:04]Of racial discrimination, the prosecutor and Mr. Pitchford's. Case excluded the black jurors simply for the fact of. Simply because they were black. And so we focused on the, you know, racial discrimination in jury selection. And then we'll have cases that are more oriented towards questions about whether our clients worthy of mercy despite having committed a terrible offense. And you know, a common, common question and in any death penalty case is whether whether a person. Is eligible for the death. Penalty based on their based on an intellectual developmental disability. And so we've had a lot of cases surrounding questions like that. So usually on the federal level, so they all follow the same like case law usually. Well, so we we. Get into cases, most commonly at one of two points. Often it'll be in state post conviction or. State habeas corpus, which. Is the first time after the trial you can introduce new evidence. About about the case or we often get into cases. Very late in the process, shortly before an execution date. And so when we're in and in either instance, we will try to get into state court. But to answer your question. About what law applies there, there is quite a bit. Of federal constitutional law that. The state. Courts are bound to follow, but we of. Course also try to. Find ways to obtain relief. Under state law, wherever. We can and it's going to be an important. Source of of rights. That I think is maybe somewhat underappreciated by. Well, by a lot of. Litigators, civil and criminal. Alike that Gee. You know, there's state constitutions too, and they are, they're sources. Of individual rights that are. Important and so yes. We do look. To the federal courts and federal Constitution to try to protect our clients. Rights, but we'll raise. State law claims as well. For example, right now we're litigating a case in Arizona where our client was sentenced to life without the. Possibility of parole. Arizona has a constitutional

[4:06]provision that gives the governor the power to commute sentences. Except for. Treason or impeachment? That's a not an unusual provision. What's unusual about? This case, though, is the Arizona Legislature has said that. Our client can't seek commutation of his sentence at all and he's not convicted of. Impeachment. Yeah. They passed a law that. Prevents and, and so, I mean, it's not a complicated legal argument. The Constitution says the governor can commute sentences except for treason and impeachment. Our clients not convicted of impeachment or treason, so we think he ought to be able to seek commutation. So that's. But that's an example of a. Purely state law. Claim that we're we're pursuing for for one of our clients. Wow. So each case is a very unique. Yeah. And I think that's part of what is really fun about having a law. Practice that. Focuses on representation of individuals is that each case is going to. Be as unique as. Your client. So how do you like find the case and is it each one like a couple months in duration or a couple years like what's the like the average case like over the lifetime? Yeah. I mean, it can be quite different. We have joined cases where our client was soon to receive an execution warrant and only been involved in the case for less than a year, let's say, and you know, did everything we could to prevent the execution from going. Forward we've also. I've been in the case that I've been in the longest. I've represented a client for coming up on 16 years and it's a. It's a case where we. Have some, you know, strong claims that he shouldn't be sentenced to death. He and, and for whatever reason, the state courts have just been. Very slow to. Respond to our our petition and. That works out. OK, in this particular case and so we're not trying to push it, but these matters can be can. Be short, but if they're. You know, done correctly, they can also take a long time. Turning over every stone takes

[6:06]takes a lot of time and effort and getting getting to real relief can also take quite a long time. Which is just to say, you know, if let's assume we get them, you know, a really great outcome and get our clients conviction and sentence completely set aside and they get to go back. The remedy there is a new trial. And so it might be years and years later before a new trial is granted, which would just mean that a trial attorney is going to have to re familiarize themselves with the entirety of the case. And that can take take a long time too. So it can be a lengthy process. You know, the outlier one for me is 15 years more typical. I would. Say is is like. Five to seven years in a state court representation, but. It's a. It's a. Long commitment to to take on a capital post conviction. Or habeas case. So, so like how do you decide which cases to take on and how does the how does the how does the the plaintiff, how does the plaintiff decide which lawyer to take on? Like how does the Yeah, so. You know, as an orientation for our practice, we kind of think about problem jurisdictions, so for example, or really problematic cases, so for example. We do a lot of. Work in Phoenix, AZ. We have a quite a number of clients on death row in Arizona and Phoenix for a long time and was a county that was responsible for a huge portion of all death sentences nationwide. There's a ongoing phenomenon where death sentences are isolated to just a handful of counties nationwide. Less than 2% of the counties nationwide make up half of all death sentences and Phoenix was a major contributor to that. Our clients, many of them, were charged and convicted during a period in which the prosecutor in Phoenix sought death in over half of all homicide cases, which is just an insanely high proportion that even the the bench. The the judges. In Phoenix called that period. The capital case crisis. And there's been a recognition

