The man imprisoned for kidnapping and murdering a six-year-old boy in New York City nearly 45 years ago has had his conviction overturned.
64-year-old Pedro Hernandez has been serving 25 years to life in prison after being convicted in 2017 of killing Etan Patz in 1979.
Patz vanished on the first day he was allowed to walk to the school bus stop by himself on May 25, 1979. He was one of the first missing children to be pictured on milk cartons in a case that drew national attention.
President Ronald Reagan later declared May 25, 1983, the first National Missing Children’s Day in memory of Patz.
On the morning of May 25, 1979, the first-grader was granted permission from his parents to walk alone to the bus stop, located just a block and a half away from where the family lived. His mother took him downstairs and watched him walk into the distance – he was never seen again.
At the time of Patz’s disappearance, Hernandez was working at a convenience shop as a teenager in the child’s downtown Manhattan neighborhood. He initially spoke with authorities as they were canvassing for the child, but he did not become a suspect until police received a 2012 tip revealing that Hernandez had previously made remarks about killing a child in New York, but had not mentioned Patz by name.
Hernandez was arrested in 2012 and ultimately confessed to the crime after seven hours of questioning, telling investigators he had lured Patz into the store’s basement with the promise of giving him a soda. Once inside, Hernandez said he had choked the child because “something just took over me,” before putting Patz – who Hernandez said was still alive – inside a box and leaving it alongside a pile of trash.
However, Hernandez’s lawyers insisted the confession was the result of a mental illness that caused their client to misinterpret his imagination from reality. The attorneys also pointed to Hernandez’s very low IQ.
“Several factors likely contributed to his confession, including low IQ, mental illness, and heightened suggestibility,” Jonathan Alpert, psychotherapist and author of “Therapy Nation,” told Fox News Digital. “These make someone more prone to internalizing guilt or fabricating details to meet perceived expectations.”
Alpert has not treated any of the individuals involved in the case.
Hernandez was initially tried in New York state court twice – with the first trial ending in a jury deadlock in 2015 – before an appeal transferred the case into federal court.
At the time, prosecutors claimed that Hernandez was faking or exaggerating his illness, pointing to Hernandez reportedly admitting to the crimes before police read him his rights and began recording their interview in 2012. He went on to repeat his confession at least twice while being recorded.
The confession ultimately led to questions from jurors during their nine days of deliberations, with their final inquiry revolving around whether they were required to rule out the two recorded confessions if they were to determine that the first one was invalid – with the judge telling them they were not.
An appeals court later ruled the judge should have provided a better explanation to the jury regarding their options, which could have included not factoring in all three of Hernandez’s confessions.
Referring to a jury note during the trial, the appeals court said the judge had provided a “clearly wrong” and “manifestly prejudicial” response to the question posed.
The court’s decision to overturn Hernandez’s conviction and grant him a new trial raises questions regarding mental health and confessions in court cases, as Alpert points to the frequent susceptibility of individuals with mental health disorders to “have an intense need to gain approval from authority figures.”
“When interrogators suggest a narrative, these individuals can absorb and repeat it, not out of deceit, but out of compliance. Over time, they may even start to believe it themselves, especially when under stress or exhaustion.”
While a new trial could bring additional clarity for a case that has spanned decades, Alpert warns that it could also lead to misunderstandings regarding testimony and evidence years later.
“A retrial has the potential to bring clarity, especially if new psychological insights or evidence are introduced,” Alpert told Fox News Digital. “But it could just as easily create more confusion, particularly if the case continues to rely heavily on interpretation rather than hard facts.”
The case garnered national attention, with Patz’s photo being one of the first to be circulated on milk cartons throughout the country. His parents spent decades in the same home and with the same phone number, in hopes of their son eventually returning to them.
The child’s family worked to help establish a national missing-children hotline and pioneered a new way for law enforcement agencies throughout the country to distribute information regarding such cases.
“They waited and persevered for 35 years for justice for Etan, which today, sadly, may have been lost,” former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. told The Associated Press after hearing about the reversal.
The court ordered Hernandez’s release unless he receives a new trial within “a reasonable time period.”
“For more than 13 years, Pedro Hernandez has been in prison for a crime he did not commit and based on a conviction that the Second Circuit has now made clear was obtained in clear violation of law,” Hernandez’s lawyer, Harvey Fishbein, said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “We are grateful the Court has now given Pedro a chance to get his life back, and we call upon the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to drop these misguided charges and focus their efforts where they belong – on finding those actually responsible for the disappearance of Etan Patz.”
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
“This case highlights a broader issue in the legal system,” Alpert said. “Confessions are not always reliable. Mental illness, coercion or desperation can all lead someone to admit guilt falsely. Without physical evidence to support a confession, courts must proceed with extreme caution. Understanding the psychology behind a confession is essential before treating it as fact.”
