forums

Bryan Pata case update - upcoming bond hearing for Jones

JG14 said:
Not sure whats more pathetic. The detectives being so lazy to just say the witness is dead instead of doing their job, or the media continuing to release stuff like this days before a huge game for us
Click to expand...
Well, I usually never take up for ESPN, but if it wasn’t for them, this case would still be cold and the prosecution’s key witness would still be allegedly “missing.” Feels like ESPN cares more about the Pata family more than MDPD.

I’m sure the cynics will say that’s just because they want the negative story about Miami, but when ESPN first sued MDPD, I don’t believe they knew Jones was the suspect. And either way, this is still an innocent man’s life we’re talking about here, so I will stay focused on what important. I’ll never forget Bryan’s mother crying, years after the murder, about how there had been no updates in the case and she felt like he had been forgotten.
 
Advertisement
JG14 said:
Not sure whats more pathetic. The detectives being so lazy to just say the witness is dead instead of doing their job, or the media continuing to release stuff like this days before a huge game for us
Click to expand...
Sorry, release of the story had nothing to do with the upcoming game. What’s pathetic is a reporter found & knocked on the door of a witness authorities assumed was dead. Then, authorities pleaded with the reporter to share contact info on the presumed dead witness, who by the sounds of things is near senility & now probably a useless witness. Great detective work — by a female ESPN reporter.
 
The latest report is a major stain on the Miami-Dade police department.

But the police were likely lying (or are generally incompetent) about the witness for a reason. If a witness is dead and has made a prior statement, which the witness did not later contradict, the prior statement can be introduced at trial under the Unavailable Witness exception to the Hearsay rule. Obviously if a witness is dead, the witness is unavailable and the prior statement AND identification of Jones leaving the scene would be introduced as testimony. That is critical evidence for the Govt.
So they likely did a half-a*s search at best to find the witness.

Now that the witness has been found, he will have to be called at trial and the defense will be able to Cross examine him. Of course his prior statement can still be introduced to refresh his memory on the witness stand, but his senility will not look good to jurors.

I hope this makes sense, and if not, ask your questions and I will do my best to answer.
 
Last edited:
AtlAtty said:
The latest reporter is a major stain on the Miami-Dade police department.

But the police were likely lying (or are generally incompetent) about the witness for a reason. If a witness is dead and has made a prior statement, which the witness did not later contradict, the prior statement can be introduced at trial under the Unavailable Witness exception to the Hearsay rule. Obviously if a witness is dead, the witness is unavailable and the prior statement AND identification of Jones leaving the scene would be introduced as testimony. That is critical evidence for the Govt.
So they likely did a half-a*s search at best to find the witness.

Now that the witness has been found, he will have to be called at trial and the defense will be able to Cross examine him. Of course his prior statement can still be introduced to refresh his memory on the witness stand, but his senility will not look good to jurors.

I hope this makes sense, and if not, ask your questions and I will do my best to answer.
Click to expand...
Great points. It’s either extreme incompetence or they purposely didn’t want to find the witness. Not difficult locating folks today via public databases. Media outlets like ESPN contract with a number of database outfits, though surely authorities should have even better resources. Hard to explain why authorities assumed the witness was deceased,
 
AtlAtty said:
The latest reporter is a major stain on the Miami-Dade police department.

But the police were likely lying (or are generally incompetent) about the witness for a reason. If a witness is dead and has made a prior statement, which the witness did not later contradict, the prior statement can be introduced at trial under the Unavailable Witness exception to the Hearsay rule. Obviously if a witness is dead, the witness is unavailable and the prior statement AND identification of Jones leaving the scene would be introduced as testimony. That is critical evidence for the Govt.
So they likely did a half-a*s search at best to find the witness.

Now that the witness has been found, he will have to be called at trial and the defense will be able to Cross examine him. Of course his prior statement can still be introduced to refresh his memory on the witness stand, but his senility will not look good to jurors.

I hope this makes sense, and if not, ask your questions and I will do my best to answer.
Click to expand...

No lawyer. But why would his current senility matter relative to something that occurred 20 years ago where he gave testimony when he wasn't senile?
 
grover said:
No lawyer. But why would his current senility matter relative to something that occurred 20 years ago where he gave testimony when he wasn't senile?
Click to expand...
It does not technically matter, but to a jury his inability to remember the event may impact his credibility. Especially if the case is otherwise close or circumstantial.
But any logical person will reach the conclusion you just did and say, ‘who cares about what he remembers at age 81, lets go back to what he told the police at the time of the incident’.
But all in all, as a prosecutor it would be cleaner to not have to make the ‘pay attention to what he said back then as opposed to what he remembers now’ argument. And if he was actually dead or otherwise unavailable, then it is one less argument the prosecutor has to make.

What would be interesting to me (I’m nerding out as a lawyer now) would be if the prosecutor can convince the judge that the witness’ current senility effectively makes him an unavailable witness such that they would just have the police read his prior, uncontradicted statements, rather than having to parade a senile old man in as a witness. This is possible and not unprecedented.
 
grover said:
No lawyer. But why would his current senility matter relative to something that occurred 20 years ago where he gave testimony when he wasn't senile?
Click to expand...
He won’t be able to testify to what he said and the defense will say police made it up and declared him dead. Juries, especially in urban areas are often distrustful of police. Where is the trial?
 
