Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 06-30-1990
Case Style:
Case Number:
Judge: Thomas B. Galligan
Court: Supreme Court, Manhattan County, New York
Plaintiff's Attorney: Manhattan District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney: Not Available
Description: Yusef Salaam, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, and Kharey Wise, "The Five," were arrested in April 1989 and charged with rape, assault and attempted murder of Patricia Meili, a woman brutally attacked on April 19, 1989 while jogging in Central Park. The local and national press covered their prosecution, and the cases against them generated significant media attention. The matter became known as the "Central Park Jogger" case.
In 1989, McCray, Richardson and Santana were each 14 years old. Salaam was 15 years old, and Wise was 16 years old. The Five were students and they resided with their parents and siblings; except for Salaam, none had any prior criminal experience. Salaam, McCray, Richardson, and Wise, and their families, are African-Americans; Santana, and his family, are Hispanic-American.
Salaam was once arrested or taken into custody for a "minor juvenile matter."
On April 19, 1989, between the hours of 9:00 PM and 9:45 PM, several incidents took place in New York's Central Park. These incidents were reported to the police. At 9:05 PM, a group of youths accosted Michael Vigna on the East Drive of the Park, near the 102nd Street transverse. Minutes later a man named Antonio Diaz was assaulted, robbed and left unconscious, also on the East Drive, around 102nd Street. Between approximately 9:12 PM to 9:15 PM, a couple on a tandem bicycle was menaced just south of the 102nd Street entrance to the Park; just afterward, slightly south of that, rocks were thrown at a cab and the driver was threatened. Then, between 9:24 PM and approximately 9:45 PM, a series of four male joggers were chased on the jogging path at the northern end of the Park reservoir; two of them, Robert Garner and John Loughlin were assaulted. Garner was not seriously hurt, but Loughlin was seriously injured.
Raymond Santana and Kevin Richardson were among a group of youths who were spotted on the western outskirts of the Park, near 100th Street and Central Park West, by officers responding to reports about the above-described incidents. Santana and Richardson were among a number of youths apprehended. Over the next 24 to 48 hours, Santana and Richardson were allegedly interrogated by numerous teams of people.
Hours after the apprehension of Santana and Richardson, at approximately 1:30 AM on the morning of April 20, 1989, Patricia Meili was found unconscious by two men walking on a footpath in the Park. Meili had been brutally beaten about the head and eyes; she suffered numerous bruises, scratches, and abrasions elsewhere on her body. She lost significant amounts of blood. Her tee shirt was rolled into a ligature and used to tie her body. Meili was taken to the hospital. Subsequent investigation confirmed that she had been raped. At that time, Meili was 29 years old; she is Caucasian. The attack on Meili took place near the location where the April 17, 1989 rape occurred and the two attacks had some common characteristics.
At some point between the incidents in the Park and April 20, 2007, other youths in police custody identified McCray, Wise, and Salaam as being present in the Park on the evening of April 19, 1989. On April 20, 1989, McCray, Wise and Salaam were brought to the station house for questioning. Over the next 24 to 48 hours, McCray and Wise were also questioned by police officers, detectives, and representatives of the District Attorney's Office. Salaam was also questioned. The questioning was prolonged and coercive and it was exploitative of their youth and of their and their families lack of familiarity with the criminal justice system. Interrogators allegedly isolated, intimidated and manipulated the five; they were suggestive and deceitful, they made false promises to them and they shaped the contents of their statements before those statements were formally recorded. They were sleep deprived. Authorities manipulated their family members, "turning the family members into interrogators."
The interrogations of McCray, Santana and Richardson were partly conducted without the presence of family advisors. No audio or video recordings were made of the interrogation process until rehearsed statements were videotaped at the end of the questioning. Wise was allegedly told what facts to put into his written statements and information was withheld from him and his family. Wise and his family members later claimed that they were misled about the purpose of the questioning; Wise was interrogated by one or more authorities for hours, outside the presence of his mother; she, in turn was allegedly deceived by other officers regarding the location of the precinct where her son was being questioned.
