In a Santa Ana federal courtroom on Thursday, an attorney suing the investigators and the city informed jurors that Los Angeles police detectives utilized leading questions and neglected to verify alibis or physical evidence during their investigation into a man wrongly accused of a racially motivated murder in the Harbor Gateway neighborhood in 2001. Meanwhile, the defense attorney for the defendants argued that the authorities made their judgments based on the available facts at that time.
Marco Antonio Milla endured approximately 13 years of imprisonment for the gang-related and racially charged killing of 19-year-old Robert Hightower and the injuring of another man on September 29, 2001. According to authorities, Hightower and three friends were attacked while on their way to visit his sister near 204th and Harvard Streets.
During the opening statement of the trial, Milla’s attorney, Martin Stanley, informed the jurors that the neighborhood was experiencing heightened tensions as more Black residents like Hightower’s sister were moving into the predominantly Latino area. Milla received a life sentence without parole for the shooting but was eventually exonerated when Homeland Security officials presented evidence from a confidential informant suggesting that someone else was responsible for shooting Hightower and his friends, Ramar Jenkins and Steven Flowers.
Milla filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city, Detective Richard Ulley (now a lieutenant), and the estate of John Vander Horck, who passed away in June 2020. The investigators interviewed Traci McCombs, Erica Hightower, and Ramar Jenkins. Stanley mentioned that McCombs and Hightower provided “tentative” identifications of Milla as the shooter through photo lineups, while Jenkins was the only one to identify Milla. The detectives attempted to record the interview with Jenkins, but the audio quality was mostly unclear, so they conducted another interview.
Stanley criticized the investigators for asking Jenkins leading questions, stating that Jenkins had been burdened by guilt for years and felt pressured to finger a suspect. When Jenkins learned that the police suspected the shooting to be racially motivated, he became very angry and was determined to help remove the gang member from the streets.
Furthermore, Stanley faulted the investigators for not informing prosecutors that Hightower had stated she didn’t recognize any of the suspects in the lineups. Stanley also emphasized Milla’s background, stating that he involuntarily joined a gang at the age of 13 after being beaten into it. Despite having a criminal history consisting mainly of minor non-violent offenses, Milla had no direct evidence linking him to the shooting. Although no firearm was recovered, a holster and bullets were found in Milla’s home.
According to Stanley, Milla had alibi witnesses as he was watching a boxing match with friends on the night of the shooting. They even went to a liquor store during the fight. However, the investigators failed to visit the liquor store to obtain video evidence or interview any alibi witnesses.
In the defense’s argument, attorney Kevin Gilbert mentioned that Milla was stopped by officers in the neighborhood three days after the killing because he was living in Carson at the time. Gilbert also claimed that Milla was a suspect in another shooting and a threat incident involving a Black man. However, no charges were filed for the threat incident due to the victim’s unwillingness to testify.
Gilbert asserted that during Jenkins’ questioning, he readily identified Milla without hesitation. He added that the investigators decided to tape-record the interviews, and when it was discovered that the recording was faulty, Jenkins was questioned again to confirm his statement.
The defense attorney highlighted that Erica Hightower mentioned to the detectives that Milla had some similarities to the shooter. A judge approved a probable cause search warrant for Milla’s home, and the prosecutors inquired about his alibis, to which the investigators stated he claimed to have alibis.
Gilbert informed the jurors that they would hear deposition testimony from Vander Horck and testimony from the criminal trial. The defense argued that the investigators made efforts to interview alibi witnesses, but they either evaded the police or refused to cooperate. Ultimately, Gilbert stressed that the focal point should be the knowledge possessed by the detectives at the time, rather than hindsight or subsequent revelations.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
