The Crime
On January 29, 2005, at approximately 3:00 a.m., William Tovar was outside his home, helping a friend move his truck, when they were approached by two men. One of the men asked Tovar, “Where you from?” Tovar responded, “Mara Salva Trucha.” The questioner then said, “Fuck Mara,” pulled a gun and shot Tovar, who suffered two serious gunshot wounds but managed to drive away in the truck. The shooter and the other man ran away in opposite directions. As the shooter was running away, he spotted Luis Salinas’s brown Cadillac in the neighborhood, jumped in his car, and asked him for a ride up the street. The shooter did not tell Luis what had just happened. Luis hesitated but eventually agreed because it was just up the street and there were shooters in the area.
At the time of the shooting, Los Angeles Police Officers were at a nearby hospital. They heard two gunshots, entered their patrol cars, and drove to where they thought the shots had been fired. Forty to 45 seconds later, an officer spotted the dark brown Cadillac with its lights off. Officers started following the Cadillac for a few blocks before the Cadillac finally turned its lights on. When Luis went through a stop sign, officers began a pursuit through the residential neighborhood. Officers eventually ordered Luis and the other occupant, later known to be the actual perpetrator of this crime, out of the Cadillac and forcibly took them into custody.
A short distance away, other officers spotted Tovar in a white truck, stopped him, and ordered him out of the truck. Once they realized he was shot, they ordered an ambulance. At no point did they gather a description of the shooter and share it over the dispatch system. When paramedics arrived, they placed Tovar on a gurney and into the back of the ambulance.
A Flawed Identification
The prosecution’s case rested heavily on Tovar’s problematic identification. Moments after the shooting, while in the back of an ambulance and believing he was near death, Tovar allegedly identified Luis as the shooter under highly suggestive conditions—wounded, distressed, and viewing Luis from approximately 20 feet away as he stood surrounded by police officers. However, serious doubts exist about whether the ambulance doors were even open at the time, raising questions about whether Tovar could have seen Luis at all. Just two months later, Tovar failed to identify Luis in a live lineup and at trial.
False Ballistics Evidence Used to Link Luis Salinas to the Shooting
Despite the prosecution’s attempt to link Luis to the shooting with ballistic evidence, a new ballistic analysis using up-to-date methods tells a different story—one that does not point to Luis as the shooter.
After Luis was arrested, officers searched his Cadillac. Inside, they found loose bullets scattered in the trunk, along with two boxes of Remington .44 magnum ammunition. The prosecutor argued that Luis had to be a shooter because a bullet fragment found near Tovar’s truck was possibly the same caliber. However, officers also found a spent shell casing in Tovar’s door frame that was consistent with a .38 caliber—which is consistent with the gun the actual perpetrator confessed to using, not the bullets found in Luis’s Cadillac. No firearm was ever recovered in this case. Additionally, a gunshot residue test performed on Luis’s hands came back negative, strongly suggesting he had not fired a weapon that night.
Despite the prosecution later trying to argue that two different guns had been used in the crime—a .44-caliber semiautomatic and a .38-caliber revolver— Tovar, had always maintained that only one person shot at him with a single gun. This critical inconsistency raises serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
Years later, in pursuit of the truth, Tovar worked with Luis’s legal team to have a bullet fragment that was still in his thigh 20 years later medically extracted. When reanalyzed, forensic experts confirmed that the bullet was from a .38-caliber revolver— again consistent with the actual perpetrator’s recent confession.
A Label Built on Bias, Not Facts
Luis’s conviction was built on assumptions rather than facts. A gang expert testified that Luis was an admitted Rockwood gang member, and Tovar belonged to the rival Mara Salva Trucha gang. However, this label was outdated and misleading—Luis had formally resigned from the gang over two years prior, a fact disregarded by law enforcement.
This mischaracterization was driven by police bias. Instead of conducting an objective investigation, officers relied on racial profiling and outdated gang classification methods to assume Luis’s active gang membership status and guilt. By branding him as a gang member without current evidence, law enforcement tainted the jury’s perception, allowing the prosecution to introduce inflammatory gang evidence that ultimately led to this unjust conviction.
A Call for Justice
Luis Salinas has maintained his innocence since the police arrested him on January 29, 2005. New witness statements, a confession from the true perpetrator, and scientific evidence support Luis’s claim of innocence. Luis’s case is another example of how a wrongful conviction can happen when assumptions replace facts.
The Innocence Center filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of Luis. On June 4, 2025, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued an Order to Show Cause and ordered the District Attorney to respond to the habeas petition.
