6 ms·

> Unless you have a clear alibi with documented proof that you were nowhere near the scene of the crime, every public defender in America (and plenty of private

> Unless you have a clear alibi with documented proof that you were nowhere near the scene of the crime, every public defender in America (and plenty of private lawyers) recommends you take a plea deal. And even when you have a clear alibi including video proof, you're still in grave danger[1]: > Three months later, Juan would be facing a murder rap. The slaying in question had taken place on May 12, the same night he was at Dodger Stadium — 20 miles from the crime. Investigators didn’t buy his story. As covered in the Netflix documentary “Long Shot,” out Friday, Juan’s innocence would ultimately rest on a near brush with fame — more specifically, with Larry David and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” * > Show’ producers allowed Melnik to view their footage from that day. He sourced eight 10-minute tapes before finding his holy grail: Juan, in his No. 27 Kevin Brown shirt, and his young daughter walking to their seats after returning from the concession stand. * > The discovery seemed a home run for Juan, who by then had been in jail over a month. Still, the prosecutor argued that the footage was from 9:10 p.m. — and the murder had occurred at 10:32. Juan ostensibly could have left early, driven to the scene of the crime, and still had time to kill Puebla. It's worth reading the whole thing. They were going to push the death penalty for the guy. Eventually, his lawyer finds other evidence proving he wasn't there. After sitting in jail for five and a half months, he's finally let out, but then has to go back to jail for another 2 weeks because of a clerical error. [1] http://nypost.com/2017/09/23/how-curb-your-enthusiasm-saved-this-man-from-prison/ http://nypost.com/2017/09/23/how-curb-your-enthusiasm-saved-...

winter_blue 9y ago
What a terrible justice system. It's a disgrace to this country. The way the prosecutors are incentivized to lock people up away forever with little or no evidence, and even kill innocent people (with the death penalty), is cruel and evil.
- chongli 9y ago
  It's not a justice system, it's a judicial system. Justice is its ostensible purpose, sure, but its true propose is to maintain order so that the state can preserve its authority.
  - chimprich 9y ago
    I don't think that's true - beliefs like this are down to a human inclination to over-ascribe intentionality to systems. I doubt anyone has sat down and planned a system to disregard justice and make the state stronger. It's a bad state of affairs that has evolved out of well-meaning but ultimately malign pressures such as a desire to be seen to be tough on crime, and save public money by discouraging trials.
    - chongli 9y ago
      When I say "true purpose", I am specifically not ascribing intentionality to it. The "true purpose" of a bee's stinger is to defend the hive, regardless of the consequences to the individual bee's life. Bees were not designed by humans, yet aspects of their anatomy can still have a true purpose.
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      When politicians get Tough on Crime for SuperPredtors and start a War on the Particular Drugs Browm People Prefer , the itentionality becomes bare.
    - evincarofautumn 9y ago
      Maybe “purpose” is the wrong term, but surely the effect of judicial & law enforcement systems is to be the mechanism by which a state metes out “violence” to assert its power & legitimate authority.
    - speedplane 9y ago
      > I doubt anyone has sat down and planned a system to disregard justice and make the state stronger. Only a tyrant would do that. But you still need to recognize that a justice system cannot provide justice unless it has power and credibility. A powerless justice system isn't a justice system at all. So there are definitely instances where "justice" is sacrificed for the sake of the "justice system".
SmallDeadGuy 9y ago
Why is it up to his lawyer to prove he wasn't at the scene of the crime? Surely it should be up to the other side to prove he was? Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Because it never was about justice in the first place. Think of it as keeping score and looking tough.
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    I think the prosecution should face criminal charges for things like these. Minimum sentencing of life in prison if found guilty!
- Jeremy1026 9y ago
  The prosecutor had an eye witness that placed him at the scene. So the state did their part to prove guilt. Turns out the eye witness was either outright lying or made a grave mistake.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > The prosecutor had an eye witness that placed him at the scene. So the state did their part to prove guilt. Eyewitness testimony is known to be seriously flawed. I'm not sure that's enough.
    - pixl97 9y ago
      >I'm not sure that's enough. No. It is absolutely enough in our current legal interpretations. "I saw naasking communing with Satan, I swear it" is enough to get you put in prison or to a death sentence in the US. We like to think we are beyond the days of witch trials, but a few weeks in a courtroom would change your mind. Trying to change that legal interpretation is going to be very difficult. Many crimes have very little physical evidence, even the interpretations of physical evidence we have are horribly bad because of biased expert witnesses and broken crime labs. Moreso, any push for better physical evidence will get more pushback from voters that are "Tough on crime", which is a very strong voting block in the US.
cr0sh 9y ago
That was one helluva story - thank you for posting it! I have to say - outside of the obvious judicial system problems - the whole ordeal ultimately led Juan to completely change his life, in ways he probably never imagined. I'm sure he would like it had the whole "jail time" aspect of the ordeal could be deleted, but without it, he never would have ended up where he is now with his education and potential future career or business prospects. It's one of those crazy things about life, which we rarely and truly appreciate, that oftentimes even the bleakest moments within our lives can sometimes prove to be great turning points toward better future things (of course, there's "survivorship bias" also playing into that - for many, tragedy has begotten tragedy; perhaps also leading to the whole "misfortune visits 3 times" trope).

