TV show clears murder suspect - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

EbolaVirus · 06-03-2004, 02:27 PM

Here's the story

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/0....ap/index.html

analog · 06-03-2004, 02:32 PM

No, that's the link.

THIS is the story:

(please always post the content, not just a link)

Quote:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- "Curb Your Enthusiasm," an HBO show known for its acerbic wit, accidentally helped deliver a happy ending to a man who had been charged with murder.

Juan Catalan spent 5 1/2 months in jail on murder charges before his attorney found video footage taken by the show at Dodger Stadium that backs up his client's claims of innocence.

Police arrested Catalan in August, alleging he killed Martha Puebla, 16, in the San Fernando Valley on May 12, 2003, because she had testified against his brother in another case.

Catalan insisted he and his 6-year-old daughter were watching the Los Angeles Dodgers lose to the Atlanta Braves, 11-4, minutes before Puebla was killed about 20 miles north of the stadium.

He said he had ticket stubs from the game and testimony from his family as to his whereabouts the night Puebla was killed. But police still believed he was responsible, saying they had a witness who placed Catalan at the scene of the slaying.

Catalan said he asked to take a lie detector test, but was refused.

Defense attorney Todd Melnik subpoenaed the Dodgers and Fox Networks, which owned the team then, to scan videotape of the televised baseball game and footage from its "Dodger Vision" cameras. Some of the videotapes showed where Catalan was sitting but Melnik couldn't make him out.
Clues on the cutting room floor

Melnik later learned that HBO had been at the stadium the night of the killing to tape an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," a comedy starring "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David. The lawyer found what he was looking for in footage that had not made the final cut.

"I got to one of the scenes, and there is my client sitting in a corner of the frame eating a hot dog with his daughter," Melnik said. "I nearly jumped out of my chair and said, 'There he is!"'

The tapes had time codes that allowed Melnik to find out exactly when Catalan was at the ballpark. Melnik also obtained cell phone records that placed his client near the stadium later that night, about 20 minutes before the murder.

The attorney said it would have been impossible for Catalan to get out of the parking lot, change vehicles and clothing and play with his daughter as well as kill Puebla during that span.

Catalan, who could have faced the death penalty had he been convicted of murder, was released in January because a judge ruled there was no evidence to try him.

"To hear the words from the judge's mouth, I just broke down in tears," Catalan, 26, said Tuesday. "It was the happiest moment in my life."

Catalan, now raising his family and working with his father as a machinist, has submitted a claim against the city of Los Angeles, alleging false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation of character. Puebla's murder remains unsolved and the case against Catalan's brother, who is accused of being the driver in a drive-by shooting, is still pending.

Prosecutors and police did not return calls seeking comment Tuesday.

Other evidence also helped dismiss the case against Catalan, but the videotape "had extreme dramatic effect," Melnick said.

The show was hardly about the ballpark crowd that night. It focused on David hiring a prostitute, not for sex but to be a passenger in his car so he could travel in the carpool lane and escape traffic on his way to the stadium.

"Curb Your Enthusiasm" is a series on cable network HBO, whose parent company is Time Warner Inc. which also owns CNN.com.

Asuka{eve} · 06-03-2004, 02:46 PM

They should never do anything without absolute proof.

asudevil83 · 06-03-2004, 03:07 PM

Now that is one fucking lucky man.

water_boy1999 · 06-03-2004, 04:36 PM

Ok, loses his job, is seperated from his daughter, family and friends, has his good name defamed, and is put into prison for 5 1/2 months.

Quote:

Police arrested Catalan in August, alleging he killed Martha Puebla, 16, in the San Fernando Valley on May 12, 2003, because she had testified against his brother in another case.

Ok, so there is a bit of evidence, but circumstantial.

Quote:

He said he had ticket stubs from the game and testimony from his family as to his whereabouts the night Puebla was killed. But police still believed he was responsible, saying they had a witness who placed Catalan at the scene of the slaying.

Why is he not allowed to use his own evidence to corroborate his whereabouts?

Quote:

Catalan said he asked to take a lie detector test, but was refused.

