Man Cleared in '90 Subway Killing Sues City for Wrongful Conviction
Johnny Hincapie was freed in 2015 after evidence raised questions over his conviction in the 1990 killing of a tourist on a Manhattan subway platform.
April 19, 2018 at 05:12 PM
4 minute read
|
Johnny Hincapie, convicted in 1990 at the age of 18 for taking part in an infamous subway platform murder of a Utah tourist but later freed after new evidence cast doubt on his guilt, filed a wrongful conviction suit against the city Thursday.
The complaint alleges the detectives named in the suit manufactured evidence, coerced confessions and concealed misconduct in an attempt to make the headline-inducing crime reach a quick conclusion.
In the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, attorneys for the now-45-year-old Hincapie called 1990 “a dark time” in New York City's history. Murders were at their peak. The Central Park Five case, involving five young men of color convicted of raping a young woman in the park, cast a shadow over how police handled violent cases, the complaint suggests.
All five of the defendants in that case would eventually be exonerated, after it was revealed they were forced to confess by NYPD detectives. Detective Carlos Gonzalez was assigned to that case, as well as the murder of Brian Watkins, the man who Hincapie would be convicted of killing.
According to the complaint, Gonzalez and other named defendants on the force used unconstitutional tactics to elicit a confession out of Hincapie, in an effort to quickly bring the high-profile case to a close.
“Johnny Hincapie—barely 18 years old and with deficient language comprehensions skills, believed the detective's false promises, feared for his life and lacked any meaningful grasp of the nature or gravity of the circumstances he confronted,” the complaint states.
Hincapie and three other defendants received the maximum sentence of 25 years to life at the same trial. Three others were also convicted in the case. However, in 2015, a state court overturned his conviction, after multiple witnesses testified under oath to Hincapie's innocence—none of whom, the complaint notes, testified during his criminal trial.
New York has an “above-average rate of false confessions,” the complaint goes on to state, pointing back to the “quintessential compliant false confession” of the defendants in the Central Park Five case.
“Even when conducted legally, American-style police interrogation is a psychologically oriented, guilt-presumptive process,” the complaint states. Hincapie's wrongful conviction, which the complaint says the defendants were fully aware of, “was not an isolated incident” at the time, the consequences of which have resulted in numerous exonerations and settlements with the city over similar allegations.
The complaint alleges federal malicious prosecution, violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against evidence fabrication, illegal coercion, and other claims.
“The coerced confession was the primary evidence used to convict Mr. Hincapie at trial. We intend to prove that the confession was the product of egregious, systemic misconduct that pervaded the city's police department in the jogger era,” said Hincapie's lawyer, Gabriel Harvis of Harvis & Fett.
A spokesman for the city's Law Department said it was reviewing the complaint.
A spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which opted not to retry Hincapie after his conviction was thrown out, declined to comment. Reports at the time suggested the office continued to believe he was part of the group that attacked Watkins, but, given the challenges of bringing the 30-year-old case, decided against a new trial.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250