Expendable For A Cause.

Five prisoners have been found innocent and released from San Quentin’s death row, the most recent in April 2018, when Vicente Benavides was released after 25 years.

According to The Innocence Project, more than 3,000 people have been wrongly convicted since 1989, highlighting significant flaws in the capital punishment system. Since 1973, 196 individuals have been exonerated from death row in the U.S., yet this doesn’t fully depict the impact the death penalty has on wrongful convictions. The threat of the death penalty leads innocent individuals to plead guilty. It elicits false testimony, disproportionately affecting Black and Latino individuals, with documented law enforcement misconduct in two-thirds of Latino exoneration cases.

Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions:

1. Eyewitness misidentification
2. False and coerced confessions
3. Law enforcement misconduct
4. Inadequate legal defense
5. False accusations or perjury by witnesses
6. False or misleading forensic evidence

Multiple contributing factors of wrongful convictions were present in the Richard Ramirez case: This is not an exhaustive list, but it highlights major issues that undermined the integrity of his trial.

Unreliable eyewitness identification: eyewitness identification weighed heavily in convicting Richard. Yet, EVERY single witness gave an initial description that did not match Richard.

Perjury: Felipe Solano lied during his testimony by stating he only bought stolen goods from Richard.

Inadequate legal defense: the wholly inept duo, Arturo and Daniel Hernandez, represented Richard, if one can call it that. They conceded much of the forensic evidence presented by the prosecution and didn’t bother with having most of the evidence tested. I suppose that would have required too much actual “lawyering.”

False and misleading forensic evidence:

Shoe Prints-so called shoe print expert Gerald Burke presented misleading and incorrect information regarding the Avia shoe prints. The evidence did not support Burke’s conclusions; Avia shoes were not a rare commodity in the Los Angeles area. 

Fingerprints-fingerprint evidence consisted of 1 partial fingerprint and 1 palm print. Both are considered by many in the legal field to be “junk science.”

Ballistics – the prosecution presented faulty, misleading ballistics evidence.

Serological testing: None of the blood evidence from the crime scenes was Richard’s. PGM markers also revealed that Richard’s semen was not present at any crime scene. Despite these facts, the forensic specialist downplayed the results.

Presumption of guilt: A high-profile case such as Richard’s was burdened by a presumption of guilt that shifted the burden of proof to the defense. Richard’s case was “guilty until proven innocent”, instead of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Involuntary/Coerced statements: Involuntary statements have a high risk of a lack of reliability and accuracy and violate due process. Allegedly, Richard made incriminating statements on the ride to Hollenbeck police station and once he arrived there. The statements were made before Richard was read his “Miranda” rights and considered involuntary and inadmissible.

Illegal seizure of evidence: based on Richard’s alleged statements, law enforcement used “probable cause” to search him physically, retrieve items from a storage locker at a Greyhound bus station, and the Pontiac vehicle. Richard was physically searched, his wallet confiscated, and the locker content seized before a search warrant was issued. The search warrant was obtained after the fact, with Richard’s alleged statements used as a means to justify it.

Immunity from prosecution–several individuals were given immunity from prosecution for testifying against Richard, including Jesse Perez, Felipe Solano, Donna Myers and Earl Gregg.

Politics

The intense pressure to secure convictions and political motivations for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges can lead to critical legal mistakes that result in wrongful convictions and death sentences. Tom Bradley, mayor of L.A. when Richard was arrested, publicly announced that same day there was no need to have a trial as he was convinced Richard was the “Night Stalker.” He had also been an LAPD officer and twice ran for governor of California. His views on the death penalty were clear: “To put it neatly and in a few words, I am in favor of the death penalty.” Sheriff Block of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department ran for reelection in 1989. Securing a conviction for the Nightstalker crimes helped him achieve this goal. Advocating for capital punishment helped one-time San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein to get elected and reelected to the Senate. In contrast, former California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird voted to overturn every death penalty case she reviewed. As a result, she was “booted” from the bench when she ran for reelection in 1986.

Law Enforcement Degeneracy

Counties, states, and the federal government have varying regulations and procedures regarding the preservation of evidence and access to testing for incarcerated individuals striving to demonstrate their innocence. In many cases, prosecutors refuse to reconsider or reopen cases even when new evidence is presented. There is a lack of accountability for law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges, even if misconduct results in wrongful convictions. Immunity laws shield them from responsibility, and they can’t be held liable for falsifying or withholding evidence, coercing witnesses, presenting false testimony, or introducing illegally seized evidence at trial.

Official misconduct in Richard’s case (these are only a few examples of the misconduct in Richard’s case. Again, it is not an exhaustive list):

• Los Angeles prosecutors lost the partial and unidentified fingerprint evidence presented in the Vincow crime. No penalties were imposed.
• Federal habeas attorneys retained a fingerprint examiner and a forensic shoeprint expert to review evidence presented at Richard’s trial. Both requests were denied.
• Law enforcement identified potential third-party suspects involved in burglaries and thefts, with motive and opportunity to commit crimes and sell stolen property to Felipe Solano. Yet, the prosecution deceitfully portrayed Felipe Solano as “less than a major receiver of stolen property.”
• The prosecution falsely told the jury that although Solano was involved in receiving stolen property, the State would have to release Richard if they wanted to prosecute Solano.

Reconsidering Evidence in the Night Stalker Case

The evidence implicating Richard in the Night Stalker case does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, causing grave concerns about his convictions. All of the evidence from the Night Stalker case should be submitted for independent forensic laboratory testing. Not to a lab looking to uphold the status quo but to one that operates without any knowledge of the significance of the evidence. This could offer an opportunity for unbiased evaluation, potentially shedding new light on the case. What do we have to lose? Many individuals may have a lot to lose.

Those who have built their careers on the premise of Richard Ramirez as the Night Stalker and anyone looking to cash in on this “true” crime story, have a vested interest in keeping to the story they’ve told for decades. The potential impact on such individuals is palpable and adds a layer of skepticism to the entire case. The established narrative of Richard’s convictions is not as straightforward as commonly believed, emphasizing the need for a thorough reevaluation. It is time to uncover the real facts and establish the true story. It’s time for a deeper, unbiased investigation.

KayCee

Jan 25, 2024