A Pennsylvania judge has overturned the convictions of three men imprisoned for decades in the 1997 slaying of a 70-year-old woman even though their DNA never matched that found at the scene, but they will remain in prison while a prosecutor decides whether to appeal.
The Delaware County judge on Thursday ordered new trials for Derrick Chappell — who was 15 when he was arrested — and first cousins Morton Johnson and Sam Grasty.
“This case never should have been prosecuted. These guys never should have been charged. The evidence always was that they were innocent,” Paul Casteleiro, Grasty’s lawyer and legal director of the nonprofit Centurion, said Friday. The prosecutors, he said, “just ran roughshod” over the defendants.
The three were charged and convicted in the death of Henrietta Nickens of Chester, who told her daughter in her last known phone call that she was about to watch the 11 p.m. news. She was later found badly beaten, with her underwear removed, and her home ransacked, with blood on the walls and bedding.
The three defendants — all young people from the neighborhood — were convicted even though DNA testing at the time showed that semen found in the victim’s body and on a jacket at the scene did not match any of them, Casteleiro said.
He called the prosecution’s various theories of the case “preposterous.” To explain the lack of a DNA match, he said, they argued that the victim perhaps had consensual sex before the slaying, or that the three defendants brought a used condom to the scene, he said. Yet Nickens was chronically ill and had no known male partners, he continued.
“They just ran this absurd story and got juries to buy it,” Casteleiro said.
Common Pleas Court Judge Mary Alice Brennan at a hearing Thursday threw out the convictions and set a May 23 bail hearing to determine if county prosecutors will seek a new trial.
District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer plans to review the case next week before making a decision, a spokesperson said Friday.
Calls to lawyers for Johnson and Chappell were not immediately returned Friday. The Pennsylvania Innocence Project also worked on the case.
The men are now in their 40s. All three filed pro se petitions in federal court over the years saying they were wrongly convicted, but the petitions were denied.
Jane Dorotik has spent two decades fighting for her freedom. The California mother and wife was convicted of murdering her husband Bob in 2001, but always maintained her innocence.
From prison, where she was serving a sentence of 25 years to life, Jane spent years filing motions pushing for a new examination of the evidence.
Working with Loyola Project for the Innocent, new testing of evidence was done, including of blood found in the couple’s bedroom. They said it revealed some of the spots were never tested and others were not blood at all.
“If you just look at all of the pieces of evidence that Loyola was able to absolutely take apart, and yet we know what was told to the jury in the original conviction,” Jane Dorotik tells “48 Hours” correspondent Erin Moriarty, who has has covered the case for 24 years.
“Jane, how would you describe what the last 22 years have been like for you?” Moriarty asked.
“It’s been torturous in many ways,” explained Jane. “I suppose many moments when I thought, “How do I keep going?’
WHO KILLED BOB DOROTIK?
When “48 Hours” first met Jane Dorotik in 2000, the life she had once found so serene in the foothills outside of San Diego — a life she had shared with her husband Bob — had taken an unimaginable turn.
Jane Dorotik: How can this be? How can this happen? Surely I’ll wake up and it’s a dream.
Jane had been become the prime suspect in Bob’s murder. Authorities believed that she viciously attacked him in their home.
Jane Dorotik: I certainly didn’t do this. I loved my husband.
Jane and Bob Dorotik
Family photo
Jane, 53 years old at the time, and Bob, 55, shared more than half their lives together.
Jane Dorotik: I was 23 when we were married … Bob was a wonderful, loving, creative person.
Bob spent most of his career as an engineer. Jane worked as a nurse, and later, as an executive in the health care industry. The couple raised three children, Alex, Claire and Nick.
Jane Dorotik: The family has always been incredibly important to both of us.
Also important to Jane, were their horses. While Jane’s passion was breeding and riding, Bob was an avid jogger. And that, says Jane, is the last image she has of her husband.
Jane Dorotik: Bob was sitting, actually, in this chair, facing the TV.
Although Jane was under suspicion, she allowed “48 Hours” into her home.
Jane Dorotik: He said he was going out for a jog, and he was actually — had his jogging suit on, was tying his shoes. … That was the last I talked to him.
It was around 1 p.m. on Feb. 13, 2000, when Jane says Bob left to go for that run. As hours passed without any word from him, Jane says she grew concerned.
Jane Dorotik: It was beginning to get dark … I — decided to go out and look.
Jane says she searched for Bob, driving up and down the hill where he sometimes ran. By 7:45 p.m., Jane’s concern turned to fear.
Jane Dorotik: I said, “Enough. This is enough. Something is wrong.” … And that’s when I made the call to the Sheriff’s Department.
Deputy James Blackmon: My first … thought that night was maybe this man had a heart attack and … fell down the embankment along Lake Wohlford Road .
As Deputy James Blackmon, and others from the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, searched for Bob, concerned friends and family gathered at the Dorotik house.
Claire Dorotik: The minute I saw my mom’s face, I knew right away something terrible had happened.
The Dorotik’s daughter, Claire, 24 at the time, had spent the weekend visiting her aunt and returned home to a distraught Jane.
Claire Dorotik: She was freaked out, she was scared, she was nervous, she was crying.
Jane Dorotik: It was a horrifying feeling that got more and more horrifying when he wasn’t found.
And then, in the predawn hours of Feb. 14, Deputy Blackmon turned into a driveway, several miles from the Dorotik home, and noticed a body off the road.
The T-shirt Bob Dorotik was wearing when his body was found on the side of the road several miles from their Valley Center, California, home. He had been bludgeoned in the head and strangled.
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Deputy Blackmon (2001): At this point, I could see the shirt, the … pants … And he was laying on his back.
From Jane’s description, he immediately knew it was Bob Dorotik.
Det. Rick Empson: I got there a little after seven in the morning.
San Diego County Sheriff’s Detective Rick Empson was called to the scene.
Det. Rick Empson: There was no evidence of any type of vehicle accident.
The evidence Empson did find suggested something else.
Det. Rick Empson: I could see that he had blood on his face … there was blood near the back of his head, and I could see that there was a rope around his neck.
Bob Dorotik had been bludgeoned and strangled. The one-time missing person case had turned into a homicide investigation.
Erin Moriarty: Is there anybody you could think who would want to see your husband dead?
Jane Dorotik: Nobody. Nobody.
As law enforcement asked Jane questions about Bob, she let them into her home.
Jane Dorotik: “Come in. Search. Look for anything.”
Detective Empson noticed a piece of rope hanging from the porch that caught his attention — thinking he had just seen something similar on Bob Dorotik.
Det. Rick Empson: It appeared to be the exact same type of rope that was found around his neck.
And when investigators got to Bob and Jane’s bedroom, they found something more troubling. They believed they were looking at blood spatter.
