Blog Posts

Colin Warner - Mistaken Witness ID / Perjury / False Confession

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 03:14:34 +0000

Warner, (Hilary) Colins (or Colin); murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification, perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory information, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

[501:889]; 2nd Dept. 4/28/86; affirmed

"[Warner's] conviction of second-degree murder was fully supported by the evidence..." S53 "It's been 16 years [as of 2017] since Warner, now 55, was released from the Fishkill Correctional Facility in upstate New York. But that stretch of time is dwarfed by the 21 years he spent locked up for a murder he didn't commit.

"In a shocking case of mistaken identity, institutional racism, and tortuous legalese, Warner was wrongly convicted of the murder of another teenager. Even though the key witness changed his story, Warner had an alibi and the real murderer eventually admitted his guilt, the wrongly accused man was kept behind bars for more than two decades, several of those years in solitary confinement. All the while, Warner's childhood friend, [Carl] King, fought to prove his innocence.

"[O]n April 10, 1980, a 16-year-old named Mario Hamilton was killed with a gunshot to the head on Flatbush Avenue. Two 14-year-olds were interrogated by the cops: Thomas Charlemagne, the only witness to the murder, and Hamilton's brother, Martell. Exhausted after hours of interrogation, Charlemagne picked Warner's mug shot out of the police book. Warner had one prior, nonviolent offense for carrying a switchblade, a charge for which he was still serving three years' probation.

"Warner was arrested based on those two juveniles' statements, despite the lack of evidence tying him to the crime. Warner did not know Hamilton at all.

"King, 17 at the time, had not been with Warner when the murder took place, but he knew who had.

"'Two of my friends were with Colin at the time. They gave that information to the police. They gave statements as to Colin's whereabouts. They knew he was innocent,' King said.

"A second man, 15-year-old Norman Simmonds, was arrested months later for being the driver of the car that was supposed to have been taken before and after killing Hamilton. The two men, who had never met, were tried together two years after Warner was arrested.

"During the trial, Simmonds confessed to Warner that he had really committed the crime.

"But Simmonds refused to tell anyone else that Warner was innocent, and he rejected a plea deal that would have exonerated Warner.

"The first trial ended in a hung jury, with Charlemagne changing his testimony to say that only Simmonds had been the killer in a drive-by shooting of Hamilton. But the second trial resulted in [convictions for] second-degree murder for both, partially due to Charlemagne's initial testimony.

"In his early years in prison, Warner got into fights, unable to control his fury and frustration towards the system's indifference. 'I don't give a f--k about nothing because I'm innocent! You can't treat me like a guilty person!' Warner remembers thinking. He would spend four years in solitary confinement.

"Gradually, he learned to channel his emotions differently, going back to school in the prison system. 'I could not have kept that anger flowing like a river -- it would have destroyed me in prison,' he says.

"Finally, in 2001, King found a young lawyer, William J. Robedee, who believed in Warner's innocence and who joined King in tracking down Simmonds, who had been paroled in 1989, on Long Island.

"Simmonds had previously signed an affidavit in 1991 stating that he had acted alone in the murder, but it was deemed insufficient by the court. [Albert J. Murray].

"King and Robedee, who had just started his private practice after a short stint in the DA's sex crimes unit, persuaded Simmonds to give them a full deposition admitting he had murdered Hamilton alone. After 21 years in prison, King says, it only took 21 days for them to get in front of a judge and free his friend.

"Warner -- who was awarded $2.7 million in 2009 for his wrongful conviction -- moved to Georgia with his wife, Antoinette, and their daughter."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"On April 10, 1980, 16-year-old Mario Hamilton was shot in the back of the neck [on a Brooklyn street].

"Thomas Charlemagne, 14, saw the shooting and ran to get Hamilton's 15-year-old brother, Martell. While Mario Hamilton was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead, Charlemagne and Martell Hamilton went to the 67th Precinct police station.

"They were interviewed separately and with no guardian present for six hours. Charlemagne told police that he saw 18-year-old Colin Warner, a native of Trinidad from Crown Heights, step out of a car and shoot Mario, get back in the car driven by 15-year-old Norman Simmonds and leave the scene.

"The following day, police spoke with Martell Hamilton and showed him a photo lineup, but he did not identify anyone. He told detectives that two days earlier Simmonds had threatened to kill his brother. A detective then placed a photo of Warner alone in front of Martell and Martell said he may have seen him near the scene of the crime."

"Warner and Simmonds went on trial in March 1982. The trial had been delayed because Simmonds disappeared. He was arrested on a charge of robbing a restaurant in February 1982 and so was available to testify.

"At trial, Charlemagne testified that Mario Hamilton was killed by Simmonds in a drive-by shooting -- deviating from his earlier claim that Warner was the gunman who walked up and killed Mario.

"The trial ended in a hung jury...Warner and Simmonds were tried again in May 1982 and were convicted."

"Carl King, a boyhood friend of Warner's from Trinidad who had reconnected with him on a playground in Brooklyn before the shooting, had followed the case and devoted his life to trying to prove Warner's innocence."

"In 1999, King brought the case to the attention of attorney William Robedee, who was struck by Charlemagne's change in his account and the lack of physical evidence tying Warner to the murder. King had located witnesses never called by the defense who said Warner was not at the scene of the crime. Mario Hamilton's brother provided an affidavit saying that he only identified Warner because he was pressured by police.

"Robedee desposed Simmonds, who said under oath that he alone killed Hamilton. Robedee also presented two witnesses who were friends of Simmonds, who said they saw the shooting and that Simmonds acted alone. And Robedee developed evidence from the autopsy findings that demonstrated that the shooting was not the result of a drive-by shooting.

"The [Brooklyn DA's] Office conducted a reinvestgation, which included polygraph tests of witnesses and agreed not to oppose Warner's release.

"Robedee's motion to vacate the conviction was granted on January 31, 2001 and Warner was released on February 1, 2001.

"In 2002, Warner filed a claim with the New York Court of Claims. He settled the claim for $2 million.

"In 2017, Warner was the subject of Crown Heights, a cinematic dramatization of his wrongful conviction. The film was adapted from an episode of a This American Life podcast."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Shih Wei Su - Perjury / False Confession / Prosecutor Misconduct

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 03:09:10 +0000

Su, Shih Wei; attempted murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury, prosecutor lied in court

Suggestibility issues

[624:904]; 2nd Dept. 3/13/95; affirmed

"[W]e are satisified that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence..."

R18 [559] "Shih Wei Su was eighteen years old when he was convicted of attempted murder at trial in Queens in 1992. The underlying incident involved the shooting of two victims at a pool hall in what the prosecution contended was a youth gang-related incident. The principal prosecution witness was Jeffrey Tom, a member of the Green Dragons, which was a rival of the gang with which Su was allegedly affiliated, the White Tigers. Neither Tom nor the two victims who were with him at the time of the shooting implicated Su in their initial statements to police, but they all changed their story at about the same time and implicated him one way or another. Tom was the most damaging witness, claiming that he knew Su and heard him give an order to shoot. Although Tom had his own robbery-by-extortion case, he denied, under questioning by the prosecutor, that the lenient plea bargain he had received (a youthful offender adjudication and sentence of probation) had resulted from any deal with the [DA's] Office. The prosecut[or] in her summation argued that Tom's testimony was truthful. Su was convicted and received the maximum sentence of sixteen and two-thirds to fifty years in prison.

"Su repeatedly challenged his conviction, both on direct appeal and collateral attack, claiming that Tom must have received some sort of promise or benefit for his testimony. However, the [DA] argued successfully that either Su or his attorneys were remiss for not making Tom's sealed plea and sentencing minutes part of the record. In 1999, over the [DA's] objection, a judge finally ordered Tom's plea and sentencing minutes unsealed, reasoning that the [DA] 'has no legitimate interest in shielding possible perjury.' The minutes proved that a prosecutor had made an explicit, on-the-record deal with Tom to grant him leniency in exchange for his trial testimony against Su. Tom's flat denials, elicited by a different prosecutor at Su's trial, [560] had been false. But the New York courts still would not grant Su any relief, accepting the [DA's] additional procedural argument that Su's Brady violation should not be considered on the merits.

"Finally, on July 11, 2003, the Second Circuit granted Su's federal habeas corpus petition and directed that he be retried within sixty days or released. The court excoriated the prosecutor [Linda Rosero] for 'knowingly elicit[ing] false testimony' from a witness whose credibility was 'central to the deliberations of any reasonable jury,' for failing to correct such false testimony, and for 'bolster[ing]' Tom's lies during her closing argument. In vacating the conviction, it reasoned that a conviction obtained through 'testimony the prosecutor knows to be false is repugnant to the Constitution.' As the Bronx [DA] had done in the Poventud case, the Queens [DA] tried to get Su to accept a 'time-served' plea bargain,* but Su refused. After postponing the trial on several occasions, [DA] Richard Brown's office, on November 5, 2003, moved to dismiss all charges."

[* This offering of 'time-served' to a(n often innocent) defendant who has just had a conviction overturned -- meaning that he would then be released immediately (but with the conviction still on his record, and virtually no chance of ever being financially compensated) -- is a common face-saving prosecution ploy. Often, as was the case here, it is only several months later that the prosecution finally drops all charges.]

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"In June, 2001, Su filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. District Court [Allyne Ross] denied the petition, finding that the evidence of the deal had been hidden, but that Su was not prejudiced by its suppression.

"In July 2003, the...Second Circuit granted Su's petition...because evidence of the deal had been withheld from Su's defense lawyer and because prosecutors knowingly allowed Tom to lie about the deal."

"In October 2008, the city of New York settled the wrongful conviction lawsuit brought by Su for $3.5 million."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Frank Sterling - False Confession / Police Misconduct

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 03:06:04 +0000

Sterling, Frank; murder; NRE: false confession, police misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence

Suggestibility issues

A9 [1636] "Viola Manville, a seventy-four-year-old woman who regularly enjoyed hiking the countryside of Hilton...on the outskirts of Rochester, was killed during the morning of November 29, 1988. She had been badly beaten and shot with pellets from a BB gun. Her body was left alongside railroad tracks, in the general vicinity of where a man had tried to rape her some three years earlier. That man, Glen Sterling, remained in prison following his conviction for the rape attempt. Glen Sterling's brother, Frank, was among the many people interviewed by sheriff's detectives during the homicide investigation. Frank Sterling had no prior criminal record* and no reputation for violence. Although no physical evidence linked him to the crime, the authorities apparently reasoned that he may have had a motive to kill Ms. Manville in retaliation for his brother's conviction and punishment. Sterling accounted for his whereabouts on the day of the murder, explaining that he had been working as a school bus monitor during the morning, returned home, walked to a grocery store to make a purchase, and watched cartoons on television in the afternoon. His alibi was confirmed and neither he nor anyone else was arrested in the ensuing weeks and months."

[* That was also true of Nickel. ]

[1637] "More than two-and-one-half years later, in July 1991, detectives again visited Frank Sterling at his home. He had just returned from a truck-driving job that had consumed the better part of two days. Although tired, he agreed to a polygraph examination, and accompanied the detectives to the sheriff's office in Rochester. During the pre-examination session, the polygraph technician falsely told Sterling that his brother Glen had bragged to other prisoners that Frank had killed Ms. Manville. After the examination, Sterling was advised that he was being deceitful when he denied the killling. As midnight approached, another interrogator took over the questioning. He got Sterling to admit he was angry enough about his brother's incarceration to have killed Manville, but Sterling continued to deny that he had done so. He asked to be hypnotized to prove that he was telling the truth. The investigators responded by holding his hands and assisting him with relaxation exercises. They told him that 'we were here for him, we understood [and] felt he should tell the truth to get it off his chest.' Roughly eight hours into the interrogation session, Sterling admitted killing Ms. Manville. Shortly after five o'clock in the morning, a twenty-minute video-recording preserved his detailed confession."

[But note that investgators failed to videotape the entirety (or even the vast majority) of this many-hours-long interrogation session. (In Nickel's case, detectives failed to videotape anything at all.)]

"Sterling repudiated his confession shortly after making it, but his recantation was not believed. With his incriminating admission serving as the primary evidence of his guilt, Sterling was convicted of murder following trial in September 1992. Just days later, several townspeople alerted the police that nineteen-year-old Mark Christie was bragging that he had 'just gotten away with [1683] murder.' Christie was among the individuals questioned by the police during the 1988 investigation of the killing. Then sixteen, Christie maintained that he had gone to school at mid-morning on the day of the murder. Although school records indicated that he did not attend class until 1:20 that afternoon, investigators did not pursue him as a suspect. Police interrogated Christie again in December 1992, following his reported boastings about the murder. He claimed that he had only been 'kidding around' when he made those statements. The results of an initial polygraph exam, in which he denied the killing, were deemed 'incomplete' owing to Christie's erratic breating and excessive movement. He passed a second exam, administered the next day. The judge in Frank Sterling's murder trial [Donald T. Wisner] concluded that Christie's purported admissions were not believable, and imposed a sentence of twenty-five years to life on Sterling on December 23, 1992.

"In 1994, Mark Christie strangled four-year-old Kali Ann Poulton after luring her into his apartment. He then disposed of her body in a water coolant tank at his workplace. Later he participated in searches for the child, whose disappearance caused widespread alarm and grief throughout the greater Rochester community. The killing remained unsolved until 1996, when Christie blurted an admission during an argument with his wife that he had killed Kali. His wife called the police. Christie confessed to investigators, who subsequently uncovered the child's body."

[1639] "Christie's admission and conviction with respect to Kali's death inspired a new series of challenges to Sterling's conviction, which renewed the allegation that Christie was responsible for murdering Ms. Manville. Beginning in 1996 and over the next several years, Sterling filed a series of motions to vacate his conviction, all of which were denied. In late 2008, 'touch DNA' -- testing on skin cells left on the clothing that Ms. Manville had worn when murdered -- implicated Christie in the killing. In early 2010, after being interviewed in prison by an Innocence Project attorney and an interrogation expert, Christie confessed to murdering Ms. Manville. Frank Sterling's conviction was vacated and he was released from prison in early April 2010, after spending eighteen years incarcerated for a crime he did not commit.

"Christie pleaded guilty to murdering Ms. Manville in October 2011...At the sentencing hearing, one of Ms. Manville's grandsons observed that '[n]ot only did [Christie] murder my grandmother, he also took the life of a child so that's unforgivable.' Kali Ann Poulton's mother wiped at tears while reflecting that her daughter would still be alive if the investigation into Ms. Manville's murder had resulted in Christie's arrest and conviction, instead of Frank Sterling's. 'Of course it has crossed my mind. What if?...But unfortunately it is what it is. We can't go backward.'"

C10 [485] "Frank Sterling was...convicted of murder based on a confession, which he had given after a thirty-six hour trucking shift followed by an eight-hour police interrogation.* Over the course of the next eighteen years, Sterling brought six appeals in which he argued for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence implicated a man named Mark Christie, an original suspect in the murder. His appeals were unsuccessful, despite presenting evidence that Christie had bragged about committing the murder, providing tips to investigators about how Christie frequented the same path where the murder occurred and loved to shoot a BB gun -- the murder weapon -- and highlighting the fact that Christie was convicted of a different murder several years later. Finally, in 2004, the trial court [Frank P. Geraci] permitted testing on a hair that was found in the victim's hand, but denied testing on the 'victim's clothing, vaginal swabs, fingernail scrapings, and/or pieces of the bloodstained BB gun,' on the ground that Sterling had not established a 'reasonable nexus between the testable items, the particular facts and circumstances surrounding his conviction and how DNA testing of such items would have produced a more favorable result at trial.'"

[* So, Sterling had gone without sleep for some 44 hours before 'detectives' (finally) wrung a false confession out of him. This is even longer than the 36 hours in the Daniel Gristwood case.]

"The hair turned out to belong to the victim, and it was not until 2006 that the [DA's] Office agreed to additional testing of the other items. It was this testing that not only excluded Sterling, [486] but also implicated Christie. In 2010, eighteen years after he was wrongfully convicted, Frank Sterling's conviction was vacated."

from NRE synopsis (by the Innocence Project):

"Sterling's alibi was airtight -- numerous co-workers testified that he was at work as a bus aide at the time of the murder."

"Investigators approached Sterling as he returned from a 36-hour trucking job. He agreed to an interview at the police station, which began in the afternoon and continued overnight into the following morning. Sterling maintained his innocence, while saying he had trouble remembering. The interrogation included several highly suggestive methods -- including hypnosis and the suggestion of details. At one point, the officers showed crime scene photos to Sterling to 'help him remember.' Interrogation standards followed by hundreds of law enforcement agencies throughout the country admonish against such techniques.

"The officers had Sterling lay on the floor with his feet up on a chair and his eyes closed. As they rubbed his back, the interrogators insisted that Sterling had committed the murder, showed him pictures of the crime scene and the victim's body and shared key details with him. One of the officers told Sterling that he would feel better if he let out his anger towards the victim, telling him that the victim 'deserved what she got,' and insisted that 'we're here for you, we still care for you.'

"Finally, after more than eight hours at the police station, Sterling tightened up, began to shake, and blurted out 'I did it, I need help.' At this point, the officers demanded a videotaped confession and an exhausted Sterling complied. His confession included numerous inconsistencies, including the incorrect location of the crime scene on a map. Sterling also could not describe what he had supposedly done with the BB gun, and where or how many times he had shot the victim. Despite his immediate recantation of the confession, he was charged with murder."

"Before his sentencing, Sterling and his attorneys learned about Mark Christie, a 20-year-old man ffrom Rochester -- and an early suspect in the murder -- who was not investigated further after he gave police a false alibi that they took at face value."

"Sterling filed a wrongful conviction lawsuit and in May 2014, Monroe County agreed to settle the case for $8.625 million. He also received $2.1 million in compensation from the New York Court of Claims. Sterling died of a heart attack in June 2017."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Douglas Warney - False Confession / Officer Misconduct

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 03:03:22 +0000

Warney, Douglas; murder; NRE: false confession, false/misleading forensic evidence, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, misconduct in interrogation of exoneree

Suggestibility issues

N4 [96] "In 1997, [Warney] was convicted of murder based upon self-incriminating statements made by [Warney], a mentally retarded man suffering from serious physical and mental disabilities at the time of his interrogation and arrest. Failure by police and prosecutors to further investigate and analyze forensic evidence that was inconsistent with [Warney's] alleged confession. More sophisticated DNA testing was unavailable at the time of trial. During the post-conviction phase, the prosecutors originally opposed and the court denied a defense motion for more advanced DNA testing. It is noteworthy that those very tests (conducted voluntarily by the [DA's] office along with a post-conviction investigation) eventually led to the exoneration."

C10 [484] "Douglas Warney was convicted in 1997 of killing William Beason, a civil rights activist, in large part based of a confession he gave which was 'riddled with errors.' Once more sophisticated DNA testing became available, Warney, in 2004, petitioned the court for access to post-conviction DNA testing. The [DA's] Office opposed the testing, stating 'DNA results now would add nothing to what we already know or what the jury knew at the time of the trial,'* and the court [Harold L. Galloway] denied Warney's motion and rejected claims that someone else could have committed the crimes as 'too speculative.'"**

[* The first part of this statement is false, and the second is meaningless. This was all just bluster to try to protect a (wrongful) conviction.]

[** This, too, is some combination of false and meaningless: How is it ever 'too speculative' to demand that all possible forensic tests be performed in order to establish the true perpetrator of a given crime? The court above was apparently just as anxious to protect this wrongful conviction as the prosecutor.]

"Unbeknownst to [Warney], the [DA's] Office decided to conduct testing on the samples the next year, based on the theory that Warney must have had an accomplice, and thus a potential murderer was still walking the streets..."

[Note that this puts quite a different light on the DA's motivations for conducting DNA testing than was implied by the NYS Task Force on Wrongful Convictions (N4) report cited above, which wrote: 'It is noteworthy that those very tests (conducted voluntarily by the [DA's] Office...) eventually led to exoneration.' Yes, the DA's office 'voluntarily' had these tests conducted. But it did not do so out of an interest in ascertaining whether Warney was wrongfully convicted, but rather, because it believed that another person may have also been involved in this crime. Thus, the Task Force was putting an unwarrantedly positive 'spin' on the DA's motives here.]

L23 [768] "According to police investigators, Warney's confession contained numerous nonpublic facts that seemingly corroborated his guilt...[T]hese included:

- that the victim was wearing a nightshirt; - that the victim was cooking chicken; - that the victim was missing money from his wallet; - that the murder weapon was a knife with an approximately twelve-inch serrated blade; - that the knife had been kept in the kitchen; - that the victim was stabbed multiple times; - that the victim owned a pinky ring and a particular necklace; - that a tissue used as a bandage was covered with blood; and that - there was a pornographic tape in the victim's television.

"The investigator who interrogated Warney emphatically denied feeding Warney crime facts or suggesting answers to him during the unrecorded interrogation.* The prosecutor who successfully convicted Warney argued to the jury that the accuracy of Warney's confession was corroborated by his detailed knowledge of these nonpublic crime facts. Although the state had no other evidence than the confession from the unrecorded interrogation, Warney was convicted...It would be almost a decade before DNA testing established his innocence, and he was fully exonerated."

[* Nickel's interrogation was not recorded either.]

[750:731]; 4th Dept. 11/15/02; affirmed

"The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence...[Warney] confessed to the crime and gave accurate descriptions of many details of the crime scene."

[How does the phrase 'accurate description of many details' square with the characterization that Warney's confession was 'riddled with errors'? (In any event, as shown above, the details he did get right were fed to him by the police.)]

16 N.Y.S.3d 428; Court of Appeals 3/31/11; civil suit

[Warney spent more than nine years in prison for a murder he did not commit. IQ of 68, 8th-grade dropout. DNA and fingerprint match to Eldred Johnson, who stated that he acted alone. Even by trial time, none of the tested blood evidence matched Warney or victim. (Just blood typing available at the time.)]

from Records and Briefs:

[13] [DA Michael C. Green; ADAs Larry Bernstein and Wendy Evans Lehman.]

"William Beason was found stabbed to death in his apartment on January 3, 1996...Douglas Warney, who had full-blown AIDS, was arrested three days later on the basis of a false confession elicited by the Rochester police..."

"Some blood found at the scene -- on a blue towel and tissue found in the bathroom -- was determined not to come from the victim or Mr. Warney, but the testing conducted on it -- which predated DNA technology -- could not identify its source. Forensic analysis of the other evidence -- including blood collected from under the victim's fingernails and a fingerprint found on a videotape box in the victim's room -- was inconclusive."

[53] [Dets. Evelyn Beaudrault, John Gropp ]

[54] "Rather than properly investigating the crime to find the true perpetrator... Beaudrault and Gropp fabricated false inculpatory evidence against an innocent man, by falsifying a typewritten statement that they attributed completely to Mr. Warney, by feeding Mr. Warney non-public details about the crime that only the police and the perpetrator could have known, and by falsely claiming that the non-public details originated with Mr. Warney.

"The...officers lied to the prosecution and defense counsel to conceal the unconstitutional tactics they employed to secure the so-called 'confession,' thereby suppressing the fact that they had falsified statements attributed to Mr. Warney...At the preliminary hearing and trial... Beaudrault and Gropp provided false, perjurious testimony, consistent with their pretrial reports and communications with prosecutors, that Mr. Warney, voluntarily and without being fed facts, gave details of how he committed the crime, including facts that only the perpetrator or the police would know."

"To create corroborative evidence to bolster the so-called 'confession'... Robert Garland, an evidence technician with the RPD [Rochester Police Department], falsely claimed that a partial fingerprint lifted from the murder weapon was inconsistent with the victim's print and consistent with Mr. Warney's print when, in fact, Mr. Warney was excluded or at least could not be included as a possible source of the print. Garland concealed the true, exculpatory nature of the fingerprint evidence from the prosecution and defense counsel and provided false, perjurious testimony at trial concerning the fingerprint evidence."

"In addition...Stephen Edgett, another RPD evidence technician, determined that at least one print from a videotape box found at the scene of the murder belonged to an unidentified source -- meaning that it belonged to neither the victim nor Mr. Warney. Yet, neither Edgett nor the other...officers conducted any investigation to determine the source of the fingerprint."

"It is now known that the source of the fingerprint is the real perpetrator, Eldred Johnson, an individual who had a history of committing violent acts and slaying innocent people. In fact, just two weeks prior to the Beason murder, Johnson murdered his landlord's wife and almost killed his landlord by repeatedly stabbing them. While Beason was not arrested for those crimes until over two years later, he had been arrested and convicted for numerous crimes in the State of New York, including violent felonies, prior to the Beason murder. Thus, Johnson's fingerprints were in the statewide fingerprint database and accessible to the...officers for comparison with the unidentified print at the time of Mr. Warney's wrongful arrest. Because the...officers failed to investigate this obvious lead, Johnson remained free and subsequently attempted to kill two other individuals by slashing their throats. Had the...officers run the unidentified print through the statewide database, they would have identified and located Johnson to prevent him from brutalizing other innocent people."

"The unconstitutional and tortious acts of the...officers were not isolated incidents. Rather, these acts were consistent with the custom, policy, and practice of the Rochester Police Department to condone, encourage, and/or facilitate the use of coercive tactics against witnesses and suspects, the fabrication of evidence, the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, the failure to properly investigate serious crimes, and the failure to adequately train and supervise officers in critical law enforcement responsibilities."

[Offcrs. Sandra Adams and Thomas Jones also involved in case.]

[57] "On the morning of January 3, 1996, Michael Lee called the police to report that his roommate William Beason was missing. RPD officers reported to the Lee/Beason residence...With the aid of the Fire Department, RPD officers forced open the door to Beason's bedroom suite and found Beason's body on his bed, lying on his back, with numerous stab wounds to his neck and chest. There was a large quantity of blood on and around his body, and the suite appeared to be ransacked, with papers and clothing strewn about. Two pornographic tapes were found on the bedroom floor and one in the VCR."

"RPD evidence technicians processed the crime scene, finding and collecting a bloodstained knife, a bloody towel, and bloody tissue from the bathroom. They also lifted fingerprints from the crime scene, including six prints from one of the videotape boxes found in Beason's bedroom suite and one partial print obtained from the murder weapon."

"Lee last saw Beason on the morning of Sunday, December 31st, right before Lee left on a trip to Toronto. He told police that he returned from Toronto on Tuesday, January 2, 1996 and noticed that Beason's car was in the garage, though Beason should have gone to work that day and he always drove to work. When Lee went into the house, he noticed that Beason was not there and that, among other things, the window in the kitchen was left open and snow from a weekend storm had accumulated by it. Lee made several unsuccessful attempts to reach Beason on his cell phone that day. On the next day, January 3, 1996, Lee called Beason's workplace and was told that Beason was not there. Lee then noticed that a crockpot in the kitchen had been left on with chicken cooking inside. At this point, Lee decided to call the police.

"Based on an autopsy conducted on January 4, 1996, the medical examiner determined that Beason had been stabbed nineteen times in the neck and chest and died as a result of the stab wounds. The wounds were found to be consistent with the bloody knife recovered in Beason's bedroom. The medical examiner also found defensive wounds on Beason's left hand and, as a result, clippings of his fingernail were collected. It became readily apparent to the police that Beason died after a violent struggle and that the perpetrator was cut during the attack and went into the bathroom to clean blood off himself with the tissue and towel recovered by the police. The biological evidence recovered during the autopsy and the blood evidence from the scene were submitted to the Monroe County Public Safety Laboratory for analysis."

"On January 4, 1996, after the news of Beason's murder was widely reported in the press, Mr. Warney called the RPD in reference to the murder. Mr. Warney -- who has an IQ of 68, was in special education until he dropped out of school in the eighth grade, and was heavily medicated for full-blown AIDS -- was severely mentally impaired at the time he called the RPD. In fact, just days prior to the Beason murder, Mr. Warney had been hospitalized in a Rochester psychiatric facility for making crank calls to the police."

"Mr. Warney had a passing acquaintance with Mr. Beason prior to his death. Mr. Beason had previously met Mr. Warney and had hired Mr. Warney to clean his house and shovel snow from the driveway in front of his home. The last time Mr. Warney was at Beason's house was to shovel snow in the winter of 1994, and the last time Mr. Warney saw Mr. Beason was at the Monroe Avenue Pub after the Fourth of July fireworks in 1995."

"Prior to January 4, 1996, officers at the RPD knew of Mr. Warney because of his crank calls to the police in December 1995 and also because he had called the police on a prior occasion about drug activity in his apartment building."

"On the evening of January 4, 1996...Officer Sandra Adams, who previously responded to Mr. Warney's complaints about drug activity in the building, went to his apartment in response to Mr. Warney's call to the police."

"Mr. Warney informed Adams that he was concerned that his name was brought up in connection with the murder of a man named William on Chili Avenue. In response, Adams left her card and told Mr. Warney that he would be contacted by an investigator."

[58] "After eventualy speaking with Mr. Warney...Adams preparted a report, which stated that Mr. Warney implicated his cousin Brian Szymkowski in a homicide on Chili Avenue involving a man named William."

