\n<\/p>\n
This article was produced for ProPublica\u2019s Local Reporting Network in partnership with Verite News. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week.<\/p>\n
\n These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story. \n <\/p>\n When Lloyd Gray stood trial for rape in 1980, two jurors didn\u2019t believe he was guilty and voted to acquit. Today, a split-jury verdict would mean a mistrial and possibly Gray\u2019s freedom. But back then, in Louisiana, it resulted in a life sentence for the 19-year-old from Tunica, a rural community nestled on the banks of the Mississippi River.<\/p>\n Gray, who has always maintained his innocence, spent the next four decades in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. During that time he lost everything, he said. From behind bars, he learned that his mother, who for a time was a guard at the prison where he was being held, had dementia and died in 2020. Prison officials refused to allow him to attend her funeral.<\/p>\n That same year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that nonunanimous jury verdicts, legal in only Louisiana and Oregon, were unconstitutional and based on an inherently racist law designed to uphold white supremacy.<\/p>\n Going forward, there would be no more Lloyd Grays.<\/p>\n But in fact, there are more than 1,000 people in Louisiana like Gray, convicted by split juries and still imprisoned, according to the Promise of Justice Initiative, a New Orleans-based nonprofit focused on criminal justice reform. Although the Supreme Court says cases like theirs are unconstitutional going forward, it left the decision about what to do with those convicted long ago to the states. And Louisiana alone says they should stay behind bars.<\/p>\n Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Louisiana State Supreme Court declined to grant new trials for those prisoners, acquiescing to local prosecutors who feared that retrying hundreds of decades-old cases would tie up state courts. The conservative state Legislature, meanwhile, has repeatedly rejected bills that would have required a reexamination of their cases.<\/p>\n That left one very narrow path for Gray and others like him, mostly Black men, to have their cases revisited. If they could credibly argue that their convictions were secured illegally \u2014 if there was race-based discrimination in the case, for example \u2014 they could strike a plea deal with a prosecutor, securing their release. But a new state law, passed last year at the urging of Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, limited local prosecutors\u2019 ability to broker such deals, cutting off the last remaining avenue of relief for those imprisoned by nonunanimous juries.<\/p>\n The key problem, legal experts say, is that the Supreme Court did not make its 2020 ruling retroactive as it did in Montgomery v. Louisiana, a 2016 case in which the justices found that life sentences without parole for juveniles should be banned going forward as well as for those already convicted.<\/p>\n What\u2019s more, in a separate decision in 2021, the court ruled that its 2020 opinion did not apply to older cases, like Gray\u2019s, that had already gone through the regular state appeals process. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court\u2019s majority, Oregon and Louisiana were still free to offer retroactive relief on their own.<\/p>\n In contrast to Louisiana, Oregon\u2019s Supreme Court vacated every split-jury conviction in the state, after which prosecutors offered plea deals with reduced sentences to the majority of those prisoners convicted by nonunanimous juries. Verite News and ProPublica estimated about 760 prisoners were convicted by nonunanimous juries based on a 2018 list provided by the Oregon Department of Justice of people who had filed lawsuits claiming their convictions were unconstitutional.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are a lot of injustices in our legal system we can\u2019t fix. And yet, here is this issue that is so clear and obvious that it\u2019s on all of us to do the right thing,\u201d said Aliza Kaplan, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, who fought for years to end the state\u2019s split-jury system.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I look at Louisiana, it\u2019s really heartbreaking.\u201d<\/p>\n Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana is the only state that says prisoners convicted long ago by split juries should remain behind bars.<\/span><\/p>\n The Landry administration did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n Zach Daniels, executive director of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, said the group, which backed Landry\u2019s law, has attempted to reach a compromise with criminal justice reformers who want all past split-jury verdicts overturned. This included an alternative that would give those convicted by nonunanimous juries the opportunity to apply for parole instead of having their cases either vacated or reexamined. But some lawmakers and criminal justice reform advocates rejected that option because they did not view the opportunity to be heard by a special parole committee appointed by Landry, as the plan called for, a compromise for people imprisoned unconstitutionally.<\/p>\n Gray\u2019s case for freedom is particularly strong, his attorneys said, because there is good evidence that racial animus led to his conviction. They discovered last year that the two jurors who had voted to acquit were Black \u2014 a fact that doesn\u2019t appear in the court records. And that someone had drawn a swastika on the upper right hand corner of the original district attorney\u2019s case file.<\/p>\n In addition, the lone surviving family member of the victim told the district attorney\u2019s office he is \u201cfully supportive\u201d of Gray\u2019s release. He could not be reached for comment.<\/p>\n The New Orleans District Attorney\u2019s Office had been in discussions with Gray\u2019s legal team about a potential deal to secure his release before Landry\u2019s 2023 election. But the governor\u2019s new law constraining prosecutors from making such deals could ensure that Gray spends the remainder of his days in Angola. His current case before the court will next be considered Tuesday at Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, where a judge will decide whether Landry\u2019s law applies in Gray\u2019s case.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen you\u2019re sent to prison with a life sentence, they send you here to die,\u201d said Gray, now 65, through his attorney because the prison rejected requests from Verite News and ProPublica to interview him directly. \u201cAfter 45 years, I\u2019m no closer to freedom than the day I walked into this place.\u201d<\/p>\n Lloyd Gray has been incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola for the past 45 years.<\/span><\/p>\n Louisiana began allowing nonunanimous verdicts \u2014 or \u201cJim Crow juries,\u201d as they are sometimes called here \u2014 in response to the 14th Amendment, which ensured that Black citizens, including formerly enslaved people, had equal protection under the law. This included, among other things, the right to serve on juries. Until then, Louisiana had required a unanimous vote for criminal convictions. But state lawmakers did not want to give a single Black juror the power to undermine the will of 11 white people.<\/p>\n During an 1898 constitutional convention, Louisiana\u2019s elected officials lowered the threshold for a criminal conviction from 12 votes to nine (and increased it to 10 in 1973). One committee chairman was cited in the Supreme Court ruling against the practice saying that the provision was meant to \u201cestablish the supremacy of the white race.\u201d<\/p>\n In 1934, Oregon followed suit, becoming the only other state to ever approve the use of split-jury verdicts. (Oregon passed its law following public outrage that a Jewish man was found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder in the high-profile death of a Protestant man.)<\/p>\n The jury\u2019s decision at Gray\u2019s trial in December 1980 unfolded as Louisiana legislators had envisioned nearly a century ago.<\/p>\n After initially charging Gray with aggravated rape, prosecutors offered him a deal, according to Gray and his attorneys. If he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, he would receive a 10-year sentence. But Gray rejected the offer, never wavering in his claims of innocence. The district attorney\u2019s office said there is no record of a proposed plea deal.<\/p>\n Gray and Dianna Knockum, the woman who accused him of rape, each testified on a single day, providing wildly divergent versions of what happened on a Wednesday night six months earlier. Gray, 19 at the time, and Knockum, 33, knew each other from frequenting a bar called Club Hollywood in the Hoffman Triangle neighborhood of New Orleans. Gray claimed they got into a fight outside the bar over $15 Knockum owed him. When she refused to pay, Gray said he hit her twice in the face, at which point a mutual friend separated them and brought him back into the club.<\/p>\n Knockum claimed Gray was angry after she rejected his advances. She said he followed her as she left the bar then hit her with a hard object on the back of the head. Knockum said she regained consciousness in an abandoned building where Gray raped her.