The judge pointed to another piece of evidence involving an inmate at Rikers Island who had spoken with Chapman about the shooting. The inmate sent a letter to prosecutors stating that Chapman admitted that Surria was lured to the crackhouse to be robbed and that Chapman had done the luring. The inmate also said Chapman told her a person other than Lopez had done the killing.
William Lupo, Lopez's attorney at trial, who is now deceased, never made use of the letter.
Lopez was represented at sentencing by Irving Anolik, who told Demarest that he was "totally unfamiliar" with the Lopez case. Anolik also represented Lopez on his unsuccessful appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, but did not pursue a petition for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Although Lopez failed to file a habeas petition within the one-year statute of limitations period, Garaufis excused the lateness because Lopez had made a "credible and compelling showing that he is actually innocent of the crime."
Faulting Demarest, Garaufis also excused Lopez from the bar on re-adjudication of the ineffective assistance claim which had been adjudicated by Demarest because her decision, Garaufis said, was based on "an unreasonable determination of the facts."
Garaufis initially denied Lopez's petition, but the new information on Chapman led him to grant a motion for reconsideration and ultimately allow Lopez to return to state court to exhaust his state remedies—a journey that was completed when Justice Demarest denied his motion to vacate his conviction in 2010 and his appeals failed.
Garaufis then held evidentiary hearings that included the videoconference testimony of Cesar Diaz, who was living in Santo Domingo but was in the crackhouse during the murder.
Shown a picture of Lopez shortly after the shooting, Diaz said he was "certain" that the man in the picture did not kill Surria.
Garaufis was persuaded by Diaz's testimony, the recantations of Chapman as testified to by Eugene Lopez, and the letter from the Rikers inmate.
"There are a number of inconsistencies between the accounts of the three eyewitnesses present at the shooting, but the bottom line is that, in the end, none of them, apparently believed Lopez was there," he said.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
-
Robert J. Feldman
Has ADA Tess Allen been reported to the Disciplinary Committee?
Has Justice Demarest been reported to the Committee on Judicial misconduct?
When is the Brooklyn DA's office going to stop being the worst office in NYC?
-
Ike Aruti, Esq.
It must be snowing in hell.
Bravo to Mr. Hamblett and Judge Garaufis for reporting and speaking out
regarding how our system can destroy the life of an innocent person in a case
which was "Rotton From Day One." It is a rare opportunity to evaluate the
integrity of our government and public officials whose reputations are entitled
to more protections than the People (you and me.)
An unconscionable failure of our justice system having now come to light, the
real question is: What are we going to do about it?
I don't think anybody expects our system to be perfect, but will it do the
responsible thing to address the harm it has caused, and take concrete measures
to prevent recurring failures of this kind? The State's Apology is insufficient, even if the defendant is not a model citizen.
Will the "overzealous and deceitful trial prosecutor" remain licensed to
practice in NY? What about Judge Demarest?
Will there be any investigation of how such prejudicial behavior and bad faith
can exist in the District Attorney's office?
Will section 487 of the Judiciary Law be applied?
What about conspiracy and perjury laws?
Was there any comment from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman? Chief Judge
Lippman?
What actions will be taken by the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the
Attorney Disciplinary/Grievance Committee? Have there been prior reports of
bad faith conduct by these individuals and agencies?
Also, why did multiple Justices in the AD 2d Dept. fail to recognize a case so
obviously "Rotten From Day One, and an unreasonable, incomprehensible Judge?"
Are they not charged with sufficient insight to see past differences in the
abilities of opposing attorneys, identify flimsy evidence used to falsely
imprison a person, and rule in a manner that promotes justice?
Since these agencies operate in secrecy, we rely on reports from courageous
individuals, such as Mr. Hamblett and Judge Garaufis to keep the People
informed. Eternal vigilence, the price of freedom, can never be achieved
without transparency.
I eagerly await your follow up reports....
-
Glenn
One thing I don't understand is how the defense attorneys could be "indolent and ill-prepared" yet make "powerful arguments" to the trial judge.
-
Michael
Wow. And I thought Judge George LoPresto, Queens Criminal, was kidding when he told me, on the record "Guilt or innocence doesn't matter". Used to be a time, when a prosecutor who instructed a witness to lie on the stand, WOULD BE PROSECUTED THEMSELVES. Wonder why that changed.......
-
Sid
One poor soul wins after most of his active life is gone. The prosecutor and judge shrug. No one will ever punish the. And, of course, untold numbers of potential innocents continue to be prosecuted by those who lack a shred of honor.
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments
View all reader comments »