The 17 year saga of Marty Tankleff, whether the boy who murdered his parents or the boy who was railroaded by over-zealous detectives, has finally come to an end.  New York Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Rosenberg, who had stepped in for the Suffolk District Attorney, moved yesterday to dismiss the case.

But it wasn’t all that Bruce Barkett had hoped for.  Not only did the AG announce that they would not prosecute anyone else for the murder, but there was no declaration that Marty Tankleff was innocent.  Bruce sought exoneration.  He got a dismissal.

“Everyone has come to the same decision: Marty Tankleff did not kill his parents,” said his attorney, Bruce Barket of Garden City.

Good try, but not even close.  Bruce is a take-no-prisoners type of lawyer.  This was an all or nothing proposition for him and investigator Jay Saltpeter, both of whom would blow past anything they had to get an exoneration for Marty.  But it never happened, Bruce’s words notwithstanding.

“The issue in this case is not whether there is evidence . . . but whether there is sufficient evidence,” said Benjamin Rosenberg, lead counsel for the attorney general. “The people move to dismiss the indictment.”

In the same motion, prosecutors said they would not proceed against suspects identified by Tankleff’s defense team, saying that “on balance, the defense theory does not appear to be supported by clear evidence.”

So there’s no conclusion that Marty Tankleff is innocent, or that the people his team fingered as the “real murderers” are guilty.  There’s just the promise of a perpetually open question, and a cloud over Marty for the rest of his life.

The saga of Marty Tankleff has suffered from significant confusion subsequent to the low of a post-conviction hearing, where Tankleff lost in a crushing decision, and the high of the Second Department’s reversing his conviction upon the showing of sufficiency impropriety in the investigation and prosecution to render it unreliable.  But there’s a huge gap between a bad conviction and innocence. 

This confusion, between proof of guilt and innocence, has not only permeated the pubic reporting of the case, but the criminal defense bar in New York as well.  At the gala dinner of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers last January, an impromptu award was given the Tankleff “defense team” for the reversal of the conviction, which may have been a bit premature had the AG decided to retry the case.  But details aside, the group had gotten a reversal, and some appreciation of their efforts was appropriate.

But when called to the front, not only the attorneys and investigator ascended the Dais, but so too Marty Tankleff, whose presence at the dinner was itself curious.  Sitting at the Dais was Chief Judge Judy Kaye and Senior Associate Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick (whose name was spelled wrong on the invitation).

As the Tankleff defense team made its way along the Dais, hugging and hand-shaking its way down the line, Marty took a position as the caboose.  It was shockingly awkward as Marty Tankleff, fresh from his murder reversal, came to the two Court of Appeals judges for his public display of affection.  Hands were shaken, but there was no hug or kiss.  After all, Marty was still subject to being tried again and convicted for the murder of his parents.

For most people convicted of murder and imprisoned for 17 years, dismissal is more than sufficient. It’s a great result.  But for Marty Tankleff, who is now attending Hofstra University and has expressed a desire to become a lawyer and work to free the wrongly convicted, dismissal is the best he will ever get.  And it will never be enough.

See also Newsday’s editorial.