Guilt Obviously Not Proven Cases

Guilt OBVIOUSLY Not Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The following are relevant excerpts of cases in which, even given the perhaps limited or inaccurate evidence presented to the jury or bench trial judge, there nevertheless clearly was not a sufficient basis to convict:

Broadwater, Anthony; rape; [not on NRE list:] mistaken witness identification, false/misleading forensic evidence, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

Bench trial

"Sebold was raped in a pedestrian tunnel in a park around midnight on May 8, 1981, the last day of her freshman year at Syracuse University. 'I heard someone walking behind me,' she wrote in an affidavit. 'I started to walk faster and was suddenly overtaken from behind and grabbed around the mouth.' When she tried to run away, the man yanked her by the hair, dragged her along a brick path, pounded her skull into the ground, and said he'd kill her if he screamed. Eventually, she stopped resisting..."

"[Several months after the rape, in the fall of that same year, Sebold] saw a man who looked like her rapist.

"Sebold was asked to identify Broadwater in a lineup. He was the fourth in a line of five black men wearing jail uniforms. Sebold identified the fifth man."

"[Testifying at trial, Broadwater] explained that he had a scar on his face and a chipped tooth, neither of which Sebold had included in her description of her rapist."

"[Once in prison, Broadwater] woud give gang leaders pages from his appeal and transcripts from his trial...At Attica prison, an imam read parts of his transcript aloud to his cell block...[A]fter the imam finished reading, men came up to him and said, You shoudn't be in prison, man.'"

"A year after his release, one of his cousins set him up with a woman named Elizabeth, who worked as a roofer. On their first night together, he told her that he wanted to be in a relationship with her but that she had to read his trial documents first. He slept on the couch while she spent the night in the bedroom with the transcripts. In the morning, she came into the living room where he was sleeeping and said, crying, that she believed him."

"In 2010, Jane Campion, the only woman to be nominated twice for the Academy Award for best director, called Sebold. Campion wanted to adapt 'Lucky' [Sebold's memoir], which she had found 'gripping, funny, devastating,' she said. After Sebold agreed, Campion asked Laurie Parker, who had produced Campion's film 'In the Cut,' to write the screenplay."

"[A]fter Parker read the trial transcript, she felt disturbed that there wasn't more evidence."

"By the summer of 2004, after interviewing Paul Clapper and the other Syracuse cops who knew about the case, Parker had reached the point where she felt that 'There was so little evidence that it should not have resulted in a conviction,' she said."

[A private investigator would later tell Broadwater:] "'I talked to [Officer Paul] Clapper, and he believes in your innocence.'"

"William Fitzpatrick, the Onandoga [County DA, was asked] to read the transcripts of Broadwater's trial and give...his opinion. 'I was stunned,' [he] said. 'I couldn't believe that, in 1981, in a non-jury trial, a guy could be convicted on that.'" Kagan, Donald; murder; [not on NRE list:] no crime

Bench trial

"Kagan claimed that he had acted in self-defense when he shot and killed Wavell Wint outside a Brooklyn movie theater."

"[W]hen [Judge Frank Barbaro, who had convicted Kagan at his bench trial] pored over the record anew [10 years later], he was 'absolutely horrified': 'It was so obvious I had made a mistake. I got sick. Physically sick.'"

"Revisiting the facts, Wint now appeared to the aggressor. It seemed Kagan had shown his gun only to ward off a drunken Wint, who'd tried to rob him of his gold chain."

Hincapie, Johnny; murder; NRE: false confession, perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, misconduct in interrogation of exoneree; "OVERWHELMING"

Suggestibility issues

"No one ever positively identified [Hincapie] as taking part in either the Watkins robbery or murder, either before or at trial...No physical evidence tying [Hincapie] to the crime ever existed... The only evidence presented against Hincapie at trial was his false confession and a single witness's equivocal statement that [Hincapie] looked 'vaguely familiar.'"

"One of Hincapie's co-defendants, Pascual Carpenter, confessed to -- and was convicted of -- playing the precise role in the robbery to which Hincapie 'confessed.' Carpenter confessed much earlier in the day than Hincapie and admitted that he was the person who held the woman back during the incident."

"No physical evidence linked Hincapie to the crime. None of the family members could identify him. Karen Watkins, Brian's mother, testified that she had viewed a lineup after Hincapie was arrested and while he looked 'vaguely familiar,' she could not say he was involved."

Gristwood, Daniel; attempted murder; NRE: false confession, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, misconduct in interrogation of exoneree

Suggestibility issues

"[A]fter hours of investigation and interrogation, there was no evidence connecting Gristwood to the crime. The facts in his original statement, which was very detailed, had been checked out and determined to be accurate...There was no physical evidence from the crime scene that implicated Gristwood...His clothes, which he had been wearing since he went to work the day before, were free of blood spatter, notwithstanding the very bloody nature of the crime scene, and there were no fingerprints on the suspected weapon."

Turner, Clinton; robbery; NRE: perjury/false accusation, no crime, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury

"William Clarke, who was white, told officers that as he was walking to his car, he was robbed by four black men, one of whom was wearing dark jeans and Ninja mask. The man drew a knife, robbed him of his wallet containing $1,500 and fled. Clarke said that before the man fled, he took off the mask, allowing him to see his face. He said that when he came back to his car, he saw three men apparently breaking in and he chased them into Dunkin' Donuts and locked the door until police arrived.

"Clarke was re-interviewed and gave a different account of the robbery, saying that he was robbed after he saw some men breaking into his car. He said he chased one of them, who was wearing a mask, into a public housing project and confronted him."

"Clarke said the man pulled out a knife and demanded his wallet.

"Clarke said he kicked the man and his mask came off. Clarke said he then left because too many people were gathering."

"At trial, Clarke gave yet another version.* He said that he had parked his car at about 4:45 a.m. to stop in a bar and look for some friends. When they were not there, he returned to his car, but saw someone rooting in the glove compartment. Clarke said the man saw him coming and fled and that he gave chase."

[* So, we now have Clarke giving three different versions of the supposed crime. And yet, the credulous jury convicted Turner anyway.]

"Clarke said his wallet contained less than $100 -- not the 1,500 he had originally reported."

"During closing argument, Turner's attorney argued that Clarke was not credible because he had changed his account of the robbery several times. He suggested that Clarke had concocted the incident because he was angry over buying fake drugs."

