Bulletin; Major Development: Andre Hatchett; Brooklyn, New York; The innocence Project announced his exoneration earlier today. (March 10, 2016);..."The state’s case against Andre Hatchett was based entirely on one eyewitness, but records reveal this witness identified another person as the assailant on the night of the crime. That information was never disclosed to Mr. Hatchett’s defense attorneys. In addition, at the time of the crime, Mr. Hatchett was in a leg cast and on crutches, which would have made it virtually physically impossible for him to commit the murder. His defense lawyers never presented these medical records at trial. Mr. Hatchett, who will turn 50 this year, has spent half his life behind bars for a crime he did not commit. Although nothing can return that time to him, we are overjoyed he is now free, and grateful to Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson and his Conviction Integrity Unit for their commitment to justice."

"The state’s case against Andre Hatchett was based entirely on one eyewitness, but records reveal this witness identified another person as the assailant on the night of the crime. That information was never disclosed to Mr. Hatchett’s defense attorneys. In addition, at the time of the crime, Mr. Hatchett was in a leg cast and on crutches, which would have made it virtually physically impossible for him to commit the murder. His defense lawyers never presented these medical records at trial. Mr. Hatchett, who will turn 50 this year, has spent half his life behind bars for a crime he did not commit. Although nothing can return that time to him, we are overjoyed he is now free, and grateful to Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson and his Conviction Integrity Unit for their commitment to justice.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/15362ec0cb661eab"

See Innocence Project account of this case: "Neda Mae Carter was found dead and brutally beaten at about 11 PM on February 18, 1991, in Monroe Street Park in Bedford-Stuyvesant.  Earlier in the evening, Hatchett had been with Carter who lived with her mother in the same rooming house as Hatchett’s aunt.  Hatchett visited the house nearly every day.  Hatchett voluntarily cooperated with police in the days and weeks following the crime, provided a detailed alibi and he was permitted to leave the precinct.  At the time of the crime, Hatchett, who has special needs and was then 24, was recovering from severe gunshot wounds to his throat and leg.  His right leg was in a cast, requiring crutches, on the night of the crime.   A little over a week after the crime, police arrested Gerard “Jerry” Williams for an unrelated burglary.  Williams, who admitted to having at least 20 criminal convictions, told his arresting officer that he had information about the Carter murder.  He gave a statement to the homicide detective and two assistant district attorneys claiming that he and a woman nicknamed “Popeye” were in the park, heard a woman scream and saw, from a distance of 35 to 40 feet, a man swinging his arm over a body lying on the ground.  He initially stated that the man in the park was someone he knew had already spoken to police and had a crutch with him.  He then told police he did not see a crutch.   That same evening, Hatchett voluntarily came back to the precinct and was placed in a line up where he was identified by Williams. Hatchett was not arrested and was permitted to leave the precinct despite Williams’ identification, suggesting that the DA’s office had serious doubts about Williams’ credibility.  Although the state’s case rested entirely on the testimony of Williams that Hatchett was the attacker, the Conviction Integrity Unit discovered in the district attorney’s file documents that show that on the night of Williams’ arrest for burglary, Williams identified another man (not Hatchett) in the police precinct as the attacker. This information was never disclosed to Hatchett’s attorneys.  In addition, there is also new evidence that the informant likely received an undisclosed deal for his testimony.   Despite the fact that he was under arrest for a burglary, Williams was released from police custody shortly after coming forward as an alleged eyewitness in a murder investigation.  Over the course of several weeks, Williams worked closely with police to locate “Popeye,” who was eventually found and who viewed a lineup that included Hatchett.  At first “Popeye” was unsure of the identification and indicated that it looked like another person.  She later changed her mind and selected Hatchett.  The prosecution never called “Popeye” to testify and neither of Hatchett’s defense lawyers used Popeye’s initial identification of the other man in the line-up in defending Hatchett.  Hatchett was tried twice for the crime, with Williams being the sole witness claiming to have observed Hatchett on a dark rainy night from a distance of 30 or 40 feet.  The court declared a mistrial at the end of the first trial due to defense counsel’s ineffective representation of Hatchett.  At his second trial, Hatchett testified in his own defense and presented an alibi witness.  Neither attorney presented Hatchett’s medical records which show that it would have been virtually impossible for Hatchett to have committed this crime given his physical limitations.  Nevertheless, he was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life based almost solely on the testimony of Williams.  At trial, Williams claimed that he didn’t receive a deal from the state in exchange for his testimony.  However subsequent investigation has revealed evidence that he did in fact receive favorable treatment for his testimony.  A letter from Williams’ attorney indicated that he had received a deal, and in fact, the burglary charge that Williams was in the precinct for when he came forward as an alleged eyewitness to the homicide was dismissed.  In addition, Williams’ own conduct, which included claiming that he had information about the murder immediately after his arrest for burglary and then making multiple trips to the precinct to help the police locate “Popeye,” strongly suggest that he was expecting favorable treatment for his cooperation.   “Sadly, the evidence we uncovered reveals that the system failed him at every step in the process,” said Jim Brochin, a partner at  Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, who represented Hatchett with the Innocence Project.  “Bad judgment and errors plagued this case from beginning to end.”" 
 http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/with-consent-of-brooklyn-da-ken-thompson-man2019s-murder-conviction-reversed-after-serving-25-years-1?utm_source=Main+IP+Email+List&utm_campaign=d3924b8bf6-IP_Friends_AndreHatchett_Exonerated&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_016cb74fd6-d3924b8bf6-35026462