E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe California Supreme Court on Monday overturned the conviction of one of L.A.'s most notorious gang leaders.
Cleamon "Big Evil" Johnson, who police say committed or ordered 20 murders during the 1980s and early 1990s, was convicted in 1997 of ordering the deaths of two men as they sat at a car wash across the street from his parents' South Los Angeles home.
Read the original story at NBC Los Angeles
His co-defendant, Michael Allen, was also convicted, and the two were sentenced to death.
At the trial, prosecutors argued successfully that Johnson, a onetime boy scout who became a leader in so-called 89 Family Bloods gang, ordered the murders of the two men as a rite of passage for a new member.
They called him one of the most cold-blooded killers in the city, with more notches on his belt than Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker serial killer.
But the Supreme Court voided the conviction Monday, saying the judge in the case improperly dismissed a juror who may have been planning to vote against a guilty verdict.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, the court said that jurors at the time feared that Juror No. 11, who was not named, had prejudged the case based on his opinion about one of the witnesses.
The witness, Carl Connor, had said that he saw the murder, but records showed that he was clocked in at work at the time.
MSNBC TV: True prison stories on 'Lockup'
"Connor explained that he and a coworker, 'Jose,' often clocked in for each other, so the records would indicate they were at work when in fact they were not," Corrigan wrote in her opinion.
Juror 11 didn't believe this explanation and said the reason was that he didn't think Hispanics were likely to lie at work.
His fellow jurors took this and other comments to mean that the juror had reached an opinion that was not based on evidence, and he was released from service by the judge.
The dismissal was not appropriate because there was no clear evidence that the juror had prejudged the case, the Supreme Court said.
It was not immediately clear what would happen next to Johnson and Allen. A spokeswoman for California Attorney General Kamala Harris said it was up to Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley to decide whether to re-try the two men.
More news and feature stories from msnbc.com:
Leave a Comment:
If your nickname is Big Evil, you probably need to be jailed.
I think the actual incarceration was due to his penchant for murder...Not his nick-name...
"If your into evil, your a friend of mine" AC/DC
*you're
I think the nickname was because of how he smelled. He's so badass that he doesn't shower. No deoderant either. He's too ghetto to get Jiggy with soap. They should have jailed him solely for that.
Yes...Antelopes is correct...It is You're...The two words would be you are...My bad...But in rock and roll...Do they really care?
;)
Rock on my friends...Rock on!
Typical response from the libtards in California.
Of course, if it were a white man on trial and a juror made similar remarks in favor of caucasians he would be branded a racist and the moonbat judges would agree.
KILOBYTE1339- Chase reality. It is escaping from you.
Life is so cheap. So, so cheap.
reality, escaped KILOBYTE1339???, that's one chip that never had a clue!
Why did they throw in the fact that he was in the Boy Scouts? Are we to look fondly upon him for that? Or are we to be shocked that a former Boy Scout could end up not becoming an Eagle Scout?
What is the relevance of even bringing it up?
What a crock. All judges should have to pass a psychological evaluation before being allowed to sit on the bench--even a park bench.
There you go California spend more money you do not have trying a case for the same result because of lawyers and judges.
YUP!!! Just what we need more murders free on the streets. Do society a favor and eliminate them.
Typical American Justice. If you and I were to blast the fool in the head when he came at us to murder us, a judge would serve us jail time for self defense.
Judges have one priority... making money for the county. You'd think Justice would be a priority, but no.
THEY ARE SCUM!
You hit the nail right on the head there Master Benjamin Gates and those words are just fact.
Johnson and Allen will probably be released and each given a million dollars for every year they unjustly served behind bars. Isn't that the way our system is set up?
They would have to show by clear and convincing evidence that they are factually innocent of the crime. That is a very high burden to meet and the likelihood of meeting that burden of proof is virtually nil. At best, all they can hope for is a new trial, or the DA deciding not to re-try the matter. Just because there is no new trial, does not they are factually innocent. They would have to meet that burden of proof in a court hearing.
Yeah really, I am sure this is a strong deterrent to other scum bags. These guys get how much taxpayer $$$$ every year in prison to take care of them? Bring back ol' Sparky for them, and the rest of the murderers in the California gangs. California's legal system is a joke and a lot of other states aren't much better.
Boojiboy
I guess we can all toss out the old axiom of "being innocent until PROVEN guilty" based on your statement.
The legal ignorance of those who have written on this blog is truly stunning. Due process of law, including setting aside a conviction because of the erroneous exclusion of a juror because he was leaning toward a verdict of innocence, is the bedrock of criminal law. When we abandon due process of law to support summary executions by electrocution or otherwise (sparky? how cute!) or criticize judges for following the law as required by the Constitution or require them to take psychological tests (to find out what, pray tell?), we will have anarchy.
So many angry bloggers with harsh opinions that are so poorly informed as to mock justice.
Michael L. Marowitz
If the system is BROKEN, replace it.
If the death penalty doesn't deter people killing people, nothing will. Your statement is moot.