Turner, Clinton; robbery; NRE: perjury/false accusation, no crime, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury

"William Clarke, who was white, told officers that as he was walking to his car, he was robbed by four black men, one of whom was wearing dark jeans and Ninja mask. The man drew a knife, robbed him of his wallet containing $1,500 and fled. Clarke said that before the man fled, he took off the mask, allowing him to see his face. He said that when he came back to his car, he saw three men apparently breaking in and he chased them into Dunkin' Donuts and locked the door until police arrived.

"Clarke was re-interviewed and gave a different account of the robbery, saying that he was robbed after he saw some men breaking into his car. He said he chased one of them, who was wearing a mask, into a public housing project and confronted him."

"Clarke said the man pulled out a knife and demanded his wallet.

"Clarke said he kicked the man and his mask came off. Clarke said he then left because too many people were gathering."

"At trial, Clarke gave yet another version.* He said that he had parked his car at about 4:45 a.m. to stop in a bar and look for some friends. When they were not there, he returned to his car, but saw someone rooting in the glove compartment. Clarke said the man saw him coming and fled and that he gave chase."

[* So, we now have Clarke giving three different versions of the supposed crime. And yet, the credulous jury convicted Turner anyway.]

"Clarke said his wallet contained less than $100 -- not the 1,500 he had originally reported."

"During closing argument, Turner's attorney argued that Clarke was not credible because he had changed his account of the robbery several times. He suggested that Clarke had concocted the incident because he was angry over buying fake drugs."

Adams, Sandra; menacing; NRE: perjury/false accusation, no crime, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence

Suggestibility issues

"At trial in September 1998, Cross and his wife both testified that Adams had pointed a gun at them. Adams testified that she was on disability at the time after injuring her right shoulder while on duty in February 1997, although she had been cleared to drive. Adams said that her gun was at home and that even if she had had it, she did not have the strength to lift it due to her injury. The defense argued that because the windows of Adams' car were dark-tinted, it would have been impossible for Cross to see a gun."

Johnson, Robert; forgery; NRE: no crime

"On June 1, 1982, the appellate division...reversed the convictions of both Robert and Tracey. The court ruled that because Tracey had only signed her own name to the money orders, she could not be guilty of forgery, and Robert, therefore, could not be guilty of aiding and abetting the forgeries, since no forgeries had occurred. In the same opinion, the court dismissed the Johnsons' indictment."

Deacon, Derrick; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

"During the police investigation, Campbell had described the assailant as approximately 19 years old and approximately 5'7" tall. [Deacon] is six feet tall, and, at the time of this incident, was 34 years old."

"The proof at Mr. Deacon's trial was thin and centered on the inconsistent testimony of a single purported eyewitness. The prosecution offered no confession, no false exculpatory statement, no accomplice testimony, no fingerprint evidence, and no DNA evidence. No witness or surveillance evidence placed Mr. Deacon at or near the scene of the shooting, and the [prosecution] offered no evidence regarding a motive for the murder."

"Six days after the shooting, in response to the offer of a reward... Abdullah Pickering called Crimestoppers claiming for the first time (despite considerable police acivity in the building on the day of, and the day after, the shooting) to have witnessed the shooting, and identifying Mr. Deacon as the perpetrator."

"The prosecution's case against Mr. Deacon consisted almost exclusively of Mr. Pickering's testimony...In convoluted and often inconsistent testimony, Pickering claimed he heard banging on the door of that apartment, and overheard a loud argument between Mr. Deacon and Wynn...Pickering further testified that he saw Mr. Deacon pointing a gun at the victim and snatch a chain from the victim's neck...Incredibly, Pickering testified that he passed directly between Mr. Deacon and Mr. Wynn while Mr. Deacon purportedly had a gun drawn on Wynn, and that he heard a gunshot as he descended to the second floor."

Hatchett, Andre; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence

"Police responed to a 911 call about an unconscious woman around 11 p.m.on Feb. 19, 1999 and found Neda Mae Carter, 38, lying face up, naked, badly beaten in the face, head and neck."

"At the time of the shooting, Hatchett was recuperating from gunshot wounds to his throat and legs. His right leg was in a cast and he was using crutches."

[How in the world could a man on crutches, recuperating from gunshot wounds to his throat and legs, ever manage to pin a woman down, strip her naked, and then severely beat her? ]

"[T]he prosecution presented no physical evidence against [Hatchett]; in fact, no murder weapon was ever recovered."

Connor, Reginald AND Wagstaffe, Everton; kidnaping; NRE: perjury/false accuation, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence

"[T]he police arrested the defendants, following their identification by Brunilda Capella, who was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time she witnessed the victim being forced into a vehicle."

"The conviction rests on the testimony of a signle eyewitness -- the admitedly unstable, drug-addicted Brunila Capella -- supported by no probative physical evidence. The linchpin of the prosecution's case was a car that Ms. Capella testified was used to abduct the victim. The car was not owned by defendants, but by Ms. Betty Bonner, who did not know defendants or the victim."

Bermudez, Fernando; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, police misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

"[T]here was a complete lack of forensic evidence linking Bermudez to the crime, and there was no evidence presented by the prosecution to demonstrate that Bermudez's alibi witness was not credible."

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

"Over the next five years, police conducted numerous searches and interviews but found no evidence that implicated Harris in his wife's disappearance."

"Michele's body was never found, despite aerial and ground searches of the nearly 300-acre estate where the family lived as well as searches by sonar and divers in Elmira Lake, which abutted the Harris property."

"A tracking device was secretly installed on Harris's vehicle in the hope that he would lead them to Michele's body, but to no avail."

Blake, Jeffrey; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, prosecutor misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, perjury by official, prosecutor lied in court

"A few days later, Dana Garner came forward, saying he saw Jeffrey Blake fire into the passenger side of the car.

Fleming, Jonathan; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor isconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrigating co-defendant

"Fleming was released last year after the Brooklyn [DA's] Office said it had come to believe that his alibi, which he offered from the start, was valid.

"[H]e told authorities he was more than 1,000 miles away at the time, and had plane tickets, video and other evidence. A woman testified that she had seen him commit the crime."

"On August 19, 1989, New York police arrested 27-year-old Jonathan Fleming, who also was a drug dealer in the Williamsburg neighborhood, and charged him with the murder despite Fleming's claim that he was in Florida on a family vacation to Disneyworld at the time of the crime.

"Fleming went on trial in Kings County...in July 1990. The main witness against him was an admitted crack addict who testified that she recognized Fleming as the gunman from the window of her apartment despite the darkness and the fact that she was more than 400 feet away from the shooting."

[Here we go again: Yet another person falsely convicted because of testimony from someone so far away that they could not have possibly identified the culprit. Not only is it the middle of the night, but she's more than the length of a football field away.]

