Marty Tankleff Blog

Reaction from the Innocence Project

We spoke with Olga Akselrod, who, with Barry Scheck, wrote the Innocence Project’s amicus brief in support of Marty’s appeal for a new trial. In response to the DA's brief opposing DNA testing, she said:

"Tellingly, the District Attorney never denies the substance of the Innocence Project's argument that false confessions can and do happen (indeed, false confessions were used to obtain over 25% of the convictions in cases where post-conviction DNA testing later proved the defendant's innocence) and that expert analysis of the 'confession' given by Martin Tankleff shows that it bears all of the hallmarks of a false confession. In addition, the District Attorney's argument that further DNA testing is not warranted because Mr. Tankleff should have asked for it earlier is both contrary to existing legal precedent and indefensible."

DNA has certainly proven to be a lifesaver in cases where there’s no other evidence of innocence, and you can judge for yourself who's acting afraid of what the results might be in this case, Marty or the DA. But it should be noted, in these "CSI"-obsessed times, that part of what distinguishes Marty's case is that he shouldn't need DNA to get a new trial. He just needs to present evidence deemed sufficient, by a panel of impartial judges, to have likely altered the jury's verdict had they heard it. We believe that threshold was reached long ago.

DA Files Responses to Tankleff Appeals

Suffolk County DA Thomas Spota and ADA Leonard Lato filed their responses to Marty's appeal briefs yesterday. You can read them here.

We'll give them a careful read and let you know what we think.

Marty's lawyers are expected to file within two weeks, unless they ask for an extension. Barring more new evidence, that will be the end of the briefs, and the next order of business will be the scheduling of oral arguments in Brooklyn in the fall, following the court's summer recess.

Tankleff Defense Testifies in Albany

On May 31st, the New York State Assembly Committees on Codes and Correction held public hearings in Albany on proposed legislation designed to reduce wrongful convictions in New York State. Lonnie Soury, representing the Tankleff family and defense team, gave testimony. Click here to read.

Appellate Court Accepts All Amicus Briefs

The appellate court has granted the motion of all amici to submit their briefs in support of a new trial for Marty Tankleff.

Dr. Phil "Uncensored" on the Marty Tankleff Case

Dr. Phil taped this video blog following his show on Marty and false confessions:

It's clear that Dr. Phil has educated himself on the case, thought a lot about it and is deeply troubled by it. Here's hoping he reads the SIC Report, or our summary blog entry on it, as it would probably answer a lot of his questions.

In case they remove the video, here's the transcript:

"The story with Marty Tankleff, it just doesn't feel right to me. You know, nobody knows but him whether he did this or not. But I just gotta say, I think Jay Salpeter is a very credible guy. I think Louie, the New York homicide detective, in listening to him, he says he doesn't even think it was a legal arrest, he thinks that clearly it was a coerced confession. And we now have all of this information, all of this data, evidence, witnesses, that seem to contradict what the findings of the court had been. I have great respect for the court and a great respect for juries. But man, if you've got two different guys saying, in terms of Billy Ram and Glenn Harris, both say that these two 'killers' were going over there to do the crime and Harris saying he drove them there, drove them away, saw one of them burning his clothes. He's confessed to an ex-girlfriend, to his son, as well as others around town, bragging. That's got to be reasonable doubt. I just think you have to revisit this. If he did it, he ought to be in that jail until the day he dies. But if he didn't, we need to figure out who did and we need to find the evidence and get that man out of jail. I don't know, listening to McCready, who got the confession from him, I'm not bothered that he lied, I'm not. I think you do what you have to do to get the truth, but once you get the truth you then have to corroborate it and find out 'did you just tell me what I want to hear or did I get at the truth.' I'm surprised that he's so closed about it. I'm surprised that he's not interested in drilling down on it some more. I guess after so many years, and hearing so many people proclaim their innocence when they're actually guilty, I guess you kind of get a bad attitude about it. But we're going to follow this, and we're going to see what happens."

To email Dr. Phil, click here.

New York Times on the Appeal

The New York Times's article on the appeal today--"Ex-Prosecutors Urge New Trial for Man Convicted of 2 Murders"--quotes two of the 31 prosecutors who signed on as amici for Tankleff.

Michael F. Armstrong, the former Queens district attorney, chief counsel to the Knapp Commission on police corruption and chairman of the review panel on the Central Park jogger rape case, told Bruce Lambert of the Times, “The new evidence certainly seems to indicate that a mistake has been made."

