This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/nyregion/brooklyn-fairfield-murder-conviction-overturned.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
New Trial Ordered in Brooklyn in 2003 Slaying of College Student New Trial Ordered in Brooklyn in 2003 Slaying of College Student
(about 5 hours later)
In one of the longest and most convoluted murder cases in recent Brooklyn history, an appeals court on Wednesday unanimously tossed out the conviction of a man found guilty of killing a college student in 2003 and ordered a new trial.In one of the longest and most convoluted murder cases in recent Brooklyn history, an appeals court on Wednesday unanimously tossed out the conviction of a man found guilty of killing a college student in 2003 and ordered a new trial.
For nearly 15 years, the case of John Giuca has stood as an unlikely cause célèbre in Brooklyn’s criminal-justice system, batted between different courts as Mr. Giuca’s lawyers claimed that prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense and relied on testimony from witnesses who were untruthful.For nearly 15 years, the case of John Giuca has stood as an unlikely cause célèbre in Brooklyn’s criminal-justice system, batted between different courts as Mr. Giuca’s lawyers claimed that prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense and relied on testimony from witnesses who were untruthful.
In a terse, five-page ruling on Wednesday, the Second Judicial Department Appeals Court agreed with the defense lawyers, saying the Brooklyn district attorney’s office had indeed failed to turn over crucial evidence and had never corrected “the knowingly false or mistaken material testimony of a prosecution witness.”In a terse, five-page ruling on Wednesday, the Second Judicial Department Appeals Court agreed with the defense lawyers, saying the Brooklyn district attorney’s office had indeed failed to turn over crucial evidence and had never corrected “the knowingly false or mistaken material testimony of a prosecution witness.”
The initial trial and its aftermath have been as bizarre as they have been protracted. In 2005, when Mr. Giuca was sentenced to a maximum of life in prison, a group of his supporters showed up in the courtroom wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Free John Giuca.” As the appeal crept forward, his mother, Doreen Giuliano, was caught in an elaborate one-woman sting operation in which she tried to seduce a former juror to root out information that might have helped her son.The initial trial and its aftermath have been as bizarre as they have been protracted. In 2005, when Mr. Giuca was sentenced to a maximum of life in prison, a group of his supporters showed up in the courtroom wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Free John Giuca.” As the appeal crept forward, his mother, Doreen Giuliano, was caught in an elaborate one-woman sting operation in which she tried to seduce a former juror to root out information that might have helped her son.
The case began on Oct. 11, 2003, when Mark Fisher, a 19-year-old student at Fairfield University in Connecticut, was barhopping on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. At the end of a woozy night of drinking, Mr. Fisher wound up in Prospect Park South in Brooklyn with Mr. Giuca and a group of other strangers. The next morning, shortly after 6 a.m., Mr. Fisher was found dead on the sidewalk outside of Mr. Giuca’s family home. The case began on Oct. 11, 2003, when Mark Fisher, a 19-year-old student at Fairfield University in Connecticut, was barhopping on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. At the end of a woozy night of drinking, Mr. Fisher wound up in Prospect Park South in Brooklyn with Mr. Giuca, who was 20 at the time, and a group of other strangers. The next morning, shortly after 6 a.m., Mr. Fisher was found dead on the sidewalk several blocks from Mr. Giuca’s family home.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr. Giuca and a co-defendant, Antonio Russo, were members a fledgling gang called the Ghetto Mafia and went after Mr. Fisher for street credibility, seeing him as a rich teenager who was an easy target. They said that Mr. Giuca was jealous about a woman with whom Mr. Fisher had been flirting and was angry at his drunken behavior. Separate juries found both men were guilty, with Mr. Giuca’s jury returning in the brief span of two hours. Mr. Russo was also sentenced to up to life in prison.Prosecutors claimed that Mr. Giuca and a co-defendant, Antonio Russo, were members a fledgling gang called the Ghetto Mafia and went after Mr. Fisher for street credibility, seeing him as a rich teenager who was an easy target. They said that Mr. Giuca was jealous about a woman with whom Mr. Fisher had been flirting and was angry at his drunken behavior. Separate juries found both men were guilty, with Mr. Giuca’s jury returning in the brief span of two hours. Mr. Russo was also sentenced to up to life in prison.
As the case continued, Mr. Giuca’s lawyer, Mark A. Bederow, began to focus on one of the prosecution’s witnesses, John Avitto, a jailhouse informer who had testified that Mr. Giuca talked about his role in the murder while they were being held on Rikers Island. The prosecutor had asserted that the district attorney’s office never struck a deal with Mr. Avitto, saying he implicated Mr. Giuca “to do something right.” But the appeals court found that there was in fact a deal and that the jury might have voted to acquit Mr. Giuca had it known about it at the time.As the case continued, Mr. Giuca’s lawyer, Mark A. Bederow, began to focus on one of the prosecution’s witnesses, John Avitto, a jailhouse informer who had testified that Mr. Giuca talked about his role in the murder while they were being held on Rikers Island. The prosecutor had asserted that the district attorney’s office never struck a deal with Mr. Avitto, saying he implicated Mr. Giuca “to do something right.” But the appeals court found that there was in fact a deal and that the jury might have voted to acquit Mr. Giuca had it known about it at the time.
In a statement Wednesday, Mr. Bederow expressed his sympathy to Mr. Fisher’s family, but also said that he was happy with the court’s decision.In a statement Wednesday, Mr. Bederow expressed his sympathy to Mr. Fisher’s family, but also said that he was happy with the court’s decision.
“I have always expected this day,” he wrote, adding, “I hope the Brooklyn D.A.’s office will take this decision to heart and no longer tolerate the type of gamesmanship employed in this case.”“I have always expected this day,” he wrote, adding, “I hope the Brooklyn D.A.’s office will take this decision to heart and no longer tolerate the type of gamesmanship employed in this case.”
In his own statement, Oren Yaniv, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said, “We will review the decision and weigh our options.”In his own statement, Oren Yaniv, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said, “We will review the decision and weigh our options.”