The victims’ descriptions of the gun that Brandy allegedly brandished are inconsistent. Arias and his girlfriend told the police they saw “a black gun with a round barrel.” However, Ray Monroy, the third victim sitting in the left rear passenger seat, described it as “a nickel-plated semiautomatic weapon with a square type barrel.” The district attorney’s office wasn’t able to produce Monroy as a witness at the preliminary hearing because he couldn’t be located.
Adrian Arias, the driver, couldn't positively identify Brandy at the preliminary hearing. So the prosecution has a shaky ID and inconsistent descriptions of a gun the police can't find. Why do they want to bring this case to trial? Even the judge at the preliminary hearing is puzzled.
Before sending the case to trial, Judge James O. Perez, who presided over the preliminary hearing, questioned whether the prosecution would be able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence it has.
“The burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in evidentiary hearings,” explained Judge Perez, who added, “If I were sitting in the jury, I wouldn’t vote for a conviction.”
Brandy should not be exposed to the risk of 25 to life on such meager evidence.
Since getting out of prison, Brandy has worked to change his life, dedicate himself to his family and help at-risk teenagers make the right decisions. ...
“Even a judge saw the lack of evidence in my husband’s case,” said [his wife] Raeleen Taylor Brandy, a behavior therapist for delinquent juveniles. “He’s never owned a gun in his life.”
Three strike laws compound the tragedy of wrongful convictions. Let's hope the prosecution decides to drop the charge before it goes to trial.
