Thread by @DrRJKavanagh

This is one of the worst wrongful conviction cases I have ever seen.

Anthony Sims has spent 24 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. He was prosecuted by the head of Brooklyn's Wrongful Conviction Unit who denied his application for review.
cnn.com/2022/02/27/us/…

That ADA, Mark Hale, retired six months ago. He has a long and substantiated record of misconduct. Last year a court dismissed the conviction of Emmanuel Cooper, whose case Hale prosecuted and who had served 25 years in prison. nysfocus.com/2021/09/23/ant…

The *only* evidence linking Mr. Sims to the murder of which he was convicted was the testimony of a former friend, Julius Graves, who is widely believed to have committed the murder. Mr. Graves has since recanted that testimony in an affidavit.

The gun used in the murder was kept in Graves' apartment, he told police he wiped fingerprints off the gun, other witnesses said they saw him do that. Another witness said she saw Graves running from the scene of the crime with the gun.

Hale concealed this and other evidence from the defense.

Brooklyn DA's office's CRU has been hailed by many, largely because of the number of convictions that have been overturned.

What is left out of the equation is that the most significant reason for this is the level of corruption that existed in the office until recently.

The former Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes, who held office from 1990 to 2013, was unquestionably corrupt. Even tho there is a new DA now, many of the prosecutors who worked under him remained once he left.

It was Ken Thompson, the new DA, who appointed Mark Hale. It was Eric Gonzalez, current DA, who succeeded Thompson, who signed off on the denial of the review of Mr. Sims' case.

And note the denial came in the form of a one page letter, not a comprehensive report.

I want to add two things:

1. This case is particularly egregious, in that the head of the CRU actually prosecuted the case, but it raises issues that arise in any case where a CRU is part of a prosecutor's office.

a. There is an inherent conflict of interest. Very often the head/members of the CRU will know the person who prosecuted the case or worked on the case, or the police who testified. They are too enmeshed to be in any way objective.

b. Prosecutors come at a case from the perspective of trying to save a conviction. They believe in the system. They believe in prosecutors. The sort of culture we see in police departments is not too far removed from DA's offices.

Public defenders start from the position of let's look at this case from the beginning and see whether there is even enough evidence that the person should have been charged. They look at every single step. They consider the person convicted, not the prosecutor.

2. Brooklyn DA is considered a "progressive prosecutor." Part of that reputation comes from the institution of the CRU.

Those of us who have practiced in the borough know a lot of the rest ot it comes from spin.

Starting with the whole myth in 2014 that thee office wasn't prosecuting marijuana possession.

I'm not gonna write a whole thread on the spin part now, I just want to emphasize when you read about a bunch of convictions being thrown out dig deeper.

Remember Anthony Sims.

Follow supporters of Anthony here @FreeAnthonySims.

Sign this petition.

actionnetwork.org/petitions/8eaa…

Most important there is currently a hearing in Brooklyn Supreme Court examining Mr. Sims' wrongful conviction. That's at 320 Jay Street in downtown Brooklyn. If you can attend to support, please do. thecity.nyc/2022/2/23/2294…