A man in San Francisco who spent six years in prison for a murder conviction was found Friday to have been framed by police and awarded $10 million in damages.

Jamal Trulove, 33, was imprisoned for supposedly murdering Seu Kuka in a public housing complex in 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The allegation stemmed from a witness account that Trulove shot Kuka in the back of the complex. Trulove was subsequently sentenced to 50 years in prison.

But Trulove’s conviction was overturned in 2014. A state appeals ruled that prosecutors had falsely asserted that the witness had been threatened and risked her life coming forward, the Chronicle reported.


Trulove sued the city for damages and accused authorities of pressuring witnesses. In February, a U.S. District Judge ruled that Trulove’s lawsuit against the city should go to trial.

A jury in Oakland unanimously decided on Friday that the two leading investigators in Trulove’s case had fabricated and withheld evidence against him that would have helped his case. The other two officers in the case were found to have not committed any wrongdoing, the Chronicle reported.

Trulove was reportedly in tears when the verdict was decided.

“It’s about time,” said Trulove’s lawyer. “Justice is not (merely) being acquitted for a crime you did not do. This was finally justice.”

Link

Those "investigators" should serve the remaining 44 years of the innocent man's sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Those "investigators" should serve the remaining 44 years of the innocent man's sentence.

In general population

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Those "investigators" should serve the remaining 44 years of the innocent man's sentence.

Not nearly harsh enough! Rope, tree.

Why should taxpayers continue to pay to keep these assholes alive? I am not remotely interested in what kind of treatment they might receive in prison, either. Throw millions more dollars away on that trash? Until this country gets back to he concept of prisons should be punishment instead of post graduate studies in criminality things are not going to improve.

The headline should have read "Crooked cops sentenced to life in prison", followed by the why of it.

I don't always trust those kinds of news stories to be factual. All I know is this: "IF THE GLOVE FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT".

Somewhat differing version: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/a...f-murder-6128811.php

and as a side note, regarding this quote from the news link on the original charges: " a jury convicted the 29-year-old former reality show contestant of first-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm." What kind of felony was he convicted with before this conviction I wonder? Plus, after getting a felony conviction, he's running around with a gun anyway. F him, he's lucky I wasn't on the jury. It the cops lied, then they need some jail time, but I suspect it's just the news being poor sources of info and Californians giving money to anyone who sues as usual.

But I could be wrong, in which case repeat felon Jamal here will be better able to defend himself with what's left of the $10 million bucks of taxpayer money next time they prosecute him. Without this convition, he evidently is still a felon. Now he's a felon with $10million extra bucks.

The good news for some of the citizens of Frisco is that every banger now in lockup will see the $10million payout as something they should try for as well. The huge $ the taxpayers will be paying to defend and settle with this parade of litigants is not the good news, just that all the jailhouse lawyers are buying new Porches and BMW's most likely as we speak.

If this under privileged public housing Ute was in fact crapped on by the cops, then that is truly wrong. But I'm not convicting the police for it because of a news story and some internet bantering.

quote:

Originally posted by jimb888:
I don't always trust those kinds of news stories to be factual. All I know is this: "IF THE GLOVE FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT".

Somewhat differing version: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/a...f-murder-6128811.php

and as a side note, re; original charges, " a jury convicted the 29-year-old former reality show contestant of first-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm." What kind of felony was he convicted with before this conviction I wonder? Plus, after getting a felony conviction, he's running around with a gun anyway. F him, he's lucky I wasn't on the jury. It the cops lied, then they need some jail time, but I suspect it's just the news being poor sources of info and Californians giving money to anyone who sues as usual.

But I could be wrong, in which case repeat felon Jamal here will be better able to defend himself with what's left of the $10 million bucks of taxpayer money next time they prosecute him.

That’s actually backwards. Cochran said “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”

Obviously, if he wasn’t the individual involved in the shooting, he wasn't caught with a gun. Mistaken identity. He might be a felon, but that does not mean he is guilty of the new offense, why they are so careful with a defendant’s record of priors.

quote:

Originally posted by jimb888:

If this under privileged public housing Ute was in fact crapped on by the cops, then that is truly wrong. But I'm not convicting the police for it because of a news story and some internet bantering.

Well, a news story, some internet bantering and the minor part about three judges overturning his conviction and a jury awarding him with 10 mil. He wasn't freed from prison and awarded that cash based only on a story in a newspaper.

There must have been some pretty reasonable evidence that justice was not served.

Is it unreasonable to think that any convictions resulting from those "investigators" should be opened up again to see how many others have been wrongfully convicted?

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:

quote:

Originally posted by jimb888:

If this under privileged public housing Ute was in fact crapped on by the cops, then that is truly wrong. But I'm not convicting the police for it because of a news story and some internet bantering.

Well, a news story, some internet bantering and the minor part about three judges overturning his conviction and a jury awarding him with 10 mil. He wasn't freed from prison and awarded that cash based only on a story in a newspaper.

There must have been some pretty reasonable evidence that justice was not served.

The jury in the damages trial “unanimously decided on Friday that the two leading investigators in Trulove’s case had fabricated and withheld evidence against him that would have helped his case. The other two officers in the case were found to have not committed any wrongdoing, the Chronicle reported.”

There are probably a few others who were convicted in that way, but you have to be able to show it, not just speculate.