[8:06]that was a crisis at the trial level. And we're we've been working for a number of years now to have the bar, the defense bar as well as the judiciary recognize that there's a current post conviction crisis related to. The cases that were tried. At the time that in the same way that there was a shortage of qualified counsel to handle the cases at trial and a shortage of resources from the bench to supervise the cases and so on at the time of trial, that's now having downstream effects. And so Phoenix has been a high. Priority jurisdiction for us because of the capital case crisis. These are like systematic problems. Then it's like the system. Yeah. And I mean, we do try to focus on places. Right, that do have some. Systematic, systematic issues, I mean another one I mentioned, Richard. Glossop's case before his. Case was prosecuted by another percent county, another county that. Is vastly. Overrepresented in terms of people on death row and it and by an office with a long history of misconduct and sure enough, misconduct has infected his case and other cases in Oklahoma have been also set aside executions have been stopped in light of misconduct that has come to. Light related to that. Office's prosecution practices. Well, like, like, like how deep does it go? Like the, the, the problem is it like this is just like one prosecutor, where is it like the whole system is like the judges as well? Or is it like the whole jury pool, like whatever jury would be issued? Like how deep does the problem go? Yeah. I mean, I think they're the problem. There's a deep problem and then there's a shallow but broad problem. I think the deep problem is that when you're willing. To treat people horribly. Then then sometimes you're also willing to cut corners, you know, and or can be blinded by your own sense of self righteousness. I think it despite having uncovered some serious misconduct in in places that have supposedly progressive prosecutors, for example, it's

[10:07]hard for. Those places to say yes. We made a mistake. Sending this person to face their death was a mistake as a huge thing to have to admit and can be difficult to do, and so I think the deep problem is a willingness to engage in. Cruelty as public policy. I think that the broader problem that produces outlier sentencing practices is what part of your question was getting at, which is that that there are individuals who have a lot of ambition and a lot of power and and that it's not even necessarily. Reflective of the politics of a particular place, but is just a. Reflection on on a person's ability to corner the market on charging practices, for example, and can left unchecked, you know, run amok. So yeah, I do think of. It as both a. Systemic problem that kind of runs deep and raises questions about even, you know, who we are as a society or as individuals, but then also as a as a more superficial problem of like individual personalities who can overreach and create cultures of misconduct and and cruelty. The judicial system, there's like a tension. You got the prosecutor, you also got the public defender. What is it like in the courtroom before you showed up? Yeah. I mean just by virtue of the fact that we do post conviction work, at least from our clients perspective, something's not gone right at least a few times by the time we show up. They've been convicted incidents to death and their case has been affirmed on appeal. But I mean. What? What exactly? Has gone wrong is different in every case. Fundamentally, there's been a lack of recognition of their worth as an individual. But where the? Breakdown in the process. Is is very. Case specific, I mean, sometimes it is a failure to be transparent about weaknesses in the state's case. The state has an obligation to turn over evidence that's helpful to the defense, and sometimes they don't always meet that obligation. Sometimes. It's over worked public. Defenders often times that's.

