Cop Who Falsely Said Jacob Was Armed Admits It Was All Based on Uncorroborated Claims by Informant
Today, Mr. Crawley called his last witness to help the jury assess the damages caused by Jacob’s murder. After Mr. Crawley rested, the City of San Jose began their defense by calling Officer Peter Szemeredi where they spent almost an hour talking about someone else's alleged crimes, not Jacob -- even though this is a trial against Mike Pina, no one else. Officer Peter Szemeredi is also the cop who wrote the operational plan that alleged Jacob was armed and dangerous -- all being untrue.
Almost an hour of hearing about someone else’s alleged crimes, not even Jacob.
The City attorney, Maren Clouse, called their first witness, Officer Peter Szemeredi, the cop who wrote the operational plan that alleged Jacob was armed and dangerous -- all being untrue. But before even arriving at talking about the fatal incident involving Jacob, the City attorney spent nearly an hour asking questions about someone they allege Jacob knew, detailing this other person’s criminal history, his alleged crimes, the search of his home. We were left to ask, what does this have to do with Jacob? Jacob is not on trial, this other man is not on trial; Mike Pina is on trial.
Later in the questioning by City attorney of Mr. Szemeredi revealed that a majority of the allegations of Jacob came from a Confidential Informant of the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office. The informant is never identified but is responsible for telling the SJPD that Jacob was armed and kept a gun on him, even saying Jacob was selling firearms. All of this was found untrue when no guns were found in Jacob’s car, being killed while he was unarmed. The City attorney, while detailing all of Jacob’s history and allegations, never once asked about the background of the Confidential Informant. This misplace blind trust of the informant led to the eventually lethal force of Mike Pina.
Mr. Crawley’s cross examination of Mr. Szemeredi was only a couple key questions, one being “Did you shoot [Jacob’s alleged accomplice] when you arrested him?” Mr. Szemeredi’s response, “no.” This is even though he was the main focus of their operation.
Mr. Szemeredi was the first witness called by the City of San Jose as they prepare to lay out their argument of why lethal force was necessary. They are calling all cop witnesses and two “experts.” One expert is Dr. John Black, who has made national notoriety since he was the use of force expert who defended Kyle Rittenhouse when he killed two people at a protest against the police killing of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, WI.
Economist gives financial assessment to the impact of Jacob’s murder
Mr. Phillip Allman, an economist for over 30 years, gave a financial assessment to what Jacob’s murder meant to his wife and children. This phase is part of civil trials to talk though "damages" to the jury. What can't even be fully accounted for ofcourse is the emotional and psychological damages experienced by his kids, his wife and family at large, all of which is immeasurable. Shortly after Mr. Allman’s testimony, Jacob Jr. testified and demonstrated that no amount of money equates to the loss they experienced.
While cross examining, the City attorneys shamefully tried to argue that Jacob’s life expectancy could be less because of his alleged involvement in violent gangs. They tried to argue that his financial contribution couldn’t be that much because he could be imprisoned. The exact questions to Mr. Allman were, “Would being involved in a gang impact someone’s life expectancy?” and “Would criminal history impact someone’s life expectancy?” Again, the continued criminalization of Jacob is attempting to downplay not only his murder but now the impact of his murder on his own family and children. It cannot be understated the weight in the court room of these two City attorneys making these arguments, saying these things about Jacob in front of a full court room of Jacob’s family, friends and community. As if losing Jacob wasn’t enough, the family listens to the City attorneys argue that if he was alive, his life would only amount to being a criminal, and without value.