R
Ramon, a 28-year-old father of two, was falsely arrested for a gang-related murder. Ramon had no criminal history, was not at the scene of the crime, and was picked up based on the detective’s matching description of an “average Hispanic male” with a tattoo on his neck. Ramon was picked up at gunpoint at his work. Ramon was completely innocent of these charges. Although initially having a public defender he felt confident with, the attorney got replaced, and Ramon ended up with an attorney that he felt unsatisfied with. While facing a life sentence for a crime he did not commit, at one point the attorney told him he should take a plea. Ramon’s family came to De-Bug’s ACJP once Ramon was detained. The family, with the community support, immediately took the first steps to get an assessment of the attorney’s investment of time and effort into the case. They sent emails to the attorney asking what investigation had been done so far on Ramon’s behalf, what witnesses had been interviewed, what review had been done in the discovery (the evidence used in the case) and asked what his general defense strategy was going to be. They also emphasized the knowledge the family already had of the case – details of how Ramon was picked up, what happened when police confiscated items from the home, and information and proof of Ramon’s distance from the scene at the time of the incident. Eventually the repeated emails forced a series of meetings with the attorney. Timelines were set for the attorney to take certain steps, ones that could be identified, and inquired about if passing without the expected work product. The family received a copy of the discovery of the case against Ramon. On a weekly basis, the family and supporting community members spent hours meeting and scouring over the materials – comparing notes and observations. The group found contradictory statements by police and witnesses, glaring holes in the investigation, and identified how the evidence actually pointed to Ramon’s innocence, rather than guilt. The group then processed that material into a list of “Ten Evidence Based Reasons That Prove Ramon’s Innocence.” The list also came with a request from Ramon and the family – to conduct a polygraph. Though generally not admissible in court, a passed polygraph can be used when the defense attorney is in discussion with the prosecutor. The attorney followed the family’s wishes and ordered the polygraph. Ramon passed the polygraph – twice. The lawyer then met with the prosecutor, presented his material (which included the findings of the family and community) plus the two passed polygraphs. After six months of detainment, the prosecutor then asked the judge to release Ramon, and dropped the charges, “due to insufficiency of the evidence.” t termined mily were still de for a fa s hi d an on est ased, Ram rney file a requ ce that After being rele He had his atto vi e. de l nc ga ce le no d in te s rarely gran to prove hi a ate e,” nc ce at no in of affirm ively st e “factual finding ’s name and record, and can th d te on on was gran can clear a pers was innocent all along. Ram e case said it al th that an individu d the attorney who presented had won. at an th e, e nc on part of of innoce factual finding in 25 years that he had been a e ed, and had was the first tim n he was arrest b back, he w er iv dr y er a deliv m his jo from his job as is efforts got hi Ramon was fired agement to get his job back. H Ramon is currently pursuing ren. an ful arrest. 12 to fight with m full time and raising his child tment for wrong ng ar ki ep or D w e lic Po se and he is Jo n ainst the Sa a civil lawsuit ag
OUt come