Justice for Justin: Your Partner in Mental Health

Justin’s case began with an LAPD investigation that led to his arrest and prosecution. At trial, the prosecution relied heavily on police officers’ testimony about what they claimed to have observed, how Justin was identified, and the role they believed he played. Justin has consistently maintained that the officers’ account did not accurately reflect what occurred. Because that testimony became a central part of the prosecution’s case, its accuracy and reliability were essential to the jury’s decision.

After Justin’s trial, audio recordings connected to the investigation raised serious questions about portions of the officers’ testimony. A 2008 Los Angeles Times report described recordings that appeared to present a different and less certain account of the investigation than the testimony given in court. A related prosecution was dismissed after the recordings were examined, but Justin remained incarcerated. He maintains that the same recorded evidence undermined testimony used against him and should have resulted in a complete review of his conviction.

A criminal sentence must be based on the charges and allegations the jury actually found true—not simply on what prosecutors originally alleged. According to Justin’s review of the verdict forms, Count 1 involved attempted murder under Penal Code sections 664 and 187. Although the jury returned a guilty verdict on attempted murder, it found the allegation that the offense was willful, deliberate, and premeditated not true. Justin maintains that this finding should have controlled the punishment and that an allegation rejected by the jury should not later be treated as though it had been proven.

Justin received a sentence commonly described as 45 years to life, but he maintains that the sentence does not legally or mechanically match the jury’s findings. According to his review of the record, the attempted-murder conviction under sections 664 and 187 belonged to Count 1, where premeditation was found not true and the related term was reportedly stayed. However, the sentencing minute order appears to place sections 664 and 187 under Count 8 and associate that count with a 15-years-to-life term, even though Justin maintains that Count 8 was a different offense under Penal Code section 246. This apparent mismatch must be examined by comparing the verdict forms, sentencing transcript, minute order, and abstract of judgment line by line.

Justin’s case has gone through the appellate process, and his sentence was previously reversed because of a separate issue involving a prior-strike allegation. After further proceedings, the sentence was reimposed and later affirmed. Justin maintains that those appeals did not directly resolve the separate concerns now being raised about the jury’s rejection of premeditation, the apparent difference between Count 1 and Count 8, and the life-term entry appearing in the sentencing record. The appellate history helps show what the courts previously considered—and what Justin believes still remains unanswered.

For more than 21 years, Justin has submitted petitions, letters, court filings, records, and requests asking officials to examine his conviction and sentence. He believes the audio recordings, officers’ testimony, jury findings, minute order, and abstract of judgment have never been fully considered together as one complete record. Justin is not asking anyone to ignore the legal process. He is asking for the process to work correctly—for reliable evidence to support the conviction and for the jury’s written findings to control the sentence.
A conviction must be supported by reliable evidence. A sentence must be supported by the jury’s verdict. Justin is asking for a complete, fair, and honest review of both.
Place the Change.org petition link at the end of this section.
At the bottom of the page, use only two buttons:
REVIEW THE RECORD
HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE