So, Bruce, tell us a little bit more about where you're located, what your firm specializes in, and kind of what area do you cover?

So, we have a law firm that has offices in Manhattan and two offices on Long Island.

We service the metropolitan area in New York City, for sure.

And because some of our work has brought us to different locations in New York, we have a pretty vibrant practice throughout New York State.

And to some degree, we're not a national firm, but we've handled cases all over the country.

Our firm was established in 2012.

Don't want to take credit or blame, but it was my idea to set up a firm that would be able to provide litigation services for anybody from commercial litigation to civil rights, which is largely wrongful convictions, false arrests.

And what you had perfectly working here last month is broken.

So that's evidence that was always there, but now we could potentially use it to prove innocence.

Right.

But that's exactly how the DNA exonerations work, right? People weren't wrongly convicted because of bad DNA, typically.

They were wrongly convicted for all the reasons that people get wrongly convicted: bad eyewitnesses, false confessions, sloppy lawyering, bad judges, dishonest prosecutors, cops who hid Brady material.

All of those factors contributed to the wrongful conviction of a host of individuals.

But what happened was, in a very few number of cases, kind of the tip of the iceberg, you had biological evidence that was preserved, and at the time of the trial, the technology wasn't there to analyze.

Years later, the technology catches up and can analyze it, and the biological evidence is still around to be tested, and now you can test that with the new technology and determine that the person actually didn't commit the crime.

What does it mean if they're arguing just Colleen? Does that not do anything because he was convicted of Rita's?