46 Years Later: Pedro Hernandez Convicted in Etan Patz Murder

On May 25, 1979, 6-year-old Etan Patz left his family's Soho apartment to walk alone to his school bus stop—a journey he had been permitted to make for the first time. He never arrived. His disappearance would launch one of the most extensive missing persons searches in New York City history and make him the first child to appear on milk cartons across America. For 33 years, the case remained unsolved.

Pedro Hernandez, a teenage bodega worker in Etan's Manhattan neighborhood at the time, was arrested in May 2012 at age 51. Hernandez confessed to luring the boy to the basement of the bodega with the promise of a soda, then strangling him. He claimed he placed Etan's body in a garbage bag or box and left it at the curb for collection. The confession came initially without Miranda rights, but Hernandez repeated the account in two subsequent videotaped interviews after being read his rights.

The case against Hernandez was unusual: there was no body, no physical evidence, and no forensic proof linking him to the crime. The investigation relied almost entirely on his confession. The defense argued the confession was unreliable, suggesting Hernandez's mental illness and low IQ made him prone to confusing imagination with reality.

Hernandez's first trial in 2015 ended in a mistrial when jurors deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction. A second trial began in October 2016. On February 14, 2017, after nine days of deliberation, a jury convicted Hernandez of second-degree murder, kidnapping, and felony murder. He was sentenced on April 18, 2017, to 25 years to life imprisonment.

However, the conviction did not stand. On July 21, 2025, a federal appeals court—the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—overturned Hernandez's conviction. The court ruled that the trial judge had given jury instructions regarding Hernandez's pre-Miranda confession that were both "manifestly inaccurate" and "manifestly prejudicial" under federal law. The appeals panel found that the jury instruction incorrectly explained how jurors should weigh the initial pre-Miranda confession against the later videotaped confessions made after Miranda rights were read.