Reasonable Doubt

We heard from another juror today, and we thank those that have written us. The comments are very interesting and informative. This juror seemed to not understand reasonable doubt and related that the other jurors had the same problem. I think they misunderstood the instructions as we thought. Besides that, this juror said some things that shows that he or she was not paying attention to testimony and only listened to Gundy's interpretation of the testimony. In case there are others that could benefit, we will address these issues.
The juror never mentioned the three independent eye witness testimonies and what they said. Did they forget about it? Gundy never mentioned that in his closing, so may be they did. To remind everyone: the eyewitnesses described two short cholos with baggy pants and sweatshirts (one with a baseball cap). One tall person running in a different direction.(that was Miguel) They did not see a uniform at all which is what every one says that Dean wore. The eyewitnesses described Miguel and his clothes to a tee so how could they get the others wrong???? This corroborates Dean's testimony about Willie and Raffie.
This juror said that Gustavo Rivera described someone like Dean. Again, that is what Gundy said in his closing, but it is not fact. Gustavo Rivera described a shaved head and goatee. In the line-up of suspects, he picked Johnny Roy and Willie. He described seeing the suspect days later at a liquor store. He described Johnny Roys tattoo to a tee that Roy himself revealed in court. Also, days later, Dean was violated and locked up and was not around to be seen going into a store. Gustavo Riveras testimony backs up Dean.
This juror also said that he saw the outline of the blazer in the video and no one else said different. Was everyone afraid to disagree with Gundy like in the tale of the Emperors New clothes? None of us saw the Blazer and it is our car. We found that video for the first trial and introduced it. The video expert showed all areas more up close and it became more obvious that no car was there. His whole staff never saw a Blazer. How can 12 people become so mesmerized by an actor that they are numb to what's before their own eyes? Other jurors have said something different than this one, but I guess they were not brave enough to speak up.
The jurors never mentioned the big question of why was there no victims blood in the blazer and why no suspects finger prints. This is all reasonable doubt.
Also, this juror said that he did not believe Dean's story of a bloody sneeze that would cause blood spatter. He would rather believe the made up scenario of Gundy and Dean shaking a bloody finger. Again, they did not listen to Dean's testimony but to Gundy's version of it. Dean said that he sneezed, which caused a bloody nose. He was driving and trying to stop the flow. As his hand gets bloody from that, doesn't it makes sense that he would shake the blood off and go back to trying to stop the flow? His bloody hands will touch many things in the car. He said that he had only one bloody nose that night, but then two days later had another one when driving for parts. Does the jury really think Dean is stupid enough if he was a killer, to wear a uniform that says Dean when gangbanging, and to get rid of bloody clothes, but not socks or shoes, and finally, when blood is in the car, to not totally clean it uP? COME ON!!!!!! An innocent man has nothing to hide, and acts like that. This is all reasonable doubt.
This juror also wished that there were phone records. There were at the first trial, but local calls are not listed. The juror also wondered about an alibi. (By the way, no one had one.)
Dean's father had been woken out of a dead sleep when the search happened. The officers asked him about Dean's whereabouts. He said three different things as he was trying to remember and then finally said that he could just not be certain. He did not know this search was really about a murder. He was tired and confused. The transcripts from that interview are inconclusive and so his testimony was never used. He remembers cars and customers like a computer, but anything else; his brain gets rid of. Dean did not have to prove his alibi though but Gundy still brought it up in closing which was a low blow.
Also, in Deans testimony, he said that he wore long baggy shorts, the night that the sweatshirt fell on him, not long pants. Again, Gundy mis represented the facts in closing.
This juror was very helpful, because he confirmed that the jurors only listened to Gundy's superb dramatic closing arguments and then went in and decided. They deliberated for three hours and that is not enough time to view all the things that they should have.
They can be in denial, but there will be some that can admit they got it wrong and did not apply reasonable doubt and were led by some one. Guilt will happen later, but then it might be too late to help Dean.
All of the above is what is called reasonable doubt. There was overwhelming reasonable doubt, not overwhelming evidence against Dean. But thank you juror for letting us know your thoughts. It showed us ignorance of the law and that you mainly heard only the prosecutor and that is probably from your bias going in. We hope more jurors respond.

News Flash

Unbelievably, we have heard from some jurors. What they have to say is very interesting and gives us hope. I would like to tell more, but they want to remain anonymous for now. We had no idea that this blog was being read by others besides family and friends. It has been cathartic for us to express our feelings. We want to remain healthy and holding things in is bad for ones health and well being.
We will keep this updated as our life continues. If any of you want to add comments, you can blog or e-mail Andrea at the address on the blog.

We won't stop fighting!

I was shocked to listen to the D.A. recite each witness' words as if he were repeating their testimony when in fact he was telling his own lies. Lies to fit his own story. When the witness from the uniform company was first interviewed, he was able to easily recall from his own notes on an invoice that Dean's uniform had been returned. In his own writing, he marked "RETURN" and coded the invoice for a return. Later he was interviewed by the D.A.'s office and all of the sudden he couldn't recall if the uniform had been returned. When he testified he suggested that the "return" code COULD be a "credit" code, leaving his answer vague. He claimed that the company could give a "good customer" a credit without a return. I know why he changed his testimony, it was obvious to me. If the company felt they had such a "good" customer then why did they charge them for the missing uniform to begin with and why did it take over 3 weeks for them to issue a credit? Well, the D.A. later referred to the testimony claiming that the receipt was marked with a "credit" code not a "return" code. Merely a play on words? That was NOT the testimony! I am sure the Uniform Account Rep was careful in his selection of words to avoid the truth. More disgusting was how the D.A. repeated that it was definitively a credit code, over and over he restated the testimony to his advantage with this witness as with many others that took the stand. The D.A. and his fine tuned art of testi-lying! There have been a lot of cases across the nation where cops and prosecutors are being caught in their lies.

