5 arrested after robbery at house party


Five men were in custody Monday on suspicion of robbing several people outside a San Marcos house party, authorities said.

Party guests told police that five men robbed them at gunpoint outside the house at 505 Honeyglen Dr. at 2:50 a.m. Saturday, according to Sgt. Allan Paez of the San Diego County sheriff’s San Marcos Station. They provided a detailed description of the suspects and their vehicle that was radioed to other units.

“A short time later, deputies in Vista located the suspect vehicle, occupied by five suspects, at 955 Postal Way,” Paez said. “Deputies conducted a high-risk felony vehicle stop and successfully took the suspects into custody.”

A search of the vehicle turned up the property seized in the robbery and the gun used by the robbers, he said. “A curbside lineup was conducted and all of the suspects were positively identified by the victims as the robbers,” Paez said.

The five suspects were booked into the Vista Detention Facility on suspicion of robbery, conspiracy, receiving stolen property, use of a firearm in commission of a robbery and committing a felony on behalf of a criminal street gang.

The suspects were identified as Sam Niu, 21, booked on 10 counts, with bail set at $640,000; Gregg Leauanae, 20, seven counts, $490,000 bail; Johnnie Edwards, 18, 10 counts, $620,000 bail; Judd Liulamaga, 18, 10 counts, $565,000 bail; and Mautofu Maiava, 19, 20 counts, for whom no bail was set.

The suspects were scheduled to appear Tuesday in the North County Courthouse in Vista.

Smith v. Cain Summary (Murder Homicide; Armed Robbery; Criminal Defenses)

In the case of SMITH v. CAIN, the U.S. Supreme Court on January 10, 2012 (Case #10-8145), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8145.pdf reversed the Decision of the Louisiana State Trial Court, which erroneously convicted the defendant of first-degree murder based upon the testimony of a single witness. At trial, the only witness to link the defendant to the crime untruthfully claimed he was face to face with the defendant during the initial moments of an armed robbery, and identified Smith as the first gunman to come through the door when two other gunmen entered the residence in question. There were no other witnesses and no physical evidence to implicate the defendant in the crime.

During a state post-conviction proceeding, the defendant obtained police files containing exculpatory statements by the eyewitness that contradicted his trial testimony, which evidence was not disclosed by the prosecution in the Discovery they provided to the defendant’s counsel. The police investigator’s notes made at both the time of the murder as well as five days later contained statements by this sole witness that he could not supply a description of the perpetrators other than they were black males, as he could not see their faces and further that he would not know any of them even if he saw them. The notes were so damaging to the prosecution it was a clear travesty of justice for the prosecution to have failed to provide this evidence to the defense. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded the prosecution’s failure to disclose those statements violated the legal precedent established in the 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, which held due process bars a State from withholding evidence that is favorable to the defense and mate­rial to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.

Ratings and Reviews

BBB 10.0Samuel Eugene Spital
Samuel E. SpitalClients’ ChoiceAward 2021 Samuel Eugene SpitalClients’ ChoiceAward 2020
avvo rated 10/10 in Criminal Defense avvo rated 10/10 in Juvenile Law avvo rated 10/10 in Licensing
avvo rated 10/10 in Personal Injury Top ContributorAward 2012Samuel Eugene Spital Samuel Eugene SpitalReviewsout of 207 reviews