The Evidence for the Innocence of John “Divine G” Whitfield

Mr. John Whitfield’s conviction for murder, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (2 counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree should not stand. This entire case was based on Richard Doyle’s credibility. At Mr. Whitfield’s sentencing, Judge Egitto stated that “the only issue in the case was Doyle’s credibility; that without him, there was no case.” [Sentence]. Mr. Doyle has no credibility; he clearly lied and and other witnesses contradict his story. Other facts about Doyle bring his credibility into question – he had an extensive criminal record and was a self-admitted crack addict. A conviction built on his testimony does not have a reliable foundation. That is especially so where, as here, there is a large volume of evidence of innocence, including newly discovered evidence, which should be enough to vacate the conviction. When all the evidence is considered cumulatively, the conviction cannot stand and should be vacated.


Doyle’s Story

Doyle claimed to have gone to school with Wesley Harold, while claiming to be friends with Mr. Whitfield, stating that they hung out in the projects. Doyle claimed that he has known Mr. Whitfield for approximately 12 or 13 years from the Brookline Projects. [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 1]. Mr. Whitfield lived on 108th Street. Doyle claimed to have seen Mr. Whitfield and Wesley from 35 feet away; that he heard 4-6 shots (“heard some shots and saw some sparks”), and that they ran towards him towards Mr. Whitfield’s apartment. Doyle claimed to have run to his house, got the keys to a store and then headed there to get receipts, with the store being located on Glenwood Road. With respect to lighting, Doyle said that there were 2 lamps – one he was standing under, and the other 4-5 feet away from Wesley and Mr. Whitfield [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 1].

Doyle’s Lies

First Provable Lie: Doyle claimed that he and Scott Bell had been arrested for burglarizing Marsigliano’s aunt and uncle’s apartment, supposedly at Marsigliano’s direction, and that the charges were dismissed because the authorities realized that his story was true. [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 2]. Marsigliano, however, stated that the day after the burglary he went to the police precinct to press charges but was told that the two perpetrators were no longer in custody. He said that he never heard back from the authorities. [Marsigilano Affidavit]. Furthermore, in his affidavit, Scott Bell said that he witnessed Doyle pump Wesley for information about the murder while in the bullpen; that Doyle asked him to go along with his story falsely incriminating Mr. Whitfield; and that Doyle told him that he would get them both released based on his cooperation on the murder. [Bell Affidavit] Given that they were in fact released from jail and that the ADA took the unusual step of having the grand jury vote no true bill – supposedly due to Marsigliano not responding to outreach attempts though in fact he was never contacted – and that Doyle was never prosecuted for the burglary, it is clear that Bell’s story is true. It is also possible that Doyle’s case was dropped in this fashion as a benefit to Doyle.  

Second Provable Lie: Doyle said that after being released from incarceration on the burglary case that two people pulled up on him in a car with guns, threatening him. At trial, Doyle claimed not to know who they were [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 2].This is contradicted by a DD5 written by Det. Lincoln in which Doyle previously stated that it was Trent “True” Daley and the other Randell who pulled up on him. Id.

Third Provable Lie: Doyle testified that he had been drug free for months [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 3], but previously said that at the time he went to the police to report the crime he was using drugs. Id. Additionally, when he was arrested for the Marsigliano burglary, he was found with two vials of crack and a crack pipe in the bullpen, and as a result was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 1].

Other Likely Lies:

A) Doyle testified that he went to the store to get some receipts [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 1] but in a taped interview with the ADA he said that “I was coming downstairs, going to meet a friend, Wayne Harris, he works in the (inaudible) grocery store.” [Doyle ADA Interview]. Since Doyle didn’t work in the store, why would he go to it to get receipts? Wayne Harris, on the other hand, did work at the store.

 B) Doyle claimed he went with Harris to see the body, but yet also says that he never spoke to Harris about the shooting. [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 2]. Additionally, Harris denies seeing Doyle that night. [Harris Trial Testimony].

 C) Doyle claimed to have waved to Det. Lincoln when returning from the store on the night of the shooting [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 3]; had that occurred, Lincoln likely would have detailed it in his reports and possibly brought him to the station to be questioned.

 Credibility:

There were so many things that Doyle claimed not to be able to remember that it casts doubt on his credibility, while other statements strained credulity.


Criminal record:

Doyle’s extensive criminal record further makes him an even less reliable witness, both as a stand-alone proposition as well as when compared to other witnesses. At the time of Mr. Whitfield’s trial, Doyle was convicted of:

-assault
-assault in the 2nd, with a co-defendant, for shooting a victim in the buttocks
-stealing
-petit larceny
-obstruction of justice (PL 195.05)
-inciting a riot
-running numbers and was incarcerated in the Nassau County Jail.

[See Doyle Criminal Paperwork].

After Mr. Whitfield’s trial, Doyle was convicted of:

 -1st Degree Manslaughter
-Attempted murder
-2nd Degree Criminal use of a firearm
-2nd Degree possession of a weapon
-Obstruction Governmental Administration
-7th Degree Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance
-Resisting Arrest
-5th Degree Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance

[See Doyle Criminal Paperwork].


Witnesses Who Contradict Doyle’s Story

There are two witnesses who contradict Doyle’s testimony: Scott Bell, who was Doyle’s co-defendant on the burglary case and Wayne Harris, who denied Doyle’s entire story insofar as it involved him.

Scott Bell
Scott Bell was arrested with Doyle for the burglary. Bell said that while he was in the pen with Doyle and Wesley, Doyle pumped Wesley for information; that Doyle asked him to falsely incriminate Mr. Whitfield; and that he would get the charges dropped [Bell Affidavit].

Judge Egitto believed certain parts of Bell’s testimony while disbelieving others. Specifically, he credited Bell’s testimony that he was arrested with Doyle on a burglary case in 1988 and that they were in the bullpen together. The court disbelieved him that he had an independent recollection that a prosecutor approached him in the bullpen and asked him about Mr. Whitfield’s case. He also did not believe that Doyle tried to get him to turn state’s evidence.

The Judge’s reasons for disbelieving Bell were that:

A) Bell did not actually hear the conversation between Doyle and Wesley.
Rebuttal: However, this line of reasoning overlooks that Doyle could have told Bell what he was going to do and then Bell saw Doyle in conversation with Wesley. [Judge Egitto’s Decision Denying 440]

 B) Bell testified that he was not interested in the conversation. 
Rebuttal: However, this line of reasoning overlooks that Bell possibly didn’t want to stare, as staring in jail could cause a problem and in that sense he might have had the mindset of minding his own business.

 C) Bell testified that they solicited him to help them jump out of the window and escape but that he refused. The Judge did not believe that based on Captain Carlos Rodriguez’s testimony that an individual awaiting arraignment was not housed on the 8th or 9th floor and that in any event it would be impossible to escape because there are bars and gates on the windows.
Rebuttal: However, this line of reasoning overlooks that: 1) just because Bell made a mistake regarding what floor they were on doesn’t mean that the substance of his story isn’t true; and 2) the existence of bars and gates on a window doesn’t mean that the desire to escape couldn’t be in the minds of the inmates or that they didn’t contemplate trying to escape, or that Doyle didn’t try to get Bell’s help.

D) Bell and Mr. Whitfield knew each other in the neighborhood and therefore he was lying for Mr. Whitfield.
Rebuttal: However, this line of reasoning overlooks that just because they knew each other from the neighborhood did not necessarily mean that he was lying. Furthermore, if witnesses knowing people from the neighborhood means that they are not worthy of belief, why is it that Doyle’s story is believed? After all, Doyle testified that he knew Mr. Whitfield from the neighborhood and that he went to school with Wesley. That is especially so given that Doyle lied numerous times and many aspects of his story simply don’t make sense while other facets are contradicted by other witnesses.

There were also some parts of Bell’s testimony that Judge Egitto did not believe though he did not cite a specific reason. Those were:

1) He did not believe Bell’s testimony that he had an independent recollection of the prosecutor approaching him in an effort to incriminate Mr. Whitfield and testify against him.
Rebuttal: However, this line of reasoning overlooks that a prosecutor approaching an inmate who is in a lockup and asking him to become a witness is not a common occurrence and therefore it is likely to stick out in an inmate’s memory.

2) He did not believe Mr. Bell based on the fact that he claimed that neither he nor Doyle saw a judge but were released.
Rebuttal: However, this line of reasoning overlooks that because of Doyle’s cooperation – whether they saw a judge or not – they were released without being indicted in a burglary where they were caught red handed, with Doyle additionally being caught with drugs and drug paraphernalia.

 3) He also disbelieved Bell because he adamantly protested his innocence at the time of his arraignment but immediately admitted his guilt at the evidentiary hearing.
Rebuttal: However, this line of reasoning overlooks that at the time of the arraignment, Bell was initially facing a burglary charge which carried substantial time in prison whereas at the time he testified at the hearing the charge had already been dismissed by the prosecutor.

In summary, Bell’s testimony is corroborated: both he and Doyle were released from the pen and were not prosecuted.

Wayne Harris
Doyle said that he went to see Harris at the store and that they walked back from the store and went to see the body [Doyle Testimony]. Harris, on the other hand, denied seeing Doyle at the store, walking back with him or walking to see a body. In fact, he denied seeing Doyle at all that night [Doyle Trial Testimony Part 3]. Lastly, the prosecutor had Wayne Harris arrested, ostensibly for witness intimidation, shortly before he was scheduled to testify.

 

Newly Discovered Evidence of Innocence

Wesley Harold
In an interview with a federal agent and homicide detective, Wesley admitted to murdering the victim. [Wesley Harold A88-1311 PDF 6]. Describing the murder, Wesley recalled seeing a person on the street wearing an Army jacket, (likely Marjorie Shack). Id. Later in the interview Wesley alludes that he committed the murder with a person named “Patrick” from “Queens” (id. at 22) and unequivocally stated that “Devine” did not order the hit on the victim. Id.

Ralph Harold
Confirmed that his brother Wesley confessed to him that he committed the murder, along with “Patrick.” He never implicated Mr. Whitfield. [Ralph Harold’s Affidavit PDF 1-4].

Bryant Devery
In an affidavit dated Nov. 15, 2017, Bryant Devery states that he had been with Mr. Whitfield from noon or 1 PM until at least 1 AM in the morning the day of the murder, which occurred during that period of time. This alibi was never heard by the jury. [Byrant Devery’s Affidavit PDF 1-3]

Majorie Shack
Majorie Shack was working at White Castle on Atlantic Avenue. Her co-worker dropped her off at Linden Blvd. She then cut through Brookline Park, got close to rear the building and then heard a few gunshots while smelling gun powder. When she was coming off Stanley Avenue, thirty seconds later she comes face to face with two black men wearing a sheepskin. She knew Mr. Whitfield from the neighborhood though not well and said it wasn’t him. The NYPD interviewed her and she said that the two men were not from the neighborhood. Ms. Shack also met with a detective afterwards at a Sunnydale Milk store at Stanley Avenue, where detectives showed her one photo of Mr. Whitfield and she again said it wasn’t him. A couple of weeks later, two other detectives took her to Manhattan for a polygraph test, but she was not asked any questions about Mr. Whitfield. Ms. Shack was never contacted again after that by the detectives or defense counsel. She was video interviewed by Deskovic Foundation investigator Tom Duno, a retired police officer, on Jan. 31, 2014. Per Ms. Shack’s interview on July 23, 2019, she stated that she was 100% sure that neither man was Mr. Whitfield [Whitfield-Marjorie Shack PDF 1-2 (2013)].

Priscilla Simpson
Shack’s story is corroborated by Ms. Simpson, who said that she saw two black males running towards Stanley Avenue, though she couldn’t see their faces due to the poor lighting [Simpson Interview]. Ms. Shack’s story is further corroborated by Harold Wesley’s story of him and Patrick running past a woman in an army coat; this was likely Ms. Shack. [Whitfield-Marjorie Shack PDF 1-2 (2013); Wesley Harold's Audio Taped Confession PDF 5-6].


An Alternative Suspect

Anthony “Tony” Trosso admitted to police that:

  • he broke into decedent’s car window over a prostitute named Elizabeth Brundedge, who they both were dating;

  • 6 months earlier the victim threatened to have his legs broken over the car incident and/or love triangle;

  • that Elizabeth was the one making the crack cocaine for the victim; and that when the victim went downstairs, he got shot by unknown persons who then stole the crack. [Whitfield DD5 (2) PDF 8].

Veronica Ford said that she was in the car with the victim when they saw a car on fire; the victim told her that the owner of the car was the person who had hit him [the only person who ever hit the victim was Trosso]. Also, Trosso never told the police about his car suspiciously being burned out. [Whitfield DD5 (2) PDF 1].

Mark Vouse
He was the only witness to give a description of the shooters, stating that he recognized one of the perpetrators as Harris. He did not describe or identify Mr. Whitfield. [Vouse Interview].