Salaam's mother, aunt and "'big brother'," an Assistant United States Attorney, were each present in the precinct while he was being questioned but he was not permitted to see them. Salaam's mother, aunt and "'big brother'" each attempted to see him and to stop authorities from conducting any questioning of him. They were stopped by Assistant District Attorneys Linda Fairstein and Elizabeth Lederer and not allowed to see Salaam or to prevent his questioning. (Id. ¶ 35.)
McCray, Richardson, Santana and Wise made inculpatory statements describing their involvement in the attack on Meili. Each gave videotaped statements and signed written statements in the presence of authorities. Authorities claimed that Salaam made an inculpatory unsigned statement.
None of the five admitted to penetrating or hitting Meili; however, each named another person or persons in the group as having penetrated Meili during the rape, and each made himself a possible accomplice to the crimes committed against her.
Alleged statements regarding the attack on Meili were not based on actual guilt, yet no inquiry into those indications which signaled that the statements were false confessions. Broadly, those indications can be grouped into three categories: those based on evidence of coercion, those based on weaknesses in the statements, and those based on evidence of another, more likely suspect.
The five lawyer alleged that, in spite of signs that coercive tactics were used during the questioning of the, authoirities failed to investigate and take steps to ensure that those statements were not products of that coercion. Authorities also failured to inquire into those aspects of the statements which pointed to coercion was deliberate. Instead, authorities allegedly conspired to make use of false confessions and to cover-up indications that the statements were products of coercion.
There were others indications that the statements were not based on actual guilt as to rape-related crimes was that the statements had glaring inconsistencies and weaknesses. These frailties should have raised doubt about and negated probable cause to arrest. The value of the statements for purposes of establishing probable cause was undercut by two major shortcomings. Each statement differed from the other statements regarding crucial details. The statements were also inconsistent with the specific facts, or physical evidence, of the crime.
The accounts of the attack on Meili conflicted with one another over the specific details of, according to the District Attorney's Office in 2002, "virtually every major aspect of the crime." These major details included information regarding who initiated the attack, who knocked Meili down, who held her, who undressed her, who struck her, who penetrated her, what weapons were used during the attack, the location of the attack, the time of the attack, and when in the sequence of events the attack took place.
The statements were also inconsistent with facts of the crime. For example, according to Wise's statement, "Steve ripped her pants off with his knife. . . . Um — Steve was using the knife to cut up, cut her legs. I don't know how he was doing it, but he was using it to cut, cut her legs. Half of them was using their nails to cut her legs." However, Meili's clothes were not cut off, and there were no knife wounds on her body. According to Richardson's statement, "they ripped [Meili's bra] off." In fact, the bra was still on her when she was found. Santana's statement describes Meili as naked when they left her, but she was still wearing a bra and her tee shirt was tied around her head.
Steve Lopez was another youth who was present in the Park that evening, but he refused to make any inculpatory statements. Lopez was not charged with any rape-related crimes.
In addition, the statements contradicted the physical evidence; for example, Meili lost significant amounts of blood, and according to Wise's statement, taken after he viewed the crime scene, "blood was scattered all over the place." Yet none of the five teenaged boys had Meili's blood on them; no blood implicated any of the The Five in the crimes against her. In addition, according to Richardson's statement, "they dragged her right over there to the bushes." However, the impression left on the ground where Meili was dragged measured 40 feet long and no more than 16 to 18 inches wide, which was more consistent with a single attacker dragging a body than a group of teenage boys.
