William Nieves was held on death row for six years before a re-trial determined that he was, in fact, innocent.

Yesterday afternoon, Nieves addressed a casual group of about 150 students in the Frizzell Room of the Eisenhower Chapel. Many attended from campus groups.

"I have a common story to tell you today," Nieves said as he began to speak.

Nieves said that he had been taking classes at the Community College of Philadelphia for about two weeks when Philadelphia Police Officers approached him for questioning in connection with the Dec. 22, 1992 murder of 21-year-old Eric McAiley.

"As it was almost a year after the event, I was unable to provide an alibi," Nieves said.

Nieves had problems with his trial from the beginning. It was the first capital case that his lawyer had ever handled.

"I was being represented by an attorney who was only paid $2500 to represent me," said Nieves.

Nieves' trial lasted only two days before a jury found him guilty of murder. The sole eyewitness testimony was from a prostitute who had changed her story. A sentencing trial placed him on death row.

Nieves staunchly maintained his innocence as he was moved to the Pittsburgh State Correctional Institution to live on death row. Once he arrived, he began to research his own case. He found that he had been given ineffective and incorrect legal council.

Nieves found new legal representation and began to seek a re-trial.

In 1997 Nieves' original trial judge granted him a re-trial based on his previously ineffective legal council.

The original prosecutor of the case fought the granted re-trial, and the case was taken to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On Feb. 17, 2000, the court upheld the re-trial.

"It took the Supreme Court only three weeks to be convinced that my trial council was ineffective," Nieves said. "They decided that I was deprived of my constitutional right to testify on my own behalf."

As the new trial progressed, Nieves said, he discovered that the prosecutor had withheld crucial evidence that would have helped him to prove his innocence.

"It was disturbing to know that the prosecutor had in his possession the identity of an eye-witness who could prove me innocent, yet it didn't bother him to re-prosecute me and seek a second death sentence," Nieves said.

On Oct. 20, 2000, Nieves was found not guilty of the crime. He had spent six years on death row.

"My daughter is now ten," Nieves said, "and she is having difficulty drawing close to me."

He spoke about the changes and hardships his family had gone through in his absence.

"It's like getting acquainted with a new family," Nieves said.

After telling his story, Nieves began to speak about the problems with the death penalty.

"When my re-trial was granted, my death warrant would have been signed in 30 days, and I would have been killed by lethal injection," Nieves said.

Nieves said that he understood that many prosecutors tried to use the death penalty as a deterrent, but that it wasn't working. He referred to the recent mass shooting in Philadelphia, and the fact that the death penalty clearly hadn't deterred anybody in that situation. He went on to say that Pennsylvania is experiencing an increase in murder crimes despite harsher penalties.

"Is the death penalty really the solution?" Nieves asked the audience.

He said the death penalty is hypocritical, arbitrary and racist, and that there was no place for it in American society, ending with nods of agreement from audience members.

The event was sponsored by Amnesty International, the ACLU, Pax Christi, the United Campus Ministry and Students for Life.