The Crosley Green case revolves around the conviction of Crosley Green for the 1989 kidnapping, robbery, and murder of Charles "Chip" Flynn in Mims, Florida. Green, a black man with a criminal record but no history of violent crimes, was arrested based largely on the testimony of Kim Hallock, Flynn's ex-girlfriend who survived the attack. Hallock identified Green as the perpetrator, despite initial descriptions not matching Green's appearance.

Green was tried twice: first convicted and sentenced to death in 1990, then retried and again convicted in 1994. Over the years, significant doubts have been raised about the fairness of his trial, including allegations of ineffective legal representation, inconsistent witness testimony, and potential police misconduct in handling evidence and pursuing alternative suspects.

The case gained national attention due to ongoing appeals and efforts to overturn Green's conviction, with supporters arguing he did not receive a fair trial and may be innocent. Despite legal setbacks and procedural hurdles, advocacy continues for Green's release, highlighting broader concerns about wrongful convictions and the criminal justice system's handling of cases involving significant doubts.

Further details:

On September 5, 1990, a jury convicted Mr. Green of first-degree murder of Charles “Chip” Flynn, Jr., a 22-year-old man in Titusville, Fla., and sentenced him to death. Mr. Green was convicted on the testimony of a single eyewitness, the victim’s ex-girlfriend, who identified Mr. Green as the perpetrator. There was no evidence linking Mr. Green to the crime, only the ex-girlfriend. Her story is inconsistent, she claimed Crosley did things that he was phyically unable to do like driving Chip Flynn’s extremly hard truck with a clutch that sticks. Crosley didn’t know how to drive a stick shift. Crosley didn’t match the description she gave, other than, he was black. Chip’s gun was used, she claimed the black man had his own gun.

The circumstances of the murder are bizarre and suggest that the original police theory that Green was not the killer makes abundant sense. Two young people, Chip Flynn and Kim Hallock, were seated at night in a pickup truck in a secluded parking lot in Brevard County.

Hallock was jealous that Flynn was seeing other women, and they discussed their relationship. Hallock claimed that a Black man suddenly approached them with a gun, got into the truck, and ordered them to drive to a secluded orange grove where Hallock claimed Flynn, who had a gun, shot at the man, and the man shot back, killing Flynn. Hallock escaped.

Police found no physical evidence. The only witness to the killing was Hallock. She described the assailant as having features that did not match Green except for the color of his skin. She told the police that the killer was “a Black guy.” Her selection of Green’s photo from an array was suspicious: the police told her that the killer was in one of the photos; Green was selectively placed to stand out; his skin appeared to have been darkened; and Hallock made her identification after stating several times that she was not sure.

Three people who testified that Green told them he was the killer later recanted, claiming the police coerced them. Two police officers who conducted the initial investigation told the prosecutor they believed Hallock shot Flynn with a gun she kept in the glove compartment of the truck.

But since this theory was inconsistent with the prosecutor’s theory that Green was the killer, the prosecutor disregarded it, believing that these officers were mistaken and, therefore, had no duty to reveal to the defense information he believed was unreliable.

However, the prosecutor either misunderstood or disregarded his constitutional and ethical duty to disclose this information to the defense. Surely this experienced prosecutor was aware of the landmark Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland (1963), which mandates that prosecutors disclose evidence to a defendant that is materially favorable to his defense.

It is not the prosecutor’s call to decide whether evidence is or is not important. If that were the rule, it would be tantamount to the prosecutor-fox guarding the henhouse. But that is not the rule. As the federal judge stated when he granted Green’s habeas corpus petition, the prosecutor was required to disclose the information because it would be “difficult to conceive of information more material to the defense and to the development of the defense strategy.”

The court weighed in on the side of the prosecutor. The court did not believe the information was sufficiently important. The court reasoned that the defense would have been unable to use the police opinion that Hallock was the killer because it was hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible.

And, at trial, the defense did try to point the finger at Hallock as the killer. But learning that several police investigators also shared that belief would have strongly reinforced their theory and provided the impetus for the lawyers to explore the basis for the officers’ opinion and then discover admissible evidence pointing to Hallock as the killer.

The prosecutor indisputably violated his legal and ethical obligations by not disclosing the police opinion as to the killer’s identity. But the circuit court’s decision is less clear-cut. Since that court had the benefit of the entire trial record, it was able to speculate that even if the defense had the information the prosecutor hid, it wouldn’t have mattered; the jury still would have come to the same conclusion of Green’s guilt.

Regardless of the legal issues of whether the prosecutor violated his disclosure duty, whether the federal judge who granted Green his freedom made the correct decision, and whether the circuit court should have affirmed that decision, the paramount question remains: Is it the right sense of justice that a man convicted of a crime he claims he did not commit, who spent 31 years in prison mostly on Death Row, who was released and lawfully at liberty for two years tasting the life of freedom that all free persons enjoy, be suddenly sent back to that prison to spend the rest of his life in a prison cell?

What kind of message does this tragic story reveal about American justice? The rules of law are, of course, important. But one wonders whether other fundamental precepts might also be important, such as mercy, compassion, and humanity.

Crosley Green faces a dark future. Clemency and pardon are his only options. It’s unlikely the governor of Florida will pardon him, and the clemency board is stacked with hard-liners.

So here the story ends, tragically and likely forgotten.

WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL HE IS FREE!!! PLEASE HELP US SPREAD HIS STORY AND GET OUR GOVERNOUR TO PARDON HIM!