Professor Bennet L. Gershman of Pace University said that the prosecutors' brief was "extremely unusual and shows the critical nature of this case as a symbol of justice gone wrong.”

As also reported in the article, John S. Martin Jr., a former federal judge and U.S. attorney, has also signed on as amici, as has former New York State Supreme Court Justice Herbert A. Posner. (The former judges signed a brief submitted by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.)

Newsday's Front Page

The subhead reads, "Gains support of ex-prosecutors, judges and even L.I. classmates in second push for new trial."

You can read the article and commentary in the Marty Tankleff forum here.

Tankleff Appeal Filed with Unprecedented Support

Today Marty Tankleff's lawyers filed, in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Marty's appeal of the Suffolk County judge's rulings on his claims of innocence and right to a new, which is to say fair, trial. Citing the 26 witnesses who have presented an abundance of evidence of Marty's innocence and others' guilt, and the three false confession experts who have concluded that Marty's "confession" was false, Marty's lawyers write:

"'[T]he greatest crime of all in a civilized society is an unjust conviction. It is truly a scandal which reflects unfavorably on all participants in the criminal justice system.' [People v. Ramos]....We could not possibly have penned more applicable words for his case.

'Unjust' is the proper term for convictions premised almost exclusively on a deception-induced 'confession' that matches none of the physical evidence in the case and that three leading experts now agree was false.

'Scandalous' is the right characterization for convictions maintained in the face of repeated admissions by a violent career criminal that he committed these murders and in the face of multiple interlocking statements made by many third parties corroborating the credibility of those admissions.

'Unfavorable' is a euphemistic description for convictions rooted in lies told by the lead detective and a wholesale failure by the police operating under his direction to investigate the most logical suspect behind the murders.

If our [criminal justice] procedure has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocence man convicted,' [United States v. Garsson]...that ghost is Marty Tankleff."

The filing had been expected since the leave to appeal was granted by the State Court last spring. What is extraordinary news, in the opinion of legal experts, is the unprecedented support the appeal has received. Over a half dozen amicus, or friend of the court, briefs are being filed, including from Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project/Innocence Network, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), four well-known False Confession Exonerees, and dozens of Marty's former classmates. (Download the briefs at the bottom of this post.)

The most extraordinary of the amicus briefs has to be the one signed by more than two dozen of New York’s most well respected  former prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys (see list at bottom of this post). In their brief, the prosecutors write:

"Amici curiae are former New York prosecutors who have a continuing interest in maintaining the legitimacy of the criminal justice system as a fair and effective means of punishing the guilty and freeing the innocent. The fair adjudication of claims of wrongful conviction is a critical test of any system of justice. Under the intense public scrutiny that wrongful conviction claims receive, the failure to produce a just result resounds far beyond the confines of a particular case. The role of prosecutors is weakened, and their credibility before juries, judges, and the public is diminished, if a just outcome is not evident where the public most demands it. This is one such case. The defendant in this case, Martin Tankleff, has presented persuasive evidence in support of his motion to vacate his sentence and for a new trial."

The brief filed by four false confession exonerees is the answer to anyone who questions how an innocent person could falsely confess to murder. Peter Reilly, Gary Gauger, Beverly Monroe and Michael Crowe not only gave what have proven to be false confessions, but the type of confession they gave has even been categorized by experts: the coerced internalized false confession. It's the exact same type as Marty's confession, wherein the subject is led to believe he or she may have "blacked out," or some variation on the theme. Reilly, Gauger, Monroe and Crowe are living, breathing refutations of Suffolk County Judge Stephen L. Braslow's pronouncements in his ruling that “none of the conduct engaged in by the detectives [in the Tankleff case] would have rendered a false confession,” and that false evidence ploys like those used by Detective James McCready in the Tankleff case are the “least likely” kinds of tactics to lead to false confessions. The brief was prepared by Steve Drizin of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.

The Innocence Project's DNA exonerations are well known, and their brief cites the relevant data that DNA exonerations have revealed on false confessions: of the 130 first DNA exonerations, over one-fourth were convictions based on false confessions. In murder cases, where the pressure to solve the cases is highest, the percentage of false confessions in wrongful convictions appears to be even higher, closer to two-thirds.

Even the Innocence Project, known for its rational, scientific approach to criminal justice, is compelled to describe the Tankleff case in its corrupt context:

"Improper police tactics which lead to a disproportionate number of false confessions tend to be concentrated in certain police departments during discrete eras. In these departments (sometimes referred to as 'rotten boroughs'), improper interrogation tactics and false testimony to conceal them become operating procedures and continue unchecked until a high-profile exposé results in outside scrutiny, reform, and/or a change of leadership."

Moving to the specific case at hand, the Innocence Project writes:

"Finally, there is highly troubling evidence that the Suffolk County Police Department and, in particular, Detective James McCready – a lead detective involved in obtaining Marty Tankleff’s alleged confession – has a history of inappropriate police conduct. In April of 1989, the State of New York Commission of Investigation (SIC) issued a report, 'An Investigation of the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office and Police Department,' which was triggered by allegations from Judge Stewart Namm and a series of troubling cases involving improper interrogation tactics employed by Suffolk police. Most troubling, the SIC found that Detective McCready gave false testimony in People v. Diaz...."

Having proven that wrongful convictions occur and that a high percentage of them are false confessions, and having documented the history of improper interrogation tactics and the corruption in Suffolk County law enforcement, including that of the lead detective in the Tankleff case, the IP concludes:

"Since the homicide squad of the Suffolk County Police Department was singled out by the SIC in such a devastating report for improper interrogation practices and false testimony, it is wholly unsurprising that this Suffolk County case involves a coerced and untrue confession....Allowing the conviction of Marty Tankleff to stand, based on nothing more than an uncorroborated and coerced confession that is flatly contradicted by compelling existing and new evidence, makes a mockery of our system of justice.”

Over 50 of Marty's classmates signed a brief that centers on the rush to judgment following the Tankleff murders. Despite signs that something was rotten in Suffolk County law enforcement, Newsday's coverage was anything but impartial, as the paper's initial report on the murders demonstrates:

"A Belle Terre youth cut his parents’ throats and bludgeoned them with a barbell because they had spoiled his summer and would not let him stay home alone when they took a planned cruise and vacation in Florida, prosecutors said yesterday. 'It was a temper tantrum that turned into violence,' said Assistant District Attorney Edward Jablonski, chief of the Suffolk County homicide bureau. 'He’s a boy that had everything in life and thought he deserved more,' he said."  (Shirley E. Perlman, “Deadly Temper Tantrum? Prosecutors: anger led to son’s attack; he pleads not guilty,” September 9, 1988)

"In contrast," reads the classmates brief, "we believe that our own high school newspaper, The Purple Parrot, did a better job in covering the story. Here was the lead editorial from the September 1988 issue:

"The local coverage of the incident surrounding ELVHS senior Marty Tankleff is troublesome for journalists and readers. By quoting prosecutors throughout their articles, the press made it appear that Marty's guilt was undeniable. Indeed, Newsday went so far as to quote the prosecutors in the headlines. This is intolerable, especially now that it seems many more factors have come into the case. Yes, the press does have a responsibility to report the facts, but the statements of prosecutors are hardly facts! In a country that has lived on the presumption of 'innocent until proven guilty,' we would hope that the press would take more seriously its journalistic responsibility. Just because Suffolk County convicts over 90% of accused criminals, it doesn't mean that 100% are guilty. Especially not in a case that has proved to be so complex. We the editors of The Purple Parrot believe in 'innocent until proven guilty.' We are far from convinced of Marty’s guilt, and therefore presume him innocent. We welcome him back to school, and wish him luck....In short, we think that Judge Braslow would have been better served by reading a high school newspaper than simply accepting as fact the words of a police department—and a particularly dishonorable homicide detective—that was known to commit “perjury, subornation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, spoliation of evidence, [and] abuse of subpoena power” (Judge Stuart Namm, SIC Report)."

None of the lawyers involved directly or indirectly with the Tankleff case can recall an appeal at this level receiving such "friend of the court" support.

