Renew Your Enthusiasm

So, a guy charged with murder in a potential Death Penalty case claims he was at a Dodger game when the slaying occurred. His lawyer gets hold of the Fox Sports telecast of the game, but can't find him in the crowd. Then someone mentions that hey, Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm was filming there that night?. The incredible story is in the New Yorker's Talk of the Town, with additional info over at L.A. Observed.

Comments

[Evan Williams]

Don't make me take out a titty!

[OL]

Aside from confirming the suspect's alibi, the best part of the whole story is that the episode filmed that night was about Larry David's character hiring a prostitute to be a passenger in his car and therefore use the HOV lane to beat traffic to the game. God bless the free market. And HBO

[Evan Williams]

Don't make me take out a titty!

[Dan]

There are definitely some advantages (not many, admittedly) to the lack of privacy we have in modern America.

[Jarod]

I can't wait to see if there will be a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode that actually incorporates this story in some form.

[Call me snake]

I have experienced the reckless, capricious, borderline malicious conduct of law enforcement & DAs, and this story has made my month.

Someone should buy the entire police department & District Attorney's office a block of seats to an upcoming Dodgers game.

[Monena]

"I got a red snapper that talks to ya!"

[Skeptikos]

I have always had a scientific bend to my mind so:

WHAT IF...this evidence had not been produced?

What would have been the chances that this man would have been sentenced to death?

What would have been his chances of spending life (or a significant portion thereof) in jail?

What would have been his chances of being cleared with an "eyewitness" that said he was the killer (l.a. observed)?

I'm not sure about the first, depends on a lot of factors I don't have info on, like how determined the DA was.

Number 2 and 3 I can make some educated guesses on. 80% minimum on conviction, 15% or lower on being cleared.

Thanks to scientific testing we know that eyewtiness id is extremely iffy.

However we do know just how ardent our justice system to find an individual guilty once charged, regardless of the facts.

Interesting story. Thanx!

[Crid]

Sidebar to blog/internet fanatics:

I work freelance in TV, occasionally in an ancillary capacity for the nationally syndicated tabloid "Celebrity Justice," created and EP'd by Harvey Levin. They did a 2 1/2 minute story on this at least two months ago (with round-the-clock promotions), and least three re-airings and updates in the weeks since. That's scores of transmitters nourishing millions of viewers, but nobody from the internet noticed until the last twenty-four hours.

This is the first time that I've seen a news story fly OVER the rader of our new media cognocenti.

TV can't be Googled.

[Crid]

Sidebar to blog/internet fanatics:

I work freelance in TV, occasionally in an ancillary capacity for the nationally syndicated tabloid "Celebrity Justice," created and EP'd by Harvey Levin. They did a 2 1/2 minute story on this at least two months ago (with round-the-clock promotions), and least three re-airings and updates in the weeks since. That's scores of transmitters nourishing millions of viewers, but nobody from the internet noticed until the last twenty-four hours.

This is the first time that I've seen a news story fly OVER the rader of our new media cognocenti.

TV can't be Googled.

[Marge Simpson]

"You know, the courts might not work any more, but as long as everybody is videotaping everyone else, justice will be done."

[Dan]

However we do know just how ardent our justice system to find an individual guilty once charged, regardless of the facts.

You do realize that you posted your little rant in response to an article about a man who claimed to be innocent, was shown to be innocent in light of the evidence, and who was then released?

In other words, you posted the statement, above, in response to an article that proves you're completely wrong.

[dave id]

"In other words, you posted the statement, above, in response to an article that proves you're completely wrong." -Dan

I think that's why he said "WHAT IF?"

Anyone that has had personal experience with law enforcement knows that Skeptikos quote -

"we do know just how ardent our justice system to find an individual guilty once charged, regardless of the facts"

...is extremely accurate.

[jc]

dan,

Saying "See, the system works" is an ignorant cop-out when the system originally found him guilty. It took incredible circumstances to find him innocent, which is the exact opposite of the way the system is supposed to work. The fact that incredible circumstances displaying the system "working" is even used as a defense of it displays remarkable stupidity.

Anyone with a modicum of experience in the criminal justice system knows its main function has devolved into a jobs program and that "justice" is a secondary function of it. People most in denial of the obvious are beneficiaries of the primary function.

