The key witness described the scene that took place at the Woodland Arco AM/PM as one in which she could tell something was about to go down. She saw a number of youths running around and acting rambunctious. However, she was late into a day of driving her daughter to college and wanted to get her gas and move on.
After exiting the gas station, the witness suddenly saw five youths attacking a four-door Honda Accord and the inhabitants inside to the point where the vehicle was rocking.
The attack was captured on video showing five individuals approach a vehicle at a Woodland gas station. They rush to the car, surround the vehicle, prosecutor Robin Johnson argues, for the purpose of preventing the victim from exiting the vehicle. They attacked the victim – punching and kicking him.
Then one individual leans through the door, makes a move, and slashes the victim in the face. While it is one individual who does this, four others were initially charged with aggravated mayhem, which is maliciously attacking someone with the specific intent to cause disfigurement.
To add insult to injury, as they leave, they steal beer from the victim.
In addition to being charged with aggravated mayhem, the DA added robbery, assault charges, with gang and weapons enhancements.
However, the poor quality of the recording made the positive identification of the perpetrators difficult. Last summer, four of the five individuals were put on trial but only one was convicted of the crime.
In the end, Matthew Martin was the only one that prosecutors could clearly and unequivocally identify as being on the scene. The reason: he has only one arm and thus could be clearly identified in the video. His attorney acknowledged his involvement, but argued that he was unaware of what the actual perpetrator was going to do. Mr. Martin escaped the most serious charge of aggravated mayhem, being found guilty of the lesser included charge of battery with a deadly weapon, thus escaping a life sentence.
On November 5, he will be re-tried on the gang enhancements alone, as the jury had hung on whether to find those enhancements to be true.
For Jose Rivas, whom the prosecutor identified as the one who slashed the victim’s face, the jury hung on all charges. Arturo Vega and Michael Santiago were acquitted on all charges.
Mr. Rivas and a fifth defendant, Aaron Valadez, were re-tried recently on all charges. On Monday, August 20, 2012 the jury this time convicted Mr. Rivas on all charges and Mr. Valadez on all but the robbery charge.
With the conviction of the aggravated mayhem charge (for the disfiguring injury), both young men face life sentences.
The Vanguard recently met with the family of Mr. Valadez. For reasons that they do not understand, Mr. Valadez was not even involved in this case until June 2011, nearly two years after the fact.
No one identified Mr. Valadez as being on the scene, however, investigators claim to have matched a partial palm print that was found on the scene to Mr. Valadez, when he was questioned on an unrelated case and ultimately taken into custody.
The print was used to identify Mr. Valadez. Defense Attorney Rod Beede, in his closing, questioned the veracity of the match, noting that the crime lab was not certified and the person doing the examination of the match should not be aware of the fact that there was a known print.
He argued that the prints were not run for months and only after the police watched the video repeatedly.
The prints were faint and a double-blind process was not used. The person comparing the prints, in fact, already knew whom they were attempting to identify.
The quality of the match was questioned, and Judge Mock included an instruction acknowledging errors in the collection and comparison of the latent print and instructing the jury to take this matter into account.
Mr. Beede, in closing, argued that Mr. Valadez was an afterthought in this case. Back in 2009, four people were arrested, but Mr. Valadez was not arrested until a year and a half later.
The video shows that the person who left the palm print match played a limited role. Prosecutor Deputy DA Robin Johnson argued Mr. Valadez held the driver’s side door shut. She argued “But for Mr. Valadez holding the door, none of the other crimes could have been committed. He could have been able to get out, maybe defend himself.”
However, a careful examination of the video does not necessarily bear that out. It is unclear that the individual depicted in the video who the prosecution believes is Aaron Valadez actually held the door shut. Indeed, the door was being jockeyed around and it is unclear if they were trying to get inside or the victim was trying to get out.
The victim was seat belted in and it’s unclear that the best exit strategy would have been to exit the vehicle and deal with five individuals or start the car and drive off.
