In 1989, the fatal shooting of Yusuf Hawkins, a Black teen aged 16, incited turbulent public demonstrations across the city of Brooklyn. Albeit trying to procure a car, Hawkins’ seemingly innocent plan ended in a tragedy that haunted the city for several months. The teenager’s life was taken abruptly, ensnaring a man by the name of Joseph Fama as the alleged perpetrator, who has since been incarcerated for approximately 35 years. However, Thursdays’ proceedings hint at an opportunity for Fama to present novel evidence supporting his claims of innocence.
Joseph Fama, then a young man of 18 years, was reported to be among the white mob that pursued and cornered Hawkins and his three companions, none of whom were armed, on an August night in 1989. This horrifying incident took place within the borders of Bensonhurst, a neighborhood in Brooklyn, as stated in the legal files. Fama, a white individual, found himself ensnared by several accusations of varying severity.
As per the court records, Fama was charged with multiple counts, including second-degree murder, initiating a riot of the first degree, third-degree illegal containment of a firearm, first-degree wrongful confinement, intimidation tactics, and discrimination. These accusations were consolidated and the sentences were mandated to be served simultaneously. Consequently, Fama faced a mandatory minimum of 25 years behind bars, potentially even a life sentence.
The murder incited a city-wide uproar, drawing attention to the racial violence prevalent in the area. These demonstrations came at a time when the city’s racial tensions had already been exacerbated by the wrongful conviction of the Central Park Five. This group of Black and Hispanic teenagers were inaccurately found guilty of assaulting and raping a white female jogger.
Five witnesses surfaced during the original trial, all claiming to have observed Fama fatally shooting Hawkins. Four additional witnesses purportedly confirmed Fama’s presence at the site of the crime on the fatal night when Hawkins suffered three gunshot wounds. Two reputed informants from within the prison claimed Fama confessed to the shooting of Hawkins owing to his racial identity.
However, the judge handling Fama’s case cast aside the testimony of an informant’s father, who questioned the veracity of his son’s claims about Fama’s confession. The court reasoned that during the informant’s cross-examination, the defence did not establish the necessary groundwork for the father’s testimony to be admissible.
As per instructions from Fama’s defence, two witnesses have revised their initial testimonies which held Fama responsible for the murder. They now assert that they were subjugated to force by the investigators involved in the case, resulting in the false blame being imposed on Fama.
In the original trial, the court rejected the defense’s late pleas to summon Frankie Tighe, a witness who revised his testimony earlier, as the defense had ended their case presentation four days prior. Keith Mondello, alleged to be one of the leaders of the mob that targeted Hawkins, shares fresh discernments asserting Fama’s innocence.
Five other witnesses had originally testified that they overheard Tighe exclaim that ‘Joe Fama just shot a Black kid’ post the horrific shooting incident. However, the defense has now put forth twelve fresh affidavits from witnesses, which claim that Fama is not to be blamed for the fatal shooting of Hawkins.
Some of these witnesses alleged that they were subjected to police pressure leading them to falsely implicate Fama in the shooting of Hawkins. The defense seems to place particular emphasis on the role of a former detective, Louis Scarcella, in the investigation and pressuring of witnesses.
A formal complaint against Scarcella reports that nearly two dozen murder convictions connected to him have been overturned. Of these cases, nine were found to involve Scarcella coercing individuals into confessing falsely or fabricating written confessions.
According to the defence team, several witnesses have testified that Fama received a firearm from the actual killer just moments before Hawkins met his tragic end. Fama’s attempts to question his conviction have not been fruitful so far, given that his prior two endeavors have been rejected by the court of law.
In his third attempt to remove the stain of this conviction from his record, Fama will be allowed to place his case in a court conference. This event is scheduled to take place on the 21st of November, as confirmed by the official court documents.
Although Fama’s conviction has been held up twice by the court before, the presentation of new evidence and witnesses’ claims could possibly swing the case in a different direction. Regardless of the outcome, this case continues to reflect the profound implications of societal prejudice and racial tension plaguing communities around the globe.