USATSI_13950237.jpg

Rosa Jimenez is innocent.

District Attorney Margaret Moore is keeping her in prison.

Judges have already told DA Moore that Rosa is innocent and have ordered her release or a new trial.

Now DA Moore needs to hear from you.

Rosa has been incarcerated since 2003 for a crime she didn’t commit.

When a child in Rosa’s care accidentally choked on a wad of paper towels, prosecutors and police turned the tragedy into a murder conviction.

Rosa’s trial was flawed, and the evidence against her has been debunked.

 
Uneven Playing Field

Uneven Playing Field

Rosa’s lawyer mishandled the only issue in the case. He chose to call only one expert, who had no relevant experience and did not prepare for the trial. While on the stand, the expert cursed at the prosecutors. After reviewing the record, Judge Baird said that in his decades-long career, he had “never seen such unprofessional and biased conduct from any witness” and that Rosa was worse off than if she hadn’t had an expert at all.

Junk Science

Junk Science

The State relied on junk science to get its conviction. The experts all testified that an accidental choking would have been “impossible.” They argued that two-year-olds don't put paper in their mouths and don't have the dexterity to wad-up paper towels. One expert even speculated that "blood gas readings" showed that Rosa delayed seeking help. But the experts provided no scientific basis for their theories. There was none.

Leading Experts Support Innocence

Leading Experts Support Innocence

Pediatric airway and critical-care experts from the nation’s top children’s hospital testified at post-conviction hearings. Unlike the "expert" who testified at trial, these witnesses credibly rebutted the State's flawed medical evidence. These experts testified about known incidents of similarly aged children choking on similar or larger objects. They also testified that this case had none of the hallmarks of an intentional act.


Judges agree it is likely Rosa is innocent.

image.jpg

Judge Jon Wisser

“I believe now, as I did at the time of the trial, that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant is not guilty of this offense.”

Judge Charles Baird

“…[T]rial counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial to [Rosa]’s case and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Certainly, this Court has no confidence in the outcome of the trial.”.

Judge Andrew Austin

“If in fact Jiminez is not guilty of this offense—something both the trial and habeas judges appear to believe and for which there is much evidence—the injustice done here is indeed profound.”

 

At a recent hearing, Magistrate Judge Andrew Austin expressed surprise that Margaret Moore intends to retry Rosa.

“Has [Margaret Moore] read the four different judges’ orders who have all said that they think this is a very infirm trial and that there is likely an innocent woman who is sitting in a jail for 17 years?

Margaret Moore really wants to retry her?”