The CRU report highlighted that no physical evidence tied Barrientos to the crime. Surveillance video showed Barrientos with his girlfriend in a grocery store in Maplewood 33 minutes before the shooting in south Minneapolis. Barrientos also had a credible alibi that he was in his girlfriend’s apartment in a suburb of St. Paul at the time of the shooting — an alibi his defense failed to properly argue for the jury.

During the investigation, police recreated the route Barrientos would have taken from the grocery store to the scene of the crime and told the jury he could have made the drive with plenty of time to shoot Mickelson. The CRU worked with a retired officer from MPD who provided an expert report that rejected that investigation and said the drive likely would have taken more than 33 minutes, making it “improbable, if not impossible, for Barrientos to be the shooter.”

Wolf [juror] pointed to what she said were three glaring issues with how evidence was presented to the jury: the manipulation of the mugshot of Barrientos, specifically the description of his hair; the inadequacy of the defense team that represented Barrientos; and that the jury was not instructed about giving proper weight to eyewitness testimony.

(snip)

Every eyewitness to the shooting said the suspect was bald, so police used old photos of Barrientos with a bald head in photo arrays, even though they knew grocery store surveillance video from the night of the shooting showed Barrientos with a “full head of dark hair.” The lead investigator and Hennepin County prosecutors then lied during the trial, the CRU determined, by saying witnesses had described the suspect as having “short hair” when they had said the shooter was bald or had a shaved head.