The title is a bit dramatic. It never got to a trial, because his alibi checked out.
One of the factors was him walking into frame of a taping of Curb your Enthusiasm. The main factor was his cellphone placing him at that location after answering a call that pinged off a tower near the stadium 20mins before the murder which was 20 miles away. There was also footage from the stadium that showed a person in his seat, but resolution was not good enough to be dismissed from that alone. Even the shows footage did not clear him from charges, it was the cellphone location data.
The real tragedy was the clerical error:
"Due to a clerical error, he had to report back to county jail two days later."
On the positive:
"In 2007, Juan received $320,000 in a settlement of his civil lawsuit against the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles for false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation."
If there is a true alibi exonerating someone, then there would have been no truthful evidence against him. And yet, a man without truthful evidence against him was almost put to death row. Why is that? Have we stopped caring about Blackstone's Formulation in our zeal to imprison everyone even possibly guilty?
He was not "almost put to death row". There was no trial for that to even be a possibility. Instead, a man without truthful evidence against him had the charges dismissed.
> If there is a true alibi exonerating someone, then there would have been no truthful evidence against him.
You mistake evidence for proof. Evidence is stuff like a witness that saw someone similar at the crime scene, a motive, the accused's DNA at the crime scene (left there before the crime, e.g. during a benign visit), an injury that could have been sustained during the struggle that led to a murder (but was actually sustained in an unrelated bar fight..), owned the same kind of unusual knife the victim was stabbed with (but lost it the night of the murder), etc. It suggests guilt, but leaves room for doubt.
If 'truthful evidence' only existed against the guilty, then the single tiniest bit of evidence would be enough to convict.
The innocence project has an interest in showing the justice system to be more capricious and random than it really is. The guy was exculpated by the evidence, and the system worked as intended.
Yes it has problems but the headline and story are obscuring what really happened here. The guy was nowhere near death row.
I was helping with a murder case, it was a little over five years since the crime, and the defendant asked me if I knew if there was a way to get cellphone location data as he said he had left the scene of the crime about an hour before the incident was held to happen, and returned about an hour afterwards.
Nobody had thought to get this data before. I called Verizon but I was told they only hold location data for five years and had already erased it.
For other reasons I believe the defendant to be innocent. He was put to trial three times for the crime; his first two guilty verdicts were overturned on appeal before he plead guilty to the minimum to get the process over with and have a near release date.
It's not dramatic at all. Without proof of his innocence, it could very well have gone to trial and resulted in a conviction, thanks to people's belief in the reliability of "eyewitness testimony". This case alone should show just how useless and flimsy eyewitness testimony is.
It was not the show that "saved" him; it was cellphone location data that got the charges dismissed. He was never on trial with the possibility of death row because it never got that far.
It was actually a very disturbing case because of police misconduct. Watch the documentary. They built a strong case out of nothing, and they were never punished. So, it's really a story about technology advancing and professionals going above and beyond to help this guy escape what had become a guilty until proven innocent case.
> They had been stopped by a production assistant so as not to interrupt filming. But for some reason, the PA had a last-minute change of heart and let Juan and little Melissa walk to their seats — and into the background of the show’s action.
> “Can you imagine had Melissa not asked for a snack?” Juan marveled.
(…)
> Juan was released, but couldn’t catch a break. Due to a clerical error, he had to report back to county jail two days later. The tombs had just been rocked by racial unrest after a murder inside, and Juan was actually afraid “I would be killed.”
> Melnik had assumed it would be cleared up in 24 hours. Instead, Juan, a declared-innocent man, was there for two hell-filled weeks.
> In 2007, Juan received $320,000 in a settlement of his civil lawsuit against the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles for false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation.
> They had been stopped by a production assistant so as not to interrupt filming. But for some reason, the PA had a last-minute change of heart and let Juan and little Melissa walk to their seats — and into the background of the show’s action.
Why is a PA able to stop a ticket holder from going to their seats just cause a show is filming at the same time a game is on? Seems shitty for anyone that bought a ticket that day.
I guess this was coordinated with the event organizer; perhaps the filming happened in a way that wouldn’t interfere with watching the actual event; and the ticket holders were instructed to follow the PA’s guidance.
Related:
> Once a friend of mine called me excitedly after she attended a football game in Massachusetts. There were signs everwhere that announced that they were filming the crowd for a Warner Brothers Music video and by giving your ticket for entry you are giving permission for your image to appear in this video.
a settlement just short circuits the process. Without a settlement, it goes to court and, depending on the jurisdiction and case details, decided by a judge or a jury, and again depending on the jurisdiction and case details, penalties are decided by a judge or a jury.
Really it's pretty similar to criminal court with the exception that neither party will have a criminal charge or criminal judgement against them at the end of it. No one will go to jail.
I am firmly in the camp of the justice system should never execute anyone. It's a one way door that presumes the system is infallible and we've had proof after proof of cases where the system failed.
