BRIAN’S CASE 

In a case prepared by the now infamous and discredited LAPD, where no two victims of the same robbery could agree on what the robber looked like – where fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime but none match his fingerprints – where no physical evidence links him to the scene of the crime – and where the defendant had an alibi, that he was in another state at the time the robbery was committed – a jury nonetheless found Brian Brewer guilty of four counts of second-degree robbery and three counts of false imprisonment. 

As a result, on August 1, 2005, Brian Brewer was sentenced to four consecutive life sentences, each with a minimum term of forty years.  Essentially, he was sentenced to one-hundred-and-sixty years to life for a robbery – This sentence was imposed as an alleged third strike under California law. 

On August 2, 2005, Brian appealed his conviction and four life sentences to the California Court of Appeal.  On September 12, 2006, that appeal was denied.  Brian then appealed his conviction to the California Supreme Court on October 10, 2006.  On December 20, 2006, the Court denied his petition for review.  Brian’s new legal team is now preparing a Habeas Corpus Petition to appeal his conviction in the federal court system.

The following is an overview of the facts from the robbery case that resulted in Brian’s third strike and four consecutive life sentences.  The facts are taken from the record in his case:

On April 16, 2002, a man entered a Credit Union in Northridge, CA shortly before closing time and sat down with “new accounts” representative Jennifer Talhelm. Talhelm and the man sat a desk-length apart, facing each other and interacting, while Talhelm explained the new account procedures and the man fidgeted with a signature card. After Talhelm and the man spent ten to fifteen minutes talking at Talhelm’s desk, the man told Talhelm he was there to rob the Credit Union.

The man then approached two other employees, Melissa Bryson and Lisa Rotunno, and told them he was there for a robbery. Rotunno told the robber that Wendy Boland was the only teller that still had cash in her drawer. On the way to Boland’s station, with all three witnesses watching the entire time, the robber pulled open money drawers – presumably leaving fingerprints as he went. When he got to Boland’s station, he opened her drawer and saw money inside. Just inches away from Boland, he handed her a plastic bag and she filled it with the contents of her drawer, approximately $1,700, which included two $20 bills in “bait money.” The bait money set off a silent alarm. At that point, the man noticed a fifth employee was now gone. Seemingly a bit panicked about the missing employee, the man turned to leave. Rotunno walked him to the front door, unlocked it to let him out and she watched as the man fled across the parking lot and out of sight.

Just a few minutes later when the police arrived, none of the witnesses could agree on a description of the robber.  Talhelm believed the robber had white, sandy or blondish hair, not long but not manicured.  Boland thought the robber had “dark hair.”  Rotunno believed he had “medium brown hair.”   

Talhelm reported that the robber was wearing jeans and a white t-shirt. 

Boland recalled him wearing a spotty, light blue shirt. Rotunno recalls the robber had a beard.  Talhelm recalls the robber having a beard and a moustache.  Boland never mentions the robber having facial hair. 

The one physical characteristic all three witnesses were positive about and agreed on was that the robber had bad acne scarring on his face.  Trial testimony established that Brian Brewer does not have such scars.

The Credit Union had a procedure where the employees fill out robbery kits in the event of a robbery.  The purpose of the kits was for the witnesses to record what happened and what the robber looked like while their memories were still fresh.  Boland remembers each of the witnesses filling out a kit, but no one knows what happened to them after they were completed or what information they would have revealed. 

Three months after the robbery the police summoned the witnesses to the station for a photo lineup.  In a photo lineup, every person is supposed to have similar features and similar coloring.  Otherwise the lineup is considered “suggestive.”  In this case, Brian had similar features to the robber as shown in the surveillance tapes from the credit union (and which the police showed to the witnesses before showing them the photos), but no one in the photo lineup had the same features as Brian.  Even still, Talhelm couldn’t identify the robber even though she had spent 10-15 minutes with the man, sitting and talking only a few feet away from each other before the robbery began.  Rotunno could not identify anyone from the photo-lineup either even though she had been with the robber for the extent of the robbery, had walked the robber to the door and unlocked it so he could leave the Credit Union and then watched him as he ran from the scene.  Only Boland identified Brian Brewer in the photo line-up even though she spent the least amount of time with the robber of all the employees.  Ironically, at his preliminary hearing and trial more than three years later - with Brian being the only defendant charged with the robbery, and as he sat at the defense table in court in his county issued jumpsuit - Talhelm identified Brian Brewer for the first time as the man that robbed the credit union.

Brian pleaded not guilty and still maintains to this day that he was not the man that robbed the credit union.

