Prosecutors in Manhattan are seeking additional time to decide whether to pursue a third trial for Pedro Hernandez, the man convicted of murdering six-year-old Etan Patz in 1979, following an appeals court order for a new trial or his release. The defense is pushing for a quicker decision, arguing for Hernandez’s immediate freedom.
On Thursday, Manhattan prosecutors asked a federal judge for 90 days to determine if they will retry Pedro Hernandez for the 1979 murder of Etan Patz, after an appeals court overturned his 2017 conviction. Hernandez’s defense team countered, requesting a decision within 30 days and emphasizing their client’s innocence. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon indicated she would rule on the timeline in the coming days, acknowledging the decades-long impact of the case on the Patz family and the public.
The disappearance of six-year-old Etan Patz in May 1979 while he was walking to his school bus stop in New York City’s SoHo neighborhood captivated the nation and spurred a massive search effort involving the FBI. Despite extensive investigations, Patz was never found, and his case remained one of the most haunting unsolved mysteries in American history for over three decades, highlighting issues of child safety and missing persons.
Pedro Hernandez, who worked as a stock clerk in a bodega near the bus stop, was not a suspect until 2012, when he confessed during a police interrogation to luring Patz into a basement and strangling him. Hernandez, who has a history of mental illness, claimed he committed the act, but his confession has been a point of contention, with his lawyers arguing it was coerced and unreliable.
Hernandez faced two trials; the first in 2015 ended in a mistrial when the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict. In 2017, he was convicted of felony murder and kidnapping, though acquitted of intentional murder. The conviction was based largely on his confessions and circumstantial evidence, but the jury’s deliberation was complicated by questions about the voluntariness of his statements.
In a surprise ruling in July 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial or Hernandez’s release, citing flaws in the jury instructions and concerns over the handling of his mental health and interrogation. Specifically, the court found that the trial judge erred when instructing the jury not to disregard later confessions if they believed the first was involuntary, which could have prejudiced the outcome.
Prosecutors, led by Matthew Colangelo, argue that the conviction was just and are considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They also cited practical challenges, noting that many witnesses from the original trials are now elderly, deceased, or have moved away, making a retrial difficult. In contrast, Hernandez’s attorney, Harvey Fishbein, insists that his client is innocent and should be freed immediately to avoid further incarceration.
The judge’s upcoming decision on the timeline will determine how quickly this long-standing case moves forward. If prosecutors proceed with a third trial, it would be a rare instance in such a historic case, while an appeal to the Supreme Court could set precedents for criminal procedure. The outcome continues to resonate, reflecting broader questions about justice, memory, and the limits of the legal system in decades-old crimes.