He is refused a lie detector test. Why? This should have been presented by Catalan's lawyer to aid in his defense! Why would he be refused? Anyone with a legal background know why this wasn't used to keep him out of prison?

Quote:

Defense attorney Todd Melnik subpoenaed the Dodgers and Fox Networks, which owned the team then, to scan videotape of the televised baseball game and footage from its "Dodger Vision" cameras. Some of the videotapes showed where Catalan was sitting but Melnik couldn't make him out.

Where was Melnik before? Seems he forgot a few things about being a defense lawyer. Defending his client was one of them.

Quote:

Catalan, who could have faced the death penalty had he been convicted of murder, was released in January because a judge ruled there was no evidence to try him.

Ok, so he wasn't convicted, but I think there is something wrong with our legal system if someone loses 5 1/2 months of his life in prison because he is "Guilty until proven innocent".

Quote:

Catalan, now raising his family and working with his father as a machinist, has submitted a claim against the city of Los Angeles, alleging false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation of character.

Hope he sues the crap out of them!!!!

KnifeMissile · 06-03-2004, 05:40 PM

Warning: I'm about to flaunt my knowledge of the American justice sytsem. This a formidable feat, considering how I'm not an American so, please, if what I say is inccorect, correct me! Thank you...

Quote:

Originally posted by water_boy1999

Quote:

Police arrested Catalan in August, alleging he killed Martha Puebla, 16, in the San Fernando Valley on May 12, 2003, because she had testified against his brother in another case.

Ok, so there is a bit of evidence, but circumstantial.

They must have had more evidence than this. In America, the prosecutor can't go to trial without a prima facia case. That is, you're not allowed to go to trial unless you can convince a grand jury that you have enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of winning the case.

Quote:

He said he had ticket stubs from the game and testimony from his family as to his whereabouts the night Puebla was killed. But police still believed he was responsible, saying they had a witness who placed Catalan at the scene of the slaying.

Why is he not allowed to use his own evidence to corroborate his whereabouts?

Nowhere in the article did it say that he wasn't allowed to use this evidence in his defense. It merely says that the cops didn't believe him because they have eye-witnesses that place him at the scene. The disbelief of the cops does not preclude him from using said evidence in court.

Quote:

Catalan said he asked to take a lie detector test, but was refused.

He is refused a lie detector test. Why? This should have been presented by Catalan's lawyer to aid in his defense! Why would he be refused? Anyone with a legal background know why this wasn't used to keep him out of prison?

I have absolutely no legal background but if television has taught me anything it's that lie detector tests are not admissable in court. You're not allowed to waste the court's time with irrelevant testamony, you know...

Quote:

Ok, so he wasn't convicted, but I think there is something wrong with our legal system if someone loses 5 1/2 months of his life in prison because he is "Guilty until proven innocent".

Hope he sues the crap out of them!!!!

There is much that is wrong with your legal system but I don't think this is one of them. He had the unfortunate luck of coincidentally having enough evidence to build a prima facia case against him. This is pretty rare. He he couldn't convince a judge he wasn't a flight risk and he couldn't afford the bail. I don't think this is too common (it's obviously not uncommon but why does everyone here know what a bounty hunter is?). These two things coupled together make it unlikely that anyone has to suffer unnecessary jail time during their trial. It's just that there are more than 300,000,000 people in the US so, yeah, a couple of people do...

Obviously, the article didn't give you all the facts of the case. All they're concerned about is that you (purchase and) read (the ads that came with) the article . They're not going to waste their (time and, thus) money writing a book about it so they left out everything that wouldn't help them (sell more copies and show more ads and) gain greater readership...

Journeyman · 06-03-2004, 09:07 PM

Lie detector tests may be inadmissable as evidence, but it would most certainly aid an investigating officer. So, why was it refused when he asked to have it done?

Esco · 06-03-2004, 09:22 PM

See ... another reason why to watch "Curb Your Enthusiasm"

IT SAVES LIVES!