"On January 6, 1996, Gropp and Beaudrault arranged a meeting with Mr. Warney. They picked him up at his apartment at approximately 10:45 a.m. and brought him to the police station, where they placed him in a small office."

"Almost immediately, Gropp, in the presence of Beaudrault, began employing escalating coercive tactics to force Mr. Warney to make statements or admissions concerning the murder. Gropp began to verbally abuse Mr. Warney and threaten him, both physically and otherwise, in order to force him to admit that he committed the murder.

"In response to Gropp's intensified interrogation tactics, Mr. Warney requested an attorney, but Gropp and Beaudrault rejected Mr. Warney's request, stating that he did not need an attorney because they were simply investigating the crime."

"Neither Gropp, Beaudrault, or anyone else ever informed Mr. Warney of his Miranda rights* at any point during the interrogation."

[* This was also true of Nickel. ]

"Despite denying Mr. Warney's request for an attorney and despite the increasingly threatening atmosphere to which [he] was being subjected, Mr. Warney denied knowing anything about the crime."

"After...constant and repeated threats, Mr. Warney yielded to [their] coercive tactics and provided at least four different versions of events. The first...implicated Szymkowski and conformed to the facts Mr. Warney allegedly reported to Adams two days before. According to the second statement, however...he joined Szymkowski inside Beason's home. In the third...Mr. Warney's story evolved into an admission of greater culpability, as he stated that he and Szymkowski stabbed Beason together. By the fourth and final version of events, reflected in a typewritten statement created by Beaudrault and Gropp, Szymkowski was no longer present during the crime, and Mr. Warney falsely confessed that he acted alone in murdering Beason."

[59] [A second, even more detailed 'statement' was elicited later that same day.]

"The...officers did investigate Szymkowski and determined that he could not have participated in the crime because he was at a secured facility during the time in question and, thus, could not have left."

[60] "In the typewritten 'confession,' Mr. Warney purportedly stated that he stabbed Beason in the downstairs kitchen, but Beason was in fact attacked and killed in his upstairs bedroom...Mr. Warney also allegedly stated that he drove his brother's Chevrolet to Beason's home, yet his brother had not owned a Chevrolet in years and did not even own a car at the time of the murder...The...officers also attributed to Mr. Warney the admission that he cut his finger and bled at the scene of the crime -- an admission that was central to the police theory of the crime since they recovered a bloody tissue and towel in the bathroom, which suggested that the perpetrator used these items to wipe his wounds. But when Mr. Warney's hands were inspected and photographed on January 6, 1996 -- only days after the murder occurred -- he had no cuts or scratches, and when post-arrest blood group and enzyme testing was conducted on the tissue and towel, it excluded him and the victim as the source of the blood."

[62] [ADA Richard Keenan made closing argument.]

"[At trial,] the defense presented evidence from Thomas Rodwell, the County's serologist, who stated that enzyme testing excluded both the victim and Mr. Warney as the source of the blood found on the blue towel left in the [63] bathroom."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"During 12 hours of police interrogation, Warney gave varying accounts."

"Warney's confession...contained numerous inconsistencies. Szymkowski was in a medical facility at the time of the murder. Warney said he killed Beason in the kitchen, although evidence showed the murder occurred in the bedroom. He said he tossed his bloody clothes in a garbage can, but the can -- which had not been picked up -- had no bloody clothes. Warner was no stranger to police. A few days before Beason's murder, police took Warney to a psychiatric hospital after he made dozens of false calls reporting fires and car accidents and ordering pizzas. He had checked out after one day."

"When prosecutors interviewed him, [Eldred] Johnson admitted that he had acted alone in killing Beason and that he did not know Warney.

"On May 16, 2006, Warney's conviction was vacated and he was released from prison.

"Warney filed a claim with the New York Court of Claims that was settled for $400,000. As part of Warney's civil suit against the city, Ron Smith & Associates reviewed the print on the knife and concluded that Warney could be excluded as its source based on an 'absence of feature correlation.' Smith opined that Garland had tried to 'bolster the fingerprint evidence in the eyes of the jury.'

"In 2011, Warney settled a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Rochester for $3.75 million."

[All emhases added unless otherwise noted.]

Wilson Sharrif & Anthony Yarbough - False Confession / Perjury

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 03:00:04 +0000

Wilson, Sharrif AND Yarbough, Anthony; murder; NRE: false confession, perjury/false accusation, false/misleading forensic evidence, inadequate legal defense, police officer misconduct, forensic analyst misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, misconduct in interrogation of exoneree

Suggestibility issues

K19 "Anthony Yarbough and Shariff Wilson were convicted in connection with the 1992 triple homicide of Yarbough's mother, sister and a girl. In light of new DNA evidence, the convictions were overturned on Feb. 6 [2014]."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"In the early morning hours of June 18, 1992, 18-year-old Anthony Yarbough came home to his apartment in the Coney Island neighborhood of Brooklyn...and found his 40-year-old mother, Annie, stabbed to death. Yarbough's 12-year-old half-sister...and her 12-year-old friend...were also stabbed to death.

"Yarbough went outside and found his uncle waiting at a bus stop. They returned to the apartment and used a neighbor's phone to call police.

"That same day, police began interrogating 15-year-old Sharrif Wilson and Yarbough. Both youths said they had spent the night along the Brooklyn waterfront and in Greenwich Village and that Yarbough discovered the bodies when he arrived home at about 6:30 a.m.

"After several hours, Wilson gave a videotaped confession in which he said that he and Yarbough had stabbed the victims and then tied them up while they were still alive. After 15 hours, Yarbough signed a statement confessing to taking part in the murders with Wilson.

"The cases were severed and Wilson went to trial first in January 1994. There was no physical evidence linking Wilson to the murders. The prosecution played the video of his confession for the jury. The prosecution also presented testimony from a medical examiner who said that based on the autopsy, he believed the victims were killed shortly before Yarbough said he discovered the bodies.

"Wilson denied committing the murders and said that he falsely confessed because police threatened him and promised that he would be released if he confessed.

"On January 19, 1994, Wilson was convicted of three counts of murder. Two days later, before Wilson had been sentenced, Yarbough went to trial. Prosecutors presented a confession signed by Yarbough, who testified and denied he and Wilson committed the crime. Yarbough said he signed the confession after detectives struck him and he was told that Wilson had confessed and implicated him. A mistrial was declared after the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

"By the time Yarbough went on trial again a few weeks later, Wilson had agreed to testify for the prosecution in return for a sentence of 9 years to life in prison. Wilson told a jury that he and Yarbough committed the murders together. The medical examiner testified that the victims were killed shortly before 6:30 a.m., when Yarbough said he discovered the bodies. Yarbough testified and denied committing the murders. A jury convicted Yarbough of three counts of murder on February 16, 1994."

"In 2005, long after Yarbough's convictions were upheld on appeal, Wilson wrote a letter to Yarbough's aunt admitting he had falsely implicated himself and Yarbough in the murders and asking that he be forgiven.

"In 2010, Yarbough filed a petition for a new trial, citing Wilson's recantation as well as evidence showing that the prosecution had provided reports to his defense attorney showing that rigor mortis was found in the three bodies, indicating that they had been killed several hours before Yarbough said he discovered them* -- at a time when Yarbough and Wilson were miles away. However, Yarbough's trial lawyer had failed to contact a medical expert or present any medical evidence regarding the time of death.

[* So, the above medical examiner was either grossly incompetent, or a liar.]

"The motion also claimed that Yarbough's lawyer had provided a constitutionally inadequate legal defense because she failed to call a witness who was in the victims' apartment the night before the murders. The witness had been present when Annie Yarbough, who sold narcotics from the apartment, was threatened with death by a customer who said she had cheated him in a drug deal.

"Yarbough's new lawyer also sought DNA testing of crime scene evidence, including scrapings from under Annie Yarbough's fingernails. In 2013, the DNA tests on the fingernail scrapings identified the DNA profile of a male that was not Wilson or Yarbough. The unknown DNA was linked to DNA left at the scene of another murder in Brooklyn in 1999 -- while Wilson and Yarbough were in prison for their convictions in these three murders.

"In September 2013, Yarbough's lawyer filed a motion to vacate Yarbough's convictions. On February 6, 2014, following an investigation by the [Brooklyn DA's] Conviction Integrity Unit, the [DA] requested that the convictions be vacated. The motion was granted, Thompson dismissed the charges and both men were released.

"In November 2014, the state of New York agreed to pay Yarbough $3.5 million in compensation. In January 2015, Willson died of health problems exacerbated by years in prison. In July 2015, Wilson's sister filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of New York and the [NYPD]. In March 2017, the city of New York settled the case for $13 million. Yarbough also received a $13 million settlement."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Kin-Jin (David) Wong - Perjury / False Confession

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:57:32 +0000

Wong, Kin-Jin ('David'); murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

M19 [340] "Kin-Jin 'David' Wong, an illegal Chinese immigrant from Fujian province by way of Hong Kong, worked in the Chinatown section of New York City in the early 1980s. In 1984, he was convicted in state court of participating in a robbery...Wong has since publicly acknowledged his culpability for that crime. After his robbery conviction, Wong began a journey through the prison system that in 1986 led to Clinton Correctional Facility..."

"At approximately 4 p.m. on March 12, 1986, a cold and snowy afternoon, Wong was outside in the Clinton prison yard when another inmate, an African American later identified as Tyrone Julius, was stabbed to death. At the moment of the stabbing, the yard contained 600 to 700 inmates milling around, preparing to line up and return to their cells. Wong and many, if not most, of the other prisoners were dressed identically in state-issued green clothing. Amidst all this activity, a white corrections officer, Richard LaPierre, manned his post in an eighty-foot-tall [341] observation tower at the edge of the yard, located approximately 120 to 130 yards from the scene of the stabbing. LaPierre claimed that, just prior to the murder, he saw a group of inmates clustered together and watched one inmate, wearing a hood, walk past the group. He then noticed another inmate leave the group, approach Julius from behind, and give him a 'shot' to the lower neck or shoulder. Only at this point -- after Julius had fallen face-first into the snow -- did LaPierre raise his binoculars and attempt to track the assailant's path. While LePierre informed his colleagues by radio that an inmate was down and tried to describe the location, he also made an effort to follow the perpetrator winding his way through the yard: crossing the field and stopping by a fence, turning to face the tower, shaking hands with other prisoners and mixing into the crowd gathered to gawk at the victim. In due course, LaPierre succeeded in contacting another tower and alerting the guard as to the site of the person he believed to have committed the crime.

"Following LaPierre's communication, corrections officers singled out two Asian inmates in the yard, Tse Kin Cheung and David Wong, and one of them -- Wong -- soon became the chief suspect.

"From the start, Wong seemed like an unlikely perpetrator. No weapon or blood was found on Wong's person, even though the type of wound inflicted on Julius would have 'spurted' blood, according to the subsequent testimony of the medical examiner. Furthermore, LaPierre's physical description of the stabber immediately after the incident failed to match that of Wong in several crucial aspects: In the 'Unusual Incident Report' he composed on the day of the murder, LaPierre indicated that the stabber at first 'appeared to be white' and failed to mention the presence of dark gloves, which Wong happened to be wearing when he was detained by [342] another corrections officer in the prison yard. Moreover, LaPierre evidently never cited the presence of a large Chinese newspaper, an item found in Wong's possession at the time he was apprehended.

"[D]uring his testimony, LaPierre contradicted himself with respect to his description of the assailant's hands, commenting at one point that he had white hands and elsewhere that he wore dark gloves.

"Eyewitness testimony from Officer LaPierre proved to be a vital part of the prosecution's case at trial, especially when corroborated by another witness who purportedly enjoyed an even better view of the stabbing: Peter Dellfava, a white inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility, who stated that he was fifteen feet away when the murder occurred.

"Dellfava expressed certainty regarding Wong's identity, alleging that he had seen him many times and talked with him frequently. By the time he testified at trial, Dellfava was no longer incarcerated but, rather, out on parole and living in Medina, New York. Indeed, the Clinton County [DA] had written to the Parole Board on his behalf, resulting in a successful first appearance before the Board; the fact that Dellfava obtained parole at that stage was no small feat, in part because he had a previous record for attempting to escape from prison.

"Entrusted with the task of cross-examining LaPierre and Dellfava, and more generally formulating a defense, were two local lawyers assigned to represent Wong as indigent defense counsel, a duo that neglected to pursue several potentially fruitful investigative leads. Specifically, portions of the Department of Correctional Services' Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) report, completed after the stabbing and disclosed to the defense prior to trial, alluded to the possibility of an alternative perpetrator. The report indicated that Otilio Serrano, a prisoner at Clinton, 'advised that an inmate named Gutierrez was the subject who had stabbed an inmate in the yard' before noting that Serrano recanted his assertion in a second interview. In yet a third interview, Serrano stated that Wong could not have committed the stabbing. In addition, the report contained an excerpt from a conversation with another prisoner, Alexander Winston Sylvester, where Sylvester declared that 'after stabbing the black inmate, the Puerto Rican inmate threw the blade down behind him onto the snow. A second Puerto Rican inmate picked up the blade, put it in a pair of gloves and walked up the hillside to the courts.' Despite the [344] statements, the defense attorneys spoke with neither Serrano nor Sylvester before trial. The lawyers did, however, decide to present an innocence defense -- five inmates (including both Wong and Tse Kin Cheung) testified that Wong did not commit the crime, but these witnesses did not identify the perpetrator.

"In July 1987, an all-white jury convicted Wong of murder in the second degree...[345] Even crediting LaPierre's and Dellfava's testimony...a gaping hole emerges when reflecting on this trial: the lack of any semblance of a motive for the crime. The trial adduced no evidence of a previous altercation between Wong and Julius, nor any festering gang rivalries implicating them. In the end, why would Wong seek to kill Julius, an African American inmate who had only recently arrived at Clinton?

[346] "The...Third Department...rejected Wong's appeal in 1990, concluding that 'the evidence is legally sufficient to support [Wong's] conviction' and noting that 'the contention that his legal representation was ineffective is patently without basis in the record.'"

[And yet, the NRE lists inadequate legal defense. Whether 'in the record' or not, defense attorneys' failure to interview witnesses who spoke of a different person having committed this crime would certainly seem to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.]

[347] "[I]n December 2000... Dellfava recanted his trial testimony. Most notably, in an affidavit...Dellfava swore that he did not witness the stabbing of Tyrone Julius and that '[t]he first time I ever saw David Wong in person was in court.' As for how he came to testify against Wong, Dellfava asserted that he was friendly with several corrections officers from his prison job as a cook in the staff area and that a sergeant approached him shortly after the stabbing, asking whether '[i]t was an Oriental guy, wasn't it?' Sensing an opportunity to improve his own situation in exchange for cooperating in the Wong prosecution, Dellfava requested a transfer to a facility closer to his family and a recommendatoon for parole, both of which materialized.

[348] "Ultimately, further investigation...pointed to former prisoner Nelson Gutierrez as the perpetrator, reinforcing the hint that Otilio Serrano had provided fifteen years earlier when he stated to BCI officials that an inmate named 'Gutierrez' had stabbed Julius.

[349] "A new, more viable story of the stabbing began to take shape: the incident was retribution for a beating Gutierrez had previously suffered from Julius while at a New York City prison."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"Wong testified in his own defense, but his attorney agreed to a court interpreter who did not speak Wong's dialect, leading to confusing testimony from Wong."

"Following his conviction, Dellfava recanted and other witnesses came forward and identified inmate Nelson Gutiereez, who died in 2000, as the actual killer.

"Based on the recantation, Wong was granted a hearing on the motion for a new trial. During the hearing, two former Clinton Correctional inmates testified that Wong did not fatally stab Tyrone Julius. Dellfava testified, 'I told them (police and the jury) that I'd seen David Wong go up behind someone and hit him. I didn't see any of it.'"

"Asked by Clinton County [DA] Richard Cantwell why he lied, Dellfava said, 'To get the hell out of that prison.'

"The defense also discovered that the prosecution had withheld a letter from the defense in which the prosecution recommended parole be granted to Dellfava.

"The motion for a new trial was denied, but in October 2004, the Appellate Division...overturned Wong's conviction and granted him a new trial. The charges were dismissed in December 2004. Wong was awarded $1,250,000 from the New York Court of Claims. Ultimately, Wong, who had entered the U.S. illegally as a teenager, was transferred to an immigration detention facility and deported to China."

[The above is not the only case in which a correctional officer helped to convict an innocent man; see also Thomas Bianco. And then there are the five Auburn prisoners who were convicted of phony 'weapon possession' charges due to corrupt Auburn c.o. Matthew Cornell: Naythen Aubain, Donnesia Brown, Sean Gaines, Jose Muniz, and Thomas Ozzborn. ]

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Shawn Williams - Perjury / False Confession

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:55:23 +0000

Williams, Shawn; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, perjury by official

Suggestibility issues [642:557]; 2nd Dept. 5/6/96; affirmed

"[W]e are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence..."

N16 "[A]fter serving about 25 years in prison, [Williams] walked away a free man July 13 [of 2018]...On July 13...Brooklyn...Justice Shannon Hudson granted a motion to vacate Williams' conviction and dismiss the original indictment, ordering his immediate release. Williams, who was convicted for the 1993 shooting of Marvin Mason, is the latest defendant tied to former Brooklyn detective Louis Scarcella whose conviction has been overturned...Shawn's conviction rested on testimony from a sole eyewitness, Margaret Smith, who claimed that she had seen Williams at the scene with a gun around the time of the killing, even though it was midnight and she was looking down from her sixth-story window,* more than 100 feet away...In 2013...Smith recanted her testimony, stating that she had been coerced by Scarcella into naming Williams..."

[* Yet again, we have a supposed 'identification' of a person at street-level by someone looking out a window from several stories up -- here, at midnight, no less. That's absurd. The fact that any jury or judge would buy that is an indictment of their extreme gullibility.]

"[T]he defense team also found evidence placing Williams in Pennsylvania at the time of the murder..."

from Records and Briefs:

"When Officer [John] Salerno...arrived on the scene, he saw Mason lying down in a pool of his own blood, with a single gunshot wound to the head. [from FN2: The bullet entered above Mason's left eye and traveled toward the back of the head, from left to right...The bullet and copper jacket...were recovered from the brain tissue..Because there was stippling near the wound, [Dr. Stephen] Doroux concluded that the gun was no more than two feet from the decedent's head when it was fired.] Mason's [4] backpack or knapsack, which was on the lobby floor near his body, had been opened and its contents strewn about..."

"Margaret Smith...was in her sixth-floor apartment bedroom talking on the telephone with a friend when she heard the gunshot...At the time, she was sitting on the windowsill bench, from [5] which she had a view of Eastern Parkway...About two minutes before she heard the shot, she had seen her neighbor, Marvin Mason, enter the building..."

"'Damn, is that a shot?,' Smith said to her friend on the telephone, as she leaned on the window sill and looked down to the street below...She saw two young men emerge from the building; one was wearing black pants and a shirt with horizontal stripes, while the other wore black pants and a plain white shirt...The young man in the striped shirt, whom Smith claimed she recognized as [Williams], was putting a gun into his waistband..."

"Smith... [6] maintained that she knew [Williams] from the neighborhood; she also said she knew his nickname, Murdock..."

"After the building, the two young men turned left and headed down the block in the direction of Buffalo Avenue...The two young men, who were standing near a lamppost, turned around and looked back at the building; Smith claimed that before they ran out she could clearly make out that one of the two was [Williams]..."

[14] "Smith testified that when the two men, who by then walked down the block, turned to look back in her direction, she could clearly recognize [Williams]...[I]t is implausible that Smith's ability to see the young men would get better the further away they walked."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"Shortly after midnight on July 9, 1993, 18-year-old Marvin Mason was shot to death during an apparent robbery in the lobby of the building where he lived on Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn...Several witnesses reported seeing two men run from the building, but none were able to identify them.

"Edmond Adams and Vanessa Wagner, who were sitting on a bench across the street, said they saw two men flee. Adams said one was 5 feet 2 inches to 5 feet 4 inches tall, and the other was 5 feet 4 inches to 5 feet 6 inches tall.

"At about 9 a.m., New York police detectives Louis Scarcella and Steven Chmil came to the Mason family apartment. Based upon his inquiries in the neighborhood, Mason's brother, Christopher, gave the detectives the name 'Murdock,' as one of the robbers. 'Murdock' was the nickname of 19-year-old Shawn Williams.

"Scarcella and Chmil created a photo lineup that included Willliams's photo. However, no one was able to identify him. The detectives visited the sixth-floor apartment of Margaret Smith, a building resident, that evening. She said from her apartment window she saw two men run away, but was unable to identify them. She said she recognized Williams from the neighborhood, but not as one of the robbers.

"The two detectives would later testify that based on a 'vibe' that Smith might know more than she was revealing, they returned to her apartment on July 27, 1993. Chmil also later testified that during this interview, Smith identified Williams as one of the robbers.

"Subsequently, another detective said that he spoke to Kenyatta Moore, who was in a police lockup. Moore disclosed that on July 11, two days after the murder, he heard Williams bragging about shooting Mason. Moore gave the same account under oath to a grand jury that indicted Williams for the murder.

"On October 1, according to the detectives, Smith identified Williams in a photo array and in a live lineup. Williams was arrested and charged with second-degree murder, although he was 6 feet tall -- at least half a foot taller than the description given by Edmond Adams.

"At the time Williams was arrested, he told Scarcella he was in Reading, Pennsylvania at the time of the murder. Williams said he had been arrested for drinking beer in public on July 2, 1993 and provided a false name to police. Scarcella claimed he looked for a record of that arrest and found none.

"On August 10, 1994, Williams went to trial in [Brooklyn]. Scarcella and Chmil testified that Christopher Mason gave them the nickname 'Murdock,' and how their 'vibe' led them to visit Smith when she first identified Williams.

"Smith was the only witness to identify Williams. She said she was sitting on the windowsill of her sixth-floor apartment talking on the phone when she heard the gunshot. She said she recognized Williams when he stopped under a streetlight. She said she saw his face when he looked up and laughed, and that she recognized him from a scar on his neck.

"However, in contrast to the detectives' testimony, Smith said her identification came during the first visit by the detectives on July 9, the same day of the shooting, not on July 27. She also said she -- not Christopher Mason -- first mentioned the nickname 'Murdock' to detectives. She said she had 'no doubt' that she told the detectives on that first day to look for 'Murdock.'

"Vanessa Wagner testified that she heard a loud noise and saw two young men flee from the scene. She did not identify Williams.

"On August 16, 1994, the jury convicted Williams..."

"In May 1996, the Appellate Division upheld the conviction..."

"In August 2013, the New York law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen LLP & Hamilton, along with the Legal Aid Society of New York, began representing Williams. Working with Kroll, Inc., an investigative agency, the legal team located and interviewed Smith. In her first meeting with Cleary and Kroll, Smith said Scarcella and Chmil coerced her to falsely identify Williams. Smith also confirmed that in about 2009, Williams, with the help of a relative, was able to telephone Smith. She told him that her testimony was false and coerced, and urged him to send someone to interview her.

"Smith said Scarcella and Chmil coerced her to falsely identify Williams. Smith signed a sworn affidavit that 'at no time' did she see any faces or physical characteristics of anyone leaving the scene of the shooting. She said that when Scarcella and Chmil came to her home to show her the photographic lineup, they 'moved very quickly through the book of photographs' until they 'stopped on a page, pointed to a particular photograph' and said that was 'Murdock.'

"Smith said that she did not recognize Williams from the photos, did not see him the night of the murder, and did not know his name or any nickname he had. She said the detectives told her that Williams was the killer.

"She admited she falsely identified Williams, but said she felt pressured to do what she believed the detectives wanted her to do. Smith also said she only identified Williams in the live lineup because she had already seen his photograph.

"Smith also disclosed that at the time of the trial, she lived in Georgia and did not want to testify. Police came to her home with a material witness order. She was taken to a Georgia court where she said she was arrested and jailed briefly. After her release, the officers came to her house and escorted her 'against my will, to New York by plane.' She concluded that she had to falsely testify against Williams so that the police and prosecution would let her alone.

"Smith said Scarcella and Chmil told her that 'several individuals (incuding another eyewitness) had informed them that Murdock was the individual who killed Marvin Mason.' However, no other witnesses gave such testimony."*

[* So, Scarcella and Chmil lied to her. But even if they had been telling the truth, this would still have been improper, because it would have been immensely suggestive.]

"After speaking with Smith, Cleary undertook a search for the material witness order in the materials provided by the Brooklyn [DA's] Office, but could not find it. Cleary asked the Brooklyn [DA's] Office to review their files, and a material witness order for Smith, dated August 2, 1994, was located. There was no evidence the order was ever disclosed to the defense at Williams's trial. Indeed, Williams had no recollection of ever being told of a material witness order for Smith.

"Williams's legal team retained Dr. Geoffrey Loftus, a University of Washington psychology professor specializing in memory. Loftus reviewed Smith's testimony at the trial and concluded it was unreliable and flawed. He said, 'Ms. Smith, from her window, would have been looking almost straight down at the subject. . .From this angle, Ms. Smith would almost certainly have only been able to see the top of the subject's head.' Loftus concluded that 'scientific evidence indicates it is highly unlikely that Ms. Smith could have been able to accurately perceive or memorize the subject's appearance given the lighting and distance under which the purported identification was made.'

"In addition, Erick Hylton, a former U.S. Marine who moved into Smith's apartment in 1993 (the same year as Mason's murder) and was still residing there, spoke to investigators. He said that he would not have been able to recognize anyone on the street -- even if he already knew the person -- because the street lighting was so poor.

"Williams's legal team also looked into his statement to Scarcella at the time of his arrest that he was in Reading, Pennsylvania at the time of the murder, and had been arrested on July 2 for drinking beer and provided a false first name. Athough Scarcella claimed he was unable to find the record, a search in 2014 turned up an arrest report for 'Tony Williams' at the exact time and location that Williams said he had been arrested. In addition, the legal team found medical records showing that Williams had received treatment at a hospital in Reading on July 11, 1993 -- two days after the murder.

"In May 2014, after getting Smith's recantation, Williams's legal team informed the conviction review unit at the Brooklyn [DA's] office. In 2015, the lawyers provided the additional information from Dr. Loftus and Hylton.

"In January 2017, Williams's lawyers filed a post-conviction motion in [Brooklyn] seeking to vacate his conviction. The [DA's] Office opposed the motion."

"On June 15, 2018, the Brooklyn [DA's] Office filed a letter with [Brooklyn] Justice Sharen Hudson saying it would no longer oppose the motion to vacate Williams's conviction.

"On July 13, 2018, Justice Hudson granted the motion and dismissed the indictment against Williams, who was released immediately after serving nearly 25 years in prison...Williams later filed a claim for compensation with the New York State Court of Claims as well as a federal civil rights lawsuit.

"The compensation claim was dismissed in 2022, but in April 2022, the City of New York agreed to pay Williams $10.5 million to settle the lawsuit. Williams subsequently filed an appeal of the dismissal of the compensation claim in the...Second...Department."

[All emphases added unless othewise noted.]

Randolph Williams - Perjury / False confession / Officer Misconduct

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:53:23 +0000

Williams, Randolph; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

2 N.Y.S.3d 612; 2nd Dept. 2/4/15; reversed, due to improper exclusion of defendant from pre-trial hearing

"After [Williams] argued with the victim, the victim was fatally shot in the vicinity of a basketball court at the Williamsburg Houses public housing development. A witness to the shooting, who knew both [Williams] and the victim, identified [Williams] in a lineup as one of the shooters, gave the police a sworn audiotaped statement, and testified before the grand jury. However, the witness notified the prosecutor that she would not testify at trial because she had been approached and threatened by a man whom she had previously seen with [Williams]. As a result, she feared for her own life and the lives of her family members.

[Kings Cty. Ct. then held a pre-trial hearing.] "The court excluded [Williams] from the courtroom during the hearing...Three days after the hearing was concluded, the court entertained argument on the [prosecution's] application to determine whether the witness was practically unavailable [due to alleged threats -- see above]. The court determined that the witness was practically unavailable and that the [prosecution] had proven...that [Williams] had procured [i.e., caused] the witness's unavailability, thereby forfeiting his right to confront and cross-examine her. As a result, the court ruled that the witness's audiotaped statement and grand jury testimony could be admitted into evidence at trial.

"The jury convicted [Williams] of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

"Contrary to [Williams'] contention, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence..."

"Nevertheless, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial must be held. Here, [Williams] was not in the courtroom and was not allowed to confer with his attorney during the hearing."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"In the early morning hours of February 27, 2007, 36-year-old Vincent Hill was fatally shot once in the chest near a basketball court in the east Williamsburg section of Brooklyn..."

"On March 21, 2007, police arrested 22-year-old Randolph Williams and charged him with murder and illegal use of a weapon. The detectives said that three witnesses had identified Williams as the gunman. All three had identified Williams in a live line-up and one of them, a woman, had identified him in a photo lineup as well, police said. The woman, police said, voluntarily came forward because she wanted to do the right thing.

"Williams went to trial in [Brooklyn] in March 2008. By that time, the two male witnesses had recanted their identification of Williams as the gunman. They said they had mentioned Williams' name to police and picked him out of the live lineup because they knew him previously. One of the men said he not only didn't see the gunman, but didn't see Williams at the scene at all.

