In the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus to be submitted, we will argue that my conviction and incarceration was improper and unlawful, because my Constitutional Rights were violated, further depriving me of a fair trial.

Simply stated, I was found guilty but not proven guilty.

No more compelling arguments about all of this can be made, and no more convincing proof of my innocence can be attained than the related Civil Lawsuit brought against the Ocean Springs School District (OSSD) and me, by the same accuser from the Criminal Case.

The Court Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendant Ocean Springs School District, reads

      “Plaintiff’s claims against the OSSD also failed, because it lacked actual or constructive notice of any sex crimes         committed by Mr. Sandoval or any related proclivities that he possessed…”

Paraphrasing these statements:

      The Plaintiff did not provide any proof that I committed any sex crimes, or any proof that I had an inclination or

      predisposition towards something objectionable.

On the Motion for a new Trial filed on November 25, 2019 among others, the defense argued that:

• The verdict was contrary to the law.

• The verdict was contrary to the evidence.

• The verdict was strongly against the weight of the evidence.

Fundamentally, Miscarriage of Justice is not just about the violation of State Laws and the violation of my Constitutional Rights which deprived me of a fair trial. It is also about the irrefutable facts that the State of Mississippi obtained a conviction on the basis of these violations.

Prosecutors did not and could not provide any concrete evidence that a crime was committed. Nor did they provide any clear proof regarding WHERE and WHEN the crime was alleged to have been committed.

The Police rushed to file 32 Counts of Criminal Charges for a timer period of 16 school days – 2 counts per day, however, the evidence later revealed that they committed perjury when they filed 3 false Affidavits for days when neither the alleged victim nor the accused were present at the scene of the crime.

Furthermore because of the lack of supporting evidence, later at the trial the State could not proved the presence of the victim at the scene of the crime on 12 of the 16 school days included in the Police Count of Criminal Charges.

This caused the trial jury to dismiss the Grand Jury Counts I and II of the Indictment.

The grand Jury reduced the Police 32 Counts of Criminal Charges into 4 Counts of Indictment. However, they arbitrarily increased the time frame of the charges to 17 school days, in include a 5th(V)Charge of Sexual Battery – that they also arbitrarily created without any supporting evidence.

The Grand Jury’s new charge of Sexual Battery and the added extra school day was never mentioned by anyone directly involved in the Case – not by the accuser, not by the alleged victim and not by the Police

.

The most troublesome issue with the original multi-count indictment was total lack of specificity (ambiguity and vagueness) regarding the time, date, and place at which the offense was alleged to have been committed.

The Grand Jury totally ignored that it was just was not possible for the alleged offences to have occurred on any other date, any other time and any other place except inside School Bus #84 of the Ocean Springs School District, on a school day when the alleged victim and the accused driver were both present while Bus #84 was in route – and only during the 10 minutes of the alleged victim’s daily scheduled travel time on the morning, and the afternoon trips of Bus #84 on Route 09.

The Grand Jury placed the commission of the offence charged in all 5 Counts of Indictment vaguely “in Jackson County, Mississippi”.

The first 3 Counts of Indictment covered a period of time of 15 school days – one Count per school week. The Grand Jury indicated that during each week the alleged crime was committed at some unidentified point of time – “on or between” Monday morning and Friday evening.

Likewise, the last 2 Counts of Indictment covered 2 school days’ day 16 and day 17. The Grand Jury indicated that both overlapping offences were committed at some vague point of time “on or between” the morning of day 16 and the evening of day 17.

There can be no doubt that the Count of the Indictments’ ambiguity and vagueness regarding WHEN and WHERE the alleged offences occurred, was caused by the State’s lack of evidence supporting the criminal charges.

Had the Count of Indictment listed the only dates, times, and place the alleged offenses could have occurred, this would have required the State to provide specific evidentiary proofs about the alleged criminal incidents upon which each Count was based.

The State could not produce such proofs, therefore, my Case based on this type of Indictment should never have gone to trial.

-----------------------------------------------------

We thank you for taking the time to read his statement. Wrongful convictions are plaguing our justice system. Sergio has consistently maintained his innocence and we continue to fight to add his name to the exonerated.