A Memphis man was freed from prison Wednesday after serving nearly 36 years, according to the Tennessee Innocence Project (TIP).
Eric Wright was arrested in October 1989 for the robbery and shooting of a convenience store clerk and her boyfriend in South Memphis. Wright was convicted at a jury trial in 1990 and sentenced to 150 years.
“Eric is a man of faith, and he did not give up that hope that one day the truth of his innocence would be heard,” said Wright’s attorney Jessica Van Dyke in a statement. “I am incredibly excited to see what Eric does next with his freedom.”
In December 2024, TIP filed a petition to analyze the fingerprints collected at the crime scene using the Automated Fingerprint Identification System database. TIP said that testing produced an alternative suspect, “and for the first time ever, there was physical evidence of who committed the crime.” This person had no connection to Wright, TIP said.
At the urging of TIP, Tennessee became one of the first states to pass a fingerprint testing law in 2021.
“Eric’s case is proof-positive of how we can harness new technology to get answers in older cases,” said TIP executive director Jason Gichner. “We must continue to pursue policy reforms that prevent innocent people from going to prison and ensure that, if convicted, they are released.”
Here’s how TIP explained some of the details of the case:
“The crime was committed by two individuals, described primarily by their clothing. The perpetrators were described as young, Black men in their teens.
“Eric Wright was developed as a suspect after he and his brother were stopped riding a moped in a different part of Memphis a week after the crime. Fingerprints collected at the crime scene did not match Mr. Wright or his brother.
“His arrest and conviction relied on one cross-racial identification; no physical evidence connected Mr. Wright to the crime. Mr. Wright always denied any involvement in the crime. Over the years, Mr. Wright filed numerous motions and appeals asking for relief in his case.
“The photographic lineup viewed by the single eyewitness was also fatally flawed. Instead of using the photo from Mr. Wright’s traffic stop arrest, which was one week after the crime, detectives used a photograph from two and half years earlier, where Mr. Wright was wearing a unique piece of clothing (a short-sleeve floral shirt) matching the item worn by one of the perpetrators. No one else in the photographic lineup was wearing this item of clothing.”