Despite Ms. Johnson’s claims during the trial about how the jury could not let the dangerous Aaron Valadez walk free, the family told the Vanguard that just six days before trial, Robin Johnson was willing to allow Mr. Valadez to walk out on time served, with just 15 months of time credit and perhaps 30 months of conduct credit, if he testified against Mr. Rivas. For a variety of reasons, Mr. Valadez declined to do so, but the family notes that if Mr. Valadez were such a key figure in this crime, why would she have let him walk?
Ms. Johnson argued that it was Mr. Rivas who was the individual who slashed the face of the victim, an act both gang experts (one for the defense and one for the prosecution) referred to as a bBitch slash.” The prosecution’s gang expert, Officer Flores, noted that the act is so rare, he had never seen it before on the streets in Yolo County.
In fact, the defense’s gang expert, Mark Harrison, talked about how it is used in prisons to deal with people suspected of being snitches.
This is a crucial point for the defense, because the victim clearly shows that the person who left the palm print did not slash the driver and did not steal the beer.
The prosecution had to tie Mr. Valadez to the slash (which was the key to the aggravated mayhem charge). To do so, she introduced an aiding and abetting theory – where Mr. Valadez was the key figure in the attack on the victims.
To do so, the prosecution has to show that a natural and probable consequence of an action is one “that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes.”
As Mr. Beede, in an effort to dismiss the aggravated mayhem charge before closing statements, would argue, while it makes sense that, if Mr. Valadez were indeed on the scene, an assault was a natural and probable consequence of five individuals rushing and attacking a vehicle, the “bitch slash” was an acknowledged rare event that a veteran police officer had never seen before in Yolo County or on the street – how could one deem that a natural and probable consequence of Mr. Valadez’ actions?
Judge Mock, however, disagreed, arguing that the natural and probable consequence doctrine does not mean that a specific consequence was predictable, only that a consequence of an action was that in general someone would be hurt.
But that seems a little questionable here, in so far as aggravated mayhem is a very specific charge and a rare event. If Judge Mock had simply ruled that an assault with a deadly weapon were natural and probable consequence, we might be inclined to agree. But aggravated mayhem does not seem natural or probable.
In fact, there is even some reason to question whether the victim’s face was slashed by a knife, and about the extent of his other injuries.
While it was said he was kicked and punched, there was no evidence presented at trial or medical reports of bruising.
Likewise, he testified that he did not realize he was cut on the face until he exited the vehicle. He did not testify to being slashed. There was no medical report or testimony to substantiate that the injury was inflicted by a knife. No one reports seeing a knife or any weapons and no knife was ever recovered.
In short, the jury verdict troubles us with regard to Mr. Valadez, on several grounds. First, the previous jury had acquitted Mr. Martin of the aggravated mayhem (and the gang charges) and his role in the crime was quite clear. Because Mr. Valadez was found later, he was subjected to a different ruling by a different jury that appears somewhat arbitrary and subjective.
Second, no eyewitness tied Mr. Valadez to the scene. The only link was a partial latent palm print that the court acknowledges was both improperly collected and tested.
Finally, we question whether Mr. Valadez could have foreseen, even if he were at the scene and did block the access to the driver’s escape, that Mr. Rivas would slash the victim’s face.
Mr. Valadez is a young man, only 18 at the time that the crime was committed and just 21 now, and he faces the possibility at least of spending the rest of his years in prison, for a crime that the DA would have allowed him to walk on, had he testified against what would appear to be a dangerous gang member. If he were even at the scene to begin with.
Mr. Valadez, by all accounts, was no angel, but we are far from convinced he is guilty of what he was charged with. Even if guilty, was his role large enough to warrant life in prison?
The evidence against Mr. Rivas is a bit stronger, but still relatively thin. The witness was able to identify him as being one of the men at the scene of the crime – though she did not observe who committed the crime, she operated under the assumption that the one who committed the slash had a notable tattoo on his neck.
The defense brought in memory expert Dr. Geoffrey Loftus to testify about the difficulties of making proper identifications under conditions of poor lighting and under stress.
However, unlike his previous work that we have cited, where the victim was subjected to a show-up line, this witness, who was on her way from Corona to drive her daughter to college, was shown a fair six-pack within two weeks of an assault, by an officer located in Corona who did not know who the suspect was.
This, Dr. Loftus testified, was fair, though the witness was not able to identify Mr. Rivas at the scene nor could she recognize any of the defendants on the video.
Moreover, Mr. Rivas’ probation officer argued he was about 80 percent sure it was Mr. Rivas. But in the previous trial, he acknowledged that there is nothing unusual about Mr. Rivas’ physical appearance. Mr. Haw, the probation officer, testified in the previous trial that there was not one specific point where he recognized Mr. Rivas, but rather it was from a viewing of the video ten times as a whole.
Mr. Rivas’ mother testified that he was at home all night, sleeping. His young daughter was in bed with him when the night began and his mother believed that she would have woken up had he gotten up to leave.
In short, as we originally argued, the identification of all five suspects was questionable at best, The exception was the identification of Mr. Martin, who was missing a portion of his arm. Mr. Haw testified he was only 80% certain of his identifications – is that alone enough to overcome reasonable doubt?
The jury in the previous trial said no. The jury in this trial said yes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I will have to get back to the obvious holes in the article later today but the statement by the mom is priceless. Thanks for adding that. Mr Rivera wasn’t brought into the investigation until how long after he committed the crime yet his mother remembers him being home and sleeping with his daughter the entire night.
You are confusing the two. Rivas was arrested immediately. Valadez was arrested a year and a half after the fact.
“partial palm print- Defense Attorney Rod Beede in his closing questioned the veracity of the match noting that the crime lab was not certified, and the person doing the examination of the match should not be aware of the fact that there was a known print.”
Here we go again, fingerprint and palm prints are pretty much junk science. Remember the attorney in Portland who was said to have been a part of a terrorist plot in Spain. Our government matched his prints to prints in Spain. He proved it couldn’t be him because he was never in was Spain but was harassed anyway. Lucky for him, the Spanish government didn’t take too long to find the terrorist involved.
“The quality of the match was questioned, and Judge Mock included an instruction acknowledging errors in the collection and comparison of the latent print and instructing the jury to take this matter into account.”
“This is why jury instructions alone don’t work.
“….allow Mr. Valadez to walk out on time served, with just 15 months of time credit and perhaps 30 months of conduct credit, if he testified against Mr. Rivas. For a variety of reasons, Mr. Valadez declined to do so, but the family notes that if Mr. Valadez was such a key figure in this crime, why would she have let him walk?”
For those saying plea bargaining is a way of getting criminals to confess, here in this case and typically here in Yolo County it’s a way for prosecutors to convict someone when the evidence is flimsy.
the slow and expensive judicial system is a joke to these hoods. and any overtone of leniency for the perps is an abuse to the victim.
just one question: is the vanguard saying he believes all five of the accused to be innocent?
Did none of the five testify, for themselves or against each other?
Good defense summary here. Not enough for reasonable doubt, considering all of the other evidence against the gangsters.
You raise a lot of good questions, asked and answered. The judge answered the questions of law; the jury answered the rest.
It’s a bitch when there’s video of the perps engaged in the crimes, including the poor one-armed man who should stay out of gangs. Apparently, the jury didn’t have too much trouble identifying the guilty parties.
Granted the expert’s concerns about the validity of eyewitness identifications and memories, this issue was just one part of the entire picture.[quote]”…have matched a partial palm print that was found on the scene to Mr. Valadez, when he was questioned on an unrelated case and ultimately taken into custody. The print was used to identify Mr. Valadez….the family told the [i]Vanguard[/i] that just six days before trial, Robin Johnson was willing to allow Mr. Valadez to walk out on time served, with just 15 months of time credit and perhaps 30 months of conduct credit, if he testified against Mr. Rivas. For a variety of reasons, Mr. Valadez declined to do so….”[/quote] Obviously, a bad choice on top of a multitude of bad choices.
What were the “variety of reasons” that the family said led the poor soul to pick life in prison over time served? On first glance, it would seem to have something to do with the insidiousness nature of gangs in our society.
David, If I were attacked on a beer run to a convenience store – beaten and disfigured – I don’t think that I would care about differing levels of involvement. Consider the terror of the victim and the scar he has to see every time he looks in the mirror. The biggest question would be if he was actually there. If he wasn’t, then he could testify against Rivas only about what he knew, which shouldn’t be much, right? He was in home in bed asleep, right? He chose to follow the criminal code of honor to stay silent, rather than the code the rest of us follow.
Just Saying, you must not follow criminal cases very closely. Here is a little information about partial finger or palm prints. The FBI won’t testify anymore that these are 100% reliable because they got burned pretty badly about it. This type of “forensic science” is NOT a science it is a judgement only. Anyone can testify about them-all you need is to have a judge say you are an expert.
So if eye witness testimony as you admit has a problem with validity I don’t see see what “all the other evidence” was aside from these.
Martin wasn’t convicted of being a gang member, so why do you call him a gangster? Aren’t we supposed to have a system that we are innocent until otherwise proven.
[quote]Good defense summary here. Not enough for reasonable doubt, considering all of the other evidence against the gangsters.
You raise a lot of good questions, asked and answered. The judge answered the questions of law; the jury answered the rest. [/quote]
Well said!
[quote]If I were attacked on a beer run to a convenience store – beaten and disfigured – I don’t think that I would care about differing levels of involvement. Consider the terror of the victim and the scar he has to see every time he looks in the mirror. The biggest question would be if he was actually there. If he wasn’t, then he could testify against Rivas only about what he knew, which shouldn’t be much, right? He was in home in bed asleep, right? He chose to follow the criminal code of honor to stay silent, rather than the code the rest of us follow.[/quote]
Excellent point!
Nemesis, granted that no single type of evidence, even DNA, is 100% conclusive for all conditions in every case. My point is that juries consider the [u]totality[/u] of the evidence.
Defense attorneys attempt to show reasonable doubt buy picking apart each of these non-perfect items. However, things add up. An eyewitness, a video, a palm print, etc. might not carry the day if one stands alone, but put together could provide the proof for a guilty finding–as they have in this case.
When I suggested Mr. Martin “should stay out of gangs” because his unfortunate, easily identifiable disability makes him an easy target and when I call these convicted felons “gangsters,” I obviously am using the terms in English-language sense. And, I realize only some of his accomplices have been convicted of the gang enhancement charges so far.
Just Saying, Some evidence is so flimsy it shouldn’t be allowed in court at all. Finger prints or palm prints are just that. They are not science based at all just someone’s best guess. Eye witnesses also are very unreliable. So, when it comes down to a video that is hard to see as the main evidence. Many juries is rely on a pre-conceived notion that prosecutors wouldn’t bring a flimsy case to court. Many people still think if a person is charged with a crime they must be guilty. This is why prosecutors in certain communities will try every case they can.
“For those saying plea bargaining is a way of getting criminals to confess, here in this case and typically here in Yolo County it’s a way for prosecutors to convict someone when the evidence is flimsy.”
Nemesis, I couldn’t agree more. Well put.
[quote]Just Saying, Some evidence is so flimsy it shouldn’t be allowed in court at all. Finger prints or palm prints are just that. They are not science based at all just someone’s best guess. Eye witnesses also are very unreliable. So, when it comes down to a video that is hard to see as the main evidence. Many juries is rely on a pre-conceived notion that prosecutors wouldn’t bring a flimsy case to court. Many people still think if a person is charged with a crime they must be guilty. This is why prosecutors in certain communities will try every case they can.[/quote]
Are you advocating that fingerprints never be used, bc they are inherently unreliable? Same for palm prints? Same for eyewitness testimony? Same for video testimony?
Also, remember, you are only hearing the defense side here, a very biased version…
” I don’t think that I would care about differing levels of involvement.”
If you were attacked, I agree *you* wouldn’t care, but that’s why *you* would be the witness not the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge or jury.
“However, things add up. An eyewitness, a video, a palm print, etc. might not carry the day if one stands alone, but put together could provide the proof for a guilty finding–as they have in this case.”
Except in this case, the video did not identify Mr. Valadez, neither did the eyewitnesses, the only piece of evidence linking Mr. Valadez was the palm print and in this case, not only is the evidence not perfect, but it was tested incorrectly. So care to re-phrase?
“Some evidence is so flimsy it shouldn’t be allowed in court at all. Finger prints or palm prints are just that. They are not science based at all just someone’s best guess.”
I think you are overstating this. When done properly fingerprints and palm prints as part of a string of evidence can be a powerful tool. In this case, it was the only evidence and errors occurred in how they were tested.
“Are you advocating that fingerprints never be used, bc they are inherently unreliable? Same for palm prints? Same for eyewitness testimony? Same for video testimony?”
I know this was intended for someone else but my answer is that they should all be used. The reason the palm print was problematic is that it was the only evidence linking one of the defendants and there were problems with how it was tested.
“Also, remember, you are only hearing the defense side here, a very biased version…”
You are not hearing the defense side here. I stated a fact on the palm print and the judge acknowledged that there were errors in the testing.
“Except in this case, the video did not identify Mr. Valadez, neither did the eyewitnesses, the only piece of evidence linking Mr. Valadez was the palm print and in this case, not only is the evidence not perfect, but it was tested incorrectly. So care to re-phrase?”
“The video shows that the person who left the palm print match played a limited role. Prosecutor Deputy DA Robin Johnson argued Mr. Valadez held the driver’s side door shut. She argued “But for Mr. Valadez holding the door, none of the other crimes could have been committed.”
Yes, allow me to rephrase. Things add up. All evidence is used, even if nothing is perfect, even if everything is not done perfectly. In this case, a number of different types of evidence implicated the different perpetrators. Mr. Valadez was in the video. While unidentified until later when he was printed during another case, his palm print match revealed that he held the door during the incident. The jury believed the deputy DA, the combination of the video and lab evidence and convicted Mr. Valadez.
The defense attorney attempted to show reasonable doubt by pointing out that the original palm print was not handled perfectly and that the video was not conclusive as to whether he was trying keep the victim from escaping. But, the jury decided that combination of evidence, the palm print and the video which they could see with their own eyes, doomed him to a guilty finding.
Even when you argue the defense case as a Vanguard article–which is exactly what you’ve done here–you must acknowledge that 12 others might not agree with your conclusions. It doesn’t mean all that much when it’s just some of your readers. But, when those people are the jury and they are unanimous in disagreeing with you, it’s the definitive opinion.
They’ve considered the entire case in a way that the rest of us mere observers have not. They’ve hashed out all of the defense propositions while sworn to get to the truth and give the dependent the benefit of the doubt on the way.
Just Saying:
Two critical points – I did not argue the defense case here. I argued my analysis having watched the trial.
Second, things don’t add up. There is only one piece of evidence linking Valadez to the crime scene and that was the palm print.
We don’t know that Mr. Valadez was in the video because no one either at the scene or on the video could identify him.
Those are not facts in dispute, the only question here is whether the palm print was Mr. Valadez and once you establish that we can try to figure out whether his participation warrants a life sentence (which is what he is facing). I submit to you that the palm print was at best inclusive given the errors in the identification process.
Someone asked me if I thought all five defendants were innocent. The answer is no.
Martin admitted to being there in the previous trial. The two guys who were acquitted, I don’t know if they were there or not. Rivas, I lean towards him being there, because I think the witness was pretty credible. Valadez is different. He was arrested later, no one identified him at the scene or on the video and it’s not clear he knew any of the guys. The only evidence linking him there was the palm print and the comparisons were not done properly. I’m troubled by his conviction in this case.