Det. Rick Empson: There was no question in our mind that this assault occurred in the master bedroom.
They documented their findings in a diagram, taking photos along the way of what they believed to be blood on various items in the bedroom, and of what appeared to be a large blood stain on the underside of the mattress.
Jane Dorotik: I do know when Bob had a nosebleed he made a comment about getting some blood on the mattress.
Jane says there was a logical explanation for some of the other blood, too — they had dogs who were injured and had bled.
Jane Dorotik: This little dog had an abscess on her cheek that was openly draining at the time and little drops of blood we’d find when she sat on the couch. … The carpet pieces are what the detectives removed, feeling that there was blood on the carpet.
Investigators quickly determined Bob Dorotik wasn’t killed where his body was found, because there wasn’t enough blood there. When they searched the Dorotiks’ home, they found spots of blood all over the bedroom.
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
The spots of blood investigators said they found all over the bedroom surprised Jane.
Erin Moriarty: Do you have any other explanation of how that blood spatter could have gotten there?
Jane Dorotik: Not really.
Erin Moriarty: On the ceiling, on the window, on the walls?
Jane Dorotik: No.
Adding to authorities’ suspicions was the bloody syringe found in the bathroom garbage. Jane told “48 Hours” she used it to medicate her horses.
Jane Dorotik: I know that I give the horses shots all the time … if you go look in my fridge right now, you’ll find horse syringes.
Investigators theorized that Jane hit her husband with an object in the bedroom and strangled him. She then dressed him in his jogging suit, put him in their truck, and dumped him along the side of the road where his body was found.
Erin Moriarty: Why do they believe you killed your husband?
Jane Dorotik: You know, I guess I’ve been through that one a billion times. I don’t know.
But investigators thought they knew, believing the motive was money, and escaping a troubled marriage. Jane was the main breadwinner, and they learned the couple had split up for a year in 1997.
Jane Dorotik: I don’t make any apologies for the fact that we had rough times. But that doesn’t change the fact that we loved each other.
And that love, says Jane, is why they reconciled. They had been back living together as a couple for a year-and-a-half before Bob was killed.
Jane Dorotik: I really think the separation caused us to really regroup and think about what was important.
Claire Dorotik: They were getting along better than they ever had in the past. I was living there. I can tell you that.
But law enforcement was unmoved, and three days after Bob Dorotik’s body was found, Jane was arrested, and charged with first-degree murder.
Jane Dorotik: I know I didn’t do this. I know there is a killer out there … but how am I going to clear myself?
Kerry Steigerwalt: She’s baffled ’cause I don’t think she knows what happened.
Released on bail, Jane started preparing her defense, hiring attorney Kerry Steigerwalt.
Kerry Steigerwalt: She knows she’s placed as the killer and she’s not the killer.
And at trial, Jane’s attorney would present a surprise suspect, who he felt was responsible for Bob Dorotik’s murder.
THE TRIAL OF JANE DOROTIK
Jane Dorotik: I know that I am innocent, but I don’t have any more faith in the legal system. I believe I could be convicted for something that I didn’t do. And that’s very scary.
While Jane worried about her outcome at trial, Claire Dorotik was much more confident about her mother’s chances.
Claire Dorotik: My mom could not have done this crime. She didn’t have the motive, and she didn’t have the opportunity.
But when the case went to trial in 2001, a year after the murder, prosecutor Bonnie Howard–Regan described the Dorotik’s marriage as seriously troubled and told jurors that Jane didn’t want to pay Bob alimony in a divorce.
Bonnie Howard–Regan (in court): Bob Dorotik never went jogging. And he never left that residence alive.
According to the state, Bob had actually been killed Saturday night, nearly a day before Jane reported him missing. The autopsy performed, by Dr. Christopher Swalwell, showed undigested food consistent with what Jane said they had for dinner that night.
Bonnie Howard–Regan (in court): Are you able to give us an estimate of how long after Mr. Dorotik ate, how long after that, he — he was killed?
Dr. Christopher Swalwell: Yes. It was very shortly after he ate. …I would say it was probably within a couple of hours.
And he wasn’t killed on the side of the road, the prosecutor said. There wasn’t enough blood there. Instead, she said Bob’s blood was all over the bedroom. Lead detective Rick Empson testified he had asked Jane to explain that.
Det. Rick Empson (in court): She indicated initially that she had a dog that — had been bleeding, and then indicated that approximately a week prior, Bob had a bloody nose over in the corner by the stove, and that Bob had cleaned it up.
There was evidence someone cleaned the bedroom. The carpet next to the potbelly stove and tiled floor was wet and had blood stains underneath.
Erin Moriarty: Did any of the blood from his nosebleed get on the carpet?
Jane Dorotik: Uh huh (affirms).
Erin Moriarty: Do you know where?
Jane Dorotik: Uh huh. Right next to the tile. ‘Cause I — I’m the one that helped him clean it.
Authorities dismissed Jane’s explanations. Their theory was that Jane hit Bob in the head in their bedroom with an object while he was lying in bed, although they never identified or found any weapon. Charles Merritt, a criminalist and bloodstain pattern analyst for the San Diego County Sheriff’s Crime Lab, recounted 20 locations where he saw blood stains.
Charles Merritt (in court): On one of the pillows … on a lamp … this particular nightstand. … on the potbelly stove … on the ceiling itself. … and then on the underside of the mattress.
The jury was also shown this evidence of tire tracks found near Bob’s body. The state’s expert Anthony DeMaria said he matched the three different types of tires on Dorotik’s truck
Bonnie Howard–Regan (in court): Are you saying the measurements taken at the scene were equal to the measurements … taken off the actual vehicle?
Anthony DeMaria: Yes.
A bloody syringe found in a garbage can in the Dorotik’s bathroom.
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
The most telling evidence connecting Jane to the murder, according to the prosecutor, was that syringe found in the bathroom. It had traces of a horse tranquilizer inside. And even though there was no evidence that Bob had been injected with anything, it had Bob’s blood and a bloody fingerprint on it.
Bonnie Howard–Regan (in court): The evidence will show that the fingerprint on this syringe was Jane Dorotik’s.
Erin Moriarty: Can you explain that?
Jane Dorotik: I can’t really explain it, other than – I know that I helped Bob clean up a nosebleed. And if that’s the same time when I took the syringes and threw them in the trash … and there was some blood on my hand, that could have — made that happen.
But perhaps the most powerful witnesses were the Dorotiks’ two sons, Nick and Alex. They both testified against their mother.
Bonnie Howard–Regan (in court): Did you say anything specifically about the syringe?
Nick Dorotik: Well, I asked her — how it got there and what it was doing there.
Bonnie Howard-Regan: And what was your mother’s response?
