HOW COULD CT SENTENCE AN INNOCENT MAN TO 20 YEARS IN PRISON?
In May of 2019, Andres, a hardworking father, and a humble, uneducated man, was sentenced to 20 years in prison, on 3 felony charges relating to sexual abuse against a child, after a 6 day trial that cheated him out of freedom. The justice system in New Haven, CT is replete with misconduct by detectives, attorneys, and judges. Learn the truth and beware. In summary:
-
False allegations were made in 2016 by "Z", then about 21 years old, of being sexually abused by Andres from ages 11 - 13 (later, said 11-15). Z alleged that Andres' family were gang members and Z feared for her life. She testified she was the best behaved and most prodigious child in the family, but that Andres would seek out Z at her home, so Z was forced to stay away from family gatherings, to avoid Andres. Z claimed Andres took her innocence, and no one else.
-
The truth is that other than failing grades, Z's "prodigious behavior" as a child had included a criminal record for breaking into businesses to steal as a preteen; that while very underage, Z was sighted at nightclubs being groped by old men; that at just 15 years old, Andres had found and stopped Z from having sex with a 27 year old man in her mom's car, which led to Z vowing "revenge"; that Z tried to run away with this same pedophile but was discovered by Andres and her family; and that instead of Andres looking for her at her home, Z would look for Andres because she would offer to translate business documents to Spanish in exchange for an allowance. Andres' defense attorney was presented with hotel receipts of Z sleeping with older men in Peru, and even sleeping with Andres' son in Peru, which occurred after Z had testified that she these same people made her fear for her life. But the attorney did not call any of the witnesses to court nor presented any of the boxes of evidence. When the judge was told on the day of Andres' sentencing, when the judge could have declared a mistrial for missing evidence, he implied that Andres' family was simply too stupid to realize the truth, and he ignored everything. The judge claimed that simply because Z was so "articulate", the sentence was justified.
-
Andres' defense attorney, "L", lied that he could persuade the judge to drop the case because he was neighbors with the judge, misleading Andres to take a trial-by-judge over a trial-by-jury, which is far less risky.
-
​On 2017, when Z accused Andres of bringing his father, Andres Sr., from Peru to intimidate her, she gave contradictory testimony to police. The prosecutor did not disclose the existence of this impeachable evidence, but the prosecutor did separate it into a "witness tampering" case that waited -- was hidden for -- 6 years. Also, the prosecutor signed a warrant that claimed to have Andres Sr's confession, to falsely arrest Andres. The witness tampering charges were dropped due to the problems of proof, due to Z's lies, on July 16, 2024. Z wants people to believe there was simply a lack of evidence, but rather, the evidence is against her.
-
Z testified that she had journal diaries that were the "best record" of her abuse. Of the journals' 300+ pages that were never disclosed to the defense, the one and only page disclosed contained details of sexual abuse by Z's older sister -- which were promptly dismissed by the judge. Z's older sister now works with kids.
-
From the first day of court, Z brought various reporters to make it all public; Z was working in women's rights, and wanted fame as a victim to bolster her career. Now Z runs Vivan Las Autonomas, an organization fronting as women's advocacy, but in fact dedicated to slandering Andres' family and attacking his minor children, as part of Z's personal vendetta.
​
​
Stay informed! Know the your rights:
-
It is the responsibility of the prosecutor to file a case based entirely on evidence, and if this evidence points to someone other than the accused, the prosecutor must follow the evidence.
-
Prosecutors have carte blanche (exclusive authority) to decide what evidence the defense team can see, but this comes with the responsibility that anything relevant to the case, that may in any way be exculpatory, must be handed over to the defense. This is NOT a grey area. Judges do NOT decide what is exculpatory and worthy of turning over. It is the defendant's constitutional right.
-
Lawyers have a responsibility to inform their clients of the case so clients can make strategic decisions. Also, lawyers must serve their clients' goals.
-
Lawyers cannot abandon a client without seeking first approval from the Committee and filing a motion in court to stop representation, which then must be approved.
​
Through her group, Vivan Las Autonomas, Z has escalated her hostile actions. Andres is raising awareness, not just for his freedom, but for all who suffer from this broken justice system, and to prevent Z from harming others.
​
Follow the timeline below or navigate to specific events using the buttons. The timeline is red to symbolize the suffering and actual blood shed by Andres and his family as a result of Z's abuse. Unlike Z, Andres isn’t asking for blind belief—see the evidence yourself.