Here is the list of former prosecutors who are calling for the vacating of Marty Tankleff's conviction or, at the least, a new trial:

Michael Armstrong   
Former Queens County District Attorney; former Southern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney and Securities Fraud Unit Chief

William Aronwold   
Former New York County Assistant District Attorney; former Eastern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney and Criminal Division Chief; former Southern District of New York Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Force Attorney-in-Charge

Barry Bassik   
Former Bronx County Assistant District Attorney, Criminal Court Bureau Deputy Chief, and Supreme Court Bureau Deputy Chief

Elaine Bassik            
Former Bronx County Assistant District Attorney

Benjamin Brafman       
Former New York County Assistant District Attorney

Laura Brevetti   
Former Kings County Assistant District Attorney; former U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Strike Force Attorney-In-Charge

William M. Brodsky   
Former Eastern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney

Steven M. Cohen   
Former Southern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney

Joseph F. DeFelice       
Former Queens County Assistant District Attorney

Joseph Falbo           
Former Kings County Assistant District Attorney

Bennett L. Gershman   
Former New York County Assistant District Attorney; former New York State Special Assistant Attorney General, Corruption Unit

Lawrence S. Goldman       
Former New York County Assistant District Attorney

Ray Granger    
Former Kings County Assistant District Attorney; former Eastern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney

Daniel Hochheiser        
Former Bronx County Assistant District Attorney

Michael T. Kelly   
Former Erie County Senior Assistant District Attorney and Organized Crime Bureau Chief; former New York State Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Regional Director

Kevin Kearon   
Former Nassau County Assistant District Attorney

David Lackowitz        
Former Kings County Assistant District Attorney

Andrew M. Lawler   
Former Southern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney

Jack T. Litman   
Former New York County Assistant District Attorney, Senior Trial Assistant, and Homicide Bureau Deputy Chief

Ira D. London            
Former Kings County Assistant District Attorney

Bruce Maffeo   
Former Kings County Assistant District Attorney; former Eastern District of New York Special Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Organized Crime Strike Force

Maureen Mahoney       
Former Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney

Jonathan Marks    
Former Eastern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney

Vito A. Palmieri    
Former Nassau County Assistant District Attorney

William Petrillo   
Former Nassau County Assistant District Attorney

Irving P. Seidman    
Former Kings County Assistant District Attorney and Rackets Bureau Attorney-In-Charge

Roger Stavis    
Former Bronx County Assistant District Attorney and Supervising Appellate Attorney

Ronald R. Sussman       
Former Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney

Joseph Tacopina        
Former Kings County Assistant District Attorney

John R. Wing   
Former Southern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney

Andrew S. Worgan    
Former Queens County District Attorney’s Office Senior Homicide Trial Attorney and Supreme Court Trial Bureau Chief

Click below to download the briefs:

Appeal Brief (pdf)

Former prosecutors brief (pdf)

False confessors brief.pdf

Classmates brief (pdf)

Marty on the Dr. Phil show

Dr. Phil will feature the Tankleff case on his show next Tuesday, January 9th.

Last fall Dr. Phil's producers taped an interview with Marty, then taped a show in L.A. before a studio audience. It was a show about false confessions but ended up being in large part about the Marty Tankleff case. Participating in the show in person were private investigator Jay Salpeter; Joseph Guarascio, son of Joey "Guns" Creedon; Marty's aunt Marianne McClure and her daughter, Jennifer; and Steve Drizin of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University. During the taping, the producers got Detective James McCready, who took Marty's "confession," on the phone, and there was some heated back-and-forth between McCready and Salpeter.

Like the recent article in People magazine about Marty, and the one in 'O' magazine about false confessions that featured Marty, this coverage by the "Dr. Phil" show is a milestone in mainstream recognition of the existence of false confessions. DNA has proven that wrongful convictions happen. Now the public is learning how they often happen. That law enforcement is fallible is a fact of life that is finally becoming widely recognized. And that's good news for people caught up in cases in which our criminal justice system has obviously failed. You want to believe enough people now understand that faith in the system can't be sustained if its most egregious failures go uncorrected.

The "Dr. Phil" show is syndicated, which means it's on different channels at different times in different cities. In New York City it will be on at 3:00 p.m. on WCBS, Channel 2. In Riverhead, it will be on at 5:00 p.m. on WLNY, Channel 55. To find the show in your area, click here.

Suffolk County Revisited

If Danny Raymond's affidavit is another "brick" in the ever-growing case being built for Marty's innocence and others' guilt in the murder of his parents, the legal motion to which it is attached gives a good overview of what is becoming a skyscraper of evidence.

"Piece by piece the case against Martin Tankleff continues to crumble," begins the motion. "From the undisputed perjury by lead Detective McCready regarding his longstanding relationship to lead suspect Jerry Steuerman, to the testimony of false confession expert Richard Ofshe, it has become increasingly clear that there is insufficient evidence to justify Marty’s continued incarceration. Brick by brick the case against the actual murderers--Creedon, Kent, and Steuerman--continues to be built. From the initial admission by Glenn Harris, an accomplice to murders, and the corroboration by William Ram and others, to Creedon’s multiple admissions, Graydon’s testimony concerning his and Creedon's prior attempt on Seymour Tankleff’s life, and James Moore’s revelation of Kent's admissions, it has become increasingly evident that Joseph Creedon and his cohorts murdered Marty's parents. Marty Tankleff is an innocent man serving a sentence for crimes he did not commit."