[12:07]The case who by their. Own admission will say. Look, we were. Overwhelmed by the capital case crisis and the charging practice of the prosecution. And we're just unable to do things that we wanted to do other times mistakes. I mean, it's, it's humans operating the system, right? And sometimes humans. Just make. Kind of silly mistakes I've had for an example. I had a a case. Where the public defender got funding to have our clients brain scanned and then analyzed by a neurologist, among others. And they managed to get the brain scan but never provided the scan to the specialist to have them look at it. And they realized they hadn't done that on the eve of trial and panicked but didn't seek more time, you know, and. It was a very. Human mistake, I think, you know, they were working on a lot of different. Issues. It was also a. Large number of people on the team who were working. So I think there was some just miscommunication about who's supposed to do it. But it was a mistake. And the brain scan showed some serious damage that could have affected our clients, You know, thinking at the time of the fence probably did. And, you know, they thankfully testified that hey. We dropped the ball. But it's humans involved in these systems and people make mistakes and I think it's important. For us to be able. To recognize their own fallibility, and I think it can be hard to do that sometimes. I'm trying to like the like from the, from the, the defendant's point of view, Like did they, did they first have their public defender and then that didn't go well for trial. So then did they reach out to you or like how do they? Yeah. How do we end up in in a particular case? Yeah. So sometimes people do. Reach out to us the. Most common way which in which we end up with a case is by being having some relationship, formal or informal. With the group that is. Responsible for appointing cases so you know in different. Places there will be a. Committee that is in charge of making sure. That there is a group of. Qualified capital defense lawyer

[14:09]and qualified to do trial work is different than being. Qualified to do appeals versus. Post conviction and federal habeas and so you know different senior attorneys in my practice have relationships with an expertise in different areas, different locations and so a lot of my practices in California where I live or in Phoenix and in Phoenix, AZ I also have. Had a couple. Of cases in Oklahoma, whereas another one of my Co founders. Does a lot of work. In Pennsylvania, 1/3 Co founder does a lot of work in Texas and Mississippi and so we each have relationships with the Capital Defense bar in those places. And when a case is moving from trial to appeal or appeal to post conviction, it's those. Groups that'll. Often reach out to say hey do you have bandwidths? To take this particular case. And that is the most common way in which we get cases. Occasionally we'll know that we have some bandwidth in our caseload and. So we'll follow. Cases that are on direct appeal and reach out and say hey, I think we're available and interested in taking this particular matter on, but. It's always with the public. Defense authority or you know, something some equivalency just that we end up with. With a particular. Case I mean 11 distortion in in post conviction and federal habeas representation broadly is that you're entitled by statute, not by the Constitution, but you're entitled. To a lawyer if you're. Facing execution and you may or may not get a lawyer if you're not facing execution. And so in the post conviction space, most of the representation is a death sentenced clients and you know that means. That folks without a lawyer are. Facing, you know, complicated procedural issues and often lose, not because they don't have good constitutional claims, but but simply they have not managed to jump. Through all of the hoops. Necessary to get those claims reviewed on the merits. So like when the committee, they have a new case in front of them, like how do they decide

[16:09]like this law firm would be a good fit for that person? Like is there like is it just based on bandwidth or there are other criteria that makes a good fit well? I It's different in different places, some of these committees. Will say OK like. Who's next on the list? You know we call, you know this person first. Last time we're going to. Just go through our list. From. Our perspective. We want to make sure that our client is represented by someone who is culturally competent to do so, so, and even if and if. The lawyer who's sort of. Leading the charge in that case isn't that person Want to make sure we bring in investigators paralegals or Co counsel who are you know if I was representing someone from. A rural part of. Idaho, I wouldn't have a. Clue of like what? That might have been like as a person to grow up. So I might want to, you know, make sure we have somebody with a little bit more information about what that would be like and on our on our defense team. And you know, same goes if the client grew up in a large city in in Mexico. You know, I also wouldn't have much sense of what that was like and would want to bring in culturally competent team members to help us make sure that we're not missing important issues and understanding who our client is. So, you know, yes, bandwidth is a big question. There's some really mundane questions about. Like who did we? Ask last. I think that a lot of the committees ask. But. Who it is that actually conducts the representation is an important question on its own because having a strong understanding of our clients, a strong relationship of trust, is important to being able to do the job. As you are a law firm has been in certain areas for a longer like Phoenix AZ for years now. Is it easier to build trust with person because they are like you helped this other person who I knew before? Does the advantage grow over time? Absolutely yes it does. Over time, I mean, I'll remember well, one of my first client meetings out of law school, I was in my mid 20s at the time,

