------------------------------------------------------------
The investigation into Ms. Cicelsky’s murder initially focused on people who were known to have disputes with her over property and money. But, eighteen months later, the crime remained unsolved. During the investigation, police spoke with Renay Lynch, who lived in a property owned by the victim, and who police initially viewed as an informant who might help them break open the case.
By late 1996, police were convinced that a man named Kareem Walker, who was known to Ms. Lynch, was responsible for the murder. In the hopes of unearthing evidence against him, Ms. Lynch was given information about the case and fitted with a wire. When these efforts failed, detectives’ focus settled more directly on Ms. Lynch.
While she was in custody for shoplifting, law enforcement took the investigation in a new direction and told Ms. Lynch that to arrest Mr. Walker, they “needed [her] to be there at the murder.”
To get what they wanted, police used coercive interrogation techniques known to elicit false confessions – showing her crime scene photos, asking leading questions, and threatening her with perjury charges and additional time in prison.
Ultimately these techniques worked, and Ms. Lynch told investigators what they wanted to hear: that she and Mr. Walker had gone to Ms. Cicelsky’s apartment to rob her, but while there, Mr. Walker beat and fatally stabbed her.
Ms. Lynch quickly recanted her confession and has always maintained her innocence, insisting her confession was coerced by police and that she did not have any knowledge about the crime.
False confessions have contributed to 27% of the Innocence Project’s exonerations. Research shows that law enforcement’s use of intimidation, coercive tactics, isolation during interrogations, deceptive methods that include lying about evidence, and more can contribute to false confessions. It also shows that an innocent person may falsely confess because of increased stress, mental exhaustion, or promises of lenient sentences.
1/3
A Serial Jailhouse Informant’s Testimony
To bolster the State’s confession-based case, the prosecution presented the testimony of an incentivized jailhouse informant, Raquel Hunter. Ms. Hunter claimed Ms. Lynch confessed while they were incarcerated together in June 1997 – a claim Ms. Lynch denied.
Ms. Hunter, who was a habitual informant and testified in another homicide case that same week, failed to provide details about the crime not already reported in the media.
She admitted that she was testifying against Ms. Lynch in exchange for reduced charges in three pending prosecutions, and in January 2017, she recanted her testimony against Ms. Lynch in a signed affirmation.
The promise or expectation of receiving leniency or other benefits in exchange for testimony creates a strong incentive for witnesses to lie and has played a role in 19% of the Innocence Projects exonerations and releases to date.
In many cases, these benefits are never disclosed. The Innocence Project has long advocated for nationwide reform, which includes system-wide tracking and complete disclosure of informant testimony, as well as jury instructions to inform jurors about the incentives and potential fallibility of jailhouse informant evidence.
Despite the fact that no physical evidence or eyewitnesses connected Ms. Lynch to the crime and nothing in her confession could be corroborated beyond law enforcement’s initial investigation, Renay Lynch was convicted on February 18, 1998.
She was sentenced to 25 years to life for murder, and 10 to 20 years for robbery. Mr. Walker was never arrested or charged for the crime.
Key Evidence Withheld Points to an Alternate Suspect
During the post-conviction investigation, the Innocence Project and Fisher & Byrialsen, PLLC discovered powerful new fingerprint evidence that pointed to an alternative suspect.
In 2020, the Erie County District Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unit and counsel for Ms. Lynch entered into a collaborative effort to re-investigate the case and, in particular, to re-examine crime scene fingerprint evidence.
Two critical discoveries were made: first, despite police testimony that there were only two prints suitable for comparison, 13 prints were actually suitable for comparison; second, nine of the 13 prints belonged to the victim’s downstairs tenant. Critically, four of these prints were recovered from probative locations inside the victim’s home.
Neither Ms. Lynch nor Mr. Walker’s prints were discovered at the crime scene. Ms. Cicelsky’s tenant was an obvious suspect – he had a violent history that included domestic violence, robbery, and manslaughter.
He also gave numerous, inconsistent statements to law enforcement about the last time he saw the victim and other tenants reported disputes between him and the victim. Police, however, abandoned their inquiry into him after he seemingly passed a polygraph test.
Today’s ruling is an acknowledgement that had the jury heard about the multiple prints found in the home matching the victim’s downstairs tenant, it would have provided powerful evidence of Ms. Lynch’s innocence and proved her confession false.
Ms. Lynch lives in New York and enjoys spending time with her children and grandchildren.
Ms. Lynch is represented by Susan Friedman, Senior Staff Attorney at the Innocence Project and Jane Fisher-Byrialsen of Fisher & Byrialsen, PLLC."
The entire release can be read at:
| PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog; |
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/47049136857587929
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.
Lawyer Radha Natarajan;
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
