In the CNN story about the release of Curtis Crosland, one would get the impression that he had been proven innocent after 30 years in prison for murder in Philadelphia, all because of systemic racism.

[Crosland’s lawyer Claudia] Flores said every level of the criminal justice system is permeated with systemic racism, which contributed to Crosland’s wrongful conviction.

“Most people serving life in prison without parole in Pennsylvania are Black men. Probably most of these police officers involved are white. It’s a system saturated with systemic racism at every step. From the way crimes are investigated, to jury selection, to the fact that most prosecutors and judges are white,” she said.

Not only is this not the story (nor anything more than empty rhetoric), though it’s highly likely that Crosland is very much an innocent man, but it ignores what District Attorney Larry Krasner’s Conviction Integrity Unit did: It found that there was Brady material buried in the office’s file that could have been used to undermine the credibility of the two witnesses against Crosland at trial. They searched for it. They found it. They revealed it, even though 30 years had elapsed since Crosland went to prison.

Citing the CIU’s “exhaustive and dedicated investigation” of this case, the federal court agreed that evidence regarding the lack of credibility of two prosecution witnesses was not turned over to defense counsel at the time of trial, as is constitutionally required, nor was evidence disclosed by the Commonwealth that showed the Philadelphia Police investigation initially focused on another suspect.

The case against Crosland was built on the testimony of two witnesses, the first a woman who overheard a conversation and the second a jailhouse snitch.

One of them, Delores Tilghman, told police in 1988 that she overheard a conversation where Crosland and others were “talking about the murder.” She later recanted that statement, according to the lawsuit.

It would appear that she recanted between Crosland’s first and second trials, so she wasn’t called as a witness at the second trial. While that might make her recantation, and the hiding of the Brady about her, appear irrelevant, that’s not quite right. Had Crosland’s defense been aware of the Brady at the first trial and he been acquitted, there would have been no second trial.

A second witness, Rodney Everett, told police officers that Crosland confessed to him that he carried out Heo’s killing. Everett was himself in jail at the time, and hoping for a deal, the lawsuit states. Everett later testified that he had lied when implicated Crosland, according to the lawsuit. Documents which included Everett’s statements were found in police and district attorney’s files by the CIU.

Jailhouse snitches are the most notorious of witness for the obvious reason that they will say anything to benefit themselves. The flip side, however, is that a liar to convict is still a liar, rendering his recantation no more trustworthy than his testimony. But in 1991, jailhouse snitches were commonly used at trial, where prosecutors put perfume on turds to hide the stench, and it worked. While jailhouse snitches are notorious for being motivated liars, that doesn’t mean they were all lying, and that doesn’t mean jurors didn’t believe them and convict upon their testimony.

But Krasner’s effort to release Crosland was based on something more principled than questioning the vagaries of trial evidence after the jury reached its verdict.

Prior to the federal court’s ruling in the case, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DAO) Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU) had reviewed Crosland’s conviction and informed the federal court that his rights under Brady v. Maryland had been violated at trial in 1991. More specifically, the CIU noted in its filing that testimony of two key prosecution witnesses used at the time of trial was unreliable; one did not actually testify in court for Crosland’s second trial, after his first conviction was reversed on appeal, and the other witness disavowed to the court his earlier claim that Crosland was involved in the crime. And, there was no physical evidence or other evidence that tied Crosland to the crime.

Even though there might not be affirmative evidence of Crosland’s innocence, there was conclusive evidence that there was Brady in the file, evidence that would tend to exculpate Crosland, the other suspect, and evidence that would tend to impeach a prosecution witness, evidence which the Constitution demanded the prosecution turn over to the defense. Larry Krasner honored that mandate, sadly 30 years after his predecessor concealed it and Crosland spend a lifetime in prison. Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Anita Brody understood exactly what this duty required.

More so than any other party in our criminal legal system, the prosecutor has an obligation to do justice. See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). This obligation encompasses an ethical and legal duty to seek the truth. The obligation demands that the pursuit of a conviction can never come at the expense of the rights of the accused. The responsibility of doing justice does not disappear once a conviction is achieved. In some circumstances, the duty to seek truth can and should extend to cases long closed.

It’s possible that the Philly District Attorney’s office hid the Brady because of racism against Crosland, but concealing Brady was routine for prosecutors back then regardless of the defendant’s race. It was pretty much the norm where the prosecution’s goal was to get a conviction, and failing to turn over exculpatory and impeachment material, particularly if there was any argument that it was unreliable or not absolutely clearly Brady could be made, was the way trials went. It was essentially left entirely to the prosecutor’s discretion whether it was Brady and whether to turn it over. Rarely did that happen.

To his enormous credit, Larry Krasner has elevated respect for the Constitution over getting, and keeping, convictions. Crosland was denied a fair trial and Krasner, and Judge Brody, remedied this outrageous, if banal, error by ending his wrongful conviction. This isn’t a story, as CNN Sahar Akbarzai tried to fashionably spin it, of systemic racism, but a story of a district attorney whose respect for the Constitution was more important than sustaining a conviction. Krasner’s CIU did what every prosecutor should do. He honored the defendant’s constitutional rights. Justice Jackson would be proud.