I I CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Daniel Green?eldand Jeff Carroll RE: Guevara The Armando Serrano and Jose Montanez Case DATE: February 2, 2015 I. Introductibn We investigated three cases in which defendants purportedly confessed to the same person: Francisco Vicente. The defendants in these cases are Robert Bouto, Armando Serrano and Jose Montanez, and a third defendant. Principally, the factual background relevant to claims of misconduct and actual innocence is as follows. On 5/14/93. Francisco Vicente, a member of the Imperial Gangsters street gang, was arrested in connection'with three armed robberies and one simple robbery he Was su'spected of having committed over the prior ten months. Beginning the following morning and continuing for approximately six Weeks, Dets. Rey Guevara and Ernest Halvorsen reported that ViCente had . obtained confessions in three unrelated murder cases._ In each case, the record mdrcates that Vicente's confession evidence was corroborated by a second informant?Edwin Maldonado in connection with the case against Bouto; Timothy Rankins in connection with the case against Montanez and Serrano; and a still-anonymous con?dential informant in connection with the case against third defendant.l In two of the cases, Dets. Guevara and Halvorse'n reported that Vicente first provided that evidence to someone other than them?in the Route case, the record indicates that Vicente first shared evidence against Bou'to with Det. Maher of another dete?tive or of?Cer, who then alerted Det. Halvorsen; in the Montanez/Serrano case, the record indicates that Rankins first provided evidence against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco to Sgt. Ed Mingey, who then alerted Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen. Since Dets. Guevara and Halvo'rsen initially reported this infatuation, it has been recanted by Rankins, Maldonado, and Vicente. First, beginning in 1994 and continuing to the present day, Rankings has recanted the evidence that he provided against Montanez and Serrano,- alleging that it was coerced from him by a list of police and prosecution personnel, including Dets. Guevara and Halvor?sen. Then, starting in 1996 and continuing to the present day, Bouto, Serrano, and Montanez remain incarcerated pursuant to these convictions, whereas the third defendant was released under supervision recently. Scanned by CamScanner SW CONFIDENTIAL Maldonado recanted the evidence that he provided against Bouto, alleging ?rst that he was pressured to do so by Vicente but years later also claiming that police personnel coerced him. In 2003, Vicente told students investigating possible wrongful convictions that the confession evidence he provided in all three cases had been fabricated, alleging that he had been coerced by Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen. On later occasions he negotiated for various bene?ts in return for executing an af?davit and potentially providing testimony in connection with the MontaneZISerrano post-conviction matter. Other individuals who served time with Vicente?- speci?cally, Lydell Williams and Valentine Gomez (aka ?Tomato?)??have also provided information potentially corroborating Vicente's recantations in the Bouto and Montanez/Serrano matters, respectively. Finally, some non-inforrnant witnesses in the Bouto and Montanez/Serrano matters have described actions by Det. Guevara that, if accurate, could constitute misconduct. For purposes of investigating these allegations, we analyzed the recOrd and conducted interviews with individuals involved in these cases. In this report, we present a detailed statement of facts, our analyses and findings, and our conclusions regarding allegations of misconduct and claims of actual innocence in the Montanez/Serrano case. We were not able to make comprehensive conclusions in the third defendant's matter. The MontanezJSerr-ano Case 1. Introduction To analyze the case against Serrano and Montanez for purposes of assessing claims of misconduct and, separately, their claims that they are actually innocent, we reviewed and analyzed the complete record in the matter. We also interviewed or met with sixteen people connected with the case, including the following: Dct. Ernest Halvorsen (reporting detective) Sgt. Ed Mingey (interviewed purported eyewitness Tim