incredible work by lawyer. how do you even find out that their is some unaired footage of a TV show that contained footage of a game you client claimed to be at? Then, going through the footage to find your client in the stands. insane.
IIRC after basically begging the guy to remember if there was ANY evidence he had been at the game, since the CCTV footage had been thrown out as evidence for being too low-quality to say it was him, he eventually remembered that there was a camera crew he walked past on the way back from the bathroom.
The lawyer contacted the stadium who told him which network they were from, then he contacted the network and had to convince them to tell him what show it was for. Then he had to contact the producers of the show and beg them to let him see the unaired footage and it was just his luck that the accused guy just so happened to have been caught on camera for about 2 seconds of time-stamped footage as he walked past.
If they hadn't been rolling at the time he came back from the bathroom, or if he had taken a route that put him out of camera shot, there would have been no admissable evidence that he was at the game at the time of the murder.
Basically the distance away the murder happened meant he could have easily gone to the game, left, committed the murder and gone back between the other 2 pieces of evidence that placed him at the stadium.
But he walked past the TV show and was caught on camera at a time which meant he wouldn't have been able to get back in time if he was still at the stadium.
i can't remember why his daughter couldn't testify to him being there the whole time.
it's crazy to me that someone would have to prove they were at the alibi the entire time but the prosecutor wouldn't have to provide any evidence at all that they had actually left the alibi.
It's just frustrating when the burden of proof is supposed to be on the state, not the defendant. It's a criminal case, not a civil case. Fucking ridiculous that people get put away without real proof that it was them.
The problem with "reasonable doubt" is that people aren't reasonable enough to judge what that is. What "reasonable doubt" is becomes a cultural standard, influenced by media and politicians rather than a serious philosophical discussion.
If you can't prove you were there at a time incompatible with the murder, it's not really an alibi from my understanding.
If your ticket is scanned at 6:55, and the murder happened an hour away at 8:30, your 6:55 scan doesn't mean shit, even if you have a credit card purchase for a churro in the parking lot at 9:45. That is easily enough time to get there, murder, and come back. Made up situation, but the point is there
Yeah I think we all agree that wrongly convicting someone sucks
but if all you had to do to get away with murder was purchase a ticket somewhere, at some time, then go commit the murder
that... that's not gonna work, you know?
e: Some of you seem to think what this post said was "If you have a ticket purchased sometime around the time of murder, that means you're guilty and this wrongful conviction was justified"
I guess you all just didn't read the first sentence I wrote? Or like... the rest of it?
Except that we know there was zero evidence actually connecting this guy to the murder. Only, I believe, a fabrication by a witness saying they saw the guy. If they had found some of the victim’s blood on his clothes, the Dodgers game alibi potentially falls apart. In the absence of any actual evidence linking him to the crime, the Dodgers game alibi is completely plausible and provides plenty of reasonable doubt that the guy did it.
If all you have is “someone said they saw him there and he can’t physically prove he wasn’t”, you probably shouldn’t be trying to put that guy away for murder.
Yeah, and I’m willing to bet that the “blurry CCTV footage” would have been allowed as evidence if it supported the prosecution’s claim… but because it supported the defense, they couldn’t allow it.
This just seems like a case where they wanted a conviction no matter if it was the right person or not, considering there seems to be zero things linking him to the murder.
That’s the sense that I got. They had put all their eggs in the “fuck this guy” basket and were more concerned about having a guy to pin it on than getting the right guy.
If all you have is “someone said they saw him there and he can’t physically prove he wasn’t”, you probably shouldn’t be trying to put that guy away for murder.
I didn't say otherwise. What I did say was that having a ticket stub purchased at some point before the murder was not a sufficient alibi.
The rest of the stuff you argued against wasn't any part of my statement.
I’m not arguing just to argue. Your comment was suggestive of “you have to prove yourself innocent”, which isn’t the foundation of a competent justice system. It doesn’t make sense to me to suggest that the burden should be on us for constantly crafting alibis as opposed to the prosecution securing evidence that we actually committed a crime.
Even if you did commit a crime and couldn’t produce enough evidence to prove that you couldn’t have done it, the burden still rests on the state to provide sufficient evidence of your guilt. Opportunity is only one part of the equation.
Except since he clearly didn't commit the murder then what evidence could they possibly have that made it so air tight he WAS the murderer? Like the conviction had to be built on nothing.
We're not talking about this situation specifically anymore. I don't know what evidence was presented at the murder trial. I wasn't one of the jurors. I don't think you were either. Clearly they got it wrong.
But regardless, you can't rely on having a ticket stub purchased at some time and say it's proof you didn't commit the murder
Are you asking me? Or do you think asking the rhetorical question provides a defense? Do you think I think this wrongfully convinced proven innocent man is guilty?
No, I don't think you would put him in jail. It's a rhetorical question to the prosecutors. It's just that, he'd have needed accomplices. So where is that whole discussion? How can you convict if you don't even have a proper narrative of what happened?
Depends on what other evidence exists for linking you to the crime. “He looks like the guy” and a potential motive wouldn’t persuade me beyond a reasonable doubt.
Such an alibi could, and in some cases should, convince a jury to return a not guilty verdict. It all depends on the totality of the evidence.
This is completely wrong. To be convicted of a crime it needs to be proved BEYOND a reasonable doubt. This means that you CANNOT have a reasonable doubt that they did it. If the alibi of him being at the game raised a reasonable doubt, the correct route in law is to acquit.
