Daniel Andre Green (pictured) was convicted of killing the father of former NBA star Michael Jordan, James Jordan. Nearly 17 years after his conviction, the case is starting to fall apart. The problems stem from a faulty crime lab in North Carolina, where multiple mistakes have been made over the last two decades.

Green told the Associated Press that the lab mishandled its reports, and that evidence supporting his case was denied to him in court. He has trained himself in law and worked on his own case since the date of his conviction. Much of the recent attention to the case is due to a report concluding that the lab mishandled Green's case, along with 200 others, during a 16-year period ending in 2003.

"I've always known that I'm walking out of prison," Green said. "I've known that because I've believed, ultimately, the truth has to come out."

Green filed a 122-page motion on his own behalf in 2008. The motion was strong enough to get the court to reconsider his case. The focal point of his argument centers around blood evidence collected at the scene of the crime. The State Bureau of Investigation expert stated at Green's trial that she found a small amount of blood in the car.

Later reports released this week, though, show that the bureau only found "indications" that blood was present. Four additional tests were inconclusive.

Green's appeal was already in progress when the latest reports came out about the crime lab, but this new piece of evidence is problematic primarily because the defense was not made aware of the inconclusive follow-up tests. Green says that he didn't kill Jordan's father, but out of loyalty to his friend and co-defendant Larry Demerey, he helped dispose of the body.

"I made certain decisions out of loyalty to a friend," Green said.

In addition to claiming that he helped get rid of the body, he also admits to using some of Mr. Jordan's personal items, like his car and jewelry. Jordan's body was found in a swamp in North Carolina.

During the trial, attorneys questioned several aspects of the case, including the lack of blood and physical evidence. Green's co-defendant testified that Green shot Jordan at point blank range, but there was no blood found in the car that Jordan was driving, nor was there a match between the alleged murder weapon with the bullet found inside Jordan's body. The lack of gunshot residue in the car added even more doubts to the case.

I am not sure of the guilt or innocence of the two defendants in the murder of James Jordan. What I can say, however, is that based on what I've read about the case thus far, I certainly have reasonable doubt in my mind. This reminds us that reasonable doubt is all that is needed to find someone not guilty. It's not the same as saying they are innocent.

Another thought-provoking dimension to the murder of James Jordan was the fact that Michael lived in the limelight, drawing attention from millions of fans. Most of those fans loved him - but a few might have hated him. His deep involvement with gambling only added fuel to the fire of speculation. While none of us knows who killed James Jordan or why, we should at least try to make sure we've got the right person. Based on what's been revealed thus far, it appears that Daniel Andre Green might not be that guy.


Dr. Boyce Watkins is the founder of the Your Black World Coalition and a Scholarship in Action Resident of the Institute for Black Public Policy. To have Dr. Boyce commentary delivered to your email, please click here.