Imagine this situation: you're being charged for a crime that took place 8 years ago. There's no physical evidence tying you to the scene of the crime. There's no fingerprints, no blood, no clothing fibers—nothing that would indicate you were within 100 miles of the crime. Additionally, there are no eyewitnesses that can place you there.
All the prosecution has is someone who claims he heard you talking about the crime, and a previous criminal record that bears some similarity to the crime that you're being charged with. This witness is a known liar, and even says falsehoods from the witness stand, but his testimony is accepted by the court.
Despite almost no evidence to prove your guilt, you receive a 60-year sentence.
This is the story of Ingmar Guandique, the man convicted of murdering Chandra Levy—a congressional intern who went missing in 2001 and whose body was found the following year.
Breaking the Rules to "Get the Bad Guy"
When the case against Mr. Guandique was being developed, the prosecutors knew that they had a weak case. All they had was the testimony of a jailhouse informant who insisted that he heard Guandique describing the murder in detail. The informant, Armando Morales, was the key to the prosecutor introducing Guandique's past crimes into the case.
Under normal procedures, using past crimes as evidence that a person is more likely to have committed the crime in question is barred. Juries form prejudices against repeat offenders too quickly—causing them to convict without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the details of Morales' testimony allowed prosecutors to use Guandique's past charges as evidence of modus operandi.
Because the whole case rested on Morales' testimony, his credibility needed protecting.
That's where the prosecution went wrong.
In trying to protect Morales' credibility, they did not disclose the names of the defense witnesses (much less any criminal background) until two weeks before trial. As a result, the prosecutors had 20 months to prepare their case using Morales' information, while the defense only had two weeks to research the witness' background.
Not only that, but the defense later found that Morales lied on the stand about certain facts in order to establish his credibility. The prosecutors were allegedly aware of these lies—and other of Morales' lies were easily refuted using information the prosecution had access to.
A Familiar Story from an Unfamiliar Place
Shows and movies about law enforcement present the justice system as a broken one—a system that lets guilty men go free too often, that makes it difficult for police officers and prosecutors to do their job. This picture implies that prosecutors are justified in bending the rules; after all, how else do you get "the bad guy"?
The issue is that the justice system only provides justice when you abide by the rules. If you have to use underhanded techniques or lies to "get the bad guy," then the system has failed. But what happens when you bend the rules for someone who might genuinely be innocent? Where is the line? Once prosecutors decide to cross the line against a suspect who is 'obviously' guilty, then it's not the jury who is deciding guilt—it's officers and prosecutors. An arrangement like that violates the rights our country is built on.
What we need to understand that defense attorneys aren't just fighting for the rights of criminals. They're fighting the rights of everyone. When Guandique's rights were violated during his trial—regardless of whether you think he's guilty—all of our collective rights were weakened. If the prosecutors broke the rules to get a conviction for him, what's to stop prosecutors to doing it to you?
It may make us uncomfortable. It may make us feel like we're "rooting" for the wrong guy. However, it's vitally important for everyone that we demand the government fight crime according to the rules. Bending the rules to serve justice might make for thrilling TV—but in real life, all it creates is a weak and vulnerable society.
Epilogue to the Story
Years after the conviction, Guandique's defense attorneys submitted their investigation into the prosecution team's conduct. The court quietly granted a retrial…and for reasons that have never been made publicly clear, the prosecutor's office dropped all charges against Ingmar Guandique. Their statement simply said in vague terms that they no longer had enough evidence to try him for murder.
In this case, a single investigation is what separated the man from a 60-year sentence and case dismissal.
