Etan Patz, a six year old in 1979, was murdered after going missing on his way to school. Finally, 38 years later, a suspect to his murder went to trial and was convicted. However, there is still debate as to whether or not the jury received improper information.

According to an investigative report by Joaquin Sapien and Joe Sexton, writers for ProPublica, the second trial of the case may be invalid such as the first trial. The first trial was called to have a retrial after one juror was unconvinced that Pedro Hernandez was at fault.

Hernandez, a former bodega owner, admitted to kidnapping Patz, strangling him, then putting him in a bag and then into a box to be left outside after a seven hour, unrecorded interrogation. The singular juror was swayed after the Hernandez’s lawyer claimed that his confession was fiction produced by a mentally ill man after an improper police investigation.

The second trial was believed to be a mistrial due to the juries’ knowledge of the first trial happening and having details of the trial. Sapien and Sexton found that at least four members of the jury were Facebook friends with one of the attorneys that led the prosecution. They also believe that the first jury members persuaded the jurors of the second trial.

I believe that the prosecution and the original jurors persuaded the jurors of the second trial, especially because the jurors all met together. While it would be nice for the Patz family to have closure over the loss of their son, but putting an innocent man behind bars is not the proper way to do so.