Some people just don't care what punishment may result from their actions. They are going to do it no matter what.
@ M. L. Marowitz
Bravo! I've been reading in utter shock.
Folks your comments bring all new meaning to the saying "opinions are like a$$holes everyones got one and most of them stink".
NYMike,
Your words are the same that many millions of Americans would say and I am one to agree. Based on this conclusion that F'kers like these sitting in our prisions are nothing but worthless beings.
Void of compassion, sympathy, or empathy for other so I say execute them all they are nothing but trash not even worthy to be called human.
And yes I am a white, gun packin, suburbinite!
Follow the money...
Like politics, the legal system is broken.
I thought the judge would release him because the temperature was only 70 degrees during his trial.
this monster is even below the slime st the base of river he deserved to die decades ago I guess we are supposed to believe that he is now a changed man FRY the SOB!
Typical California panzy-ass judges. Our legal system is so f'd up I can't beleive what I'm reading. How do these idiot judges come up with this stuff? Truth really is stranger than fiction. There's no way fiction writers could make this crap up.....
That ain't pre-judging? Our Supreme Court is BROKE.
Not typical "American" justice either. typical california liberal cant see a redwood tree right in front of me stupidity.
Ah yes, because of course it's a sign of stupidity when the courts actually try to make sure that the rules and regulations governing how people are tried and convicted is a terrible thing.
Tell me, is it worse to let a guilty man go free or execute someone for a crime he didn't commit?
This guy was convicted of 2 counts of murder but is believed to have been responsible for dozens. Even if the state doesn't go for a retrial, they can always charge him with some of the other crimes he's accused of committing; in fact, this is one of the reasons that prosecutors don't try to go after every single charge they could in a criminal case, it gives them the opportunity to charge him with something else in case a judge rules there was an error committed during the trial.
Meanwhile, we have other people sitting on death row in places like Texas and, oh yes, even California who were pretty obviously falsely convicted, but nobody seems to care about that.
Oh, and the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent against crime. If it did, we wouldn't have so many people sitting on Death Row
Actually, I think if they were "pretty obviously falsely convicted" then they wouldn't be there. There are some where there is a doubt, but I know of none where the person has shown themselves innocent and they remain on death row. Once convicted, the burden is then to prove innocence.
Therapsid, you just destroyed your own supposition. " so many people sitting on death row". It takes up to 15 years for a death sentence to be carried out. Cut the chase to one apppeal, and the throw the switch. With all the forensics and dna tests available, very, very few, if any wrong convictions will occur.
And when thugs realize they will be gone and done in two years or less, maybe then it will deterr. if they were ' falsley convicted", the aclu would be beating down the court room doors. Not happening.
Convicted in 1997...is now 2011. Hmmm? Don't we have something better to do today Judge?
No prejudice above. What a line of crap.
Let's vote in some more friggin liberals judges and politicians so we can "feel good."
I actually do long for the day of the Colt 45 and some instant justice. We have to many California "fruits and nuts" in the US.
To make it worse they have spread across the borders. And I don't mean the North and South borders, it is the east and west borders of our states that they live in. And they breed and vote.
I do not understand this kind of thought process.
And I long for the day when pathetic imbeciles with small penises will come to realize that shooting guns is a demonstration of failure by human beings to use the reasoning capacity with which they are endowed. Your brand of instant justice is called anarchy, Bill.
I imagine you don't understand a lot more "kinds of thought processes."
Hey, Markowitz, perhaps you''ve forgotten that it was men with big balls and guns that settled this country so's pitiful twits like you can babble your "I WILL NOT" take responsibility for myself" crap. And it was real men with big balls and guns that kept you from speaking german. If you would be speaking at all.
beeman...Marky's a bleeding heart leftist -- look at his pedigrees -- Golden Gate (San Fran) and Stanford (the Harvard of the Left Coast). Bet he's a criminal defense reptile -- er, lawyer. My wife's a 1986 grad of the University of IL law school, and recently retired as a Cook County, IL felony prosecutor after 33 years. She never considered herself a "lawyer" and hates to be labeled as such. She spent her career putting pond scum like Johnson away and attended more than one injection. Unfortunately, one of our previous scum-bag completely corrupt governors, George Ryan (he's doing time, thank goodness, and hopefully will die in prison) commuted the death sentence of all prisoners as one of his last official acts before he left office -- another pussified liberal.
These witnesses better start watching their backs.
A typical example of how our justice system is anything but. They care about nonsensical issues of protocol more than they do about keeping a ruthless murderer, who no-one can even begin to believe for a moment might not have committed the crime, from walking the streets. Probably the dismissed juror wanted to vote not guilty on some similarly trivial basis, and the judge had the sense to get rid of him before he could pull a fast one. We should make the Supreme Court stay overnight in Big Evil's neighborhood with no security, let them decide whether they've made the right call here.
