Long Shot (2017)

 

 

 

 

Long Shot is a documentary film which premiered on Netflix in 2017. 

 

A young man (Juan Catalan) is arrested and charged with a murder he did not commit.

 

It is a case of wrongful arrest and wrongful accusation. It was almost a case of wrongful conviction. Juan Catalan was facing many years in prison or the death penalty.

 

Fortunately, he was never convicted. He was released when his innocence was proved.

 

Here is some basic information about this film:

 

** Director: Jacob LaMendola

** Music composed by Jay Wadley

** Run time: 40 minutes

 

Several persons are interviewed in the film. Here are the names:

 

** Juan Catalan – the suspect

** Melissa Catalan – his daughter

** Alma Oseguera – Juan’s girlfriend

** Todd Melnik – Juan’s lawyer

** Leslie Dunn – the judge

** Beth Silverman – the prosecutor

** Sam Fernandez – general counsel of the Dodgers, LA

** Larry David – lead actor in the television show “Curb Your Enthusiasm”

 

The case takes place in 2003. In May of that year, a young woman (Martha Puebla) is shot and killed outside her home in Los Angeles. Shortly before she was killed, she had testified in court against Juan Catalan’s brother who was a member of a local gang.

 

Three months later, in August 2003, Juan Catalan is arrested and charged with the murder of Martha Puebla.

 

According to the police and the prosecutor, there are two reasons to arrest him:

 

Reason # 1. He was in court when Martha Puebla testified against his brother, so he has a motive to take revenge.

 

Reason # 2. The police have a witness who saw the killing. A car stopped outside the house. The driver got out and walked to the door. When Martha opened the door, she was shot. The driver returned to the car and drove away.

 

The witness talked to a police sketch artist who produced a drawing which shows the face of the killer. It looks just like Juan Catalan.

 

This evidence is not strong and not convincing, but the police and the prosecutor insist they have the right man.

 

The police and the prosecutor ignore the fact that it is easy to refute this evidence against the suspect:

 

Regarding # 1. They claim Juan Catalan has a motive. But even if he did have a motive, this does not prove that he actually killed Martha Puebla. It is pure speculation.

 

Regarding # 2. They claim Juan Catalan has been identified by an eyewitness. But eyewitness identification is highly unreliable. This identification took place in the evening with poor light and the eyewitness was watching from a distance.

 

These circumstances make the identification even more doubtful.

 

Further objections

Do the police have any hard evidence that Juan is the killer? What about the car in which the killer drove to the house? Do they have it? No. What about the gun that was used to kill the victim? Do they have it? No. What about fingerprints? Do they any fingerprints which can place Juan at the scene of the crime? No.

 

Conclusion

There is no hard evidence against Juan; only suspicion and a dubious eyewitness identification. Nobody should be arrested on the basis of this kind of evidence which amounts to nothing. But the police and the prosecutor insist they have the right man.

 

What does the suspect say? He claims he is innocent. He says he did not kill anyone. What more can he do? He can try to establish an alibi. He does his best.

 

He explains that on the day when the murder happened, he took his daughter Melissa to a game of baseball. The Dodgers were playing against the Atlanta Braves in the local stadium Elysium Park.

 

The police and the prosecutor are not impressed. They say: prove it! The suspect tries to prove it.

 

First attempt

His girlfriend Alma searches the house and finds the tickets from the game. But the police and the prosecutor do not care about the tickets. According to them, the tickets do not prove anything. They say: you could just go to the game in order to get an alibi and then leave quickly. After leaving, you could go and do the killing.

 

Second attempt

The suspect says: ask my daughter Melissa. She can confirm that we were there. They ask Melissa and she confirms. But the police and the prosecutor are not impressed. According to them, her statement is not credible. Perhaps Melissa is lying in order to save her father. She is not regarded as a reliable witness.

 

What more can he do? Did he take any pictures while they were at the stadium? Sadly, the answer is no.

 

Juan Catalan is facing many years in prison or the death penalty. He is scared and he has good reason to be scared. He hires a lawyer whose name is Todd Melnik. 

 

Fortunately, for Juan Catalan, this lawyer believes him and he is a very efficient lawyer. He is not ready to give up, even though the situation seems hopeless.

 

Tood Melnik has a good idea, but after a while he realizes that this idea is not good enough. However, he is on the right track. He only has to move further along the same track and when he does this, he finally gets a result which is good enough.

 

I am not going to reveal the details here. I do not wish to spoil the viewing for anyone. 

 

Suffice it to say that the police and the prosecutor are finally forced to drop the charges and let the suspect go.

 

Juan Catalan is a free man!

 

Four years later, in 2007, there is a settlement in the case. The city agrees to pay Juan Catalan the sum of 320,000 dollars because he had to spend six months in jail because of a wrongful arrest and a wrongful accusation.

 

What do reviewers say about this film?

 

** IMDb = 74 percent

** Rotten Tomatoes = 85 percent (the audience)

 

As you can see, the ratings are quite good. But if you ask me, they are not good enough.

 

I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of 100 percent (five stars).

 

PS # 1. The following review is available online:

 

“Long Shot review: a gem of a documentary,”  

The Telegraph, 8 July 2019 

(this review offers 4 of 5 stars)

 

PS # 2. Eyewitness identification is highly unreliable, especially if it has to cross a colour line. If a white person has to identify a black person or vice versa.

 

A famous case of mis-identification involves a white woman Jennifer Thompson-Cannino and a black man Ronald Cotton.

 

In 1984, Jennifer was attacked by a black man who broke into her room at night and raped her. While the crime was going on, she was thinking to herself: I must remember every detail of this man, so I can describe him and maybe later point him out in a line-up.

 

She reported the crime to the police. After a while the police had a suspect. She was asked to attend a line-up. She identified a man whose name was Ronald Cotton. She was absolutely sure she picked the right man. He was charged and convicted and found guilty. He spent time in jail.

 

Ten years later DNA testing of evidence showed that Ronald was innocent. He was released. DNA testing did more than this. DNA testing also revealed the real perpetrator. It was a man who looked a lot like Ronald.

 

After a while, Jennifer decided that she wanted to meet the man who had spent time in prison, because she had identified the wrong man. She wanted to apologize to him. Ronald agreed to meet with her. He accepted her apology and they became friends. Two unlikely friends.

 

Jennifer and Ronald were interviewed on 60 Minutes and wrote a book about the case:

 

Picking Cotton: 

Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption 

(2010)

 

*****

 

 A poster for the film

*****