[quote]Two critical points – I did not argue the defense case here. I argued my analysis having watched the trial. [/quote]
But we also know you do not talk to the prosecution (bc they will not talk to you); you speak only w the defense side. You also have an animosity towards the local DA. Thus [b][u]IMO[/u][/b] you tend to look at cases through defense colored glasses…
Are you really saying that there is no image on the video that the prosecution contended is Valadez? Or that the jury had to evaluate whether was him or not, given the fact that investigators made an ID once they had obtained his print during a later investigation?
Are you really saying that you wrote this story (and most of your others) from an objective reporter’s viewpoint? Every trial has a defense attorney whose job is to say “that’s not good enough evidence to convict.” Their statements, implications and questions aren’t always accurate, you know.
Maybe you toss out evidence whenever the defense comes up with a question or comment attempting to discredit something about it. A jury’s duty is much more complicated.
Are you really saying you act as an unbiased evaluator (just as a juror should be) and still come up with reports that are so far from the jurys’ findings so often?
These contentions surprise me no end. I’ve read you for a long time, and, IMO, you write from the defense point of view (and an anti-prosecution, anti-justice system viewpoint) so often that it really identifies your publication and its advocacy purpose.
That may be why I can agree with so much of your philosophy and still find myself questioning many of your stories. And why my observations about the importance of maintaining an objective approach seem to be so meaningless to you. You already see yourself as accurate, objective reporting.
“But we also know you do not talk to the prosecution “
I didn’t. But I did listen to their arguments, I thought their evidence was very thin in this case all along. No one got a good look, you had a first trial where the only one convicted had a very noticeable portion of a missing arm, two of them were acquitted. In this one, the evidence was a bit stronger against Rivas and I think the witness was quite credible. But you can talk about me all you want, but not one of you defended the evidence on Valadez.
“Are you really saying that there is no image on the video that the prosecution contended is Valadez?”
There are plenty of images that they claim was Valadez, but no one identified Mr. Valadez from simply looking at the video. The only way they surmised it was Valadez is that they identified the point where he likely made the palm print and tracked that individual.
“Are you really saying that you wrote this story (and most of your others) from an objective reporter’s viewpoint?”
This story was written from the standpoint of our evaluation of the case.
“
Maybe you toss out evidence whenever the defense comes up with a question or comment attempting to discredit something about it. A jury’s duty is much more complicated. “
That’s true. We are not attempting to replicate the work of the jury, we are attempting to evaluate issues of concern that arise in the course of this case. The handling of the palm print and the thin identification of a man about to be sentenced to life is our chief concern with how this case was handled.
“Are you really saying you act as an unbiased evaluator (just as a juror should be) and still come up with reports that are so far from the jurys’ findings so often?”
I have often watched cases and came to the conclusion that the defendant did exactly what the prosecution said he did. I generally have not written on those cases, because Court Watch Project is not about reporting on cases, it’s about identifying problematic ones.
I’ll never forget waiting for a trial to begin, the defendant who was out of custody made up this interesting story, so I sat in on the trial in the morning and realized quickly he was lying, it was a DV case, and his wife or ex-wife was extremely credible. You never know what you are going to get. So I try to go into cases and evaluate the evidence as best as possible.
But all of that is fine, in this case there is a single fact that should trouble you – the only connection of Aaron Valadez to this crime was a partial palm print that was not properly analyzed and evaluated, run a year and a half after the crime and right before the first jury trial. That’s a thin case and I think serious errors occurred. And you have been arguing around the periphery of that issue because you I think you know I’m right.
“The handling of the palm print and the thin identification of a man about to be sentenced to life is our chief concern with how this case was handled.”
Are you saying he was not there at the time? The handling of the print was considered and resolved by the jury. Obviously, the jury combined the print with the video showing someone identified as the defendant and agreed by looking that it was him. The delay in figuring whose print was collected is not a surprise. DNA doesn’t always get matched for years after. Bank robbery photos document people who aren’t identified for long periods–that doesn’t mean the photos/video can’t then provide a good match with the real person once he’s found.
The jury decided his guilt, not his sentence. I wholeheartedly agree that a life sentence for what he did (or didn’t do, if I were you) is not appropriate. There was plenty of evidence to convict him even if you still cannot see it, more than the “faulty” palm print with all it’s shortcomings. I’d like to get to the point where I can just agree that the sentence is wrong, so we’ll disagree on guilt and agree on excessive sentences.
“. Obviously, the jury combined the print with the video showing someone identified as the defendant and agreed by looking that it was him. “
There is no way they could have identified the defendant by looking at the video. No one did. You keep missing this point over and over again – there was one piece of info linking him to scene and it was not the video.
“The delay in figuring whose print was collected is not a surprise”
“There was plenty of evidence to convict him even if you still cannot see it, more than the “faulty” palm print with all it’s shortcomings.”
No there was not more than the palm print. Sorry but that was the only piece of information that linked him to the scene. Now if you want to argue that the identification is valid, then we can discuss it. But that’s what you are left to argue.
I haven’t talked to the jury so I don’t know how they overlooked the flaws in the print.
To dmg: So why should we believe you over the jury? You have a clear animus towards the DA, and only talk to the defense side…
Elaine: That’s not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is in light of the facts – which were not in dispute – did the jury get it right?
“I haven’t talked to the jury so I don’t know how they overlooked the flaws in the print. There are plenty of examples of juries making the wrong call that I’m not going to worry about that too much.”
Due diligence? I’ll bet the jury saw something in the video re. perp identification that you just refuse to accept as even a remote possibility. A blanket indictment against juries really isn’t helpful.
“Elaine: That’s not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is in light of the facts – which were not in dispute – did the jury get it right?”
So, it again comes down to “you’re focusing on the wrong thing.” Maybe YOU avoid asking questions that you should consider before you jump to conclusions. The “facts” are, of course, in dispute. You are disputing them. And, that’s what a trial is all about–facts that are in dispute.
Even if you approach every situation with your defense bias (or, more accurately, your anti-DA bias), I’d hope you’d make accommodations to help your reporting meet the objective, fair standards you profess to seek.
[quote]Elaine: That’s not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is in light of the facts – which were not in dispute – did the jury get it right?[/quote]
And you, with extreme bias, are asking us to believe your analysis as more accurate than that of the jury, a jury who does not necessarily have the extreme biases you do? After all, we are hearing only your “take” on what happened in that court room. I can almost guarantee that if we asked a juror, they would not have had the same “take” on what happened in the court room nor the same “analysis” of the evidence…
Elaine: So basically you have nothing to argue so you have decided to take an ad hominem approach and attack me personally? But I will say I’m trying to get a copy of the video, I will post it here, but I will invite you and Just Saying for a private screening, my guess is you will see my point after watching it.
Until the video shows up, how about just reporting what the prosecutor claimed was in the video with respect to the defendent? My guess is that he suggested that the person, the one right there, the one putting his hand down where investigators found the print, is Mr. Valadez. But, you were there and know what representations were made by the prosecutor.
But, even without knowing how prosecutors used the video, it appears that the palmprint was more definitative and incriminating than the defense and you try to make the jury and us believe. Say the jury got it wrong–come to think of it, are you really saying Mr. Valadez wasn’t at the scene?–but allow some of the rest of us the right to respect a jury’s considered findings.
You shouldn’t take disagreement as a personal attack. And, you should take bias criticism as potentially valid or at least as something worth evaluating. You also shouldn’t be surprised that people repeat their points when you seem unwilling to consider them the first time around.
You know Elaine better than to disregard her comments as “ad hominem” and personal attacks.
“My guess is that he suggested that the person, the one right there, the one putting his hand down where investigators found the print, is Mr. Valadez. “
I did exactly that.
[quote]The video shows that the person who left the palm print match played a limited role. Prosecutor Deputy DA Robin Johnson argued Mr. Valadez held the driver’s side door shut. She argued “But for Mr. Valadez holding the door, none of the other crimes could have been committed. He could have been able to get out, maybe defend himself.”[/quote]
Wishin we could hear more about this case