[18:15]and my client looked at me and said, like, you're representing me. How many years of experience do you have? How long have you been doing this? You know, why are you here? All valid questions. But having developed some experience and some reputation with any within any area, any geographic area, it certainly has helped. And you know the handful of successes we've had. Have always. End up with folks reaching out to us from within, You know, the same prison complexes where. We've had those successes, so. You know. We'll get get letters. From from clients, from clients, family members asking us to to help them out. After they've heard about us. Through other other clients or wins in other clients cases. So, so the reputation is that that you care about the client that they you give them, you listen to them. Well, like, is that? I hope. I hope that's. It yeah, I mean at. Core Our job is to. Represent the interests of our client and they're interested in being seen as an individual and and to be heard and I think that a lot of almost to a person if our clients. Had had that earlier. In their lives, perhaps much earlier in their lives, they would never become our client and. So we. Spend a lot of time thinking about how to best relate with our clients and how to hear out their concerns and. Try to try to. Protect them and to raise up their dignity in any case. And you know, and so I hope. That's part of our. Reputation. I hope we also have a reputation for doing, you know, high quality work and really challenging spaces. We've had some fortunate wins over the years and, you know, I come to think about those less in terms of like. We had a. Really brilliant idea and more of. Like we kept. Fighting long enough for things. To shift. You know, we've litigated issues. That other people have had. Long ago identified, but finally the courts came around to our side and you know, we happen to be the ones standing there to receive the nice opinion.

[20:17]You know, when the courts have come around to our side, I've had another case where it was long suspected. That the. Prosecutor's office in question had a policy of excluding black potential jurors and Jewish potential jurors. There had even been a big evidentiary hearing about. This decades ago. We happen to be still representing our client when when handwritten notes from that office were finally disclosed after a progressive prosecutor had been elected and told to go back and look at. The look at the jury. Selection notes And so you know that client is not only no longer on death row, but no longer has any convictions and is facing retrial because not because of, you know, anything necessarily. That we did, but because we were. Continuing to advocate for him and, you know, trying to do our best to make some luck here and there for him. And it, yeah, fortunately worked out. Like each case like do you see as like more stand alone or do cases like change like the system over time as well like more case well impact the whole system? Yeah, well, I mean, seeing it from my client's perspective, I always want to win on the narrowest ground possible because courts are small C conservative institutions, you know, they like to move slowly and carefully and deliberately, and so finding issues that apply to one person only and are unlikely to result in sweeping change. Is a good legal? Strategy really in any context that being said, those issues aren't always available worse, you know sometime getting the court to consider an issue requires raising some other broader question and so we've I mean we and from my own perspective, you know if my. Goal is to help build a society that treats people. With more respect and and care, just winning a case where somebody has been set, been deemed by society as exterminable, you know, as

[22:19]trash, as not worthy to live another day. Forcing that same system to say. Actually, yeah, they are worthy. Of of some mercy. Maybe they are aren't even, you know. Guilty of what we said they did in the 1st. Place went even small wins on that front, I think are an important part of of bringing about systemic change. For, you know, a common critique of the capital defense bar is that there's too much time and resources put into death penalty cases when there are so many other extreme sentences out there. And there are There's an order of magnitude more people serving life without parole than facing execution in the United States. So that's a. That's a. Fairpoint, but my hope is that by, you know, forcing our. Society to see the worth. The human worth of every individual, including those who've been deemed. The least worthy? We can open our eyes to the, you know, to the. Cruelty that we're. Perpetrating against many, many more people. And, you know, I think we're beginning to see some of that work out. You know, for example, you know, California still has the largest number of people on death row in the United States by far. And yeah, advocacy. Over the years, has greatly. Reduced the number of people on on death row here and more recently even as people's death sentences are being averted to. Life without the possibility of parole. Life without the possibility of. Parole sentences now nonetheless afford a person an opportunity to go before the Parole Board and ask for a reduction in their sentence. A remarkable turn events turn of event if you think about California. As the. Origin of the three strikes law that put so many people into prison for the rest of their lives starting in the 1990s we've really had some major success and I think part. Of that success. Certainly not all of it. But part of it is. Work in capital. Cases that has forced the. System to reconsider choices as it made in the most extreme instances, and then recognizing that maybe some of those were mistakes has brought about a willingness to rethink other