"The other man said he could not identify the gunman, but did see that the gunman was wearing a jacket that was similar to one Williams had worn in the past. And he testified that just before the shooting, he heard the victim say, 'Here comes Pooch,' which was Williams' nickname.

"The third witness, who had given an audiotaped statement identifying Williams as the gunman, refused to testify, saying that she had been approached and threatened by a man she had previously seen with Williams. She said she feared for her life and the lives of her family members.

"The trial judge held a hearing to determine whether the witness would be declared 'unavailable,' and therefore police could testify to her identification of Williams. The judge ordered Williams excluded from the courtroom during the hearing, although Williams was allowed to hear a live audio feed from the courtroom while he was in a holding cell.

"Three days after the hearing was concluded, the judge ruled that the witness was unavailable and that the prosecution had shown that [Williams] was responsible. As a result, the judge ruled that Williams had forfeited his right to cross-examine the witness and that the audiotape would be played for the jury and her testimony before the grand jury would be read to the jury.

"Williams presented an alibi defense, contending he was 15 miles away with his girlfriend at Coney Island at the time of the shooting.

"On April 8, 2008, the jury convicted Williams..."

"In February 2015, the...Second Department...vacated Williams' convictions..."

"Prior to his retrial, investigators Robert Rahn and Kim Anklin, working for Williams' lawyer, Michael Farkas, interviewed the three eyewitnesses. The one who said he had not seen the gunman or Williams at the scene stood by that testimony. The one who said the gunman wore a jacket similar to one that Williams wore and heard Hill refer to Williams just before the shooting by the nickname 'Pooch' said that testimony was false and that he had no idea who committed the crime.

"The third witness -- the woman who had refused to testify at the first trial -- said that the police had forced her to identify Williams by threatening to have her arrested and evicted from her public housing apartment for dealing drugs out of her residence. She said the police account of her voluntarily coming forward as a Good Samaritan was false.

"The woman said that police showed her a photo array and told her to pick out Williams. She said that after Williams surrendered and was put in a lineup, she was again told by police to pick him out as the gunman. The witness said she feared being prosecuted for perjury for telling a grand jury in 2007 that Wiliams was the gunman.

"On March 15, 2016, after the retrial began, the female witness again failed to appear to testify. As a result, [Brooklyn] Justice Alan Marrus dismissed the case and Williams was released.

"In 2017, Williams filed a lawsuit in [Brooklyn] seeking compensation. He also filed a claim with the New York State Court of Claims, which was settled in December 2020 for $2,500,000."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Jonathan Wheeler-Whichard - Perjury / False Accusation

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +0000

Wheeler-Whichard, Jonathan; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense

C10 [488] "Just like the [Clinton] Turner court -- which summarily dismissed an appeal on the grounds of the unreliability of recantation testimony -- the court in People v. Wheeler-Whichard acknowledged that 'there is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony,' but explained that taken together with the other evidence, and in the proper context such testimony can prove valuable.

"As part of a motion for post-conviction relief...Wheeler-Whichard...presented two witnesses who had recanted their testimony, four alibi witnesses [489] who had not been called at trial, and two other witnesses who corroborated the alibi witnesses. Taken together, the court found that this evidence was sufficient to show that Wheeler-Whichard was neither the murderer, nor even at the scene of the crime when it occurred."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"On April 20, 1996, Joseph Foster was fatally shot in the lobby of the apartment where he lived...in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn...Police soon arrested 16-year-old Jonathan Wheeler-Whichard after witnesses identified him as the gunman.

"At the time of his arrest, Wheeler-Whichard was free on bond after he was charged in February 1996 with arson. He rejected an offer from the prosecution to plead guilty to the arson in return for a sentence of one to three years in prison.

"In April 1997, Wheeler-Whichard went to trial in [Brooklyn]. The prosecution's case centered on the testimony of Sandra Woodard, and an acquaintance of Wheeler-Whichard named DaShaun Reed.

"A pathologist who performed the autopsy testified that Foster died of a gunshot wound. A detective testified that he recovered a .32-caliber weapon from a garbage bag outside of the building that -- based on a firearms analysis -- was the gun which fired the shot that killed Foster.

"Woodard testified that she saw Wheeler-Whichard confront Foster at the door of the elevator in the lobby of the building. After arguing about money and 'stuff,' she saw Wheeler-Whichard pull out an object and point it at Foster. She said she then heard shots fired and saw Foster fall down and cry for help. Woodard told the jury that Wheeler-Whichard threatened her as he left through the back door of the building. Woodard said she went out the front foor and called 911 from a pay phone.

"Reed testified that he and his cousin Dre encountered Wheeler-Whichard as he ran up a rear stairway between the first and second floors of the building right after shots were fired. Reed said that Wheeler-Whichard expressed regret for what he had just done. Reed said that he and Dre then went with Wheeler-Whichard into an unspecified second-floor apartment. Reed also testified that he saw Wheeler-Whichard attack Foster with a bat on two occasions in the past. After one of those attacks, Foster retaliated by slashing Wheeler-Whichard on the side of his face, Reed said.

"Reed told the jury that on the morning of the shooting, Wheeler-Whichard had pointed to his facial scar in a local pizza parlor and announced to all within earshot that he was, in effect, seeking revenge.

"Reed also testified that on the morning after the shooting, he heard Wheeler-Whichard tell Wheeler-Whichard's mother that he had tossed the murder weapon in the garbage chute. As a result, police had recovered the .32-caliber revolver.

"On April 15, 1997, the jury convicted Wheeler-Whichard...On May 7, 1997, at his sentencing hearing, Wheeler-Whichard was asked if he had anything to say. 'I feel sorry for Mr. Joseph's family, but I didn't do it, that's all I have to say,' Wheeler-Whichard said. [Brooklyn] Justice Herbert Lipp sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. On May 29, 1997, he pled guilty to the arson charge and was sentenced to seven to 14 years in prison, to be served concurrently with the murder conviction sentence.

"His convictions were upheld on appeal. In 2007, after filing a pro se motion for a new trial, attorney Lynn Fahey, of Appellate Advocates -- who had represented Wheeler-Whichard on appeal -- was appointed to represent him once more. Fahey filed a revised motion and Justice Joseph McKay presided over an evidentiary hearing in April 2009.

"At the hearing, Reed recanted his trial testimony. He said he was not at the scene, but driving back to Brooklyn from the Bronx at the time of the shooting. He said he learned about the shooting later that day from Dre, his cousin.

"Woodard died in 2005. The motion to vacate Wheeler-Whichard's convictions contained a 2007 affidavit from a friend of Woodard claiming she recanted to him, and that at the time, she was paid with drugs for her false testimony.

"Wheeler-Whichard testified that he was with friends in an elevator in the building when they heard the shots fired. Four witnesses who were with Wheeler-Whichard corroborated that testimony and two other witnesses corroborated parts of the alibi but not at the very moment of the shooting. These alibi witnesses testified to being on an elevator with Wheeler-Whichard when they heard shots fired as the elevator ascended to the fourth floor of that building. Wheeler-Whichard lived in apartment 4G with his family. Wheeler-Whichard and the witnesses testified that they had just left a nearby party celebrating the birthday of Wheeler-Whichard's two-year-old niece.

"Wheeler-Whichard's trial defense attorney testified and said he had no memory of the case. He insisted that neither the exhibits nor the trial testimony that was brought to his attention during the hearing refreshed his recollection.

"On July 30, 2009, Justice McKay granted the motion and vacated Wheeler-Whichard's convictions.

"Justice McKay credited the testimony of the alibi witnesses. 'Without any hint of rote adherence to a script, each of the witnesses testified credibly and consistently to essential facts of the alibi, the preceding family party, the shots heard in the ascending elevator or in the 4th-floor hallway, and gathering in apartment 4G,' Justice McKay wrote.

"'The overriding theme struck by the prosecutor on cross-examination of each defense hearing witness was their failure to take any decisive remedial action when defense counsel rested without calling any of them as witnesses at trial,' the Justice noted. 'They were repeatedly asked why they did not complain to the Court or more vociferously complain to the defense attorney, and why they remained inactive until the instigation of this. . .motion years later. While this may have been a legitimate avenue of inquiry, the challenging and repeated nature of the questioning along this line demonstrated to the Court a lack of appreciation for the palpable powerlessness felt by each of these witnesses, who were for the most part unsophisticated and unschooled in the ways of the criminal justice system. Their failure to do more was quite understandable under the circumstances, and in the eyes of the Court in no way damages the veracity of their testimony.'

"Justice McKay said that the defense attorney had given a late notice of alibi and then failed to call any of them -- a decision 'which was never adequately explained.'

"'[T]rial counsel's professed near-total memory failure makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the reasons for the many decisions and apparent mistakes he made, all of which proved disastrous for the defense at trial, the chief one being his failure to call the alibi witnesses,' Justice McKay said. '[Defense counsel's] many other mistakes and failures went similarly unexplained and in the Court's view cannot be justified. For example, there is no evidence that counsel ever hired an investigator or visited the scene and strong inferences which I accept that he did neither. These and other demonstrated failures by the defense at trial, recited in the post-hearing memoranda of both sides, made it easier for the Court and jury in 1997 to overlook the deficiencies in the prosecutor's case, thereby paving the way for the guilty verdicts which the Court now labels a miscarriage of justice.'

"Justice McKay noted that Fahey presented evidence pointing to Michael Kirkland as the person who 'ordered the hit on Foster' and that Reed's cousin, Dre, had been the actual gunman. In addition, Justice McKay said that Fahey had presented evidence that Kirkland 'orchestrated the frame-up of [Wheeler-Whichard]' for Foster's murder. 'It seems to this Court that the foregoing is a plausible and even likely scenario to explain all of these events, although it was not proven by anything close to admissible evidence sufficient to prosecute Kirkland,' said Justice McKay.

"'But the time to have begun an investigation into Kirkland's involvement and any other person's criminal responsibility for this murder was in April 1996, and those responsible for pursuing this investigation should have been the police and the [DA],' Justice McKay declared.

"Regarding Reed's recantation, Justice McKay said, 'While his recantation is more believable to the Court than his implausible trial testimony, he failed to give any credible reason why he lied at trial and why he was now recanting. However, despite this lack of candor, much of his hearing testimony was supported by other evidence and it also served to eliminate conflicts with Woodard's testimony. Standing alone, this recantation would be of dubious probative value. In the context of the trial and the hearing testimony, however, even this recantation undermines the case the [prosecution] presented at trial and tends to support [Wheeler-Whichard's] actual innocence claim.'

"Justice McKay criticized the failure of the police and prosecution to fully investigate the case from the beginning. 'I note a total failure to connect the evidentiary dots concerning the one and only true caller about this homicide to 911,' he said. 'There was sufficient documentary and audiotaped evidence available well before trial for the police and the prosecutor to have learned, as was clearly established at the hearing, that it was a female tenant in a second-floor apartment of the same building, Judy Gregory, who made that call. Once that was known other salient facts would have emerged, such as that Sandra Woodard must have been lying about calling 911.' Moreover, Justice McKay said, it would have been 'highly unlikely' for Reed to have encountered Wheeler-Whichard on the back stairs and in the second-floor hallway right afer the shooting.

"'Further, it now seems plain to the Court that virtually no police or prosecutor in-depth investigation was done into the character and credibility of the [prosecution's] main witnesses,' Justice McKay added.

"Justice McKay dismissed the charges altogether. '[I]t would be abhorrent to my sense of justice and fair play to do other than to vacate [Wheeler-Whichard's] convictions on both grounds and to declare that he is innocent of this horrible murder, and to ensure he does not continue to serve any more time in prison for these convictions,' Justice McKay said.

"Although the murder case was over, Wheeler-Whichard remained incarcerated until 2013 serving the remainder of the arson sentence as well as a 1-1/2 to three-year term he received for possession of illegal contraband in prison.

"In 2011, Wheeler-Whichard filed a claim with the New York Court of Claims seeking compensation for the time spent in prison on the wrongful murder conviction. However, the claim was denied. The Court of Claims ruled that he had suffered no harm because he was serving the sentence for the arson conviction."*

[* The notion that Wheeler-Whichard didn't suffer as a result of being convicted and sentenced (to 25 years to life) for a murder he did not commit is absurd.]

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Jabbar Washington - False Confession / False ID / Officer Misconduct

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:44:55 +0000

Washington, Jabbar; murder; NRE: false confession, perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, misconduct in interrogation of exoneree

Suggestibility issues

111 N.Y.S.3d 691; 2nd Dept. 11/20/19; media suit seeking disclosure of information

"[O]n July 12, 2017, as the result of an investigation by the CRU [Conviction Review Unit], the DA moved to vacate the 1997 murder conviction of Jabbar Washington. [His] conviction stemmed from a January 21, 1995 robbery inside an apartment in Brownsville, during which five people were wounded and one person was killed. Several defendants were charged and convicted in the case...In a July 12, 2017 press release announcing the decision to vacate the conviction, the DA stated that a CRU investigation had discovered that a crucial exculpatory document had not been turned over to Washington's defense counsel...Specifically, the prosecution had failed to disclose a jury synopsis sheet memorializing that an eyewitness, who had identified [Washington] in a lineup, recanted her identification two days after the lineup took place. The lineup was conducted by now-retired Detectives Louis Scarcella and Stephen Chmil. Scarcella also purportedly obtained Washington's confession to the crime, a fact that Washington sharply contested during the trial. While under cross-examination, Scarcella alluded to the fact that Washington had been 'Id'd,' which testimony was particularly misleading in light of the eyewitness's undisclosed recantation...The DA noted that it would not seek to retry Washington, and that the CRU found no basis to disturb the convictions of the other six persons convicted in connection with the robbery."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"On January 1, 1995, several men invaded an apartment in a public housing development...in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn...looking for drugs and cash. Two of the invaders began shooting. Five of the occupants were wounded -- most of them shot several times -- and 40-year-old Ronald Ellis was killed.

"A year later, in February 1996, seven men were charged with murder, attempted murder, and robbery. Among those charged was 22-year-old Jabbar Washington, whom the other defendants named as being involved.

"[NYPD] Detective Louis Scarcella, whose conduct in a vast array of cases would later be called into question, arrested Washington and reported that he had confessed to being involved in the crime. When Scarcella appeared before a grand jury, he testified that 26-year-old Lisa Todd, who had been in the apartment at the time of the crime and survived nine gunshot wounds, had identified Washington in a live lineup.

"When Todd came to the grand jury later to testify, she told the prosecutor who was presenting witnesses that in fact she had told Scarcella that she only recognized Washington because he lived in the building where the crime occurred. The prosecutor made note of her comment.

"In March 1997, Washington went to trial in [Brooklyn]. Scarcella testified that Washington confessed to taking part in the crime. He also testified that Todd had identified Washington as being among those who raided the apartment.

"Todd testified and -- like other victims who testified as well -- said she could not identify any of the invaders because they all wore masks.

"The prosecution failed to disclose to the defense that Todd told the grand jury prosecutor that she had not identified Washington as taking part in the crime. As a result, Washington's lawyer did not have that evidence to confront Scarcella when he said Todd had identified Washington.

"In fact, during cross-examination, Washington's defense attorney asked Scarcella whether getting a confession was important in the case. Scarcella replied that if Washington 'didn't get ID'd, it would have been. . .'

"Washington testified and denied involvement in the crime. He told the jury that Scarcella had beaten him until he falsely confessed to taking part in the crime. He said that at the time of the crime, he was with his girlfriend, who testified to that as well.

"During closing argument to the jury, [Brooklyn] prosecutor Kyle Reeves hammered repeatedly that Todd had identified Washington.

"On March 19, 1997, the jury convicted Washington..."

"In 2011, [Brooklyn DA] Charles Hynes created a Conviction Integrity Unit, and invited defense attorneys to present cases in which innocent defendants may have been convicted."

"In late 2015, New York attorney Ron Kuby requested that the conviction review unit re-investigate Washington's case.

"On July 12, 2017, Acting Brooklyn [DA] Eric Gonzalez, who succeeded Thompson after his death in the fall of 2016, announced that the conviction review unit had filed a motion to vacate and dismiss Washington's case.

"'An analysis of the jury trial revealed that, despite the fact that an identifying witness recanted her identification within days, the jury was improperly given the strong impression that she did identify the defendant as a perpetrator, and a crucial document in which she disputed the identification was not turned over to the defense,' Gonzalez said in a statement.

"'Following a thorough and fair investigation by my Conviction Review Unit, it was determined that Mr. Washington did not receive a fair trial and crucial information that would have been useful to the defense was withheld,' Gonzalez said.

"Gonzalez noted that other issues resulted in an unfair trial. 'For example, when Washington took the stand, he was asked by the prosecutor if Detective Scarcella had told him that one of the co-defendants had named him as one of the shooters. He was similarly asked about other co-defendants who had been convicted -- all in apparent violation of the prohibition against guilt by association.'

"Gonzalez also noted that Todd was murdered in 2006, preventing investigators from interviewing her to clarify whether she identified Washington or not."

"Washington...later received $1.65 million in compensation from the New York Court of Claims and $5.75 million from the City of New York."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

James Walker - Perjury / False ID / Perjury / False Accusation

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:43:25 +0000

Walker, James; murder; NRE mistaken witness identification, perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, knowingly permitting perjury, prosecutor lied in court

N4 [25] "Mr. Walker was identified by a drug addict several months after the crime as the person who assaulted a guard at a check cashing store during a robbery in which another victim was killed. After the conviction of Walker for felony murder, Walker learned that the addict-informer had identified another person as one of the participants in the crime -- which had to have been a lie because that other person was in jail at the time of the robbery. The defense was never told that the informer had wrongly accused someone else. Further, Walker was not told that the man whom he was accused of beating had not identified him in a lineup, but rather selected a filler who was a police officer."

[43] "After a man was killed in the course of a robbery, rewards were offered for information. A drug addict came forward and implicated Walker. Based on this testimony alone, Walker was convicted. The prosecutor and the lead detective suppressed the fact that the informer had implicated a second man, a friend of Walker who was in jail at the time of the crime, and that a surviving victim had seen Walker in a line-up but selected someone else. Walker was exonerated after serving 19 years in prison."

"Damage Suit Against City Reinstated: $11 Million Demanded for Improper Conviction," Cerisse Anderson, New York Law Journal, 9/9/92

"Although the prosecution had documents showing that an informant who named Mr. Walker as a participant in the crime had lied about other details of the robbery and that a truck guard who had been assaulted failed to identify Mr. Walker in a lineup, the exculpatory evidence was never turned over to the defense. Mr. Walker only learned of the exculpatory documents years after his conviction.

"Also, the lead prosecutor of the case for then-[DA] Eugene Gold, J. Paul Zsuffa, appeared as a witness in a pretrial hearing and denied that the lineup with the truck guard had ever taken place."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"On June 1, 1970, William Powell and an accomplice robbed an armored truck outside of a check-cashing business on Fulton Street in Brooklyn...Powell fatally shot the truck's driver, 40-year-old Edward Kargman. Powell's accomplice knocked a guard, Jose Ruiz, unconscious with a sawed-off shotgun.

"Powell was arrested not long after the crime and ultimately pled guilty to murder.

"Nearly a year after the murder, a drug addict and convicted felon named John Snider, in an apparent attempt to cash in on a reward offered by Kargman's widow, told authorities that Powell had two accomplices, both of whom he knew. Snider said the man with the shotgun was 30-year-old James Walker. The other accomplice, Snider said, was Melvin Givens.

"On April 23, 1971, Walker was arrested and put in a lineup where Ruiz not only failed to identify him, but selected a police officer who was acting as a filler in the lineup.

"The case took another hit when the lead detective, Robert Powell, and the prosecutor on the case, Paul Zsuffa, discovered that Givens was in jail on Rikers Island on the day of the crime.

"Nonetheless, in June 1971, Snider went before a grand jury, where he identified Walker and made no mention of Givens. Walker was then indicted.

"At a pre-trial hearing, Detective Powell and Zsuffa both testified. Powell said he could not recall if Walker was ever in a lineup, and Zsuffa denied there had ever been a lineup.

"Walker went on trial before a jury in [Brooklyn] in October 1971. The prosecution did not disclose the information about Givens, nor did they disclose that Ruiz had identified the wrong man in the lineup.

"Snider and Ruiz both testified and identified Walker as Powell's partner in the robbery and murder. Powell was called as a witness and testified that Walker was not with him during the crime, but he declined to identify his partner by name.

"On October 19, 1971, the jury convicted Walker..."

"While being held in the Brooklyn House of Detention before and during his trial, Walker met Susan Yankowitz, an award-winning playwright and novelist who was putting on a play behind bars with prisoners doing the acting. Walker played a part in the play (about a ghetto preacher) and afterward, he told Yankowitz he was innocent and asked if he could write to her. That led to a correspondence that lasted for the next two decades and ultimately to Walker's freedom. During his years in prison, Walker's wife, mother, father and brother all died.

"Seventeen years after they first met, Yankowitz went to visit Walker in prison for the first time since they had worked on the play together in the Brooklyn House of Detention. Yankowitz was so moved by seeing Walker again that she soon found herself describing his case over dinner to a friend's husband, attorney Douglas Liebhafsky.

"Liebhafsky spent the next two years working pro bono on Walker's case. He discovered how the prosecutor and detective had hidden exculpatory evidence and how Zsuffa had lied during the pre-trial hearing and allowed Ruiz and Snider to give false testimony at Walker's trial.

"In January 1990, Liebhafsky moved for an order vacating Walker's conviction. On June 27, 1990, the [Brooklyn DA's] Office agreed not to oppose the motion and the conviction was vacated. The case was dismissed and Walker was released.

"Liebhafsky later filed a federal wrongful conviction lawsuit against the city of New York on Walker's behalf. The lawsuit was settled in 1993 for $3.5 million."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

John Vera - Mistaken Witness Identification

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:42:18 +0000

Vera, John; robbery; NRE: mistaken witness identification

[653:360]; 2nd Dept. 1/21/97; affirmed

"[W]e are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence..."

[856:503]; Court of Claims 1/7/08; civil suit

[This was a gang robbery of a family-owned grocery store as well as the owner's residence. Vera, who lived in the neighborhood, was arrested shortly after stopping into a store to buy a snack about a month after the robbery. He was the only person who went to trial on this -- the others pled out. His conviction was vacated after he'd spent 5 years in jail. He had always maintained his innocence, and was at home at the time of the robbery. His sister said he never left the house that night. One of the actual from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"Shortly before midnight on January 6, 1994, two men pushed their way into Bernardo Garcia's apartment on South Third Street in Brooklyn...They threatened Garcia, his wife and their daughters, ages nine and 14, and forced Garcia to give them the keys to his grocery store, Diana's Grocery, on Union Avenue a few blocks away.

"One more robber entered the apartment during the two hours the family was held at gunpoint and Bernardo Garcia was struck several times.

"Communicating by walkie-talkie, the robbers in the apartment took the keys out to others who got into the store and stole cash kept there.

"The man who struck Garcia was described as 5 feet, 8 inches tall with dark skin.

"On March 4, 1994, 20-year-old John Vera, who lived in the same neighborhood, decided to get a haircut at a barbershop next door to Garcia's grocery. At the time, Vera was working for an inventory services company in Queens, leaving for work at 4 a.m. each day and returning around 8 p.m.

"Before entering the barbershop, Vera stopped at the grocery to buy a soda and a bag of potato chips. He went to the barbershop and got a place in line and walked across the street to chat with some men he knew from the neighborhood.

"[O]ne of Garcia's daughters...summoned police after he left and said that she recognized Vera as one of the robbers. She later said she was suspicious of Vera because he asked how much a bag of chips cost.

"Police responded and arrested Vera as he stood talking to his friends. Vera is 5 feet, 4 inches tall with light skin.

"He went on trial in January 1995. Bernardo Garcia was called to testify and said that the robbers put a sheet over him. Asked if there was anyone in the courtroom that he recognized as one of the robbers, Garcia pointed to a spectator.

"[One of Garcia's daughters,] however, identified Vera as one of the robbers. She said he wore a scarf over his face and it slipped down. She said, 'I could see his face completely from his eyebrows to his chin.' She said she recognized him from the neighborhood and from him coming into the store.

"Vera was convicted..."

"The case aginst Vera began to collapse when two of the defendants who pled guilty, Antonio Cepeda and Antony Mann, came forward and said Vera was not involved.

"Cepeda said that Vera did not take part. Mann said that there were eight people involved in the robbery and that Vera was not involved. The men said they were part of a gang known as the 'Grand Street Posse' that committed numerous similar heists. A New York police officer had supplied them with guns and walkie-talkies, they said.

"[The Brooklyn DA's] office began re-investigating the case and assigned it to [ADA] Karen Bennett. Bennett showed a photograph of one of the gang members to Bernardo Garcia's wife and daughter and both were shaken by the similarity to Vera.

"At the request of the [DA's] office, a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed for Vera and he was released from prison on January 27, 2000. On February 10, 2000, the convictions were vacated and the charges were dismissed.

"Vera filed suit in the New York Court of Claims and in 2008, he was awarded $640,000."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Michael Vasquez - Perjury / False Confession

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:41:29 +0000

Vasquez, Michael; robbery; NRE: perjury/false accusation

Suggestibility issues [700:690]; 1st Dept. 1/6/00; affirmed

"The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence."

[960:52]; N.Y. Cty. Ct. 6/13/12; motion to vacate granted, due to confession by true perpetrator

"The first count charged that...Vasquez forcibly stole property from Janette Andruiolo...and in the 'course of the commission of the crime...displayed what appeared to be a pistol.' The second count charged that Vasquez on such date 'forcibly stole a motor vehicle from' Janette.

"In the late afternoon of January 11, 1997, Raul [Gonzalez] drove his sister's car to Broadway and West 192nd Street in Manhattan and parked. He had three passengers in the car: Janette [Raul's girlfriend], Rigo Jr., and his father Rigoberto Gonzalez ('Rigo'). Raul and Rigo left the car to enter a building. Rigo Jr. remained in the car with Janette. At about 4:45 p.m., a man approached the car displaying what appeared to be a gun, ordered Janette and Rigo Jr. out of the car, and drove off with the car and Janette's purse which was in the car.

"While all parties agree that the events described above occurred, the parties present alternative narratives of what else took place at or around the time in question, especially as to the roles of the four passengers in the car and Vasquez.

"Vasquez's story was that...shortly before the day of the crime, [he] ran into an acquaintance...he then knew as 'Chase' whom he had befriended several years earlier...'Chase' visited Vasquez at Rigo's apartment and met Rigo who, independent of Vasquez, engaged 'Chase' to hijack the car where Rigo knew Paul would have left the $16,000 he was bringing to purchase a kilo of cocaine from Rigo...Although Vasquez...was not privy to such conversation, he suspected after the crime that Chase might have been involved.

"In 2011, about fourteen years after his conviction and upon having been transferred to Coxsackie state prison, Vasquez encountered his old friend 'Chase'...Only at that time did Vasquez learn that Charlemagne was 'Chase's' real name. When Charlemagne volunteered that he, Charlemagne, was the robber who displayed what appeared to have been a gun, forced Rigo Jr. and Janette out of the car, drove the car away and split certain proceeds of such robbery with Rigo, who had put him up to do the robbery."

[Charlemagne testified to the above at Vasquez's motion hearing.]

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"Police were called and Andruiolo gave a description of the robber. She said her purse, containing $700 from her just-cashed paycheck, was in the car. The following day, Andruiolo told a detective that the robber was Michael Vasquez. Although she did not know Vasquez (a fact which she hid from police), she identified him because her boyfriend, Raul, told her that Rigo had told him that Vasquez, 40, was the robber. Police pulled a booking photograph of Vasquez and, in February, prepared a photographic lineup. Andruiolo selected Vasquez's photograph and subsequently identified him in a live lineup."

"Vasquez went on trial in [Manhattan] in September 1997. The prosecution acknowledged that the purpose of the visit to 192nd Street was a drug deal. Andruiolo testified that she was not aware of the reason for the stop or that her boyfriend, Raul, was involved in the drug trade. She said she broke up with him when she found out he was a drug dealer. Andruiolo identified Vasquez as the robber in court."

"Although Vasquez did not testify at his trial, he maintained that he was innocent and suspected he had been set up. While in New York, Vasquez was staying with Rigo, who was engaged in the drug trade. Rigo Jr., a college student, lived with his father and occasionally helped out in his father's drug business by serving as a driver or making collections and deliveries."

"Vasquez's attorney, Herbert Moreira-Brown, then filed a post-conviction motion for a new trial, and in December 2011, a hearing commenced...Rigo was dead, but Rigo Jr., Raul, Andruiolo, and Charlemagne testified.

"Andruiolo testified that she was no longer sure of her identification and admitted that Raul gave her Vasquez's name. She continued to deny that she knew there was a drug transaction, but Raul testified that the $16,000 was in Andruiolo's purse. Raul testified that he gave a description to Andruiolo so she could identify Vasquez."

"None of the men involved faced any charges from their involvement because the statute of limitations for robbery had run out.