Check back for regular updates with more proof.
Vivan Las Autonomas (VLA) Disseminated Art Depicting Fabricated Court Events to Boost Z's Fame
VLA hosted an art exhibit, with the red tapestry shown here, claiming falsely that Andres said disgusting remarks in court to attack Z. The text reads "'She liked it,' Andres Carrasco's words after being sentenced to 10 years in prison for child sexual abuse. I was 11-13. He was 37-40." As is always the issue with her stories, the evidence disproves Z. Nowhere in the court transcripts are there any statements from Andres other than him proclaiming his innocence. Below, you will find a link to the final statement from Andres before being sentenced. Furthermore, he proclaimed his innocence in all of his appeals, and continues to do so to this day, which would be practically impossible if he had gloated about raping someone in front of the magistrate, the prosecution, and Z's supporters. Note that in order to get more fame, Z published this on Instagram through her organization, making VLA the harasser and defamer of Andres and his family. VLA's attacks have had a deep psychological impact on Andres' children, as Z wanted. They are bullied by their peers who share the artwork published by VLA. Don't be ignorant. Trust the evidence.
​
VLA's art exhibits took place in a space provided by the Arts Council of Greater New Haven, in the summer of 2024. Similarly, another art exhibit took place at Havenly Restaurant. It is not fair to these businesses to be dragged into Z's war on her innocent family, potentially leading to ethical and legal consequences. VLA also published court records of Andres' denied appeals (see picture with pink stars) to gloat over Z's "victory”. This abusive behavior is unbecoming of an organization that claims to be a protector of vulnerable people. It further demonstrates that VLA is uninterested in adhering to standards of conduct for legitimate organizations.
A Second Case Filed by "Z", Against Andres' Family, was Nollied, Revealing A Pattern of Deception by State Prosecutor in 2019's Trial
In April of 2017, Z contacted the Victim Advocate's Office in New Haven. This was after reporting Andres for sexual abuse (that was in 2016). She alleged, in detail, that Andres had called his father, her grandfather Andres Sr., in Peru, to come to the United States to tell Z to drop the case. This went along with another allegation that Andres' family was dangerous to Z. These accusations were rolled into a new case by the prosecutor, for felony witness tampering. Z had also called the police department, where a detective hear her complaint. That's when the problems began, specifically three: (1) problem of proof, (2) problem of evidence, (3) hiding conflicting statements by Z.
​
-
Z gave two different versions, one to the Victim's Advocate, of which no record exists, and one to the police. These were different enough for the police to require a written statement from Z. The differences caused a "problem of proof" when this case was finally heard in court in 2024, causing the case to be dropped entirely (see transcript page 25, Lines 17-20).
-
The prosecutor in 2019's case signed an arrest warrant in 2017 for Andres Jr., for witness tampering. This was based on the following: a police detective alleged that she had records of a police interview via phone of Andres Sr. in Peru, and that on the call, Andres Sr. had confessed everything. The lead prosecutor signed off on the warrant, assuming responsibility for reviewing its validity. Both the detective and the prosecutor, however, were lying. The recording doesn't have any such confession, causing the problem of evidence which is a second reason the case was dropped in 2024 (page 28, lines 7-16).
Up until now, we have seen a problem of proof and a problem of evidence, both described in the transcript. But these lead to further distressing conclusions.​
-
Z gave two different versions in 2017, one to the Victim's Advocate, of which no record exists, and one to the police. However, the prosecution never turned over either of these statements, and indeed, nothing from this case to the sexual abuse case that occurred in 2019, despite these events occurring before. The fact that Z had contradicted herself would have been key evidence that would have put her testimony in doubt. It was material to the results of the sexual abuse case. Yet, all the evidence was "lost" (conveniently) for 6 years until 2024. The prosecutors claimed the files were stuck in a folder for Andres' appeals (page 22, Lines 5-13), and that they had forgotten about this second case (page 29, Lines 20-24). But why was it separated in the first place? Why did the prosecutors, who are a group of a dozen or so lawyers with experience, and the trial judge, and the defense attorneys for Andres ALL "forget" for 6 years?! The point is, a criminal charge like witness tampering, in connection to the crime of child sexual abuse, has never gone without a court hearing for 6 years. That is highly suspicious.