He was “excluded” as a suspect because he was a non match for all the copious amounts of dna evidence on the victim and the murder weapon.
That’s about as exhonerated as you can get.
He was “excluded” as a suspect because he was a non match for all the copious amounts of dna evidence on the victim and the murder weapon.
That’s about as exhonerated as you can get.
—————————————————————
Read the appellate opinion, which lays out a more balanced recitation of the facts. Police found physical evidence belonging to the defendant in the victim’s apartment. He confessed to being in the apartment and watched his co defendant murder the victim. BTW, in 1992 DNA evidence was a brand new concept and crime scenes and victims were not processed as thoroughly then as they are today. So it is not surprising that his DNA was not found. This guy did not testify at either trial, which suggests that he tried or his defense lawyers that he was involved. BTW, as he CLEARLY was in the victim “s apartment at the time of the murder, he just as CLEARLY lied to the cops when he claimed an alibi of being with his wife. Guilty as charged.
FYI, below is a lengthy excerpt from the “exonerated” defendant’s appeal back in 1994, where the appellate court reversed the murder conviction on the grounds that the trial court should have severed, i.e., held separate trials, for the defendant and his co-defendant Gregory Brown. The defendant was convicted at a second trial. The appellate court lays out a factual scenario quite at odds with the Innocence Project’s claim that the defendant was exonerated:
1)The defendant admitted to police being in the victim’s apartment at the time of the murder.
2) The police recovered physical evidence in the apartment that belonged to the defendant.
3) The defendant implicated a co-defendant named Brown as the murderer and provided an alibi for the third co-defendant named McKee, claiming to the police that after Brown committed the murder, he told McKee to go inside the apartment where the victim was already dead-—But......McKee pleaded guilty to the murder and implicated the defendant in the beating death!!
4) In another appeal raised by the defendant, which was denied, the appellate court noted that a separate witness testified that he overheard McKee and the defendant plotting to sell the victim fake drugs, which contradicts the defendant’s claim to police that it was co-defendant Brown’s independent plan to himself sell the victim fake drugs for sex. This same independent witness saw the three co-defendants together outside of the residence/crime scene.
5) In sum, the Defendant admitted to the police that he was inside the victim’s residence. He admitted that he personally witnessed the murder inside the residence. The police found belongings of the defendant in the apartment. The defendant (and his wife) falsely told the cops that the defendant was at home at the time of the murder. The defendant falsely told the cops that he had nothing to do with a drug rip-off plan, whereas an independent witness testified that he heard the defendant preparing the plan and saw all three defendants with the victim just before the murder.
The DNA evidence “exonerates” the defendant? No. DNA was not used in trials until the mid-90s, so the police in 1992 did not process the crime scene with DNA in mind. Three men had sex with the victim and police recovered some pubic hair and semen that did not match the defendant. That does not exonerate him. It undoubtedly matched one of the co-defendants. Again, the police in 1992 did not collect evidence like they do today to preserve DNA or hunt for DNA. To believe that this guy is innocent you have to believe: 1) he did not make the inculpatory statement that HE SIGNED to the police; 2) that co-defendant McKee pleaded guilty to a murder he did NOT commit and lied and implicated the defendant in that same murder; 3) that an independent witness lied about the defendant plotting to rip-off the victim; 4) that a guy would watch a murder and do nothing to stop it; 5) that belongings of the defendant somehow got into the victim’s residence by osmosis.....
Below is the appellate court’s opinion:
Defendant and codefendants Willie McKee and Gregory Brown were charged with murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree ( Penal Law § 265.01 [2]) in connection with the beating death of Cheryl Coleman. Prior to trial, defendant moved to sever the charges against him from those against McKee and Brown. That motion was denied. Thereafter, McKee entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and agreed to testify for the prosecution at the trial of defendant and Brown.
McKee testified that he, Brown and defendant all participated in the beating death of Coleman in an apartment at the corner of Lafayette and Salina Streets in the City of Syracuse. According to McKee, Coleman had agreed to have sexual relations with the three men in exchange for two bags of cocaine. After having sex [***2] with the men and being given fake cocaine by Brown, Coleman became enraged. When she began screaming and cursing at Brown, he picked up a two-by-four lying in the hallway and repeatedly hit Coleman in the head and face. McKee testified that he and defendant thereafter took turns hitting Coleman with the board. Although physical evidence of defendant’s presence was collected from the apartment, none conclusively established either that defendant had sex with Coleman or that he participated in her beating.
[**82] Upon his apprehension by police, defendant gave a statement wherein he admitted that he was in the apartment at [*1094] the time of Coleman’s death. Defendant indicated, however, that it was Brown who was first in the apartment with Coleman, that only Brown had sex with Coleman, that it was Brown who gave Coleman the fake cocaine, that only Brown bludgeoned Coleman, and that McKee came to the apartment only after defendant went to get him.
Although defendant’s statement was found admissible at a pretrial Huntley hearing, at trial, the court, in order to protect the Bruton rights (see, Bruton v United States, 391 US 123) of Brown, redacted all references [***3] to Brown in defendant’s statement. That redaction transformed defendant’s statement from one which was substantially exculpatory to one which was highly inculpatory. The redacted statement that was admitted at trial indicates that only defendant was present with Coleman prior to her bludgeoning and that, after defendant had provided Coleman with fake drugs, he took McKee to the premises and told McKee that Coleman was probably dead inside the apartment. The prejudice suffered by defendant as a result of the redaction was exacerbated by testimony from an investigator that defendant admitted being in the apartment at the time Coleman was killed.
People v. Lewis, 182 A.D.2d 1093, 1093-94, 583 N.Y.S.2d 81, 81-82 (App. Div. 4th Dept. 1992)