"On June 13, 2012, [Manhattan] Judge Lewis Bart Stone granted Vasquez's motion and vacated his convictions. Vasquez was released on bond on June 30, 2012. On December 21, 2012, the prosecution dismissed the charges."*

[* So, the prosecution left Vasquez 'hanging' for nearly six months, before finally dropping charges.]

"In 2013, Moreira-Brown filed a lawsuit on behalf of Vasquez in the New York Court of Claims, seeking compensation from the City of New York. As of October 2015, the lawsuit was pending. Vasquez also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, but it was dismissed."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Jerome Thagard - Perjury / False Confession / Officer Misconduct

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:40:11 +0000

Thagard, Jerome; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

317 F.Supp. 669; W.D.N.Y. 7/3/18; civil suit

"On the evening of April 29, 2009, sometime after 8:00 P.M., [Joseph] Northrup and his girlfriend, Suzanne Grover...engaged in a verbal altercation at their residence before Northrup fled the house and ran through the nearby housing projects...Grover pursued him on foot...Northrup ran through a 'big group of people' standing in the back of the housing projects, and then engaged in a conversation with another individual...Grover disengaged her pursuit and left the housing projects...She then entered a Jeep driven by her sister, Amanda Basile...Basile's friend, Christian Picone...and Grover's three-year-old son rode as passengers...Basile and Picone had followed Grover after she and Northrup fled from the residence.

"After Basile, Picone, and Grover drove away, they soon spotted Northrup again, at which time Grover left the Jeep and once again gave chase into an empty lot...Basile and Picone parked the Jeep in a nearby parking lot...Suddenly, a male individual (the 'shooter') ran up to the driver's side door, and asked Basile if everything was all right and whether he should 'go over there and shoot [Northrup].'...Basile and Picone both observed that the shooter was carrying a gun in his hands...Basile was confused by the shooter's question, and before she could fully react, the shooter began to run towards Grover and Northrup...Basile believed that she heard other people 'in the background screaming' the name 'Jerome.'

"As Grover and Northrup reengaged in their verbal dispute, the shooter appeared from behind Grover carrying a gun...The shooter declared that he had been told that Northrup was bothering the girls...Northrup approached the shooter and stated that 'he's not the only one with guns.'...The shooter then fired his gun several times at Northrup..."

"Basile provided an affidavit averring that [Buffalo Police Department Detective Mark Lauber] threatened to arrest her if she did not identify someone in the photo array as the shooter...Basile, who was 16 years old at the time...also averred that she had identified [Thagard] as the shooter, [and Lauber] told her that Grover had identified the same person...Although Basile had been unsure as to whether she correctly identified the shooter, learning that Grover selected the same individual 'convinced' her that she had done so...Grover also submitted a statement to the police indicating that [Lauber] told her that another eyewitness had already identified one of the six individuals presented in the photo array before she identified [Thagard] as the shooter...Instead, she explained that she believed the shooter was of Puerto Rican descent, and that she picked the individual who most closely resembled a Puerto Rican individual...[Thagard's] motion to vacate his conviction was granted on the consent of the [DA's] Office."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"Police questioned two teenaged girls who were sitting in a car about 100 yards away* from the shooting. One was so traumatized by what she saw that she could not speak. When a detective asked her to write down what she saw, her writing included the word 'Philadelphia.' The detective assumed the girl was saying that the gunman was from Philadelphia Street, which was near the shooting."

[* Well, here we go again: Imagine standing at one end of a football field, and being able to tell who's doing what at the other end. That'd ridiculous: From that distance, you cannot discern one person's face from that of another.]

"Detectives determined that 16-year-old Jerome Thagard, who had a prior arrest on a shoplififting* charge that was later dismissed, lived on Philadelphia Street not far from the scene of the murder. Police said Northrup's girlfriend and the two girls all identified Thagard as the gunman in a photographic lineup."

[* So, this kid's supposedly gone from being a (aupposed) shoplifter, right to being a murderer?]

"The following day, police arrested Thagard...and charged him as an adult with second-degree murder. When Thagard's photograph was shown on television, a woman called police and said Thagard had robbed her at gunpoint the day before Northrup was killed.

"Thagard went on trial in Erie County...in January 2010. Northrup's girlfriend and the two girls who were in the car all identified Thagard as the man dressed in a dark hooded sweatshirt who shot Northrup. Northrup's girlfriend said the gunman asked her, 'Do you want me to shoot him?' and then began firing.

"Thagard did not testify or offer any alibi witnesses. On January 25, 2010, a jury convicted him of second-degree murder and he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

"Thagard then went on trial on the armed robbery charge. The victim admitted that Thagard only looked like the man who robbed her. Thagard's attorney, John J. Molloy, presented evidence that the woman's cell phone had been stolen, along with her purse, and that two calls were made from the cell phone shortly after the woman was robbed. One was to a taxi company and the other was to a known member of the 10th Street Gang, a Hispanic street gang active in the area of Northrup's murder. Molloy tracked down the driver of the cab who responded to the call and the driver said that he picked up two Hispanic men. Thagard, who is African-American, was acquitted by a judge who heard the trial without a jury.

"In the summer of 2013, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Buffalo was conducting an investigation of the 10th Street Gang and learned that ballistics evidence showed that the bullets used in the shooting of Northrup and the bullets recovered from two other shootings were fired from the same gun. One of the shootings occurred after Northrup was killed and Thagard was in police custody. Moreover, the gun was tied to members of the 10th Street Gang. "The information was passed to Buffalo police detectives and the Erie County [DA's] Office, which conducted a reinvestigation of Northrup's murder. Molloy, Thagard's defense attorney, interviewed the three eyewitnesses and all recanted their identifications of Thagard as the gunman.

"Northrup's girlfriend told Molloy that she was shown a photographic lineup and told detectives the gunman was not in the lineup. She said the detectives yelled at her and said that one other witness had identified one of the men in the lineup as the gunman. She told Molloy that she then identified the person who most looked like the gunman, and that was Thagard. Molloy also learned that when one of the girls had written down 'Philadelphia' when she was questioned after the shooting, all she meant was that she and her girlfriend had driven on Philadelphia Street to get to the location where the shooting occurred -- not that the gunman lived on Philadelphia Street."*

[* So, to briefly re-cap this 'detective' work: 1) One witness writes down the word 'Philadelphia;' 2) a cop assumes this means the perp lives on nearby Philadelphia Street, and looks for arrestees who reside there; 3) having found a one-time arrest for Thagard for shoplifting, the authorities figure they must have their murderer.]

"The two girls who were in the car signed sworn statements saying they were pressured by detectives to select a photograph in similar lineups and they both selected Thagard because he looked most like the gunman.

"Thagard told authorities that he was at home watching television with his mother at the time of the shooting and that he was on the telephone. The prosecution determined the alibi was credible. In December 2013, Molloy filed a motion to vacate Thagard's conviction and on December 9, 2013, Thagard was released on bond.

"On January 13, 2014, the Erie County [DA's] Office joined in the motion to vacate Thagard's conviction and dismissed the murder charge against Thagard.

"Thagard subsequently filed a claim for compensation with the New York Court of Claims and settled for $825,000. In April 2016, he filed a federal civil rights lawsuit. In 2019, he settled part of the lawsuit with the city of Buffalo for $250,000."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Frank Smith, Jr. - Perjury / False Confession

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 02:38:29 +0000

Smith, Jr., Frank; drug possession/sale; NRE:

perjury/false accusation

[762:90]; 1st Dept. 12/4/90; affirmed

"[Smith's] guilt flows naturally from the evidence, which established that he was an active, albeit furtive, participant in the sale of narcotics. [He] had no direct contact with police, and while there was no evidence that he physically possessed the drugs, his participation in the sale was established by strong circumstantial evidence, including the use of [his] apartment and proof that he profited from the transaction."

[984:634]; Court of Claims 12/2/13; civil suit

"[I]n 1991, it was alleged that a man named Frank Guerra told Frank Smith's mother that he, not her son, was the individual who conspired to sell drugs..."

"On June 19, 2003, Justice Leslie Crocker Snyder...vacated the judgment and dismissed the indictment..."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"On May 1, 1987, 20-year-old Frank Smith Jr. was arrested in Brooklyn...on a charge of arranging a $4,500 cocaine deal with an undercover narcotics agent. Smith was accused of delivering cocaine to a middleman, who sold it to the undercover agent on April 7, 1987.

"On May 4, 1989, Smith was convicted..."

"In 1992, a man named Frank Guerra told Smith's mother that he -- not her son -- was the 'Frank' who had conspired to sell drugs. However, Guerra would not provide a sworn statement.

"In February 1999, Jerry Capeci of the New York Daily News reported that on September 5, 1988, federal authorities had tape-recorded a suspect in another investigation noting how Smith's arrest had devastated his mother.

"'She took it very bad. She's taking it worse and worse as time goes on, 'cause the. . .kid is innocent,' said Salvatore Fusco. Capeci said Fusco was a member of the Bypass gang, a burglary ring to which Smith also belonged. Capeci said gang members targeted banks and jewelry stores in Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island.

"Moreover, Capeci reported that in late 1991 or early 1992, former Gambino underboss Salvatore 'Sammy the Bull' Gravano told federal authorities that Smith had been mistaken for 'another guy named Frank'* and was innocent."

[* So, it appears that someone in law enforcement confused Frank Smith for Frank Guerra, simply because of their shared first name. The fact that this actually resulted in conviction would seem to indicate a lack of proper investigation by the police and the defense.]

"Capeci also reported that in 1995, mobster Frank Gioia Jr., who was cooperating with the FBI, told authorities that mob associate Frank (B.F.) Guerra was a drug dealer for Theodore Persico Jr., a nephew of organized crime boss Carmine Persico.

"Capeci quoted FBI documents as saying Gioia told the Smith family that Guerra was the other Frank. During the summer of 1992, Guerra had considered turning himself in, but a mob superior ordered him not to, according to the documents.

"Capeci reported that after he began asking about the Smith case, federal authorities contacted the New York City Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor and an investigation was opened.

"In June 1999, an attorney for Smith moved to vacate Smith's conviction on the basis that Guerra's admission to Smith's mother was newly discovered evidence. On June 19, 2003, Kings County...Justice Leslie Crocker Snyder granted the motion and dismissed the case.

"In the meantime, Smith had begun cooperating with federal authorities. He had pled guilty in 1992 to a federal charge of conspiracy to burglarize a bank, and was sentenced to three years to be served consecutively to the sentence he was serving for the narcotics case. In 2001, the Brooklyn [DA] in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney's Office indicted Smith for killing two men, Carmine Variale and Frank Santora.

"On January 16, 2003, Smith signed a formal cooperation agreement. He pled guilty in federal court to a violation of the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging his involvement in seven murders. Pursuant to that agreement, Smith pled guilty in Kings County...to manslaughter...for the Variale and Santora homicides. He was sentenced to six to 12 years in prison to run concurrently with his narcotics case sentence.

"By the time that his narcotics conviction was dismissed, Smith had served nearly all of the 15-year minimum sentence on that case. After receiving credits for three years of this time toward the bank burglary case and nearly 12 years toward the sentence in state court for the Variale and Santora homicide case, Smith was released and promptly entered the [U.S.] Federal Witness Protection Program.

"Smith later left the program after he was accused of stealing plasma televisions from a Walmart. He also sought compensation in the New York Court of Claims based on his wrongful narcotics conviction. That claim was denied."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Eric Smokes - Perjury / Prosecutor and Police Misconduct.

Mon, 07 Jul 2025 04:40:15 +0000

Smokes, Eric murder NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

[564:20] 1st Dept. 9/13/90 affirmed

"[Smokes'] conviction was supported by the weight of the evidence. Three acquaintances of [Smokes] identified him as the assailant who viciously knocked the 70-year-old victim to the ground, setting up the robbery...[Smokes] presented an alibi...The eyewitness version of the crime was supported by a fourth witness, who claimed that [Smokes], one day after the incident, implicated himself in a killing.

"We also find no merit to [Smokes'] contention that the proof of similar prior uncharged crimes committed by [him] as his accomplice were improperly admitted."

from NRE synopsis (by Ken Otterbourg):

"Just a few minutes after midnight, on New Year's Day 1987, Jean Casse was beaten and mugged on West 52nd Street in Manhattan...Casse was 71 years old, a tourist from France visiting the city with his wife. He died at 9 a.m. at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital.

"The Casses had been on their way to Times Square, a few blocks south, when the attack occurred outside Ben Benson's, a popular steakhouse.

"James Head, a waiter at the restaurant, told police that he saw Casse being attacked as he lay on the ground. Head said he saw three or four young Black men surrounding Casse. One of the assailants he described as a 'tall skinny kid with a black ski parka and ski cap,' and a 'smaller kid' with a blue jacket straddled Casse and went through his pockets, taking his billfold.

"Dan Melkonian and Eloise Yellen, who were co-workers, told police they saw part of the attack as they walked down West 52nd Street. Yellen said she was about five feet away from Casse and saw him get hit in the jaw. She said she did not get a good look at the assailant's face but described him as a tall, skinny Black male with a short afro. She and Melkonian each estimated his height as about 6'1" or 6'2".

"Throughout New Year's Eve and into the next day, the police had fielded calls and complaints about large groups of young Black men attacking and robbing people in and around Times Square and elsewhere. In one incident, which took place on the subway around 1 a.m., a group of young men were said to have chanted 'Howard Beach,' an apparent reference to the racially motivated shooting death 12 days earlier of a young Black man in the Howard Beach neighborhood of Queens.

"Detective George Delgrosso, with the Midtown North Precinct of the [NYPD], led the investigation. He would later say that his first impression of the case was a 'loser,' with a lack of witnesses and a contaminated crime scene.

"On January 2, Delgrosso caught an apparent break. The police in Midtown...had arrested four young men -- including [16-year-old #1] -- during an attempted robbery on West 47th Street. [He] told Delgrosso that he had talked with an acquaintance named Eric Smokes earlier that day and asked Smokes, whom [he] initially referred to as 'Smokey,' if he was going into Manhattan. According to [16 y/o #1] Smokes said he wasn't because he 'had caught a body,' meaning that he thought he had killed someone. In the interview, according to Delgrosso, [he] described a method of robbery used by him and his friends that appeared to match the attack on Casse.

"[16 y/o #1] didn't provide police with an address for Smokes. Smokes had never been arrested, so the police had no photo for [16 y/o #1] to review. Instead, on January 3, Delgrosso had [him] look at photos of possible associates of Smokes, who was 19 years old. Among the people [16 y/o #1] identified was [16 y/o #2], who [he] said was Smokes's best friend. [He] said that he, Smokes, and [16 y/o #2] had committed robberies together, although he did not offer any specific instances.

"Later that day, the police received an anonymous tip that Casse's assailant was a man named Lee Koonce. The caller said that Koonce was at an apartment in the Bronx, and that he still had Casse's wallet. There is no indication in police records that officers followed up on this tip. Delgrosso would later testify the tip was discounted because the caller referred to a wallet, rather than a billfold."*

[* This contention is absurd, given that the words 'wallet' and 'billfold' are synonymous.]

"The police brought Smokes in for questioning at around 10 p.m. He was not read his Miranda rights.* Smokes, who lived in Brooklyn, said he had gone into Manhattan with [16 y/o #2], Niles Williams, Michael Barry, and Todd Carson at about 10:30 p.m. on New Year's Eve. He said they were at 47th Street when the ball dropped, and then began making their way south, toward Madison Square Garden."

[* This was also true for Nickel. ]

"Delgrosso asked Smokes whether he saw any robberies or rip-offs that night. Smokes said he saw 'a lot of craziness,' including a fight and a shooting. According to Delgrosso, Smokes agreed to have his photograph taken the detective told him 'he had nothing to worry about.'

"Around midnight, Delgrosso left Smokes with another officer and picked up [16 y/o #2] at the apartment where he lived with his mother. [He] said he was with Smokes and the other young men on New Year's Eve. Delgrosso received permission from [his] mother to bring her son in for questioning.

"[16 y/o #2] was not read his Miranda rights and was questioned without a parent present. His account to Delgrosso lined up with the statement made by Smokes. Delgrosso then falsely told [him] that Smokes had admitted to hitting someone on New Year's Eve. [16 y/o #2] said it wasn't an old man, but a young guy on 41st Street.

"Delgrosso then returned to Smokes and told him about [16 y/o #2's] statement. According to Delgrosso, Smokes now admitted to hitting somebody, but he said he didn't rob that man or Casse.

"Delgrosso went back to [16 y/o #2] and tried to get him to cooperate with the investigation and admit to being on West 52nd Street. The interviews were not recorded.* During the interrogation, [he] wasn't placed under arrest, but he was also never told he was free to leave until the police drove him home."

[* Also true of the Nickel case.]

"While Delgrosso was interviewing [16 y/o #2], Smokes had told another officer that an acquaintance had said he had mugged someone and taken a lot of money. Smokes allegedly said he would ride around in a surveillance van and point this man out to the police. It's unclear whether this happened, but Smokes was released early on the morning of January 4.

"On the morning of January 8, police brought in [16 y/o #3] as a witness. The records disclosed by the prosecution at trial didn't indicate how [he] came to their attention.

"A detective told [16 y/o #3] that he was a possible suspect and falsely said that he had [16 y/o #3's] photograph, which he planned to show to other witnesses to see whether they could place him at the crime scene. According to the detective, [he] looked at about 25 photographs of possible suspects, and selected a picture of someone named 'Eric' that he had scene walking from the crime scene. He also was said to have picked a photo of [16 y/o #2] as being the young man he saw standing over Casse and taking the elderly man's money.

"[16 y/o #3] had said he had been at Times Square with his cousins, [16 y/o #4] and 18-year-old Andre Houston, and Tyrone Bess. Police brought those three in to look at photos, although the young men would later testify that officers said they themselves might also be considered suspects. Bess could not make an identification. The Houston brothers each identified Smokes and a young man named Robert Moore, who was already in custody on an unrelated robbery. Police arrested Smokes and [16 y/o #2] that day. The police then conducted live lineups with [16 y/o #2], Smokes, and Moore.

"Bass was unable to make any identifications. The Houston brothers now identified [16 y/o #2] from his lineup. So did [16 y/o #3], although he did not identify Moore in his lineup. Andre and [16 y/o #4] continued to claim Moore was present during the robbery.

"[The Houston brothers], and [16 y/o #3], each selected Smokes from his lineup. Yellen did not make an identification from the Smokes lineup.

"A grand jury indicted Smokes and [16 y/o #2] on January 12, 1987...Prosecutors did not ask the grand jury to vote on an indictment against Moore.

"The next day, police arrested 19-year-old Kevin Burns on a probation violation and also recovered several weapons. During an interview with the police, Burns claimed to have information about the Casse murder. Initially, he said that a man named 'Guy Tony' had hit Cass with a plastic bat or horn. But later, on June 30, 1987, Burns told Delgrosso that his previous statements were false, and he implicated Smokes and [16 y/o #2] in the robbery and murder.

"By then, the pre-trial hearings for Smokes and [16 y/o #2] were underway. They had moved to sever their trial, but Justice Clifford Scott of [Manhattan]...denied the motion, and the joint trial began on July 6, 1987.

"The state sought to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes allegedly involving Smokes and [16 y/o #2]. Attorneys for Smokes and [16 y/o #2] cried foul and moved to dismiss the case, arguing that prosecutors -- without permission from a judge -- had already presented [16 y/o #1's] testimony about this issue to the grand jury. Justice Scott denied the motion, and said that [16 y/o #1] could testify about these actions, because they went to motive and intent.

"There was no physical evidence connecting Smokes and [16 y/o #2] to the crime. In addition, Smokes did not match the description of the principal assailant given by several witnesses. He was 5'10" and 230 pounds, not 'tall and skinny.'

"[16 y/o #1] and the Houston brothers were all arrested and compelled to appear at trial as material witnesses.

"[16 y/o #4] testified that he saw 'Smokey,' whom he had seen hanging out at the Albee Square Mall in Brooklyn, hit Casse with a left-handed blow. He testified that he saw [16 y/o #2] leaning over Casse but said he couldn't see whether [16 y/o #2] was rummaging through his pockets.

"[16 y/o #4's] testimony had several holes. He said he was at 42nd Street when the ball dropped at midnight, and there was no explanation how he made it through more than 10 crowded city blocks to see Casse's attack at 12:03 a.m. He also testified that he saw Casse and his wife leave the restaurant just before the attack, but the couple hadn't been in the restaurant. They were simply walking down the street.

"[16 y/o #4] testified that he and his brother and their friends made it to Manhattan from Brooklyn at around 11 p.m. (His brother had testified they arrived around 8 p.m.) [16 y/o #4] said he saw Smokes hit Casse and then saw other people in the crowd, including Warren, go through Casse's pockets. He testified on direct examination that he and some of his friends ran and then returned to the crime scene to see Casse being loaded into an ambulance. On cross-examination, he said he came back alone.

"[16 y/o #4] testified that he saw Casse get hit and fall to the ground. He said that he saw Smokes walk away after Casse fell but that he did not see Smokes hit the man. [He] testified that he saw [16 y/o #2] take Casse's wallet. He said he recognized both Smokes and [16 y/o #2] from Albee Square.

"Melkonian testified for the state. He said he had not clearly seen the face of the man who hit Casse, but the man was taller than he was. Melkonian was 5'11". (Smokes was 5'10", and [16 y/o #2] was 5'8".)

"Melkonian also testified that the police never asked him to view a lineup. Similarly, Renee Casse testified that although she did not see her husband get hit, she saw a man going through his pockets. She said she pulled on that man's hair and tried to stop him. She testified that she didn't see his face and never viewed a lineup. In addition, Casse testified that her husband was bleeding badly as he lay on the sidewalk. There was no indication that the police examined the clothing worn by Smokes and [16 y/o #2] on New Year's Eve.

"[16 y/o #1] testified that he was around Times Square with a relative and several friends, including Edward Samuels, when he ran into Smokes sometime before midnight. He said he was at 43rd Street or 44th Street from 11:45 p.m. to 12:10 a.m., but was near the restaurant just a few minutes later and saw Smokes again, now with [16 y/o #2]. [16 y/o #1] said he watched Smokes hit Casse in the face. He also said that Smokes had stolen Casse's wallet before he and [16 y/o #2] fled through a nearby passageway. Burns also said that he had spoken with Smokes 'quite a few times' since New Year's Eve and that Smokes had made vague threats against [16 y/o #1] if he testified.

"Delgrosso, the lead detective, testified about the investigation. He said that [16 y/o #1], despite being arrested for a similar crime, was never considered a suspect. He also said he hadn't followed up on the initial statements from [16 y/o #1] until more than five months after they were made and that [his] accounts often contradicted each other.

"Detective Richard Chartrand, who had received the tip about Lee Koonce, testified about his role in the investigation.

"Attorneys for Smokes and [16 y/o #2] had wanted to ask Chartrand about the timing of the tip, to show that the police had ignored a solid lead at the beginning of the investigation. But Justice Scott barred that line of inquiry. 'I'm not going to let him tell you about every little rumor or every little thing he heard, no way,' he said.

"[16 y/o #1] testified about his conversation with Smokes on January 2 and said another man named Edward Williams was also present at the time. [He] said that he and Smokes and [16 y/o #2] had committed 12 or so similar robberies. During cross-examination, [he] was unable to provide any specifics on these alleged crimes. Although [he] was under a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, he said he was still committing robberies at the time of the trial.

"The jury began deliberations on July 14, 1987. On July 16, it told Justice Scott that 'We would like the court to know that we did not come to a decision lightly but with great emotional turmoil.'

"The jury convicted both Smokes and [16 y/o #2]..."

"Both men appealed their convictions, which were upheld in 1990. [16 y/o #2] filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus...in 1997. It was denied in 1999.

"In 2005, [16 y/o #1] wrote to Smokes in prison and said he had testified falsely against him and [16 y/o #2] because of his addiction to cocaine and pressure from police and prosecutors. [He] followed up with an affidavit in 2007, and in 2016.

"[16 y/o #2] was released on parole on December 19, 2007. Smokes was paroled on July 5, 2011.

"On July 17, 2017, Smokes and [16 y/o #2] moved to vacate their convictions based on newly-discovered evidence, actual innocence, and prosecutorial misconduct. Both men were now represented by James Henning.

"The motion was based on numerous affidavits by witnesses and others about the testimony at trial and the investigation into the crime. They included:

"Edward Williams said in an affidavit that [16 y/o #1], whom he had once considered to be his best friend, had testified falsely about the day after the robbery-murder. Williams said he was with [16 y/o #1] the entire day and that they never ran into or spoke with Smokes.

"[16 y/o #1] said in his own new affidavit that he falsely testified at the trial. He said police and prosecutors fed him information about the crime and told him he would never have to testify. [He] said that because he wasn't close to either Smokes or [16 y/o #2], he didn't feel bad about falsely implicating them.

"Barry Hall said in an affidavit that he was with Smokes and [16 y/o #2] on New Year's Eve and vouched for his friends' whereabouts that night. The police listened to his statement but tried to intimidate him.

"Moore said that an [ADA] approached after the grand jury failed to indict him and said she could help him clear his name on the other charges he was facing if he testified against Smokes and [16 y/o #2]. Moore said he told the prosecutor that he hadn't been present and didn't know either man.

"Burns said in an affidavit that he had testified falsely and never saw Smokes and [16 y/o #2] attack Casse. Burns said he was actually in Brooklyn at the time of the crime. Burns said he implicated Smokes because of a longstanding dispute between the two men and a chance to help his own legal problems. He also said that police and prosecutors fed him information about the case and that he was given cigarettes in exchange for his testimony.

"[16 y/o #4] recanted his testimony as well. He said that he and his cousins didn't witness the crime they came upon Casse after he was already lying on the street. He also said that neither he nor his cousins knew Smokes or [16 y/o #2].

"The [Manhattan DA's] Office opposed the motion. Justice Stephen Antignani held hearings in 2018 and 2019, receiving testimony from the witnesses and others who said they had falsely testified about the evens of New Year's Eve. [16 y/o #3] had died in 2017.

"The state said the affidavits and testimony were unreliable. It ridiculed Burns's claim that someone had bought him cigarettes after he testified as 'bad fiction.' Jennifer Gonnerman, a reporter for the New Yorker magazine, found a receipt from the prosecutor for cigarettes on the day that Burns testified in the city's municipal archives.

"Neither Smokes nor [16 y/o #2] had testified at their trial. At the hearing, [16 y/o #2] said he lied to the parole board and falsely said that he committed the crime because he believed he would otherwise not be released.

"Smokes testified that he also had made false statements to the parole board in order to be released from prison. He said that after his release, he had reached out to [16 y/o #1] and others involved in his conviction to find out the truth. Smokes noted that while in prison, he had received a bachelor's degree from Mercy College and a master's degree from New York Theological Seminary.

"On cross-examination, Smokes said that if he was successful in vacating his conviction, he planned to sue the city for damages. He said he was aware of the awards received by members of the Exonerated Five, who had been wrongfully convicted in 1990 and exonerated in 2002. During his testimony at the hearing about the investigation, Delgrosso said that nine years before the Casse murder, he had assaulted a fellow officer in a bar in Brooklyn. To avoid arrest, he and others made up a story about being attacked by neighborhood kids. When the truth finally came out, Delgrosso received a five-day suspension.

"On January 14, 2020, Justice Antignani denied the motion for a new trial. In a 123-page ruling, he said that the testimony from the recanting witnesses was 'misleading and evasive' and that the statements by Wiliams and others were filled with holes. He said that Delgrosso's misconduct related to the bar fight would have had little bearing on how the jury weighed his truthfulness about the murder investigation. Moreover, Justice Antignani said, the defense could have asked for information about the detective's work history.

"The ruling also said that the police had not coerced witnesses into making false statements and that the prosecutors had not pressured witnesses to testify falsely.

"Finally, the ruling said that Smokes and [16 y/o #2] had not met their burden of proving actual innocence. The ruling noted the testimony of the Houston brothers that placed Smokes and [16 y/o #2] at the crime scene. It also said their statements to the parole board were strong evidence of guilt, and he noted their financial incentive to have their convictions vacated.

"Smokes and [16 y/o #2] moved for permission to appeal the ruling. Their filing said that the state had withheld information about [16 y/o #4]. He had recanted to investigators with the [DA's] office in early June 2018, then quickly repudiated his recantation a few days later. The state did not disclose these conversations to the defense, and Houston was never called as a witness at the hearing for a new trial.

"On June 25, 2020, the...First Department...granted a request by Smokes and [16 y/o #2] to appeal the ruling. On April 4, 2022, prior to the filing of the appeal itself, the [DA's] office, now headed by Alvin Bragg, and Henning entered into a collaborative agreement to re-investigate the case, based in part on other documents disclosed by the state in this latest round of appeals.

"On October 6, 2023, the [DA's] Post-Conviction Justice Unit (PCJU) filed a letter with Justice Antignani that said it would consent to an expedited defense motion to vacate the convictions. '[We] do not take the decision. . .lightly, and come to this court with significant deference to both the jury verdict and the prior litigation,' the letter said. 'However, based on the newly discovered evidence, [we] believe that the only legally correct and just outcome is to move to vacate these convictions.'

"The letter outlined the results of the investigation, which included the discovery of undisclosed evidence and additional witness interviews.

