Efren Cruz was wrongly convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. There were certain police who knew that someone else confessed to the crime but didn’t do anything during Cruz’s trial to bring this fact to light. You can read more about the Cruz case here: http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1080 Excepts: (pg 12) Detective Jesse Rose and Sergeant Don Knapp of the Santa Barbara Police Department conducted a lengthy taped in-custody interview of Gerardo Reyes on March 27, 2001. ——————— (pg 62) Taken in its totality, there is clearly more than a preponderance of the substantial credible evidence to prove that Gerardo Reyes, and not Efren Cruz, was the shooter in Lot 10 just after midnight on January 26, 1997. Mr. Cruz is, therefore entitled to the relief requested in his petition to the court. ——————- (pg 64) In addition, Bill Haney of the Ventura District Attorney’s Office, when apprised of the circumstances presented, engineered the operation and provided the resources to extract the evidence needed to shed light on what otherwise would have remained a miscarriage of justice. He did so even though the case was not an existing part of his caseload. It related to a crime that was not committed in his jurisdiction. He, and the other Ventura law enforcement officials involved, were motivated by the search for the truth. That search must be the primary goal of all who toil in the fields of the law. ——————— (pg 65) CONCLUSION AND ORDER Because the petitioner has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the substantial credible evidence that Gerardo Reyes was the shooter in Lot 10, the petition for writ of habeus corpus is hereby granted. Mr. Cruz’s convictions for second-degree murder and attempted murder, and the findings and special allegations and the sentencing related thereto are vacated and set aside. Penal Code Section 1485; Ex Parte Howe (1955) 135 Cal. App. 2d 604. Mr. Cruz is hereby ordered released on his own recognizance effective the date of this order, and is ordered to appear with counsel in Department 1 of the Superior Court on October 22, 2001 at 10:00 AM for further proceedings in this matter. ——————- Source: http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/decisions/default.asp

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *