The Not So Strong Case Against KET

In today’s NY Times there’s a story detailing the charges against Alan ‘KET’ Maridueña, the graffiti artist/designer/publisher that is facing 14 criminal counts for graffiti that could land him “decades in prison.” One of the more controversial aspects of this case, and ironically the thing that might end up vindicating him, is that the police never caught the writer in action, ever. This is the first time that a graffiti case of this severity is moving forward without a smoking gun drippy can:

The case could pose an important test for prosecutors and the police, since Mr. was never caught in the act and has no previous criminal record in New York City. Instead, the government's case appears to be based largely on what prosecutors say is the unmistakable detail of his graffiti signature ' his “KET” tag ' and the fact that the tag is visible on photographs of illegal subway graffiti that were entered into Mr. Maridueña's home computer only hours after identical work was discovered on subway cars.

There is apparently no clear precedent for this type of prosecution of graffiti vandalism; graffiti charges usually tie a defendant physically to the scene of a defacing. “I know of no case specifically on this point,” said Michael Brovner, the senior assistant district attorney in Queens.

KET has pleaded not guilty and claims he’s being singled out because of his business ties to Marc Ecko (founder of Complex), who took a stand against the city and was successful in winning two landmark graffiti cases. In both instances the judge threw out what was deemed unconstitutional graffiti legislation. And Marc might jump back into the ring again, stating, “I will consider using my personal resources to fight” the case against Mr. Maridueña.”

This guy argues that it’s not going to be easy for the police to tie KET to the actual crime:

[T]im Kephart, a California entrepreneur who uses computer models to analyze graffiti tags for law enforcement authorities, said the case against Mr. Maridueña appeared weak. Mr. Kephart, the chief executive of Graffiti Tracker, said matching a tag to a vandal was crucial, but better evidence would probably be needed to show that Mr. Maridueña was at or near the sites of the recent subway vandalism.

And finally, KET’s lawyer adds the icing on the cake:

“Three district attorneys have ganged up on my client,” Mr. Perez said. “There has got to be something going on.”

Indeed, and we bet that a certain greasy haired politician with a hard-on for graffiti might be what’s going on.

[Source]