Supreme Court reinstates murder conviction in case of Etan Patz, missing New York City boy

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 10:01 AM EDT, June 22, 2026


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a murder conviction in the 1979 disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, granted an appeal from New York prosecutors who had urged them to undo a federal appeals court decision that overturned the verdict. The three liberal justices dissented. Prosecutors had been preparing to try the man, Pedro Hernandez, for a third time. His first trial ended in a mistrial.

The unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Hernandez’ murder and kidnapping conviction in the second trial because of how the judge had answered a question from jurors. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had called the basis for overturning the conviction “a slender reed” that essentially ignored a five-month-long trial with 66 witnesses.

The justices agreed, in an unsigned opinion, that federal courts should not second-guess state courts under a 1996 federal law that was intended to reduce federal court oversight of state criminal trials. “The Second Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that Hernandez is entitled to relief,” the court wrote, referring to the New York-based appeals court,

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-missing-boy-etan-patz-investigation-fcdcf712ab8450266ff19341581ee83a

---

Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-748_4g1o.pdf

[SSJVegeta]

1. Coney barret voting for the death penalty again?

Interesting 😒

[LeftInTX]

3. Hernandez, 64, has been serving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

No death penalty.

I don't know how this case wound up in federal courts. It isn't a death penalty case.

It appears that this appeal is maybe a fourth amendment case?

During deliberations, the 2017 jurors asked a complicated question: If they decided Hernandez didn’t confess voluntarily when he hadn’t been read his rights yet, must they disregard his other confessions? The then-judge responded simply, “the answer is no.” The jury went on to convict.

[SSJVegeta]

4. Glad to see they are at least not killing another person...

Thank you for the clarification/ correction!

[onenote]

5. It was a federal habeas corpus case.

The federal court below reversed the state court conviction and sentence, and the state appealed to the US Supreme Court. The six conservatives on the court ruled that the statutory basis relied on by the lower federal court for revering the state court conviction did not apply and vacated the federal court order, reinstating the state court conviction and sentence.

[SSJVegeta]

8. DU is awesome

Thank you for the info and context!

[Whyisthisstillclose]

2. Guilt or innocence not withstanding, it is terrifying that one's life can be decided on the whims of

a group of corrupt, bought, and most definitely mentally compromised men and women with lifetime posts and no oversight.

[onenote]

6. Not a death penalty case.

Sentenced to 25 to life after a jury found the defendant guilty of intentional murder.

[Whyisthisstillclose]

7. These putzes shouldn't be deciding traffic cases, let alone a 25 to life prison sentence.

[onenote]

9. Who should be deciding?

In New York, a jury decides the verdict but the trial court judge decides the sentence. In this case, the defendant appealed the New York state trial court decision to the next higher New York state court and after they upheld the decision, he appealed to the highest level New York court and was turned down. He then tried the US Supreme Court and, in 2021, that Court, with no noted dissents, denied his petition for certiorari. He then went back to federal district court with his habeas petition, which was denied by a Clinton-appointed judge, but that decision was reversed by a three judge panel of the Second Circuit, which ordered the case returned to New York for a potential retrial. The Supremes reversed that decision, reinstating the Clinton judge's previous denial.

My question: along this winding road, who should have the final say over the sentence imposed on a defendant.

[Whyisthisstillclose]

10. Certainly not this current Supreme Court. The majority right now are partisan, corrupt hacks