Summary of Jesse Friedman's Legal Motion

Summary explanation of Jesse Friedman's Legal Filing by Jesse Friedman

** ** ** NEW UPDATE ** ** **

We just got the official decision from the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals here in New York. In August, 2010, almost 22 years after my arrest, and seven years after finally having the opportunity to file an appeal of my conviction, we have a decision from the mouths of the American judiciary. Here is the decision from The Court. Most readers will want to skip to the bottom of page 18, section "II." which is where The Court moves from "legalize" and begins to dissect the credibility of the evidence levied against me.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has called upon the Nassau County District Attorney's office to initiate a full investigation of the evidence against me and the manner in which is was obtained, to ferret out the long-standing truth I have fought tirelessly to proclaim. And thus did Kathleen Rice. Here is the statement from the District Attorney's office:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in affirming the conviction of Jesse Friedman has at the same time expressed concerns regarding his guilty plea. In its decision, the Court has asked me to conduct a complete review of the underlying case against Mr. Friedman. I have assembled a committee of seasoned prosecutors from my office to begin this process. The investigation will, necessarily, involve examination of the work of a prior district attorney's administration and of former Nassau County law-enforcement personnel. Because of this unique set of circumstances, and, in an effort to ensure the transparency and impartiality of the investigative process, I have chosen to impanel a team of recognized law-enforcement, legal and social science experts to work alongside my prosecutors throughout this investigation. Once I have completed the expert selection process, the names of those enlisted will be made public. I have already ordered that all the records and files from this conviction be delivered to my investigative team and I expect to waste no time in starting this necessary process. A prosecutor's job is not to obtain convictions, but to obtain justice. I cannot predict whether or not our investigation will corroborate the criminal case brought against Mr. Friedman more than two decades ago. What I can guarantee is that my investigation will be thorough and it will be fair.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals said:

In this case, the quality of the evidence was extraordinarily suspect and never subjected to vigorous cross-examination or the judgment of a properly instructed jury.

Petitioner [that’s me] has come forward with substantial evidence that flawed interviewing techniques were used to produce a flood of allegations, which the then-District Attorney of Nassau County wrung into over two hundred claims of child sexual abuse against petitioner. Petitioner never had an opportunity to explore how the evidence against him was obtained. On the contrary, the police, prosecutors, and the judge did everything they could to coerce a guilty plea and avoid a trial. Thus, with the number of counts in the indictments and Judge Boklan’s threat to impose the highest conceivable sentence for each charge, petitioner faced a virtually certain life sentence if he was convicted at trial. And the likelihood that any jury pool would be tainted seemed to ensure that petitioner would be convicted if he went to trial, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Nor could he have reasonably expected to receive a fair trial from Judge Boklan, who admitted that she never had any doubt of the defendant’s guilt even before she heard any of the evidence or the means by which it was obtained. Even if innocent, petitioner may well have pled guilty.

Only a reinvestigation of the underlying case or the development of a complete record in a collateral proceeding can provide a basis for determining whether petitioner’s conviction should be set aside. We hope that, even if she continues to oppose relief in collateral legal proceedings, the current Nassau County District Attorney, who was not responsible for the investigation and prosecution of Jesse Friedman, will undertake the kind of complete review of the underlying case suggested in the Comment to Rule 3.8.

We had hopes to finally call witnesses and possibly achieve a fair hearing of the facts and evidence against me.

For decades I have fought the good fight, knowing that expecting to achieve anything even remotely resembling "justice" in America was a rare, rare event. I am extremely proud of what my family, friends, supporters, attorneys, and well-wishers have accomplished against formidable obstacles.

It is sad that while The Court so clearly understood the likelihood of there being indisputable proof of my innocence within the investigation record, they were bound by procedural law to deny my petition for relief, saying:

"While the law may require us to deny relief in this case, it does not compel us to do so without voicing some concern regarding the process by which the petitioner’s conviction was obtained."

