forums

Bryan Pata case update - upcoming bond hearing for Jones

Advertisement
Advertisement
JeddTheFisch said:
Oh, I believe he's very much involved here, don't get me wrong. But I'm going to follow the testimony closely. Criminal juries like a connect-the-dots narrative.
Click to expand...
It’s a tough case. Based on what I was told by my old SAO contacts, the police were really hoping to get a confession upon his arrest and it didn’t turn out that way.
 
1. An eyewitness places Jones at the scene of the crime.

2. Jones has a motive to kill Pata.

3. Other witnesses testify that Jones possessed the type of gun that was used to kill Pata.

4. Jones doesn't have an alibi for the night of Pata's murder.

5. Witnesses claim that Jones has threatened Pata's life on several occasions.

6. Phone records provide evidence that Jones lied about his whereabouts and activities on the night Pata was murdered. And the records can place him at or near the scene of Pata's murder.

Jones is going to prison for the murder of Bryan Pata.
 
P-Tizzle said:
1. An eyewitness places Jones at the scene of the crime.

2. Jones has a motive to kill Pata.

3. Other witnesses testify that Jones possessed the type of gun that was used to kill Pata.

4. Jones doesn't have an alibi for the night of Pata's murder.

5. Witnesses claim that Jones has threatened Pata's life on several occasions.

6. Phone records provide evidence that Jones lied about his whereabouts and activities on the night Pata was murdered. And the records can place him at or near the scene of Pata's murder.

Jones is going to prison for the murder of Bryan Pata.
Click to expand...


1 through 6 may all be true.

But most jurors need to be spoon-fed, and tend to spit out their peas and carrots.

It's still going to be challenging to get a conviction.
 
Advertisement
P-Tizzle said:
1. An eyewitness places Jones at the scene of the crime.

2. Jones has a motive to kill Pata.

3. Other witnesses testify that Jones possessed the type of gun that was used to kill Pata.

4. Jones doesn't have an alibi for the night of Pata's murder.

5. Witnesses claim that Jones has threatened Pata's life on several occasions.

6. Phone records provide evidence that Jones lied about his whereabouts and activities on the night Pata was murdered. And the records can place him at or near the scene of Pata's murder.

Jones is going to prison for the murder of Bryan Pata.
Click to expand...
If he is being represented by a public defender then Jones is toast based on the above. However an excellent criminal defense attorney will make it very difficult to get a conviction.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
1 through 6 may all be true.

But most jurors need to be spoon-fed, and tend to spit out their peas and carrots.

It's still going to be challenging to get a conviction.
Click to expand...
getting a conviction is always a challenge, which I am certain you are aware of. The State must prove their case and that's the challenge. But 1-6, if they are true, Jones will be going to prison.
 
P-Tizzle said:
1. An eyewitness places Jones at the scene of the crime. strong

2. Jones has a motive to kill Pata. maybe

3. Other witnesses testify that Jones possessed the type of gun that was used to kill Pata. It's a very common firearm, but possibly strong.

4. Jones doesn't have an alibi for the night of Pata's murder. strong

5. Witnesses claim that Jones has threatened Pata's life on several occasions. weak

6. Phone records provide evidence that Jones lied about his whereabouts and activities on the night Pata was murdered. And the records can place him at or near the scene of Pata's murder. strong

Jones is going to prison for the murder of Bryan Pata. probably, but I wouldn't put my life savings on it.
Click to expand...
 
TheOriginalCane said:
True. But the eyewitness ID and the cell phone triangulation help.
Click to expand...
Both are circumstantial. Eyewitness ID only puts him in the vicinity, it's not eyewitness to the crime. Like Jedd said, this isn't that simple. His alibi and lying will be problematic, but remember that a conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt. A decent lawyer can paint reasonable doubt all over the place.
 
Advertisement
mcmachete said:
Both are circumstantial. Eyewitness ID only puts him in the vicinity, it's not eyewitness to the crime. Like Jedd said, this isn't that simple. His alibi and lying will be problematic, but remember that a conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt. A decent lawyer can paint reasonable doubt all over the place.
Click to expand...
yes, the State must prove their case and that is very difficult to do in a 15-year old murder case. But the alleged evidence that the State has is pretty strong considering its a 15 year old murder case.
 
Advertisement
mcmachete said:
Both are circumstantial. Eyewitness ID only puts him in the vicinity, it's not eyewitness to the crime. Like Jedd said, this isn't that simple. His alibi and lying will be problematic, but remember that a conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt. A decent lawyer can paint reasonable doubt all over the place.
Click to expand...


Wrong. The cell phone triangulation directly rebuts his claim of being at home that evening. It would be a circumstantial evidence thing if they were trying to establish something, such as "hey we are trying to prove you were here at X location", but it is a powerful piece of rebuttal evidence to a 15-year-long story as to where Jones was at the time the crime was committed (i.e., "you said you were at X location, but this evidence says that you were not, in fact, at that location").

As for the eyewitness testimony, sure. But, again, it is ALSO rebuttal of a long-standing "alibi" story. I don't think anyone has ever disputed the fact that there are no eyewitnesses to the actual crime itself. However, multiple pieces of evidence that contradict a 15-year old story about how he could not possibly have been at the scene of the crime? That is the type of stuff that can flip a jury to guilty. Not always, but it has been known to happen.

And I don't care if a lawyer can "paint reasonable doubt", the jury has to conclude that there is reasonable doubt. Some do, some don't. Lots of defense attorneys like to claim that they established reasonable doubt, but they don't unless the jury agrees. The jury, in and of itself, is very difficult to predict unless you've been in the courtroom during voir dire and the case itself, to evaluate and predict how the jury is reacting to certain evidence and arguments.

Non-lawyers often tend to make too much of words like "circumstantial" and "hearsay" and "reasonable doubt". Both circumstantial evidence and hearsay evidence are valid forms of evidence, and both have there inherent challenges and limitations. Plenty of people have been convicted based solely on circumstantial and/or hearsay evidence. This isn't Perry Mason, where a direct eyewitness appears at the last minute, or the "real killer" breaks down and confesses on the stand.
 
P-Tizzle said:
1. An eyewitness places Jones at the scene of the crime.

2. Jones has a motive to kill Pata.

3. Other witnesses testify that Jones possessed the type of gun that was used to kill Pata.

4. Jones doesn't have an alibi for the night of Pata's murder.

5. Witnesses claim that Jones has threatened Pata's life on several occasions.

6. Phone records provide evidence that Jones lied about his whereabouts and activities on the night Pata was murdered. And the records can place him at or near the scene of Pata's murder.

Jones is going to prison for the murder of Bryan Pata.
Click to expand...
Facts
 
From what I can gather the case is based mostly, if not completely on circumstantial evidence. And the law generally requires that before a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, the prosecution must exclude every theory of the crime other than the guilt of the accused. Its not easy to get a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence. I don’t know a lot about the case beyond what I have read, but it certainly seems like it’s all circumstantial evidence.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top