Prosecutors want Supreme Court to restore murder conviction in 1979 case of missing Etan Patz

New York City prosecutors filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, urging the high court to restore the 2017 conviction of 64‑year‑old Pedro Hernandez for the murder of six‑year‑old Etan Patz, who vanished on May 25, 1979.

Although prosecutors are preparing to try Hernandez again, they hope the Supreme Court will undo the federal appeals court’s reversal based on a judge’s answer to a juror’s question.

The appellate panel had struck down the conviction earlier this summer, citing the way the trial judge addressed jurors. In their filing, District Attorney Alvin Bragg and senior prosecutors argued that the “invalidation of a state jury verdict on such a slender reed flouted” federal limitations on overturning state‑court convictions, effectively asking the Court to reverse the appellate decision.

They noted that the original trial had stretched five months and involved 66 witnesses, many of whom have since passed away, and they had already sent a request for comment to Hernandez’s legal team.

Meanwhile, both sides are set to meet with a new judge this Friday to set dates for jury selection—any delay past June 1 would require Hernandez’s release from prison. Hernandez is currently serving a 25‑year‑to‑life sentence.

He initially confessed under police questioning, though his attorneys claim the admission was coerced by a prolonged interrogation that began before his rights were read and were recorded over tape and repeated twice.

The case was a national turning point, as Etan’s disappearance prompted the creation of National Missing Children’s Day. Hernandez was a convenience‑store employee near the bus stop at the time, but he was not linked to the case until 2012.

The first trial in 2015 ended in a deadlocked jury, while a new panel convicted him in 2017. In that retrial, jurors asked whether they could ignore Hernandez’s confessions if he had not yet been read his rights—a question the judge answered “no,” leading to the conviction.

The appeals court later ruled that the question should have prompted a fuller discussion, possibly allowing the jury to disregard the confessions entirely.

Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.