Nick Dorotik: She said that — her biggest fear in all this was that the — that us family members would start questioning her.
Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): Your mother always settled things logically, tried to?
Alex Dorotik: No.
Kerry Steigerwalt: — you wouldn’t agree with that statement?
Alex Dorotik: Nope. …It would be my mom basically saying, “This is what you have to accept.” And then my dad would either accept it or there would be threats of divorce or something. That’s what I remember from growing up.
Jane’s attorneys Kerry Steigerwalt and Cole Casey admitted it was a big blow.
Erin Moriarty: Would you say that’s been the most damaging testimony?
Kerry Steigerwalt: Yeah.
Cole Casey: It’s not what they said. It’s the fact that they were there testifying for the prosecution.
When it came time for the defense to present its case, Steigerwalt actually agreed with the prosecution on a major point — that the murder took place in the bedroom. But he had a jaw-dropping alternative suspect: Claire Dorotik.
Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): Ladies and gentlemen, Claire hated her father.
He claimed Claire, an avid horsewoman, hated her father because he threatened to sell the animals she loved – and suggested that she was capable of murder.
Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): That’s what Claire is. A hot-tempered, explosive individual.
It was a risky strategy that Jane reluctantly agreed to.
Jane Dorotik: All I can do is trust what Kerry says is the best way to go.
Erin Moriarty: Are you at all concerned that the jury will wonder about a woman who would allow herself to be defended by pointing the finger at her daughter? Could that work against the two of you?
Kerry Steigerwalt: It may. I don’t know. … I think it is the most viable defense. And I think it’s supported by the best evidence.
Steigerwalt insisted Jane wasn’t physically able to commit the murder, but Claire was.
Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): She runs marathons. And she’s a personal trainer. She is as fit a woman as you will see at the age of 24.
But remember, Claire and her aunt said they were together, two hours away.
Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): They called the aunt …That’s the extent of the investigation on the alibi of Claire Dorotik. … That alibi is nonsense.
The jurors never heard from Claire, whotook the fifth, or Jane, who chose not to testify. But they did hear from a woman who said she thought she saw Bob the day he disappeared – sitting between two men in a black pickup truck not far from where his body was found.
Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): Who killed Robert Dorotik? … Was it Claire Dorotik? … Or ladies and gentlemen, was it someone else?
In his closing argument, Steigerwalt accused investigators of dismissing witnesses like that woman and focusing only on Jane.
Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): The prosecution had focused on one person and that’s not the way to conduct an investigation. That’s not the way to run a case.
Bonnie Howard-Regan (in court): Jane Dorotik and Bob Dorotik were the only two people in that home that weekend.
Bonnie Howard-Regan said there is no need to investigate further when you have sufficient evidence.
Bonnie Howard-Regan (in court): They searched that bedroom and they saw all the blood and they knew that was the crime scene … What more investigation do they need to do?
It took the jury four days to return a verdict.
Jane Dorotik reacts as the guilty verdict was read in court.
CBS News
COURT CLERK: We the jury in the above titled cause find the defendant Jane Marguerite Dorotik guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree in violation of penal code …”
Erin Moriarty: Did Jane Dorotik get a fair trial?
Matthew Troiano: No. No. … Because fairness means that you’re presenting things accurately, and it — it appears like it was not done accurately.
JANE DOROTIK ADVOCATES FOR HER INNOCENCE
Jane Dorotik (jail interview with Erin Moriarty): It almost didn’t register for a minute. It’s like “No, this can’t be.” … I was so certain that I was walking out … I thought they would see the truth.
Jane Dorotik never imagined she’d be found guilty.
Jane Dorotik (jail interview): It’s hard to keep going (crying).
“I just, I can’t see my way clear to a life in prison. I just can’t see it,” Jane Dorotik told “48 Hours” correspondent Erin Moriarty in an interview in jail.
CBS News
At the time of her conviction for the murder of her husband, she was 54 years old and sentenced to 25 years-to-life.
Jane Dorotik (jail interview): I mean, I just, I can’t see my way clear to a life in prison. I just can’t see it.
Determined to prove the jury got it wrong, Jane became her own advocate, working on her case for many years. “48 Hours” spoke with Jane again two decades later about her efforts.
Jane Dorotik: All through the prison — my prison journey, I continued to write to … all innocence projects I could think of, asking for help. … At the same time, realized … that I had to fight for myself.
Jane filed motions from prison citing such issues as insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Jane Dorotik: I would describe my defense as limited and inadequate.
In her filings, Jane indicated that she wanted to testify at her trial but had left that decision up to her attorney. And that had she testified, she could have explained Bob’s stomach contents — stating that he sometimes ate leftovers from the previous night. She also described her attorney’s alternate suspect theory, pointing to her daughter Claire as the killer, as absurd.
Erin Moriarty: Do you believe that your daughter Claire had anything to do with the death of her dad?
Jane Dorotik: Absolutely unequivocally not. And my defense attorney, everybody knew she was away for that weekend.
In regard to that defense strategy, Claire, later wrote in a book, “how could I be angry at my mother, when all I did was worry about her.” Jane’s lawyer, whom “48 Hours” interviewed at the time of her trial, did not speak with us again.
Jane Dorotik: That was the worst strategy of my life ever… I said to my attorney, “If anything happens to Claire, I’m gonna stand up and say I did it.”
In her filings, Jane also questioned why her defense attorney accepted the “bad forensics “pointing to the bedroom as the murder scene, rather than presenting other scenarios as to where and how Bob Dorotik could have been murdered.
Erin Moriarty: Did the defense too easily accept the bedroom as a crime scene?
Matthew Troiano: That is a very legitimate argument.
CBS News consultant Matthew Troiano, a former prosecutor and current defense attorney, was not involved in the Dorotik case, but he reviewed some of the court documents at “48 Hours”‘ request.
Matthew Troiano: The defense made a strategic decision. … Are we going to dispute that a crime happened in this location or … are we essentially gonna concede that it happened there and then come up with a different narrative of how it happened there? And they chose the latter.
And that decision, Troiano says, likely led the defense to point the finger at Claire for the murder.
Matthew Troiano: They had to blame somebody else for something that happened in a specific location. … And they, at least, as it relates to the daughter, you know, went back to her, having some disagreement with her father about something. … And it was – it was a risk.
Erin Moriarty: Have you ever seen that kind of defense?
Matthew Troiano: You don’t — you don’t see it. I mean, it could happen when there are clear facts and evidence to support it, but when there are none … that’s, you know, that’s a showstopper.
And, in fact, Claire was never charged with any wrongdoing in connection to her father’s murder. The defense accepting the bedroom as the murder scene is especially puzzling to Troiano, as there were reports from several eyewitnesses who said they saw a man jogging that day — accounts consistent with Jane’s depiction of events, not the prosecution’s.
Matthew Troiano: That’s critical, critical evidence.
Jane Dorotik: And all of that was really not pursued. … And … I didn’t know of all the witnesses. … Had there been a thorough investigation initially, all of that would have come out.
Through the years, in filings, Jane raised problems with the entire case against her, arguing that authorities focused on her from the very beginning of the investigation and failed to follow other investigative leads. But motion after motion was denied. And regarding Jane’s ineffective counsel claims, the judge rejected them all, ruling that her attorney’s performance was not deficient, and that his actions had not affected the outcome of the case.
Jane Dorotik: There were many moments where I doubted when is this ever going to turn around. Many, many moments.
Still, Jane didn’t give up. She continued looking for new evidence to clear her, especially as DNA testing became more advanced. In 2012, she filed a petition for DNA testing of that rope found around Bob’s neck, and other items, like Bob’s fingernail clippings, which had been saved, but never tested. And in 2015, the motion was granted.
Erin Moriarty: Is that unusual that she finally even got testing based on her filing motions on her own?
Matthew Troiano: Yes, it’s — it’s very atypical.
It was at this time that Jane finally got the attention of a wrongful conviction group, Loyola Law School’s Project for the Innocent.
Jane Dorotik: I get this wonderful letter from Loyola saying, “You’ve contacted us and we’re interested in your case. … And after that, Loyola took over. Got the testing done.
And what that testing revealed, as well as a fresh examination of other evidence, would change the course of the case.
Matt Troiano: That’s really what flips the script to say that there’s more here. This is more than just an inadequate investigation. There is a different narrative that’s running through these test results. … there is evidence that another person could be involved.
A NEW LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE
Matthew Troiano: When you talk about the evidence in this case … the subsequent testing reveals that you might have a different explanation for things … that really shed light on what may have happened here.
Jane Dorotik spent years behind bars asking for a new examination of the evidence used to convict her of her husband Bob’s murder. Now, working with a team from Loyola Project for the Innocent, the court allowed them to have new DNA testing on items such as the rope found around Bob Dorotik’s neck, his fingernails, and clothing. Appeal filings state that foreign male DNA was found on several items.
Bob Dorotik
Family photo
Jane Dorotik: The results of that — none of my DNA anywhere.
Matthew Troiano: There is physical evidence … from fingernail clippings … from a rope … from his clothing, that is foreign to Jane.
The team from Loyola Project for the Innocent declined to be interviewed. We asked Nathan Lents, a Professor of Biology and Forensic Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who was not involved in the case, to review court documents about new evidence, such as the DNA on the rope.
Nathan Lents: While they didn’t get a profile that would be good enough to search a database or even match to a suspect, they did get enough DNA that is not attributable to Bob or to Jane.
But while Jane and her team believed the results pointed to her innocence, the state came to a different conclusion, stating in filings: “… the DNA obtained was too low level to make any reliable interpretation.”
Lents agrees the DNA levels were low, but he believes it was enough to exclude Jane, and that the absence of Jane’s DNA on the rope, as well as under Bob’s fingernails or on his clothing, is significant.
Nathan Lents: With the theory of crime that they presented, you would expect a lot of Jane’s DNA on Bob … and if — if she had moved his body, there’s a lot of DNA transfer that might have taken place there — that wasn’t found.
The appellate team also reviewed the bedroom blood evidence the prosecutor told the jury was fully tested and was Bob’s.
Prosecutor Bonnie Howard-Regan (in court): Now, the evidence will show that all this blood that has been described to you, the observations made in this bedroom, that it was all sent out for DNA analysis, and it all came back Bob Dorotik’s blood.
But according to the appeal, not every single spot in the bedroom believed to be blood was tested. Instead, representative samples were tested.
Nathan Lents: There were cases where just simply one swab with a control was taken and it was representative, uh, of a variety of spots. That’s not good practice … it just invites misinterpretation.
Matthew Troiano: When you’re talking about blood spatter and you’re trying to analyze how it got there … you need to do a fairly comprehensive test to be able to draw the conclusion that you’re drawing.
Erin Moriarty: But I think the prosecution could argue … You can’t afford to test, can you, every single drop that looks like blood?
Matthew Troiano: Right. … But when you say we did everything … and that’s not accurate, that’s where the problem lies.
In fact, the appellate team says that several blood-like stains on items including a pillow sham, the nightstand, a lampshade, turned out not to be blood.
And there were those stains on the bedspread, which criminalist Charles Merritt pointed to at trial and described as Bob’s blood. Jane’s lawyers learned those particular spots were never tested at all, and due to improper storage, the bedspread could not be tested again.
The handling of the evidence, over the course of the entire investigation, was also raised on appeal.
Nathan Lents (looking at photo with Moriarty): This one is hard to even look at. Um, you have an investigator who definitely should know better, um, handling murder evidence with his bare hands. … In addition to obviously depositing his own DNA all around this crime scene, he’s also risking transferring evidence from among the various spots that he’s collecting.
The contents of the Dorotik’s bathroom garbage can.
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
And there’s that syringe, with Bob’s blood and Jane’s fingerprint, found in the bathroom garbage — something the appellate team, and Lents, thought could be explained.
Nathan Lents: And if you throw that syringe in the garbage can … Bob throws a — a bloody Kleenex in that garbage can, they could transfer. Transfer of DNA from one object to another in a trash can is not unexpected.
Lents feels the fact that syringe was even found in the garbage, points fingers away from Jane.
Nathan Lents: If you’re cleaning up after a murder, you won’t leave the bloody syringe in the waste bucket — basket.
But the state stood by its original investigation, maintaining the bedroom was the murder scene, stating that the evidence still points to Jane Dorotik as the killer, and that the defense “arguments are largely derived from speculation and misstatements of fact.”
Jane’s appellate team, though, maintains the bedroom did not even look like a crime scene, something Lents also believes.
Nathan Lents: There is not a consistent pattern to the evidence that indicates a violent bludgeoning that took place in that bedroom. … if Bob were alive today and investigators had walked in his room, no one would say, oh, this looks like someone was murdered here.
Jane Dorotik: If you just look at all of the pieces of evidence that Loyola was able to absolutely take apart … and yet we know what was told to the jury in the original conviction … So — how can that happen?
As her attorneys reviewed evidence, Jane Dorotik, in 2020, was temporarily and conditionally let out of prison due to COVID health concerns. The question now became, was the new evidence her lawyers were finding enough to make her release permanent?
JANE DOROTIK’S FINAL PUSH FOR FREEDOM
In the summer of 2020, Jane Dorotik and her team hoped a court would overturn the jury’s verdict, turning her temporary release from prison into lasting freedom.
Erin Moriarty: What were their major points?
Matthew Troiano: The testing that was done initially was insufficient. The way that that testing was presented to the jury was inaccurate. There were a number of different arguments that they made.
A hearing was scheduled, but then suddenly the state requested an unplanned virtual hearing.
PROSECUTOR KARL HUSOE (remote hearing): The people are willing to concede petitioner’s new evidence claim…
The prosecution admitted what Jane’s lawyers had argued all along.
PROSECUTOR KARL HUSOE (remote hearing): The DNA evidence as it exists now, in 2020, is much different in quality and quantity than presented at trial in 2001.
That the new DNA test results – as well as issues with how the Sheriff’s Crime Lab handled evidence — cast doubt on the verdict. But what came next was even more unexpected. The state requested that Jane’s murder conviction be overturned … and the judge agreed.
Jane Dorotik: I always believed that at some point … the truth would come out.
But Jane’s ordeal wasn’t over. Three months later, in another shocking move, the DA’s office decided to retry her.
Jane Dorotik: I don’t think any of us thought … that San Diego County would attempt to retry me. But they did.
Matthew Troiano: The state believes that she did this, and they want to pursue it. … Then you have this battle … in court. … If you’re conceding that there were problems … how are you going to do it again, essentially with the same evidence?
Jane Dorotik: It was astounding to sit in that courtroom and see what they try and put forward as actual evidence. And then also thrilling to see my team take it apart.
Tire tracks near the site where Bob Dorotik’s body was discovered.
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Jane’s attorneys questioned the credibility of several of the State’s experts, including Charles Merritt of the Sheriff’s Crime Lab. The judge ultimately ruled that the new trial could go ahead, but that some key evidence presented in her original trial would not be admissible — including those tire tracks near where Bob’s body was found that were linked to Jane’s truck.
Matthew Troiano: You have a number of different trucks that could be consistent with those tire tracks … It’s in essence kind of junk science-y.
In May 2022, just as jury selection was about to begin, the prosecution surprised everyone yet again.
Jane Dorotik: We go into court as the jury is assembled and ready to come into the … courtroom Monday morning. And everything’s changed.
Deputy DA Christopher Campbell (in court): We no longer feel that the evidence is sufficient to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt and convince 12 members of the jury. So we are requesting that the court … dismiss the charges at this time. Thank you.
Judge: Ms. Dorotik, you are free to go. Good luck to you ma’am.
Jane Dorotik address reporters after her conviction was overturned.
Aleida Wahn
JANE DOROTIK (to reporters): It just is overwhelming to realize that now I can determine my own future. It’s something I’ve prayed for and hoped for.
After the hearing, Jane’s attorneys spoke about her decades-long fight.
MICHAEL CAVALUZZI ( to reporters) Jane’s dignity in standing up and stoically fighting for her innocence against every risk and every threat. That’s why this case got dismissed today and … as far as we’re concerned, we’re moving on.
The District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Department declined to speak with “48 Hours.” The case against Jane Dorotik was dismissed without prejudice, which means, if new evidence surfaces, charges could be brought again someday.
Erin Moriarty: But then, doesn’t that leave still a shadow over Jane Dorotik?
Matthew Troiano: Oh, sure, it does. I mean, there’s no question about it. … From a practical perspective, do I think it’s over? Yeah, I think it’s over. But from a legal perspective, no.
Jane Dorotik is working to rebuild her life after spending nearly two decades in prison.
Jane Dorotik: My entire family has been blown apart by this hurricane of events. … It’s been heartbreaking on so many levels.
Claire Dorotik did not respond to”48 Hours”‘ request for comment, but Jane says they are still close. Her son Nick died in 2023. Alex Dorotik did not provide a comment to “48 Hours,” but according to filings by the state, he remains convinced his mother killed his father.
Erin Moriarty: Do you have hope that your family will come together at some point?
Jane Dorotik: Of course I do. Of course I have hope.
Jane also has hope that she can make a difference in other people’s lives, as she works with advocacy groups that help incarcerated women.
Jane Dorotik: To me, it’s not just about my story. And yes, we can all sit here and say, “This is so horrendous.” And “How did this happen to this woman?” … But unless we look systemically, how many others are we gonna find? And to me, that’s critically important.
Many unanswered questions about this case remain, including, perhaps, the most important one.
Matthew Troiano: What happened here? … We don’t know what happened to Bob Dorotik. … Where’s justice for Bob? Where’s justice for Robert Dorotik?
Jane Dorotik has filed a civil suit against the County of San Diego. The suit also names several members of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and its Crime Laboratory.
Produced by Ruth Chenetz and Dena Goldstein. Atticus Brady, George Baluzy and Joan Adelman are the editors. Greg Fisher and Cindy Cesare are the development producers. Lourdes Aguiar is the senior producer. Nancy Kramer is the executive story editor. Judy Tygard is the executive producer.
Erin Moriarty
Erin Moriarty is a “48 Hours” correspondent and host of the true-crime podcast, “My Life of Crime.”
Pope Francis washes feet of 12 women at Rome prison in ceremony – CBS News
Watch CBS News
From his wheelchair, 87-year-old Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of 12 women, who are inmates at a prison in Rome, during a Holy Thursday ceremony that recalls the foot-washing Jesus performed on his 12 apostles before he was crucified. Francis was the first pope to include women in the ceremony.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Gypsy Rose Blanchard announced on her private Facebook that she and her husband Ryan Anderson have separated three months after she was released from prison for her role in the murder of her mother. The announcement came just weeks after Blanchard deleted her highly-followed TikTok and Instagram accounts.
Blanchard was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of her mother, Clauddine “Dee Dee” Blanchard, who was stabbed to death by Gypsy Rose’s then-boyfriend Nick Godejohn in 2015, a crime that inspired the Hulu mini-series, “The Act.” Godejohn told police he committed the crime at Gypsy Rose’s request when she learned that after a lifetime of being told she had several debilitating illnesses that required constant care, it was all a lie and she was a victim of child abuse. After pleading guilty, Godejohn was sentenced to life in prison.
Ryan Anderson and Gypsy Rose Blanchard attend “The Prison Confessions Of Gypsy Rose Blanchard” Red Carpet Event on January 05, 2024 in New York City.
/ Getty Images
Gypsy Rose, who was sentenced to 10 years, was released from prison after seven years on Dec. 28.
It was during her sentence that she met her husband, Ryan Anderson, a special education teacher from Louisiana. The pair wed in July 2022.
But on Thursday, she announced the two have broken up.
“People have been asking what is going on in my life. Unfortunately my husband and I are going through a separation and I moved in with my parents home down the bayo,” she wrote on her private Facebook account in a statement obtained by People magazine. “I have the support of my family and friends to help guide me through this. I am learning to listen to my heart. Right now I need time to let myself find… who I am.”
In an interview with Entertainment Tonight in January, Blanchard said she felt a connection with Anderson when he started contacting her while she was in prison. She said she was immediately attracted to the fact that he lives in Louisiana, where she is originally from.
“I wrote him a letter back and we became friends, and of course more than friends, and then now we’re married,” she said.
Immediately upon her release from prison, she told ET she and Anderson moved in together and were “learning about each other.” They had also discussed having kids, but were unsure of when they wanted to do so.
“With us getting married [while she was still in jail], she was able to come live with me straight out of prison,” Anderson told ET. “So, that was important. It’s what we both wanted.”
“We’re just trying to take it day by day,” Gypsy Rose added. “We’re just trying to start off the marriage on a good foot before we bring kids into this situation right now.”
Earlier this month, Gypsy Rose – who was determined to have suffered from a form of abuse that involves a guardian inducing illness for sympathy, leading to her decision to kill her mother – deleted her social media profiles that had amassed millions of followers.
She first deleted her Instagram account, which according to Entertainment Tonight had at one point more than 7.8 million followers. After deleting that account, she posted a series of TikToks saying she is doing her “best to live my authentic life and what’s real to me.”
“And what’s not real is social media,” she said, calling it a “doorway to hell.”
“It’s so crazy, I can’t even wrap my head around what social media is,” she said. “…And with the public scrutiny as bad as it is, I just don’t want to live my life under a microscope.”
Then she deleted her TikTok as well. People magazine learned that she deleted those accounts “at the advisement of her parole officer, so she won’t get in trouble and go back to jail.”
Li Cohen
Li Cohen is a social media producer and trending content writer for CBS News.
Even as a child, Evan Gershkovich seemed destined to be a reporter. He was always curious, liked a good story, and was deeply interested in Russia, the country his parents had emigrated from.
He was there, as Russia instituted the biggest crackdown on the free press in decades — one that would ensnare him, left awaiting trial on espionage charges that many in the West decry as punishment for doing his job. NBC News spoke to his family and some of his closest friends as his detention reached a year on Friday.
Gershkovich, 32, was arrested last March while reporting for The Wall Street Journal in the city of Yekaterinburg, in the Ural Mountains. The Kremlin said he was caught “red-handed” receiving “secret information,” but to this day, Russia has not provided evidence to support the accusation. Gershkovich and the Journal deny all charges against him.
He is being kept in Moscow’s notorious Lefortovo prison, known for its harsh conditions. His multiple appeals have been rejected in court, and his latest appearance this week saw his pre-trial detention extended again, until at least June 30. The Kremlin said Thursday it does not have information about when his trial could begin.
Gershkovich often smiles and appears in good spirits during his court appearances, but a year in custody, without much in the way of a promising resolution, is weighing heavily on his family and friends.
“It has been hard,” his father, Mikhail, told NBC News. “He spent all four seasons there, he spent his birthday and all the holidays. We want him home as soon as possible.”
Gershkovich’s parents left the Soviet Union for the U.S. during the Cold War. He and his sister, Danielle, grew up speaking Russian at home, and the family calls him “Vanya,” the diminutive for his Russian name, Ivan.
Gershkovich’s mother, Ella Milman, said his curiosity and interest in Russia drove his decision to move there in 2017 to work as a journalist, an opportunity the family was excited about.
Everything changed when Russia invaded Ukraine, and Gershkovich, like many other foreign journalists wary of new laws criminalizing criticism of the Russian army, relocated abroad, though he regularly went back to Russia to report.
Last March, Milman said she got a call from Evan, saying he needed to finish a story and would go back to London, where he was based, the following week. The next call she received about Evan was from a Journal editor, informing her that Evan had not checked in from his assignment.
Then, the news came out: a foreign reporter was arrested in Russia. “For me, it was a total shock,” Milman said.
“My heart dropped into my stomach,” Evan’s older sister, Danielle, said of the moment she learned of his arrest. She said she is very close to her brother, who has always been the responsible one growing up, but can often be a “goofball.”
They now write each other letters, she said, and he often tells her he is worried about how the family is coping, but also makes her laugh. “He is so strong,” she added. “He has not lost his spirit.”
The Biden administration considers Gershkovich “wrongfully detained” and has been actively trying to get him out. Moscow signaled early on that it may be willing to discuss a potential swap once there is a verdict in place. But in December, the State Department said Russia rejected “a new and significant proposal” to secure his release.
His arrest unnerved international news organizations still operating in Russia. Since his arrest, another American-Russian journalist, Alsu Kurmasheva, has also been detained, along with several other U.S. nationals, prompting accusations that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been building a reserve of Americans to swap for Russian nationals jailed abroad.
He hinted in an interview last month that Gershkovich could be swapped for a Russian hitman jailed in Germany, and a deal that sources told NBC News was in the works to free opposition leader Alexei Navalny before his death in prison last month, would have also involved Gershkovich.
But for now, Gershkovich remains behind bars, and his family and friends await any news.
Pjotr Sauer, a friend of Gershkovich and a Russia reporter for The Guardian, said he writes to Evan every week, and nearly every letter is an update on Arsenal — the English team they both support fervently, which is currently enjoying its best period since Evan was a soccer-mad teen in New Jersey. He does a lot of reading and writing in jail, Sauer told NBC News, but is confined to a tiny cell, with just one hour a day to walk around. Still, his sense of humor and optimism come through in his letters, he said.
“It’s giving me a lot of strength to see that he is doing okay, given the conditions he is in,” he added. “He’s not broken, not mentally, not physically.”
Gershkovich, after losing an appeal against his arrest.Alexander Zemlianichenko / AP
What set Gershkovich apart as a foreign journalist was his deep understanding of Russia and his desire to figure out the ins and outs of what’s happening in the country, said Masha Barzunova, a friend and independent Russian journalist. Vanya, as she calls him, knew the risks, but thought that it was important to continue reporting there.
Journalists and friends celebrated that dedication to his work this week with a 24-hour read-a-thon live streamed from the Wall Street Journal that brought home how deeply reported his stories were, particularly his coverage of the conflicting emotions of Russian draftees fighting in Ukraine, and the views of many different voices of Russians about the war on the home front.
His arrest, which Borzunova said she considers a hostage taking, became one of many watershed moments indicative of changes inside Russia in the last two years. “He is holding up well but it can’t continue this long,” she said.
Since his arrest, Gershkovich’s parents have gone to see him in Russia twice — once in jail and once in court through a glass box, with guards monitoring the visit both times. Otherwise, they communicate with Evan in letters and through his Russian lawyers. They know his friends deliver fresh fruit and vegetables to him in prison, and he keeps in good physical health.
They are grateful for the Biden administration’s support, but say it’s been too long and they are worried about his mental health after a year in custody.
“Evan is not here,” Milman said. “We knew that it was going to be a marathon, but still had hopes that it will be sooner.”
For now, the family is choosing to remain optimistic and put their faith in the U.S. government, she said, because “pessimism will kill all hope.”
Asked what she would say to Putin if she had a chance, Evan’s sister, Danielle, said she would try to relay the “human cost” of his brother’s plight. “We miss him so fiercely,” she said. “We don’t want him to have one more day of his freedom taken from him. And we want him home.”
A woman’s five-year prison sentence for voting illegally was tossed out by a Texas appeals court on Thursday, ending a years-long saga that garnered national attention.
Crystal Mason was sentenced in 2018 to five years in prison after testifying she did not know that she was ineligible to vote because she was convicted of tax fraud in 2011. She cast a provisional ballot in the 2016 presidential election with the help of a poll worker.
In Thursday’s ruling to overturn Mason’s sentence, Justice Wade Birdwell wrote that “finding Mason to be not credible — and disbelieving her protestation of actual knowledge — does not suffice as proof of guilt.”
Mason had previously testified that when she was in prison, she was not informed that she could not vote upon her release, Birdwell detailed. She also “emphatically denied” reading the provisional ballot’s affirmations detailing felon voting restrictions, testifying that she did not know she was not allowed to cast a ballot because she was on supervised release from prison, according to Birdwell.
Mason’s ballot was not counted when officials determined that she was ineligible to vote because of her 2011 conviction, the ruling said.
“In the end, the State’s primary evidence was that Mason read the words on the affidavit,” Birdwell said.
“But even if she had read them, they are not sufficient — even in the context of the rest of the evidence in this case — to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she actually knew that being on supervised release after having served her entire federal sentence of incarceration made her ineligible to vote by casting a provisional ballot when she did so,” he added.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals announced in 2021 that it would consider an appeal from Mason, who was out of prison on an appeal bond.
Her 2018 sentenced garnered national attention, and critics have rallied against the lower court’s decision.
Megan Lebowitz
Megan Lebowitz is a politics reporter for NBC News.
John Dickerson reports on the salvage operation underway after the bridge collapse in Baltimore, Sam Bankman-Fried’s 25-year prison sentence, and a new United Nations report showing the scale of global food waste.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of 12 women inmates at a Rome prison during a Holy Thursday ritual meant to emphasize his vocation of service and humility.
The 87-year-old Francis performed the ritual from his wheelchair, after recent ailments have compounded his mobility problems. The Rebibbia prison venue was outfitted to accommodate his needs: The women sat on stools on a raised-up platform, enabling the pope to move down the line with ease from his wheelchair without having to strain himself.
Many of the women wept as Francis washed their feet, gently pouring water over one bared foot and patting it dry with a small towel. He finished the gesture by kissing each foot, often looking up to the woman with a smile.
The Holy Thursday foot-washing ceremony is a hallmark of every Holy Week and recalls the foot-washing Jesus performed on his 12 apostles at their last supper together before he was crucified.
Francis revolutionized the ritual for the Vatican by insisting, from his very first Holy Thursday as pope in 2013, to include women and people of other faiths among the 12. Previously, popes performed the ritual on Catholic men only at a Rome basilica.
In this image made available by Vatican Media, Pope Francis washes and kisses the feet of 12 women inmates of the Rebibbia prison in the outskirts of Rome on Holy Thursday, March 28, 2024, a ritual meant to emphasize his vocation of service and humility.
Vatican Media / AP
Francis has traveled each year to a prison, refugee center or youth detention facility to emphasize his belief that a priest’s vocation is to serve especially those most on the margins. In his brief homily, delivered off-the-cuff, Francis explained the meaning of the gesture.
“Jesus humiliates himself,” Francis said. “With this gesture, he makes us understand what he had said: ‘I am not here to be served, but to serve.'”
“He teaches us the path of service,” Francis said.
Francis appeared in good shape at the prison, even after presiding over a long Mass earlier in the day in St. Peter’s Basilica. During the morning liturgy, he delivered a lengthy homily with a set of marching orders to Rome-based priests at the start of a busy few days leading to Easter.
Francis has been hobbled by a long bout of respiratory problems this winter and in recent weeks has asked an aide to read aloud his remarks to spare him the strain. On Palm Sunday, he skipped his homily altogether.
But Francis seemed energized by his visit to the Rebibbia prison, where he was given a basket of vegetables grown in the prison garden as well as two liturgical stoles embroidered by the inmates.
Pope Francis kisses the foot of a woman inmate. The Holy Thursday foot-washing ceremony is a hallmark of every Holy Week and recalls the foot-washing Jesus performed on his 12 apostles at their last supper together before he was crucified.
Vatican Media / AP
Francis, for his part, regifted a framed image of the Madonna that he had been given, saying as soon as he received it he thought of the women at Rebibbia. He also gave a big chocolate Easter egg to the young son of one of the inmates.
Even with Holy Thursday events wrapped up, Francis has a busy few days coming up that will test his stamina.
On Friday, he is due to travel at night to the Colosseum for the Way of the Cross procession re-enacting Christ’s crucifixion. On Saturday, he presides over an evening Easter Vigil in St. Peter’s Basilica followed a few hours later by Easter Sunday Mass in the piazza and his big noontime Urbi et Orbi (to the city and the world) speech highlighting global conflicts and disasters afflicting humanity.
Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced Thursday to 25 years in prison for his role in defrauding users of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX.
In a federal courtroom in lower Manhattan, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan called the defense argument misleading, logically flawed and speculative.
He said Bankman-Fried had obstructed justice and tampered with witnesses in mounting his defense — something Kaplan said he weighed in his sentencing decision.
Bankman-Fried, wearing a beige jailhouse jumpsuit, struck an apologetic tone, saying he had made a series of “selfish” decisions while leading FTX and “threw it all away.”
“It haunts me every day,” he said in his statement.
Prosecutors had sought as much as 50 years, while Bankman-Fried’s legal team argued for no more than 6½ years. He was convicted on seven criminal counts in November and had been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn since.
In a statement following Thursday’s sentencing, Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said Bankman-Fried had orchestrated one of the largest frauds in financial history.
“Today’s sentence will prevent the defendant from ever again committing fraud and is an important message to others who might be tempted to engage in financial crimes that justice will be swift, and the consequences will be severe.”
Bankman-Fried plans to appeal both his conviction and sentence. A spokesperson for his parents issued a statement on their behalf: “We are heartbroken and will continue to fight for our son.”
Bankman-Fried’s lawyers had pleaded for leniency, citing what they described as mental health struggles and his purported generosity in his personal life. They also argued that FTX users had not ultimately suffered substantial losses — something current FTX administrator John Ray said was false in a letter to Kaplan in advance of Thursday’s sentencing.
