4 ms·

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

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.

1659447091 2y ago
> It's not dramatic at all. 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.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  TV footage seems like a WAY better alibi than cell phone pings.
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    Not when it was taped an hour and 22 minutes before the murder > "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."
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      Somebody needs to tell them that guilt is what has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt...
      - idle_zealot 2y ago
        Not true for jail; only probable cause or reasonable suspicion is required to lock someone up awaiting a court date. Which, of course, can easily ruin someone's life (missing work, deepening debts, the accusation itself can damage reputation). In this case the accused was awarded damages, but that's not usually how this plays out. It's a huge structural problem with our justice system that spits in the face of "innocent until proven guilty." Any attempt to change it though is met with backlash about not being sufficiently tough on crime, and letting dangerous criminals walking the streets, preventing our law enforcement from doijg their jobs, etc.
        1659447091 2y ago
        > In this case the accused was awarded damages, but that's not usually how this plays out. The false imprisonment & settlement had to do with the clerical error that had him report back to jail after being cleared of charges. (an ongoing problem in its own right) It is a completely separate issue from being locked up while charges were pending.
  - rgavuliak 2y ago
    Why would you think that? Cell phone ping data is stored for a good amount of time and generated by a 3rd party that has no involvement in the case. Of course the phone can be given to someone else, but it has advantages over suspect generated data.
    - kenjackson 2y ago
      The last issue you noted. There was a notorious Instagram page for criminals that noted this as one of the key things to do before committing crime — have an accomplice keep your phone.
      - sidewndr46 2y ago
        Not even that. You could just sit the phone under a park bench.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  He was in jail for a month, all because some idiot thought he looked like the killer. He could have gone on trial, and much worse, if he didn't have solid evidence proving it wasn't him. Countless people have been imprisoned and executed just because of eyewitness testimony. How many black men have been killed because some white person who thinks they all look alike said on the stand "it was him!"? Eyewitness testimony shouldn't even be allowed, because it's so unreliable.
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    He was never facing death row; there was no trial for that to be a possibility. The unnecessary speculation of death row has no barring on this story. There are real cases that have made it to trial where your argument is better suited. He was in jail for a month, but not prison (there is a difference here) and nowhere near death row. I didn't see where the reason was, my guess is he could not afford bail (a separate problem altogether from this story). Prosecutors had reason to believe it was him; not only from an eye witness but because he had a record and had motive. >> "..Martha Puebla, who had recently testified at a preliminary hearing about a gang murder in which Juan’s brother Mario was charged as an accessory. (Mario was convicted and is currently serving time.) Authorities argued that Juan — who had been in the courtroom during the hearing — had killed Puebla in retaliation for cooperating with police." The NYPost article hints all the drama over this case is for a Netflix documentary: >> "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.” If not for the involvement of Curb Your Enthusiasm and a documentary, this would simply be another case that got dismissed from an alibi checking out and never making so much as a local community newsletter. Thus, the title is dramatic as it does not accurately summarize the truth of the story.
ruthmarx 2y ago
It shows how useless and flimsy the jury system is also.
- nickff 2y ago
  Please explain; the fact that a single eyewitness is unreliable (and I agree that they are,) does not mean that the consideration of a jury of one’s peers would be.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    First I'd point out that people living in the same city as someone accused is not necessarily a peer, even if they are considered as such for the purposes of a jury. Are a bunch of subtly racist blue collar white voters the peer of an Oxford educated immigrant Kenyan doctor? Just to use a clear example. That aside, people are notoriously uninformed, and notoriously lack basic critical reasoning skills. Look at the sheer number of people who voted the way they did in the last US election because they incorrectly correlated cheaper prices with the guy who was president at the time. Odds are a jury is unreliable because they aren't going to put in the effort to properly evaluate the evidence and lack the knowledge and motivation to make a truly impartial and educated conclusion. Not to mention the way a judge will deliberately limit the information a Jury has access to, and not always ethically, such as barring mention or education about jury nullification being an option.
    - 1659447091 2y ago
      If you think a jury is unreliable, you can opt for a bench trial instead. In a bench trial, a judge hears the evidence, determines the facts, considers the legal issues that arise, and decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. There is no jury involved in a bench trial. Fact-finding moves from the jury's duty to become part of the judge's duty. Jury trial is a right as to shield one from being targeted by a system or dictatorship that is corrupt all the way down. If you think your peers are idiots you can waive that right and put the trial in the hands of a judge who does this for a living. Pick your poison. But at least you get options in the US system.