"The defense motion, filed on November 15, 2023, gave additional details and said the state's actions had led to two wrongful convictions.

"During the hearings on the motion for a new trial in 2018-2019, the state had produced previously undisclosed documents indicating that the police had twice interviewed a man named George Samuels, who Burns had said was with him on New Year's Eve. Delgrosso testified at trial that he showed Samuels some photos but couldn't recall the substance of the interviews. The police records contained no notes of these interactions.

"In a joint interview with the defense and prosecutors in 2022, Samuels said he was with Burns most of the night and knew Smokes and [16 y/o #2]. He said that he and Burns never made it up to West 52nd Street. Samuels said he told the police that Burns's account was false. Samuels had previously told a defense investigator that the police threatened to implicate him in the murder.

"The defense motion said that the state had failed to tell attorneys for Smokes and [16 y/o #2] about the interviews with Samuels, and that prosecutors failed to correct false testimony by Burns about who he was with on the night of the murder. Justice Antignani had discredited [16 y/o #4's] recantation, but the new review said additional documents gave the recantation more weight. [16 y/o #4] said he was made to feel like a suspect, not a witness, and that he named Smokes and [16 y/o #2] to avoid getting arrested himself. Newly discovered police notes show that [16 y/o #2] gave detectives names of the people who could corroborate his statement that he was not involved in the crime. They also appeared to support [16 y/o #4's] statement that he was told [16 y/o #2's] name and shown his picture bfore making an identification.

"The re-investigation also revealed how police found [16 y/o #3]. His mother called a police officer she was dating after finding newspaper clippings about the Casse murder in her son's bedroom. That officer then got in touch with Delgrosso.

"This information was not included in Delgrosso's records, although the boyfriend had submitted a separate report. At trial, [16 y/o #3] testified falsely that he didn't know about this chain of events, and the prosecutor failed to correct this testimony, the motion said

"The motion and letter also said that [16 y/o #4] had reasserted his recantation. [He] said in an interview with Henning and members of the PCJU team that the police told him when he was questioned that 16 y/o #1 had already made an identification, and that if [16 y/o #4] didn't get on board he could be charged in the murder. Significantly, [he] said in the interview that he didn't know Smokes or [16 y/o #2] and had never seen them before going to the police station.

"'A central aspect of the [prosecution's] case was the identification witnesses' supposed familiarity with the defendants,' the motion said, claiming that these false relationships were the result of coercive police interviews, supported by incomplete record-keeping and dissembling of the officers during their trial testimony. 'As [16 y/os # 3 and 4] have both acknowledged, this familiarity was a fabrication.'

"The re-investigation also found that prosecutors failed to disclose their efforts to investigate an alternate suspect known as J.S. Burns had mentioned this man in an early interview with police but had later retracted that accusation. It also found that the state failed to disclose other evidence: a transcript of a controlled call that [16 y/o #1] made to [16 y/o #2] on January 3, 1987, and assistance he received with an unrelated charge [he] received after testifying before the grand jury. Separately, the re-investigation found that Burns had testified falsely about his criminal record.

"In a response, the state said it did not agree with everything in the defense motion but that it still supported vacating the convictions and dismissing the charges against Smokes and [16 y/o #2].

"On January 31, 2024, Justice Antignani granted the motion for a new trial and dismissed their charges. In the order, he said that the new information about Samuels, the coercive tactics used on [16 y/o #4], and an alternate suspect warranted a new trial, four years after he denied their previous motion.

"'Thirty-something years later, you are still fighting for your right, for a court to say to you that those convictions were not warranted, and so today to you I am going to grant that,' he said.

"In a statement, Bragg said: 'Eric Smokes and [16 y/o #2] lost decades of their life to an unjust conviction. I am inspired by the unyielding advocacy of Mr. Smokes and [16 y/o #2] and hope that today's decision can finally bring them a measure of comfort and justice.'

"Speaking at a news conference later that day, Smokes said the convictions had been the result of 'tunnel vision.'

"'You don't try to pressure young people,' he said. 'If you just follow the basic steps of police work, you'd get the job done.'

"In February 2024, Smokes filed a claim in the New York Court of Claims seeking compensation for his wrongful conviction."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Wayne Oxley, Jr. - Perjury / Prosecutor Misconduct

Mon, 07 Jul 2025 04:33:17 +0000

Oxley, Wayne, Jr.; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, misconduct in interrogation of exoneree, perjury by official, prosecutor lied in court

Suggestibility issues

[883:385]; 3rd Dept. 7/30/09; reversed, due to evidentiary error

"Following a lengthy trial, [Oxley] was convicted of intentional murder in the second degree for beating the victim to death with a baseball bat.

"The evidence was legally sufficient to support the conclusion and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence...Hours after the victim's death, the police found a baseball bat in [Oxley's] basement. The bat had the victim's hair and blood on it, as well as forensic evidence that was consistent with [Oxley's] DNA. A neighbor testified that she saw [Oxley] walking toward the victim's house on the night the victim died. Other witnesses testified that [Oxley] was suffering from personal problems and a crack cocaine addiction, and he was upset with the victim for cheating him on recent drug transactions. An inmate testified that [Oxley] made a jailhouse admission to the crime.

"County Court [Jerome J. Richards] erred in excluding evidence of third-party culpability.

"One witness would [have testified] that she saw a man called Chase at the scene of the crime and threatening the victim only a few hours before the murder. Less than 48 hours prior to the murder, Chase had threatened that he would kill the victim. Six months after the murder, she heard Chase admit that he committed the murder, stating that he made good on his previous threat to beat the victim's brains in with a bat. An inmate incarcerated with Chase was prepared to testify that Chase told him that he, and not [Oxley], committed the murder. Another inmate who overheard the conversation was also willing to testify. A woman who was apparently living with Chase would testify that a few nights prior to the murder she went to the victim's house to get away from Chase. When Chase appeared at the victim's house, the victim refused to let Chase in and threatened Chase with a baseball bat, prompting Chase's response that the victim would be sorry he got involved and that he was going to get hurt. This occurrence was corroborated by an independent witness, a local cab driver, who testified that he picked up a man fitting Chase's description at the home where Chase was apparently living, drove him to the victim's house and waited outside, where the cab driver heard yelling between his fare and an occupant of the house. The fare yelled that the victim needed to pay the money he owed or he was going to 'get beat.'"

[That 'Judge' Jerome J. Richards actually excluded all of this powerfully exculpatory evidence is astonishing. One can only guess that he was a lot like Judge Paul Czajka, a former prosecutor who simply was not going to let the facts get in the way of a conviction. It is also highly suspicious that the police apparently failed to follow the many leads pointing to Chase's guilt.]

from Records and Briefs:

[ Judge Richards closed the courtroom -- had it cleared of spectators and media -- for an entire morning. Also, 8 days after it rested, prosecution was permitted to re-open its case -- in the middle of the defense case, apparently so that it could present more inculpatory evidence.]

[114] [At a post-trial hearing, Oxley's defense counsel testified:] "'Every time I looked at [Judge Jerome J. Richards] while I was [questioning] Mr. Oxley, [Richards] had a look on his face, like [he] was not believing anything the man was saying. . .[S]everal other people in the courtroom commented on that.'"

"[T]he bias of the Court [Richards] in favor of the prosecution was clearly evident early on. This display of such bias was not the first time the Court clearly evidenced bias against [Oxley]. During discovery proceedings counsel's complaint that the [prosecution] had not fulfilled one of its discovery requirements was met sua sponte with the Court unfoundedly accusing counsel of trying to set up a false contradiction of the [prosecution's] expert for cross-examination purposes."

"Alas, there was more of this type of behavior on the Court's part. Counsel was trying to elicit testimony concerning the bat and Shannon's connection with it on the eve of the murder. There was a break in the proceedings. The Court excused the jury. There was legal argument. Counsel motioned for a recess. The following ensued outside the presence of the jury as Oxley was walked to a holding cell on his way to the bathroom:

'The witness: I don't know what the sense of me testifying is.

The Court: Mr. Manning, hold it up. Mr. Oxley.

Mr. Manning: Yes, your honor.

The Court: Just a second. Bring him back in here, Deputy Duquette. . . .

The Court: There are rules. You don't --

The witness: The rules -- I'm trying to defend myself. You will not let [115] me defend myself.

The Court: You want to testify, you are going to have to behave the way you are expected to behave. I'm not going to put up with you making a scene in this courtroom.

Mr. Manning: Be quiet, Wayne, please. The Court: There is nothing for you to say. If you don't do what you are supposed to do, I have the right to prevent you from taking the stand. And you want that to happen you keep on going on the path that you are on. Mr. Manning is here. He is doing the job he is supposed to do. You don't understand the rules. You are not expected to understand the rules. He doesn't have to like the rules. But he respects the Court. So you take your lead after him. When I make a ruling, you don't like it, you don't say anything. Understood? Understood? [Emphasis original.]

The defendant: Not really, no. I don't understand. You just told me I don't understand.

Mr. Manning: Judge, could I talk to him for a couple of minutes?

The Court: He is warned, Mr. Manning.

Mr. Manning: Could I talk to him?

The Court: You can, but he is warned.'"

"Criminal contempt in the immediate view and presence of the Court only attends an actual disruption of the Court's proceedings, a clear and present danger of disruption, or an undermining of the Court's authority and ability to conduct its proceeding...No such conduct occurred here. Oxley passed an opinion as he was being led to a holding cell with no one but the lawyers and a court officer or two present in the courtroom. However unwelcome to Judge Richards' ears, Oxley was privileged to express an opinion. It is called free speech. He obstructed nothing, threatened to obstruct [116] nothing and undermine[d] nothing. He was not on the witness stand...No jury was present...[T]his was witness tampering and intimidation. Exactly what or whose 'rule' did Oxley break? In custody, almost in a cell, Oxley disrupted nothing. Instead of calming him down and pointing out his best interest, Judge Richards called him back into the courtroom to beat him around the ears...[A] trial judge is not supposed to vent his personal spleen by confusing disagreeable comment with offense to law and further conflate both with obtruction to the trial process. Men who make their way to the bench are afflicted with all the weaknesses to which human flesh is heir. But they are supposed to be temperate and not act like an activist seeking combat...Testifying for one's life is an experience that only the wretch in the dock can appreciate. If Oxley had one transcendent right, it was...the right to take the stand with a reasonably clear head...[O]ur system of justice needs judges capable of controlling the litigants and then capable of controlling themselves.

"At the end of his testimony, counsel asked Oxley a question about Jennifer Ritchie's information regarding Shannon. The record shows an objection followed by Oxley's 'Yes.' Instead of merely striking the question and answer as he did throughout the trial with other witnesses, Judge Richards sent the jury out. Evidently not forgetting Oxley's first 'transgression,' the [117] Court said, 'you are going to tell me now he didn't hear that objection.' Retorted counsel, 'No, I am not going to say anything. He is not the only one who answers questions after objections' . . .Judge Richards said, 'You tell him this is his last warning.'...The fixation on Oxley was misplaced. Occasionally counsel himself did not hear an objection...But [he] suffered no indignity. Judge Richards made miscues, as did the [DA]...The Record clearly shows that [Oxley] behaved himself not only during his testimony, but also throughout the entire trial."

"Judge Richards told counsel that 'I caught him staring down Mr. Webb when we were on the break the other day when Mr. Webb was sitting on the stand.'...Counsel calmly replied that 'he is blind in his left eye and he's got a lazy eye. He's had two operations on one eye. . .' 'I think it's very unfair that he is being -- he has a disability with his eyes.'...Judge Richards' justification was that he wanted to make sure the courtroom was safe. 'I believe I'm entitled to that.'...Staring is in the eyes of the beholder. Where is a defendant supposed to look at his own trial?'

[118] "Earlier, Judge Richards said that he had 'received a couple of reports concerned about [Oxley's] behavior.' Counsel asked, 'reports about -- from whom?, about what?' The judge said, 'just the way he is reacting to the testimony. And he did stare down on Miss [DA Nichole M.] Duve. So, all I'm asking is that he have access to one pen and that's it. I don't want any other pens on the table.'* ...Later, defense counsel expressed concern that Haggart ([prosecution] witness) was looking at the prosecutor for answers while being cross-examined. The Court dismissed him with 'he can look wherever he wants.'...The Court also vouched for the prosecutor that she was not signaling O'Marah on cross-examination...after which it insulted counsel saying, 'you are performing for the jury. It's not going to happen.'...These curious outbursts were not isolated. During its secret session, Judge Richards unfoundedly threatened counsel."

[* What in the world do pens have to do with alleged staring? This has crossed over from biased to bizarre.]

[119] "The Court abused its discretion in permitting the People to reopen their case."

"On November 2nd Oxley was about to testify when Chief [ADA] Lesyk ...interrupted. He had information [that] 'just literally, happened this moment.'...Lesyk never explained why he was seeking a letter whose contents he had never seen, but the existence of which had been disclosed to him by Meacham 10 days before he made the application to the Court. Indeed, Lesyk did not know what was in any of the letters that Amy Jo Meacham had given to her lawyer, but he and Atty. Collins 'spoke in tandem to Amy Jo and requested that. . .if you can give us anything that is in writing, that would reduce the need to call you as a witness in rebuttal...'...The [prosecution] originally declined to call Meacham. Realizing that their case was [120] reduced to a twig, they decided to grasp at a straw. Lesyk wanted to reopen the [prosecution's] case to have 'someone saying that they heard Mr. Oxley confess to this crime.'...The [prosecution], alas, combined with Judge Richards to get more evidence to throw at Oxley...[T]he record contains no credible justification for the [DA] not to have brought Haggart and Meacham forth on her first direct case, nor does it evince any excuse for Judge Richards, who was supposed to preside impartially...This was not a request to reopen based on existing newly-discovered evidence. It was the enlistment of a judge to act as a co-prosecutor and grand jury and judge in quest for additional evidence against Oxley."

[122] "Judge Richards directed everything. He ordered Lesyk to telephone Ducharme [Meacham's lawyer] and 'go prepare a subpoena. . .duces tecum.' He then ejected the press and the public from the courtroom...The subpoena whose issuance Judge Richards directed was tantamount to an illegal grand jury subpoena issued for the sole purpose of bolstering the proof supporting an indictment filed a year earlier. It was also tantamount [123] to an illegal trial subpoena because it was not seeking existing evidence...It sought to ascertain if a witness with evidence existed and whether he would reveal it, and, 'whether or not it's something that they believe is useful.'...[This was a] 'fishing expedition.'...The [prosecution's] license to fish ended with the grand jury's indictment." [Emphasis original.]

[127] "Judge Richards acted as a 'one-man grand jury.' He used his power to ferret out 'additional evidence' against Oxley. He violated a prisoner's attorney-client privilege. He summoned attorneys to the courtroom. After he read the letter aloud, he ordered Attorney Ducharme to obtain a waiver of the privilege. He launched a bizarre attack on counsel, saying he had to 'lower his attitude.'...He put a sentenced inmate on the stand without a lawyer and told her she had no Fifth Amendment privilege...A transcript cannot adequately capture something on the order of a secret 'show-trial' where defense lawyers are treated like obstructionist nuisances."

[131] "Trickey's [the murder victim's] head was virtually knocked off. The murder scene was helter-skelter. However, Oxley's socks, sneakers and shorts bore no trace of Trickey...Shannon, not Oxley, told Jennifer Ritchie that he was going to kill Trickey...[132] Contrary to Haggart's say-so, and the [prosecutor's] opening, there was no evidence of any attempt to clean up anything. Indeed, Haggart's testimony about Shannon running away, too scared to help Oxley clean up after he viewed the murdered Trickey, is not only directly contradictory to Shannon's testimony, but also in disagreement with the [prosecution's] theory of the case..."

[134] "A 'drunk-as-a-skunk' Oxley...would have to have been something of a drunken Houdini to stagger up the street, kill Trickey, stagger back to his house, plant the bat and the towel in his cellar, rid himself and his clothing of blood, jump into bed, feign annoyance at Howe and his girlfriend, and hours later welcome the police to search his house...No murderer invites police and prosecutor into his house when he has put the murder weapon in his basement with a blood-stained paper towel marking its partially-exposed hiding place three feet away. There was never any sign of guilt on Oxley's part. The prosecution even emphasized his cooperativeness.

[135] "The night of the murder Shannon told Oxley and Howe that he was a police informant...Oxley would have to have been a [136] raving lunatic to walk up to a man who had told him he was a police informant and tell him to get anything out of his basement, much less a murder weapon, with police up and down the block swarming in and out of his house like flies -- as he is about to take a ride downtown."

[137] "Covertly testing an object seized from the accused for the presence of inculpatory DNA evidence, while ignoring or resisting his attorney's written request to test the same object for DNA evidence which he and his attorney state would exculpate him is at war with...due process of law...Police and prosecutors will have an 'impact on the test results' when they seize the DNA's host object from a suspect-defendant who tells them the object was borrowed by another person on the night of the murder, ignore a prompt written request from counsel to test its DNA for that other person, promptly test it for the suspect's DNA, and then, only pursuant to Court order, test it for the other person's DNA seven months later -- with the results being that the defendant's DNA is well presented, but the other person's is but an inconclusive shadow of its former self."

[Outgoing DA Gary Miles; incoming DA Nichole M. Duve. Dets. Harry McCarthy, Steven Fisher, Andrew Kennedy, Mark Finley and BCI Investigator Kurt Taylor. ]

[167] "The [prosecution]...permitted Robert Webb a/k/a Chase to testify falsely." [Emphasis original.]

"'No, I don't sell drugs,' swore Chase ...Chase also testified that he was not selling drugs, was not involved in drug trafficking in Ogdensburg, that he never brought any cocaine at all to Ogdensburg, never helped anybody else bring cocaine to the [168] City of Ogdensburg, did not give drugs to anybody else to sell, didn't front drugs to anybody, was not supplying people with drugs on consignment...All that testimony was false and the [prosecution] knew it...As of the day of his testimony outside the presence of the jury (October 31, 2006) Chase had been arrested, charged (soon indicted) for selling cocaine in Ogdensburg...On February 13, 2007 Chase pled guilty to selling cocaine in Ogdensburg on March 1, 2006 and August 28, 2006...Notwithstanding Chase's arrest and incarceration on the two charges prior to his testimony in County Court, the [DA] said nothing when Chase lied about selling/trafficking drugs, and even made sustained objections* to defense counsel's questions about what Chase was charged with."

[* Thus, Judge Richards would not allow Oxley's defense counsel to ask what the prosecution's last-minute, star witness had been charged with -- likely because it would have revealed him to be a pathological liar.] [169] "Wrongful judicial interference with defense counsel cross-examination of Investigator Finley." [Emphasis original.]

"Investigator [Mark] Finley, on cross-examination, said that Oxley yelled out a number of times, but he did not remember what [it] was he yelled... Sua sponte, as in many such instances throughout the trial...the Hon. Jerome J. Richards interrupted. Since Oxley 'was not in custody, you don't get to have the jury decide whether his statements were voluntary,' ruled Judge Richards...Nor, 'was he in custody when he went to the police station.'...The Judge had not yet read People v. Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 284 (1968)... Provided with a copy overnight he reversed himself...The Court gave no curative instruction...Recalled after the passing of a full week's time, Finley admitted discussing 'Oxley yelling out of the window' with fellow police investigators who had been [170] involved in the investigation and who had already testified or were on the witness list...He testified that someone pulled up outside and Oxley yelled a few times...but not to anyone directly...When he was looking at Oxley...he heard Oxley's words, but did not know what he said. He couldn't recall Oxley saying 'I need a lawyer in here.'...He was there 'to observe and take notes,' but he wrote down nothing Oxley said 'because I didn't hear what he said'...although he was 'definitely' yelling it. Finley was not interested in what this murder suspect was yelling...Oxley was 'saying a lot of things.' Some Finley determined to be 'pertinent,' a lot was 'not pertinent.'...Finley did not know the words Oxley yelled because he never heard them, at least not that he recalled."

"Finley's testimony was patently absurd, conspicuously unbelievable, and...[171] patently tailored to avoid constitutional objection...Whatever the spontaneity of cross-examination might have revealed was forever lost due to court interference. A reading of Finley's testimony shows him prepared, and perhaps, confident, that he could testify as he did and get away with it."

[173] "[T]he cross-examination of Jamin Haggart -- the [DA's] star, 13th-hour witness who provided 'additional evidence' -- was unreasonably curtailed."

"Cross-examination of Haggart was interrupted by empty 'objections' sustained, or, objections sustained with a summons to the bench for counsel to justify his questions only to have the judge fill in the blanks for the [DA]."

[175] "Using Haggart's words...counsel sought to show a prurient nexus between him and Meacham rivaling Oxley's intentions, as in, 'a motive to lie.' Questioning was stopped as 'irrelevant.'...The inquiry pertained to bias. Its wrongful preclusion is a ground for reversal long recognized by this Court [the 3rd Dept.]...Siring one woman's child but writing a love letter to another reflects on credibility. Questions as to whether he wrote that 'the niggers killed the one in the fire after Wayne was already in jail' and was 'the same nigger Michelle Disotell was sucking dick for crack' were precluded...[A] potty mouth reflects a toilet brain which, in turn, informs credibility."

[176] "Counsel's offer to respectfully explain his differences with the Court were met with the Court saying, 'Mr. Gray, I don't want to hear anything. . .Mr. Gray, I don't want to hear it.'"

"Preemptively invading the province of the jury, the judge was breathtakingly in error. Morality informs credibility... Haggart's depravity and viciousness, if spread before the jury, would have painted him as he is, thus allowing the jury to take what he swore to from whence it came."

[178] "Having listened to Oxley's alleged admissions two or three weeks prior to his June 6 sentencing, Haggart at that sentencing had a prosecutor and a defense counsel within earshot. They were in a position to evaluate what he might say about Oxley at a time when his saying it could have reduced or negated his 5-year prison sentence...Inquiry was precluded...A thief with violent propensities and a sexually manipulative interest in women is not adverse to buying off prison time by falsely selling another person into prison... Judge Richards was the sentencing judge...These were facts from which a jury could infer that Haggart's 'story' was a recent fabrication. A scoundrel does not stand mute at a time when the advantage is to open his mouth. Identifying the judge and the prosecutor was not 'nonsense' any more than Judge Richards' rulings that, 'no, this is cross-examination, you don't need to lay a foundation'...and his advice that jurors were 'starting to get pissed off'...were appropriate."

[185] "[Defense witness] Jennifer Ritchie met Hector Tobarras (ph) [denotes phonetic spelling by stenographer] in Watertown and married him. Without good faith, the [DA] asked Ritchie, 'He pay you to marry him?'...This bigoted, xenophobic ethnic slur suggesting that the two gamed the immigration laws was deliberate. But it got [DA Nichole M.] Duve's message across."

[188] "The record is replete with Judge Richards initiating acrimonious exchanges with both defense lawyers and interrupting cross-examination for his own legally-incorrect reasons, with no acknowledgement of error or remediation in front of a jury that must have become perplexed."

[191] "When later called by the defense, Judge Richards denied their application to examine [Acting DA] [Gary] Miles as a hostile witness. The defense had argued that he was hostile per se because of his actions on the day of Oxley's arrest, his selective selection of evidence to be tested and [192] the rush to indict Oxley with a view towards electing himself as a [DA] several days after the grand jury presentment."

[199] "On Monday, November 6, 2006, ten days before the verdict, Judge Richards received a 4-page letter from a prisoner named Jon Sawyer. On Wednesday, November 8, 2006, without showing the letter to either Attorney Manning or Attorney Gray,* he sent it back to Sawyer... The letter essentially told Judge Richards that there was a witness to the Trickey murder, inferring that Oxley was not there, and that two witnesses at Oxley's trial had lied under oath." [Emphasis original.]

[* However, a copy was sent to the DA's office.]

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"On August 30, 2005, 38-year-old Bernard A. Trickey, Jr., a reputed drug dealer, was beaten to death in his home in Ogdensburg..."

"The following day, acting on a tip from John Shannon, an acquaintance of Trickey's, police went to the home of a neighbor, 39-year-old Wayne Oxley, Jr., and after a consensual search, found a baseball bat in Oxley's basement. Police claimed it was the murder weapon and Oxley was charged with murder.

"In 2006, Oxley went on trial in St. Lawrence County..."

"At a preliminary hearing before the trial, Shannon testified that on the night Trickey was killed, he saw Oxley 'with that big long stick in his hand walking toward Bernie's.'

"Shannon, who was later unmasked as a police informant, was killed in a house fire two weeks later, so his preliminary hearing testimony was read to the jury at Oxley's trial."

"Oxley testified that on the night Trickey was murdered, he was taking drugs and drinking alcohol with Shannon and another man. Oxley said Shannon kept asking for the bat and left the house and returned during the night."

[The jury found Oxley guilty on December 18, 2006. But on July 30, 2009, the Third Dept. reversed.]

"In October 2010, Oxley went on trial a second time.

"At this trial, a new witness, Michelle Disotell, testified that she met Robert 'Chase' Webb, Shannon and another man, Dana Chubb, in the months before Trickey was killed. She said she drove Webb to various cities...to buy crack cocaine.

"Disotell was barred from testifying that she heard Webb say that Trickey was ripping him off and that he was going to kill him, because she could not provide a date for the conversation.

"Two months later, on December 15, 2010, after seven days of deliberation, the jury reported it was deadocked, with eight jurors voting to convict and four voting to acquit.

"The judge declared a mistrial.

"In January 2012, Oxley went on trial for the third time and for the third time took the witness stand to deny he was the killer. He said he was home taking pills and drinking wine and passed out. He said he knew nothing about what happened until he saw police cars at Trickey's home the following morning.

"He said Shannon was the killer.

"The defense also presented the evidence pointing to Robert 'Chase' Webb, who was then called by the prosecution. Webb denied involvement in the murder, saying he was in New York City with his grandmother on the night of the crime.

"On February 23, 2012, after two hours of deliberation, the jury acquitted Oxley.

"In May 2012, Oxley filed a notice of claim with the city of Ogdensburg and the police department seeking $23 million in damages and a separate claim with the State of New York seeking $13 million in damages. The lawsuit against the city and police department was dismissed in November 2013."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Rodolfo Taylor - Mistaken ID / Prosecutor Misconduct

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 02:20:58 +0000

Taylor, Rodolfo robbery NRE: mistaken witness identification, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence

[520:49] 2nd Dept. 10/26/87 affirmed

"[W]e find that the witness Bailey's selection of [Taylor's] photograph from a photographic array two days before he picked [him] out of the lineup did not taint the lineup identification since there is no argument that the photographic array was in any fashion unduly suggestive and we conclude that the lineup itself was not unduly suggestive."

36 F.Supp.2d 534 E.D.N.Y. 2/22/99 writ denied

"Prior to July 1984, Detective Robert Anderson of the Third Precinct of the Suffolk County Police Department had been assigned to investigate a series of gas station robberies including the robbery of a Texaco station located at Motor Parkway and the Long Island Expressway in Brentwood...which occurred on February 22, 1984, and two robberies of a Shell gas station located at Route 111 and Spur Drive in Central Islip...which occurred on June 2nd and again on June 10, 1984...Harold Bailey had been working as an attendant at the Shell station on June 10th and had witnessed that robbery...On July 1, 1984, Detective Anderson asked Bailey to come to the Third Precinct to view a photo spread...Bailey was shown a photo spread and identified the petitionerRodolfoTayloras the person who committed the June 10th robbery."

"On July 3, 1984, Taylor was asked to accompany Officer Houlan and two Suffolk County police officers to the Third precinct where he appeared in a series of ten lineups...Five witnessesDennis Ford, Daniel Farrell, and Kathleen Young (the eye-witnesses of the June 2nd Shell robbery), Gary Meenahan (the victim of the February 22nd Texaco robbery) and Baileyeach viewed two separate lineups in which they all positively identified Taylor as the individual who had committed the robbery he or she had witnessed...Taylor was 23 years old, 6' 2-1/2" tall and weighed approximately 160 pounds."

[At trial]: "Meenahan...testified that...he had not seen any scars or moles on the perpetrator's face."

"Ford, Farrell and Young all gave similar descriptions of the robber of the Shell station. Ford claimed that he had observed Taylor for at least three minutes during the robbery...He described him as a black male, approximately 2023 years old, about 60 tall, with a thin build, short Afro, a thin mustache and hair in the center of his chin...According to Farrell, he had observed the robber for about five minutes...and described him [as having] a small mustache and goatee..."

"BeverlyWoods...testified that she had known [Taylor] for the last five years and that in February 1984, [he] had had a scar approximately 22-1/2 inches long on his left brow over his left eye...Richard Froberg,...testified that [Taylor] had been employed by his company on February 22nd and June 2, 1984 and during that time [Taylor] was clean shaven...Froberg also testified that on July 3, 1984, [Taylor] did not have a beard."

"Jaqueline Davis, the driver of the white car [which was at the station at the time]...testified that Taylor was not the man she had observed."

[984:414] 2nd Dept. 4/30/14 reversal of denial of post-trial motion without a hearing (by Judge Stephen L. Braslow ) without a hearing hearing ordered

"In December 2009, [Taylor]...moved to vacate the judgments of conviction, arguing that two supplementary reports from the Suffolk County Police Department and four sworn witness statements provided to him pursuant to his...FOIL [Freedom of Information] request had not been disclosed to the defense at his criminal trials..."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"Taylor filed a [public records] request with the Suffolk County Police Department, which sent him numerous documents -- none of which had been disclosed by the prosecution at the time of Taylor's trials.

"These documents included reports showing that: ... -- On June 12, Farrell selected Lawrence Caudle from a photographic lineup. He said, 'I picked out #1 with no hesitation and state without doubt this is the same subject that robbed me on May 29th and again on June 2, 1984. I know this subject to be Lawrence Caudle.' ... -- On June 12, 1984, Young viewed a photographic lineup. She said that Lawrence Caudle 'looked much like the man who I saw commit the Robbery on June 2, 1984.'

-- On June 14, 1984, Ford...selected Forlando Carlton. He said, 'The reason I picked this one is because I am almost positive that this is the Black male that had robbed me, and if he had a little bit of facial hair I would say that he is definitely the one.'"

"On December 22, 2009, based on the discovery of these reports, Taylor, acting without a lawyer, filed a post-conviction motion to vacate his convictions. On February 12, 2010, Taylor was released on parole. He had spent 24 years, months, and 17 days in prison since the date of his first conviction.

"In November 2011, Judge Stephen [L.] Braslow denied Taylor's motion for a new trial. In April 2014, the [Second Dept.] overturned Judge Braslow's ruling, and ordered a hearing to determine whether evidence had been withheld and if so, whether it had an impact on Taylor's right to a fair trial. At a hearing in July 2014 Taylor's trial defense lawyer, Martha Palmer Rodgers, who was at the time of the trial a staff attorney for the Suffolk County Legal Aid Society, testified that she never saw the reports. She said she would have used them if she had them.

"The trial prosecutor testified that she listed on the outside of a folder the dates of documents that she had provided to the defense. None of the dates corresponded to the dates of the six reports that Taylor had received pursuant to his public records request. Still, Judge Braslow denied the motion for a new trial.

"In 2016, the Suffolk County [DA's] office agreed to revisit the case at the request of the Legal Aid Society. The [DA's] office assigned a senior-level prosecutor to review the case. Subsequently, the office concluded there was a 'substantial likelihood' that the reports had not been disclosed to Taylor's defense lawyer at the time of his trials and may have had an adverse impact.

"While this review was in progress, Timothy Sini, the newly-elected [DA] , created a Conviction Integrity Bureau (CIB). In April 2018, Kirk Brandt, attorney in the appeals bureau of the Legal Aid Society, sent a seven-page letter outlining the evidence that had been withheld and how, as a result, Taylor's trial had been unfair. He asked the CIB to review the case.

"'It is evident that the failure to provide Mr. Taylor's trial counsel with the aforementioned exculpatory documents undermined the integrity of his convictions and allowed an injustice to take place,' Brandt said.

"On December 2, 2021, [ADA] Craig McElwee filed a 25-page affirmation in support of a motion to vacate Taylor's convictions. While the prosecution said there was 'insufficient evidence for exoneration,' it had reached a 'secure conclusion' that Taylor did not get a fair trial because of the failure to disclose the reports.

"'It is the position of the CIB that the facts as detailed herein clearly established that the ideals of justice and fundamental fairness have been violated in this instance and vacatur of the convictions is appropriate,' McElwee wrote. Witnesses are either dead or unable to remember details, he said. 'Therefore, the indictments must be dismissed because the cases could not be reprosecuted at this time.'

"On January 27, 2022, the convictions were vacated, and the charges were dismissed.

"After the hearing, Taylor, surrounded by family members and friends, declared, 'It's very rewarding. It took patience, perseverance and good family.'

"Louis Mazzola, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society who wored with fellow Legal Aid lawyer Kirk Brandt on Taylor's case for a decade, said, 'He has never once wavered in his claim of innocence.'

"On July 18, 2022, Taylor filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Suffolk County and several officers, seeking payment for his wrongful conviction. The lawsuit was settled in 2023 for $12.8 million. In 2023, he also filed a claim for state compensation. He settled that claim in 2024 for $1 million."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Natacha Tiger - False Confession / Misleading Forensic Evidence

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 02:19:44 +0000

Tiger, Natascha endangering the welfare of a disabled person NRE: false confession, plea, no crime, false/misleading forensic evidence

Suggestibility issues

48 N.Y.S.3d 685 2nd Dept. 3/1/17 denial of motion to vacate without hearing (by Judge Jeffrey G. Berry ) reversed hearing ordered re: actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel

"On November 23, 2011, a severely disabled child was admitted to Westchester Medical Center suffering from what appeared to be scald burns. [Tiger], a licensed practical nurse who had given the child a bath earlier that day, was subsequently charged with several crimes on the theory that she had burned the child with hot water. [She] thereafter pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a...physically disabled person...admitting that she had recklessly causedserious physical injury tothe child. Nearly two years later, [Tiger] moved...to vacate her conviction, primarily alleging that she was actually innocent because medical evidence established that the child's injuries had been caused by an adverse reaction to medications."

"Alejandra A....was born in May 2001. She had profound disabilities. As of November 2011, the child had a permanent tracheostomy and feeding tube, was completely immobile, was blind, and was dependent on others for all activities of daily living."

"On November 30, 2011, [Tiger]...made a statement to an investigator in which she stated, in part, regarding the date of the incident:

'I was working in the. . . home with [the child]...I...turned on thewater and started rinsing her body...[T]he water hit my hand and I could feel that the water was very hot. I then turned the cold water on to try to adjust it so it wasn't so hot...I wrapped [the child] in a towel and took her to her bed and when I pulled the towel down to put lotion on her arms and help her stretch and when I opened the towel more I noticed redness and peeling on her legs. I knew then that I had burned [the child] because the water was too hot when I was bathing her...I knew that I had burned [the child] with the hot water when I called [the child's mother] earlier but was afraid to tell her about what happened when I was bathing her earlier in the day.'"

"Accordingto [Tiger], the investigator started to ask [her] general questions about the child's bath on November 23, 2011, and [she] gave her account. After a time, it became apparent to [her] that the investigator did not believe her. The investigator confronted [her] with 'terrible, shocking photographs of [the child's] condition -- much, much worse than it appeared when [she] had last seen her -- which seemed to [her] to depict serious burn injuries. [She] was stunned and upset, and started gently crying. The investigator, in a stern voice, accused her of boiling water and throwing it on the child. [She] denied the accusation and again explained what had occurred. The investigator, looking angry and agitated, raised his voice and said that no one would believe [her]. He then said that he was going to give the [her] time to think and left the room."

"[She] asserted that when the investigator returned to the room, he sat down, held [her] hand, and said that he was trying to help her. He said that the [she] would be going to jail for a very long time, but that it would be 'safer' for her if she admitted to burning the child, even accidentally. He reminded her that she was the last person with the child and asked how it could be that the child was being treated at WMC's burnunit and getting skin grafting for scald burns if she had not burned the child. [She] asserted, 'I was afraid and confused because I could not explain any of these things, yet did not understand how it was that I could possibly have scalded [the child].'

"[She] claimed that, by that time, she had been at the CPS office for hours. She asked about the Interim manager who had accompanied her and was told that the manager hadleft. Although Interim sent a text message to [her] during the interview, the investigator would not allow her to send a text message in response. When [she] told the investigator that she needed to call her family, the investigator made her turn off her cell phone. She explained, 'Isolated, tired, and confused, I was eventually convinced by [the investigator] that I must have burned [the child] because I could not otherwise explain the photographs, her treatment in the burn unit, or her need for skin grafting.'"

"According to [her], her attorney advised her that if she were to plead guilty, she might, in view of her background, reasonably hope for a sentence of probation and community service, and avoid the risk of a lengthy term of imprisonment. Based on her attorney's advice and her inability to afford medical experts, [she] agreed to plead guilty."

"In his supporting affirmation, physician Bruce F. Farber noted that he had been involved in the practice of internal medicine and infectious diseases from 1980 to the present. He had specialty training in infectious diseases and had treated burn patients and patients diagnosed with toxic epidermal necrolysis (hereinafter TEN). He had reviewed, among other things, the child's medical records and photographs of the child.

"Farber gave a narrative of events leading up to and including the child's hospitalization. He noted that on November 16, 2011, a week before the incident in question, the child was evaluated by her pediatrician, who diagnosed pneumonia and prescribed the antibiotic Biaxin."

"Farber opined, based on his review of medical records, photographs, and [Tiger's] statements, as well as his education and experience in treating patients with TEN and burns, that the child's injuries were caused not by a thermal scald burn from bathing but by TEN.

"According to Farber, the family pediatrician and all WMC physicians -- emergency room, burn, pediatric, dermatologic, and infectious disease -- who evaluated the child on November 23 and 24, 2011, found, based on clinical presentation, that her condition was consistent with TEN, StevensJohnson syndrome (hereinafter SJS), or staphylococcus scalded skin syndrome (hereinafter SSSS). The biopsy results ultimately confirmed a diagnosis of TEN. Despite the history that the child had been bathed shortly before the onset of her condition, none of those physicians diagnosed or even considered a diagnosis of scald burns.

"Farber explained that TEN and SJS are life-threatening dermatological conditions thought to be an adverse reaction to medications. While their exact cause is unknown, they are thought to involve an autoimmune process characterized by exfoliation of the skin, i.e., blistering. They often are associated with certain medications and bacterial infections. Drugsfrequently found to be associated with TEN and SJS include antibiotics and antiseizure medications. The child was taking the antibiotic Biaxin as well as an antiseizure medication..."

[In both TEN and STS:] "The top layer of the skin, the epidermis, separates from the lower layer, the dermis, giving an appearance that is very similar to a scald burn...The loss of epidermis results in a high risk of infection, loss of fluids, and death. Prompt treatment is required and does not appreciably differ from the treatment burn patients receive."

[However, the Court of Appeals subsequently partially reversed the above finding that Tiger was not entitled to a hearing on the actual innocence claim.]

71 N.Y.S.3d 169 2nd Dept. 7/13/22 County Court's [ Robert H. Freehill ] denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claim reversed, plea vacated

"[D]espitereferencesin the hospital records indicating that a skin biopsy was ordered, [Tiger's] former counsel failed to obtain the skin biopsy pathology report, which would have supported the conclusion that the child's skin condition was caused, not by thermal burns, but by toxic epidermal necrolysis (hereinafter TEN), a condition associated with an allergic reaction to a medication that the child had been taking." "[Tiger] also demonstrated that her former counsel failed to consult a medical expert, or take steps to either seek the services of a court-appointed medical expert, or find a source of funding to secure the services of a medical expert before counseling [Tiger] to plead guilty. At the hearing, [Tiger] offered the expert testimony of Bruce Farber, a physician board-certified in the fields of internal medicine and infectious diseases, who reviewed all the medical records, including the subject pathology report. He opined that, based upon his review of medical records, as well as the pathology report, the child's skin condition was caused by TEN, and not thermal burns. He testified that the medical records, including the hospital chart, showed that the various medical providers, including a pediatrician, emergency room physician, dermatologist, infectious disease expert, and a burn fellow formulateddifferential diagnoses including SJS, TEN, or staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome, none of which included thermal burns.

"Notably, Farber testified that a board-certified dermatologist who treated the child documented a positive 'Nikolsky sign,' which was a finding seen with immunological skin reactions, and not thermal burns. He also testified that, based upon his review of the photographs of the child, the child's wounds appeared to grow and spread for days after her hospital admission, which was inconsistent with a diagnosis of thermal burns. "[Tiger] testified that the reason that she pleaded guilty was based upon her counsel's advice that nothing in the medical records supported her defense."

"Contrary to the County Court's determination, the evidence adduced at the hearing sufficiently established that there is a reasonable probability that, but for her attorney's errors in failing to obtain the pathology report and seek an expert consultation, [she would not have pled guilty]."

from NRE synopsis (by Ken Otterbourg):

"On July 13, 2022, the [Second Dept.]...ordered a new trial." "The state dismissed the charge in August 2023."*

[* Thus, the prosecution left Tiger 'hanging' for over a year before finally doing the right thing. That would appear to be something of a record.]

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

David Ranta - Mistaken ID / False Confession / Perjury

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 02:16:40 +0000

Ranta, David; murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification, false confession, perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant; "OVERWHELMING"

Suggestibility issues

K18 "In 1991, David Ranta was convicted for the shooting death of Rabbi Chaskel Werzberger in a botched diamond heist..."

"In the early morning of Feb. 8, 1990, Chaim Weinberger, a diamond courier, left his Brooklyn apartment..."

"He was approached by a gunman but escaped unharmed. The gunman then crossed the street to the car where Werzberger was sitting...The gunman shot the rabbi once in the head, pulled his body from the vehicle and sped off.

"Two New York City detectives, Louis Scarcella and Steven Chmil, were put on the case.

"Shortly after the crime, police got an anonymous call that a man named Joseph Astin was the killer. Astin died in a car crash two months after the shooting. Astin was fleeing officers pursuing him in connection with the shooting.

"Scarcella brought Weinberger, the courier, to the morgue to see if he could identify Astin's body, and when Weinberger could not, Scarcella stopped chasing leads on Astin.

"Intead, the detectives were informed that two inmates awaiting trial on unrelated robbery charges, Dmitry Drikman and Alan Bloom, could have useful information on the crime.

"Bloom, who has since died, fingered Ranta as the shooter, and Ranta was arrested in 1990.

"Weinberger, the courier, could not identify anyone at the first of two line-ups and three other witnesses pointed to stand-ins, not Ranta.

"At a second line-up, three youths, including Menachem Lieberman, who said they saw the shooter waiting in a car before the crime occurred, identified Ranta.

"Bloom, who was granted immunity, acted as the government's chief witness at trial..."

"Scarcella admitted he had not taken any notes during interviews of Bloom and Drikman. At one point, the presiding judge...expressed concern about his mistrust of the detectives to the defense and the prosecution, but never charged the jury [i.e., told them about] the issue.

"Astin's wife, Teresa, later came forward saying Astin had confessed to the crime.

"Lieberman, the witness who expressed discomfort at his identification of Ranta, told [subsequent Conviction Integrity Unit] investigators that just before entering the line-up room, a detective told him to 'pick the guy with the big nose' and he acted accordingly."

K17 "After spending some 23 years in prison for a murder he says he did not commit, David Ranta walked out of a courtroon a free man yesterday after prosecutors conceded the evidence against him had 'degraded' to the point that they could no longer prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Ranta was convicted in 1991 for the high-profile shooting of a prominent ultra-Orthodox religious leader, Rabbi Chaskel Werzberger. But a fresh look at the case by the Brooklyn [DA's] Conviction Integrity Unit disclosed that a man who had once identified Ranta as the killer now felt 'discomfort' about his testimony, and others admitted they had fabricated statements fingering Ranta..."

[610:283]; 2nd Dept. 4/4/94; affirmed

"Although the police admittedly violated certain court orders, the police conduct challenged by [Ranta] was not so egregious as to 'manifest a disregard for cherished principles of law and order'...Given the overwhelming evidence of [Ranta's] guilt..."

[The Second Department 'justices' who signed off on this were Albert M. Rosenblatt, David S. Ritter, Vincent Pizzuto, and Myrian J. Altman. ]

from Records and Briefs:

[1] "Drikman gave Detective Scarcella information leading him to believe Mr. Ranta was involved in the case...However, he had no indication why Drikman would have such information or if Drikman was present at the scene of the crime ...Detective Scarcella claimed that Drikman picked out photos of Mr. Ranta and an individual named Steven Shakur and indicated these individuals were involved in the shooting..."

[3] "On July 13, 1990, [when Scarcella and Chmil first interviewed Bloom ], Bloom did not state that he witnessed the attempted robbery, saw anyone being dragged from a car, heard shots fired, or that he was present when the Rabbi was shot..."

"After receiving this information, Detective Scarcella spoke with members of Shakur's family who maintained Shakur was in Yugoslavia on [the day of the murder]... Despite the family's claim that Shakur was not in the country, they possessed Shakur's passport...Detective Scarcella did not attempt to verify the family's claims by examining the passport to see if it was stamped, thereby denoting entry into Yugoslavia on or near the dates in question...The detective also failed to show Shakur's photograph to any of the eyewitnesses ...The detectives' actions troubled the court...After hearing this testimony, the court raised the issue of selective prosecution on the part of the detectives..."

"Bloom's version of the events was not always consistent...Although Bloom gave consistent versions of the events on June 28, 1990, and July 13, 1990, at which time he implicated Shakur, four days later, on July 17, 1990, he told a different story."

[6] "After the detectives told Bloom they could not find Shakur, Bloom changed his story. The actions he attributed to Shakur four days earlier...he now attributed to Mr. Ranta* ...Bloom now alleged he sat double-parked...and smoked crack while he watched the events unfold. Bloom remained on the opposite side of the street two hundred feet away from where the crimes occurred. Yet, he claimed he was able to see the events transpire through his rearview mirror. ** "

[* It seems quite obvious that it was Scarcella who changed Bloom's story, when this 'detective' was greatly inconvenienced by the fact that (surprise, surprise) the alleged killer couldn't be found. ] [** That's preposterous, and would be laughable but for the fact it led to Ranta wrongfully spending decades in prison. No one can identify anyone via a rearview mirror from 200 feet away.] [7] "Bloom claimed he then heard two shots...However, Rabbi Werzberger was only shot once. There was absolutely no evidence of a second shot."

[8] "Drikman said he knew the identity of the individuals involved in the crime and the location of the murder weapon. Yet Bloom and the detectives claimed Drikman took no part in the crimes. Nothing was done to corroborate Drikman's non-involvement or to rule him out as the killer."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"At about 5:30 a.m. on February 8, 1990, 38-year-old Chaim Weinberger, a jewelry courier, left his apartment building in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn...carrying a 50-pound suitcase full of diamonds and other valuables he was taking to the Dominican Republic. Weinberger noticed a tall blond man eyeing him as he left his apartment building and when he got near his car, he saw the man following him. He tossed the suitcase into the trunk and got into his car to get away.

"The blond man put a handkerchief over his face and drew a pistol as he approached. Weinberger drove in reverse, knocked the robber down and sped off.

"The robber then noticed Chaskel Werzberger, a 56-year-old rabbi, warming up his car nearby. The gunman walked over, shot Werzberger in the head, yanked him out of the vehicle and drove off. Werzberger died three days later. His car was found in another Brooklyn neighborhood a day after the shooting, splashed with paint in an apparent attempt to cover fingerprints.

"The murder of the esteemed rabbi shocked a city accustomed to murders and a $10,000 reward was offered for information.

"A number of witnesses told police that they saw the events in full or in part. Weinberger described the gunman as being between 5'11" and 6'0" tall, clean-shaven and with blonde hair. Several other witnesses recalled that prior to the crime they saw two men in a station wagon parked nearby, one in the driver's seat and the other in the front passenger's seat.

"More than one hundred names surfaced as potential suspects, including Thomas Joseph Astin, who police learned of through an anonymous telephone call. But Astin died in a car crash while being pursued by police on April 2, 1990. After his death, detectives brought Weinberger to the morgue to view Astin's body, but Weinberger was unable to identify him as the robber.

"Beginning in June 1990, Detective Louis Scarcella interviewed Dmitry Drikman, a convicted rapist facing robbery charges. Drikman pointed the detective to Allan Bloom, a convicted robber and drug addict, who was in jail facing charges that could send him to prison for life. After several conversations with Bloom, the detective said that Bloom had admitted that he attempted to rob Weinberger with 35-year-old David Ranta, an unemployed house painter with more than a dozen arrests for theft, robbery and drug possession.

"Drikman and Bloom were then housed in the same cell together and subsequently, Drikman also implicated Ranta in the crime. Drikman's girlfriend was then interviewed and she told police she had seen Ranta and Bloom plotting how to cover up the attempted robbery and murder.

"Bloom would ultimately testify against Ranta after being granted immunity for his involvement in the robbery and murder and a promise for a reduced sentence on his outstanding robbery charges. He told the police that he had helped to plan the robbery of Weinberger and said Ranta, whom he had known for a few years, was an accomplice, as was another man named Steven Shakir.* Bloom said he left before anything happened and did not know who the gunman was, but he said that Shakir had a gun."

[* The Records and Briefs above spell this surname 'Shakur.' It's not clear which is correct.]

"After he failed a polygraph test, Bloom changed his story to say that not only did he see the crimes, but that Ranta was the gunman. Bloom would later say that he lied about Shakir's involvement. He also said that on the night before the crimes he had been with Drikman.

"Bloom said that he had stolen the station wagon that several witnesses had observed at the crime scene prior to the crimes, and that he had used the station wagon to drive himself and Ranta to the crime scene. He said Ranta approached Weinberger, pointed a gun at him and attempted to rob him. Bloom told police that he was supposed to be the getaway driver, but that after Ranta left the car, a police car drove by so he moved the car about 10 feet further away. As a result, Bloom said, Ranta didn't immediately spot the car after the botched robbery attempt and apparently decided to steal Werzberger's car.

"Bloom said Ranta ran across the sreet, fired his gun twice, pulled the rabbi from his car and fled.

"Bloom said he met Ranta later that day, took Werzberger's car and abandoned it in the Midwood section of Brooklyn. Bloom said that later, he and Drikman returned to Werzberger's car and splashed white paint on the interior to obscure any fingerprints. Bloom passed the polygraph test administered after his second statement.

"Two others corroborated Bloom. Cheryl Herbert told the police that she had been in a relationship with Ranta and that prior to her birthday in February, he told her he was expecting to come into possession of some nice jewelry. Herbert told police Ranta later told her that he was in a lot of trouble because he had participated in a robbery with two others and that they had abandoned him and as a result, he had to kill someone.

"Alison Picciano told the police that Ranta had admitted to her that he had pulled Werzberger from his car and shot him while he was on the ground.

"Ranta was arrested on August 13, 1990 and taken to a police station where detectives said that after initial denials, Ranta eventually admitted that he had been at the crime scene with Bloom and Drikman in a station wagon, which he believed Bloom had stolen. Police said Ranta said that he had known about a plan to rob a Jewish jewel courier and that he was to have been the 'lookout' during the robbery. The detectives said Ranta said he saw Bloom and Drikman exchange a gun in the station wagon and that, before any of the crimes occurred, he had left the scene when Bloom and Drikman began arguing about which one of them was going to commit the actual robbery.

"Ranta was placed in a lineup the following day. Scarcella reached out to a rabbi who came to the station with six witnesses. The first witness, Weinberger -- who had been the initial target of the robbery -- didn't recognize anyone. The next two witnesses identified someone other than Ranta.

"The fourth witness, who spoke only Yiddish and required an interpreter, initially said he didn't recognize anyone. The witness was then escorted to a nearby room with Detective Scarcella, a prosecutor and the interpreter. A tape recorder which was recording the lineup conversation was turned off and then turned back on as the witness said that, in fact, he had identified the man in position six -- which was Ranta.

"The fifth witness identified Ranta and the sixth witness identified another man in the lineup.

"A second lineup was held later that day. Three more witnesses came in and all three identified Ranta.

"Despite what police said Ranta had admitted, Ranta took and passed a polygraph examination.

"Ranta went on trial in [Manhattan] in May 1991.

"Bloom testified, as did Herbert and Picciano, portraying Ranta as the gunman. Bloom told the jury that when he and Ranta met later in the day after the crime, Ranta said, 'Why did you leave me? I had to kill someone.'

"Picciano testified that Ranta told her, 'I had to do what I had to do. I shot him.'

"Ranta's statement to the police was presented to the jury as well -- though it portrayed him as an accomplice instead of the gunman. The trial judge was critical of Detective Scarcella for failing to tape record Ranta's statement or take any notes and for failing to take any notes of his conversations with Drikman and Bloom. "The defense tried to suggest that Drikman was the gunman and that Ranta was innocent. Weinberger testified that Ranta was not the gunman.

"On May 22, 1991, Ranta was convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to 37-1/2 years to life in prison.

"His initial appeal was denied, but in 1996, Astin's wife signed a sworn affidavit saying that her husband, before he was killed in a car crash, had admitted that he killed Werzberger. She said that Astin left their home at 4 a.m. on the day of the crime and returned later in tears, saying he had robbed someone carrying jewelry and that someone had been hurt.

"Despite this affidavit, Ranta's motion for a new trial was denied. The judge said that Astin's wife's credibility was damaged because she was facing a drug charge* at the time she made the claim."

[* Recall that " Allan Bloom, a convicted robber and drug addict, who was in jail facing charges that could send him to prison for life," was nevertheless deemed sufficiently 'credible' to base this entire investigation on. Moreover, whereas Bloom stood to benefit immensely from testifying as he did, Astin's wife had absolutely nothing to gain by coming forward.]

"In 2011, Kings County [DA] Charles Hynes created a Conviction Integrity Unit and invited defense lawyers to present cases where they believed innocent defendants had been convicted. One of the cases proffered was Ranta's.

"The Integrity Unit began re-investigating. One of the witnesses who identified Ranta in the lineup said the lead police detective, Louis Scarcella, told him to pick 'the guy with the big nose,' so he picked Ranta because he had the biggest nose.

"The prosecution investigators discovered that during the weeks when police were interrogating Bloom and Drikman, both were allowed to leave jail, smoke crack cocaine and have sex with prostitutes in return for implicating Ranta.

"Drikman and his girlfriend recanted their accounts that implicated Bloom and Ranta. Bloom had since died.

"Ranta's lawyer, armed with the new evidence, filed a motion to vacate Ranta's conviction. The motion was not opposed by Kings County [DA] Charles Hynes, who was the [DA] when Ranta was arrested 23 years earlier.

"On March 21, 2013, Ranta was flown from his prison to a Brooklyn courtroom where his convictions were vacated and the charges were dismissed. He was then released.

"In May 2013, Ranta filed a $150 million wrongful conviction claim against the city of New York. In February 2014, the city settled the claim for $6.4 million. He also received $2 million in compensation from the New York Court of Claims."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Derrick Redd - Perjury / Prosecutor Misconduct

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 02:10:50 +0000

Redd, Derrick; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, prosecutor lied in court

35 N.Y.S.3d 546; 2nd Dept. 7/6/16; reversed, due to prosecutor misconduct

"[O]n October 25, 2008, at approximately 7:40 p.m., the police were called to an apartment on Leffert's Boulevard in Queens where they found the body of 25-year-old Niasha Delain. Delain, who was nine months pregnant, had been stabbed to death. Her mother and [Redd], who was the victim's boyfriend, were both at the apartment when the police arrived.

"The police searched the victim's apartment, [Redd's] two cars, and the residences of [Redd's] mother, father, and grandparents, but did not find a weapon or other physical evidence connecting [Redd] to the murder. [Redd] told the police that he was asleep at his mother's home in Queens, approximately 3-1/2 miles from the victim's apartment, during the early morning hours of October 25, 2008. However a search of cellphone service records related to [Redd's] cellphone indicated that, during that time, several calls placed or received by his cellphone were processed by a cellphone tower approximately one block from the victim's apartment. An expert testified at trial that cellphones signal to the nearest available cellphone tower and that, in Queens, at the time of the murder, the cellphone towers of [Redd's] cellphone service provider were located approximately four to five blocks apart.

"Eight days after the murder, Jinette Gerve, a neighbor who resided in the apartment above the victim's apartment, reported to the police that between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. October 25, 2008, she heard a woman in the apartment below hers screaming ['Derrick!'], along with the words, 'Stop,' 'No,' and 'Don't do that.' This neighbor testified that she had not come forward earlier due to fear and uncertainty concerning the significance of this information. She admitted that she received assistance from the [DA's] office with regard to her residence, employment, and immigration status."

"[T]he judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered as a result of pervasive prosecutorial misconduct. During opening statements as well as on summation, the prosecutor repeatedly engaged in improper conduct, including misstating the evidence, vouching for the credibility of witnesses with regard to significant aspects of the [prosecution's] case, calling for speculation by the jury, seeking to inflame the jury and arouse its sympathy, and improperly denigrating the defense."

[In the Nickel case, Prosecutor Peter Torncello certainly also 'engaged in improper conduct, including misstating the evidence' and 'seeking to inflame the [judge] and arouse [ his ] sympathy.' (In particular, see Propensity/Who Cares? , as well as Day Two of annotated trial transcript.)]

[As is almost always the case, despite the fact that this conviction was reversed due to prosecutor misconduct, this appellate decision does not actually name the prosecutor. However, a review of other decisions in this matter revealed that this person was Eugene Reibstein. ]

from NRE synopsis by Maurice Possley):

"The crime was discovered when Delain's boyfriend, 35-year-old Derrick Redd, and her mother came to the apartment because Delain had not responded to calls or text messages.

"Redd agreed to go to the police station for questioning. Although police later said that Redd made several statements that were suspicious -- 'I either avoid the problem or I eliminate it' and 'we argued about an abortion' -- he was released without being charged after 27 hours.

"However, on November 17, he was arrested and charged with murder, causing an abortion, and criminal possession of a weapon.

