The Curious Case of Jeremy Marks: Student Accused of Trying to Lynch a Campus Cop

The Root:  “This 18-year-old special education student has been sitting behind bars since May 10 for something witnesses and videotape alleges he did not do. . . . Marks, who was not physically or verbally involved in the altercation, has been charged with obstructing an officer, resisting arrest, criminal threats and ‘attempted lynching.’  Initially the Los Angeles County District Attorney offered him seven years in prison and then another plea deal of 32 months. Marks, 18, has been sitting in Peter Pitchess Detention Center, a tough adult jail, since May 10. Bail was set at $155,000, which his working-class parents can’t pay to free their son for Christmas.”

See the Los Angeles Times story called “Jeremy Marks “Attempted Lynching” Case.”

“On Dec. 2, Jeremy Marks, a Verdugo Hills High School special education student, was offered a new plea offer by the L.A. County District Attorney: If he pled guilty to charges of obstructing an officer, resisting arrest, criminal threats and “attempted lynching,” he’d serve only 32 months in prison.  That actually was an improvement from the previous offer made to the young, black high schooler — seven years in prison. . . .The first thing to understand is that Jeremy Marks touched no one during his “attempted lynching” of LAUSD campus police officer Erin Robles.  The second is that Marks’ weapon was the camera in his cell phone.”

For another story see “Jeremy Marks “Attempted Lynching” Case,” which starts “Black teen who filmed an LAUSD campus cop hitting a student faces bizarre charges and years in prison.”

For Cops, Citizen Videos Bring Increased Scrutiny

USA Today:  “Starting with the grainy images first broadcast by Kamau and other pioneer citizen watchdogs — notably the 1991 beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, shot by a nearby resident— the public surveillance of cops has exploded to potentially include anyone with a cellphone.  The videos are so ubiquitous that analysts and police debate whether they are serving the public interest — or undermining public trust in law enforcement and even putting officers’ lives in jeopardy

Go to Top