winter_blue 9y ago

What a terrible justice system. It's a disgrace to this country. The way the prosecutors are incentivized to lock people up away forever with little or no evidence, and even kill innocent people (with the death penalty), is cruel and evil.

chongli 9y ago
It's not a justice system, it's a judicial system. Justice is its ostensible purpose, sure, but its true propose is to maintain order so that the state can preserve its authority.
- chimprich 9y ago
  I don't think that's true - beliefs like this are down to a human inclination to over-ascribe intentionality to systems. I doubt anyone has sat down and planned a system to disregard justice and make the state stronger. It's a bad state of affairs that has evolved out of well-meaning but ultimately malign pressures such as a desire to be seen to be tough on crime, and save public money by discouraging trials.
  - chongli 9y ago
    When I say "true purpose", I am specifically not ascribing intentionality to it. The "true purpose" of a bee's stinger is to defend the hive, regardless of the consequences to the individual bee's life. Bees were not designed by humans, yet aspects of their anatomy can still have a true purpose.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    When politicians get Tough on Crime for SuperPredtors and start a War on the Particular Drugs Browm People Prefer , the itentionality becomes bare.
  - evincarofautumn 9y ago
    Maybe “purpose” is the wrong term, but surely the effect of judicial & law enforcement systems is to be the mechanism by which a state metes out “violence” to assert its power & legitimate authority.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    > I doubt anyone has sat down and planned a system to disregard justice and make the state stronger. Only a tyrant would do that. But you still need to recognize that a justice system cannot provide justice unless it has power and credibility. A powerless justice system isn't a justice system at all. So there are definitely instances where "justice" is sacrificed for the sake of the "justice system".

SmallDeadGuy 9y ago

Why is it up to his lawyer to prove he wasn't at the scene of the crime? Surely it should be up to the other side to prove he was? Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

jacquesm 9y ago
Because it never was about justice in the first place. Think of it as keeping score and looking tough.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  I think the prosecution should face criminal charges for things like these. Minimum sentencing of life in prison if found guilty!
Jeremy1026 9y ago
The prosecutor had an eye witness that placed him at the scene. So the state did their part to prove guilt. Turns out the eye witness was either outright lying or made a grave mistake.
- naasking 9y ago
  > The prosecutor had an eye witness that placed him at the scene. So the state did their part to prove guilt. Eyewitness testimony is known to be seriously flawed. I'm not sure that's enough.
  - pixl97 9y ago
    >I'm not sure that's enough. No. It is absolutely enough in our current legal interpretations. "I saw naasking communing with Satan, I swear it" is enough to get you put in prison or to a death sentence in the US. We like to think we are beyond the days of witch trials, but a few weeks in a courtroom would change your mind. Trying to change that legal interpretation is going to be very difficult. Many crimes have very little physical evidence, even the interpretations of physical evidence we have are horribly bad because of biased expert witnesses and broken crime labs. Moreso, any push for better physical evidence will get more pushback from voters that are "Tough on crime", which is a very strong voting block in the US.

cr0sh 9y ago

That was one helluva story - thank you for posting it! I have to say - outside of the obvious judicial system problems - the whole ordeal ultimately led Juan to completely change his life, in ways he probably never imagined. I'm sure he would like it had the whole "jail time" aspect of the ordeal could be deleted, but without it, he never would have ended up where he is now with his education and potential future career or business prospects. It's one of those crazy things about life, which we rarely and truly appreciate, that oftentimes even the bleakest moments within our lives can sometimes prove to be great turning points toward better future things (of course, there's "survivorship bias" also playing into that - for many, tragedy has begotten tragedy; perhaps also leading to the whole "misfortune visits 3 times" trope).