Carlos R. Harris was wrongfully convicted for the attempted murder of Robert “Bobby” Carr, assault with a deadly weapon and robbery in concert on August 23, 2005. Santa Clara County is filled with occurrences of tainted trials and stolen justice. Carlos has maintained his innocence in the planning and attack of Robert a.k.a. Bobby Carr to date.  

​

Carlos co-hosted a BBQ at a friends apartment complex labor day weekend in 2004. He invited his family and friends to join him and celebrate the holiday at a close friend’s home. Carlos left the BBQ at the apartment complex early to meet up with a friend he ran into earlier that day. On the evening of the BBQ in the laundry room of Carlos friend’s apartment complex Robert Bobby Carr was robbed and attacked by Carlos’s co-defendants. Carlos was not aware of the attack until much later that evening when he was picked up down the street from the apartment complex by his wife and several associates (so-called friends) who confessed to the setup, robbery and attempted murder of Robert Bobby Carr which Carlos was not apart of. Robert Bobby Carr recovered the attack and eventually submitted a written statement  identifying his attackers and Carlos does not fit the description. The victim stated he never met or saw Carlos before. 

​

The victim (Robert “Bobby” Carr) was absent during the jury trial so Carlos was never able to face his accuser nor was he ever picked out in a police line up by the victim during the investigation. There were several eye witness statements that went ignored and they never made it to the witness stand during the trial. Carlos’s guilty co-defendants perjured testimony and made deals with the District Attorney (DA) to receive light sentences.  Also the ineffective court appointed representative never called any of the witnesses to take the stand during the jury trial that would have proved Carlos’s innocence. There are multiple instances of inadequate counsel and poor representation in this case as well as direct mis-conduct and abuse of power from the District Attorney and presiding judge. As a result Carlos was convicted and sentenced to 28 years and 4 months in prison having served 18 years to date. 

​

Carlos has been fighting to prove his innocence since his conviction. Since then he filed an unsuccessful appeal and a writ of habeus corpus to prove his innocence and expose the mis-handling of his case from a legal standpoint as Carlos was sentenced to 28 years and 4 months, (a double sentence) based on an illegal enhancement that was enforced based on a prior conviction/plea agreement in 1991 that  was never proved or stated at the time to be a strike and has nothing to do with the current case nor was deemed a violent crime. 

​

All of Carlos’s co-defendants took plea bargains and are out of prison and he has served 18 years of a 28 year sentence for a crime he did not commit. Carlos did not take the DA’s deal because he is innocent. Carlos was railroaded during the trial: 

​

• During the trial one of the jurors was biased, a former teacher that didn’t like Carlos from high school. 

​

• Carlos’s due process rights were violated when the trial court informed the jury that he and the co-defendants were accomplices as a matter of law when he had not been proven guilty by the courts yet. 

​

• Carlos requested a Marsden hearing during the trial and was denied counsel of his choice over the court appointed attorney due to a corrupt judicial system starting with the District Attorney and Judge that was presiding over his case. There were many instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and conflicts of interest during the trial (to many to list them all). There were multiple threats made from the DA and judge toward Carlos, coerced testimonies, and not to mention the judge and the court appointed representative were close friends outside the courtroom and the public defendant withheld evidence that would have proved Carlos’s innocence and kept several witnesses from testifying on Carlos’s behalf.) Judicial Performance was requested and  the judge retaliated against Carlos prior to retiring. 

​

• Also the courts abused its discretion during sentencing and Carlos’s Romero motion was denied. Carlos did not have a strike from a prior conviction in 1991 as the 3 strikes law did not go into effect until 1994 in California. The prior crime from 1991 was a misdemeanor and Carlos served 8 months in jail and was released based on a plea agreement. The court papers were altered or overlooked as we have written proof of the previous conviction.  

 

Despite all the injustices listed above we continue to fight for Carlos to be released. At this time we are requesting Carlos be released for time served (18 years). Carlos has served the full sentence for a crime he did not commit and is being detained illegally for a strike that does not exist.