Some people have asked me to explain what it means that the Nassau County DA’s office has agreed not to oppose our request for a hearing based on Jesse’s claim of actual innocence. Based on this, it is almost certain we’ll be granted a hearing by the judge in the case, and we’ll be able to present all the new evidence we’ve collected over the past 11 years.
But even if we get our hearing, the fight is far from over. Let me explain what this means to our case…
First, let’s talk about what “actual innocence” means. In the simplest of terms, rather than our having to argue that Jesse’s conviction should be overturned based on some legal technicality or error, we can finally argue that the conviction needs to be overturned because Jesse is “actually, factually innocent.” It seems like common sense that someone wrongfully convicted should be able to argue their conviction should be overturned if they can prove they are “actually innocent” of the charges against them. But that has only been the case since January of this year, when a landmark case established a defendant’s right in New York State to make this kind of claim.
In Jesse’s case, we can prove conclusively not only that he did not commit any crimes, but the crimes themselves actually never occurred. Remember one of the strangest things about Jesse’s case is that no claim was ever made by any of the alleged victims until the police started bullying witnesses, and writing statements on their behalf. To be clear — over the five year period in which the Friedman computer classes took place, no computer student or parent ever made any charge that they had been harmed in any way. Similarly, no doctor or teacher or parent ever saw any medical or forensic evidence of the hundreds of violent attacks the police had alleged.
We have a lot of evidence, including recantations from witnesses, statements from other students in the computer classes stating nothing happened and documents indicating that the police pressured children into making claims of abuse that never occurred. But proving innocence after a conviction isn’t as easy as presenting new evidence and statements. It tends to be much more difficult than proving innocence at a trial, where the defendant is supposed to enjoy a presumption of innocence. Ironically, as you may recall, Judge Boklan, who originally presided over the case, openly declared her certainty that both Jesse and his father were guilty, demonstrating clear and unwavering bias that drove her hostility toward Jesse during the case. Also, appeals and post-conviction cases mostly focus on errors made by the defendant’s legal representation, not on proof of the innocence of the defendant which, in most cases would have been presented at the trial (but remember, Jesse never had a trial).
We also have documents proving that back in 1988 the DA withheld a significant amount of evidence of Jesse’s innocence. This material — known as “Brady material” for the Brady v. Maryland case that mandated police and prosecutors turn over evidence that shows the defendant is innocent — must be turned over to the defense, though in Jesse’s case it never was. In fact, though the DA admits they have thousands of pages of police reports and other evidence, they have for 27 years withheld this information from Jesse’s defense. In 2010, Judge Winslow of the State Supreme Court ordered ordered that “every scrap of paper” in the DA’s files must be turned over to Jesse’s legal team. Of course DA Rice is appealing that decision.
At the moment, our biggest challenge is the judge who’s been assigned to the case, Teresa Corrigan. The problem with Judge Corrigan is that she is a close friend and longtime employee of DA Kathleen Rice, whose opposition to Jesse’s efforts has prevented any unbiased review of the case. There is no reason to believe Judge Corrigan, who was recommended for judgeship by Kathleen Rice, will be able to rule that her close friend made terrible errors and misstatements in an effort to re-affirm Jesse’s conviction.
We’ve asked Judge Corrigan to recuse herself on more than one occasion and for more than one reason. Corrigan was appointed ADA by Kathleen Rice and worked closely with Rice for many years. She was also a close colleague of Meg Reiss, DA Rice’s Chief of Staff who headed the Friedman reinvestigation and who was one of Corrigan’s largest financial supporters in her bid for judgeship, and a colleague of Sheryl Anania as well. All three worked together at the Brooklyn DA’s office for several years. In addition, Corrigan and Reiss were hand-picked by Rice to head up the investigation into the crime lab closure in Nassau County. She worked with Rice, Reiss and Anania while our case was on appeal and during the reinvestigation.
So while Rice does not oppose our hearing (a very good thing), our struggle to be heard in a fair and impartial setting goes on.
Thanks for reading and I’ll post again soon. — September 17, 2014