On October 8, 2014 for­mer death row inmate Manuel Velez (pic­tured with his son before his arrest) was freed from a Texas prison, fol­low­ing a ​“no con­test” plea to a less­er charge on August 25. Velez had been con­vict­ed of killing his girl­friend’s one-year-old son but con­sis­tent­ly main­tained his com­plete inno­cence. Velez’s con­vic­tion was over­turned in 2013 because his attor­ney failed to present evi­dence that the injuries lead­ing to the child’s death were sus­tained while Velez was 1,000 miles away. Medical records indi­cat­ed the child’s head bal­looned in size in the months pri­or to his death in a man­ner that could only have been caused by head injuries. During that time, the child’s moth­er was the only adult liv­ing with him. Velez’s tri­al was also taint­ed by pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct. The pros­e­cu­tion pre­sent­ed a wit­ness who claimed that if Velez were not exe­cut­ed, he would be impris­oned under lax con­di­tions with a risk for escape, mak­ing him a ​“future dan­ger.” The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said this tes­ti­mo­ny was false and con­trary to known prison reg­u­la­tions, which the pros­e­cu­tion knew. Velez agreed to the no-con­test plea so he could rejoin his fam­i­ly with­out the delay of a retri­al, even though a retri­al might have ful­ly exonerated him.

(Source: Alexandra Ringe, ACLU, 212 – 549-2582 office; 917 – 207-2290 cell; <aringe@​aclu.​org>). See Innocence, Prosecutorial Misconduct, and Representation. Because of Mr. Velez’s no con­test plea to a relat­ed charge, he will not be includ­ed on DPIC’s list of exon­er­a­tions. DPIC also keeps a sam­ple list of cas­es like Velez’s, where the for­mer death row inmate was freed, usu­al­ly after a reluc­tant plea to a less­er charge. See also Statement of Richard Dieter, DPIC’s Executive Director, below:

“The release of for­mer death row inmate Manuel Velez in Texas today under­scores the many prob­lems that con­tin­ue to plague the death penal­ty and the ongo­ing risk of exe­cut­ing the inno­cent. Mr. Velez’s case con­tained a litany of injus­tices, includ­ing police mis­con­duct, pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al decep­tion, inef­fec­tive­ness of defense coun­sel, and untruth­ful wit­ness­es. The death of a child because of abuse is a ter­ri­ble tragedy, but evi­dence uncov­ered after Velez’s tri­al in 2008 indi­cates the abuse occurred when he was a thou­sand miles away.
“The judge and dis­trict attor­ney at the time of Velez’s tri­al have been sent to prison for unre­lat­ed mis­con­duct. Velez’s tri­al attor­ney used a local bar as his office and missed crit­i­cal evi­dence that might have acquit­ted Velez. The vic­tim’s moth­er pled guilty to injur­ing a child, served five years, and was deport­ed. She tes­ti­fied against Velez.
“Although Manuel Velez will not be includ­ed on the Death Penalty Information Center’s list of exon­er­a­tions because of his no con­test plea, this case rep­re­sents a seri­ous break­down of the jus­tice sys­tem at mul­ti­ple lev­els. This is a very strong case of like­ly inno­cence, and cer­tain­ly one that shows that the grave risks of the death penal­ty per­sist. It is under­stand­able that Mr. Velez agreed to a no con­test plea to a much less­er offense in order to be freed and reunit­ed with his family.”
Mr. Velez was rep­re­sent­ed by excel­lent coun­sel on his appeal, includ­ing the American Civil Liberties Union.
Citation Guide