"In October 2011, Redd went on trial in Queens...The prosecution's primary evidence came from Jinette Gerve, who lived in the apartment above the one where Delain was killed. Gerve said that early in the morning of the day Delain was found dead, she heard Delain shouting Redd's first name and 'stop,' 'no,' and 'don't do that.'

"Gerve admitted that on the day the murder was discovered, she told police that she heard nothing. She further admitted that the second time police spoke to her, she again denied hearing anything. It was not until about two weeks later that Gerve gave a statement saying she had heard Delain calling Redd's name. She denied during cross-examination that she had been provided any benefits in return for her testimony."

"However, after Gerve finished testifying, the prosecution turned over records showing that in fact she had been paid $4,500 to relocate and that the prosecution was helping her with an immigration matter. Redd's defense attorney agreed to present the evidence in [a] statement to the jury, but did not re-open cross-examination to confront Gerve directly about her denial of receiving any benefits.

"The prosecution presented records that allegedly showed that Redd's cell phone had pinged off a cell tower a block from Delain's apartment in the early morning hours of October 25, 2008. At the time, Redd was living about three miles away.

"The prosecution also presented evidence of Redd's statements to police during his initial interrogation, and argued that those statements indicated he committed the murder because Delain had not gotten an abortion. In addition, the jury heard evidence that when arrested, Redd had three small cuts on his hand. The prosecution contended that this was proof that he had stabbed her and cut himself when the knife struck a bone in Delain's body, causing his hand, which was bloody, to slide forward and cut him.

"A medical examiner testified that she 'found nothing' in the autopsy that would be consistent with the time of death of 6 a.m. -- the time that Gerve said she heard Delain screaming.

"On November 3, 2011, the jury convicted Redd..."

"In July 2016 the [2nd Dept.] reversed the convictions...[It] found that the prosecutor, Eugene Reibstein, had engaged in egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

"Reibstein, the court said, had 'flatly misstated' the medical examiner's testimony, quoting her to the jury as saying, 'I found nothing in my autopsy that would be inconsistent with the time of death of 6 a.m.' And then, Reibstein went on to say, 'Can we get more clear than this, ladies and gentlemen?'

Reibstein told the jury that Redd suffered the cuts on his hands when he stabbed Delain more than 20 times. 'During this repeated stabbing, you may get yourself a little cut there, a little cut there and a little cut there,' particularly '(i)f the blade stabs something hard, like a baby.'

"The court said, 'Not only was the remark needlessly inflammatory, it also improperly cast the prosecutor as an unsworn witness in his own case.'

"The defense attorney repeatedly objected to Reibstein's comments, the court noted. Some of the objections were overruled and in a few instances, the judge cautioned Reibstein about making improper comments. In some instances, the judge didn't rule on defense objections at all."*

[* This also happened with Judge Paul Czajka in the Nickel case. (See Objection Analysis as well as Day One and Day Two of the annotated trial transcripts.]

"At one point, the judge warned Reibstein that 'if you keep inflaming the jury you will come to regret it.' Reibstein nevertheless continued.

"'Soon thereafter,' the appeals court said, Reibstein 'continued his string of inflammatory remarks by stating, "It happens, when you can't get somebody to (get) an abortion. . .you have to take care of them the last day yourself."'

"Redd went to trial a second time in March 2018 with a new defense attorney, Wynton Sharpe, who presented text messages between Delain and Redd from June 2008 -- six months before the crime. In one message, Delain said she was willing to perform sex acts for money so that she could pay for an abortion. In another, Redd said that he would go back to court to seek custody of the child after he was born.

"Sharpe also cross-examined Gerve with the records showing she had implicated Redd only after she received numerous benefits from the prosecution.

"Sharpe also introduced evidence showing that there were other cell phone towers further away from Delain's apartment where Redd's cell phone was picked up -- not a tower just a block away.

"On April 4, 2018, the jury acquitted Redd and he was released.

"Ih May 2019, Redd filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking damages from the city of New York. In October 2019, he filed a claim for compensation in the New York Court of Claims. He settled the claim for $30,000 in 2023."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Filipe Rodriguez - Mistaken Witness ID / False Accusation

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 22:52:19 +0000

Rodriguez, Felipe; murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification, perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, perjury by official

[620:966]; 2nd Dept. 12/12/94; earlier denial of motion to vacate conviction affirmed

"[Rodriguez's] contention that his judgment should be vacated because the [prosecution] failed to disclose certain material at trial...is without merit. The record supports the hearing court's determination that the material in question was turned over to the defense."

[And yet, the NRE lists 'withheld exculpatory evidence.' ]

[620:832]; 2nd Dept. 12/12/94; affirmed

"[W]e are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence..."

from Records and Briefs (civil):

[3] "Detectives engaged in a litany of misconduct that violated Felipe's Fourth Amendment, due process and fair trial rights, directly causing his wrongful conviction and incarceration. Eager to close a homicide investigation that was entering its [4] second year detectives from the [NYPD] and Long Island Railroad Police Department ('LIRRPD') fabricated police reports, withheld exculpatory information from prosecutors and the defense, and coerced [Javier] Ramos into implicating Felipe. In the course of the investigation, detectives drove Mr. Ramos to a cemetery and threatened to kill him if he did not implicate Felipe in the murder. [ADAs] withheld crucial exculpatory information from the defense, including a tape recording in which Mr. Ramos -- unaware that he was being recorded -- admitted to a co-worker that he knew nothing about the murder."

"NYPD Detectives John Beisel, John Califano, John Wilde, Jerry Fennell, NYPD Sgt. George Zaroogian, and LIRRPD Detectives Thomas Sullivan and Charles Wendel are named defendants in this lawsuit."

[6] "Prior to this wrongful conviction, Rodriguez had no criminal record." [That was also true of Nickel. ]

"On the morning of November 26, 1987, which was Thanksgiving Day, the body of 35-year-old Maureen Fernandez...was found in a remote industrial lot in Glendale, Queens...The lot was located behind Dubofsky's wholesale warehouse...Ms. Fernandez's body had 35 stab wounds to the neck, back, and pelvic area...Tire impressions were found in close proximity to Ms. Fernandez's body, leading police to believe that Ms. Fernandez [7] had been transported to the scene in a car driven by her killer...No physical evidence collected from the crime scene proved useful in identifying the vehicle or its driver...No murder weapon was ever found."

"Ms. Fernandez spent much of Thanksgiving Eve...at Wyckoff Heights Hospital...in Brooklyn, where her young daughter was being treated...A witness who was in the hospital that day told police they observed Ms. Fernandez drinking from a liquor bottle...At around 1:00 a.m., Ms. Fernandez used a hospital phone to call her husband, Carney Fernandez...The couple began arguing over the fact that Ms. Fernandez was drinking while watching the baby, and Ms. Fernandez hung up on her husband...Ms. Fernandez left the hospital shortly after that phone call and traveled to the Little Liva Bar...in Brooklyn...No witnesses actually saw Ms. Hernandez leave the hospital, so detectives did not know whether she left on foot or by car...The Little Liva Bar was located approximately one mile from Wyckoff Heights Hospital and approximately two miles from where Ms. Fernandez's body would be found hours later...According to bar patrons, Ms. Fernandez arrived at the Little Liva Bar between 2:00 and 2:30 a.m. in the company of an unknown male...Bar patrons told police that they believed that Ms. Fernandez and the unknown male arrived in a black, late-1970s model Chevrolet Monte Carlo...Detectives believed that Ms. Fernandez and the man likely departed together in the black Monte Carlo. Accordingly, for the next several months, detectives focused on locating the black Monte Carlo and its driver...Carney Fernandez, Ms. Fernandez's husband, was also considered a suspect."

[8] "In the days following the murder, detectives interviewed witnesses who interacted with Ms. Fernandez and the unknown man at the Little Liva Bar shortly before she was murdered...Detectives obtained detailed descriptions of the unknown man from bartender Joseph Castillo and bar patrons Robert Thompson and William Perry...All three witnesses described the unknown man as approximately 30-years-old, between 5'7" and 5'9", with no mustache and no eyeglasses...Thompson added that the man had 'reddish brown' hair, was 'bow-legged,' and was wearing a 'multicolored sweater,' 'beige pants,' and a gold ring...In a second interview in February, 1988, bar patron William Perry told Det. [Charles] Wendel and Det. [Thomas] Sullivan that the man with Ms. Fernandez on Thanksgiving morning 1987 was Italian or Irish, 'not Hispanic,' and had 'hazel or green' eyes...The February interview... was not documented... The February interview was not disclosed in any way to Mr. Rodriguez or his attorneys prior to his trial."

"More than four months after the murder, on March 17, 1988, Dets. Sullivan and Wendel conducted a videotape-recorded interview of Robert Thompson...Thompson added several details to his earlier description...Thompson said the man called himself a 'plumber's helper'...Thompson said that the man did not speak with an accent...Thompson said that the man looked Italian, not Hispanic ...Thompson added one further detail to his description of the man seen with Ms. Fernandez at the bar: he claimed that the man had a tatoo between his palm and index finger and four letters tatooed across his fingers, which appeared to read, 'LOVE'... The descriptions did not resemble Felipe Rodriguez, who had a thick mustache, wore eyeglasses, was 22 years old, stood approximately 6'1" tall, never had any tattoos, and never wrote the word 'LOVE' on his hands. ...Felipe never drove or had access to a Monte Carlo, the car driven by the suspected killer...Felipe is Hispanic and has brown eyes...In November 1987, Felipe was a mechanic. Felipe never identified himself as a 'plumber's helper'...[and] spoke with a Puerto-Rican-inflected Spanish accent."

"From the beginning, detectives working on the Maureen Fernandez homicide had information pointing to a number of potential suspects other than Felipe...One suspect was Ms. Fernandez's husband, Carney Fernandez... [9] Carney had no alibi for the time of his wife's murder*...Ms. Fernandez's friends and family told detectives that Carney physically abused Ms. Fernandez, had threatened to kill her, had a violent temper when drinking, was jealous of her, and that she wanted to leave him...Ms. Fernandez's friend Liz Velez told police that Ms. Fernandez was so afraid of Carney that she asked Liz for a gun to defend herself."

[* According to the NRE synopsis below, Carney actually did have an alibi.]

"Police also had information pointing to a suspect named Jose Perez Rivera...Less than a month after the murder, detectives received an anonymous call that the male in the [police] sketch. . .lives across the street from the Emergency Room of Wyckoff Hospital. . . [and] has an older model Monte Carlo in good condition.'...Detectives learned that this man was Rivera, who lived across from Wyckoff Hospital and owned a black 1978 Monte Carlo, just like the one bar patrons said Ms. Fernandez arrived and departed in on Thanksgiving morning...Records showed that Rivera was 5'7" tall, within the 5'7 to 5'9 range of the man seen with Ms. Fernandez at the Little Liva Bar...In August 1988, police characterized Rivera as 'a person of interest,' but appear to have abandoned their investigation [10] of Rivera after encountering difficulty locating him."

"Detectives identified another man, Eddie Ruiz, as a suspect who fit the description of the man seen at the bar: 5'7 or 5'8, thin build, wore gold jewelry, and drove a black car...According to police reports, Eddie Ruiz was believed to have known Ms. Hernandez, and on one occasion he assaulted Ms. Fernandez's female relative...In February 1988, bartender Joseph Castillo identified Ruiz out of a photo array as the person who was with Ms. Fernandez the morning she was murdered... Castillo's identification of an alternative suspect was not documented...Castillo's identification of an alternative suspect was not disclosed to the defense before the trial.

"Additionally, in April of 1988, detectives received a tip that a person named Edward Denning fit the composite sketch of the man seen with Ms. Fernandez the morning she was murdered...The tipster stated that Denning 'has a very violent temper and is known to frequent bars.'...Denning, a 28-year-old white man, was a police officer with the NYPD's 60th Precinct...All three bar witnesses -- Joseph Castillo, William Perry, and Robert Thompson -- described the man with Ms. Fernandez as being white, between ages 28 and 32...In May 1988, detectives interviewed the tipster, who described Denning as a 'crazy whacko' who used drugs, 'beat up his sister' and 'was not very stable.'...In July 1988, detectives contacted the NYPD's Internal Affairs Division and learned that Denning was 'on sick report' from November 23 to November 25, 1987 (Thanksgiving Eve), and that Denning also did not work on November 26 (when the murder took place) or November 27, 1987...Despite this information, detectives failed to pursue Denning as a suspect in Ms. Fernandez's murder."*

[* Perhaps because he was a cop? ]

"In April 1988, Det. [John] Beisel was assigned by the NYPD to lead the investigation into Ms. Fernandez's murder...Struggling to track down the black Monte Carlo or its owner, Det. Beisel shifted the investigaton's focus to the white Cadillac that watchman Robert Solonay had seen leaving the lot where Ms. Fernandez's body was found...Detectives learned about a white car owned by Pete Sierra, a security guard at Wyckoff Heights Hospital, where Ms. Hernandez spent time on Thanksgiving Eve 1987 before going to the Little Liva Bar...In August 1988, detectives located Sierra's car near Wyckoff Heights Hospital. Sierra's car was different from the car Solonay described as leaving the lot on Thanksgiving morning of 1987...First, Sierra's car was an Oldsmobile, but Solonay described a Cadillac. Second, Sierra's Oldsmobile had a red roof, but Solonay described an all-white car...Despite these differences, Det. Beisel obtained permisson from Sierra to voucher the red-and-white Oldsmobile as evidence...Sierra had purchased the Oldsmobile in early 1988 from a fellow Wyckoff Heights security guard named Javier Ramos...Ramos, not Sierra, owned the car at the time of the murder in November 1987...On or about September 9, 1988, Ramos visited the 104th Precinct to inquire why his former car, the white-and-red Oldsmobile, had been taken by the police...When Ramos entered the precinct, he was unaware that detectives were trying to connect his former car to a homicide."

"At the 104th Precinct, Det. Beisel took Ramos into an interrogation room...Led by Detective Beisel, detectives interrogated Ramos for approximately 13 hours ...Detectives used coercive tactics to get Ramos to either confess to the murder or lead them to another suspect...Det. Beisel was assisted in the interrogation by NYPD Sergeant [George] Zaroogian, NYPD Detective John Califano, John Wilde, and Jerry Fennell, and LIRRPD detectives Thomas Sullivan and Charles Wendel. ...The detectives told Ramos, falsely, that they 'knew' his former car was used in a murder, and that either he committed the murder or knew who did it...Detectives threatened to prosecute Ramos for the murder... Det. Beisel pushed Ramos, threatened to maim or kill him, called him a 'spic' and a 'Hispanic prick,' denied him food, water, and the use of a bathroom, and refused his request to leave...Ramos told the detectives that, in the past, he had loaned his car to two friends, Richard Pereira and Felipe Rodriguez, but did not indicate that he had done so at the time of the murder...Det. Beisel demanded that Ramos take him to Felipe's residence...Det. Beisel, Det. John Califano, and Det. John Wilde put Ramos in an unmarked police car and directed Ramos to lead them to Felipe's residence...On the way, the detectives stopped at Cypress Hill Cemetery in Brooklyn and threatened to kill Ramos if he did not either admit to the murder or implicate Felipe. Ramos gave the detectives what they demanded: he told them that he loaned the car to both Felipe and Pereira at the time of the murder... [12] This information was false...The detectives proceeded to [Pereira's address] with Ramos, but [he] was not home...[13] [D]etectives [subsequently] arrested Richard Pereira...At the precinct, Det. Beisel handcuffed Pereira to a chair and interrogated him in an effort to force him to confess...During this interrogation, Beisel smacked Pereira so hard that Pereira and the chair fell to the [floor] ...However, three witnesses then failed to identify Pereira at a lineup...Detectives then were compelled to void Pereira's arrest and let him go home."

"In late September 1988, Det. Beisel, Det. Fennell, and Det. Wendel placed a Nagra recording device on Richard Pereira and sent him to confront Javier Ramos at Wyckoff Heights Hospital, where they both worked...During the recorded conversation, Pereira asked Ramos where his car was on Thanksgiving 1987...Ramos responded: 'My car was parked in front of my mother-in-law's house, because my battery [] was dead. . .I told them all of this. And yet they didn't, they didn't want to hear that. . .They wanted me to confess to something.'...During the taped conversation both men discussed the abusive interrogation tactics used against them...Pereira described being 'smacked' by police 'all night long.'"

[14] "For approximately six months following the interviews and lineups in September 1988, Det. Beisel visited Javier Ramos multiple times each week at Wyckoff Heights Hospital...[15] During these visits, Det. Beisel threatened and pressured Ramos to implicate Felipe in the murder...On March 27, 1989, having failed to solve the Fernandez murder for 16 months, Det. Beisel and Detective Sullivan picked up Javier Ramos and drove him to the 104th Precinct...Det. Beisel and Det. Sullivan brought Ramos into an interrogation room, where Sgt. Zaroogian, Det. Fennell and Det. Wendel were also present...Ramos was facing the same detectives who, six months earlier, coerced his statement falsely accusing Pereira of the murder...This time, Ramos was interrogated for approximately seven hours...To induce Ramos to accuse Felipe, Det. Beisel falsely told Ramos that Felipe had accused Ramos of the murder...Beisel then falsely stated that Felipe's DNA had been found in Ramos's Oldsmobile and that Felipe's clothing matched the eyewitness description of the apparent murderer...When Ramos succumbed to the coercive tactics and agreed to provide a statement implicating Felipe, the detectives called ADA David Dinkman in order to prepare an affidavit for Ramos falsely accusing Felipe of committing the murder."

[So, to recap, the detectives quickly give up pursuing one promising suspect because he proves too difficult to locate. Another who fits witness descriptions is a cop, and they drop him like a hot potato. A third suspect who fits witness descriptions also is not pursued. A fourth guy shows up at the precinct wanting to know why his former car (even though it did not match witness descriptions) was impounded, and he's coerced into naming others who borrowed it lest he be charged with murder himself. One of the two guys he names is arrested for murder (based on essentially nothing), but then has to be let go when no witnesses pick him out of lineups. That just leaves the second guy whose name the former-car-owner coughs up under police coercion: Felipe Rodriguez, who does not match any witness descriptions, and has never owned or even had access to any of the cars described by witnesses. Great job, 'detectives.']

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"Police determined that Fernandez [the murder victim] spent the earlier part of the previous evening in the pediatric ward at Wyckoff Hospital, visiting her two-year-old daughter, who was a patient there. Late that evening, she went to a bar on Gates Avenue known variously as Little Liva, Live a Little, and La Fiesta. Witnesses who knew her said she was accompanied by an unidentified man whom she seemed to know. Another customer at the bar, Robert Thompson, told police that he tried to sell them a watch. Thompson and other witnesses would later describe the man she was with as 'white,' 'Italian,' or 'Hispanic,' clean-shaven or clean cut, stocky -- weighing between 175 and 200 pounds -- and about 5 feet 8 inches tall.

"Thompson, who was intoxicated on both drugs and alcohol that night, decribed the man as having reddish-brown hair."

"The pediatric ward at Wyckoff Hospital was rumored to be a place where male staff and visitors tried to pick up mothers of young patients. Detectives therefore began looking at the staff. Eventually, police determined that hospital security guard Javier Ramos had owned a white Oldsmobile and had worked from 4 p.m. until midnight at the hospital on the night Fernandez was last seen. They learned that Ramos had thereafter sold the car to another employee, Pedro Sierra, in February or March of 1988."

"[O]n September 25, 1988, police asked 23-year-old Felipe Rodriguez, who was a friend of Ramos, to come in for a voluntary interview with Detective Beisel. Rodriguez said he had on several occasions borrowed Ramos's car and sometimes visited Ramos while he was working at the hospital. Rodriguez also mentioned that he worked part-time as an auxiliary police officer. After the interview, Rodriguez went home.

"On March 27, 1989, Ramos was again taken into custody. This time, he was released after he signed a new affidavit claiming he 'wanted to put an end to this and just tell the truth.' In this account, he said it was Rodriguez -- not Pereira -- who borrowed his car on November 25, 1987. Ramos added a few additional inflammatory details. Now, he also quoted Rodriguez as saying he 'had to stab her to show that she was dealing with a man, not some boy.'

"According to the police report of Ramos's statement, he 'did not tell the complete truth about what had happened because I didn't want to tell on Felipe,' and that he falsely named Pereira because he 'was the only other person I ever loaned [the car] to at the time.' Ramos allegedly insisted that 'what I did say in my other statement was true if you substitute Felipe' for Pereira."

"Later that day, police arrested Rodriguez and placed him in a lineup. La Fiesta bartender Castillo as well as bar customer William Perry and bartender Ceznaukas did not identify Rodriguez. Only one witness, Thompson, selected Rodriguez, although his initial description from nearly a year earlier was of a clean-shaven man of Italian descent, about 5 feet 8 inches tall with reddish-brown hair. Rodriguez had a large moustache, jet-black hair, and was 5 feet 11 inches tall.

"Based on the second Ramos statement and Thompson's lineup identification, Rodriguez was indicted for the murder. After he took a police-administered polygraph examination and his denials of involvement in the crime showed no deception, Rodriguez was released on bail pending trial.

"In April 1990, Rodriguez went on trial in Queens..."

"Ramos claimed that he had failed to come forward for months and then falsely accused Pereira because Rodriguez was 'like a brother' to him. During cross-examination, Ramos denied that his true motivation in naming first Pereira and then Rodriguez was to protect himself from suspicion. He asserted that the only lie he told the police was to use Pereira's name in his initial statement. He said, 'I didn't want to give up my friend.'

"Thompson testified and identified Rodriguez as the man with Fernandez in La Fiesta. Thompson testified that he shook the man's hand at the bar, and observed that they were 'large hands' with 'no calluses.' He also testified that the man had letters written on the 'outside of the four knuckles' of his left hand, spelling 'L-O-V-E.' Rodriguez had no tatoos or birthmarks and the police had not noticed any markings when he was interviewed. Thompson admitted that he did not mention the marking on the suspect's hands until the last of his half-dozen police interviews and more than five months into the investigation, even though his earlier statements had described rings on the man's hands. He also admitted that he did not actually remember seeing the word 'L-O-V-E,' but only 'figured' that was what the writing spelled out, adding that he 'was pretty intoxicated' and 'it's 20 months later.'

"Thompson admitted that during the eight hours prior to his arrival at La Fiesta, he smoked five marijuana joints and consumed a half of a fifth of rum. At La Fiesta, he said he had at least three 'double-rum' and cola drinks. He said that when he left the bar at 4:30 a.m., Fernandez and the man were still there.

"Castillo, the bartender at La Fiesta, did not see any such markings on the suspect's hands nor did any other witness from either bar.

"Thompson's testimony was further contradicted by Castillo, who said he closed at 4 a.m., and by the warehouse security guard, Solonay, who said he saw the white car leaving the warehouse between 3 and 4 a.m. Solonay testified and did not identify Rodriguez as the man he saw in the white car."

"On May 2, 1990, the jury convicted Rodriguez..."

"In reviewing the record, Rodriguez's appellate lawyer, Martin Lucente from the Legal Aid Society, noticed in Rodriguez's pre-sentence report a reference to a taped conversation between Ramos and Pereira. There was no reference to the tape in the trial and Rodriguez's trial defense attorney, Jennifer Maiolo, had not noted it either.

"Lucente requested a copy of the tape from the Queens County [DA's] office. By that time, the trial prosecutor, Alan Safran, had left the office for private practice. Safran said he had disclosed the tape to Maiolo, but had not made a transcript of it because it was largely 'unintelligible' and in Spanish.

"Lucente had the tape translated and transcribed. On the tape, Pereira was heard confronting Ramos about why he falsely told police that Pereira had borrowed Ramos's car the night before Thanksgiving. At Rodriguez's trial, he testified that he had named Pereira because he was covering for Rodriguez, and Pereira's was the first name that came to mind since he was 'the only other person' to whom he had loaned his car. On the tape, however, Ramos told Pereira something different. Ramos said his false accusation was in direct response to the police's claim that Pereira had falsely accused Ramos of the crime first. Ramos was heard saying, 'I'm under the impression you pointed the finger at me.' Ramos said he sought to protect himself by pointing the finger back at Pereira, whom he thought was his accuser. Additionally, Ramos assured Pereira that not only did he know nothing about the crime, but that he had not loaned his car to anyone that night and lied to the police when he said he had. In fact, Ramos said, he did not even use the car to drive himself to his relatives in New Jersey on Thanksgiving Day because it was on the street with a dead battery. On the tape, Ramos was heard telling Pereira he told police 'all of this. And yet they didn't want to hear that.'"

"In October 1992, Lucente filed a motion to set aside Rodriguez's convictions on the ground that the tape had not been disclosed to Rodriguez's trial defense attorney.

"At a hearing in March 1993, the prosecution disclosed two police reports that referenced the tape. Maiolo claimed she had never seen them. Maiolo said that had she received the tape, she would have had it transcribed and translated, and then used it to cross-examine Ramos.

"Attorney Kenneth Litwack represented Rodriguez from April to November 1989, before Maiolo replaced him. Litwack testified that he knew something about the existence of an audio recording of a conversation between Pereira and Ramos, but was confident that he had never heard the tape or been given a copy. He did not specifically recall discussing the tape's existence with Maiolo, but he said it would have been his practice to relate 'every detail of the case' that he thought was important when transferring his file.

"Safran, the trial prosecutor, contended he had turned the tape over to Maiolo at the beginning of the trial. He also maintained that the recording was 'completely uninteresting,' 'gibberish,' and 'nonbelievable.'* He said he already knew that Ramos was a liar** after Ramos falsely implicated Pereira. Safran admitted that he had not asked for the recording to be translated or transcribed. He said that since he knew a little Spanish, he had listened to it with the aid of a paralegal. He admitted he had never played the tape for Ramos or asked Ramos about its contents before Ramos testified at the trial."

[* Recall that Safran had also claimed the tape was 'largely unintelligible.' But, how can 'gibberish' be 'nonbelievable'? If it were indeed the case that what was said was 'unintelligible,' then it could be neither believable nor nonbelievable, because, one would not be able to discern what was actually said. But as we now know, that tape was crystal clear -- and immensely exculpatory.] [** If that is so, why did Safran call him as a prosecution witness?]

"On July 30, 1993, the trial judge denied the motion to vacate the convictions. Although the judge indicated that the tape directly impeached Ramos and was favorable to the defense, he held that the defense had failed to show that the tape was not turned over."*

[* As a matter of logic, it's essentially impossible to 'prove a negative.' Thus, this judge was holding the defense to a standard no one could have met.]

"In 2001, after his appeal had been rejected, Rodriguez wrote to the Innocence Project requesting help. In 2007, his case was accepted. Unfortunately, most of the physical evidence from the victim's body and clothing had been destroyed pursuant to the medical examiner's protocols at the time. Ultimately, extracts from the car fabric cuttings were found, as were hairs from the victim's clothing. However, the extracts yielded no DNA and the hairs revealed only female DNA.

"After the search for biological evidence was exhausted, the Innocence Project recruited private attorney Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma to assist with non-DNA aspects of the case. In November 2016, Nina Morrison, senior staff attorney at the Innocence Project, and Margulis-Ohnuma filed a petition asking New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to grant clemency. The petition said that Rodriguez was not only 'innocent of the crime of conviction, but, more importantly, is an exceptionally worthy candidate for clemency because of his remarkable record of redemption, responsibility and generosity in prison.'

"In addition to citing Rodriguez's exemplary record while in prison, the petition noted that it was 'difficult to imagine' that if Safran had given the tape to the defense, 'he would not have made sure to prepare his own chief witness for the all-but-inevitable cross-examination that any defense attorney who listened to the tape would likely raise, by sitting down with Ramos to review the tape in detail and asking him to explain the contradictions, and obtaining a full transcription and translation of the tape, so he himself could at least be prepared to anticipate any questions the tape might raise in the jurors' minds.'"

"In December 2016, Gov. Cuomo granted the petition, commuting Rodriguez's sentence to time served. On January 26, 2017, Rodriguez was released. Subsequently, at the request of Rodriguez's lawyers, Queens County...[ADA] Robert Masters commenced a re-investigation of the case.

"As a result, additional reports and notes from the detectives' files were discovered that had never been disclosed to Rodriguez's defense. According to a report in the New York Daily News, these included a report saying that Perry, one of the witnesses at La Fiesta, affirmatively said that Fernandez and the man with her arrived at the bar in the black Monte Carlo. Such a report could have been used to discredit the theory that the white car seen by the security guard belonged to the killer. Perry's statement and other reports in the police file also directly contradicted testimony from the detectives and arguments by the prosecutor that the investigation had yielded no evidence indicating that the black car was connected to the victim or her murder.

"Also undisclosed were reports that Fernandez's husband, Carney Fernandez, was a suspect because of numerous witness accounts that he had a violent temper and was known to assault female companions. In addition, witnesses said that Fernandez wanted to leave him and that Carney did not like her going out without him. At the time, Carney had presented an alibi* and was found to be truthful when he denied involvement during a police-administered polygraph examination."

[* According to the Records and Briefs above, Carney did not have an alibi.]

