Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

David Quindt

Other California Cases with Mistaken Witness Identifications
On October 6, 1998, 18-year-old Riley Haeling was fatally shot and 15-year-old Jennifer Salmon was shot twice but survived, in a drug-related burglary in Fair Oaks, a suburb of Sacramento, California.

Months later, 21-year-old David Quindt was implicated by a fellow gang member, John Anderson. Anderson claimed he had provided Quindt with two guns the day before the shooting, one of which matched the caliber of the gun used at the scene of the crime. Quindt was arrested in mid-February, 1999.
 
Quindt was a known gang member with a juvenile criminal history and he resembled a composite sketch drawn with the assistance of the surviving victim. Quindt went to trial in Sacramento County Superior Court. Salmon positively idenetifed him as the gunman.

On December 2, 1999, based almost exclusively on this eyewitness testimony, a jury convicted Quindt of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and robbery.
 
Before Quindt was sentenced, an informant –  motivated by a $10,000 reward offered by the Haeling family – contacted investigators and implicated three other individuals in the crime. Further investigation led to the identification of the real criminals.

Quindt was released on May 22, 2000 after the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office moved to vacate the conviction on the ground that the real criminals had been identified.

Subsequently, all three of the criminals identified by the informant pled guilty.

Quindct received $17,200 in compensation for his incarceration from the State of California.
 
Charles Armbrust

Report an error or add more information about this case.

Posting Date:  Before June 2012
State:California
County:Sacramento
Most Serious Crime:Murder
Additional Convictions:Attempted Murder, Robbery
Reported Crime Date:1998
Convicted:1999
Exonerated:2000
Sentence:Not sentenced
Race:Caucasian
Sex:Male
Age at the date of crime:21
Contributing Factors:Mistaken Witness ID
Did DNA evidence contribute to the exoneration?:No