Founding partner Patrick K. Cafferty was quoted by TMJ4’s Lighthouse investigative team on the legal fallout from a Racine County murder conviction that was vacated after a judge found the jury was never told of serious credibility problems involving the lead detective.
Watch the Segment on TMJ4
Watch the full Lighthouse report on TMJ4. Patrick’s interview begins at the 2:39 mark.
The Case
Miguel Cruz’s 2000 murder conviction was overturned this year after the court found the original jury never heard about retired detective Gilbert Hernandez’s documented credibility issues, which include a fabricated confession in a separate Milwaukee homicide case (William Avery), witness coaching, and alleged perjury. A retrial is expected in September.
What Patrick Told TMJ4
On how the September retrial will differ from the original trial:
“The defense has developed additional information related to his credibility and perhaps the credibility of some of the other detectives who were involved. So the second trial, assuming that’s going to happen in September, will look very different than the first trial.”
On whether the ruling could ripple into other Milwaukee homicide convictions that relied on Detective Hernandez’s work:
“The potential for that certainly exists. It’s more likely that a defendant who has been convicted as a result of work that Detective Hernandez did could get a new trial or get relief from an appellate court or a circuit court if they tried the case to a jury.”
Why Detective Credibility Can Reopen a Closed Case
When evidence emerges after trial that an investigating detective fabricated a confession, coached a witness, or testified falsely, two paths to post-conviction relief generally open:
- A motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The credibility evidence has to be material (it has to matter to the outcome) and it has to have been unavailable at the original trial.
- Appellate or habeas review, particularly where the suppressed credibility information should have been disclosed to the defense under the federal Brady v. Maryland rule.
Cases where the conviction rested heavily on the testimony of a single officer who has since been shown to have credibility problems are the strongest candidates for relief. Patrick has handled criminal appeals and post-conviction matters in Wisconsin state and federal courts for over 32 years.
Were You Convicted in a Case Involving Officer-Credibility Issues?
If you or someone you know was convicted in a Wisconsin case where the investigation relied on a detective whose credibility has since been called into question, an experienced criminal appeals attorney may be able to evaluate whether grounds exist to seek post-conviction relief.
Contact Cafferty & Scheidegger for a free, confidential consultation. You can call or text our team 24/7 at (262) 632-5000.