No Credible Witness Saw Jamie Snow at the Scene
At trial, the state made much of Danny Martinez's trial identification of Jamie
Snow. It was compelling, dramatic testimony that Jamie Snow's eyes were unforgettable. [Vol.
X,R. 174-76 179-82.) It made it seem as though Jamie Snow had bumed an indelible image
into Martinez's brain, and bolstered Martinez's identification of Jamie that much more. The
state made use of this in closing, and one juror said afterward that this was critical evidence in
the jury's decisionmaking. (C. 731.)
What the new evidence Jamie Snow has now obtained makes clear, however, is
that this is completely wrong. It is Jeffery Pelo and Paul Williams who should be believed when
they say that after arriving at the scene, they did not see anyone leaving the gas station. Jeffery
Pelo's affidavit establishes that Danny Martinez did not see Jamie Snow outside the gas station.
(Ex. 1, Pelo Aff.) This is supported by Carlos Luna's new affidavit that he is not sure if
Jamie Snow was the person he saw from 200 feet away, and that he only identified Jamie because
"as a 14 year old, he believed that the police had caught the right person. (Ex. 30, Luna Aff.)
His affidavit completely backs away from his trial testimony. Gutierrez, the third
eyewitness, never gave a description that really matched Jamie Snow - the circumstances and
details were off, and he is the only person to say that the person he saw had any type of chin scar.
(Vol. XIII, R. 15-19, 30, 112,115.) Gutierrez also never came close to identiffing Jamie Snow
after looking at pictures and a lineup.(Vol. XIII, R.9-24,32,36-37.) Like Martinez, he actually
identified someone else. (Group .Ex.7, April 1, 1991 Supplemental Case Report.)
Jeffery Pelo's affidavit contradicts Martinez's testimony in almost every respect.
Martinez could not have come face to face with Jamie Snow outside in that parking lot. He was
not asked to leave the parking lot by Jeffery Pelo. He was not asked to go home. He did not go
immediately home - he drove west, away from his residence, down Empire. He was not on the
scene when Jeffery Pelo asked the other car to move away from the gas station. (Ex. 1, pelo
This discrediting of Martinez should be considered in light of the fact that
Martinez had multiple opportunities in the months after this crime to identify Jamie Snow as the
person he claimed he saw in the parking lot. He viewed mug books. He viewed suspect books.
He viewed a lineup in which Jamie Snow was present. (Group Ex. 7.) And it shouldn't have
been hard for him to identify Jamie Snow - they were childhood acquaintances and played sports
together. (Ex. 3, W. Hendricks Aff. at 4-5; Ex.4,D. Hendricks Aff. at 10-11.) And yet,
with all these opportunities, he claims that it didn't "click" for him that Jamie Snow was the
person until he read the Pantagraph years later and saw Jamie Snow's picture in the paper and
read about his arrest.
This is particularly unbelievable given that, in the months after this crime, Danny
Mutiteztold two other childhood friends, William Hendricks and Dennis Hendricks, that Jamie
did not do this crime.and that he was not the person that he saw. (Ex. 3, w. Hendricks Aff. at 6-10; Ex. 4, D. Hendricks Aff. at 10-11.)
Martinez's testimony is not backed up by much else, but Jeffery Pelo's account is
backed up by other neutral, objective evidence - the newly-obtained police radio tapes (Ex.2),
prior testimony of Paul Williams (Ex. 6), and prior statements of Danny Martinez to the police.
(Group Ex. 7.)
In total, this new evidence establishes that Jamie Snow did not walk out of that
gas station while Martinez, Williams and Pelo were outside. That the jury believed that he did
was the primary reason for his conviction. This new evidence is therefore material, noncumulative,
and would have changed the result on retrial.