Revat Vara was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a missing license plate. He only had to spend 11 years before he was exonerated in 2017. Revat is one of many who have been wrongfully convicted based partially on testimony from law enforcement officers.
On March 11, 2006, Revat was pulled over by a Houston, Texas police officer by the name of Lyle Fattig. Revat was pulled over because he was missing his front license plate. When he was pulled over the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, in which, the officer proceeded to call for backup. Very soon after, officer Willam Lindsey arrived to the scene. Revat was not intoxicated but it was his friend Eduardo Nunez who was intoxicated that night. The strong odor of alcohol came from Nunez, so when officer Lindsey asked Revat if he had consumed alcohol he replied with no. Lindsey still went through several physical sobriety tests after Revert had told him that he was sober and had been sober for 5 years now. He had been convicted for driving under the influence twice prior to this incident. However, Lindsey still declared Revert as “intoxicated” and Nunez, the one that was actually under the influence, was ticketed for public intoxication and he was released.
As mentioned earlier, Revart previously had 2 DWI’s (Driving With Impairment) but since then, he had been and was sober. Lindsey himself had a record already, he had been found guilty 35 times for misconduct in his department prior to Revat’s case. Lindsey was also investigated for “padding his overtime”, by manipulating several other DWI arrests, meaning that, just like in this arrest, he would be called to testify and paid overtime. In 2005, Lindsey earned a total income of $172,576, making him the highest paid police officer in Houston, Texas. $100,000 of his income came from overtime pay alone.
When Revart went to trial in March of 2007, the two officers testified and claimed that Revart was verbally abusive and a third officer testified saying that Revart had refused to take a breathalyser test. Lindsey had testified saying that Revat was clearly intoxicated based on his physical sobriety tests. When Ravat testified, he said that when he was taken to the police station he had asked to take a breathalyser test but officers refused to. Revat also went onto explain why there was such a strong odor of alcohol. Nunez, had called him that night to pick him up from the bar and that when he picked him up, he came out with 2 opened beer bottles, the ones that officers had seen when Revat was pulled over.
In 1963, the Supreme court ruled that prosecutors must present all evidence that could favor the defendant, including police misconduct. The prosecution unconstitutionally, did not let the jury know of Lindsey’s previous misconduct record. Since there is no official tracking list that tracks all dishonest/untrustworthy officers, hundreds of prosecutors go onto not complying with the ruling of 63’.
I personally think that Revat did not deserve to spend 11 years of his life in prison. He mentioned how while serving his sentence, his father died and he missed out on part of his daughter’s life. Revat was Hispanic, but whether or not you think this was another issue of race, Lindsey was one of many cops who were looking to get their numbers up. The system even favors this by having little to no regulation on the Supreme Court mandate, meaning cops can lie and get away with it. I’m sure if the jury was informed of his previous misconduct, it maybe would have helped Revat. It could also be argued that Revat had his 2 previous offences but Revat had been sober since and the friend who had actually been drunk that night was released and only ticketed with public intoxication, while leaving Revat with a 25 year sentence. Despite only finishing the 8th grade, Revat visited the law library and began studying law. Luckily, Revat was served justice and was exonerated. However, Revat should have never had to serve time for something he didn’t do in the first place. Instead there should be more regulations on the Supreme Court mandate as well as punishment for dishonest officers like Lindsey.
Even if Revat had taken the breathalyzer test, the reading could have been inaccurate. Its been shown that breathalyzer tests are inaccurate, despite states punishing drivers who refuse to take them. The fact that Revat said he requested a breathalyzer test suggests that the police neglected to do their job. Until we are able to develop more accurate sobriety tests, it will remain extremely difficult to know when people are drunk or not. While breathalyzers are not always accurate, there was no valid reason for the officers to refuse Revat from taking it if he requested a sobriety test.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html
It's terrible that the police force has been (and continues to be) a source of power for virtually anyone who signs up. Another thing that this case brings to light is the "blue wall of silence," the constant refusal of police officers to testify against other officers, even when there is a clear wrongdoing at hand. And one has to wonder: if these officers are so willing to create a conspiracy and falsely charge someone with drinking and driving, how far will they be willing to go if they kill someone? Seems to me that "He was clearly drunk" and "I feared for my life" aren't as far apart as one might think, especially when it comes to police trying to justify their actions.
ReplyDeleteI find this case to be another injustice by the American justice system. I agree with you that Revat did not deserve to spend 11 years for his drunk friend who had been in the same car. I also find it horrible that police can lie about the event and get away with it because they could possibly kill someone and say it was a form of self defense when in reality it wouldn't be. Though he was exonerated from his original sentence, it does not make up for the fact that police officers can put anyone in jail for the dumbest reasons.
ReplyDelete