[24:21]cases. As well. Is the mechanism of action that you publicize the cases so that it humanizes your client more and then the everyday person sees that humanization, they think differently and the elect prosecutors are more progressive or they like when they serve on juries, they they think more progressively like. Is that the idea to create like that mechanism? I mean I that is the way it often works out I mean. Whether to seek. Attention in any particular case, in any particular moment, is a question not about how I wanna bring about systemic change, but a question about whether it'll benefit my client. That being said, you know when there are significant wins and any win and any. Capital case like. Counts as significant, at least in my book. There tends to be some media coverage, you know, and there are other people doing thoughtful work about how our criminal legal system operates, whether that's journalists or academics. Or other but. You know, my lane is more just client centered. Yeah. But but the mechanism you know of action as you put. It yeah, is that. Somebody's gonna be reporting on XY or Z, and it does bring about some recognition through through that. Reporting like when you're like outside of the courtroom in your everyday life and you're walking around and you talk to people about like the death penalty work that you do. Like, have you seen like over the years that the perception changes over time? Like what is like the public perception? Like yeah, I think it is important. To try to talk to. People in everyday conversation about even the complicated points of the way our legal system works, because I think even allies quote UN quote allies, whatever that might mean, you know, may have some misconceptions about it. Whether that's changed over time. I mean, I do think that there has been. A shift towards. A recognition that we don't need to give up on people you know, that we don't need to. Lock people away for. Forever or or kill them. And I I think that the that

[26:25]shift has come through slow, careful work of highlighting. The excesses of of the way, the way our. Criminal legal system operates and, and you know, through just having, having conversations about it, I mean, you never know how, how a conversation about like the, a small bit of humanity of your client may affect somebody. And people are often at least intrigued, even if they're as excited about, you know, imposing the death penalty as possible. I think they are interested in the way the system operates and it's, you know, an opportunity to talk about the way it dysfunctions as well. Yeah, that makes sense. So, So what like the law firm is a nonprofit structure? Yes. Do you have like a donor base? Do you have like grants that you write? Like how does the funding work for? It yeah, so. Phil Flack is a nonprofit. We don't have a large donor base. Really at all we've. Made our most of our revenue comes through court appointments you know so I mentioned earlier that if you're facing execution you're generally entitled to representation under state or federal statute and so. Those statutes will also provide. You know, some amount of funding for for it. It's really different levels of funding in different states. And so one way we're able to do cases in very low funding places is by doing cases. Where the cases are. Better funded robbing Peter to pay Paul might not be the exact right metaphor, but to. Get the idea? We. Were the recipient of a significant grant. To look at, to look. At Wrongful convictions in Philadelphia. But that was under the Biden administration, and it was among the grants that the Trump administration canceled. So we. Thought. We had several years left. On it and that disappeared basically overnight which was very disheartening outcome of course but you know we do have a handful of grants but the you know bread and. Butter of our work. Is doing direct representation and state and federal courts and although in some places it is.

