Jurors Reach Verdict in Juarez Murder Trial

WOW, looks like another gang banger got away with murder. Good thing Santa Barbara does not have a gang problem.

Wow, looks llike the jury did not buy the DA's weak case. From the start Dozer and the DA's office has used this case as a publicity stunt to reassure Santa Barbara that they are serious about the gang problem. Because this crime was comitted on State Street in full view of "respectable" Santa Barbara, the DA felt that this was the time to make a statement. Starting with trying a child as an adult (he had just turned fourteen) and demonization of Juarez, the DA's office was setting themselves up for failure. Thank god that the twelve jury members were able to see through the hype and made their decison based on the evidence. This was clearly as case of manslaughter and that verdict was correct. It was a good day for justice in Santa Barbara.

Although a manslaughter conviction by definition is not murder, using the phrase "another gang banger got away with murder," while technically correct does not mean he "got away" with anything.

It was proven he killed another human, and he will be charged accordingly.

A successful case for the prosecution.

Murder and manslaughter are similar, the primary difference being malice aforethought. It is often hard to prove murder during a fight, just hard to draw the nexus between a spontaneous action (the fight) and a pre-planned act in the mind of a jury. But I congratulate the DA for the win. I also think that trying for a 1st degree conviction was right. I think it was there; proven some of the suspect’s actions as reported here in the Indy. The jury might have latched on to a different notion somewhere along the way tho.

I think there should be a special provision for juvenile gang members, let them all be tried as an adult, especially when they are convicted of 186.22 of the penal code (acting for a gang).

To say that the DA’s case was weak is just ignorance, or you are part of the defense (or most likely a combination of both). After all the DA did win, didn’t he? You apparently don’t know much about how cases are tried.

In the NO,
I actually know much more about this case than you think I do. But guess what? We are just posting on the Independant and our opinions have equal merit. If you asked the DA if they won, if they were being honest they would say no. The defense agreed that Juarez participated in the attack but that the fatal blow was struck by "the other Ricardo". The defense was hoping for not guilty on first degree murder and they won. If justice failed in this case it is because the DA's office dropped the ball by not investigating the real killer in this case, "the other Ricardo". "The other Ricardo" will be out on the streets of Santa Barbara in a few years because, in their rush to judgement and desire for good P.R., the DA's office went only for Juarez and thought they could hoodwink the jury into thinking that he was the only killer. Do you feel safer now?

You repeat your same rhetoric over and over in your postings; can’t you come up with something new? Do you just cut and paste? The defense tried for a convenient “the kid’s name is the same as mine defense” it is in tune with an OJ defense. Just try and confuse the jury or anything. They had eye witness accounts that Juarez stabbed Linares. He confessed that he stabbed him. All that the jury had to come to a conclusion about was premeditation. If you think the DA lost because of that then you are pitifully wrong. You don’t know much except what you read about here, you would do well to try and educate yourself on the matter that you post about. But then again I’m fearful that I am trying to debate someone that thinks that a play on my screen name is cute, what are you 12?

Do you know anything about the judicial process? About plea bargains? About pre-conference hearings? About how cases are tried or filed? About who investigates crime and then who tries them? If you seek these answers you might do well to build a base of knowledge to formulate an intellectual opinion on this subject.

If you believe that “Stomper” killed Linares then I guess you believe everything that the defense said. I suppose you believe OJ was innocent too.

In the No,
Put your strawman down. The OJ case was years ago and I really do not know what you are driving at. The DA lost this case, get over it. If he won this case, Juarez would have been convicted of murder in the first degree. Is that simple enough for you? On this very board, months ago I commented about how weak the DA's case was. Many commenters then said that I knew nothing about the law..bla.. bla ..bla. But guess what? I was correct. The jury simply did not buy Dozer's story that this was a premeditated murder. They used their common sense and the law to come to the conclusion that it was in fact manslaughter. I know the law, what ever your real name is and guess what your ad hominem arguments are just as weak as your strawman. Peace out.

Hmmm, if the defense won then why did Juarez get found guilty? Why did they plead him “not guilty” at the beginning?

Congratulations you have a thesaurus and looked up personal attack and false ideology. You whooed me with your abilities, gosh you must be right since you use nickel words. Maybe you should look closer; a “straw man” (note two separate words) is not an object to be put down. It is an ideology. This is funny because you are the one that has the principles wrong here.

“On this very board, months ago I commented about how weak the DA's case was.” Hmm the case has been going on for 9 weeks. So if you did as you say then how did you know about the merits of the case that wasn’t presented yet? How did you know what the DA’s case was going to be or its strengths? Are you in the public defender’s office? You misuse and ignorance of legal terms and concepts would suggest so.