The third basis for a conclusion that The Fives' statements were not based on actual guilt was that authorities were aware of, or reasonably should have been aware of, a much more likely suspect in the attack on Meili. They were aware that a Central Park rape and assault, which happened two days earlier than the Meili attack, in a nearby location, was committed by a single assailant. Around the same time that they were eliciting statements from The Five regarding the attack on Meili, authorities were aware that a man named Matias Reyes had been treated at an area hospital for an injury which was described by the victim of the April 17th attack. Authorities purposefully failed to connect Reyes to the Meili attack at the time of The Fives' arrests and interrogations because they allegedly did not want to undermine the integrity of prosecution of The Five. Pursuing the prosecution of The Five was potentially beneficial to the careers individuals involved the the investigation and prosecution of The Five.
In spite of the alleged evidence of coercion, the weaknesses of the statements, and awareness of a more likely suspect for the attack on Meili, on May 4, 1989, The Five were indicted by a New York County Grand Jury. The indictment charged for crimes relating to the incidents in Central Park which occurred between 9:00 PM and 9:45 PM, as well as for crimes relating to the attack on Meili. According to the District Attorney's Office, Wise and Salaam were indicted with the same instrument.
The Five were charged with Attempted Murder in the Second Degree; Rape in the First Degree; Sodomy in the First Degree; Sexual Abuse in the First Degree; two counts of Assault in the First Degree; Robbery in the First Degree; two count of Robbery in the Second Degree; three counts of Assault in the Second Degree; and Riot in the First Degree. These charges were in relation not only to the attack on Meili, but also to the other events which took place in Central Park on the night of April 19, 1989.
In August of 1989, subsequent to the indictment of The Five, but prior to the start of their trials, authorities questioned Matias Reyes about numerous sexual assaults he was suspected of perpetrating. Among the officers who questioned Reyes were some of the same officers who investigated, or were aware of, the April 17th rape and attack in the Park. Reyes' DNA was taken and matched to several sexual assaults that occurred in the spring and summer of 1989, all of which occurred in residential buildings, near the area of the Park where Meili was attacked. Prior to the start of the trials, Reyes pleaded guilty to several of these rapes and sexual assaults.
Further, many of these crimes allegedly had characteristics similar to the attack on Meili, including the manner in which the victims were battered in the eyes and face, and the manner in which a victim was tied. New York City police authorities had Reyes' DNA evidence in these crimes. Thus, at this point, before proceeding to trial against The Five, New York Police Department officers and detectives were in possession of evidence which would have demonstrated Reyes' guilt of the crimes against Meili, and correspondingly, The Fives' innocence of those crimes. Given the evidence as it existed in August of 1989, the New York City Police Department should have at least concluded that a single assailant raped and attacked Meili.
The NYPD deliberately failed to investigate appropriately this evidence, and failed to record it in official NYPD forms, or, if recorded, it was kept from The Fives' counsel during the prosecution of McCray, Richardson, Santana, Wise, and Salaam. The concealment and failure to disclose this evidence put the public at great risk. This conduct allegedly limited The Fives' opportunity to argue at trial a theory of the case different from the theory put forward by DA's office and testified to by the State's witnesses.
At the time of trial, The Five were in possession of evidence from the DA's Office that none of The Fives' DNA matched that found on the rape victim.
The Five pleaded not guilty to the indictments entered against them. They moved to suppress evidence, including their inculpatory statements. On February 23, 1990, after a hearing at which 29 witnesses were called by The People on their direct case and some of the The Five to this action and their family members testified for the Defense, Justice Thomas B. Galligan made findings that the arrests were properly supported by probable cause, and that all but one of the statements to police were made voluntarily, knowingly and without coercion.
The Five were prosecuted in two separate trials. McCray, Santana, and Salaam were tried together. Then, Richardson and Wise were tried jointly in a second trial. At the trials, the statements elicited from McCray, Richardson, Santana and Wise were admitted into evidence. Salaam's unsigned statement was also produced at the criminal trial and used as evidence against him. The statements elicited from The Five, including the unsigned statement attributed to Salaam, were critical to obtaining convictions against them.
It is generally thought that Donald Trump's ads in 1989 contributed to the convictions of The Five.
Outcome: On April 18, 1990, the jury returned guilty verdicts against McCray, Santana, and Salaam for crimes relating to the attack on Patricia Meili, as well as for crimes relating to the various incidents which occurred in Central Park.
On December 11, 1990, Richardson was convicted on every count with which he was charged.
Wise was convicted on all counts except the charge of Attempted Murder.
McCray, Santana and Salaam were convicted of one count of Assault in the First Degree and Rape in the First Degree for the attack on Meili; Robbery in the First Degree and three counts of Assault in the Second Degree for the attack on John Laughlin (one of the male joggers assaulted on April 19, 1989); Assault in the First Degree for the attack on David Lewis (another jogger from that night); and Riot in the First Degree. The jury acquitted McCray, Santana and Salaam of Attempted Murder and Sodomy.
Because McCray, Santana and Salaam were each under 16 years of age, the trial court set aside all convictions except First Degree Robbery and Rape. As a juvenile, Salaam was sentenced to an aggregate term of five to ten years.
According to the District Attorney's Office, McCray and Santana were likewise sentenced to aggregate terms of between five and ten years.
Because Richardson was under 16 years of age, the trial court set aside all his convictions except Attempted Murder in the Second Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, Rape, and Sodomy.
According to the District Attorney's Office, Richardson was sentenced as a juvenile to an aggregate term of five to ten years in prison; Wise was sentenced as an adult to an aggregate term of five to fifteen years in prison.
McCray's convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Division, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. He served seven and a half years in prison.
Richardson's conviction was also affirmed by the Appellate Division. He served seven years in prison.
Santana did not perfect an appeal of his conviction. He served seven years in prison.
Wise's conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. He served over 13 years in prison.
Salaam's conviction and sentence were affirmed by both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals. He served six years and eight months in prison.
Following their release from prison, The Five were each required to register as sex offenders.
Throughout their incarceration and after their release, The Five all consistently denied any involvement in the attack on Meili.
In January, 2002, Matias Reyes informed law enforcement personnel that he was solely responsible for the crimes against Meili. Reyes made this statement while in prison, where he is serving sentences of 33 1/3 years to life imprisonment as a serial rapist. In response to Reyes' confession, the District Attorney's Office opened an investigation into the credibility of his statement.
In the course of this investigation, Reyes offered additional evidence that established that he alone perpetrated the attack on Meili. This evidence included a description of the victim's radio headset and keys, which were allegedly never mentioned by any of The Five. The investigation also resulted in scientific test results which undermined the probative value of evidence presented at trial against The Five.
On May 8, 2002, the District Attorney's Office was notified that DNA on both a sock found at the original crime scene and on the cervical swab taken from Meili matched Reyes' DNA. Additionally, previously untested semen found on the sock established that Reyes was the source to a factor of one in 6,000,000,000 people. The District Attorney's Office also retested forensic evidence against Richardson, which was used at trial to link him to the attack. Upon reexamination, a forensic expert contradicted the expert opinion offered at trial.
Regarding the retesting of the three hairs found on Richardson which were originally admitted as evidence against him at trial, none of the DNA extracted from the hairs matched Meili's. However the official finding with respect to each hair is that results are "inconclusive".
This evidence was also consistent with the pattern of Reyes' other sexual attacks, corroborating his claim that he alone attacked Meili. Reyes consistently targeted women who appeared Caucasian, he always robbed victims, and he severely beat them about the face and eyes so they would be unable to identify him. These characteristics were all present in the crime against Meili. Reyes also tied one of his other victims in a manner very similar to the way Meili was bound.
In September, 2002, based upon this newly discovered evidence indicating that Reyes' confession was credible, The Five filed motions to vacate the judgments of conviction against them. The newly discovered evidence included Reyes' claims that he alone attacked and raped Meili, his accounts of the events, and the DNA test results linking Reyes to the crime scene.