There were so many troubling aspects of Suffolk County Judge Stephen Braslow's denial of Marty's original motion for a new trial that it's tough to know where to start listing them. In his ruling Judge Braslow simply ignored some witnesses, even as he discredited, one by one, what he termed a "cavalcade of nefarious scoundrels." These included, remarkably, Creedon, who even the DA conceded told numerous people he was involved in the Tankleff murders.

Never mind the question of whether any one or two of the two dozen new witnesses ought to be enough to cast reasonable doubt on Marty's guilt, Judge Braslow went out of his way to isolate and discredit each witness while ignoring how they corroborate one another.

"This new evidence cannot be viewed in isolation," argues the latest defense motion. "It must be evaluated in light of the totality of the record. The defense has presented proof that:

1. Jerry Steuerman had a motive to kill Seymour and Arlene Tankleff;


2. Jerry Steuerman knew Joseph Creedon as an “enforcer” and “collector” for Todd Steuerman’s drug trade;


3. Creedon, Kent and Harris grew up a few blocks from each other and committed multiple violent crimes both with each other, alone and with others;


4. Steuerman, according to Brian Glass, asked him to hurt or kill Marty’s father and Glass “passed the work” to Creedon;


5. Creedon tried on a prior occasion to Kill Seymour Tankleff, according to Joseph Graydon;


6. Creedon, Kent and Harris were together late on September 6, and early on September 7, 1988 and all three left to commit a crime in Belle Terre, according to William Ram;


7. Neither Creedon nor Harris nor Kent can account for their whereabouts on the night that Marty’s parents were murdered;


8. Each participant in the murders has made damaging admissions, which include, but are not limited to, Creedon's admissions to six witnesses (including his own son), Kent's admissions to three witnesses (Moore, Raymond and Ram), and Harris' admissions in a sworn affidavit and in statements to six witnesses (his wife, his mother, a priest, a nun, and two government informants);


9. Jerry Steuerman solicited Creedon to “cut out Marty’s tongue” because Marty was publicly accusing Steuerman of the murders;


10. Kent concocted a false alibi and solicited the help of Daniel Raymond in order to perpetrate a fraud on the Court and conceal his participation in the murders.

And that's just a partial list. Even before Judge Braslow denied Tankleff’s original 440 motion for a new trial, Marty’s lawyers promised they would be filing new evidence. Their confidence was based on the fact that since the fall of 2003, when the first 440 was filed, they have been steadily contacted by witnesses with new information. This is what happens when a convict is known to be actually innocent, they say. Some new witnesses have been afraid to come forward for obvious reasons. Even Marty's lawyer and investigator have received threats similar to what Raymond reports. All of which makes you admire the courage of all the witnesses who have come forward with nothing but stress to gain for themselves, but who know it's the right thing to do when the wrong guy, who's a threat to nobody, is in jail.

In the conclusion of the latest motion, Marty’s lawyers acknowledge that our criminal justice system is imperfect and subject to human failings. But there is no excuse, they write, for Marty’s continued incarceration since Glenn Harris came forward three years ago, leading to a parade of new witnesses casting huge doubt on Marty’s guilt and great suspicion on others:

"Marty Tankleff has now been incarcerated for three years since Glenn Harris signed his statement. It has been over two years since multiple witnesses implicated Creedon, Kent, Steuerman and Harris in the murder of Seymour and Arlene Tankleff. Twenty-four months have passed since William Ram testified. It has been 18 months since the hearing was initially concluded. Nearly a  year has passed since Joseph Guarascio revealed to this Court what his father, Joe Creedon, confessed to him–that he, Creedon, and Kent and Harris murdered Marty’s parents. This Court denied Marty’s request for a new trial seven months ago and it has been that long since James Moore disclosed Kent’s admissions. The responsibility for Martin Tankleffs’ incarceration since August 31, 2003, can no longer be dispersed throughout the criminal justice system. It lies at the door of the Suffolk County District Attorney. Marty cannot be given back the time he has lost, but this injustice can and should be brought to an end by this Court."