Uncovering the Truth: Phoenixx Ugrilla's Wrongful Conviction

There are cases that leave people with questions. Then there are cases that leave people with no choice but to speak up.

The conviction of Derrick Bernard Jr., known to many as Phoenixx Ugrilla, is one of those cases.

Derrick was convicted in connection with the 2019 murder of William Underwood, also known as FYL Jackk. The prosecution’s theory was that Derrick somehow ordered a murder from behind bars, using coded language over jail phone calls. They argued that ordinary words, conversations, and references were actually secret instructions. They claimed that Derrick solicited Aeeshawn Mathews to carry out the killing.

But the case becomes impossible to ignore when one fact is placed at the center:

The man Derrick was accused of sending to commit the murder was later found not guilty.

That should have changed everything.

Instead, Derrick remains convicted.

A Case Built on a Theory That Later Fell Apart

At Derrick’s trial, the state presented a theory that depended heavily on interpretation. Prosecutors claimed that jail calls contained coded language and that Derrick was communicating about murder. But according to the defense and advocates who have reviewed the case, jurors were not given the full picture.

Short clips of phone calls were played. Full conversations were not presented in the same way. Context matters, especially when the state is asking a jury to believe that casual words secretly meant something else.

Later, during Aeeshawn Mathews’ trial, the full calls were reportedly presented more completely. That trial ended differently. Mathews was acquitted.

That contrast raises a serious question:

How can Derrick be serving life for allegedly ordering a man to commit murder when that same alleged killer was found not guilty of the murder?

Two Trials. Two Sets of Rules. One Man Still in Prison.

The differences between Derrick’s trial and Mathews’ trial are disturbing.

Derrick was forced to represent himself in a murder trial. He faced the power of the state without the same legal protection most defendants depend on when their life is on the line. Advocates argue that he was denied meaningful access to discovery, denied the ability to fully present alternate suspects, denied key witnesses, and denied the complete context of the calls used against him.

Meanwhile, the later trial of the alleged shooter looked very different. Mathews had counsel. The defense was able to present a fuller picture. The jury heard more context. And after hearing that case, the jury did not convict him of murder.

That is not a minor inconsistency. That is the foundation of the case cracking in public view.

The Grand Jury Said No

Another fact makes this case even harder to understand.

In 2021, a grand jury reportedly declined to indict Derrick due to lack of probable cause. In other words, the evidence was not strong enough then.

But years later, charges were filed anyway.

Advocates argue that the state moved forward in 2024 using essentially the same theory and the same evidence that had already failed to satisfy a grand jury. If true, that should concern everyone who cares about due process.

A person should not be dragged into a life-or-death prosecution because the state found a different route after one path failed.

The Right to a Fair Trial Is Not Optional

The Constitution is not supposed to be a decoration in a courtroom. It is supposed to be a shield.

Every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial. That includes the right to counsel, the right to present a defense, the right to call witnesses, the right to confront the evidence, the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to have the public see justice being done.

Derrick’s supporters believe those rights were violated.

They argue that he was not simply convicted because of strong evidence. They argue that he was convicted after being placed in a position where he could not fully defend himself. They argue that the jury did not hear the complete story. They argue that the state’s theory was allowed to stand without the context that later helped another jury acquit the alleged shooter.

That matters.

Because a conviction is not justice if the process was broken.

What About the Alternate Suspects?

One of the most troubling issues in Derrick’s case is the question of alternate suspects.

Advocates have raised concerns that there were other individuals who should have been investigated more thoroughly. They have pointed to claims of other leads, possible confessions, DNA issues, and information that could have changed the way jurors understood the case.

If there were other viable suspects, Derrick’s jury deserved to know that.

The public deserves to know that.

And William Underwood’s family deserves to know that every lead was taken seriously before the case was closed around a theory that later unraveled.

This Is Not Just About Derrick

This case is about Phoenixx Ugrilla. It is about Derrick Bernard Jr. It is about a man sitting in prison while major questions remain unanswered.

But it is also bigger than one man.

It is about what happens when prosecutors build a case on interpretation instead of certainty. It is about what happens when a person is forced to trial without the tools needed to defend himself. It is about what happens when one jury convicts a man for allegedly ordering a killing, while another jury later acquits the person he supposedly ordered to commit it.

It is about whether the justice system is willing to correct itself when the truth becomes inconvenient.

False Justice Is No Justice

Derrick’s conviction should be reviewed. The case should be examined by appellate lawyers, oversight agencies, journalists, innocence organizations, and anyone with the power to ask hard questions.

The public should demand answers.

Why was Derrick tried first, before the alleged shooter?

Why was the full context of the calls not presented the same way in Derrick’s trial?

Why was a man forced to defend himself in a murder case carrying a life sentence?

Why were alternate suspect theories restricted?

Why did a grand jury say no in 2021, only for charges to move forward later?

And most importantly:

If Aeeshawn Mathews did not murder William Underwood, then who did?

Justice for Phoenixx is not about ignoring William Underwood. It is about honoring him enough to demand the truth. A wrongful conviction does not solve a murder. It hides the real answers. It lets the system claim closure while the public is left with contradictions.

Derrick Bernard Jr. deserves a fair review.

William Underwood deserves the truth.

And the community deserves a justice system that does not confuse a conviction with justice.

False Justice is No Justice.