Ranki'ns) Capt. Lupe Pena (arrested Francisco Vicente and Jose Montanez) Jose Montanez (defendant) Armando Serrano (defendant) Tim Rankins (purported eyewitness) Demond Williams (aka ?Shorty Folks") (purported eyewitness) We note that we were unable to interview Det. Guevara or State's Witnesses Francisco Vicente, Wilda Vargas, and Anna Velez, who also had signi?cant roles in the matter. Speci?cally, pet. Guevara and Vicente have been advised by counsel not to consent to interviews with us. Wilda did not respond to multiple messages left by us at her home or the bar she co-owns, and appears to be avoiding us. Velez, we learned from our private investigator, is suffering ?'or'n dementia, and had no relevant recall during a conversation with him. i First, we present the facts, and then our analysis. We begin our analysis by examining the confession evidence provided by Vicente and Rankins, including its recantation. We conclude our analysis by examining the evidence provided by sources other titan Vicente and Rankins. 2 . Scanned by CamScanner Stl?ii Iii??! CONFIDENTIAL 2. Statement of Foot: a. The Shooting no 2. 5 at approximately 5:32 am, Rodrigo Vargas was shot to death in his van in hunt of his home at l838 N. Spring?eld Ave. (Mi/93 Supplemental Report ("Supp. The bullets that killed Vargas had been ?fired into the vehicle from the driver?s side door area." shattering the than driver?s side window. (Id. at 7.) Spring?eld is a one-way street, and therefore the driver's door was adiacent to the curb. (Id) The shattering glass caused ?numerous cuts on the face in an around the eyes" [sic] of Vargas. (Id. at 2; also an Photos in Evidence.) Vargas was shot ?ve times. (Id. at 2.) One shot entered his ?left upper arm? and exited ?the inside of his left upper arm." (Id) Two shots entered his lower back and two entered his upper back. (Id) Two ?essentially intact" bullets were ?formd in the that upper clothing of the victiml.]? (Id. at 7.) Vargas's ?feet were to the front, under the dashboard" when found, and, combined with the abrasions on his face, police determined that appeared that the victim was looking at the window at the time one of the shots was ?red before he stten?rpted to get to the rear of the vehicle.? (Id) - b. The Initial Investigation Chicago Police Department of?cers and detectives began arriving on the scene at 8:35 am. (2/5/93 General Offense Case Report.) Upon arriving, they found the Van?s engine running, its parking gear amassed. and its doors locked. (10118194 Trial Transcript, Vol. 1 at 64- 05.) Vargas was holding a pull-out radio and lay step a lunch bag. (216193 Supp. R. at 0n Vargas's person was found 8190 in cash (10/ 19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 10), and a receipt for $300 from an unidentified source. (2/5f93 General Progress Report.) After examining the scene and interviewing wimosses, Dots. N. Jack and R. Schak reported that ?[t]he victim was shot several times as he sat in his vehicle preparing to 30 his place of employment." (216193 Supp. R. at 3.) Vargas was still wearing his scarf and a cap. (Photos in Evidence.) There was no evidence of a struggle according to responding Of?cer Jeff Show. 10/ l8/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. at 05.) Police canvassed the neighborhood interviewing potential witnesses. (2/5/93 Supp. Re; 21093 Supp. R. at Wilda Vargas, the victim?s wife, informed CPD that her husband had ?no enemies" and ?no problems" and that she could think of no reason for his murder, rioting only am her husband's out had been stolen a year earlier but recovered? (2/6/93 Supp._R_. at a 9.) She further informed police that nothing appeared to have been taken from Vargas's van or his person. (Id. at 7.) For of clarity, we henceforth refer to the victim as "Vargas" and his widow as "Wildl." Scanned by CamScanner I CONFIDENTIAL Anna Velez, Vargas?s neighbor and friend, had discovered Vargas's body and called CPD. (2/6/93 Supp. R. at 8.) She stated to police on-scene that at 5:30 am. she looked out her window and noticed Vargas's van parked at the curb beneath with its engine running. 5.9.) Supp. R. at 8.) Velez, who lived two houses south of the Vargas home. ?sometimes? saw Vargas as he warmed up his van in the morning. (10/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. I at 32. 