Text size:

Chronology of Martin Tankleff case

SEPTEMBER 1988 Martin Tankleff, 17, is charged with murder after telling police he found his mother, Arlene, dead and his father, Seymour, bleeding profusely from a neck wound in their Belle Terre home. After being interrogated by police for hours, Tankleff confesses.

JUNE 1990 Tankleff is convicted of two counts of second-degree murder after nine weeks of trial testimony and eight days of jury deliberation.

OCTOBER 1990 Tankleff is sentenced to the maximum: 50 years to life in prison.

AUGUST 2003 Glenn Harris gives Tankleff's lawyers a sworn statement saying he drove Joseph Creedon and Peter Kent to the Tankleff house on the night of the slayings and that Creedon and Kent came out of the house with blood on them. Other witnesses come forward in the following months to incriminate Creedon, Kent, and Seymour Tankleff's former business partner, Jerry Steuerman.

JULY 2004 A Suffolk County Court hearing begins to determine whether Tankleff deserves a new trial.

MARCH 2006 Suffolk County Court Judge Stephen Braslow rejects Tankleff's motion for a new trial, saying he reached "the same conclusion that the jury reached ... and every state appellate court and federal court that has reviewed the case, and that is that Martin Tankleff is guilty of murdering his parents."

APRIL 2006 Braslow rejects a second motion for a new trial based on testimony from new witnesses.

MAY 2006 An appellate court in Brooklyn agrees to hear Tankleff's appeal of Braslow's rejection of the bid for a new trial.

JANUARY 2007 Tankleff's lawyers argue their case for an appeal.

OCTOBER 2007 Defense team files another motion in an effort to clear Tankleff of his parents' murders, providing new evidence in an attempt to discredit the alibi of Kent, one of the men they say committed the crimes.

DECEMBER 2007 Appellate Division orders new trial for Tankleff, citing newly discovered evidence presented by Tankleff's attorneys that was "of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant."