However, I did get confirmation today from the family of Caleb Allen that the charges have in fact been dropped.
Here's what the document says about dropping the charges against Caleb:
The prosecution is dismissing the above case for the following reason(s):It's crystal clear after reading this that the only circumstantial evidence they had against Caleb Allen is the fact:
The eyewitness' identification of Defendant as the man she saw leaving her driveway seconds after the break-in was based on a single, fleeting encounter. He is a stranger to her. Officers now believe she may have been mistaken. She also misidentified Defendant's suspected accomplice, a woman whom police now believe was not involved. That woman has credible witnesses who will vouch for her and say she was at work out-of-county when the break-in occurred.
Similarly. the identification of this Defendant by an out-of-county police officer from a grainy store surveillance video is now cast in doubt. The male subject seen in that video wears a ball cap that obscures part of his face and he is seen only briefly from 8 distance. The same officer also misidentified Defendant's suspected accomplice as a woman whom police now know was actually in jail on the day of the break-in. She couldn't possibly have been involved.
Other evidence suggests the break-in may have been comitted by other suspects who drive a vehicle similar to the one Defendant drives. The victim's property stolen in this break-in was later located in those other suspects' bedroom.
At this time police have too little evidence to prove that Defendant and the other suspects are part of a conspiracy. Without that proof, jurors would be forced to choose which of the known suspects actually committed the break-in. They are certain to have reasonable doubt and would find this Defendant not guilty.
- he owned a red Jeep Cherokee
- he was misidentified by an eyewitness
- he was misidentified in the grainy gas station video by an out-of-county police officer
Surprisingly (or not at this point), they are also dropping the charges against Justin Aldrich. Reasons range from the initial charges against Allen to not obtaining a search warrant when they searched the house Aldrich and Hoard were renting. Here's the explanation on Justin Aldrich in its entirety:
The prosecution is dismissing the above case for the following reason(s):And similar, if not verbatim reasoning, is used to justify dropping the charges against Anna Hoard. In its entirety:
This Defendant was linked to these offenses primarily by his possession of property stolen from several break-ins; however, his proven possession of that property came days or weeks after the break-ins, and the evidence is somewhat inconclusive.
Weeks after a victim's iPad was stolen in a break-in, Defendant sold it to a pawn shop. Standing alone, his mere possession of the stolen is insufficient to prove he either stole it or knew it was stolen.
Other items stolen in several break-ins were found in a rented bedroom that he and a codefendant shared; however, neither of them was present when police first searched that room. Neither of them gave permission to search the room and the officers had no search warrant. Defendant's landlord kicked in their locked bedroom door and invited officers to enter and search the room. He had no authority to do that. Officers later decided to withdraw and seek a search warrant, but the application they submitted to the Magistrate includes a description of the things they'd already seen in Defendants' bedroom, which they describe as things "similar to items listed in breaking and entering reports ..." Arguably this taints the application and undermines the validity of the search warrant, making it more likely than not that a court would suppress all evidence flowing from the search of the bedroom.
In addition to this and several other complications, there is the problem of codefendant Carl Allen. who was identified by a witness who told police she saw him leaving her home seconds after it was broken into. Allen drives a vehicle like the one linked to this Defendant, and another witness identified him from a store surveillance video, strengthening police suspicion that Allen was involved in this break-in. Although the identification of Allen is now in doubt, his suspected involvement in the case will linger to create reasonable doubt as to this Defendant. Police cannot currently prove the existence of a conspiracy among all three defendants, but nor can they exclude that possibility. Without such a proven link, jurors would be forced to decide which of the known suspects actually committed the break-ins. They are certain to have reasonable doubt and would find this Defendant not guilty.
The prosecution is dismissing the above case for the following reason(s):All in all, the Charlotte police did a less than stellar job on this case using their rush to judgment as some of the reason the Bonnie & Clyde break-ins will likely never be properly charged. But Justin Aldrich and Anna Hoard could still face charges in the Concord break-in that ultimately got them arrested.
This Defendant was linked to these offenses primarily by her possession of property stolon from several break-ins; however, her proven possession of that property came days or weeks after the break-ins, and the evidence is somewhat inconclusive.
Weeks after a victim's iPad was stolen in a break-in, Defendant's boyfriend sold it to a pawn shop. Standing alone, his mere possession of the stolen jPad is insufficient to prove this Defendant personally possessed it, stole it or even knew it was stolen.
Other items stolen in several break-ins were found in a rented bedroom that she and her boyfriend shared; however, neither of them was present when police first searched that room. Neither of them gave permission to search the room and the officers had no search warrant. Defendant's landlord kicked in their locked bedroom door and invited officers to cuter and search the room. He had no authority to do that. Officers later decided to withdraw and seek a search warrant, but the application they submitted to the Magistrate includes a description of the things they'd already seen in Defendants' bedroom, which they describe as things "similar to items listed in breaking and entering reports ...." Arguably this taints the application and undermines the validity of the search warrant, making it more likely than not that a court would suppress all evidence flowing from the search of the
bedroom.
In addition to this and several other complications, there is the problem of codefendant Carl Allen, who was identified by a witness who told police she saw him leaving her home seconds after it was broken into. Allen drives a vehicle like the one linked to this Defendant, and another witness identified him from a store surveillance video, strengthening police suspicion that Allen was involved in this break-in. Although the identification of Allen is now in doubt, his suspected involvement in the case will linger to create reasonable doubt as to this Defendant. Police cannot currently prove the existence of a conspiracy among all three defendants, but nor can they exclude that possibility. Without such a proven link, jurors would be forced to decide which of the known suspects actually committed the break-ins. They are certain to have reasonable doubt and would find this Defendant not guilty.
One of many lingering questions: will the Charlotte media that touted the arrest of 'Clyde' and splashed Caleb Allen's face all over the news bother to offer any corrections/retractions? I was a little surprised when they neglected to even cover the Herald Weekly's stories. At this point, I would not be surprised if they failed to mention another word about the case.
Besides Tara, of course. There is plenty to discuss on this case today if she chooses to. And I suspect the Herald Weekly (or that family of newspapers) will offer some fitting conclusion when it next goes to press.
UPDATE: Here's the original document in Scribd for those interested:
20110401151758342
No comments:
Post a Comment