Summary of Jesse Friedman's Legal Motion

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

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

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.