A summary of Jaime’s Case:

Jaime Resende is a 38-year-old Cape Verdean American from Brockton, Massachusetts. For more than 14 years, Jaime has been incarcerated for a crime he did not commit. Seven years ago a jury found him not guilty and he continues behind bars.

In September 2007, Jaime was charged with armed home invasion, unarmed robbery, armed assault with intent to rob and felony murder, for his alleged involvement in planning a crime. On May 27, 2010, Jaime was wrongfully convicted of the charges.

In 2015, Jaime was granted a retrial and a jury found him not guilty of being a knowing participant as a joint venturer in the attempted armed and unarmed robbery that led to felony murder. The entire case against Jaime was based on one person’s testimony, Vernon Newberry. Given the chance to do so, Newberry changed his story approximately 8 times. He falsified Jaime’s involvement, stating that Jaime planned the robbery that Newberry, Kenston Scott (identified as the shooter), and an unidentified assailant committed. Newberry was not charged with murder or any other crime and was given full immunity for his false testimony. Under a joint venture theory, Jaime was sentenced for the actions of the above-mentioned perpetrators.

Judge Charles Hely vacated the felony murder conviction after Jaime was acquitted by a Plymouth County jury, but failed to discharge Jaime for the attemped armed robbery and attempted unarmed robbery as a joint venturer. The Commonwealth then successfully convinced Judge Hely to keep the convictions of armed home invasion and armed assault with intent to rob from the first trial even though the second jury had heard evidence on those charges and found Jaime not guilty. The acquittal stands on the grounds that there was reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury because the Commonwealth had not proven their case. Jaime’s lawyer at the time neglected to argue that since he had been found innocent of planning the robbery, Jaime should have been released from custody. The prosecutor has kept Jaime’s conviction from the first trial, implying that Jaime planned the robbery, even though at the retrial, the jury found him not guilty of that very thing. As a result, Jaime continues to be wrongfully imprisoned for a crime in which he was found to have no involvement in and was acquitted of allegedly planning.