[28:25]Very. Woefully underfunded. We've, you know, tried to find ways to make it work. I think, you know, a potential area for growth for us as an organization is to think about developing A donor base and identifying grantors other than the Trump administration to to provide support. Like, are there a lot of like nonprofits or law firms that are funded by donors? Is there like a? Is there like a system of that out? There, I mean, I the, there's the the Innocence Network, which is affiliated loosely with the Innocence Project. I think, you know, it does draw a fairly large number of individual donors. As for an example, A and you know, I, I guess I haven't looked deeply into the, you know, fundraising operations of other similar organizations, but I think people are increasingly interested in bringing about reformed the way crime and punishment is administered in the United States. And you know, we've seen we'll see some despite not even asking folks, we'll make donations from time to time when they've they hear about our work and it'll out that will. Free us up to do. You know, unfunded. Work that would otherwise. We'd have to decline and you know it, it has been quite impactful at times for our clients, you know, and you know, for example, we represent the well, who was the only person serving life without parole for a juvenile offense in North Dakota. That's that's a client who is not entitled by statute to a lawyer. But we took on his case in hopes of taking, well, taking North Dakota off the map as a place. Where you could get life without parole for a. Juvenile offense and while we were representing him. The legislature there. Passed a law doing away with juvenile life without parole. But but the court. Said that that change in law did not apply to our client so we yeah so we, we stuck with him and. We're able to develop a. Strong, showing that he had reformed himself and made a life for himself. To the best of his. Ability within the prison and

[30:27]appeared on his behalf in front of in front of the governor's lawyer and the attorney general and his sentence was commuted. To a parole eligible. Sentence 25 to life and which made him immediately eligible for parole. And this fall we'll be representing him in front of the parole board. And that you know that is a case where we will submit 0. Bills for $0.00. And we're only. Able to do that? Because of, you know, donations that we've received from folks. Gotcha. So like the that's an example of unfunded and then the work that you were doing in Philadelphia on the grant, that's another example of unfunded work that you needed to have a grant for. Precisely. Yeah. And look, even the cases that are funded are often very much underfunded and we. Are paid. Well below market rate, you know, for for our time and efforts. And so, you know, figuring out how to make that work is, is definitely the business side of the nonprofit is definitely a challenge. Yeah. So, so like what was your path into this kind of work? So you went to Cornell Law School and graduated 2008. Like what happened like actually like before that? Like how did you choose the law school to go to and what happened that? Yeah, sure. So I became interested in attending law. School as a way to. Bring about some change in the world. I'll say I was thinking about divinity school at the same time and decided my. Skills would best. Align with going to law school and I had a vague sense of Gee, maybe. I'll do civil rights work or. Immigration work or become a public defender, that's sort of where my head was going into law school or maybe human rights work and, you know, did the. Like tours of the law. School thing, and one of the things that really stuck out to me about Cornell was that it was smaller than. A lot of its peers. And a lot of the other schools that I attended, it felt much

[32:28]more like a small liberal arts environment, which was very good for me as an undergrad, and I liked that I was. Able to meet with. Professors, even though I was, I had not even accepted, you know, admission at that point. And so we got to sit down in their offices and, you know, really appreciate that environment. I liked. I liked and. Liked to this day Ithaca. You know, quite a bit. And then it was similarly comfortable to me, it coming from a relatively smaller town and really enjoying the college town kind of environment. And so that's part of what attracted me to Cornell. Once in law school, I got involved in the death penalty clinic led by John Bloom and Sherry Johnson, and they became mentors of mine and the thing that. Really hooked me about that work. Or I guess a couple of things, like one, it's hard to think of a more consequential legal question than whether someone should live or die. And that's, you know, at the. Heart of every capital case. And then, you know, secondly, the questions, the inputs that go into answering that question are very compelling. What does it mean to be worthy of mercy? What does it mean to have your dignity respected? And what is it mean to value human life? Are questions inherent to the capital sentencing decision and you know the conducting life history investigations turning over you know every stone leaving no rock left unturned is compelling and is still what I find animating about about this work. And so you know, I spent a. Couple of years effectively. In the in the death penalty clinic in one way or another and had the good fortune getting a job doing capital post conviction work. Right out of. Law school and working for basically a public defender type organization, the habeas Corpus Resource Center that really does among the. Best state habeas corpus. Work in the country. And so I kind of continued to sharpen my skills and learn how it's done very well. And then, you know, accidents of

[34:29]personal history come up, you know, from time to time for all of us. My now wife was applying to medical residencies and I had convinced her to only seek medical residencies in death states in states that have capital punishment. And so. So when she found out she'd be doing her medical residency at Duke, I knew I was moving to North Carolina. And, you know, the relevant, the relevant death penalty organizations were not hiring at that time. And so Cornell again played an important role in my path. I reached out to Professors Bloom and Johnson to let them know about my upcoming move, and they got me involved in a couple of. A couple of cases. And found some work for me to do that was relevant. And I formed A5O1C3 in part so that I could qualify for for public service loan forgiveness. And you know, through collaborations over time, I developed partnerships with Jenny Merrigan and Joe Perkovich, the Co founders of Phillips Black. And we, you know, rebranded my individual office into to Phillips Black about a dozen years ago and have continued to focus on Capitol post conviction. But I think the loan forgiveness point is important. My parents basically discouraged me from going to Cornell because of how expensive it is, I think. This may still be the. Case But at least when I was there, Cornell was #1 in how expensive the law school was. And I think especially for people who do not come from a family of lawyers, it can be hard. To appreciate the. Potential return on investment that that reflects even if there are strong loan forgiveness programs, the you know the tuition top line itself I think is a turn off in a way that can decrease the. Diversity of the law. School and is a real against it. That being said, an amazing experience there. I've been incredibly grateful for the mentorships that I've had over the. Years, but it is a. Very pricey enterprise. And when you were starting the

[36:29]law firm, the Phillips Black one, how did you come up with the name of it? Yeah. So, you know, we didn't want to like. Call ourselves the Justice League or whatever for a few. Reasons, one of which is we wanted to. Look like a serious law. Firm to judges, you know. So when our names are on the top of pleadings, we wanted them. To associate us with. White shoe law firms, not public defender. You know, let's say we wanted to honor the legacy of Samuel Phillips, a solicitor general to 4 presidential administrations during Reconstruction and, and also most famously probably represented Homer Plessy and Plessy versus Ferguson, a case he lost. But the dissent in that case would become the basis for Brown versus Board of Education. He also argued and lost the. Civil rights cases, which was. A case before the Supreme Court that was trying to. Enforce the rule of law. During Reconstruction and forced the rule of law in the South during Reconstruction and then Hugo Black was the Supreme Court. Justice. Who wrote Gideon versus Wainwright and a bunch of other important criminal criminal procedure cases and and he is an interesting character because he was able to be convinced and really important cases that have provided foundational bedrock procedural protections. But he was. Also a right? Wing populist clans member before he was a member of the Supreme Court. So it's a reminder. I, you know, the hopeful note, I guess, is that everyone can be persuaded of things, that redemption is possible. But it's also a reminder of, like, you know who it is in this country who has historically had power. So. We landed on Phillips Black in recognition of that history, and ink is also a nod to history. Phillips Black Ink, the N double ACP's legal defense fund, was the group. That litigated, of course. Brown versus Board of Education, but also undertook in the middle of the 20th century a campaign to in the death penalty. Obviously, it was not ultimately successful, but we wanted to honor that work and the fund. The group of N double ACP lawyers that did that called

[38:32]themselves the Ink Fund. And so we are Phillips Black Ink. So that's how we landed on our name. That's beautiful. For the closing question, I always ask the guests, what's the kindest thing anyone's ever done for you? That's a tough one to answer. There's so many beautiful kindnesses I've been fortunate enough to experience, you know, a. I guess I'll choose a. You know, a relatively recent one that just, you know, filled my heart with joy, which is I have, you know, 3 kids, the youngest of whom is five, but she was probably 4 at the time, you know, And I think I had probably just gotten some bad news, you know, from some court or whatever and seemed pretty upset. And she, sensing that, just came over and gave me a hug and told me it was going to be all right, you know, And, you know, to see her be so empathetic and loving just brought me great joy. And I, I hope that, yeah, I love that question because I do hope that we can all be kind to each other even in the worst of circumstances. And I've tried to, you know, Orient my law practice around that idea. Thanks so much for sharing. Yeah. Thank you.