"Fleming's lawyer introduced evidence that included plane tickets and home video footage of Fleming in Orlando with his family. Several relatives who accompanied Fleming on the trip testified that he was with them. And one relative said he picked up Fleming at an airport in New York on August 16 -- the day after the murder.

"The prosecution contended that none of the family videos were taken on August 15, the day of the crime, and argued -- without any tangible evidence -- that Fleming could have flown to New York, shot Rush and then flown back to Florida.

"Blake said he was on his lunch break at the time of the shootings. His sister testified that he ate lunch at her apartment, and co-workers testfied that he returned to work at 2 p.m., only 15 minutes after the shooting. Forensic evidence indicated that most of the bullets were fired into the driver's side of the car, not the passenger's side.

"The prosecution's case relied heavily on Garner's testimony.

"Blake's criminal defense counsel, Howard Kirsch, told the jury in closing argument that Garner was a liar. Kirsch said Garner was an admitted drug dealer who had been arrested and convicted in North Carolina several times and that he was a convicted felon who was serving time in prison in North Carolina, and that he had gone to a mental institution for an evaluation to see if he was telling the truth."

"At trial, Garner's cousin, Otis Gary, with whom Garner lived in New York, said that Garner had been in North Carolina the day of the shooting..."

"Although Garner was present when the police were on the scene investigating the shooting, he did not tell the officers he had witnessed the shooting..."

"Garner's description of the shooting was impeached by his Grand Jury testimony. Garner had testified in the Grand Jury that Drake Hilbert and a man named Dwayne were with [Blake], and had guns that afternoon, and that Drake had pulled his weapon and pointed it at people on the street... At trial, Garner's memory failed him. He claimed he couldn't recall if either Drake or Dwayne was there..."

"Robert Rosenbluth was a former police officer who ran a religious articles store...in Bedford-Stuyvesant...[Blake's] mother was a customer of his; at her request, he hired [Blake] for an off-the-books job as a stock person in June 1990...[Blake's] hours were 10:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., with a 45-minute lunch break from 1:15 to 2:00p.m....Although there was no time clock for employees to punch, Rosenbluth was sure that on June 18, 1990, [Blake] was at lunch from 1:15 to 2:00 p.m., because he was a relatively new employee, and Rosenbuth monitored his comings and goings more carefully for that reason...When [Blake] returned to work that afternoon, Rosenbluth noticed nothing unusual about his appearance...When [Blake] was arrested the following week, Rosenbluth contacted the precinct, and the [DA's] office, and testified in the Grand Jury on [Blake's] behalf..."

"According to Detective Brew's testimony, Garner wandered the streets of Brooklyn happening upon numerous murders, then helping the police solve these murders and testifying for the prosecution. Garner neither expected nor received any favors from the police in return for his civic-minded behavior."

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

"The lone eyewitness, Jewel Smith, was 'as a whole unreliable, incredible, and for the most part untruthful,' said Hale, adding that using her as a witness violated Hamilton's procedural due process rights."

Bunn, John AND Hargrove/Hargrave/Hardgrave, Rosean; murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

"[D]uring his trial testimony he described his assailants as two light-skinned black males in their twenties. Mr. Crosson is a black male. [Neither Bunn nor Hargrove] may be accurately described as 'light-skinned' black males.

"There is no evidence Crosson recognized [Hargrove] at the outset of the crime, although they lived in the same housing [complex] for over twenty years and he admitted to knowing [Hargrove's] family, with whom [Hargrove] lived. There were also allegations that Mr. Crosson was involved in some illegality that may have compromised his testimony."

"There were fingerprints taken from inside and outside the vehicle that the assailants drove away in, none of which were [Bunn or Hargrove's] fingerprints." "At the hospital, Crosson described the gunmen as light-skinned black men in their twenties. The one on the driver's side -- whom he later said was Bunn -- was 5 feet 9 inches or 5 feet 10 inches tall. He described the other robber -- whom he identified as Hargrave -- as light-skinned and in his twenties.

"Hargrove was about 5 feet 6 nches tall and Bunn was no more than 5 feet 3 inches tall. Both have dark skin.

"Crosson said he had never seen Bunn or Hargrave before, although he lived in the housing project where Bunn and Hargrave also lived. Crosson said that he knew Hargrave's mother and two of his sisters."

Vincent Jenkins (Warith Habib Abdal); sexual assault, robbery; NRE: mistaken witness identification, false/misleading forensic evidence, police officer misconduct

Suggestibilty issues

"She described her attacker as a black man between five feet eight and five feet ten with a space between his upper front teeth and a 'tenor-type' voice.

"[Jenkins/Abdal] did not fit this description. He was six feet two inches tall, there was no gap between his teeth, and he had a deep voice." "Abdal was presented to Werner in a one-man show-up, but she failed to identify him as her attacker. She then viewed a photograph of Abdal that was four years old.* She returned to the show-up and identified him."

"No other evidence purported to link Abdal to the crime."

Abney, Quentin; robbery; NRE: mistaken witness identification

"In [Abney's] case he presented an alibi defense. It was [his] position that he could not have robbed Farhana at 3:20 p.m. on June 2 at the Essex/Delancey subway station because he had picked up the daughter of his fiancee at 3:00 p.m. that day at a school, located at 933 Herkimer Street in Brooklyn. To buttress this claim, [he] offered in evidence a sign-in/sign-out sheet purporting to document, by virtue of his signature thereon, that [he] had in fact made that pickup at the time he claimed. [His] fiancee, Mary Nimmons, testified that she obtained the sign-in/sign-out sheet from Carolyn Murphy, her daughter's assistant teacher."

"No physical or forensic evidence tied Mr. Abney to the crime.

"Mrs. Murphy, the [daughter's] teacher, testifed that Mr. Abney picked up [the daughter] at [3 p.m.]. The witnesses who were allowed to testify stated that they saw Mr. Abney walking [the daughter] home from school on the day of the crime shortly after 3:00 p.m."

"[T]here were four witnesses who observed [Abney] picking up [the daughter] from school near the time of the snatching."

"Abney's girlfriend, Mary Nimmons, testified that at or around the time of the robbery, he was picking up her daughter from preschool in Brooklyn and that he then brought her to Nimmons's home in Brooklyn...Two of Abney's cousins who were at Nimmons's home also testified he was there."

Fennell, Robert; murder; [not on NRE list] : perjury/false accusation

"The prosecution's case against Fennell and Perry hinged entirely on the testimony of a single purported eyewitness, John McKoy, 'a former employee of the base house' and a self-confessed cocaine addict with a lengthy criminal record. No doubt aware of the frailties of its case, the prosecution dangled a generous plea offer before Fennell. Fennell rejected the offer and insisted on his right to proceed to trial.

