When Innocence is Inconvenient (Part 1)
The Testimony of Spooky Brown, Esq. (Third Series)
(Part 1 of 4)*
When You ‘Fit the Description’
“Momma, I’m telling you I ain’t do it. I rob cars, but I don’t rob houses.”
I immediately stopped what I was doing when I heard that.
I was listening to a bunch of jail calls in preparation for a handoff jury trial. I was anxious because the trial was set to begin in three days. The prosecutor who handed me the case — at the last minute — recommended that I immediately listen to the calls in the event that “the piece of shit confessed to his mother.”
A chill ran down my spine when I heard this particular jail call because I believed that “the piece of shit” might actually be innocent — who else would admit to being a car thief and not a burglar? The way he said it was so honest and so forthcoming that I stopped listening to the calls and opened up the case file to review the police reports.
“Daniel,” a middle-aged Black man, was charged with first-degree residential burglary. According to the police report, he entered a woman’s home through a back door, took a jar of coins, and left through the front of the house. Outside the residence, he encountered its owner: a young Latina who was watering her lawn at the time. She immediately screamed when she saw Daniel, who instantly fled the scene. The lady ran inside her house to check on her young child, who was sitting on a couch in the living room. After confirming her child was unharmed, she called the police.
Officers showed up a few minutes later. Since the women didn’t speak English, a Spanish-speaking officer asked her for a description of the suspect.
“A Black man with blue pants and a plaid shirt.”
With that description, police officers drove around searching the area for about an hour. That’s when they came across Daniel — who, according to them, “fit” the description. They handcuffed him and drove him back to the woman’s house. When asked if Daniel was the man who burglarized her home, she stated that he was.
What increased my doubts about Daniel’s guilt was the fact that the officers didn’t find the jar of coins on Daniel’s person. In fact, I don’t think they found any coins on him at all. The officers didn’t even bother searching his home for the stolen property, either. Furthermore, the police didn’t get any fingerprints from the scene of the crime.
As a result, I became extremely nervous because the lasting implications of this case were huge. Since residential burglary is considered a strike offense in California — and Daniel had two prior strikes — he faced a maximum sentence of 35 years-to-life.
To my relief, the defense attorney requested a continuance two days before the trial was scheduled to begin. I certainly wasn’t going to fight it since I wanted more time to look into the case. I also wanted a chance to speak to the defense attorney. While we didn’t have the best relationship, I was eager to work with her to ensure that an innocent man didn’t go to prison.
In court, after the judge granted the continuance, I approached the defense attorney, asking, “Do you have any concerns about this case?”
She brushed me off, saying, “I’ll see you in court later.”
Before leaving the courtroom, I spoke to the young woman whose home was burglarized. Through a translator, she said she was reluctant to testify because she feared retaliation. While she was steadfast in her identification of Daniel, she didn’t want to get on the stand. After she expressed her concerns, I told her I’d be in touch, gave her my cell number, and let her know that she could call me anytime, day or night. I also said that she should immediately call 911 if she noticed any suspicious activity around her home.
Now that I had more time, I immediately drove to the scene of the crime. I then drove to the area where Daniel was arrested. My journey revealed that the two spots weren’t very close at all. The arrest location was more than a mile away, with tons of Black men walking around the entire area. As I left to return home, I had even greater doubts about Daniel’s guilt.
To me, this case should’ve never been filed. While there’s no dispute that a crime occurred, where was the evidence that Daniel committed it? The identification was highly suggestive — Daniel was the only person presented to the young woman — and there was absolutely no physical evidence linking Daniel to the crime.
Instead, what we should’ve done was reject this case for further investigation, directing the police to search Daniel’s home for any evidence of the stolen goods. If the police found no evidence, then we should’ve rejected the case outright.
I told my boss, a white man, about my thoughts. I was hoping for a case dismissal. Although I knew what he was going to say, I had a moral obligation to make the pitch for a dismissal.
“Do you have any hard proof that Daniel is innocent?”
“No, but I don’t have enough evidence to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal standard of proof.”
“Well, that’s for the jury to consider,” he said. “Unless you’ve got hard evidence, I’m afraid you’re gonna have to try this case.”
At that point, I panicked. My biggest fear as a prosecutor was convicting an innocent man, which has happened to other prosecutors in the office. I thought about asking to be removed from the case but decided otherwise; I didn’t believe another prosecutor would try hard enough to find the evidence to exonerate Daniel. Instead, they would’ve just tried the case for the jury trial credit, which is a very important criteria for promoting in the office.
So, I decided to keep digging.
The opinions here do not reflect the official views of the L.A. District Attorney’s Office, my current employer. To avoid fierce harassment and oppressive retaliation, I’ve decided to conceal my identity, for now.