[Jeff]

Crid: I work at a station that airs CJ, and saw the story about this.
Yes, this is old news, and I'm certain that the release of the season two DVD (including the baseball game episode) in a couple weeks has nothing to do with it "breaking" now.

The line between entertainment and news, even irony-laden human interest fluff, is gone.

[Dan]

Saying "See, the system works" is an ignorant cop-out when the system originally found him guilty.

I didn't say that, fucktard.

I'm just asking that you find an actual case of an innocent man being executed before you begin pissing and moaning about how the innocent get railroaded without any regard for the evidence. In this case, the authorities DID pay attention to the evidence. An innocent man WASN'T executed.

What's next? Are you going to hold up the O.J. Simpson case as evidence that rich people can't buy their way out of a jail sentence?

[Dan]

Oh, and one more thing -- the system didn't "originally find him guilty". He was charged with a crime; he was not tried, and not convicted.

[Jennifer]

The only evidence they had was a witness' testimony, and for that he faced the death penalty? I have to seriously re-think my support for it.

He's already spent a five and a half months in jail. I wish to God we could pass a law holding prosecutors accountable when they screw up this badly. Not criminally accountable, necessarily, but those involved in this should lose their jobs, since they're obviously not capable of doing them properly.

[SM]

"He was charged with a crime; he was not tried, and not convicted."

Yes, but an innocent man spent 5 1/2 months in jail. That fact seems to bother you less than some guys "rant".

[Dave the Butcher]

Yes, but an innocent man spent 5 1/2 months in jail. That fact seems to bother you less than some guys "rant".

You are so right, SM. In fact, let's let ALL people charged with crimes out on their own recognizance. As the saying goes, better to let ten guilty men go free than to let one man suffer temporal inconvenience whilst the wheels of justice turn.

[MALAK]

Jennifer, I hope you do rethink your support for the death penalty . . .

[Phil]

ou are so right, SM. In fact, let's let ALL people charged with crimes out on their own recognizance.

Don't let's be a fuckstick, OK? Nobody suggested that. But what was bail set at for this guy? He's got an alibi which includes ticket stubs and family corroboration, he's volunteered for a polygraph, the only evidence the police appear to have is an eyewitness -- a notoriously unreliable type of evidence . . . how long does it take to put together a trial? The guy has a Constitutional right to non-excessive bail and a speedy trial.

According to the L.A. Observed link above, even after being presented with the HBO footage, the DA still refused to drop the case, arguing that right after that footage was filmed, the suspect must have leapt into his car -- leaving his daughter there, I guess -- and drove 20 miles to commit the murder. The judge had to step in and dismiss the charges. That DA should lose his job.

[Dan]

Yes, but an innocent man spent 5 1/2 months in jail. That fact seems to bother you less than some guys "rant".

Two points: first, nobody, yourself included, expressed any sympathy for the guy. They were too busy either expressing amusement at the story or venting unjustified rage at the system as a whole. So I don't know why you're complaining about *my* "failure" to express sympathy. Look in a mirror, hm?

Secondly, if someone posted an article about a guy getting run down by a car, and some dumbass responded by saying "that just goes to show that drivers don't care who they run over", I would post a reply pointing out how completely wrong that sentiment is. I wouldn't waste time saying "of course, it's a shame the guy got run down", because that goes without saying. This was a similar case.

He's got an alibi which includes ticket stubs and family corroboration

That in no way even begins to corroborate his alibi. Family members lie to protect each other all the time. Furthermore, the murder happened *after* the ball game -- merely proving that he showed up for the beginning of the game wouldn't have been good enough. What really cleared him was the fact that HBO's footage proved he'd been at the game late enough to prevent him from getting to the murder scene in time.

he's volunteered for a polygraph

Are you suggesting that the police should start relying on polygraph tests to determine guilt or innocence? Why not just use tarot cards and a ouija board instead -- they're just as accurate.

how long does it take to put together a trial? The guy has a Constitutional right to non-excessive bail and a speedy trial.

What makes you think he *asked* for a speedy trial? The guy was potentially going to be facing the death penalty, there's an eyewitness who "saw" him commit the crime, and his alibi was unsubstantiated.

