TRENTON, N.J. ā New Jersey's Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the 2016 conviction of a Florida woman for killing her 5-year-old son 25 years earlier, ruling that despite the juryās verdict, prosecutors failed to present enough evidence to prove she had purposely caused the boyās death.
It was a stunning turnaround in one of New Jersey's most infamous cold cases, which had remained unresolved for years even though Michelle Lodzinski was considered a prime suspect from the outset after she gave varying accounts of what happened on the day Timothy Wiltsey was last seen.
Recommended Videos
It also means Lodzinski cannot be tried again, which would violate a prohibition on so-called ādouble jeopardyā or being tried twice for the same matter, her attorney Gerald Krovatin said.
āThis is a great day for the rule of law and for the proposition that convictions have to be based on evidence, not on speculation or emotion,ā he said. āMichelle is enormously grateful to everyone who has stood by her throughout this long ordeal.ā
Appellate Judge Jose Fuentes ā called up to the Supreme Court to serve as a tiebreaking vote after the justices split 3-3 while upholding Lodzinskiās conviction in May ā cast the deciding vote in favor of acquittal Tuesday.
āAfter reviewing the entirety of the evidence and after giving the state the benefit of all its favorable testimony and all the favorable inferences drawn from that testimony, no reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lodzinski purposefully or knowingly caused Timothyās death,ā the court wrote in its majority decision.
The prosecutor's office that tried her declined comment.
Lodzinski was a single mother in central New Jersey in May 1991 when she told investigators Wiltsey had disappeared while they were at a carnival in Sayreville. She later gave conflicting accounts describing strangers she had seen who could have kidnapped the boy. Wiltseyās body was found nearly a year later, in a marshy area near an office complex where Lodzinski had once worked.
As time passed and no charges were filed, Lodzinski went on with her life and had two other children. She was living in Port St. Lucie, Florida, in 2014 when authorities in New Jersey charged her with killing Wiltsey. Investigators said a break in the case had come when Wiltseyās former babysitters identified a blue blanket, found along with the boyās body, as belonging to Lodzinski.
During her 2016 trial and on appeal, Lodzinskiās lawyers argued that no forensic evidence tied her to the blanket and that prosecutors didnāt produce enough evidence to show Lodzinski purposely caused the boyās death. A cause of death couldnāt be determined because Wiltseyās body had deteriorated in the time between when he died and when the body was found.
āIf you canāt find a cause of death, I submit you donāt have a homicide by definition,ā Krovatin told the court during arguments in October.
Prosecutors, who had portrayed Lodzinski at trial as a struggling young mother who felt burdened by the boy, argued on appeal that the totality of the evidence, including her evasive answers during initial questioning, was enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An appeals court agreed in 2019 when it upheld Lodzinskiās conviction.
The plot thickened after a deeply split state Supreme Court ruling in May upheld the appeals courtās decision. With Chief Justice Stuart Rabner not participating, the court split 3-3, but it was enough to leave the conviction undisturbed.
Writing at that time for the three dissenters, Justice Barry Albin wrote, āIn the modern annals of New Jersey legal history, to my knowledge, no murder conviction has ever been upheld on such a dearth of evidence.ā
In a dissenting opinion as part of Tuesday's ruling, the three justices that voted to convict said, āIn our view, the majority does the opposite of what our law requires.ā
In October, the state Supreme Court took the rare step of agreeing to rehear the case, conceding it had made a procedural mistake by ruling on an appellate court decision that had applied an incorrect legal standard. For the rehearing, the court added an appellate judge to serve as a tiebreaking vote.
āEven if the evidence suggested that Timothy did not die by accident, no testimony or evidence was offered to distinguish whether Timothy died by the negligent, reckless, or purposeful or knowing acts of a person, even if that person were Lodzinski,ā the majority decision read.
___
AP writer David Porter in Newark contributed to this report.