"Most critically and 'decisive' in the [DA's] agreement to grant relief was the discovery of handwritten notes by a Long Island Railroad detective. The notes indicated that Ramos described Rodriguez as showing up at his house with a black man he had never mentioned before. The notes were dated March 27, 1989 -- the same day Ramos gave a sworn affidavit implicating Rodriguez, which made no mention of such a companion.

"And according to other reports, eight days before Ramos accused Rodriguez, Beisel obtained approval to arrest Rodriguez and put him in a lineup, while also trying to compel Ramos to testify as a material witness. The newspaper said this 'account differed sharply from (Detective) Beisel's memo closing the investigation. There, he wrote that, in a period of hours on March 29, 1989, Ramos implicated Rodriguez; detectives summoned an [ADA] who formalized the statement; detectives placed Rodriguez in the lineup and the (prosecutor) drew up an affidavit starting the prosecution.'

"In addition, in 2017, after being contacted by an Innocence Project Investigator, Ramos recanted his accusation against Rodriguez and said his statements to the police were false and the result of police pressure. He stood by his recantation in a lengthy, voluntary interview with Masters in December 2019, although the prosecution ultimately did not credit his recantation.

"On December 30, 2019, at a hearing in Queens...Masters said that the notes from the Long Island Railroad detective that were not turned over could have 'impeached the entire investigation.'

"Queens County...Justice Joseph Zayas granted a motion filed by the defense lawyers Morrison and Margulis-Ohnuma to vacate the convictions. The [DA's] Office joined the motion, agreeing that evidence favorable to Rodriguez had not been disclosed to the defense. Masters then dismissed the indictment.

"Justice Zayas said the case was a miscarriage of justice that 'took too long to correct.' He added, 'Mr. Rodriguez, you deserve better than that, but you never lost faith.'

"In March 2020, Rodriguez filed a compensation claim in the New York Court of Claims. In March 2021, Rodiguez filed a federal civil rights lawsuit. In April 2022, Rodriguez settled the compensation claim for $5 million. A year later, Rodriguez settled his lawsuit against the City of New York for $10 million."

[Due to the complexity of this case, some 'summing up' on key points would seem to be in order: 1) Cars. The white Cadillac or Oldsmobile seen by Solonay would appear to be a red herring -- albeit one which, via a circuitous and tortuous route, was integral to this wrongful conviction. But it does not appear to have had anything to do with the actual crime here. On the other hand, the black Chevy Monte Carlo may well have. One suspect, Rivera, was said to own such a car. (Ruiz also had a black car, though the make and model was not stated.)

2) Perpetrator Description. None of the witnesses said the perpetrator was Hispanic; and two specifically said he was not Hispanic. (Not only is Felipe Rodriguez Hispanic, but he also has a thick, Puerto-Rican Spanish accent.) Neither did any of the witnesses say the perpetrator wore eyeglasses; four specifically said he did not wear eyeglasses. (But Rodriguez did.)

3) Lineup Selection. Two of the three bar witnesses did not select Rodriguez. The only one who did -- Thompson -- was high on marijuana and drunk. Moreover, Rodriguez did not match the description Thompson originally provided.]

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Jose Rodriguez - Mistaken Witness ID / Prosecutor Misconduct

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 22:28:13 +0000

Rodriguez, Jose; robbery; NRE: mistaken witness identification, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence

2013 WL 3939160; S.D.N.Y. 7/23/13; civil suit

"During his interview with Detective [Gerald] Heanue [on 2/21/06], [robbery victim Francisco] Baez said that at approximately 11:30 p.m. the prior evening, two individuals approached from behind as he was walking on the street...[and] that one...was a black male who...was aged sixteen to eighteen years old, wore a black fur jacket with the hood up, and was armed with a black 'semi-auto' gun during the robbery. Baez stated that the other individual was a Hispanic male, aged sixteen to eighteen years old, approximately 5'6" and 200 pounds, and wore a white jacket with patches and diamond studs in both ears.

"After the interview ended, Baez looked through a book containing photographs of individuals who had previously been arrested for robbery or grand larceny within the precinct, but did not see a photograph of either individual who had robbed him...Then Detective Heanue showed Baez photographs selected by a computer program that compiles six-person photo arrays of individuals based on variables entered by police...Based on the physical description that Baez provided of his assailants, Heanue compiled two photo arrays using the software, one for each perpetrator. When Baez viewed the fist array, [he] selected a mug shot of Rodriguez in which he appeared with diamond earrings in both ears...When he viewed the second, Baez selected Vynell Simmons as the other perpetrator.

"Rodriguez [later told a second officer] that at the time of the robbery, he was sleeping at his girlfriend's house...[At a lineup the following day, Baez] 'immediately' identified Rodriguez as one of the individuals who robbed him.

"[In a lineup the following day,] Baez identified Simmons as the second perpetrator.

"[An ADA assigned to the case] became aware that Simmons had been arrested but not indicted, though he did not know the reason why there was no indictment of Simmons.

"At the sentencing hearing, Rodriguez's trial counsel, referring to the fact that Simmons had not been prosecuted, stated that 'you have to ask yourself if it's the same witness, the same facts, then why are they dismissing against one person and not dismissing against my client...'

"Once he began serving his sentence, Rodriguez requested documents relating to his conviction. Eventually, on March 24, 2010, Rodriguez's appellate counsel, David Klem...sent a letter to ADA Joseph Ferdanzi, the Chief of the Appeals Bureau, requesting that his office disclose 'the basis for the dismissal of the charges against Vynell Simmons.' On April 29, 2010, Klem and ADA Ferdanzi appeared before Judge Newman and moved to vacate Rodriguez's conviction. Ferdanzi stated that a Brady violation had occurred as a result of the failure of the Bronx DA's office to disclose that Baez had 'wrongly' identified Simmons as one of the men who robbed him, and Judge Newman thereafter endorsed an order vacating [Rodriguez's] conviction and directing his immediate release from prison."

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"On February 20, 2006, at 11:35 p.m....Francisco Baez, a taxi driver, was robbed at gunpoint by two men as he walked down the street on his way home after having parked his cab for the night.

"Baez told police that the robbers took his wallet, containing more than $300 and his identification cards. Baez told police the gunman was a black man wearing a black hoody and black pants and a light-skinned Hispanic man with a ponytail and wearing either a red jacket or a white jacket with patches.

"The following day, Baez met with a detective assigned to the case and provided slightly more detailed descriptions. He described the gunman as a black man, 18 to 19 years old, 5'8" tall and weighing 150 pounds. The second robber was a Hispanic man, 16 to 18 years old, 5'6" tall, weighing 200 pounds, with 'Chinese-looking eyes' and wearing blue jeans and a white jacket with patches.

"Baez viewed photo books at the precinct that day, but after 15 to 20 minutes gave up and made no identification. A detective then put the description into the police information management system, which generated mugshots of possible matches.

"After viewing just 12 photos, Baez identified 19-year-old Jose Rodriguez as one of the perpetrators.

"Upon resetting the computer with the other description, Baez then identified Vynell Simmons as the perpetrator who displayed the gun.

"A week later, police arrested Rodriguez, who, at 5'6" tall and 180 pounds, was shorter and heavier than the description of the gunman Baez gave: 5 feet, 8 inches tall and 150 pounds. The following day, police arrested Simmons.

"Baez identified both Rodriguez and Simmons as the perpetrators in separate lineups. Rodriguez was indicted by a grand jury after Baez testified that he was one of the perpetrators. The prosecutors did not pursue an indictment against Simmons because Baez informed them just prior to entering the grand jury hearing Simmons' case, that his identification of Simmons was wrong.* Simmons' case was then dismissed."

[* We are not told how and why Baez came to this conclusion..]

"The prosecutors did not tell Rodriguez's attorney that Baez had recanted his identification of Simmons; nor did they explain why the case against Simmons was dismissed.

"On November 10, 2007, Rodriguez was convicted solely on the basis of Baez's testimony that he was the gunman."

"Rodriguez's appellate lawyers reinvestigated the matter, determining that Simmons and Rodriguez did not know each other, and that Simmons might have had an alibi...His appellate lawyers then made a post-conviction request for exculatory evidence from the Bronx [DA's] office, seeking the reasons why the charges against Simmons were dismissed.

"In the letter they argued that any questions about the accuracy of Baez's identification of Simmons as the perpetrator would be exculpatory for Rodriguez, since his conviction rested entirely on Baez's uncorroboated identification. In response, the prosecution agreed that the conviction be vacated. The charges were dismissed on March 25, 2011.

"Rodriguez later filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking compensation, but the lawsuit was dismissed."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Wildon Rodriguez - Perjury / withheld evidence / witness tampering

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 22:07:30 +0000

Rodriguez, Wildon; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, prosecutor lied in court

[735:811]; 2nd Dept. 12/31/01; affirmed

"[W]e are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence..."

131 N.Y.S.3d 380; 2nd Dept. 9/30/20; grant of previous motion to vacate affirmed

"At trial, the [prosecution's] sole eyewitness, Althemease Cort, testified that she saw [Rodriguez] shoot the victim. In 2015, [Rodriguez] moved to vacate the...conviction on the ground that the [prosecution] had failed to disclose the relationship between Cort and law enforcement agencies..."

"Here, [Rodriguez] was not provided with material regarding Cort's participation as a witness in two unrelated homicide trials, along with prior agreements between Cort and law enforcement, including her use as a confidential informant by police and her placement in a witness relocation program following her participation in one of the unrelated homicide trials, during which her rent was paid by the Office of the Kings County [DA] for approximately one year. This material contradicted Cort's trial testimony that she did not have any 'deals' with law enforcement and had not been in touch with the [DA's] Office 'for a long period of time,' as well as the prosecutor's arguments during summation that Cort 'never took a deal' and 'never asked for anything in return.' Significantly, Cort's credibility was critical as she was the [prosecution's] only witness to testify that it was [Rodriguez] who shot the victim, and there was no other trial evidence directly linking [Rodriguez] to the crime..."

from Records and Briefs:

[2] "[T]he only alleged eyewitness viewed the shooting from a distance, at night, and did not come forward until she herself was incarcerated, and...one defense witness completely contradicted the [prosecution's] version of events, and another placed [Rodriguez] elsewhere at the time of the shooting."

from NRE synopsis (by Ken Otterbourg):

"Just after midnight on November 28, 1993, 21-year-old Craig Jolly was shot in the leg and back in a parking lot at the Wyckoff Gardens apartments in Brooklyn..."

"Jolly was unconscious when police arrived, and he died later that day at Methodist Hospital without saying who shot him. Police canvassed the neighborhood but didn't get any hard leads on suspects.

"A few months later, a witness named Althemease Cort came forward and said she had seen 18-year-old Wildon Rodriguez shoot Jolly after an argument. She knew Rodriguez from the neighborhood and picked him out of a photo array on March 1, 1994 and then from a live lineup on April 1, 1994.

"Due to a booking error by police, Rodriguez was not arrested after the live lineup, and he left the police station without incident. It wasn't until November 23, 1998* that Rodriguez was arrested, while he was at Rikers Island jail on an unrelated charge."*

[* That's over 4-1/2 years after Cort picked him out in a line-up. This wasn't just a 'bookng error': It was an astonishing dereliction of duty by the police in a murder case.]

"There was no forensic or physical evidence connecting Rodriguez to the murder. The state's case relied on Cort's testimony. Prior to the start of the trial, Rodriguez's attorney, Paul Madden, and [Brooklyn ADA] Kyle Reeves battled over what evidence prosecutors needed to disclose. This included potentially exculpatory information about the state's witnesses, such as their criminal conduct or any favorable treatment they had received from the state. Eventually, they reached an agreement, and in the disclosure documents provided to Madden, prosecutors noted Cort's extensive criminal record, including two convictions in April 1994 for possession of stolen property and possession of a controlled substance. For those convictions, she received two separate six-month sentences that ran concurrently.

"Rodriguez's first trial...began on April 27, 1999. A mistrial was declared on May 6 due to juror illness. The second trial began on October 12, 1999.

"At trial, Cort testified about seeing Rodriguez shoot Jolly. She had been one of the persons police interviewed in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and initially told officers then that she didn't see anything.

"Reeves asked Cort a series of questions aimed at vouching for her independence and credibility as a witness. Each time, she answered 'no' and said prosecutors had not offered her any deals or given her special treatment.

"Rodriguez did not testify, but he presented two witnesses. Azizi Moore, a former girlfriend who was the mother of his child, testified that she was with Cort and two other people driving back from McDonald's when they heard shots but did not see the shooting. They waited a few minutes, then ran and found Jolly's body. Moore said several minutes later she saw Rodriguez outside, along with many others, at the crime scene. A woman named Maria Cardona also testified that she saw Rodriguez just before hearing the gunshots. But she didn't see Rodriguez with a weapon and he was headed in the opposite direction from where Jolly was found.

"In his opening statement, Reeves told jurors that Cort 'didn't receive anything for coming forward. No one cut her any deals. No one gave her any breaks.' In his closing argument, he returned to this point and said Cort was the only person who could be believed. He said, 'She had to sit here and tell you, "Yeah, you know what, at one point in time I did stuff that I am not proud of, I stole, I sold drugs back in '86, '87. I got caught, and when I got caught, I pled guilty. I pled guilty because I did those crimes. I never took a deal."'

"The jury convicted Rodriguez of second-degree murder on October 20, 1999."

"Rodriguez appealed his conviction in 2001, arguing insufficient evidence. The Appellate Division...rejected his appeal on December 31, 2001. He also filed an unsuccessful petition for a writ of habeas corpus..."

"On December 15, 2015, Rodriguez filed a pro se motion in Kings County...to vacate his conviction based on the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and to correct false testimony. While in prison, Rodriguez had spent years filing extensive public-records requests related to his case. These documents undermined the state's claim that Cort had received nothing for her testimony.

"He tracked down the court transcript from a February 10, 1994 hearing, where a judge told Cort that she was a 'predicate felon' and looking at between 18 and 36 months in a state prison for the stolen property and possession charges she was facing. The stolen property charge was the most recent, occurring in January 1994. 'What was offered you was the minimum plea that can be offered and that's the minimum sentence that can be imposed,' the judge said.

"But Cort's plea and final sentencing were continued [i.e., postponed] several times until April 15, 1994. In the interim, Cort picked Rodriguez out of two lineups and testified before a grand jury. It was only then that she received that more lenient sentence, which she served in a city facility, rather than in an upstate New York prison.

"Separately, Rodriguez also uncovered evidence that Cort had received more than $35,000 in cash, housing and food allowances as part of a witness-protection program tied to her testimony against Louis Charriez, a defendant in a separate murder case. This assistance began on May 14, 1997 and continued until April 12, 1999, just prior to the start of Rodriguez's first trial. (Charriez was also unaware of the payments, and his conviction was vacated on February 25, 2021.) In its response to Rodriguez's motion, the state said that Rodriguez couldn't point to any specific agreement between Cort and prosecutors. It also said the witness-protection payments didn't need to be disclosed to Rodriguez, because they were unrelated to his case.

"On April 22, 2019, Justice Guy Mangano Jr. of Kings County...vacated Rodriguez's conviction and ordered a new trial. He sharply criticized Reeves for his 'blatantly intentional misstatements to the jury' and for not correcting Cort's false testimony about her deals with prosecutors. He also said prosecutors should have disclosed the substantial assistance and other benefits Cort received for her testimony in the Charriez case.

"Rodriguez was released from prison that day. The state appealed Mangano's ruling.

"Rodriguez's response to the state's appeal was aided by additional documents released by prosecutors that highlighted the relationship between Cort and Detective Joseph Yates, the lead investigator in the Jolly case. Cort, who died in 2007, was a confidential informant for Yates, and she reached out to him after her January 1994 arrest. There was an unsuccessful effort to void that arrest, and then Yates visited Cort at Rikers Island. Then, on March 1, 1994, they traveled to Brooklyn, where she picked Rodriguez out of a photo lineup.

"In its appeal, the state suggested these events were unrelated. Rodriguez's appellate attorney said that made no sense. 'The People seem to think,' he wrote, 'this Court is credulous enough to believe police just happened to stop by Cort's jail cell on a whim, that Cort closed their murder case for them while expecting nothing in return, and that she escaped certain upstate prison time on two open felonies as a result of good fortune.'

"On September 30, 2020, the Appellate Division...upheld Mangano's ruling. It said the records that the state failed to turn over were material to Rodriguez's defense because they undercut Cort's testimony that she didn't have any deals with prosecutors and because they contradicted Reeves's summation that Cort never 'took a deal' or 'asked for anything in return.'

"A spokesman for the [DA's] office said it disagreed with the court's ruling, but Cort's death made it impossible to retry Rodriguez. Prosecutors made a motion to dismiss the charge, which was granted on January 8, 2021."

"On February 25, 2021, Kings County...Justice Jane Tully vacated Charriez's conviction and ordered a new trial. Justice Tully declared, 'The People's failure to disclose the moneys paid, promises made, and benefits conferred upon every single witness who testified against [Charriez], failure to correct misstatements, and conduct in bolstering the credibility and misstatements of the witnesses, constituted a denial of [Charriez's] rights and a pattern of breach of the People's constitutional duty.'

"Justice Tully ordered Charriez released from custody that same day.

"In April 2021, Rodriguez filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the City of New York and other parties, which was settled later that year for $7 million.

"On January 27, 2023, the prosecution dismissed the case against Charriez."*

[* Note that the DA kept Charriez 'hanging' for nearly two years before finally dropping the charges against him.]

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]

Roman Carlton - Police Misconduct / Perjury

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 05:11:35 +0000

Roman, Carlton; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, knowingly permitting perjury

Suggestibility issues

G35 "G'Bye to 'Hell': 'Full Story' Springs [Queens] Man After 32 Years in Jail," Noah Goldberg, Leonard Greene, and Josephine Stratman, New York Daily News, 8/20/21, pg. 5

"Carlton Roman was an innocent man sent to jail on a lie.

"There, he languished for 32 years...until the right prosecutors came along and concluded the man convicted in Queens of a cold-blooded murder...didn't do the crime."

"Roman's freedom fight started after he was arrested and charged with [Lloyd] Witter's murder and for the attempted murder of Jomo Kenyatta, who survived the shooting, but has since had to use a wheelchair.

"A third man in the house, Paul Anderson, was found bound with telephone wire and handcuffed.

"The two survivors fingered Roman -- a friend of the murdered man -- as a ringleader and shooter..."

"But there was no hard evidence linking Roman -- a recent college graduate who had no criminal record* -- to the killlng. He was charged based on the eyewitnesses, despite the fact that his girlfriend confirmed his alibi."

[* Nickel also had no prior criminal record.]

"Roman submitted his case to be reinvestigated by the Queens DA's office in 2013 and 2018, but prosecutors made no moves to dismiss the charges. In April 2020, however, [Melinda] Katz, the new [DA], opened an investigation into the case.

"The case review found that Anderson recanted his story in 2019, saying that he falsely accused Roman of the killing.

"Anderson said Roman was not among the shooters and that he didn't even see him on the day of the crime, March 16, 1989.

"The Queens DA's office also found that Anderson, starting during the initial investigation and up to the present, has given six different versions of the events of the shooting and 'most are inconsistent with each other and the facts of the crime.'

"A new witness interviewed by the DA's office says Anderson and Kenyatta were involved in drug trafficking and that Kenyatta was a violent druglord.

"Despite that, Kenyatta testified at trial that he did not have a substantial criminal history, prosecutors said."

"The Queens DA's conviction integrity unit has overturned eight convictions since Katz became [DA]."

"Roman shared words of encouragement for those who have suffered his fate.

"'Stand strong,' he said, 'and never give up.'"

from NRE synopsis (by Ken Otterbourg):

"On March 16, 1989, 28-year-old Lloyd Witter was shot to death inside a house in the Jamaica section of Queens...Another person in the house, 27-year-old Jomo Kenyatta, was shot several times and taken to the hospital, where he remained unconscious for several weeks.

"Paul Anderson, who lived in the house, was found outside, bound and handcuffed, but otherwise unharmed. Anderson initially told Detective John Loguercio that four men came to his house. According to Loguercio's report, Anderson could not identify the men but gave a detailed description. He said the apparent leader was about 5'2" or 5'3" and walked with a limp. Two others, Anderson said, were no taller than 5'4". The fourth person was, Anderson said, about 6 feet tall and had a so-called 'Cameo' haircuit, tight on the sides and tall on top.

"A few hours later, at a precinct station of the [NYPD], Anderson told Detective William Pepey that an acquintance, 26-year-old Carlton Roman, was the shooter. Anderson referred to Roman, who had no criminal record and did not match any of his previous descriptions, by a nickname, 'Marshall.'

"Roman also knew Witter, and the next day, Roman called the home of Andrea Witter, Witter's wife. Roman asked her what had happened and said she was coming over to see her. Witter had previously received a call from Anderson about the shooting. Witter became scared and called the police. When Roman arrived at Witter's home, Pepey was waiting and arrested Roman. He was charged with [among other things] second-degree murder..."

"Separately, Anderson told the police on March 17 that a man named Hollis Laylor, who went by the nicknames 'Skinny' and 'Slim Man,' was another one of the assailants. The next day, he said two brothers, whom he only knew as 'Bigger' and 'Richie,' were the other assailants."

[So, on the day of the crime, Anderson says he couldn't identify the culprits. But just one day later, he provides the full names for two of them, and the nicknames of the two others.]

"Kenyatta remained at Mary Immaculate Hospital for several weeks, drifting in and out of consciousness. During that time, both Anderson and Pepey paid repeated visits. On April 13, 1989, Kenyatta identified Roman* as one of the participants in the shooting. The identification was unorthodox. Pepey brought a box containing letters, and Kenyatta spelled out 'Marshall,' 'Skinny,' and 'Richie' when Pepey asked who had shot him. He then showed Kenyatta a single photograph of Roman, and Kenyatta nodded to indicate the identification."**

[* Remember: Anderson -- who named Roman one day after he said he couldn't identify any of the assailants -- had visited Kenyatta in the hospital numerous times. Thus, it seems quite likely that Anderson (strongly) influenced Kenyatta to name Roman.]

[** This is reminiscent of a scene in 'Hurricane: The Rubin Carter Story,' where the latter is brought to the hospital for a 'show-up' in front of one of the (barely) surviving victims. That film chronicled another real-life wrongful conviction.]

"Roman's trial in Queens...began in October 1990. There was no physical or forensic evidence tying him to the shooting, and the state's case consisted of the testimony of Pepey, Anderson, and Kenyatta."

"At trial, Anderson... said that Roman, Laylor, Kenyatta and Witter had been at his house on March 15, 1989, and that a 'fuss' occurred after Kenyatta and Witter took a gun from Roman. The next day, Kenyatta and Witter came by to help Anderson move. Roman, Laylor, Biggie and Richie came by later. They handcuffed Anderson and placed him in the basement. After several hours, he heard the doorbell ring, then a series of shots.

"Anderson also testified that he was an architect, that he was not involved in dealing drugs, and that he had never been shot or treated at a hospital for a shooting."*

[* All three of these statements were lies. (See above and below.)]

"Kenyatta said the initial argument on March 15 was about drugs and involved Roman, Laylor, and Witter. Kenyatta said that he and Witter returned to Anderson's house on March 16. He said that when they walked in the house, the door closed quickly behind them. He then heard shots, and saw Laylor and Roman shooting Anderson.* Kenyatta said he tried to run away, but Roman shot him on the stairs. He said that he could look out the window and see the four assailants as they fled."

[* There is zero evidence (aside from Kenyatta's testimony here) that Anderson was ever shot -- or even, shot at. Anyway, according to Anderson himself, he was in the basement at the time, as opposed to just inside the front door, where Kenyatta said the shooting occurred.]

"Kenyatta testified on direct examination that his criminal record consisted of a single conviction for reckless driving and that he was not involved in the sale of drugs. But he was recalled to the witness stand after Roman's attorney produced evidence that he had pled guilty to attempted possession of a weapon after initially being charged with attempted murder.

"Pepey testified about Roman's interaction with Andrea Witter. He said that after Roman was arrested, he yelled out to Witter that he didn't kill her husband and 'when I got to the house I saw them there and left.'

"Pepey also testified that Andrea Witter told him that she had learned about her husband's alleged killer on March 16, when she left her house and walked to Anderson's at about 10 p.m. Andrea Witter did not testify.

"Roman testified and denied any involvement in the shooting. He said he wasn't involved in dealing drugs. He also presented two alibi witnesses, including his fiancee, who said Roman had been with them at the time of the shooting.

"The jury convicted Roman...on October 19, 1990."

"Laylor was never prosecuted.* Anderson returned to his native Jamaica, and Kenyatta experienced an apparent mental decline** that left him unable to testify."

[* Why> According to Kenyatta, he shot at Anderson. And even if he didn't, he was (allegedly) an accomplice to murder. And what about the other two alleged assailants? Did the police even try to find them?]

[** That was almost certainly feigned. (See below.)]

"Roman filed numerous appeals in state and federal courts, including a 2004 petition for a writ in...[the] Eastern District of New York. That petition, which was denied, claimed that his trial attorney had been ineffective through a lack of preparation.

"The pro se petition also said prosecutors 'relied on perjured testimony by their witnesses and failed to disclose aspects of their backgrounds that would have been favorable to the defense. That included...witnesses' denial of their prior criminal records and involvement, denial of having been shot, and claiming to have seen events they were not in a position to see.'

"Twice, in 2013 and 2018, Roman's attorneys asked the Queens...[DA's] Office to reexamine the conviction. Although the conviction was reviewed, no action was taken. In 2020, Roman's attorney, James Henning, resubmitted the case to the [DA's] new Conviction Integrity Unit.

"A new investigation found signfiicant problems with the evidence and testimony used to convict Roman, corroborating his defense that the men who testified against him were liars and drug dealers.

"Anderson had testfiied that he had never been shot, but he had refused to expose his leg to prove the absence of a gunshot wound. The investigation found medical records that said Anderson had been shot in November 1988. New witnesses told the CIU that Witter was the shooter in that incident. The investigation also found that Anderson had given at least six different accounts of the shooting that left Witter dead, and they were inconsistent with each other."

[* The fact that Witter -- the murder victim in this case -- had previously shot Anderson sure gave the latter a powerful motive to shoot him.]

"Kenyatta's credibility was also undermined. He testified that he was not involved in illegal activities but had become a victim by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The extent of his criminal record could not be determined at trial because of his extensive use of aliases.* It turned out that Kenyatta had been arrested under these names for a series of violent crimes. A half-brother of Kenyatta's told the CIU that Kenyatta was a violent man who carried a gun and that Anderson's house was being used to sell drugs. Kenyatta told CIU investigators that he could not concentrate or remember details about the shooting, but other evidence suggested Kenyatta's claims of neurological impairment were a ruse."

[* That seems quite dubious, given that the police and prosecutors keep extensive files on aliases.]

"Pepey's testimony also came under scrutiny. The CIU interviewed Andrea Witter. She said Pepey gave false testimony about statements Roman made after his arrest. While Roman said he didn't shoot Witter, Andrea Witter said Roman never said he was at the house. Andrea Witter also said that contrary to Pepey's testimony, she hever walked to Anderson's house at 10 p.m. on the night of the shooting.

"The CIU said her account made sense. First, Witter lived nearly three miles away. It was very cold that night, and Witter had an infant and a 4-year-old child, and she wouldn't have brought them with her or left them home alone.

"Pepey also told investigators that he bought a fake visa for Anderson so he could return to the Unites States from his native Jamaica to testify against Roman.

"Anderson recanted his testimony in 2019. He said Pepey fed him details of the crime and pressured him to testify by threatening to have authorities seize his U.S. residence in Queens, which was owned by his sister.

"The CIU's investigation noted that Anderson never was asked about the discrepancies between his identification of Roman and the early descriptions of the assailants he gave to Detective Loguercio. But it's not clear if this was because the state failed to turn over this report or because Roman's attorney failed to bring it up.* The [DA's] office certified in 2015 that it could not locate its case file."**

[* Even if the state did turn over this report, it doesn't let the authorities (especially the detectives) off the hook for failing to confront Anderson about these very significant discrepancies.]

[** That's convenient -- and highly suspicious.]

"On August 9, 2021, the Queens...[DA] and Henning filed a joint motion asking the court to vacate Roman's convictions. In its affirmation, the [DA's] office said it 'had concluded that three witnesses and the facts undermining the credibility of the key trial witnesses Anderson and Kenyatta could not have been discovered in the context of Roman's trial with the exercise of due diligence and are of such character that they would have probably led to a verdict more favorable to the defendant.'

"In his affirmation, Henning took issue with that characterization. 'Whatever the contents of the lost prosecution file,' he wrote, 'the true character and credibility of Paul Anderson and Jomo Kenyatta could have been readily ascertained with relatively basic investigation and, indeed, should have been known -- at the very least -- to Detective Pepey.'

"On August 9, 2021, Justice Michelle Johnson of Queens...granted the motion and then dismissed the charges against Roman.

"[DA] Melinda Katz said, 'We are not so arrogant to think that the system doesn't make mistakes. When we find miscarriages of justice, we do everything in our power to correct them quickly.'"

"In September 2021, Roman filed a compensation claim in the New York Court of Claims. In November 2022, Roman filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of New York. The lawsuit was settled in October 2023 for $18 million."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]