For over twenty-seven years, Daniel Green has been incarcerated for a murder he did not commit – the killing of James Jordan, father of basketball superstar Michael Jordan. Daniel has never wavered in proclaiming his innocence of murder.  He has always been willing to take responsibility for the misguided actions he admits to taking after the murder.

The prosecution built its case almost entirely on the testimony of Daniel's childhood best friend, Larry Demery. Without his testimony, Daniel would not have been convicted. After being interrogated and threatened for hours, Larry was offered and took a favorable plea in return for testifying against his friend. According to Larry’s testimony, Daniel shot James Jordan in the upper right chest while Jordan slept in his car on the side of the road. However, the evidence, including the lack of any blood in the car, the coroner’s observation that there was no hole in the shirt that corresponded with the wound, the impossibility of the bullet trajectory, and Daniel’s strong alibi, contradicts that testimony.

The trial took place in Robeson County – a county notorious for racial strife and corrupt law enforcement. The documentary highlights some of the many unanswered questions in the case. How was there a hole in the shirt at trial when there was no hole at the time of the autopsy? Why did a forensic scientist give her opinion that there was blood in the car when there was no scientific evidence supporting her opinion?  Why weren’t key alibi witnesses called?  Why didn’t law enforcement investigate a call made from Jordan's car phone to a phone number belonging to Hubert Larry Deese, the biological son of then-Sheriff Hubert Stone and co-worker of Demery at Crestline Mobile Homes, which was known for using vehicles for drug trafficking? Why did the SBI not investigate the connection between Deese and Stone after being informed by the FBI that they were under investigation for drug trafficking – an investigation that would eventually land Deese in prison for cocaine trafficking? And how can a recent statement by Larry Demery that Daniel Green was not present at the time of the murder not raise an evidentiary issue that needs to be addressed at a hearing?

Daniel has been failed by law enforcement, the prosecution, the defense, the judiciary, and his best friend.  After filing his first postconviction motion in 2000 and being represented by defense attorneys who provided inadequate representation, additional motions outlining the questionable evidence and asking for an evidentiary hearing were filed.  After being denied a hearing, Daniel's legal team at the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence began efforts to appeal that ruling.  Daniel needs your support as he continues his quest to prove his innocence.