<\/p>\n At trial, prosecutors noted that Knockum identified Gray as her attacker, and that doctors found bruises on her head. Gray\u2019s defense team focused on the lack of physical evidence or witnesses tying him to the crime, and that Knockum\u2019s injuries didn\u2019t indicate she was raped. DNA testing didn\u2019t exist at the time, and the evidence was not saved for later examination.<\/p>\n After 54 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned with its verdict: The 10 white jurors voted guilty, and the two black jurors, Elizabeth Sensley and Audrey Kaywood, not guilty. Gray was sentenced to life without parole.<\/p>\n Knockum died more than 20 years ago, according to a 2024 court filing by New Orleans prosecutors.<\/p>\n Sensley and Kaywood provided statements to Gray\u2019s attorneys last year in which they said the racial makeup of the jury likely contributed to his conviction. Sensley said there were plenty of Black people in the jury pool, yet only two were selected. The prosecution used its only jury selection strike to prevent a third Black person from serving. At the time, Black people made up 67% of the city\u2019s population.<\/p>\n \u201cI knew that my voice would not matter,\u201d Sensley told an investigator with Gray\u2019s legal team, recounting how she felt about being Black on the nearly all-white jury. \u201cI cannot believe that Lloyd Gray is still in prison.\u201d<\/p>\n Elizabeth Sensley, a juror in Gray\u2019s case, gave a statement to an investigator with Gray\u2019s legal team recounting how she felt about being Black on the nearly all-white jury.<\/span><\/p>\n Kaywood told the investigator she had a \u201cstrong feeling\u201d Gray might be innocent. \u201cI wondered aloud to my husband, what if he didn\u2019t do it. The case impacted me deeply,\u201d she said. \u201cI never wanted to serve on a jury again.\u201d<\/p>\n Neither woman could be reached for comment.<\/p>\n Keeping Black people off juries was vital to prosecutors, as they were seen to be more \u201cskeptical of the state,\u201d according to a 2018 investigation by The New Orleans Advocate. In convictions with split-jury verdicts, Black jurors were 2.5 times more likely to dissent compared with white jurors, the report found. That\u2019s why prosecutors used their strikes to remove prospective Black jurors at more than twice the rate as they did white jurors.<\/p>\n Gray\u2019s legal team has noted that his conviction happened at a time of intense racial strife in New Orleans. Just a few years earlier, the Ku Klux Klan, led by David Duke, marched through the French Quarter to protest the city\u2019s first Black mayor. The district attorney\u2019s office was headed by Harry Connick Sr., whose 30-year tenure was stained by accusations of racial bias. During Connick\u2019s time as district attorney, there were 32 cases of wrongful convictions, 27 of which involved prosecutorial misconduct, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. Of those wrongfully convicted, 97% were Black.<\/p>\n Harry Connick Sr. in 1990. His 30-year tenure was stained by accusations of racial bias.<\/span><\/p>\n And yet Connick refused to crack down on his staff, drawing the ire of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As part of a wrongful-conviction case in which prosecutors hid blood evidence, Ginsburg said in a 2011 dissent that Connick had created a \u201ctinderbox in Orleans Parish\u201d where it was expected that prosecutors hide evidence from the defense. And when those violations occurred, she wrote, \u201cConnick insisted there was no need to change anything, and opposed efforts to hold prosecutors accountable on the ground that doing so would make his job more difficult.\u201d Five of the other eight justices disagreed with her.<\/p>\n After his conviction, Gray was sent to Angola, one of the most violent penitentiaries in the country at the time. The 19-year-old was frightened, but he wasn\u2019t alone. A few years prior to his incarceration, his mother, Ora Gray, had taken a job as a guard at Angola. She worked the night shift in a watchtower that overlooked the same cell block that would briefly house her son.<\/p>\n Gray said he would wake up early every morning, sit by a window and look up into his mother\u2019s tower, about 40 yards away. And every morning she would look down at him.<\/p>\n \u201cI was sitting there to let her know that I was safe,\u201d Gray said.<\/p>\n After about six weeks, Gray said he was transferred to another part of the prison. Gray assumed prison officials wanted to separate them, afraid his mother would hesitate to shoot if he tried to escape.<\/p>\n Ora Gray worked at Angola for more than three decades until she retired in 2012. She died eight years later. Lloyd Gray, wracked by guilt, said he should have cared for her in her final years and held her hand as she slipped away. Instead, he couldn\u2019t even attend her funeral.<\/p>\n The system \u201cwas designed to put people of color in the situation I\u2019m in,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Scenes from Angola in 2004. The prison is a former 19th-century antebellum plantation that was once owned by a slave trader.<\/span><\/p>\n After nearly four decades in Angola, Gray had settled in as best he could. He held a mixture of jobs \u2014 tutor, office clerk, field hand, kitchen orderly \u2014 and tried to stay safe and out of trouble. But he told his lawyers he struggled to come to terms with where life had taken him.<\/p>\n Gray\u2019s sister sent him a family picture, and he didn\u2019t know who half the people were, especially the younger children. That was the hardest part, he said, contemplating everything that had been taken from him.<\/p>\n Gray\u2019s prospects began to improve, however, in tandem with a growing sentiment that the criminal justice systems across the country were heavily weighted against poor and minority communities and needed to be reformed. A series of victories for this movement, on both the state and national levels, gave Gray hope, starting in 2018. That\u2019s when 64% of Louisiana voters approved a constitutional amendment outlawing nonunanimous juries for any crime committed after Jan. 1, 2019.<\/p>\n Those who fought for the amendment focused their campaign on the damage such juries had done to the state\u2019s minority communities: Black people make up 67% of the prison population but 80% of those convicted by split juries, according to a report from the Promise of Justice Initiative.<\/p>\n Split-jury verdicts also resulted in lengthier sentences. In Louisiana, 62% of all prisoners convicted by split juries are serving life sentences, like Gray, while only about 16% of the overall prison population is doing so, the report said.<\/p>\n That\u2019s because the split-jury law created an incentive for prosecutors to hand down the most serious charges they could. Lesser crimes that carried shorter sentences were tried before a six-person jury that had to rule unanimously. Former prosecutor and state Sen. Dan Claitor said during a 2018 legislative hearing on nonunanimous juries that the numbers frequently led him to \u201cup-charge\u201d defendants \u201cbecause it was easier for me to convict them with 10 out of 12 than it is six out of six.\u201d<\/p>\n Louisiana\u2019s voter referendum prohibiting nonunanimous juries was a significant victory, but it did little to address the plight of people like Gray who had already been convicted. And then, two years later, in Ramos v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that split-jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment\u2019s guarantee of a fair trial.<\/p>\n In his majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed to the court by President Donald Trump, wrote that the origin of split-jury verdicts could be \u201ctraced to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and efforts to dilute the influence of racial and ethnic and religious minorities.\u201d In Louisiana, he wrote, the point was \u201cto ensure that African-American juror service would be meaningless.\u201d<\/p>\n In the months that followed, the Promise of Justice Initiative filed appeals for 1,049 Louisiana prisoners convicted by split juries. Hundreds of those, including Gray\u2019s, were filed in New Orleans, where a new district attorney, Jason Williams, had just been elected.<\/p>\n New Orleans District Attorney Jason Williams has taken on split-jury verdicts.<\/span><\/p>\n Williams took office in January 2021, one of a wave of progressive prosecutors across the country. He pledged to root out and reconsider potentially problematic cases involving wrongful convictions, excessive sentences or racial bias. He also took on split-jury verdicts.<\/p>\n Within days of being sworn in, Williams had established a civil rights division and hired Emily Maw, the former head of the Innocence Project New Orleans, to lead it. As of July 2024, the division had vacated or reduced the sentences of more than 350 men and women, 150 of whom were convicted by nonunanimous juries, according to the district attorney\u2019s office.<\/p>\n In 2022, prosecutors with the unit proposed a potential deal to Gray\u2019s attorneys: If he pleaded guilty to forcible rape, he would walk, according to Gray and his attorneys. The lesser charge carried a maximum sentence of 40 years; Gray had already served 41.<\/p>\n Such plea deals would soon prove to be the only shot people like Gray had at freedom. The same year Gray was offered a plea deal, the state\u2019s highest court ruled in a 5-2 vote that the federal ban on nonunanimous juries was not retroactive, preventing more than 1,000 people convicted by split juries from having their day in court, according to estimates by the Promise of Justice Initiative.