It seems very likely that both the prosecutor and the defense attorney wanted more time to prepare -- the prosecutor, so that he could build a better case, and the defense attorney, so that he'd have more time to prove his client's alibi.

That DA should lose his job.

You don't get it. The DA did his job the way he's supposed to do it. It's the DA's job to argue that the people the police arrest are guilty. It's the job of the JUDGE (and, if it comes to that, the jury) to determine the truth of the matter. The DA didn't invent any evidence; he argued his case based purely on the facts at hand. The judge thought his case didn't hold water, and I agree. Why should the DA be fired?

[Phil]

That in no way even begins to corroborate his alibi. Family members lie to protect each other all the time.

Actually it does, and if the police or prosecutors believe a witness -- including a family member -- is lying, it's their responsibility to prove it. What with that messy burden of proof and all.

Are you suggesting that the police should start relying on polygraph tests to determine guilt or innocence? Why not just use tarot cards and a ouija board instead -- they're just as accurate.

Your second sentence is a red herring, because I said nothing about the scientific accuracy or lack thereof of polygraph tests. I said that the suspect had volunteered. Under California law, polygraph evidence is admissible under some circumstances. My recollection is that that can include the fact that a suspect either volunteered to take a test and passed, volunteered to take a test and failed, or refused to take a test altogether. Prosecutors hate the first case -- because if they don't introduce it, the defense will -- but love the second two. The fact that the DA refused the suspect's offer is telling, particularly if their only "evidence" was an eyewitness.

You don't get it. The DA did his job the way he's supposed to do it. It's the DA's job to argue that the people the police arrest are guilty.

No, you don't get it. The DA's job is to see that justice is done for the people in their jurisdiction; they aren't obligated to prosecute everyone that the police arrest, nor are they obligated to trust the judgment of the police that the arrestees are likely to have committed the crime.

And when presented, in court, with exonerating evidence, captured by a third (uninterested) party on videotape with time codes, it is the obligation of the DA to drop charges. Unless you're going to now defend the idea that the DA is obligated to pursue charges against someone they know cannot have committed the crime in question.

[Jason Ligon]

"You don't get it. The DA did his job the way he's supposed to do it. It's the DA's job to argue that the people the police arrest are guilty.

No, you don't get it. The DA's job is to see that justice is done for the people in their jurisdiction; they aren't obligated to prosecute everyone that the police arrest, nor are they obligated to trust the judgment of the police that the arrestees are likely to have committed the crime."

I thought the DA's job was to do whatever makes him most electable when he runs for office ...

[Highway]

This one also makes me think about all the time in your life you spend without an alibi. Driving to and from work, spending time at home, going for a walk around the neighborhood, going for a drive in the mountains, etc. Even when you are doing something that could 'prove' you were somewhere, how many people keep receipts for things for months, so that when the police show up to arrest you way after the fact you can show at least something that says you were where you were supposed to be. And then they argue that 'someone else could have done that stuff to give you the alibi', like take your cell phone and make calls, or get tickets to the movies. Even if the places you go have security cameras, they don't keep the records of ordinary days for months afterwards.

Meanwhile, the cops could pick me up, stick me in a lineup with a bunch of other pudgy white guys with goatees and dark hair, and it would be a total crapshoot which of us got picked with most 'eyewitnesses'. Sure, if you knew us, you could tell us apart, but 'which guy walked past you on the street'? No way.

[JAG]

The charge made him "eligible" for the death penalty. This doesn't mean it would have been sought much less successfully tried.
All this case proves is that any application of the death penalty should be subject to irrefutable, conclusive, no doubt about it evidence.
Its hard to see how they would have gotten a conviction much less a death penalty applied in this case given the sparse evidence.
Why was the guy in jail for 5 months? I'd bet it was because of some earlier problems with the law that convinced a judge he wasn't some pristine innocent pulled in off the street.

[jeff]

You're all missing the most amazing this about this story. It says that in the game, Eric Gagne blew a lead. He almost never does that.

[SM]

I don't quite know how to respond to Dave the Butcher. Let's see - the innocent have nothing to fear so long as a TV crew was filming you when the crime was commited ? As other commentators have noted, if it were not for the freak circumstance of his being captured on camera, this guy might still be rotting in jail.
What Phil said - i hope this idiot DA is held to account.