The Supreme Court on Monday sided with New York prosecutors and declined to invalidate the conviction of a man who confessed to killing 6-year-old Etan Patz in 1979, reversing a lower court ruling that likely would have required a new trial. Patz disappeared on the morning of May 25, 1979, the first time his parents allowed him to walk by himself to his bus stop about a block away from his home in SoHo. Observers say this could mark a turning point in how the issue is addressed.

Background

The broader picture helps clarify the significance of what has unfolded.

The investigation into his disappearance stalled until 2012 when police learned that Pedro Hernandez, who had worked at a bodega near the bus stop, told his ex-wife and others that he had strangled a boy years earlier.

Hernandez filed for habeas corpus relief in federal court, challenging the way the trial judge responded to a question from the jury about his confessions.

Meanwhile, sources familiar with the matter indicate that a federal district court denied the petition, but the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that determination and ordered Hernandez to be released or retried.

Analysis

The reaction from the broader community of observers has been significant.

“ The Second Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that Hernandez is entitled to relief, ” the Supreme Court said in an unsigned opinion Monday.

Adding further dimension to the story, “ The panel ’ s opinion appears to reflect serious doubt about the reliability of Hernandez ’ s confessions, but ( federal law) does not allow a federal habeas court to disturb a state-court conviction based on such an evaluation of the evidence. ” Analysis: What the missing center has meant for the Supreme Court The court ’ s three liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — declared they would have declined to upend a lower court ’ s decision.

Reports further indicate that the judge ’ s response was “ clearly wrong, ” the 2nd Circuit said in its ruling, and “ the error was manifestly prejudicial. ” The question dealt with whether the jury “ must disregard ” subsequent confessions if it found that Hernandez ’ s confession before he was read his Miranda right was not voluntary.

National Impact

The implications are multifaceted, touching on issues of policy, people, and public interest.

The judge responded that the answer was no, in spite of a 2004 Supreme Court holding that uncovered similar policework unconstitutional.

In what observers are describing as a key detail, “ Retrial may pose ‘ daunting difficulties ’ given that the crime here occurred just under fifty years ago and several of the already-elderly witnesses have died since the last trial in 2016, ” they told the Supreme Court in their appeal.

At the same time, but attorneys for Hernandez said their client had been “ wrongfully held in state custody for almost 14 years ” and that the 2nd Circuit ’ s decision was based on the “ straightforward application of this court ’ s precedent to the ‘ extraordinary circumstances of this case. ’ ” New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg celebrated the ruling.

In a detail that has not gone unnoticed, “ Today the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of multiple lower courts and upheld the trial conviction of Pedro Hernandez for the horrific murder of Etan Patz, which changed a generation of New Yorkers, ” Bragg stated in a statement.

At the same time, “ This office has remained steadfast in its pursuit of justice for Etan and the Patz family and will continue to stand by this important conviction. ” This story has been updated with additional details.

What Happens Next

The situation is far from resolved, and additional details are expected to emerge as the story develops. Officials have indicated that further statements may be forthcoming, and observers will be watching closely.