<\/p>\n The only Black member of the Louisiana Supreme Court, Justice Piper Griffin dissented, writing: \u201cSuch convictions were racially discriminatory in 1898. They were racially discriminatory in 1975. They remain racially discriminatory today.\u201d<\/p>\n While he agreed with the majority that the state shouldn\u2019t overturn all past split-jury verdicts, Justice James Genovese wrote in a partial dissent that prisoners who could demonstrate that their verdicts were \u201ctainted by racial animus\u201d should be \u201centitled to relief, regardless of the date of their conviction.\u201d In particular, he said, new trials should be granted when it can be proven that a Black juror had voted to acquit the accused.<\/p>\n Louisiana\u2019s rejection of retroactivity put a premium on the type of deals offered to Gray. But before his could be finalized and approved by the courts, it was upended in November 2023 by a massive political shift in Louisiana as Landry was elected governor.<\/p>\n Campaigning on a tough-on-crime platform, the former police officer and state attorney general vowed to accelerate executions, impose stiffer sentences and end the reign of \u201cwoke district attorneys\u201d whom he accused of \u201cplaying a dangerous game of catch and release\u201d with criminals.<\/p>\n Within his first few months in office, in March 2024, Landry signed Act 10, which prohibits district attorneys from waiving the two-year deadline for prisoners to challenge their convictions through post-conviction relief. Such a waiver is typically needed to revive decades-old cases like Gray\u2019s.<\/p>\n It was set to go into effect Aug. 1, 2024.<\/p>\n The clock was now ticking for Gray and his attorneys. Given the drastic change in the political climate, they believed they needed to uncover additional evidence that Gray\u2019s prosecution was unjust to increase his chances of being released. And they needed to do so before Williams lost the ability to have missed deadlines waived.<\/p>\n They caught their first break the same month Landry signed Act 10 into law. That\u2019s when they requested and received Gray\u2019s original 1980 case file from the district attorney\u2019s office, something they had never seen before.<\/p>\n Colin Reingold, Gray\u2019s attorney from 2021 to 2024, said he skimmed the file, blowing past the cover page, looking for any facts that could help secure Gray\u2019s release. He then recalled receiving a Slack message from an investigator on his team who was also scouring through the new documents: Wow, this swastika on the front cover is sure crazy, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n \u201cI was like, \u2018What are you talking about?\u2019 I didn\u2019t see it at all,\u201d Reingold said. \u201cAnd then I immediately went to the DA file and pulled it up. And, I mean, it\u2019s unmistakable.\u201d<\/p>\n That someone with the district attorney\u2019s office would doodle the Nazi symbol on the case file of a Black man accused of rape in the early 1980s raises significant concerns about the motivations of the prosecution, Reingold said.<\/p>\n \u201cYou always suspect that there are, in some cases, bad actors with beliefs that could taint the whole process,\u201d Reingold said. \u201cBut you never think that you\u2019re going to find it in black and white like that.\u201d<\/p>\n A doodle of a swastika on the upper right corner of the cover of Gray\u2019s file<\/span><\/p>\n The district attorney\u2019s office does not dispute the swastika\u2019s existence or that a staff member might have drawn it more than 40 years ago, according to a September filing by prosecutors. Assistant District Attorneys Jim Letten and William O\u2019Hara prosecuted Gray\u2019s case. O\u2019Hara died in 2007. Letten, who would later serve as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n \u201cOur office acknowledges that a derogatory symbol appears on a microfilmed copy of Mr. Gray\u2019s case file,\u201d Keith D. Lampkin, a spokesperson for the district attorney\u2019s office, told Verite News and ProPublica. \u201cThere is no record indicating who drew the symbol or when it was drawn.\u201d<\/p>\n The swastika was important to Gray\u2019s claims of racial bias, but even more vital was the discovery two months later, in June 2024, that the two people who voted to acquit Gray were Black.<\/p>\n Erica Navalance, an attorney with the Promise of Justice Initiative who currently represents Gray, said these new pieces of evidence spoke directly to the two factors Genovese said in his partial dissent should trigger a new trial: racial bias and proof that a Black juror voted to acquit.