More than twenty years ago, a Bronx detective revealed to me that he knew two men imprisoned for the 1990 murder of a Manhattan nightclub bouncer were innocent, therefore introducing me to the secret epidemic of false convictions. What made him so certain? He answered, “Because I know who did it.”
My life was transformed by that conversation, which also gave me a newfound sense of purpose as a journalist.
For almost 30 years, I have been involved in every facet of the legal system as a producer for NBC’s Dateline. I’ve been embedded with defense lawyers, prosecutors, and investigators for years. Numerous victims of crime have told me stories that will never be forgotten. I’ve spoken with numerous jurors, judges, and death row inmates. I’ve also been incarcerated for hundreds of days.
Six innocent guys were set free thanks to my decades of reporting.
My extended exposure to every aspect of our legal system has brought to light one unavoidable problem: the startlingly high rate of incarceration of innocent individuals and the impossibility of redressing such injustice, even when it is clear.
This sobering fact is supported by statistics. Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the Innocence Project, believes that the most reasonable estimates suggest that at least 100,000 of the almost 2 million individuals incarcerated in America may have been wrongly convicted. However, no one knows the exact number of innocent people behind bars. However, just 3,500 people have been cleared in 30 years.
We are aware of the main causes of erroneous convictions: untrustworthy witnesses. false admissions, frequently obtained under pressure. incompetent defense lawyers. witnesses who have an incentive to tell lies. misbehavior by the police and the prosecution. Junk forensic science.
These issues play a major role in the predicament of the six released prisoners whose cases I looked into over the course of 20 years, as told in the NBC News Studios documentary series The Sing Sing Chronicles and my most recent book, The Sing Sing Files.
For the 1998 murder of a veteran police officer in Harlem, Jon-Adrian JJ Velazquez received a sentence ranging from 25 years to life. He was not connected to the scene by any physical or forensic evidence; the case against him was based solely on eyewitness identification. There were even two alibi witnesses for him. My 20-year inquiry turned up crucial information his lawyers never viewed before his trial, two eyewitnesses who later recanted, and a pattern of dubious police and prosecutorial techniques. He was in service for about 24 years.
Olmedo Hidalgo and David Lemus were both given 25–life sentences for the 1990 murder of a nightclub bouncer in Manhattan. The two men were strangers. Eyewitness identification was a key component of the case against them. My inquiry led to a court hearing and the discovery of further evidence and wrongdoing. Key eyewitnesses said they were mistaken after I spoke with the real shooter. Each man had a 15-year sentence.
Eric Glisson was given a 25–life sentence for killing a cab driver in the Bronx in 1995. By exposing false evidence and oppressive police practices, my inquiry added to the larger discussion surrounding police reform and the reliability of criminal investigations. He spent almost eighteen years behind bars.
For the 1990 robbery and murder of a Utah tourist on a Manhattan subway platform, Johnny Hincapie received a sentence ranging from 25 years to life. At the age of 17, he made a false confession under duress, which served as the basis for his conviction. He was incarcerated for 25 years.
Richard Rosario was convicted of killing a teenager in the Bronx in 1996 and given a sentence ranging from 25 years to life. Even though he gave authorities the names of 13 alibi witnesses who would swear he was in Florida a thousand miles away at the time of the crime, he was nonetheless arrested and found guilty based only on eyewitness testimony. Those witnesses, who included a clergyman, a federal prison officer, and a police officer, were not contacted by authorities or his trial lawyers. I spoke with the majority of them, which finally resulted in his release. He spent 20 years in prison.
I’ve learned about the deeper disease of mass incarceration through my job. We have produced a misleading narrative that fuels calls for politicians to be tough on crime, but far too frequently, the outcome has weakened rather than improved public safety.
Take into account the startlingly high recidivism rates among those who have served time. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, almost 70% of individuals who are released from jail are arrested again within three years. However, financing for prison education programs is still severely inadequate, and some prisons do not offer any educational chances at all, despite research showing that these programs reduce recidivism by about 45%.
Additionally, studies have demonstrated that extended isolation raises rates of violence and mental illness, which have a substantial impact on rehabilitation and reintegration into society, even though the use of solitary confinement is frequently rationalized as a necessary tool for safety and discipline. However, the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit focused on criminal justice reform, claims that tens of thousands of Americans are confined to solitary confinement on a daily basis.
People continue to believe that crime is an epidemic, telling pollsters year after year that it is more violent than it has ever been, so there is little public outcry to reform jail conditions.In actuality, however, the United States has witnessed a noteworthy trend for over 15 years: all but five states have seen a decrease in the majority of crime rates.
The system frequently causes chaos, even for people who are charged with minor infractions. Individuals may lose their houses, their jobs, and their kids. Furthermore, obtaining release from prison in those infrequent instances does not equate to complete freedom.
In August 2021, New York s governor granted JJ Velazquez clemency, reducing his sentence and allowing him to go home after he had spent almost a quarter-century in a cell. But his conviction wasn t vacated, and he was subject to strict parole requirements, like adhering to a 9 p.m. curfew, regularly reporting to a parole officer and obtaining a letter if he ever wanted to travel out of state.
It was only this September that he finally won his exoneration based on DNA testing that could have cleared him years ago.
He declared outside the courthouse, “This isn’t a celebration.” This is a systemic indictment.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!