AtlAtty said:
It does not technically matter, but to a jury his inability to remember the event may impact his credibility. Especially if the case is otherwise close or circumstantial.
But any logical person will reach the conclusion you just did and say, ‘who cares about what he remembers at age 81, lets go back to what he told the police at the time of the incident’.
But all in all, as a prosecutor it would be cleaner to not have to make the ‘pay attention to what he said back then as opposed to what he remembers now’ argument. And if he was actually dead or otherwise unavailable, then it is one less argument the prosecutor has to make.

What would be interesting to me (I’m nerding out as a lawyer now) would be if the prosecutor can convince the judge that the witness’ current senility effectively makes him an unavailable witness such that they would just have the police read his prior, uncontradicted statements, rather than having to parade a senile old man in as a witness. This is possible and not unprecedented.
Click to expand...
Could the defense argue the police/prosecution purposely didn’t want to locate the witness? Also how do you trust these guys? At the very least they’re incompetent fools, readily accepted that their key witness was and only to be found by a reporter. If they could so easily ***** this up, then where else were mistakes made & how can you accept anything they say.
 
3FW said:
He won’t be able to testify to what he said and the defense will say police made it up and declared him dead. Juries, especially in urban areas are often distrustful of police. Where is the trial
Click to expand...
The trial will have to be in Miami-Dade since that was the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. To your point about juries.
 
Advertisement
bacane said:
Could the defense argue the police/prosecution purposely didn’t want to locate the witness? Also how do you trust these guys? At the very least they’re incompetent fools, readily accepted that their key witness was and only to be found by a reporter. If they could so easily ***** this up, then where else were mistakes made & how can you accept anything they say.
Click to expand...
The defense will 1000% make your argument. The police wanted to frame this on Jones, even as ot go so far as to pretend a witness was dead, all so you would not have the benefit of seeking and hearing from the witness directly.

You and @grover and @3FW and @caneingville need to consider law school at some point. Your questions are perfect. My wife is a law professor. She would be impressed at how well you understand these complex issues.
 
Last edited:
bacane said:
Could the defense argue the police/prosecution purposely didn’t want to locate the witness? Also how do you trust these guys? At the very least they’re incompetent fools, readily accepted that their key witness was and only to be found by a reporter. If they could so easily ***** this up, then where else were mistakes made & how can you accept anything they say.
Click to expand...
That’s EXACTLY why I said last night why I don’t think they’ll ever be able to convict Jones. If you look at everything MDPD has done - or more accurately, NOT done - in this case, it is so clear a conviction was never a priority.

If you want to go deeper, Haitians are still oppressed in this community and we all know the history. Could very well be why here.
 
caneingville said:
That’s EXACTLY why I said last night why I don’t think they’ll ever be able to convict Jones. If you look at everything MDPD has done - or more accurately, NOT done - in this case, it is so clear a conviction was never a priority.

If you want to go deeper, Haitians are still oppressed in this community and we all know the history. Could very well be why here.
Click to expand...
Law school. 3 miserable years but it pays off afterwards.
 
AtlAtty said:
The defense will 1000% make your argument. The police wanted to frame this on Jones, even as ot go so far as to pretend a witness was dead, all so you would not have the benefit of seeking and hearing from the witness directly.

You and @grover and @3FW and @caneingville need to consider law school at some point. Your questions are perfect. My wife is a law professor. She would be impressed at how well you understand these complex issues.
Click to expand...
These two are the ideal jury members!
 
AtlAtty said:
Law school. 3 miserable years but it pays off afterwards.
Click to expand...
I loved law school. I think I was unique though. And I went to a school that had a very collaborative environment and was huge on public service, so it was mostly good people.
 
caneingville said:
I loved law school. I think I was unique though. And I went to a school that had a very collaborative environment and was huge on public service, so it was mostly good people.
Click to expand...
So you are a lawyer. Makes a lot of sense on a lot of issues.

Emory was cut throat. Not a good environment at all.
 
AtlAtty said:
Thank you for sharing your journey. It’s funny how lawyers are able to spot lawyers. I guess we are all trained similarly and it shows in how we react and respond.

I also hated law firms. I tried it for 1 1/2 years after thinking I had enough trials for a lifetime. But i hated billing hours, and more importantly, I did not find meaning in the work other than billing and trying to make money. So I went back to criminal law with all its warts. But at least I felt like I was having a tangible impact on lives, albeit in often tragic situations.

I was close to choosing Fordham as I knew I wanted to practice in a city and what better city than NYC. But this was in 1993, and the Olympics were coming to Atlanta in my graduation year, and living in Miami made me want a warm weather climate. So Emory worked out.

I’m sorry to read about the challenges with your pregnancy, but that is all the more reason I have such strong opinions on that issue which I won’t share here. And thank you for being a member, for a lot of reasons.
Click to expand...
Yes, so much, to all of this. I do miss going to court, and that was a hard part of making my transition out of traditional law practice, but it was one of the best decisions I ever made. And speaking of timing, this was right after the 2008 recession, so the legal market and pressure on all of us was just awful back then too.

I also have very strong opinions on the same issue, and did a lot of advocacy work in that area until I no longer could. Hoping to one day be able to get to the point where I am able to volunteer in a regular capacity again, because there is so much work to do and I am hugely passionate about it. Happy to talk if you ever want to.
 
Advertisement
CanefaninBuckeyeland said:
Be careful what you ask for. All he needs to do is win one and...
Click to expand...
He’s actually won a couple minor ones, which is impressive. In 16 years, my husband still hasn’t won one.

But I’m trying to train my son to be better than me. Isn’t that what we all want for our kids?
 
Back
Top