Joe Marcy: Likely Wrongfully Convicted Says He's Being Abused in Prison

Joe Marcy remains in prison in Pennsylvania even though his accuser has recanted: now he shares he's been abused for years.

Anyone familiar with the prison system knows that child molesters get the worst kind of treatment, but what if you’ve been convicted of child molestation but you’re innocent.

That is the position which Joseph Marcy finds himself in.

I first wrote about Marcy in 2017 and followed up in 2020.

He was convicted entirely on the strength of testimony of his daughter who claimed he had molested her, but she recanted that testimony later.

Joseph Marcy was convicted in 2012 of molesting his daughter, who was six and seven at the time of the alleged incidents and sentenced to twenty to forty years in jail.

In 2015, his daughter recanted, and the trial judge overturned the conviction, noting in his decision, “A complete recantation by the victim raises the question of whether a crime was committed at all.”

Her testimony was dubious to begin with.

This case was originally investigated by social services and for nearly a year they accused of Joe of beating his daughter.

A juvenile judge found his daughter not credible, “After reviewing all of the evidence and testimony provided in this case, I find that the CYS did not present sufficient evidence to prove that the subject child was the victim of child physical abuse inflicted by Joe Marcy and witnessed by her mother. The sole evidence presented by CYS is the statement of the subject child. However, based upon the review of that testimony, I find that the testimony of Ruby was fabricated and not credible. Ruby is a six year old child and she stated that she was punished with a wooden paddle with holes in it had her name and the name of her siblings written on it. That statement by Ruby exactly mirrors information that was told to her by her mother in the past.”

After those charges were dismissed, social services then claimed his daughter disclosed to them that he had molested her.

On the strength of her testimony, Joe was convicted.

His daughter recanted a couple years after the trial.

After she recanted, a hearing was held in front of the trial judge, Judge Joseph Augello, who reversed the conviction.

When it was appealed, a Pennsylvania Appeals Court reinstated the conviction, arguing the evidence was not submitted on time.

In 2020, shortly after my article came out, a federal magistrate once again reversed the conviction.

It looked like Joe, locked up since 2012, would finally come home.

However, when the case reached a full federal panel of judges, the reinstated the conviction again.

Joe now tells me that he has reached the federal level again. They are arguing legal technicalities and not his guilt.

There’s no doubt the state doesn’t have enough evidence to convict; his daughter recanted.

Instead, their argument is that it took Joe too long file his appeal. In 2017, I explained the mind numbing legal argument keeping Joe in prison.

In 2012, Marcy received a letter from an aunt, stating that Ruby had recanted.

“We heard a rumor that she (Ruby) had recanted,” Hakim said of this initial letter.

Hakim said that moving forward he followed a process meant to ensure that Ruby made an official recantation and without being pressured, a process which included hiring a private investigator and getting an attorney to advocate on Ruby’s behalf.

After learning of the letter, Marcy immediately filed a PCRA appeal based on this letter, which was dismissed without prejudice meaning it could be filed again.

Judge Augello dismissed the PCRA appeal because another appeal was still making its way through the court.

After the other appeal was denied, a PCRA was appeal was filed, and Marcy said it was amended several times as he learned more information of Ruby’s recantation.

After the private investigator, John Gabriele, completed his investigation, a final PCRA was submitted, leading to the hearing where Ruby testified to recanting, and finally, to Judge Augello ordering a new trial.

Marcy noted that at no point in the process did the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office claim that the PCRA was not filed in time.

Judge Augello held numerous hearings and heard numerous motions and other filings throughout the process, and at no point did anyone argue that any was filed outside of jurisdiction.

Indeed, the Luzerne County District Attorney’s office, Marcy said, argued that the recantation was not credible and this is what they argued in the PCRA hearing, in briefs, and in the oral argument in front of the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

John Hakim handled the appeal leading up to the PCRA hearing and the hearing itself; he said he’s handled between 10 and 1,000 PCRA appeals and that victory is rare but he’s never had one overturned afterwards.

He said recantations are also rare and no guarantee because the same judge who oversaw the trial oversees the PCRA hearing and that judge, Augello in this case, would need to decide about which testimony- the trial or the PCRA hearing- was more credible.

Though his conviction was overturned, Marcy remained in jail because the court refused to reduce his bond which was beyond his ability to pay.

Rather than taking the case to trial- where the county would no longer have a case- the county appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Though the issue of whether the PCRA was filed properly never came up during the appeals process, this is what the court fixated on when it made its decision: “After careful review, we conclude that the PCRA court improperly granted Appellee’s PCRA Petition because Appellee had knowledge of the victim’s recantation in 2012 and did not raise it until 2014.”

Now, Joe tells me he is being abused by other prisoners and staff.