What the evidence establishes
CLAIM 01By August 16, 2016, a settlement in the Gurley civil case provided for $4.1 million from New York City, $400,000 from NYCHA and $25,000 from Liang.
Scope: East New York and Brooklyn courts, New York City · 2016-08-16 – 2016-08-16
Assessment: SUPPORTEDThe contemporary wire separates the three participants’ agreed contributions.
What is not established: The scope date is a reporting cutoff. Agreement amounts are not proof of completed payments, guaranteed investment returns or individual net receipts.
CLAIM 02By December 7, 2016, Liang and Brooklyn prosecutors had agreed to withdraw their respective appeals in the Gurley case.
Scope: East New York and Brooklyn courts, New York City · 2016-12-07 – 2016-12-07
Assessment: SUPPORTEDThe contemporaneous report cites the parties’ court letter and direct responses concerning the reciprocal agreement.
What is not established: December 7 is the verified reporting cutoff, not a proven signing or docket-entry day. This is an agreement, not an appellate merits affirmance.
CLAIM 03On February 11, 2016, a Brooklyn jury convicted Peter Liang of second-degree manslaughter and official misconduct in the Akai Gurley case.
Scope: East New York and Brooklyn courts, New York City · 2016-02-11 – 2016-02-11
Assessment: SUPPORTEDThe original prosecutor release explicitly dates the verdict and names both offenses.
What is not established: The judge later reduced the manslaughter conviction. The historical verdict is not presented as the final unchanged conviction.
CLAIM 04On April 19, 2016, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun reduced Liang’s manslaughter conviction to criminally negligent homicide.
Scope: East New York and Brooklyn courts, New York City · 2016-04-19 – 2016-04-19
Assessment: SUPPORTEDThe contemporary court report identifies the reduced offense; the prosecutor’s same-day statement independently acknowledges the reduction.
What is not established: This was a reduction to another conviction, not an acquittal. The original written order or sentencing transcript was not located.
CLAIM 05On April 19, 2016, the court sentenced Liang to five years of probation and 800 hours of community service, without jail or home confinement.
Scope: East New York and Brooklyn courts, New York City · 2016-04-19 – 2016-04-19
Assessment: SUPPORTEDThe actual sentencing report distinguishes the imposed terms from the prosecutor’s earlier proposal.
What is not established: Imposed terms do not establish completion. The prosecutor’s proposed home confinement and 500 hours were different terms.
Limits and open questions
The scope date is a reporting cutoff. Agreement amounts are not proof of completed payments, guaranteed investment returns or individual net receipts.
December 7 is the verified reporting cutoff, not a proven signing or docket-entry day. This is an agreement, not an appellate merits affirmance.
The correction is explicit, but its displayed clock is inconsistent. The prosecutor’s earlier recommendation does not establish the imposed sentence.
The NPR mirror shows a correction timestamp before publication. Another same-wire mirror displays a later update day, but neither establishes the exact original correction time.
Only the current correction acknowledges the prior house-arrest assertion; pre-correction bytes were not inspected.