Mark Bravo

• Alibi
• Third Party Guilt

● Four witnesses testified that defendant was in meetings with them at the time of the crime. ● Three witnesses testified that the victim told them that she was attacked by someone other than defendant.

● When asked if he raped the victim, defendant answered “No, I didn’t.”

• Eyewitness
• Forensic Evidence

• Serology

• Invalid

The analyst testified that 3 percent of the population is PGM 2–1+, but then falsely divided that population statistic in half, supposedly eliminating females, and claiming that 1.5 percent of men could be the donor. The Analyst was asked “Q. So it would be more than likely that one and a half percent of the population of males in L.A. county, he fits in that group; is that correct?” and answered “A. Could have donated that sample, that’s correct.”

• Intraracial Identificaiton
• Victim

No – but victim acquainted with defendant

Bravo was a nurse at the hospital where victim was a psychiatric patient, because she had manic-depressive disorder.

Yes ●Initial non identification, by victim who was a psychiatric patient

Q. Did she give a physical description, as well as she could? A. Yes, Really vague about the physical description. Q. By what she indicated to you, did you have any problem figuring out who she was talking about? A. No. She was pretty adamant and pretty clear that it was Bravo, the supervisor, R.N. supervisor from unit 208. She was definitely clear on that. Victim admitted that she changed her story, “for fear because of the friendship the workers at the unit had.” She had initially said that the person who assaulted her was a patient, or a man from the street, and told a worker and the D.A. that she had the wrong person in jail.

• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
• Jackson Claim
• Jury Misconduct
• Prosecutorial Misconduct
• State Law Evidence Claim

• G

People v. Bravo, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 48 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1993) (ordered not published)