"The threads holding McKoy's story together began to unravel on cross-examination. Contrary to his initial assertions, McKoy ultimately admitted that he was receiving leniency on a pending cocaine possession charge in exchange for cooperating in the Fennell-Perry matter. More notably, defense counsel discredited McKoy by juxtaposing his statements at trial against those from his original police interview. Unable to reconcile the two accounts, McKoy claimed to have lied regarding certain, seemingly salient details that he had provided earlier to the police -- 'that he saw Perry pistol-whipping Williams,' that 'Fennell had fired three shots and Perry one,' and that he was standing beside a liquor store at the time of the incident."

Groce, Tyrone; robbery; NRE: mistaken witness identification

"He said the other robber, who had a pistol, was about 22 years old, 5 feet 7 inches tall, 140 pounds and had no facial hair.

"During the next several weeks, Bristol drove through the neighborhood at various times looking for the other robber. On January 6, 1992, at about 5 p.m. -- when it was dark -- Bristol stopped his car in a crosswalk.

"A man crossing the street cursed at Bristol for blocking his path and kept walking. Bristol called police because he believed the man was the gunman.* Minutes later, police arrested 28-year-old Tyrone Groce. Bristol identified him as the gunman even though Groce was 5 feet 11 inches tall, weighed 163 pounds, had a beard and mustache and had a prominent gold tooth -- none of which matched Bristol's original description."

[* Based on what? For one thing, it's dark out. Then we have the fact that Groce is 6 years older, 4 inches taller, and 18 pounds heavier, and had 100% less facial hair than the initial description he gave of the armed robber. Oh, and then there's the gold tooth Bristol said nothing about, despite the fact that he had a far better look at the robbers than he did this poor sap in the crosswalk. The very next day following the robbery, Bristol happens to run into one of the (real) robbers at a gas station. Following this stroke of luck, over the next several weeks, just bound and determined to find the second robber, Bristol cruises the streets. Stopped at a cross-walk, his attention is drawn by a guy cursing at him for blocking his way. For no rational reason whatsoever, something 'clicks' in his brain: 'That's the second robber!'

The probability that Bristol would subsequently run into just one of the robbers was small; and yet, it did happen. But the chances of him later encountering the other one as well were extremely slim. (And that did not happen.)]

"The defense...called Wigfall as a witness because Groce told his lawyer that he was talking to another prisoner about his case when he serendipitously bumped into Wigfall in the courthouse lockup prior to trial. Wigfall approached and asked him if he was charged with robbing Bristol. When Groce said that he was, Wigfall told him that he committed the crime with another man."

"Groce appealed his conviction as well as the denial of the motion for new trial. In March 1995, the...Appellate Division reversed Groce's conviction on thr ground that it was against the weight of the evidence and ordered the [indictment] dismissed. Groce was released from prison."

Iannacone, Dominic; robbery; NRE: perjury/false accusation

"Senape told police that he had left his job, went to a nearby ATM where he withdrew cash, and was walking on the street when a black man approached and asked if he knew of a Mexican restaurant in the area. A few moments later, Iannacone approached. He and the black man then dragged him into the lobby where they knocked him down, and stole $500 in cash and his iPhone."

"The police and prosecution ultimately concluded, based on Iannacone's direction of flight, that he did not have the money or drop it there."

"Prior to trial, Iannacone's appointed defense attorney, Mark Scoto, got Senape's bank records and learned that he had not gotten cash from an ATM on the day he was robbed. After Scotto informed the [Manhattan DA's] Office the prosecution confronted Senape and he changed his account."

"Iannacone went to trial in [Manhattan] in February 2015. Senape admitted that he had lied about his activities on the day of the robbery, and said he 'didn't want to get into details' because he was a 'private person.'"

"He said he was carrying about $570-580 in cash to pay the entrance fee -- called a buy-in -- to the Park Casino, and had left his apartment to run errands."

"On cross-examination, Senape admitted that despite his claim of being a private person, he had appeared in television and Internet reports of poker tournaments. When the judge asked him about his best day of poker, Senape replied, 'I have a few. You can Google me.'

"Senape admitted that if he planned to go to the casino later, there was no reason to carry his buy-in money when he ran his errands. He admitted that he had not suffered a scratch or a bruise, despite saying he was taken to the ground during an intense struggle. He also denied owning a burner phone ending in 2839.

"Confronted by his statement to the grand jury that he had worked 'in real estate,' Senape said he considered his 13 years as a doorman as being 'part of the real estate industry.' He then told the jury he was a licensed real estate broker."

"Scoto ridiculed Senape's account that he took his poker buy-in money with him on his errands even though he wasn't leaving until the next day.

"'That would be like having your bags packed to catch an early flight in the morning, and then running out to grab something to eat, and taking your luggage with you,' Scoto declared. 'This is a man who knows he's running an errand that's going to take 20, 30 minutes tops. . .He needed the money, and it wasn't for coffee, and it wasn't for a belt.'"

Jones, Clifford; murder, sexual assault; NRE: mistaken witness identification

"When police officers questioned R. at the hospital, she said at one point that her assailant had an Afro hair style but at another point said he wore braids."

"On that day, Jones wore neither an Afro hair style nor braids. R. identified him at the lineup. At a pretrial suppression hearing, R. acknowledged that she was under the influence of heroin when she made both identifications.

"The People were not able to introduce any physical evidence connecting [Jones] with the rape or murder ...[N]one of the items introduced into evidence, which included the pepetratpor's baseball cap, the bloody knife, blood scrapings, and the rape kit, connected [Jones] with the crimes."

"[A]nother witness to the crime was unable to identify [Jones] as the perpetrator."

Newton, Alan ; sexual assault, robbery, assault; NRE: mistaken witness identification, false/misleading forensic evidence

"The victim, V.J., was severely intoxicated at the time she was attacked and was able to give only a vague description of her assailant...Her account of the attack changed materially as the investigation progressed...Although V.J. initially identified Newton in a lineup, she subsequently wavered... [T]he prosecution presented no physical evidence linking Newton to the crime...And Newton presented a credible alibi."

Johnson, Patrick; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, police misconduct, prosecutor misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

"The only evidence connecting [Johnson] to the crimes in question was Anderson's testimony that he recognized [Johnson] as one of the perpetrators involved in the shooting inside the carpet store. This testimony was seriously put into question by his admission that he had only viewed the perpetrators' faces for 'about half a second' before he covered his face and ran out of the store through the rear door. Anderson further admitted that in his prior sworn testimony given at the suppression hearing he had stated that he had 'not really recognized' any...of the perpetrators, despite testifying at that time that he had seen them for two or three seconds. In addition, Anderson's direct testimony that prior to the incident, he had known [Johnson] for 'months' from 'around the neighborhood' was also seriously put into doubt by his testimony on cross-examination that his knowledge of [Johnson] was based solely on the viewings of [him], one 'perhaps for a second,' and the other equally as fleeting. On both occasions, Anderson was driving his motor vehicle, and [Johnson], who was not doing anything to draw attention to himself, was either standing or talking to another man on the street. In addition, Anderson admitted that in his prior sworn testimony at the suppression hearing, he had stated that at the time of the incident he had not seen the face of anyone that he had previously known."

"The eyewitness, the sole witness who inculpated [Johnson] in the commission of these crimes, gave testimony which was internally contradictory and inconsistent in nature. Significantly, the trial prosecutor pointedly relied on the erroneously admitted lineup evidence in the [prosecutor's] opening statement and summation, thus exacerbating the prejudicial impact."

[The above paragraph is from the Court of Appeals decision reversing Johnson's conviction, due to the weight of the evidence (as well as evidentiary error).]

"[Johnson's] first trial ended with a hung jury. At his second trial, the eyewitness gave testimony that was inconsistent with much of his testimony at the [pre-trial] hearing and the first trial, asserted that he had been lying at those proceedings but was telling the truth now, and claimed, for the first time, that he had recognized [Johnson] on the basis of two prior, fleeting viewings while driving down crowded city streets. Nonetheless, the jury found [Johnson] guilty on all counts. Anderson subsequently recanted his identification of Johnson."

"According to Anderson, Cordero ...gave him [a mughot book], and asked him to look for the other two perpetrators [besides Stultz]...Half an hour later, Anderson remarked that a photo of [Johnson] 'looked like' one of them."

"[I]t is ludicrous to imagine that Anderson, while driving a car, could possibly have singled out and remembered a stranger on the street, among countless anonymous pedestrians, when he had never had anything to do with him and had no reason to recall him."

"Police located Anderson and took him to the 71st Precinct...Before Anderson was questioned, however, he asked to use the bathroom and then slipped out of the station. Detectives found him again and brought him back, but again he managed to escape from the station."

"Detectives found Anderson a third time on March 26 -- two days after the murder -- and this time, they handcuffed him to a chair in the precinct. When Anderson was finally questioned, he gave the first of what would be five different versions of what happened. "The state's case relied almost entirely on the identifications made by Anderson. Johnson's lawyer called several alibi witnesses as well as documentary records showing that Johnson had been paying a utility bill at the time of the crime and making purchases..."

"No physical or forensic evidence linked either defendant to the crime.

Jones, Lonnie; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury

"Nearly two months after the shooting, Savoy's girlfriend, Robin Fludd, told the police that she had seen the shooting from her ninth-floor terrace* and claimed that...Lonnie Jones and his nephew Markquice were the shooters."

[* Well, here we go again: Yet another 'witness' is claiming to have been able to identify persons on the street from several floors above -- this time, eight. That's absurd. Those being identified would have to have been (helpfully) looking straight up at the viewer, holding their faces still long enough to be identified. But even then, without binoculars or a telescope, from that high up, this would still have been impossible.]

"The [prosecution's] case at trial relied entirely on the testimony of Fludd. Savoy did not testify. Nor did Emil Smith, Jamar Miller...or Sharod Jones."

[It's very interesting that none of these direct (i.e., street-level) witnesses testified.]

"[T]he defense presented three family members who testified that [Jones] worked a full day on the day of the shooting, spent a normal evening at home and went to work early the next morning. The defense also called several eyewitnesses from the Seapark complex who testified that Fludd arrived at the Seapark complex after the shooting, and several eyewitnesses described a single shooter who was tall and thin, in contrast to [Jones], who is short and heavily built. Finally, Markquice Jones, whom Fludd also accused of the shooting, testified for the defense that when the crime occurred he was on the 23rd floor of the Seapark complex, in a room full of people."

"Fludd testified that on the night of July 2, 2001, she and her neighbor Bernice McNeer, were sitting on the balcony in front of Fludd's apartment. At approximately 10:30 p.m....Fludd testified that she saw Lonnie Jones and his nephew, Markquice Jones, both of whom she knew, approach from behind a wall at the north end of the courtyard and open fire..."

"Even though Fludd claimed that she had just seen her boyfriend and the father of her child gunned down, she testified that she did not rush down to the courtyard to see if he survived or to call for help. Indeed, she returned to her apartment and spent some 'twenty or twenty-five minutes' changing out of her lounging clothes... When she did go downstairs, the area was filled with police officers, but she did not speak to them to tell them what she later claimed she had seen. Nor did she speak to police at Coney Island Hospital when she visited Savoy later that night."

"Savoy survived and three other men who were him him including Sherrod* Jones, were uninjured. All four men told police that a tall, thin man in a black hooded sweatshirt shot at them."

"On July 5, police received an anonymous phone tip naming Lenny Parker, aka 'Supreme' (a rival drug dealer of Hayward's) and 'AK' as the assailants. The call was later found to have come from Terron Savoy's girlfriend, Robin Fludd.

"[A]lmost two months after the shooting, Fludd told police that she saw Lonnie and Markquice Jones kill Hayward, in contradiction to her July 5th anonymous phone tip."

Lawrence, 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

Suggestibility issues

"The prosecution's key witness was Ralph Council, who had been interviewed at least three times by police in the two years that elapsed after the shooting. He had consistently said that four young men were standing by a dumpster in the parking lot, and that one came to the driver's side door and told Terry to turn off the van. Council, who had a lengthy criminal record, said he heard Terry say, 'It wasn't me, he's in the back.' Terry then ducked down toward Council. That's when the gunfire began, Council said.

"However, after Council was arrested on unrelated charges in December 2011, he changed his statement and said two men came to the van -- McGhee and Lawrence. He said Lawrence spoke with Terry and then began firing a silver pistol.

"Council testified and changed his statement [yet again]. He now said that McGhee was the man with the gun, and that it was black, not silver. But he also said that Lawrence was behind McGhee with a silver gun.