Spartak · 06-03-2004, 09:36 PM

Strike one for the justice system

water_boy1999 · 06-04-2004, 07:16 AM

Couldn't agree with you more KnifeMissle. Those are all my points exactly. It just seems that not enough was done to prove this guy was innocent. Everything was done to prove him guilty. Now is this just because the writer decided to write the article this way to make us sustain our disbelief or is this what gist of the story really is?

*generalization*
So, should I be bent on not trusting our legal system or bent on the way journalism misleads?

k1ng · 06-04-2004, 08:04 AM

That guy is very lucky. I agree with BlingBling, it's just another reason Curb is such a great show!

KnifeMissile · 06-04-2004, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Journeyman
Lie detector tests may be inadmissable as evidence, but it would most certainly aid an investigating officer. So, why was it refused when he asked to have it done?

Look at it from the point of view of the police. You have a suspect that you think is guilty (after all, you got enough evidence to convince a grand jury!) and he wants you to exonerate him with something that's so unreliable that it's inadmissable in court. Obviously, it's just a desperate ploy to convince you that he's innocent and waste precious police resources looking for someone else. Guilty people will do anything to convince you they're innocent. Haven't you ever seen an episode of Cops?

KnifeMissile · 06-04-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by water_boy1999
Couldn't agree with you more KnifeMissle. Those are all my points exactly. It just seems that not enough was done to prove this guy was innocent. Everything was done to prove him guilty. Now is this just because the writer decided to write the article this way to make us sustain our disbelief or is this what gist of the story really is?

*generalization*
So, should I be bent on not trusting our legal system or bent on the way journalism misleads?

Well, you might not have to do either, quite yet.

Your justice system is based on an adversarial system. You have two adversaries, one of them trying to prove him guilty and the other to prove him innocent. The prosecutor didn't do very much to prove his innocence because that's not his job. That's the job of his defense lawyer. If his lawyer didn't do his job then he should have gotten a better lawyer. Welcome to the America Way...

nash · 06-04-2004, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asuka{eve}
They should never do anything without absolute proof.

I will have to disagree on this: For example, not even DNA evidence is 100% accurate. Please think twice before using absolutes (two in this case!) in any sentence. And besides, don't forget about "beyond reasonable doubt." There may still be a bit of doubt lingering after all is said and done, but "reasonable" is the keyword.

06-03-2004, 02:27 PM	#1 (permalink)
EbolaVirus Insane Location: Michigan	TV show clears murder suspect Here's the story http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/0....ap/index.html __________________ "The difference between a nice time and a great time is an extra finger." - Dave Attell

06-03-2004, 09:22 PM	#8 (permalink)
Esco Insane	See ... another reason why to watch "Curb Your Enthusiasm" IT SAVES LIVES! __________________ The user formerly known as BlingBling

06-03-2004, 09:36 PM	#9 (permalink)
Spartak Bang bang Location: New Zealand	Strike one for the justice system __________________ I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

06-04-2004, 07:16 AM	#10 (permalink)
water_boy1999 Fly em straight! Location: Above and Beyond	Couldn't agree with you more KnifeMissle. Those are all my points exactly. It just seems that not enough was done to prove this guy was innocent. Everything was done to prove him guilty. Now is this just because the writer decided to write the article this way to make us sustain our disbelief or is this what gist of the story really is? generalization So, should I be bent on not trusting our legal system or bent on the way journalism misleads? __________________ Doh!!!! -Homer Simpson

06-04-2004, 08:04 AM	#11 (permalink)
k1ng Nothing Location: Atlanta, GA	That guy is very lucky. I agree with BlingBling, it's just another reason Curb is such a great show! __________________ "Delight in excellence is easily confused with snobbery by the ignorant." -Joseph Epstein

06-03-2004, 02:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
Asuka{eve} Addict Location: Oh God, the rain!	They should never do anything without absolute proof.

06-03-2004, 03:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
asudevil83 Psycho Location: Scottsdale, AZ	Now that is one fucking lucky man.

06-03-2004, 09:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	Lie detector tests may be inadmissable as evidence, but it would most certainly aid an investigating officer. So, why was it refused when he asked to have it done?