• Coerced and False Testimonies: Under New York law (CPL 60.22), a person cannot be convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. Yet, that is exactly what happened in Pablo’s case. Ramon Acevedo took a plea deal and served 15 years in prison for the crime, while Joshua Torres never served time and was granted immunity (Garcia 440 Motion-final) (Pre-Sentencing Memorand…).

• Immunity for Testimony: Joshua Torres was one of three individuals involved in the crime, but his immunity deal was hidden from the jury. The prosecutor misled the court, suggesting that Torres had nothing to gain from his testimony (Garcia 440 Motion-final).

• Mario Castro: Mario Castro was convicted of the murder and is serving a life sentence. His DNA was found in a glove at the scene of the crime, further distancing Pablo from the murder. He did not cooperate with either side to help or harm Pablo with the case. (Pre-Sentencing Memorand…).

The following quotes from the court highlight the issues with the DNA evidence used in Pablo’s case:

    THE COURT: There was no DNA evidence against this defendant, that’s what they’re saying. So what would you have had to put in the Grand Jury? You had no statement from this defendant, I don’t mean to debate Grand Jury, from Mr. Garcia. There was Ramon Acevedo and there was no DNA as there was for Mario Castro. Ramon Acevedo confessed to the crime. Mario Castro’s DNA is at the scene of the crime. And at the time this Grand Jury was presented, neither type of that evidence was available involving this defendant. The DNA didn’t come until a couple of years later.

    THE COURT: That raises a whole bunch of issues that impact on the prosecution of this case and decisions that were made about prosecution and that opens a can of worms that – this is part and parcel of my thought process is that well, then are they trying to frame this guy and letting one guy off to get guy number two? Do they have the same evidence basically? I don’t know that I want to even get into that because there’s so many things that could happen.'

The prosecution relied on Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing and the Forensic Statistical Tool (FST), both controversial methods that have since been discredited by New York’s highest court.

The prosecution misled the Grand Jury to indict Pablo simply based on Torres and Acevedo’s statements. However, the prosecution could not pursue trial with just these statements and therefore had Pablo confined for over two years in prison while they anticipated the creation of this controversial DNA test.

These techniques were used to link Pablo to the crime scene, but the DNA evidence presented was based on only a minuscule amount of material — less than 16 picograms — far below the threshold of reliable forensic testing

Regardless, the results were still inconclusive but allowed into trial. 

Had Pablo’s case been tried after the People v. Williams decision in 2020, this flawed DNA evidence would have been excluded from the trial. The prosecution's case rested heavily on this faulty DNA analysis, and without it, there would have been no ground to convict Pablo let alone there would have been no case for trial as no court would have allowed this case to proceed with just two statements and no corroboration. (Garcia 440 Motion-final).

The misconduct in Pablo’s case went beyond faulty DNA evidence:

• False Narrative About Witnesses: The prosecution presented the false narrative that Joshua Torres was not an accomplice, even though he played a significant role in the crime. The failure to disclose his immunity deal was a direct violation of Pablo’s right to a fair trial.

• Improper Grand Jury Indictment: The prosecution’s decision to indict Pablo without credible evidence and by relying on uncorroborated accomplice testimony was another clear violation of his rights. The Grand Jury was not presented with valid forensic evidence linking Pablo to the crime. The DNA tests used on Pablo were created and approved over two years after his arrest.