For now I am cautiously optimistic. While I have reservations about trusting the Nassau County District Attorney's office (given all my history) I shall take Kathleen Rice at her word, and until she proves otherwise, trust that there will in fact be a fair and thorough investigation.

July 2007

We won the appeal! . . . . sort of.

On July 21st Judge Joanna Seybert issued her Decision on the matter of our federal Habeas Corpus petition, and she granted us a hearing. The explanation of what this turn of events means legally, please see my appeal page. That is where you'll find updates on the status of the petition. A pdf of the Memorandum of Law, the legal brief of my appeal, is available to be viewed or downloaded. I have also made available twelve affidavits submitted in support of my motion.

This is some background information on the appeal

On January 8, 2004, I filed a motion to overturn my conviction under the New York Criminal Procedure Law (Article 440). The motion was filed at the Nassau County Courthouse, and is similar to the appeals of dozens of similar late 80’s mass sex abuse cases, which have now largely been overturned.

The 3-year investigation done by the filmmakers in the course of making Capturing the Friedmans uncovered a tremendous amount of exonerating material. The prosecution had a legal obligation to share this information with me at the time they became aware of it, but they kept it secret from me and my lawyer. Had I known of this information before, I would have been able to use it at trial and prove my innocence. It is my hope that by presenting this information now, I will be able to overturn my conviction and clear my name.

The material that was not disclosed by the prosecutors is known as “Brady material”, named for the case Brady v. Maryland, in which it was established that a prosecutor has an obligation to disclose to a defendant any information that could be potentially exculpatory, including evidence that would undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

In a 1000-page filing, the Memorandum of Law argues that had this information been disclosed to me at the time, I would have had a substantially better chance of prevailing at trial, and therefore would not have pled guilty to crimes I did not commit. The brief includes numerous supporting affidavits, including a number of former students from the computer classes.

Current information on the status of the appeal is available at the Website of my Legal Defense Fund, which is being sponsored by the National Center for Reason and Justice, a non-profit group which works to raise public awareness to issues of false child abuse accusations.

The following is a partial summary of facts that came to light during the making of the film:

· The vast majority of the computer students interviewed by the police had no recollection of any abuse despite being visited by the police many times. The police had notes of these interviews, but never provided them to the defense as they were required to do under Brady v. Maryland.

· Students who eventually provided testimony that they had been abused, had no recollection of such abuse until after they had been subjected to up to five kinds of manipulative and suggestive questioning by the police -- questioning methods now proven to produce false statements from children. For example:

o One of the computer students who became a key witness in the case, admitted that he did not remember any of the abuse he alleged until after he was hypnotized, a technique proven to lead to false memories.

o Police detectives admit to having provided the students with incentives to encourage them to provide testimony, including in one case having pizza parties, and offering to “deputize” cooperative children.

o One detective admits to visiting a student 15 separate times in order to finally procure incriminating testimony despite the child’s consistent statement that he had not been abused. See: David Kuhn Affidavit

o A number of computer students admit to having provided false testimony in order to “end the questioning” and that they actually did not experience the abuse to which they had testified. See: Brian Tilker Affidavit

o One team of detectives, in a tape recorded interview, told one of the computer students who was adamantly insisting that he had not been abused, that he could become a homosexual if he did not admit to the abuse. See: Interrogation

Under New York law, where Brady material is withheld from the defense despite specific requests for it, like those made in this case, reversal of a conviction is required if there is a “reasonable possibility” that the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory information contributed to the defendant’s conviction.

I was released from prison on December 7, 2001, after having served 13 years, for crimes that never occurred. At my release, under the rules of Megan’s Law, I was classified as a “Level 3 Violent Sexual Predator” by Judge Boklan, the same judge who sentenced me in 1988, and will remain subject to the harshest provisions of Megan’s Law for the rest of my life. I am currently attending Hunter College. In addition to spending time working on my appeal, I have also been devoting my time to helping raise awareness and funds to exonerate falsely accused people who remain in prison.