In 2006, Christopher Porco was convicted in New York of murdering his father, Peter Porco , and attempting to murder his mother, Joan Porco. He was subsequently sentenced to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed on appeal . (New York Courts ) 

Nearly two decades later, questions surrounding the case and the evidence presented at trial continue to receive public attention.

Porco’s current defense team has pursued post-conviction relief under New York Criminal Procedure Law 440.10. In January 2023, his attorneys filed a motion asking the court to vacate his conviction or, alternatively, conduct an evidentiary hearing. The motion also requested mitochondrial DNA testing of a hair recovered from an alarm keypad inside the Porco home . His attorneys stated that their investigation had identified facts and legal issues that were not available to the defense at the time of the original trial and appeal . (Barket LLP) 

The defense has presented arguments concerning the prosecution’s reconstruction of the crime , evidence that it says was previously unavailable or suppressed , the effectiveness of the original defense, and other issues affecting the fairness and reliability of the original proceedings. These are allegations and and legal claims that must ultimately be evaluated by the courts - not by a petition or by public opinion. (Barket LLP) 

That is why this petition is not asking anyone to declare Christopher Porco innocent.

It is asking for something more fundamental:

If genuinely new and potentially material evidence exists , it deserves to be examined through the judicial process.

 

Why this matters 

A criminal conviction carries enormous consequences—not only for the person convicted, but also for victims, families , investigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the public. 

The purpose of post-conviction review is not to automatically overturn a conviction whenever someone raises a new claim. New York law establishes specific requirements for CPL 440.10 motions, including circumstances involving newly discovered and constitutional violations. Courts may also determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted based upon the evidence and legal claims presented . (New York Courts) 

Therefore, this petition is not asking the court to ignore the original trial, the jury’s verdict, the appellate history , or the suffering experienced by the Porco family. 

It is asking the court to examine whether the new claims and evidence meet the legal standards necessary for further review.

1. New evidence should be evaluated on its merits 

If evidence exists that could not reasonably have been presented at the 2006 trial  , the appropriate question should be whether that evidence satisfies the requirements for post - conviction review.

It should not be dismissed merely because the original trial occurred nearly two decades ago.

2.Scientific evidence deserves appropriate examination 

Porco’s attorneys specifically requested mitochondrial DNA testing of a hair recovered from an alarm keypad inside the Porco residence. Whether that testing ultimately supports the defense, the prosecution’s case, or neither should be determined through appropriate scientific examination. (Barket LLP) 

3.Competing interpretations should be tested in court 

The defense has challenged aspects of the prosecution’s reconstruction of the crime and has raised questions about evidence and investigative procedures.  Those claims should be evaluated against the complete record and whatever admissible new evidence the courts determines is relevant.

4. An evidentiary hearing can distinguish claims from evidence 

A hearing would not automatically establish innocence.

It would provide a formal setting in which witnesses , experts, documents, forensic evidence, and other relevant information can be examined under the rules of the judicial system.

5. The integrity of the justice system matters regardless of the outcome 

If the new evidence ultimately fails to undermine the conviction, that conclusion should stand on the evidence and the law .

But if new evidence demonstrates that the conviction cannot reliably stand, the courts should have the opportunity to address that finding .

Either outcome is preferable to leaving potentially material evidence insufficient examined .

 

What We Are Asking For

1.Fully consider the post-conviction claims raised in Christopher Porco’s CPL 440.10 proceedings.

2.Determine whether the newly presented evidence satisfies the legal requirements for post-conviction review.

3. Where legally appropriate, conduct an evidentiary hearing so that disputed factual and scientific issues can be examined in court.

4.Consider appropriate forensic testing is legally authorized and scientifically capable of producing relevant information.

5. Permit qualified experts and witnesses to address material questions raised by post-conviction application.

6. Evaluate the original trial record together with any admissible new evidence rather than considering disputed new claims in isolation.

7. Allow the courts —not the media , social media, petition signers , or public opinion- to determine whether the conviction should remain in place, modified , or be vacated.

This petition is not about declaring Christopher Porco innocent 

We want to make this distinction clear.

Signing this petition does not require you to believe Christopher Porco innocent.

It does not require you to reject the original jury verdict.

It does not require you to disregard the violence suffered by Peter and Joan Porco . 

And it does not ask the public to conduct its own criminal trial.

Instead , this petition asks for the judicial system to determine whether the claims of newly discovered evidence and other post-conviction issues deserve further examination under New York law. 

If the evidence is examined and the court concludes that the conviction remains supported by the evidence and applicable law, that is a judicial determination that should be respected.

But if genuinely new evidence demonstrates that the original conviction cannot stand, the justice system should have the ability to correct the result.

Justice is not served by deciding the answer before examining the evidence.

Our Call To Action:

We are asking people who believe in due process, evidence-based justice, and meaningful judicial review to sign this petition.

We ask the appropriate New York judicial authorities to give Christopher Porco’s post-conviction claims the full consideration required by law and , where legally warranted, provide an evidentiary hearing and examination of the newly presented evidence.

This is not a demand for a predetermined verdict .

It is a request for the opportunity to examine the evidence.

Let the courts hear the evidence.

Let qualified experts examine the science.

Let witnesses be heard where appropriate.

Let the legal process determine the outcome.

And Above All:

Let justice follow the evidence- wherever the evidence leads.