I had a lawyer explain to me that "beyond reasonable doubt" essentially means 95% sure. I think the issue is that jurors put too much stock into prosecutors even though the prosecutor has a legal duty to always assume the defendant is guilty from the start. Just like the defense has a legal duty to always assume innocence. The rest of judicial system has to assume that defendant is also innocent. But prosecutors can't be defending the defendant.
I am guessing that because of the age of the daughter, her testimony wouldn't be credible. I feel like stadium tickets should have been enough for reasonable doubt.
doesn't have to prove he was there, just provide a reasonable doubt as to guilt. It's more evidence than there must have been to claim he was at the site of the crime at that time.
There was an eyewitness who identified him as being at the scene of the murder. That eyewitness ended up being wrong, but that's strong evidence that he committed the murder. Much stronger evidence than a ticket stub that doesn't show he was actually at a baseball game
Being wrong seems like terrible evidence, I dunno about you. Maybe "eyewitness" testimony is not reliable? I can say I saw you do whatever, it's just my word against yours.
Obviously they didn't realize the witness was wrong until later on?
Do you think we should discredit all eyewitness testimony? If so, say goodbye to the vast majority of assault, domestic violence, and sex crime convictions. Those tend to not have physical evidence, and rely on he said/she said.
Assault doesn't mean you were severely injured. Most statutes require physical harm or attempted physical harm. If I slapped you, that would be assault. But there may not be any other evidence that I slapped you.
Same for sexual assault. Most victims do not report the assault immediately, especially children. There might not be any physical evidence, but that doesn't mean a crime did not occur.
I'm well aware that convictions do not guarantee guilt. I'm also well aware that many guilty people are never charged, or may not be convicted based on the evidence allowed in at trial
I wouldn't say it's a reasonable defense, but the burden of proof is on the state, not the defendant. If he says "I wasn't there." Or "I didn't do it." Then it's enough without evidence stating otherwise.
An alibi that's not airtight isn't going to protect you, but you don't need one unless the prosecutor has evidence that it was you. The fact that he was put in jail when he didn't do it is disgusting, because it means that there was plenty of reasonable doubt there to be dug up.
If the prosecutor doesn't have enough to prove that it was you, then there is reasonable doubt. I would love to know more about what evidence they had that supposedly was so damning that people would simply put an innocent man in jail instead of doing their part as members of the jury.
Ok. No admissable evidence he was at the game if not for that 2 seconds footage. Do you happen to know what was the admissable evidence that made him guilty?
I always avoid it if they ask politely, or even just put up some signs or something.
I had one PA once start screaming at me that that I wasn't allowed to walk through on a sidewalk once. Didn't ask, just started screaming at me. Well, it was a public sidewalk and she wasn't a cop so I told her to fuck off and walked through.
I doubt they used the shot, but I always look for myself in the outdoor street scenes of the newsroom pilot.
Interesting, but isn't it supposed to work the other way around? The prosecution provides evidence of his guilt. His alibi provides "reasonable doubt" even without proof.
They had a positive ID of him from a witness of the murder and although his alibi for being at the stadium checked out for 2 specific times, the murder happened between those 2 times in a location he could have easily left the stadium, committed the murder, and returned before being seen again.
Which was why having a piece of evidence that proved he was still at the stadium during that time was so crucial.
since the CCTV footage had been thrown out as evidence for being too low-quality to say it was him
I know the actual legal proceedings are always more complicated than anonymous redditors make it out to be, but how is that not the jury's responsibility to determine?
Because for whatever reason, a jury is supposed to use their option of the evidence, but also not be allowed to actually have an opinion. It's a fucked system.
Honestly I would prefer if we had it be people's actual job to work on a jury instead of a bunch of random people who don't really want to be there making these decisions. No system is perfect but it would be better than this crap.
I feel like that would lead to a whole new set of problems though. Like the jury always assuming the defendant is guilty because that's how the last 10 cases ended up.
Damn that really is extreme luck and I’m glad to hear he went through so much trouble to find footage and eventually found some. I can’t imagine being accused of something I’m innocent for and being unable to prove my innocence.
Incredibly tangential and probably pushing my worldviews but this is exactly why the death penalty should not exist. Imagine the horror if this guy was sent to his death then this evidence came out. And now imagine the hundreds that are currently in jail for heinous crimes but are totally innocent.
Lawyer contacted the stadium for footage. Stadium crew put him in touch with the studio because any studio doing filming there would require their permission.
That fucking lawyer is incredibly resourceful, I would never think of it but i imagine you could just look up if any filming happened at the stadium that day then beg for footage from whomever was there. I assume a TV show filming would be documented. Still insane to think without the lawyer or the filming happening that day an innocent man could be behind bars still.
Could look up any notable news about the game trying to find if something can corroborate the alibi, find a news thing about the show filming at the match and try his luck thete
this was in 2003 - CCTV was nowhere near as widespread and was much lower quality where it did exist. there's a good chance it was all exclusively on VHS cassettes since digital media hadn't quite yet taken off.
for reference, YouTube didn't exist for another couple years, and early videos on the platform were generally low resolution.
Asking the stadium if they can give him a list of everyone who had permission to film a big show like curb your enthusiasm in the stadium. There would most definitely be a paper trail, he was smart enough to find them
Someone else posted the answer, but he asked the stadium, and the stadium pointed him at the studio. It just took time to get the footage, review it, and find him.
2.8k
u/javanfrogmouth 1d ago
Good work by the lawyer, crap work from the “justice system”.