Louie Sanchez and Marvin Norwood were recently charged with the beating of Bryan Stow on opening day of the baseball season in the Dodger Stadium parking lot. Mr. Stow remains hospitalized today, but is reportedly showing signs of improvement after four months in and out of a coma.
There are defenses to crimes of assault, such as "self-defense," but given the evidence that Stow was hit in the back of the head initially, that one probably isn't going to fly. Leaving what appears to be two remaining defenses for the suspects: "the co-defendant did it," and "neither one of us did it."
"The co-defendant did it" is a risky defense in this situation, since it requires putting the client at the scene. Putting a client at or near the scene raises the possibility that the jury might have no sympathy or mercy for someone who was anywhere near such violence, or cause them to think "he must have had something to do with it." It also increases the possibility that the prosecution could prove "aiding and abetting," which means that even if one defendant perpetrated the crime, if the other defendant aided, facilitated, promoted, encouraged, or instigated in any way, he can be convicted of the full crime as if he were the perpetrator. Because of the obvious risks here, attorneys should not put their clients at the scene unless boxed in by the evidence to the point they would lose credibility with the jury by NOT doing so.
In the Bryan Stow case, however, the police themselves have paved the way for a very solid "neither of us did it" defense. They did this by attempting to poison the jury pool for the previous suspect they arrested for this crime, Giovanni Ramirez. On May 26, 2011, once Mr. Ramirez had been arrested for the Stow beating, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck stated that he was "absolutely" confident that police had the right suspect. In fact, he stated it even more specifically than that; "Absolutely . . . I am as sure as you need to be to make an arrest and pursue a prosecution."
If the Chief was that sure, then surely the detectives and investigating officers on the case were similarly sure. But police were later forced to release Mr. Ramirez based on a lack of evidence. Now that two other suspects are being held for the same crime, how much credibility does LAPD have in asserting they have the right people in custody? Are they sure? As sure as they "need to be?"
What happened here was the police were under pressure to make an arrest in a case that was receiving state and national news coverage. When they rushed to arrest Mr. Ramirez, they realized there were some serious holes in their case, so Mr. Beck went public to say he was "sure," in order to assure the community (and a future jury?) that trust us, there's no doubt we have the right guy. In doing so, they have laid the groundwork for a strong defense for the new suspects. A good defense attorney in this situation will take the police's case against Mr. Ramirez and use every reason, every piece of evidence, every public statement about being "sure" by the Chief and the other officers staffing the case, and use it to create doubt about their own client's guilt.
We hope the perpetrators of the crimes against Mr. Stow are taken off the streets, as there is no place in our society for that kind of brutality. But the public and jury that is ultimately assembled to hear the evidence against Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Norwood should approach this case starting from a position of doubt about their guilt, and with zero confidence that the police have arrested the right people