"James Jones also testified for the prosecution and told the jury that he saw Lawrence in the parking lot on the night of the crime shooting into the van. Jones first implicated Lawrence in April 2012 -- after Lawrence was arrested. Jones admitted during cross-examinaton that while he was in jail he recanted and claimed he knew nothing about the crime and only implicated Lawrence because of police pressure. He further admitted that after he was released from jail, he recanted his recantation and said that in fact he did see Lawrence in the parking lot. Jones also testified that he was high on crack cocaine at the time of the shooting. He said that he had been high for several days prior and that the detective gave him $50 in cash on the day he agreed to identify Lawrence.

"The defense called McGhee to testify and he admitted the motivation for the shooting was the fight over the shrimp. However, although he had implicated Lawrence in his plea, McGhee now told the jury that Lawrence was not involved in the shooting at all.

"Tyreek Burwell also testified for the defense. He admitted that he had given a statement to police implicating Lawrence in the shooting. He told the jury, however, that he was not at the housing complex or the parking lot at all.

Leka, Sami; murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

"Torres testified that the person he saw shooting the gun wore 'like a thick brown leather jacket'...was 'about five nine' ...and had a 'medium build.' [FN5:] In sharp contrast to Torres' physical description of the shooter, Leka was five feet, three inches tall and weighed approximately one hundred and sixty-five pounds...Thus, it appears that Torres described Rahman, not Leka.

"Sali Ferati...Rahman's brother, lived across the street from the site of the shooting, heard the gunshots, and saw Rahman fall to the ground...Sali did not see the person who shot Rahman, but immediately ran to Rahman's side. Sali testfied that, as Rahman lay dying in his arms, Sali repeatedly asked Rahman who shot him. According to Sali, Rahman responded each time that it was 'Zeni,' obviously referring to Zeni Cira, Leka's co-defendant at trial...Sali further testified that he asked Rahman if Rahman recognized anyone else in the car, and Rahman said he did not recognize 'the others.'...Thus, although the Ferati family has known Leka since he was a young boy...Rahman did not implicate Leka in the shooting.

"At trial, the defense presented the testimony of Zeni Cira, an extended family member of Leka's who was in a child custody dispute with Ferati. Cira confessed that he shot Ferati in self-defense. Nonetheless, in March 1990, Leka was convicted..."

Livingston, Christopher; murder; NRE: false/misleading forensic evidence, inadequate legal defense

"Sometime after 10 p.m. on April 4, 1986, Nelson Vouse was shot and killed on Hinsdale Street in Brooklyn...[At trial, Livingston] asserted his innocence, suggesting that someone else had fired the fatal shot while he and Vouse were standing near each other on the street. One witness, who was looking directly at both men when the shooting occurred, observed that [Livingston] was not carrying a gun. A second witness who saw [Livingston] run from where Vouse had been shot, also testified that [Livingston] had not been holding a gun. No gun was recovered at the scene."

"Medical examiner Gutierrez found...that the bullet must have been fired from at least 18 inches away ...According to Gutierrez, the bullet trajectory was front to back, at an angle going straight down from a height of 53 inches. Given that [Livingston] is 5'4" (or 64 inches), it would seem impossible for him to fire a bullet at Vouse, going straight down at an angle as Gutierrez testified, without engaging in unlikely physical contortions that could not have gone unnoticed by [Sonia (the main witness)."

"As both Sonia and [Livingston] in his statement described, only minutes before this incident a Hispanic man had shot into a group of people in which [Livingston] stood. That crowd did not contain Nelson Vouse. Moments later, at the same time she again saw [Livingston], Sonia saw a Hispanic man on the porch of the dope house. It makes sense that the dispute here in fact was between [Livingston] and the Hispanic man, not between [Livingston] and Nelson Vouse."

[Recall that Livingston was standing next to Vouse when the latter was shot. Thus, it seems that Livingston was the intended target.]

"[W]hile Sonia directly observed [Livingston] and Vouse from the time they started talking and walking until the shot rang out, she never saw a gun, although she was able to see both men's bodies and arms clearly. Nor did she see either man raise his hands or fists in a gesture of argument while she watched them talk. If [Livingston] had been the killer, certainly she would have seen him raise his hands, seen the gun, seen the flash of the shot against the evening sky. However, she saw none of those things; she only heard the shot, saw Vouse fall and [Livingston] run."

"Hinkson [the other eyewitness], who was able to see [Livingston's] hands as he was running immediately after the shot was fired, also testified that Livingston had no gun as he ran past him. Thus, if [Livingston] had been the killer, he would have to have dropped the gun at the scene. However, as Officer Williams -- who arrived moments later -- testified, no gun was found despite a search of the area."

"[N]one of the witnesses sad they saw a gun or saw Livingston fire a gun. In fact, two witnesses said that Livingston and Vouse both had their hands in their pockets when the shot was fired.

Maldonado, Robert AND Poventud, Marcos; attempted murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

"During his testimony at trial, Younis Duopo identified a photograph of Robert Maldonado's brother, Matthew, as the person who committed the crime; he later retracted this identification of the photograph of Matthew Maldonado."

"Just two weeks after Younis Duopo was robbed and shot, three men, Jesus Martinez, Naftali Pagan, and Raymond Flores were arrested in the robbery of another cab driver.. Ballistics tests showed that the gun used by these men in that robbery was the same gun that shot Younis Duopo ...[T]here was not even the slightest suggestion that Robert Maldonado knew any of these men."

[Seven days after the shooting, the police showed Mr. Duopo a photo array which inluded a photograph of Poventud.] "According to Detective Frankie Rosado, when he showed Mr. Duopo the array, Mr. Duopo kept tapping his head, indicating that he had a headache. Mr. Duopo then took a 'quick look' at the array, and shook his head...Detective Rosado recorded in his report 'negative results' from the photo array."

"The next day...another detective, Daniel Toohey, visited Younis Duopo in the hospital to show him a different photo array, which also included a photograph of Marcus Poventud...Toohey testfied that, through pointing, Mr. Duopo identified the photograph of Marcos Poventud from his second array. [Just over two weeks later,] Younis identified Marcos Poventud from a lineup."

[It appears that Poventud was the only person whose photo was in both of these arrays. Thus, via sheer repetition, Duopo (wrongly) came to believe that Poventud was one of his assailants.]

"After seeing Marcos' photograph four different times, Duopo identified Marcos as the gunman."

"Duopo identified Poventud as the gunman and Maldonado as his accomplice. On cross-examination, however, Duopo was shown a photograph of Maldonado's brother and twice identified the brother as Poventud's accomplice.