And by the way your comments are saved. Never once did you say that the DA had a “weak case”. All that you commented on was speculation and opinion, and then you got flamed by others and spent a great deal of time firing back like a 5 year old in a “is so – is not” argument. Review your past comments it is easy click on your hyperlink. Can you spell “L-I-A-R”.

My point is, is that I disagree with you. If the jury came back with a “not guilty” verdict then yeah, the DA lost. To say that he lost because the jury chooses a lesser included offense is just being ignorant, an act that you embrace at doing.

The opinions of InTheKnow and Greenspan are interesting, but what bothers me is how the young gang members and wanna-be gangsters are taking this verdict -- as a win, a loss, a deterrent, encouragement???

I suppose it matters what the sentencing is. Here in SB, we've had convicted felons get off really easy.

glad to see this punk getting some type of justice not what he should have gotten but justice non-the-less. Greenspan give it up the Defense lost!!! don't believe go check out the interview with Atkins that Palminteri did, it's on keyt.com! she was aiming for assault with a deadly weapon yet he was found guilty of manslaughter, this holds a lot longer punishment than assault w/ deadly weapon. It was the defense who had a weak case based on the "it was my evil twin brother with the same name who killed him" defense! The defense's job is so much easier than a prosecutor's, the prosecutor must prove without a reasonable doubt that this person committed this crime while all the defense has to do is show reasonable doubt, which is usually quiet easy when the person is innocent but we all know that Juarez was not innocent and the jury saw it too!

I hope this is at least some consolation for the Linares family knowing that the punk that killed their son is going to be locked up for 14 to 22 years!!! At least a minimum amount of justice has been served for Angel, RIP Angel!

I heard Juarez faces 22 years max, which includes a mandatory 10 years for being a gangster. I sure don't call that winning!! HG's analysis smacks of loser ganster-criminal logic that "If I got away with anything, I got away with everything." I'm waiting for HG's intelligent analysis of yesterday's huge gang sweep directed at dozens of other gangsters. I'm sure most of them won't get the absolute maximum, so HG will have plenty more to celebrate!!

In the NO,
You are very confused about the logical fallacy called the straw man. It is not an idology. Where did you get that? Lemme hep ya. From Wikipedia":A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]"

You reference to OJ was a classic example of this very flawed approach. The last phrase of your rant simply left me laughing. You said" To say that he lost because the jury chooses a lesser included offense is just being ignorant, an act that you embrace at doing." You must be a lawyer. My advice for you is to brush up on your writing skills, I hear that Adult Education has some excellent courses.

In response to the last poster. The massive crakdown by the SBPD and the Feds was the correct approach to the criminal activities of the East Side Gang. It also shows that Cam Sanchez knows what has to be done to stop this type of criminal. I can only hope that there will be more of these sweeps.

One of the most important pieces of advise that my father told me was "you can't argue with a moron".

I can't argue with you HG you make no sense in your posting. I will take relief in knowing that others (who have posted here) share my view point and find you equally as annoying and ignorant.

Give it up, the defense lost and the prosecution won. I don't know what agenda you are trying to push but you also lost.

And funny that you mention Adult Ed classes, you should sign up. ideology isn't spelled "idology" (you must watch plenty of TV) and glad to see you can google or use Wikipedia, you must be smart!!!!

In any case, this young Latino male will be allowed to train his violent tendance towards others in the Training Centers of Justice. Our Jails and Prisons are training grounds where older, more seasoned 'GangBangers' are giving classes in Home-Invasion, Improvised Weapon Making (I.W.M.), Murder and Rape, and Grand-Theft_Auto (G.T.A.). This Young, Mexican National, Latino, will train in our Jail or Prison with Wieght lifting equipment, the best tutors in the school of "hard-knocks" and will graduate a product of his ethnic environment. Since the Political Correct (PC) Mayor and Police Chief would have you believe that this (Suspected Illegal Gang-Banger) member of our Latino Community would be cleansed of his affiliation with Foriegn associations in crime, the reallity is that he will be schooled on becoming a more violent and blood-thirsty killer, who's only goal is to subugate the rest of his community and feed off of their hard work and sweat. Let us NOT forget, he recieved JUSTICE and the fallen Gang-Banger of this Felon, will be remembered as a Martyr by his Latino Gang affiliated Brothers and Sisters, who will carry on their fallen comrade-in-arms name the next time they commit another violent crime.
They after all, are only a product of their ethnic enviornment, which is to promote the Gang Violence in sleepy, little Santa Barbara.