1659447091 2y ago

> It's not dramatic at all. 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.

kenjackson 2y ago
TV footage seems like a WAY better alibi than cell phone pings.
- 1659447091 2y ago
  Not when it was taped an hour and 22 minutes before the murder > "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."
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    Somebody needs to tell them that guilt is what has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt...
    - idle_zealot 2y ago
      Not true for jail; only probable cause or reasonable suspicion is required to lock someone up awaiting a court date. Which, of course, can easily ruin someone's life (missing work, deepening debts, the accusation itself can damage reputation). In this case the accused was awarded damages, but that's not usually how this plays out. It's a huge structural problem with our justice system that spits in the face of "innocent until proven guilty." Any attempt to change it though is met with backlash about not being sufficiently tough on crime, and letting dangerous criminals walking the streets, preventing our law enforcement from doijg their jobs, etc.
      - 1659447091 2y ago
        > In this case the accused was awarded damages, but that's not usually how this plays out. The false imprisonment & settlement had to do with the clerical error that had him report back to jail after being cleared of charges. (an ongoing problem in its own right) It is a completely separate issue from being locked up while charges were pending.
- rgavuliak 2y ago
  Why would you think that? Cell phone ping data is stored for a good amount of time and generated by a 3rd party that has no involvement in the case. Of course the phone can be given to someone else, but it has advantages over suspect generated data.
  - kenjackson 2y ago
    The last issue you noted. There was a notorious Instagram page for criminals that noted this as one of the key things to do before committing crime — have an accomplice keep your phone.
    - sidewndr46 2y ago
      Not even that. You could just sit the phone under a park bench.
shiroiushi 2y ago
He was in jail for a month, all because some idiot thought he looked like the killer. He could have gone on trial, and much worse, if he didn't have solid evidence proving it wasn't him. Countless people have been imprisoned and executed just because of eyewitness testimony. How many black men have been killed because some white person who thinks they all look alike said on the stand "it was him!"? Eyewitness testimony shouldn't even be allowed, because it's so unreliable.
- 1659447091 2y ago
  He was never facing death row; there was no trial for that to be a possibility. The unnecessary speculation of death row has no barring on this story. There are real cases that have made it to trial where your argument is better suited. He was in jail for a month, but not prison (there is a difference here) and nowhere near death row. I didn't see where the reason was, my guess is he could not afford bail (a separate problem altogether from this story). Prosecutors had reason to believe it was him; not only from an eye witness but because he had a record and had motive. >> "..Martha Puebla, who had recently testified at a preliminary hearing about a gang murder in which Juan’s brother Mario was charged as an accessory. (Mario was convicted and is currently serving time.) Authorities argued that Juan — who had been in the courtroom during the hearing — had killed Puebla in retaliation for cooperating with police." The NYPost article hints all the drama over this case is for a Netflix documentary: >> "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.” If not for the involvement of Curb Your Enthusiasm and a documentary, this would simply be another case that got dismissed from an alibi checking out and never making so much as a local community newsletter. Thus, the title is dramatic as it does not accurately summarize the truth of the story.

ruthmarx 2y ago

It shows how useless and flimsy the jury system is also.

nickff 2y ago
Please explain; the fact that a single eyewitness is unreliable (and I agree that they are,) does not mean that the consideration of a jury of one’s peers would be.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  First I'd point out that people living in the same city as someone accused is not necessarily a peer, even if they are considered as such for the purposes of a jury. Are a bunch of subtly racist blue collar white voters the peer of an Oxford educated immigrant Kenyan doctor? Just to use a clear example. That aside, people are notoriously uninformed, and notoriously lack basic critical reasoning skills. Look at the sheer number of people who voted the way they did in the last US election because they incorrectly correlated cheaper prices with the guy who was president at the time. Odds are a jury is unreliable because they aren't going to put in the effort to properly evaluate the evidence and lack the knowledge and motivation to make a truly impartial and educated conclusion. Not to mention the way a judge will deliberately limit the information a Jury has access to, and not always ethically, such as barring mention or education about jury nullification being an option.
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    If you think a jury is unreliable, you can opt for a bench trial instead. In a bench trial, a judge hears the evidence, determines the facts, considers the legal issues that arise, and decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. There is no jury involved in a bench trial. Fact-finding moves from the jury's duty to become part of the judge's duty. Jury trial is a right as to shield one from being targeted by a system or dictatorship that is corrupt all the way down. If you think your peers are idiots you can waive that right and put the trial in the hands of a judge who does this for a living. Pick your poison. But at least you get options in the US system.