"While preparing for retrial, Maldonado's attorney, Julia Kuan, discovered that the prosecution had failed to disclose to the defense that Duopo had initially identified Poventud's brother Francisco as the gunman.*

[* Thus, Duopo, the only witness to 'identify' Maldonado or Poventud, had previously identified brothers of both of them prior to identifying Robert and Marcos.]

Moses, Sundhe; murder; NRE: false confession, perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, misconduct in interrogation of exoneree

Suggestibility issues

"[Moses] was identified in a photo array by two eyewitnesses, Sharron Ivory and Octavia Moore...Moore identified [Moses] in the lineup, but was unable to identify him at trial...Ivory...also identified [Moore] in the lineup, but was unable to identify [him] at trial."

"Moses was suspected after Larry Cole, who lived in the housing project where the shooting occurred, told police he had heard on the street that Moses was involved. Cole had a history with Moses, who lived in the same housing project. In 1989, Cole tossed boiling water on the then-13-year-old Moses, causing burns on his abdomen and arm. Moses's mother got an order of protection against Cole. Cole was also ordered to pay restitution, although he never did.

"[At a lineup,] Alex Moore [one of the shooting victims] identified a filler."

"[Moses] also offered an alibi witness, the mother of a friend, who testified that [Moses] was in her apartment at the time of the homicide."

"Moses...initially denied involvement in the shooting and claimed he was at the home of a friend, Raynelle Clinkscale, playing video games at the time of the shooting."

"Clinkscale's mother, Renee Flowers, testified that she came to her father's apartment that day and found Clinkscale and Moses playing video games. She made dinner and they all left her apartment shortly after 10 p.m. -- hours after the shooting had occurred.

Negron, Julio; attempted murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, prosecutor lied in court

Suggestibility issues

"No evidence was found that linked [Negron] to the shooting.

"None of the witnesses, save the victim, was able to identify [Negron] as the perpetrator. [from FN1: The victim identified [Negron] at a lineup that was later suppressed as suggestive.] Indeed, two of the witnesses identified fillers from the lineups they viewed -- one selecting an individual with facial hair -- and a third witness, who viewed [Negron] at a precinct showup, stated that [he] was not the shooter.

Pichardo, Juan Carlos; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence

"Roxanna [the victim's wife]...said she heard one gunshot but did not see who fired the gun.

"Four days later, however, Roxanna told police that two men attacked her husband and identified them..."

"Pichardo's attorney put on an alibi defense, calling members of Pichardo's family who testified that he was home with the flu at the time of the shooting.

Quezada, Ruddy; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant, prosecutor lied in court

"[Quezada's] conviction rests primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness... Sixto Salcedo... "Quezada...insisted that he had been inside a nearby building, in the presence of others, when Rosado was shot outside the building. The defense presented three witnesses who confirmed Quezada's version."

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

"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..."

"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.

"The night of the murder Shannon told Oxley and Howe that he was a police informant...Oxley would have to have been a 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."

"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."

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

"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.

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

"Bloom's version of the events was not always consistent...After the detectives told Bloom they could not find Shakur [whom Bloom had originally named as a suspect], 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. * "

[* 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.] "Bloom claimed he then heard two shots...However, Rabbi Werzberger was only shot once. There was absolutely no evidence of a second shot."

"Bloom said he left before anything [i.e., the murder itself] happened...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."

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

"Ms. Fernandez [the murder victim] 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."

"Bar patrons told police that they believed that Ms. Fernandez and the unknown male arrived in a black, late-1970s model Chevrolet Monte Carlo."

"More than four months after the murder, on March 17, 1988, Dets. Sullivan and Wendel conducted a videotape-recorded interview of Robert Thompson [one of the bar witnesses]...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...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."

"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."

"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."

"[P]olice 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.

"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."

[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.]

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

"[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."

"There was no forensic or physical evidence connecting Rodriguez to the murder. The state's case relied on Cort's testimony."

Cort... 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."

"Azizi Moore, a former girlfriend [of Rodriguez] 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."

"Azizi Moore, a former girlfriend [of Rodriguez] 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."

Angeles-Acosta, Roberto; attempted murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification

"The only physical evidence connecting [Angeles] to the crimes consisted of a pawnshop ticket found in [his] pocket at the time of his arrest on an unrelated matter and chains -- allegedly from the robbery and belonging to Mr. Vargas -- found at the pawnshop among other jewelry in [Angeles'] name. No one identified [him] as the person who made the subsequent telephone threat or as one of the shooters...None of the ballistics evidence...linked [him] to the shooting."

"At trial, Mr. Vargas and two detectives testified that the detectives twice took Mr. Vargas to the pawnshop, when he identified the chains as his. Mr. Vargas conceded, however, that the chains were generic in appearance, and had no distinguising characteristics that enabled him to identify them."

Ayers, Devon AND Cosme, Michael AND Glisson, Eric AND Perez, Carlos AND Vasquez, Israel (not on NRE list) AND Watkins, Cathy; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

[7] "No fingerprints or other forensic evidence connected [Ayers] to the crime.

"Ms. Tavares claimed to have witnessed the killing of the cab driver, Mr. Diop. At trial she testified to several versions of the incident, no one version consistent with another or with Grand Jury testimony, and none free of internal contradictions. In all versions, however, her testimony with respect to [Ayers] merely placed him near the scene where the fatal shots were fired. No actions were attributed to him aside from leaving the cab and standing on the corner before this shooting occurred."

"[Gomez] testified on direct examination that on January 17, 1995, she went to... Cosme's home, where she saw Cosme, an unidentified Jamaican man and [Ayers], also known as 'Skloo.'...On cross-examination, she admitted that in February of 1995 she had testified before a grand jury three times that [Ayers] was not at Cosme's house on January 17th."

"Beyond impeachment, counsel obtained direct evidence from the witness regarding her present recollection at trial on this point. 'Now, Ms. Gomez, Skloo wasn't at Michael's house on January 17th, was he?' She replied, 'I don't know. I don't know exactly.'"

"Forensics recovered hair and 27 fingerprints. None matched those of [Ayers] or any of the codefendants.."

"Regarding the next day, January 19, 1995, Ms. Gomez testified that Cosme went to her house and showed her a gun...At trial she denied that she had come over [11] with 'Pito,' and when confronted with her testimony at the Grand jury, she denied so testifying, and then stated she couldn't recall."

"Miriam Tavares testified that on January 19, 1995, she resided at...a building from which, it turned out, she could not possibly have made the observations she [claimed] to have made ... Asked to point out the building from a photograph, she identified the wrong one."

"Although Tavares claimed she had seen the shooting [of Diop] from the bathroom window, she later testified that she was sitting on a sofa in the living room at the time."

