Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in 1979 Murder of Etan Patz

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 22 reinstated the murder conviction of Pedro Hernandez, who was tried in relation to the high-profile disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz in 1979.

The court’s 6–3 decision took the form of an unsigned order and opinion, in which the justices said an appeals court exceeded its authority in how it handled Hernandez’s verdict from a state court in New York. No oral argument was held. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented but did not explain why.

New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg had asked the nation’s highest court to intervene and reverse a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had overturned a state trial court’s guilty verdict finding that former delicatessen worker Hernandez kidnapped and murdered the child.

“Today the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of multiple lower courts and upheld the trial conviction of Pedro Hernandez for the horrific murder of Etan Patz, which changed a generation of New Yorkers,” Bragg said.

“This office has remained steadfast in its pursuit of justice for Etan and the Patz family, and will continue to stand by this important conviction.”

Patz disappeared years ago while he was walking alone for the first time to a school bus stop in the New York City borough of Manhattan, and was never seen again. His face became well-known as one of the first missing children whose likenesses were displayed on the side of milk cartons to publicize their disappearance in hopes of leading to investigative tips.

Police took Hernandez into custody in 2012 after receiving a tip that he had confessed to the crime at a church group meeting years before. After that, he confessed several times to police that he had lured the child to the basement of a delicatessen, strangled him, and left the body in an alley.

His lawyers questioned the validity of the confessions, saying that he had not been read his Miranda rights.

A Miranda warning is a formal notification given to a criminal suspect in custody before interrogation takes place. A violation of Miranda rights can lead to certain evidence being thrown out or to a conviction being reversed on appeal.

Hernandez’s lawyers also argued that he was mentally ill, had a low IQ, and that police forced his confession.

His first trial resulted in a hung jury, but at his second trial he was found guilty of kidnapping and murder and given a prison term of 25 years to life.

The Second Circuit reversed the conviction last year, finding that the trial judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury that influenced the guilty verdict.

The jury sent a note to the trial judge asking: If the jury decides that the initial confession, which was given without a Miranda warning, was not voluntary, do the jurors have to disregard the subsequent confessions as well?

The judge responded by writing, “The answer is no,” the circuit court noted.

Hernandez’s attorneys had argued in a brief that their client’s constitutional rights were violated.

The confessions he provided were “obtained by law enforcement after seven hours of questioning in an eight-by-ten-foot windowless room in a police station, during which detectives intentionally chose not to provide Hernandez with Miranda warnings or to turn on installed video recording equipment,” they wrote.

During that session, Hernandez asked to leave several times, saying that he wanted to go home.

“After seven hours, Hernandez finally gave the officers what they had made clear was the only way for the interrogation to end: a purported confession to a crime he did not commit,” the brief states. “Only then did law enforcement provide Miranda warnings and turn on the video recorder, after which the detectives led Hernandez through the same purported confession again.”

In its new ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit ran afoul of a 1996 federal statute that limits the authority of federal courts to give relief to prisoners convicted in state courts.

“The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 … imposes strict limits on federal courts’ power to grant habeas relief to a prisoner convicted in state court,” the Supreme Court said.

A habeas corpus petition allows a prisoner to challenge his or her detention. The Latin phrase means “you have the body.”

The high court found that federal habeas review does not allow federal courts to second-guess rulings by state courts.

“District courts and courts of appeals have sometimes chafed under these restraints, and when they have strayed too far from the modest role that [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] prescribes, we have summarily reversed their decisions,” the court said. “We must do the same today.”

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Second Circuit and sent the case back to that court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Hernandez’s attorney, Paul Whitfield Hughes of McDermott, Will, and Schulte in Washington did not respond by publication time to a request for comment.

Reuters contributed to this report.