But prosecutors argued the brazenness of the crime, the extent of the victims’ losses and damages and Bankman-Fried’s evident lack of remorse meant a harsher sentence was warranted.
Late Tuesday, prosecutors filed documents from victims testifying about how Bankman-Fried’s actions had harmed them.
“My whole life has been destroyed,” wrote one, whose name was redacted, in a letter dated March 15. “I have 2 young children, one born right before the collapse. I still remember the weeks following where I would stare blankly into their eyes, completely empty inside knowing their futures have been stolen through no fault of our own. I did not gamble on crypto. I did not make any crypto gains. I had my [bitcoin] which I had collected over years deposited on FTX as a custodian. I did not agree to the risk that SBF took with my funds.”
The man added he was suffering from depression and that his wife had become suicidal.
“I know we can never make that kind of money back ever again,” he wrote.
Another person wrote about how the loss of funds had affected numerous life plans, including a wedding.
“Each passing day is a painful reminder of the opportunities stolen from me, compounding feelings of hopelessness and despair,” the person wrote. “The burden of financial ruin weighs heavily on my shoulders, leading me to grapple with constant thoughts of suicide and significantly impairing my ability to perform at work.”
In the recent annals of white-collar crime, Bankman-Fried’s sentence is many years longer than what most others found guilty have received. Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes received about 11 years. Former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers received 25 years. Former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling received 24 years.
Bernie Madoff received 150 years and died in prison at age 82.
FTX was once valued at more than $30 billion, with Bankman-Fried’s net worth estimated at more than $20 billion. FTX collapsed in November 2022 after it was revealed that it had a major cash shortfall.
At his trial, prosecutors said Bankman-Fried robbed FTX customers of as much as $8 billion to fund a vast array of outside interests, including political initiatives, speculative investments and funding of FTX executives’ lifestyles.
Three other FTX executives testified against him.
Bankman-Fried “didn’t bargain for his three loyal deputies taking that stand and telling you the truth: that he was the one with the plan, the motive and the greed to raid FTX customer deposits — billions and billions of dollars — to give himself money, power, influence. He thought the rules did not apply to him. He thought that he could get away with it,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon told the jury.
Bankman-Fried’s defense argued that he was merely borrowing the funds to run his Alameda Research investment group, which he believed was allowed, and that he was unaware of how much debt he had racked up.
He said he “made a number of small mistakes and a number of larger mistakes.”
Yet many experts agreed Bankman-Fried came across as an unsympathetic figure. Paul Tuchmann, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner with Wiggin and Dana LLP, told CNBC that Bankman-Fried’s testimony had been “unpersuasive” and noted it took the jury only three hours to convict him on each count.
Trial attorney James Koutoulas said in an CNBC interview, “No one had a shred of support for SBF, nor should they have.”
The U.S. Bureau of Prisons will consider which federal penitentiary to send him to.
Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced Thursday to 25 years in prison for his role in defrauding users of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX.
In a Lower Manhattan federal courtroom, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan called the defense’s argument misleading, logically flawed, and speculative.
He said Bankman-Fried had committed obstruction of justice and witness tampering while mounting his defense — something Kaplan said he weighed in his sentencing decision.
Bankman-Fried, wearing a beige jailhouse jumpsuit, made a statement striking an apologetic tone, saying he had made a series of “selfish” decisions while leading FTX and “threw it all away.”
“It haunts me every day,” he said.
Prosecutors had sought as much as 50 years, while Bankman-Fried’s legal team argued for no more than 6½ years. He was convicted on seven criminal counts in November and had been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn ever since.
Bankman-Fried’s lawyers had pleaded for leniency, citing what they described as mental health struggles and his purported generosity in his personal life. They also argued that FTX users had not ultimately suffered substantial losses — something current FTX administrator John Ray said was false in a letter to Kaplan in advance of Thursday’s sentencing.
But prosecutors argued the brazenness of the crime, the extent of the victims’ losses and damages and Bankman-Fried’s evident lack of remorse meant a harsher sentence was warranted.
Late Tuesday, prosecutors filed documents from victims testifying about how Bankman-Fried’s actions had harmed them.
“My whole life has been destroyed,” wrote one, whose name was redacted, in a letter dated March 15. “I have 2 young children, one born right before the collapse. I still remember the weeks following where I would stare blankly into their eyes, completely empty inside knowing their futures have been stolen through no fault of our own. I did not gamble on crypto. I did not make any crypto gains. I had my [bitcoin] which I had collected over years deposited on FTX as a custodian. I did not agree to the risk that SBF took with my funds.”
The man added he was suffering from depression and that his wife had become suicidal.
“I know we can never make that kind of money back ever again,” he wrote.
Another person wrote about how the loss of funds had affected numerous life plans, including a wedding.
“Each passing day is a painful reminder of the opportunities stolen from me, compounding feelings of hopelessness and despair,” the person wrote. “The burden of financial ruin weighs heavily on my shoulders, leading me to grapple with constant thoughts of suicide and significantly impairing my ability to perform at work.”
In the recent annals of white-collar crime, Bankman-Fried’s sentence is many years more than what most others found guilty had received. Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes received about 11 years. Former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers received 25 years. Former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling received 24 years.
Bernie Madoff received 150 years and died in prison at age 82.
FTX was once valued at more than $30 billion, with Bankman-Fried’s net worth estimated at more than $20 billion. FTX collapsed in November 2022 after it was revealed that it had a major cash shortfall.
At his trial, prosecutors said Bankman-Fried robbed FTX customers of as much as $8 billion to fund a vast array of outside interests, including political initiatives, speculative investments and funding of FTX executives’ lifestyles.
Three other FTX executives testified against him.
Bankman-Fried “didn’t bargain for his three loyal deputies taking that stand and telling you the truth: that he was the one with the plan, the motive and the greed to raid FTX customer deposits — billions and billions of dollars — to give himself money, power, influence. He thought the rules did not apply to him. He thought that he could get away with it,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon told the jury.
Bankman-Fried’s defense argued he was merely borrowing the funds to run his Alameda Research investment group, which he believed was allowed, and that he was merely unaware of how much debt he had racked up.
He said he “made a number of small mistakes and a number of larger mistakes.”
Yet many experts agreed Bankman-Fried came across as an unsympathetic figure. Paul Tuchmann, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner with Wiggin and Dana LLP, told CNBC that Bankman-Fried’s testimony had been “unpersuasive” and noted it took the jury only three hours to convict him on each count.
Trial attorney James Koutoulas said in an CNBC interview, “No one had a shred of support for SBF, nor should they have.”
The U.S. Bureau of Prisons will consider which federal penitentiary to send him to.
Bankman-Fried has signaled he plans to appeal his conviction.