When does "winning" become more important than the truth? There were so many lies told by the D.A. it made me ill to watch. The actual murderers that testified against Dean told so many different stories yet they were never charged with perjury. Instead, the D.A. said THIS time they were telling the truth and he knew that because he made a deal with them and if they lied then the contract or deal would become null and void. Give me a break! Well, we won't give up without a fight. WE LOVE YOU DEAN!

Contact Information

To whom it may concern:

I received some requests from individuals who would like to contact me. I do not have a problem with this. You can reach me at this email address: deanandrea08@gmail.com

Thank you all for your interest in Dean's case.

Andrea

Has healing begun?

We recently got a comment from an anonymous person which prayed for us and the victims family. She stated that maybe the victims family will start their healing. What some of you may not know is 1: Dean was friends with members of the victims family. In fact, he was almost the godfather of Miguels nephew Anthony. Dean felt very sad for Miguel and his family because he did not think that any one should be murdered or die alone. He is surprised that Miguels family and those who knew him ever believed the prosecution that he would kill Miguel, much less any one. 2. Miguels brother is now starting a trial where he is the defendant for a murder. Who knows if he is guilty or not. We no longer trust the investigators results. What is ironic is that his family now has to go through what we went through. I feel for them. This whole case has been a tragedy. I wonder how Miguels family feels that 3 of the murderers are free forever thanks to deals made by the prosecutor. May be they choose not to believe that.
I know their pain and pray for their strength. I definitely do not think any healing has begun.

Dean's Story

A snide comment that the prosecutor made has bothered quite a few people , so I will talk about it. After Dean finally got to tell his story on the record, the D.A. sneered and asked why he had never heard that story before and wow, Dean had 11 years to come up with it. Why hadn't Dean spoke of it before? First of all, Dean would have never talked to the D.A or his investigators after the treatment he got from the first trial. The first trial was so unfair, that the Orange County Apellate court overturned the verdict and said that Dean needed to have a new trial. Then, the D.A. kept delaying it, probably because his snitches were in prison. At the first trial, Dean's lawyer told him not to take the stand. He thought the lack of evidence would be suffice.
Even though the first trial was unfair in many ways, the jury still took 3 days to reach their verdict. We blamed it all on Dean not testifying. The letters in their entirety were allowed and the jurors got to understand Dean and that is state of mind was more about relationships, nature, helping people and his love of animals. This trial, Gundy stopped the letters from coming to the jury. He was allowed to take excerpts and twist them to make Dean seem violent.
Jeez, how many young boys and men have you heard say " I am going to kill that asshole, or I will drop kick him or I am going to blow him up" when they are mad. It is venting, not serious. But Gundy tried to make the jury believe that his macho talk was serious. Not allowing the rest of the letters in was terrible for Dean. This time, his new attorney said that he can testify and finally give the real truth on the record. The video tape and the eye witness testimony was not enough last time to set Dean free, so this time he told his story. For the prosecutor to demean it, and act like to the jury that it was new and contrived was another low blow. It is too bad that there are so many people in this world that so readily believe the negative before the positive.
The jury wanted to believe the prosecutor because isn't he the good guy in society? He puts away criminals. So whatever he said whether it was a lie or mis representation or exaggeration, they believed. This mentality is what we are fighting with the jury system. They can't see past their own biases. A professional jury system would make it more difficult for the prosecutors to win every case, so I think it will be a long time before we have that. Juries also do not understand the power that the D.A.'s office has. They have a large staff for homicide cases, and Gundy had numerous people doing his power points, and locating photos, witnesses, and such.
The budget is limitless. Meanwhile, most defendants canot afford an attorney with a limitless budget. A defendant cannot offer deals and money to witnesses and informants. The power is all on the prosecutors side. It is difficult for a defendant to fight that. Dean also was put in jail for his trial by an underhanded move by the D.A. . Because of this, he could not fight and help from the out side. He also could not come into court every day looking rested and clean shaven.
Dean had been out on bail for 4 years with no problems. He was looking forward to telling the truth to a jury. He still trusted people that they would not put away so lightly a man to life in prison. It is still so shocking that the proof of Dean's innocence was ignored. All the D.A really had was testimony of the informants. Nothing else supported his case. He knew that, and that's why he used every underhanded trick in the book to try and win. It worked with this shallow jury.
I know all of you in Europe are especially dismayed. We really do not have the best legal system in the world. It was designed to be great, but power and politics get in the way. I think Canada and Great Britain are way better. We are better than dictatorships though. That doesn't say much.

another comment

Just think all you potential attornies out there; if you want to be a good trial attorney, take acting classes. If both attornies are good actors, then the jury really has to decide on the evidence, not the oscar. It seems that many jurors are basically lazy and just want to agree and fawn over the best actor. It is amazing how a life was decided on acting, not evidence.
I think about that during my day. How did our society get that way? How can we change? How can we get professional jurors that understand jury instruction and the law and know not to react to dramatics? Can it happen in my lifetime? I do not think so. The people who live on the edge and associate with law breakers are in danger of ruining their lives forever. That is the lesson that Dean's case can teach. Be careful when you are young with who you associate with, because once you get in the justice system, you are doomed. Law enforcement does not care, District attornies do not care and jurors do not care. The system is a political game. How frustrating. The jurors who get out of jury duty are the ones who should be jurors. They are smart. We need jurors who understand reasonable doubt and who will represent the defendant in the jury room.