The justice system relies on the concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That standard doesn’t mean “proved to be impossible to be innocent.”
In a system that is in a population of millions of people, there are bound to be edge cases where there’s a lot of damning evidence and people look guilty who just aren’t.
It’s one of the many arguments against capital punishment. It can’t be undone.
This, IMHO, is the biggest argument against the death penalty. "Gung-ho" prosecutors with eyes on the political ladder will always call for the death penalty to further their career.
End it and lock them up for life. You can always release them if new evidence comes to light that proves their innocence. You can't bring back to life someone who's been executed.
We haven't sent anyone to the gallows since the 1960s. The EU doesn't either.
> Los Angeles police have reassigned a detective who told a gang member he had been identified as a killer by a Sun Valley girl who was later murdered by another member of the gang. [1]
> Deputy Chief Charlie Beck says Martin Pinner will no longer work homicide cases. [1]
It really sounds like the prosecution had exactly zero evidence that this man was guilty, but determined to prosecute him anyway, rather than “lose”. Disgusting.
Readit News
One of the factors was him walking into frame of a taping of Curb your Enthusiasm. The main factor was his cellphone placing him at that location after answering a call that pinged off a tower near the stadium 20mins before the murder which was 20 miles away. There was also footage from the stadium that showed a person in his seat, but resolution was not good enough to be dismissed from that alone. Even the shows footage did not clear him from charges, it was the cellphone location data.
The real tragedy was the clerical error:
"Due to a clerical error, he had to report back to county jail two days later."
On the positive: "In 2007, Juan received $320,000 in a settlement of his civil lawsuit against the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles for false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation."
If there is a true alibi exonerating someone, then there would have been no truthful evidence against him. And yet, a man without truthful evidence against him was almost put to death row. Why is that? Have we stopped caring about Blackstone's Formulation in our zeal to imprison everyone even possibly guilty?
You mistake evidence for proof. Evidence is stuff like a witness that saw someone similar at the crime scene, a motive, the accused's DNA at the crime scene (left there before the crime, e.g. during a benign visit), an injury that could have been sustained during the struggle that led to a murder (but was actually sustained in an unrelated bar fight..), owned the same kind of unusual knife the victim was stabbed with (but lost it the night of the murder), etc. It suggests guilt, but leaves room for doubt.
If 'truthful evidence' only existed against the guilty, then the single tiniest bit of evidence would be enough to convict.
Yes it has problems but the headline and story are obscuring what really happened here. The guy was nowhere near death row.
Nobody had thought to get this data before. I called Verizon but I was told they only hold location data for five years and had already erased it.
For other reasons I believe the defendant to be innocent. He was put to trial three times for the crime; his first two guilty verdicts were overturned on appeal before he plead guilty to the minimum to get the process over with and have a near release date.
Deleted Comment
It was not the show that "saved" him; it was cellphone location data that got the charges dismissed. He was never on trial with the possibility of death row because it never got that far.
> They had been stopped by a production assistant so as not to interrupt filming. But for some reason, the PA had a last-minute change of heart and let Juan and little Melissa walk to their seats — and into the background of the show’s action.
> “Can you imagine had Melissa not asked for a snack?” Juan marveled.
(…)
> Juan was released, but couldn’t catch a break. Due to a clerical error, he had to report back to county jail two days later. The tombs had just been rocked by racial unrest after a murder inside, and Juan was actually afraid “I would be killed.”
> Melnik had assumed it would be cleared up in 24 hours. Instead, Juan, a declared-innocent man, was there for two hell-filled weeks.
> In 2007, Juan received $320,000 in a settlement of his civil lawsuit against the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles for false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation.
Why is a PA able to stop a ticket holder from going to their seats just cause a show is filming at the same time a game is on? Seems shitty for anyone that bought a ticket that day.
Related:
> Once a friend of mine called me excitedly after she attended a football game in Massachusetts. There were signs everwhere that announced that they were filming the crowd for a Warner Brothers Music video and by giving your ticket for entry you are giving permission for your image to appear in this video.
Source: https://www.quora.com/How-did-directors-film-scenes-in-packe...
Really it's pretty similar to criminal court with the exception that neither party will have a criminal charge or criminal judgement against them at the end of it. No one will go to jail.
In a system that is in a population of millions of people, there are bound to be edge cases where there’s a lot of damning evidence and people look guilty who just aren’t.
It’s one of the many arguments against capital punishment. It can’t be undone.
Does it, in reality? With trials and layers being life destructibly expensive?
Neither can time spent behind bars.
End it and lock them up for life. You can always release them if new evidence comes to light that proves their innocence. You can't bring back to life someone who's been executed.
We haven't sent anyone to the gallows since the 1960s. The EU doesn't either.
> Deputy Chief Charlie Beck says Martin Pinner will no longer work homicide cases. [1]
https://www.courthousenews.com/parents-say-l-a-police-lies-l...
Deleted Comment