Most New Yorkers can’t contest wrongful convictions without DNA evidence. Exoneree Steve Lopez wants to change that

Steve Lopez got his name back last summer. Well, almost. Looking at his case on the National Registry of Exonerations website, he asks who the heck Steven Lopez is. Steven Lopez is his son’s name. He’s just Steve. 

The registry isn’t the only issue. Newspapers all referred to him as “Steven” when he was front-page news 11 months ago. But it’s easier to brush off than when those same publications called him and his co-defendants a “wolf pack” and “beasts,” comparing them to wild animals and publishing full-page attack ads from a certain U.S. president calling for the death penalty when they were Black and brown teens falsely implicated in the infamous 1989 Central Park jogger case. 

Those co-defendants went on to become the “Exonerated Five,” while Lopez, whose rape charges were dropped in exchange for pleading guilty to first-degree robbery, saw his conviction vacated and indictment dismissed just last July. 

While the rest of the story is widely known (and dramatized by Netflix and Ken Burns), Lopez’s journey is just starting. He’s enjoyed an idyllic year since his exoneration. 

“I was able to really open up to my family,” said Lopez. “I have a young man and a teenage daughter. [It was] something that I could never express to them, or share with them, just because of the nature of the allegations and all that. But it’s sunny skies now. I can talk to my kids. We can talk about it as a family more [openly].

“People embrace me differently in the streets…[I] get a lot of positive support from people, even fans. Life is happier now for me. I don’t really have to speak on [the Central Park jogger case] anymore. I can speak [about] other things I want to do.”

He’s remained reticent despite the publicity about his exoneration, often going through his lawyer Eric Renfroe, who typically self-identifies as a “no comment” type of attorney. But Lopez is now breaking his media silence—not for himself, but on behalf of others still fighting to clear their names. His first step? Pledging his unwavering support for the Challenging Wrongful Convictions Act. 

Renfroe called Lopez’s exoneration a “perfect storm” thanks to the combination of DNA, recantations, and rationale for why. A fellow teen who implicated him in the robbery charge later said his statement was coerced from a five-hour detention, along with repeated questioning. He only gave Lopez’s name after police provided it to him. Other witnesses also retracted their statements for similar reasons, including another then-minor who lied to “give [the police] something to leave me alone.” 

Then there were the outlying factors, given the direct link to arguably the most famous wrongful conviction case in U.S. history, along with the recent arrival of Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, a Black Harlemite around the age of Lopez who experienced similar police misidentification as a teen. It led to a joint motion with New York County’s chief prosecutor—which isn’t always the case. The wrongfully convicted and district attorneys often find themselves on opposite sides when attempting to overturn a conviction. 

In the exoneration filing, Bragg wrote that the plea was “procured under the egregious pressure that is unique to this case” and that while the prosecution no longer has confidence in Lopez’s conviction, because he pleaded guilty, “the path to vacatur is not as straightforward as those who were convicted at trial.” 

“Steve’s case is the exception,” said Renfroe. “It was the perfect storm and having those things set up for why that should have been righted. But the thing to recognize is…yes, Steve, in a sense, is an exception…but Steve isn’t the only exception. Our goal in the criminal justice system is there should not be a single innocent person [behind bars], so I have to believe that Steve is the exception. [But] almost certainly, Steve is not the only exception.”

While Lopez’s story is unique, plea bargaining in New York is not: 94% of felony charges in the state end in a guilty plea, according to a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers report. And in those cases, New Yorkers cannot challenge a wrongful conviction without DNA evidence, even if they’re clearly innocent, ruled the NY Court of Appeals in 2018’s People v. Tiger. 

The case held that nurse Natascha Tiger could not challenge the first-degree endangerment of the welfare of an incompetent or physically disabled person charge she pleaded guilty to and was convicted on, even after medical experts found the injuries of the disabled youngster under Tiger’s care—which led to her charges—were caused by medication allergies, not scalding hot water. 

Even in Lopez’s case, the DNA evidence exonerating him was tied to rape of the Central Park jogger Trisha Melli, not the charge of robbery of another victim present he pleaded down to. 

The Challenging Wrongful Convictions Act would amend the laws interpreted by the Tiger holding, allowing New Yorkers to contest a conviction stemming from a guilty plea with credible, non-DNA evidence. New York State Criminal Procedural Law Article 440, the legislation in question, allows the motion to vacate a judgment like a wrongful conviction. But a majority of the grounds for exoneration are tied to trial time, which plea bargaining occludes. 

“The decision you see in Tiger is imbued with all these other sort of policy priorities, including judicial resources and finality of conviction,” said Professor Amber Baylor of the Columbia Law School. “In the dissent, the judge [wrote] the interpretation is heavily swayed by these policy points. Yet, there’s this ethos of the highest principles in law…[are] not equivalent to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, [arguing] this should not override a person’s innocence being contemplated and an innocent person avoiding conviction and hopefully incarceration.

“The judge is saying we could interpret it to include guilty pleas. [There are] other ways that we’ve allowed for people with a guilty plea to attack a judgment, so why not hear [those] in this realm of actual innocence?”

The dissent was written by Rowan Wilson, who was recently appointed as chief justice of the Court of Appeals—the first Black man to serve as the state’s highest justice. Tiger was ultimately exonerated due to ineffective assistance of counsel, but her case remains the codifying precedent for challenging a wrongful conviction after a guilty plea. 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial, but in practice, people plead guilty for a myriad of reasons, according to Baylor, even if they’re innocent. For one, there are New Yorkers already behind bars pre-conviction. Pleading guilty allows them to escape city jails, especially those on Rikers Island, the notorious complex tied to 19 detainee deaths last year. 

Then there’s what Renfroe calls the “trial tax,” where defendants risk significantly harsher penalties for fighting a charge. For example, Tiger faced up to seven years in prison. By pleading, she reportedly got four months, with another five years of probation. 

There is also the general lack of faith in carceral institutions for nonwhite defendants. 

“More broadly, most of the people who are in criminal law systems are people of color—in New York City, Black and brown—and have a lot of evidence for a lot of injustice,” said Baylor. “Do you trust a real result? What did the juries look like? How have people in your family been treated by courts? Those sorts of things play a role in people’s decision on whether or not to challenge [a] case.”

Lopez was offered a last-second plea bargain if he admitted to robbing another jogger. Pleading guilty to robbery meant not proceeding to trial over Melli’s rape, which most of the “Exonerated Five” had already been convicted of at that point. Lopez spent roughly four years in prison, which he never appealed. 

On June 8, the Challenging Wrongful Convictions Act passed in the New York State Senate. The same bill passed the State Assembly this past Tuesday, June 20 and will make its way onto Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk to be signed into law. 

“For far too long, New York has erected barriers stopping wrongfully convicted people from clearing their names in court,” said sponsoring Senator Zellnor Myrie in a statement. “I’m thrilled that we are finally knocking those barriers down by passing this critical legislation. This bill enhances justice, which is the true source of public safety in our state. I’m extremely grateful to my colleagues and the advocates who made this possible.”

“Every wrongful conviction is a failure of our justice system,” added co-sponsoring State Senator Jamaal Bailey over email. “By passing the Challenging Wrongful Convictions Act, we take a significant step to right past wrongs and restore justice to individuals whose lives were upended by grave miscarriages of justice. True justice extends beyond a verdict; it requires a continuous effort to rectify past injustices and safeguard the integrity of our justice system. 

“This critical legislation will create a pathway to exoneration for those living with the devastating and lasting consequences of a wrongful conviction.”

Lopez is the first person exonerated by Bragg’s Post-Conviction Justice Unit. The taskforce was established in April last year.

“Unjust convictions rob innocent people of their liberty and livelihoods,” said Bragg by email. “Failing to right these wrongs is the height of injustice, and we cannot allow people to suffer a lifetime of consequences that result from these systemic failures. My office was proud to vacate [Steve] Lopez’s unjust conviction and will continue prioritizing these reinvestigations because everyone must be treated equally under the law.”

Earlier this month, the same unit’s investigation led to 316 vacated convictions tied to nine discredited NYPD officers. 

As for Lopez, getting involved with the Wrongful Convictions Act is another step toward life after the Central Park jogger case. He said there is no current contact between him and the Exonerated Five, nor is there a desire to reconnect.

“Moving forward from this point on, I wish them the best of luck with what they do,” said Lopez. “I’m doing what I’m doing. I have no qualms with what they have going on. Moving on is one of the easiest things I’ve learned to do…I’m trying to get my name out there for something that’s not affiliated with [the Central Park jogger case].”

“I think Steve would like to be known for helping pass this legislation,” said Renfroe. 

“That’s what I want to be known for,” Lopez said in agreement. “Don’t feel sorry for a tragedy that [has] already happened. Feel bad [if] this bill doesn’t pass this session.”