The Crime
On the evening of May 15, 1991, around 9:00 p.m., Moses Leverette observed two young Black men walking down the street near his shop, one of them carrying a stick. The men appeared to be between 18 and 20 years old—one was six feet tall, and the other stood at five feet eight inches.
Meanwhile, a 10-year-old witness was outside his home nearby. He saw Efren Vasquez talking on a payphone down the street. As the 10-year-old watched, the same two men seen by Leverette approached Vasquez from behind. Without warning, one of the assailants struck Vasquez on the head with the stick, knocking him to the ground. Though Leverette did not witness the blow to the head, he heard a loud noise, like a stick or pipe hitting someone’s head, and rushed to the window to investigate.
Leverette and the 10-year-old witness watched the assailant rifled through Vasquez’s pockets and took his wallet. There is evidence Vasquez had just received and cashed a paycheck for $585.
The assailants quickly fled the scene. The 10-year-old witness ran inside his house, while Leverette went outside to check on Vasquez, immediately calling paramedics.
When officers arrived, they found Vasquez lying on the sidewalk. Four days later, Vasquez died from the blunt force trauma to his head.
Questionable Eyewitness Testimonies
Frank’s conviction relied heavily on statements from Leverette and the 10-year-old witness, both of which are full of inconsistencies and credibility issues.
Leverette, who claimed to have seen Frank with the murder weapon, was undermined by his poor eyesight and the fact that he viewed the incident from a long distance in poor lighting conditions. Most importantly, Leverette initially identified Frank’s brother, Paul, in a photo lineup. Leverette also had a history of lying about his credentials, falsely claiming to be a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff.
The 10-year-old witness’s identification was the product of a suggestive photo lineup and pressure from the police and prosecutors. Initially, he identified Frank’s brother as one of the perpetrators and described the weapon as a flat wooden board, contradicting the police’s description of a stick. During an interview at his school, detectives showed the 10-year-old a photo lineup containing Frank’s photo but used problematic tactics.
At the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor asked the 10-year-old if he recognized anybody in the courtroom from the night of the crime. The 10-year-old claimed the person who did the crime was not in the room, though Frank was in the room.
At trial, the 10-year-old testified he selected Frank’s photo, not because Frank was the perpetrator, but because detectives asked the 10-year-old if there was anybody in the photos he had seen before. The 10-year-old had seen Frank in the neighborhood one or two times before, and Frank’s photo caught his attention.
Lack of Physical Evidence
Police found a wooden stick, alleged to be the murder weapon, outside Frank’s apartment building. The police carelessly tossed the stick—unwrapped—into the back of their squad car. For over a year and a half, the police neglected to submit the stick for crucial forensic analysis, despite having a fully equipped forensic testing unit at their disposal. It wasn’t until the week of trial that the detectives had the stick analyzed, only to reveal that it contained no blood or fingerprints. Other than being outside of Frank’s house, there is no physical evidence linking Frank to this wooden stick. And, there is no physical evidence that this was the actual stick used in the crime.
Post-Conviction Efforts
Frank, 25 years old at the time, has always maintained his innocence, stating he was at home with his mother watching a movie during the robbery. Post-conviction investigations suggest another relative may have been involved.
Unfortunately, due to the passage of time, many key witnesses have either passed away or no longer recall crucial details that could have supported Frank’s innocence. However, The Innocence Center remains committed to seeking justice for Frank, who continues to fight for his freedom and his life as he is currently battling cancer, after enduring three decades of wrongful imprisonment.
Years ago, Frank submitted a commutation request from the Governor’s office so that he could have the opportunity to go before the parole board, and in 2017, he was interviewed by the governor’s staff but received no follow-up.
In June 2024, Frank renewed his plea for clemency with Governor Gavin Newsom, but as of now, no response has been received. The Innocence Center is now reviewing Frank’s case for potential Racial Justice Act violations as we continue to advocate for him in the clemency process.
