FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 3, 2024
Brooklyn District Attorney Moves to Vacate Conviction of Man Who Pleaded Guilty to 1986 Killing so He Could Stay Out of Prison After Successful Appeal
Served Eight Years in Prison; Convicted Based on Account of Single, Unreliable Witness;
Becomes 40th Individual Exonerated Since Brooklyn’s CRU was Created a Decade Ago
Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez today announced that following a thorough reinvestigation by his Conviction Review Unit (CRU), he will move to vacate the conviction of Keith Roberts, 67. Roberts served eight years in prison for murder before accepting a plea deal in 1995 to a lower charge so he could stay at liberty after his original conviction was reversed on appeal. The reinvestigation found that the sole eyewitness was patently incredible, the rejected alibi defense was plausible, and the police investigation was inadequate. The complete CRU report is available here. Roberts is the 40th individual to be exonerated by Brooklyn’s CRU since the unit was created in 2014, more than the 34 exonerations that were recommended by all the other DA’s offices in the city over that timeframe, and one of the highest numbers for any DA’s office in the country. [Source: National Registry of Exonerations.]
District Attorney Gonzalez said, “This exoneration underscores the critical importance of our Conviction Review Unit and its mission to right the wrongs of the past. Mr. Roberts, like many others, found himself trapped by a system that failed to recognize his innocence, and nearly 20 years ago, he pleaded guilty just to stay out of prison. Our reinvestigation revealed the deep flaws in the original case—unreliable testimony, overlooked evidence, and a rushed investigation. Today, we are able to restore his dignity and good name and affirm his innocence. This marks the 40th exoneration by our CRU, which has been recognized as a national model because of our deep commitment to this work. While that number represents lives changed and justice finally delivered, it also reminds us of the enormous responsibility we carry in the work we do every day.”
Roberts will appear in court today at 2:15 p.m. before Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Matthew D’Emic at 320 Jay Street, 15th Floor.
The District Attorney said that in the early morning hours of September 21, 1986, Pierre Sanon, 33, was fatally shot outside the Holiday Social Club in East Flatbush, Brooklyn after fighting with someone inside. According to the only identifying witness, after the killer shot the victim, he was told by two accomplices to go to the “yellow house” down the block, and that the witness saw the defendant run there. Police then came to that house – where Roberts lived – and interviewed him. He said that he was at another party that night and volunteered to come to the precinct and appear in a line-up. The witness identified him, and he was arrested. The case was closed by police just over 12 hours after the homicide.
The eyewitness testified at trial and so did several witnesses who attested to Roberts’ alibi claim. The jury convicted the defendant for second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to 18 years to life in prison. At sentencing, Roberts proclaimed his innocence and the victim’s family stated that that they believed a man named Jerome (which was the eyewitness’ first name) fought with the victim and was responsible for the murder and that Roberts was not involved.
In September 1994, considering his direct appeal, the Appellate Division opined that the alibi defense was “plausible,” and that the eyewitness testimony was “exaggerated and incongruent” – but that neither of these reasons was sufficient to reverse the conviction. However, because of a late disclosure of a statement from another witness who said the shooter left the scene in a car, the Court ordered a new trial and Roberts was released. In September 1995, on the eve of the second trial, Roberts agreed to plead guilty to first-degree manslaughter in exchange for a sentence of two and a third to seven years, meaning he could remain out of prison. (The defense asked for an Alford plea, which would have allowed him to still maintain his innocence, but the prosecutor refused.)
Roberts approached the CRU, saying he only admitted guilt to avoid a possible conviction and return to prison, an admission he has regretted ever since. “I promised my mother before she died that I would continue to fight to establish my innocence and honor her fight and sacrifice to free me and clear my name,” he wrote. The CRU accepted the case, reviewed the entire file, and interviewed all relevant and available witnesses.
The CRU concluded that Roberts was likely not involved in the crime. He became a suspect based on the witness’s account that an accomplice instructed him to run to a yellow house – a claim that makes little sense given that he was residing in that very home. The claim was also refuted by accounts from other witnesses, who saw the shooter run to a car and drive away, and the initial description of the gunman did not match Roberts. In contrast, the identifying witness’s account lacked credibility and was nonsensical at times. The CRU also established that the eyewitness, who claimed he never saw the killer or the victim before and did not enter the club, was likely the person who fought with the victim inside the club earlier that night. Plus, Roberts had no motive to kill the victim and his alibi was corroborated by multiple people.
In addition, the police investigation was inadequate. It was conducted by a police officer, not a detective, in what was her first murder investigation. It was completed in well under 24 hours based on the word of one person. In her interview with the CRU, the officer recalled that back then, once someone was identified in a line-up, he was arrested, and no further investigation was considered. “It was all about numbers, clearing cases” she said. Finally, Roberts’ guilty plea should be viewed in light of his motivation to remain at liberty after his murder conviction was reversed on appeal.
The District Attorney accordingly recommends that his conviction be vacated, and the indictment dismissed.
To date, the work of the Conviction Review Unit has resulted in 40 convictions being vacated since 2014. Currently, CRU has approximately 60 open investigations.
This case was investigated by Senior Assistant District Attorney Emily Farber of the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Conviction Review Unit, with assistance from Lori Glachman, CRU Editor-In-Chief, under the supervision of Charles Linehan, Unit Chief.
#