Lots of wild anger but very little legal understanding. "They care about nonsensical issues of protocol. . . ." And what qualifies you to render a legal opinion that the justice system/judges care about mere nonsensical issues of protocol when reversing a the conviction? Isn't the trial judge, who you believe was entitled to kick the juror off the jury, part of the very justice system that you claim "is anything but" a justice system? Do you know that every juror is entitled to his/her opinion as to the state of the evidence presented at trial and to have his/her opinion respected, and it's not up to a trial judge to jettison a juror from a jury because the judge believes the juror might vote not guilty for any reason, even a trivial one.
We should make you attend law school before you continue writing nonsense about legal justice in the United States.
Michael L. Marowitz, J.D. (Cum laude graduate, Golden Gate University School of Law, 1978), J.S.M.(Master's Degree in Law, Stanford Law School,1981).
Mr. Marowitz, as a JD/JSM, you should be aware by now of your error in making a hasty judgment - at least, based on the facts presented in the article above. You and I - and most "common" citizens - are well aware that the critical issue in this matter is when (at what point of the trial) the juror was making such comments. That critical fact is not made clear by the article. However, as we both know, if the juror made "this and other comments" prior to the initiation of jury deliberation, then that juror was in violation of the judge's orders to refrain from discussing the case (the evidence, testimony, etc.) with other jurors or with anyone else, and in fact could and should have been dismissed upon that basis alone. I cannot believe a judge would dismiss a juror who was expressing his opinion(s) during deliberations (but I could be wrong - I am not familiar with this particular case), as such would be so obvious an error on the part of the judge. If deliberations were indeed underway in this case, and the affected juror was dismissed during deliberations, the CSC acted wholly within the law to overturn the convictions obtained as the result of the judge's tampering with the jury. However, based on the facts presented above, the reports of that juror's comments apparently were made to the judge prior to the jury being authorized to deliberate the case, while the case was being presented to the court.
Maybe he will run for governor.
This is nuts. Talk about 'finding a way...' Thanks judge.
With a name like "Big Evil", i imagine this isn't first (or last) run-in with the legal system. The only contributions "Big Evil" is likely to make to society, are in the sales taxes being created by all the purchases(ha) of guns and ammo for his "crew", and the overtime generated for the L.A. coroners office. I say if he's already incarcerated, keep him there.
Sorry sosidecop64, you are way wrong. You see, there is no sales tax on stolen guns. Garbage like him is too stupid to earn a legitimate living but is still smart enough to know he can't get legal weapons...except through the BATF and the DOJ.
I guess they will have to let Manson out because he never killed anyone others he controlled did.
now maybe the people he was accused of killing will return from the dead.....justice my behind
Most Judges should recuse themselves from the bench.
Maybe they should cut their state budget at the court system like San Fran. did. That way they lay off these Judges in L.A. and save the city from themselves and protect the masses. Can america be so lucky.
We have been told for years that california was going to slide off into the sea, now would be a great time for that to happen.
Yesterday would've been better !!!
Why do I have to pay $55k a year in taxes to house Big Evil after they spent millions trying him and housing him? The whole system is broken. We need to get back to the old cowboy days where they hang them for far less than murder and they do it the Friday after the guilty verdict is in.
Paleo,
You might find a little thing called a constitutional decision by the United States Supreme Court that makes imposition of the death penalty possible only in murder cases. Ya see, Paleo, the Supreme Court has stated in cases that taking of a human life is required before the death penalty may be imposed.
For example, in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that no matter how egregious, rape does not justify imposition of the death penalty because it doesn't involve the taking of a human life: "Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life. Although it may be accompanied by another crime, rape by definition does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person.13 The murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than that, does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair. We have the abiding conviction that the death penalty, which ‘is unique in its severity and irrevocability,’ Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S., at 187, 96 S.Ct., at 2931, is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human life." 433 U.S. at 598.
Without the taking of a human life, imposition of the death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment--excessive punishment. And just because you think it's time to go back to cowboys and Indians won't make it happen.
And secondly, Paleo, the Constitution also guarantees an appeal as a matter of right in every criminal case, and it's automatic whenever the death penalty is imposed. Hanging 'em on Friday after the jury returns its verdict would violate due process of law, Paleo. You're, of course, entitled to you opinions, as is any legal cretin.
Mr. Marowitz - I am shocked by your "uppity" attitude toward others regarding the law. While you may tire of ignorance, certainly you (of all people) should be aware that ignorance is an opportunity to teach - and not an opportunity to bully, humiliate or suppress. You are easily 10 - 15 years my senior, but your comments (and the tones thereof) lack maturity, wisdom, and forebearance. Save your technical arguments for the proper venue of such - and use them to improve the "system". That would be the proper way for an esquire to behave.
Just by reading the comments left by you two men it is very easy for me to see which of you is the more mature individual. Mr. Marowitz apprears to be more interested in putting others down than truely shedding any expert light he could on this case.
I would have to say Mr. Glenn by far has taken the "higher road" when it comes to morality!
Therapsid- you are a jackass.