Back to Cases

State v. Martinez - Armed Robbery (2024)

Analysis ID: a7d2e14-gbc3-cb2b-9c0058e525g9
Predicted Outcome
Guilty
Confidence Score: 92%
Analysis Type
Criminal Case
Jurisdiction:State
Citations:4

Probability Distribution

Guilty92%
Not Guilty6%
Hung Jury2%

Legal Reasoning

1

Surveillance footage provides direct visual evidence placing the defendant at the crime scene during the robbery.

2

DNA evidence recovered from the scene matches the defendant's genetic profile, establishing physical presence.

3

GPS data from the defendant's phone correlates with the location and time of the robbery.

4

Cash recovered during the arrest matches the denomination and amount stolen from the convenience store.

5

The combination of video, biological, and electronic evidence creates a comprehensive evidentiary chain.

6

Defense alibi claims are contradicted by multiple independent sources of evidence.

Tribunal Logo

Legal Citations

State Penal Code § 211 - Robbery

Statute

Defines robbery as the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from their person or immediate presence, against their will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

State Penal Code § 12022.53 - Use of firearm

Statute

Enhancement for personal use of a firearm during commission of a felony.

State v. Johnson, DNA Evidence Standards

Case Law

Establishes admissibility standards for DNA evidence in criminal proceedings.

State v. Williams, Electronic Evidence

Case Law

Precedent for admission of GPS and cell tower data as circumstantial evidence.

Counter-Arguments

  • •Defense claims alibi, asserting defendant was elsewhere at time of robbery.
  • •Defense may challenge chain of custody for DNA evidence.
  • •Defense could argue GPS data is unreliable or subject to technical errors.
  • •Defense may claim mistaken identity despite video evidence.
  • •Defense could argue evidence was obtained through illegal search.

What Could Flip the Verdict

  • 1.Credible alibi witnesses who place defendant at different location with corroborating evidence.
  • 2.Successful suppression of key evidence due to Fourth Amendment violations.
  • 3.Expert testimony demonstrating DNA contamination or testing errors.
  • 4.Proof that video surveillance was tampered with or misidentified another individual.
  • 5.GPS expert testimony showing significant margin of error that creates reasonable doubt.