<\/p>\n Armed with this information, Gray\u2019s attorneys filed a new appeal the day before Act 10 went into effect. They knew that Williams was under increasing pressure from Landry to abandon his efforts to reinvestigate old cases but hoped this new evidence would convince his office to keep their word and free Gray.<\/p>\n Publicly, Williams refused to back down, telling his conservative opponents during a legislative hearing last September that he could not ignore the city\u2019s long history of wrongfully convicting Black people.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the city of New Orleans, we\u2019ve been so good at mass-producing defective convictions that I think it is incumbent that we make sure that we let these cases be heard,\u201d Williams said.<\/p>\n \n Louisiana Judge Nullifies Death Row Inmate\u2019s Murder Conviction That Was Based on Junk Science<\/strong>\n <\/p>\n Eleven days later, Williams\u2019 office took an unexpected position in its response to Gray\u2019s appeal. Its hands were tied by Act 10, it said, and it could no longer waive missed deadlines. As a result, Gray would have to serve out the remainder of his life sentence, prosecutors claimed.<\/p>\n The district attorney\u2019s office has maintained this position despite Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Robin Pittman stating in November as part of Gray\u2019s case that its interpretation of Act 10 was wrong. As long as the appeal was filed before Aug. 1, Pittman said, it retained the ability to waive deadlines. Four months later, the state Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Taylor came to the same conclusion.<\/p>\n Navalance said she\u2019d never before witnessed the state district attorney\u2019s association rallying behind a law that would strip them of their own power.<\/p>\n \u201c\u200b\u200bI thought our goal was to see justice done,\u201d Navalance said. \u201cI thought we all agreed that meant Lloyd Gray should come home 45 years after being convicted of a crime he didn\u2019t commit.\u201d<\/p>\n Gray on a recent video call with his lawyers. He fears he will never leave Angola.<\/span><\/p>\n The district attorney\u2019s office told Verite News and ProPublica that its response to Gray\u2019s case simply reflects statutory changes. \u201cIt is now for the court to determine whether Mr. Gray\u2019s application overcomes those procedural requirements,\u201d Lampkin said.<\/p>\n Gray said the whiplash of events over the past several years \u2014 from believing he once had a shot at freedom to fearing the door might be permanently closed \u2014 have felt like a \u201cmirage.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou see it,\u201d he said, \u201cbut when you reach for it, it\u2019s not really there.\u201d<\/p>\n Mariam Elba of ProPublica contributed research.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This article was produced for ProPublica\u2019s Local Reporting Network in partnership with Verite News. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week. Reporting Highlights Split-Jury Verdicts: Even though the Supreme Court struck down the use of \u201cJim Crow juries\u201d that result in split-jury verdicts, Louisiana is the last state where<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17704,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[847,5874,7602,9958,848,247,2998],"class_list":{"0":"post-17703","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-social-issues","8":"tag-block","9":"tag-freedom","10":"tag-gray","11":"tag-lloyd","12":"tag-louisiana","13":"tag-propublica","14":"tag-seeking"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17703","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17703\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17704"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Francis Chung\/POLITICO via AP Images
\n <\/span><\/p>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Gerald Herbert\/AP Photo
\n <\/span><\/p>\n\u201cJim Crow Juries\u201d<\/h3>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Obtained by ProPublica and Verite News
\n <\/span><\/p>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Bill Haber\/AP Photo
\n <\/span><\/p>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Chandra McCormick via AP
\n <\/span><\/p>\nA Deal Retracted<\/h3>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Jack Brook\/AP Photo
\n <\/span><\/p>\nSwastika on the Case File<\/h3>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Obtained by ProPublica and Verite News. Highlight added by ProPublica.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Kathleen Flynn for ProPublica
\n <\/span><\/p>\n