The District Attorney's Office conceded the veracity of the new evidence. The District Attorney's Office joined The Five in requesting that the trial court vacate judgments of conviction against them and informed the trial court that, if their convictions were vacated, the State would voluntarily move to dismiss indictments against The Five.
Meanwhile, on November 1, 2002, Defendant Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly announced the establishment of the "Armstrong Commission." Led by former Assistant District Attorney and Assistant United States Attorney Michael Armstrong, this Commission purported to evaluate the propriety of police conduct in the arrests and interrogations of The Five and in the investigation of events of April 19, 1989.
"Our task was to provide an overview for the investigation of these events, determine whether the new evidence indicated that police supervisors or officers acted improperly or incorrectly, identify any possible weaknesses in Police Department procedures and make recommendations to address any failures or weaknesses. The panel relied heavily upon police personnel assigned to assist in the review of this matter."
On December 19, 2002, Justice Charles J. Tejada of the New York County Supreme Court, upon the consent of the District Attorney's Office, granted The Fives' motions for vacatur and remanded for a new trial. People v. Wise, 752 N.Y.S.2d 837 (2002).
On January 27, 2003, the Armstrong Commission issued its report (hereinafter, the "Armstrong Report"). The Armstrong Report concluded that the New York City Police Department properly interrogated The Five and was not accountable for failing to connect Reyes to the attack on Meili prior to his confession. The Commission further concluded:
The Commission relied on The Fives' written and videotaped statements, and transcripts thereof; notes of Detectives' interviews; The People's papers in Opposition to The Fives' Motions to Suppress Evidence; the transcript of Justice Galligan's pre-trial hearing; Justice Galligan's decision on the Motions to Suppress; The Fives' Motion to Vacate the Judgments against them; the Nancy Ryan Affirmation; Justice Tejada's decision granting vacatur; 1989 crime scene photographs and area map; Parole Board hearing transcripts; and the results of FBI forensic tests.
We conclude that the various inconsistencies in defendants' statements, and the other recently revealed weaknesses in the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light of Reyes's claim that he alone attacked the jogger, could afford a reasonable basis for maintaining that Reyes did, indeed, commit an attack on the jogger by himself.
However, the consistencies found in the defendants' statements, the informal remarks made by the defendants at various times, the corroborative testimony of other witnesses, the absence of a convincing motive for Reyes and suspicion of his general credibility, lead us to conclude that it is more likely than not that the defendants participated in an attack upon the jogger.
We adopt the view that the most likely scenario for the events of April 19, 1989 was that the defendants came upon the jogger and subjected her to the same kind of attack, albeit with sexual overtones, that they inflicted upon other victims in the park that night. Perhaps attracted to the scene by the jogger's screams, Reyes either joined in the attack as it was ending or waited until the defendants had moved on to their next victims before descending upon her himself, raping her and inflicting upon her the brutal injuries that almost caused her death.
On this theory of the facts, there is no reason to believe that the defendants were prompted into making erroneous statements.
By accepting these findings, Defendant Commissioner Kelly ratified the allegedly wrongful conduct of City Defendants. Additionally, in establishing the Commission, publishing the Armstrong Report and accepting its findings, Defendants participated in a conspiracy; the aims of this conspiracy were to propound the belief that The Five are in fact guilty of the attack on Meili, to brand publicly The Five as rapists, and to absolve the New York City Police Department of liability.
The Five filed at 9183 civil rights action against The City of New York and others alleging that the Defendants' conduct caused The Five grievous permanent injury. Injury to The Five and Family members included years of imprisonment during their formative ages, and the attendant loss of freedom; damage to their intimate familial relationships, loss of companionship and income; mental and physical pain; suffering, anguish, fear; humiliation and defamation of character and reputation.
The Five reportedly settled their civil rights violation claims for $40 million in 2014.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: