MOCKING DUE PROCESS

I called Shorn Green about 8:15 yesterday morning. He complained that I had
awakened him.

I told him I wanted to talk about the murder of Danny Josephs.

"What's in it for me?" Mr. Green asked.

I said there was nothing in it for him, that I just wanted to hear what he
had to say.

The murder happened in 1988. Mr. Green was one of two hard-core crack
addicts whose testimony two years later sent a man named Lamont Branch to
prison on a sentence of 25 years to life. Although Mr. Branch has served 13
years, he is almost certainly innocent. His older brother, Lorenzo Branch,
has admitted shooting Danny Josephs, although he says the gun went off
accidentally during a struggle.

Lorenzo is expected to repeat this, under oath, at a hearing in Brooklyn
tomorrow. Lamont Branch's lawyer, Sara Bennett, hopes the hearing will lead
to his release from prison.

The testimony of the crack addicts in 1990 was crucial. They both said they
saw Lamont Branch and two others go into the victim's apartment on the
morning of the shooting. And they said they heard shots. Their testimony
was not just weak, it was embarrassing. Neither could remember when the
shooting had taken place. One of the men, Thomas Edwards - who said he got
high on crack about eight times every day - testified that Mr. Josephs had
been killed in 1989. On cross-examination he acknowledged that he might
have been off by a year or so.

When Shorn Green took the witness stand he was unable to remember what he
had told cops about the shooting, or even when he had spoken to the police.
He insisted that he had talked to investigators some time during the
winter. He relented only after defense lawyers produced documents showing
this had occurred in July 1989.

Both men testified that they had heard multiple shots. Mr. Edwards said
there were two shots. Mr. Green said he heard three. There is no evidence
showing that more than one shot was fired.

I called Mr. Green after reading a sworn affidavit - dated Oct. 10, 2001 -
in which he declared that his "entire testimony was a lie." He told me he
hadn't seen anything related to the killing of Danny Josephs. He said he
hadn't been at the scene and he didn't know what had happened. He said he
heard about the shooting from a friend.

When I asked why he had lied to the police, he said, "For money." He said
Thomas Edwards had told him he would be paid if he told cops he saw Lorenzo
Branch going into Mr. Josephs' apartment. He said he spoke to detectives on
a number of occasions and each time he was given $20, which he spent on crack.

Neither addict could keep the story straight. In an extraordinary courtroom
development, prosecutors pulled Mr. Edwards from the witness stand in the
middle of his testimony when he offered information that hurt the
prosecution's case. Mr. Edwards testified that he had seen Lamont Branch
and two other men go into Mr. Josephs' apartment, and that one of the other
men - not Mr. Branch - had a gun.

The assistant district attorney, over the vehement objections of the
defense, interrupted the testimony and asked the court for permission to
confer privately with her witness. Permission was granted. After the
conference, Mr. Edwards once again took the witness stand. This time he
said it was Lamont Branch whom he had seen with the gun. He said he had
been too frightened to tell the truth the first time.

This is a ludicrous case. It mocks due process. It laughs at the idea that
real and compelling evidence is required before a man can be taken into
custody and sent off to prison for the better part of a lifetime.

What this case tells prosecutors is that all you need is a crack addict and
a $20 bill.

Shorn Green now says that what he did was wrong and he regrets what
happened to Lamont Branch. Lorenzo Branch, who has been saying for years
that he was the shooter, is only now willing to testify in court about his
culpability. "I am sorry," he said, "that it has taken me so long to
completely come forward and take responsibility for what happened."

The Brooklyn district attorney, Charles Hynes, said yesterday that he was
"open-minded" about the case. That is different from insisting that the
right man is in prison.

"We need to hear what Lorenzo has to say," said Mr. Hynes.