"No fingerprints lifted from the car matched [Ayers] or any of the codefendants."

[Regarding Miriam Tavares:] "The jury had not a single coherent version to credit, much less to base a verdict upon. Of necessity, the jury had to cut and paste a version of the events together from a patchwork of conflicting and irreconciliable testimony. This...cannot be done in this case without constructing a new version for which there was no testimony evidence of any kind. And it cannot be done by linking inference upon inference upon inference. It cannot be done in such a way as to satisfy the exacting standard of moral certainty in the result."

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

Suggestibility issues

"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."

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

"His [false] 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."

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

"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."

"Even by trial time, none of the tested blood evidence matched Warney or victim."

"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..."

"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."

"[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 bathroom."

"He said he tossed his bloody clothes in a garbage can, but the can -- which had not been picked up -- had no bloody clothes."

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 "Margaret Smith...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."

[* 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.]

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]..."

"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."

"Edmond Adams and Vanessa Wagner, who were sitting on a bench across the street, said they saw two men flee. Adams said [the taller of the two was about] 5 feet 6 inches tall....Smith identified Williams in a photo array and in a live lineup. Williams was arrested and charged...although he was 6 feet tall -- at least half a foot taller than the description given by Edmond Adams."

"[On July 10th, 1993,] Scarcella and Chmil created a photo lineup that included Williams's photo. However, no one [i.e., either Adams or Wagner] 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."

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

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

"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."

"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?"

Andre, Edgard (Eddie); murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, prosecutor misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence

Suggestibility issues

[The judge who presided over this case was Eugene J. Berkowitz. ]

"[Andre] was charged...in connection with the shooting death of Steven Shields. A first trial, at which two witnesses identified [him] as the shooter but no other evidence linked [him] to the crime, ended in a hung jury.

"[His] second trial...resulted in conviction. There, only one eyewitness identified [him] as the perpetrator. The second eyewitness testified that while he was in the general vicinity, he did not see the shooting. Nonetheless, the prosecutor impeached him with his prior testimony, making clear to the jury his prior identification. In addition, another witness testified that [Andre] and the deceased had known each other...[C]counsel showed that this witness's testimony was impossible..."

"Two defense witnesses testified that they were also present at the time of the offense and that [Andre] was not the shooter."

"While Robinson...acknowledged having previously identified [Andre] as the shooter...Robinson stated that he had not seen Andre that evening, and that he had not...told the truth when he had previously identified him in court as the killer..."

"At about 10:00 p.m. on June 3, 1986, Yvonne Hall, then 15, was in front of her building in the South Jamaica houses arguing with some boys who were pulling her hair...Hall saw two men who were walking together as though friends. After running after the boys, Hall heard a gunshot. From a distance of 15 to 20 feet away, she turned and saw one of the two men shoot the other in the head. When the latter fell, the other man shot him once more in the head and then ran. All told, Hall heard three shots and saw the man shot twice..."

"The man who had done the shooting ran toward the back of one of the buildings and threw a gun into the bushes behind the building. Despite having witnessed the shooting, Hall continued to chase the boys she had been arguing with before,* and in so doing came again upon the man who had run. The man, who had previously been carrying a small plastic bag, no longer had the bag but now had on a trench coat he had not previously worn...Hall looked at him, then started walking toward her grandmother's house. While walking, she came upon the body of the man who had been shot, and was shocked.** Screaming and crying, she returned to her building..."

[* So, this 15-year-old has just witnessed one man shoot another man in the head -- twice. And right after that, she playfully resumes chasing the boys who'd previously been teasing her and pulling her hair? That's just not credible.] "Hall...described the shooter to police as 5'8", light brown skinned, having an afro..."

"Hall had told her stepmother, Cynthia Hollie, and her cousin, that she was not sure about what she had previously told the police...[At a subsequent meeting where Andre's mother as well as his lawyer were present,] she had said that she felt that she was being bribed by the two policemen who were involved. She also had said, 'they were so nice to me and I was happy when I picked him out, I thought that was him and now I know it's the wrong man.'"

"[Barney] Young testified that he knew the Andre family and had gone to the home in St. Albans Queens about 5 times during the period of 1970-73. On three of these occasions, Shields went with him and, all five times, both [Andre] and his brother were home ...These visits did not occur in any one year between 1970 and 1973 but rather took place throughout that period..."

"[D]efense counsel moved to strike Young's testimony and for a mistrial, on the ground that Young's testimony was 'physically impossible.' As counsel told the court, during the 1970 to 1973 period [Andre] was incarcerated until June 1972...and [his] brother, Ronald Andre, was in federal custody from December 1971 until March of 1974 ...In addition, counsel had a letter dated September 23, 1971, from the lawyer who performed the [17] closing, showing that [Andre's] mother sold the home in St. Albans, Queens, and moved to Shirley, Long Island." [But counsel feared that telling the jury that the two Andre brothers had been in jail would be highly prejuducial.]

"At about 10:00 p.m. on June 3, 1986, Kim Cephus and Toinease Whitney, both 19 at the time of trial, were together outside with their friends in the 40s project. Both women saw a dark-skinned man run toward the back of one of the buildings..."

[21] "Cephus acknowledged having previously testified that she would not be able to identify the man but stated that [Andre] looked nothing like him ...Whitney similarly testified that she did not see in the courtroom the man who did the shooting, and that the photograph of [Andre] at arrest was not that of the man she had seen on June 3, 1986...Indeed, Whitney had previously told the prosecutor that [Andre] was not that man..."

"In summation, defense counsel...pointed to the facts that Hall had described the shooter as 5'8" tall and taller than Shields as well as light-skinned. Counsel pointed out that Shields was 5'10" tall, so that Hall's testimony was impossible, and that [Andre] could not be considered light-skinned ...He also noted that Shields had not been shot in the manner that Hall had depicted* and that [Andre] had an unmistakable mustache in the photo taken of him at arrest, which Hall had not described..."

[* Hall testified that Shields had been shot once in the head while standing, and a second time in the head after the victim fell to the ground. By contrast, the medical examiner testified that Shields was shot 4 times: in the head, back, left thigh, and right thigh. ]

Gathers, Vanessa; manslaughter; NRE: false confession, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, misconduct in interrogation of exoneree

Suggestibility issues

"Inaccuracies Gathers made to authorities about her role in the crime, evidence that police lied about Shaw's death, and a 'complete lack of coherent narrative' in her confession, led [the] conviction review unit to conclude that reasonable doubt existed about her guilt."

"There was no forensic evidence linking her to the crime."