—————————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The judge allowed Rubalcava to pursue his claim that the officers did not disclose that their witnesses either could not make an identification or made an unreliable identification. She also advanced claims that the trio deprived Rubalcava of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. “Here, where the government’s entire case turned on eyewitness testimony, and the prosecutor emphasized how unlikely it was that multiple eyewitnesses would have identified Rubalcava by happenstance, the withheld evidence reasonably could have ‘put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict,’” Freeman wrote. The judge also advanced the claim of a conspiracy between the officers, citing evidence that showed the trio worked in tandem for the witness identifications. The officers also must face claims of malicious prosecution."
-----------------------------------------------------
SUB-HEADING: "A man who was jailed for nearly 20 years after three San Jose police officers reported he was identified as a drive-by shooter can now take the officers to trial for fabricating evidence."
GIST: "A man who was incarcerated for 17 years before being exonerated of an attempted murder will see three San Jose police officers face a federal trial for using flimsy witness identifications to wrongfully convict him in a drive-by shooting.
U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled Thursday that three San Jose Police Department officers must face multiple civil rights claims of faking evidence to wrongfully convict Lionel Rubalcava for involvement in a drive-by shooting that paralyzed Raymond Rodriguez in 2002 in San Jose.
While the city and several other officers involved in the report that helped convict Rubalcava are shielded by qualified immunity, Freeman said that immunity does not protect San Jose police officers Joseph Perez, Topui Fonua and Steven Spillman from individual civil liability.
“I’m grateful the court has ruled that the police officers who put me behind bars for 17 years have to answer to a jury,” Rubalcava said in a statement Thursday. “The state declared my actual innocence in 2019, and now there’s no one but the officers whose actions led to my wrongful conviction that are still trying to justify their misconduct.”
After the Santa Clara County Superior Court made an express finding of innocence and vacated Rubalcava’s conviction in 2019, Rubalcava filed his misconduct claims against the officers and the city of San Jose in 2020.
He said that San Jose Police Department officers and Santa Clara County investigators fabricated evidence and committed other misconduct to help convict him, and that officers Perez, Fonua and Spillman deliberately fabricated their police reports to make it appear that three eyewitnesses identified him in 2005. He said the county prosecutor used those reports to pursue attempted murder charges against him.
In a 39-page order, Freeman found there is a factual dispute over whether there was probable cause to prosecute Rubalcava — and whether officers Perez, Fonua, and Spillman ignored initial witness statements from Rodriguez, his brother and his neighbor that indicated Rubalcava was not the 2002 shooter.
The judge also advanced claims of withholding evidence and malicious prosecution against the three officers.
She disagreed with the city's argument that the police officers bore no ill will toward Rubalcava and that it didn't ignore evidence of the reportedly falsified witness identifications.
“A reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rubalcava, could draw an inference that Perez, Fonua and Spillman falsified their police reports for an improper purpose — to arrest Rubalcava without any substantial evidence of his guilt — and thus could find that the malice element is satisfied,” Freeman wrote.
The judge allowed Rubalcava to pursue his claim that the officers did not disclose that their witnesses either could not make an identification or made an unreliable identification. She also advanced claims that the trio deprived Rubalcava of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
“Here, where the government’s entire case turned on eyewitness testimony, and the prosecutor emphasized how unlikely it was that multiple eyewitnesses would have identified Rubalcava by happenstance, the withheld evidence reasonably could have ‘put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict,’” Freeman wrote.
The judge also advanced the claim of a conspiracy between the officers, citing evidence that showed the trio worked in tandem for the witness identifications. The officers also must face claims of malicious prosecution.
However, Freeman dismissed claims the city violated state laws pertaining to liability for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee and city employees omitting information from records.
The author of the report used to prosecute Rubalcava, officer Rafael Nieves, was granted qualified immunity, and was dismissed from claims of withholding evidence and malicious prosecution against him since his report “was separate from and different in nature from the reports of the other officers.”
Claims against the three officers will now proceed to trial. A jury could potentially find that the trio worked as a team to make up the witness identifications used against the plaintiff.
San Jose’s city attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Rubalcava’s attorney Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann said that San Jose continues to deny evidence of its police officers’ misconduct.
“It should have been obvious from the beginning that the police had the wrong person in custody, but instead they fabricated evidence and got witnesses to falsely identify our client, who spent 17 years behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit,” Benvenutti Hoffmann said. ""
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.courthousenews.com/san-jose-cops-to-face-trial-on-falsifying-evidence-claims/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/03/28/san-jose-wrongful-conviction-lawsuit-for-exonerated-man-heads-toward-trial/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
---------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801
————————————————————————————————
MORE VALUABLE WORDS: "As a former public defender, Texas' refusal to delay Ivan Cantu's execution to evaluate new evidence is deeply worrying for the state of our legal system. There should be no room for doubt in a death penalty case. The facts surrounding Cantu's execution should haunt all of us."
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett; X March 1, 2024.
——————————————————————
