Because a “witness” named him. Literally just someone lied to the authorities that this guy was there and that was enough for them. I can’t remember if he lived in the vicinity of the murder or would visit someone on that street.
The fucked up thing is that the prosecution was ruthless in pursuing this guy who clearly hadn’t even been in the vicinity. The fact that he had tickets from the Dodgers game wasn’t enough to establish an alibi. The fact that he was recorded at the Dodgers game wasn’t enough either. He had to show that he had made a phone call from the stadium a short enough time before the murder that he couldn’t have physically gotten there in time.
And the prosecution still pushed, saying that the cell tower records didn’t prove he was at the game at that point, just that he was within a certain radius of the tower and could have been close enough to get there before the victim was killed.
This guy had to quite literally prove his innocence with a bunch of different technology - some of which was completely miraculous and random - and it’s sad to say that he was “lucky” all of that technology lined up well enough to keep the state from taking his life. It went from “he was spotted at the scene” to “he can’t physically prove he wasn’t there”.
It’s like that Dave Chappelle bit about making a public scene to establish an alibi when you hear the cops are looking for someone who remotely resembles you. People who don’t have a provable footprint of their whereabouts at all times are potentially at the mercy of a “justice” system that’s out for blood.
Well, he probably could have gotten out on a bail in order to not spend the 6 months before the trial in jail - though given that he was charged with murdering a minor, the bail would probably have been far too high for him to be able to procure.
He wasn't. The case never made it to trial because the judge, correctly believed the prosecution didn't have enough to convict. The deciding point was when the eye witness couldn't point him out in court. Mainly cause the eye witness had never seen Juan Catalan before.
That's the craziest part. He spent 6 months in prison just because the cops thought that he matched a description and that was enough to charge him and keep him locked up.
While not enough to warrant his treatment, the connection was that the victim had testified against his brother in a murder case a week earlier, which they presented as a motive.
Evidence to get a conviction doesn't have to be strong, and that's the big problem. Another big problem is that prosecutors don't care, they want a high conviction rate, and thus they are biased towards evidence that shows guilt and biased against evidence to the contrary (either finding it or believing it or even sharing it with defense).
For many DA offices, the rule is guilty until someone else bothers to prove innocence, and even then many will denounce the innocence to the press even after they've retired.
The whole “rather 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison” sentiment is completely lost on prosecutors. They would rather every murder have a fall guy even if they don’t actually believe that guy did it.
100
u/Softestwebsiteintown 1d ago
Because a “witness” named him. Literally just someone lied to the authorities that this guy was there and that was enough for them. I can’t remember if he lived in the vicinity of the murder or would visit someone on that street.
The fucked up thing is that the prosecution was ruthless in pursuing this guy who clearly hadn’t even been in the vicinity. The fact that he had tickets from the Dodgers game wasn’t enough to establish an alibi. The fact that he was recorded at the Dodgers game wasn’t enough either. He had to show that he had made a phone call from the stadium a short enough time before the murder that he couldn’t have physically gotten there in time.
And the prosecution still pushed, saying that the cell tower records didn’t prove he was at the game at that point, just that he was within a certain radius of the tower and could have been close enough to get there before the victim was killed.
This guy had to quite literally prove his innocence with a bunch of different technology - some of which was completely miraculous and random - and it’s sad to say that he was “lucky” all of that technology lined up well enough to keep the state from taking his life. It went from “he was spotted at the scene” to “he can’t physically prove he wasn’t there”.
It’s like that Dave Chappelle bit about making a public scene to establish an alibi when you hear the cops are looking for someone who remotely resembles you. People who don’t have a provable footprint of their whereabouts at all times are potentially at the mercy of a “justice” system that’s out for blood.