At trial, the jury was presented with Brian’s alibi.  Brian’s friend, Adam Jones, testified under oath that Brian couldn’t have robbed the Credit Union because he was out of the state at the time of the robbery.  Jones testified that he and Brian had taken a ride to Phoenix, Arizona to arrange a business deal for the annual motorcycle event that was coming up in Laughlin, California.  Jones testified that they left for Phoenix on the afternoon of the 15^th and they did not return until the evening of the 17^th. The robbery took place in California on the 16^th.

A forensic fingerprint specialist for the LAPD also testified at trial.  He testified that he lifted seven latent fingerprints from the inside of the glass door of the credit union after the robbery.  None of the prints matched Brian Brewer’s.  When confronted about whether he dusted for fingerprints on the money drawers opened by the robber, at Talhelm’s desk where the robber sat for 10-15 minutes, or any of the other several places the robber touched while in the Credit Union – evidence that could have potentially exonerated Brian proving that the robber was someone else – the fingerprint specialist responded, “I cannot recall,” and no fingerprints from any of those areas was ever produced. 

Neither the “bait money” nor the $1,700 that were stolen from the credit union was ever traced back to Brian Brewer.

But in the end, even with an alibi, no fingerprints, no conclusive physical evidence and inconsistent identifications, the jury found Brian guilty as charged.  

BRIAN’S APPEAL TO THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL

The day after Brian was sentenced to 160-years-to-life, Brian appealed his conviction and sentence to the California Court of Appeal.  A court-appointed appellate attorney represented Brian in his appeal.   

In his appeal, Brian’s attorney never denied that Brian was guilty of robbing the credit union.  The appointed attorney also did not raise the critical issue that Brian’s fingerprints were not found at the scene of the crime; his attorney never raised the issue that Brian was convicted despite having an alibi and a witness that said he was out of the state at the time of the robbery; and his attorney never raised the issue that the eyewitnesses that testified against Brian gave inconsistent identifications and couldn’t even agree on what color hair the robber had!

Instead, the only two issues raised in Brian’s appeal were the following:

1)  Whether there was sufficient evidence that two of the credit union employees - Talhelm and Beason - had “constructive possession” of the credit union’s money to support the jury’s verdict that he “robbed” them along with the other two credit union employees - Boland and Rotunno? 

2)  Whether Brian’s sentence of 160-years-to-life constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because it is a sentence that is impossible to serve, given that no person has a life expectancy of 160 years?

That was it. 

It was bad enough that Brian’s appeal missed so many viable issues.  But one of the most disturbing things about this appeal is that Brian’s appellate attorney essentially told the Court and the Attorney General that Brian was guilty of the robbery, but should get a lower sentence because the evidence only “proves” that Brian robbed only two of the credit union employees – not that he robbed all four of them!

The Attorney General even pointed this out in its response to Brian’s appeal saying – “Appellant does not deny that he robbed the bank as alleged, but contends that account representatives Talhelm and Beason were not authorized to handle the bank’s money, and therefore could not be victims of the charged robberies.”  Brian’s attorney never responded to, or disputed, this highly-prejudicial argument to the Court of Appeal. 

In reality, the Attorney General’s statement could not be further from the truth.   Brian has maintained since the beginning that he is innocent.  That’s why he went to trial in the first place; that’s why he called Adam Jones to testify that he was out of the state at the time of the robbery; and that’s why he called an expert to testify at trial about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. 

Predictably, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Brian’s convictions and inhumane consecutive sentences.  The Court of Appeal found that there was sufficient evidence that Brian robbed all four of the credit union employees – not just two of them – and that since Brian’s trial attorney never raised the cruel and unusual punishment argument at sentencing, the issue was forfeited for appeal. 

This is also why Brian’s new legal team is now preparing a Habeas Corpus Petition and will vigorously prosecute his rights through the State and Federal court systems until justice is done.  

BRIAN’S APPEAL TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

On October 10, 2006 Brian appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision to the California Supreme Court.  On December 20, 2006, the Court denied his petition for review, ending his chances for appeal under California law.

Brian’s next step and only option now is to pursue a habeas corpus action through the same system that denied his direct appeals.  Only this time, and with the help of all you out there, he will do so with the backing of a highly- experienced and aggressive legal team.  All of the facts and legal issues never developed on Brian’s behalf will be uncovered and presented in their strongest manner.  With a bit of luck and a fair judge, Brian’s Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights will be vindicated.

Help us find justice for a victim of a defective judicial process – a man not guilty!