ONONDAGA, N.Y. — A federal habeas corpus petition being prepared in the case of Cameron Isaac argues that flawed forensic testimony and a coerced witness statement helped secure his 2017 murder conviction, and that new evidence now calls the verdict into question.
“Mr. Isaac is innocent and deserves his freedom. The prosecution’s case rests on flawed cell phone tower data that allegedly placed Mr. Isaac at the scene and Ms. Gray, a non-testifying witness. Ms. Gray was coerced into making statements, yet never called to testify, allowing the jury to draw improper inferences. Without these two faulty pieces of evidence, the prosecution’s case fails and led to a miscarriage of justice,” said Jeffrey Deskovic, an attorney and founder of the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice.
“Allowing a non-expert to mislead the jury through incorrect data and lack of proper training, while misrepresenting the capability of cell tower technology, combined with the fact that trial counsel didn’t call an expert to challenge those findings, led to the conviction of an innocent man and is an affront to the criminal justice system,” added Matthew Toporowski, co-counsel on the case.
Isaac is serving life without parole following his Sept. 25, 2017 conviction for first-degree murder in Onondaga County. The petition, expected to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, seeks to reopen the case under the standard set in Schlup v. Delo, which permits review when new evidence shows it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted.
“Simply put, Mr. Isaac is innocent of the charge that he was convicted of,” the petition states.
At trial, a detective testified that cell tower records placed Isaac near the scene. The petition argues that testimony should not have been presented in that form. The detective was not formally qualified as an expert, and the defense did not present its own expert to challenge the analysis.
A new affidavit from telecommunications expert Ben Levitan disputes both the method and conclusions presented to the jury. According to the filing, the detective relied on NELOS data rather than Call Detail Records, which are described as the accepted standard for location analysis. The petition also states that the detective’s training consisted of a two-day course and did not include a basic understanding of cellular network operations.
The filing further challenges how the technology was described to jurors. At trial, the detective testified that cell tower data could locate a phone within two football fields. Levitan’s analysis places the range closer to 23 football fields, a difference the petition argues significantly alters how the evidence should be interpreted.
“The cell-tower evidence was central to Respondent’s case. Without it, the jury had only text messages showing Mr. Isaac planned to buy marijuana, not rob Mr. Yuan, and a video showing Mr. Mitchell’s car in the general area—not Mr. Isaac committing the crime,” the petition states.
The petition also focuses on statements attributed to Joy Gary, Isaac’s then-girlfriend, who did not testify at trial. Prosecutors referenced her alleged statements through law enforcement testimony, allowing jurors to draw inferences without cross-examination.
In a new affidavit, Gary states she was pressured by police while held on a material witness warrant. The petition describes her as being detained for nearly 12 hours, denied the ability to contact anyone, refused access to counsel, and threatened with jail and other consequences.
“She was held for almost twelve hours, from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., denied the right to call anyone, refused access to counsel, threatened with jail, and ‘badgered’ until she ‘told them what they wanted to hear,’” the petition states.
Gary’s affidavit also states that Isaac never admitted involvement in the crime and that she does not have knowledge of the case.
“Ms. Gary’s affidavit thus eliminates two pillars of Respondent’s case: the inference that her police statements were inculpatory, and the interpretation that the jailhouse call was an admission,” the petition states.
The filing highlights the absence of direct evidence linking Isaac to the shooting.
“No eyewitness saw Mr. Isaac shoot Mr. Yuan; no informant testified to seeing it; no video captured it; and there was no confession,” the petition states.
Isaac’s conviction was affirmed on appeal in 2021, and state post-conviction challenges were denied. The federal petition argues that both trial and appellate counsel failed to adequately challenge the cell tower evidence and the use of the witness statements.
The petition asks the court to grant relief or, at minimum, hold a hearing on the claims. If the court finds the new evidence meets the Schlup standard, the case could proceed to full federal review.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