0n the morning of the murder, she ?saw the van was - he was heating up the van." (Id at 38 She could tell, she said. because of ?the smoke that comes out through the back when you turn on the car (Id) Velez stated that two to three minutes later. while she was in the bathroom (Id. at 29). she heard gun shots and looked out the window, but "did not observe anyone, did not see any cars moving and did not notice anything unusua (2/6/93 Supp. R. at 8.) Velez also speCi?ed she did not hear any yelling from outside. (10/18/94 Trial Transcript. Vol. 1 at 32, 37.) Later, after it became light out, she observed that Vargas?s van remained parked at the curb, still running, at which time she discovered his body. (2/6/93 Supp. R. at 8.) Police also spoke to Gary Shoop, another neighbor. (2/5/93 Supp. R. at 3.) lie was awakened by gunshots and ?peered out the window." (10/18/94 Trial ?Itanscript, Vol. 1 at 44.) At that time, he saw an older, light brown sedan. possibly a twodoor vehicle. driving northbound on Spring?eld Ave. (2/5/93 S\rpp. R. at 3.) Judy Milinltovicvisit her mother-in-law two doors away from the Vargas home at about 5:30 about two minutes prior to the shooting?as she did most mornings at that time, told CPD that she ?believed? she saw Vargas as he was exiting his home. (2/6/93 Supp. R. at 9-10.) She reported that she did not see anyone on the street other than Vargas. (Id) few moments later,? a?er entering her mother-in-law's home, Milinkovic beard gun shots. (Id) Milinkovic also saw the sedan that Shoop described. (Id) The day after the shooting, Detectives N. Jack and R. Schak interviewed Benjamin Salazar because he and a friend, Antonio Rojo, had been victimized several weeks earlier during an incident characterized by police as ?very similar.? (2/6/93 mpp. R. at 11.) Althoughboth Salazar and Rojo saw the African-American offenders. Rojo had a better vantage, and Dets. Jack and Schak reported plans to interview Rojo ?as soon as possible?? (1d) The investigative record went silent, however, on 2/6/93, and remained so until 3/11/93.? 3 Neither Rojo nor Salazar participated in the line-up identi?cations ofMontanez and Serrano (6/11/93 Supp. R. byG/H, Raul-tins Line-Up; 6/11/93 Supp. R. by G/l-l, Wilda Line-U 7/1019} Supp. R. by Line-Up), which both took place before ballistics evidence was returned indicating that the same weapon was not used in the incident involving thorn and the murder of Vargas. (9/25/93 Ballistics Comparison.) Although Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen each testi?ed that he began investigating the case on 2/6/93, the day after the murder (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 4; 10/19/94 Trial 'I?ranscript, Vol. 3 at 108), the initial investigation reports were prepared by other personnel and do not reference the participation of either Det. Guevara or Halvorsen. Det. Halvorsen's name ?rst appears in the record within the Supp. dated 6/2/93. 4 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL On 3/1 1/93, at the request of Det. Guevara, Velez submitted to a polygraph (3/17/93 Crime Lab Report.) Dot, Guevara?s request re?ected the ?rst time his name appeared In the Vargas investigative record. (Id) The resulting report indicated that Velez "allegedly tells people [she] saw offenders,? which she denied during the polygraph.? Handwritten notes accompanying the polygraph report read: ?Decqition Indicated.? (14) After Velez?s polygraph results were reported on 3/17/93, the investigatiVe ?le in the Montana/Serrano case again goes silent through 6/2/93, but for a ballistics laboratory report and Vargas's toxicology laboratory report. (4/6/93 Ballistics Report; 2/16/93 Toxicology Report.) c. . Vicente is Arrested On 5/14/93, Francisco Vicente, aka ?Chino,? a member of the Imperial Gangsters street gang, was arrested by Of?cers Lupe Pena and Luis Matron in connection with three armed robberies, all class offenses, and one simple robbery he was suspected of having committed over the prior ten months. 