Edward Wright Has Spent 40 Years in Prison for a Crime He Did Not Commit
AN IMPORTANT UPDATE IN THE CASE OF EDWARD WRIGHT
UPDATE, March 4, 2025: On February 27, 2025, Edward Wright finished presenting evidence on his Motion for New Trial in Hampden County Superior Court in Springfield, Massachusetts. Judge Bucci had ordered the evidentiary hearing after finding that Mr. Wright had raised “substantial issues supported by a substantial evidentiary record….” in his motion. Specifically, the Court asked for evidence regarding two issues: (1) a break-in at the scene of the murder that was not disclosed to Mr. Wright or his jury at the time of trial, and (2) DNA evidence from items connected to the murder that excluded Mr. Wright.
Members of Eddie Wright’s legal team and family members outside the courtroom following Eddie’s December hearing date.
The hearing was held across three days: December 18, 2024, and February 26-27, 2025. Mr. Wright presented three witnesses and thousands of pages of exhibits in support of his consistent assertion that justice was not done when he was wrongfully convicted 40 years ago. The hearing was attended by dozens of Mr. Wright’s family and friends, his legal team from the New England Innocence Project, Skadden, and Quinn Emanuel, and members of the Exoneree Network Community.
Specifically, Mr. Wright presented testimony from a former Springfield detective who confirmed that someone broke into the apartment where the murder happened while it was an active crime scene and before critical evidence was collected. This break-in, which implicated another suspect in the murder and contaminated key evidence, was documented in a report that was withheld from Mr. Wright until 2021, 36 years after he was wrongfully convicted. The same detective who discovered the break-in and wrote the previously undisclosed report testified at Mr. Wright’s 1985 trial and, at that time, told the jurors that “only” police officers had been in the apartment while evidence was collected. And as recently as 2014, prosecutors told the Supreme Judicial Court that there was “no evidence” of a break-in.
These statements–made by the Commonwealth and its agents to Mr. Wright’s jury and reviewing courts–were false. At the evidentiary hearing, one of Mr. Wright’s attorneys, Stephanie Hartung, argued, “The Commonwealth’s non-disclosure of an exculpatory police report for nearly 40 years prejudiced all of [Mr. Wright’s] post-conviction claims. No Court before this one has had an opportunity to assess the complete record in the case.” As a result, Mr. Wright should receive a new trial.
Mr. Wright also presented testimony from two scientists regarding new DNA evidence that excludes Mr. Wright from items connected to the murder. The hearing testimony centered around a washcloth found in the victim’s bathroom that had been collected by the police because it was thought that it might have been used by the murderer to wipe his bloody hands after the murder. The washcloth, which had red stains and tested positive for the presumptive presence of blood, had DNA from a man that was not Mr. Wright. But this was not the only piece of evidence connected to the murder that excluded Mr. Wright. In fact, Mr. Wright was excluded from DNA found on the pants the victim was wearing when she was murdered, hair on the shirt the victim was wearing when she was murdered, and a throw pillow used to cover her face when she was murdered. Importantly, despite substantial testing, no DNA evidence connects Mr. Wright to this murder in any way. At the evidentiary hearing, one of Mr. Wright’s attorneys, Radha Natarajan, argued that the new DNA evidence “supports Mr. Wright’s consistent assertions of innocence and is at odds with the narrative the Commonwealth presented at trial.”
The Commonwealth presented no new evidence and conceded that DNA evidence presented by Mr. Wright was reliable and admissible. And the Commonwealth’s only proffered witness ended up testifying for Mr. Wright. Despite this, the Commonwealth has continued to oppose Mr. Wright’s motion. “It is unfortunately not unusual for prosecutors to oppose motions for new trial even in the face of new evidence of innocence or evidence that the conviction lacked integrity. This is why we must rely on the courts to correct these injustices,” stated Attorney Natarajan after the hearing.
Mr. Wright’s motion for new trial is now “under advisement.” Mr. Wright remains wrongfully imprisoned while he awaits a decision from the Court.
UPDATE Sept. 24, 2024: After 40 years in prison and five previous attempts to overturn his wrongful conviction, Edward Wright was back in court on September 24, 2024, with hope. Radha Natarajan and co-counsel, Stephanie Hartung, were fighting to overturn the wrongful conviction of Edward Wright based on new DNA evidence and evidence that was wrongfully withheld by the government. It was a packed courtroom, with loved ones, Exoneree Network members, advocates, and our incredible legal team that includes attorneys from Skadden and Quinn Emanuel. We don’t know what will happen next, but we cannot stop fighting for justice for our community, even with tragedies, setbacks, resistance, and all the myths that permeate our criminal legal system.
On Wrongful Conviction Day 2023, Lawyers File Motion for New Trial for Edward Wright Who Has Served 39 Years in Prison for a Murder He Did Not Commit
Read the press coverage
On Wrongful Conviction Day, man seeks new trial in Springfield for crime he says he didn’t commit
(Ivy Scott, The Boston Globe)
Springfield man, imprisoned for 39 years, hopes DNA evidence will clear him in 1984 murder
(Jim Kinney, MassLive)
Motion filed for new trial for man convicted in 1984 Springfield murder
(Kristin Burnell, Western Mass News)
(October 2, 2023) The New England Innocence Project, along with attorneys from the international law firms, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, announce that they have today filed a motion for new trial at the Hampden County Superior Court on behalf of Edward Wright, 61, seeking to overturn Mr. Wright’s decades-old conviction for a murder he did not commit. New DNA evidence from key items connected to the murder, police reports kept from Mr. Wright that point to other suspects and show that a police officer lied at trial, and new expert analyses demonstrating the unreliability of the forensic evidence presented at trial, all support Mr. Wright’s innocence, affirming that he was wrongly convicted for the 1984 murder of his friend, Penny Anderson, in Springfield, MA.
In 1985 a predominantly white jury convicted Mr. Wright, a Black man, of this murder, leading to a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Mr. Wright has steadfastly maintained his innocence during his 39-year incarceration and has been fighting this unjust conviction through every legal avenue available to him. However, it was not until recently that this new evidence came to light, evidence never reviewed before by any court, supporting this (his Sixth) Motion for New Trial.
The filing of this motion for new trial occurs on International Wrongful Conviction Day (October 2), a day to raise awareness of the existence and prevalence of wrongful convictions. Research on wrongful convictions illustrates that police and prosecutorial misconduct, flawed or misleading forensic evidence, racial bias, ineffective counsel, and the unavailability of DNA testing at trial are leading reasons why innocent people are wrongfully imprisoned. Each of these factors tainted Mr. Wright’s conviction.
Mr. Wright’s motion demonstrates that for decades, the Commonwealth withheld important police reports that corroborate Mr. Wright’s assertion that someone else committed this murder. These reports show that the crime scene was contaminated and that, while no motive was ever established for Mr. Wright to harm Ms. Anderson, others had strong motive to commit this murder. In addition, the reports provide proof that a Springfield police officer presented false testimony at Mr. Wright’s trial and that the Commonwealth has since made false statements in court filings.
Mr. Wright’s motion also presents new DNA testing and analyses not available at the time of Mr. Wright’s trial. That testing excludes Mr. Wright from key pieces of evidence – including the clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder and a washcloth with blood that could have come from the assailant. In a violent crime such as this, the absence of Mr. Wright’s DNA on items connected to the murder, and the presence of an unknown male’s DNA on those same items, strongly suggests that someone else committed this crime. In addition, one suspect never thoroughly investigated by police had threatened to harm the victim the night she was murdered and has since confessed to murdering her twice. The DNA evidence also supports new expert analyses that demonstrate that the opinions presented by an inexperienced assistant chemist at Mr. Wright’s trial were inaccurate and unreliable.
The motion asks the court to evaluate all of this substantial new evidence of innocence against the backdrop of Mr. Wright’s 1984 trial, which was plagued by demonstrable racial bias, ineffective assistance from Mr. Wright’s trial counsel, and substandard police work, collectively resulting in a fundamentally unjust conviction.
The Hampden County District Attorney’s Office will now have an opportunity to review the new evidence and determine if it will agree to the motion or fight it. If the District Attorney’s Office opposes the motion, Mr. Wright has asked the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to examine all of the new evidence of innocence and grant him a new trial.
“We are hopeful that, after an open-minded review, the Hampden County District Attorney’s Office and its new Conviction Integrity Unit will see that there are substantial grounds for Mr. Wright to receive a new trial,” said Stephanie Hartung, Senior Staff Attorney at the New England Innocence Project (NEIP). NEIP’s Executive Director, Radha Natarajan, added, “Whether by agreement or through a court decision, we look forward to seeing Mr. Wright exonerated after all this time and being able to finally reunite with his remaining family.”
Mr. Wright’s co-counsel, Nigel Tamton said, “My team at Skadden has been honored to work with the New England Innocence Project on preparing Mr. Wright’s Sixth Motion For New Trial and, we hope, helping Mr. Wright obtain justice after nearly 40 years of wrongful incarceration.”
Mr. Wright’s co-counsel, Isaac Saidel-Goley said, “Mr. Wright has spent four decades fighting to recover his most fundamental human right – his freedom. Today, my co-counsel and I are honored to present overwhelming evidence of Mr. Wright’s innocence. We are optimistic that the Commonwealth will support Mr. Wright’s fight for exoneration; and we are confident that, at long last, justice will be served.”
On his fight for freedom, Mr. Wright said: “Since I was first arrested at age 22 and this nightmare began, I’ve lost not only my freedom, but also so many family members and friends. These are people that I’ll never see again. When you’re incarcerated, it’s an endless battle to be the person you want to be instead of the person they try to make you to be inside the prison walls. I’ve tried to preserve some semblance of my humanity—have tried to learn the law, to help fix the wrongs in prison to help not just myself but others. And I’ve never stopped trying to prove my innocence. But after so many denials, I am hopeful that a judge will finally look at all the evidence in my case – not just the horrific facts of the murder. I just want the truth to finally come out so a court can do the right thing and I can live out the rest of my life in freedom.”