14/93 Francisco Vicente Arrest Report; 9/23/96 Francisco Vicente Change of Plea Hearing.) A suspected accomplice of Vicente?s, Kenneth Thrane, nicknamed ?Kenny,? was also arrested at about that time. (Vicente Armed Robbery File.) (Vicente, who admitted to having a ?bad? heroin habit and who later acknowledged robbing people in order to support his habit, committed three of the robberies in order to steal his victim's gold jewelry, all of thorn at gun or knifepoint. (Vicente Armed Robbery File.? In the other, he Stole a bicycle from a school-age child. (9/23/96 Francisco Vicente Change of Plea Hearing.) Vicente also had an extensive prior criminal history. d. Unknown CPD or ASAs Request Criminal History of Defendants Although not reported in the Vargas investigative ?le the RD File), on 5/25/93 unknown police or prosecution personnel requested the histo?es of Jose Montanez, Armando Serrano, and Jorge Pooheeo.? (5/25/93 Criminal Histories.) There is no evidence that we are of that Montanez, Serrano, 0r Pacheco committed any 01.1 01' about that date. . Velez did not participate in the eventual police station line-up identi?cations of Montanez and Serrano. (6/11/93 Supp. R. by our, Rankins Line-Up; 6/11/93 Supp. R. by GM, Wilda Line-Up; 7/10/93 Supp. R. by Line-Up.) . We obtained this documentation from the City in July of 2014 in response to requesting from our client additional material concerning this and other cases we were asked to evaluate. 7 Montanez?s criminal history contains a 5/17/93 entry, reading which means ?Bond Forfeiture Warrant? related to a weapons charge. (5/2-5/93 Criminal Histories.) Serrano obtained some minor charges in late April, but none in May. And Pacheco was not charged with anything in April or May of 1993. (Id) - Scanned by CamScanner sow CONFIDENTIAL o. The Evidence Reportedly Obtained From Vicente Dot. lialvorsen Decides to Question Vicente About the Valuas Murder One week later. in a Supp. R. dated mm. and approved 6/3/03. but reflecting evidence reported to have been gathered as late as (Vb/93. significant investigative activity is reported for the first time since Veloz's polygraph. (tin/03 Supp. R. by GM.) Speci?cally. at time unknown on 6/2/93. a ?circumstantial witness who for his own safety must remain anonymous" was reported to have informed both Dots. Guevara and llalvorsen that on mm. he had been present. four months earlier. when Mootane'a. Serrano. and Pacheco discussed having murdered Vargas. (1d) The anonymous circumstantial witness was described as a member of the imperial Gangsters street gang and he identitied the defendants by street name. accurately. as Pistol Pete. Mando. and Jordan. (M) More than three weeks later. the circumstantial witness was identi?ed as Vicente. (6/28/93 Vicente liW Statement by ii.) At trial. Dot. ilalvorsen described the circumstances of that meeting. explaining that he interviewed Vicente on 6/2/93 because he ?had heard rumors on the street that a guy by the name of Pistol Pete was involved" in the Vargas murder.u his! Transcript. Vol. 3 at 82.) These rumors. according to Bet. llalvorsen. were ?unsubstantiated? and he "had no evidence to involve Pistol Pete in a crime whatsoever." Ud.) Moreover. there were 'marty Pistol Poles" in the "nickname file," a circumstance that he testi?ed rendered the alias information ?utterly useless" to him. (Id. at 116.) Det. llalvorsen had learned. however. during the course of ?talk?ngj to [Vicente] about the Robert Bouto investigation? on ?[tJhe date Francisco Vicente was It is not clear to us whether Dot. Guevara was in {bet at the meeting with Vicente as it is reported in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93. Although Vicente testified that Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen were both present (Trial Transcript. Vol. 2 at 98-99. 128). Oct. Halvorsen testified that he interviewed Vicente without Dot. Guevara present. (10/19/94 Trial 'hanscript. Vol.1 3 at 81.) However. Det. lialvorsen told us that he and Der. Guevara were both present for the (ii/2193 meeting. (10/21/93 Interview with Ernest Halvorsen.) Montanez told us that his nicknames were ?Gordo? and "Pistol Pete." (10/17/13 Interview with Jose Montana.) The latter street name was a reference to basketde great Pistol Pete Maravich, and re?ected Montanez's skill from the three-point line. Montana: told us. (M) On occasion, he noted, Pistol Pete was diminutized to "Pita." (M) 'o Accordingly. we refer to the circumstantial witness as Vicente from this point forward for purposes of clarity. Similarly. although Vicente refers to the defendants by their street names. Pistol Pete. Mando, and Jordan. for purposes of clarity we primarily refer to them as Montana. Serrano, and Pacheco. reSpectiveiy. Those rumors are not re?ected in the investigative record. Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL 5/14/93?that Vicente had been ?arrested with a second offender who had a niclmame of Pistol Pete,? according to Bet. l-lalvorsen.12 (Id. at 114.) Thus, he was ?curious whether or not [Vicente] might be able to assist" in the Vargas murder investigation (Id. at 82.) At that time, Det. Halvorsen testified, Vicente informed him he ?had the right nickname but 1 had the wrong Pistol Pete, I wanted big Pistol Pete and not little Pistol Pete." (Id. at 83.) Vicente testi?ed that he then told Det. Halvorsen, knew two Pistol Petes, the one that I had the armed robbery with" and Montanez.13 00/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 28-29.) Then Vicente ?supplied [Det Halvorsen] the three nicknames of Pistol Pete, Mando and Jordan." (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 83.) After talking to Vicente, Det. Halvorsen testi?ed, checked my nickname ?les at my of?ce and I saw that Pistol Pete was in fact Jose Montanez, Mando Was Armando Serrano and Jordan was Jorge Pacheco.? (Id) Det. Halvorsen testi?ed that he knew all three from prior investigations. (Id) Det. Halvorsen testi?ed that he then ?went and obtained black and white CPD identi?cation photos of them and I showed these three photos to Francisco Vicente? who identi?ed them ?as being the individuals that he had given the statement regarding." (Id. at 84.) '2 Vicente's arrest records for the four relevant robberies, which we obtained and examined, indicate that he was not arrested with (nor did he commit any of his robberies with) a Pistol Pete. (Vicente Armed Robbery File.) Rather, Vicente?s only co-perpetrator on these robberies was Kenneth Thrane, nicknamed ?Kenny,? and the pair were not actually arrested together. (Id) Notwithstanding this evidence, Vicente testi?ed at trial that he had in fact been arrested with a Pistol Pete. (10/ 18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 28.) Vicente also testi?ed at trial that he gave a statement against that other Pistol Pete?43., not Montanez?.in connection with the robbery they allegedly committed together, another assertion we have been unable to con?mr through our search of Vicente?s criminal records. (Id. at 126-27, 129.) ?3 Captain Lupe Pena, Vicente?s arresting of?cer on his armed robberies, told us that he knew of only two Pistol Peres in the neighborhood at that time, Montanez and another man named Jose Cotto. (7/17/14 Interview with Lupe Pena.) The "little Pistol Pete" referenced by Vicente and Halvorse'n is Angel Sanchez, according to information obtained by student investigators from Montanez?s family, whose brother Armando Quinones was nicknanmd, like Armando Serrano, simply ?Mando.? (5/4/03 Email.) Quinones con?rmed these nicknames in an interview with us. (Interview with Armando Quinones.) Both Sanchez and Quinones were members of the Imperial Gangsters and have extensive criminal histories, including for the following charges: armed . robbery, burglary, narcotics possession, mob action, theft, receipt of stolen property, and receipt of stolen vehicle. 14/ 14 Armando Quinones Background; 12/13/94 Angel Sanchez Criminal History.) Halvorsen was the arresting officer of Montanez?s co-defdant in a prior murdertrial. (6/24/90 Jose Baez Arrest Report-by H.) (Mentanez was acquitted at trial in that 6380. 1.1.1.14 told us he had been innocent of the crime. (10/17/13 Interview with Jose Montanez.) 7 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL (ii) The 2/5/93 Confession Regarding the details of the confession, Vicente was reported to have informed the "RfDets." that he was hanging out at a ?dope spot" at the corner of Hamlin and Altgeld on 2/5/93. (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Vicente had spent the entire night on that corner and had used heroin at about 1:30 or 2 cm." (10/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol, 2 at 38.) Then, between 8:30 and 9 me When Vicente was f?coming down off of" his heroin high, Montanez drove up in a tan- colored Buick. (Id. at 10-11.) Serrano and Pacheco, he said, were passengers." (Id. at 89.) Although there is a large church and school complex on the corner of Hamlin and Altgeld, Vicente testi?ed that he was not aware of the church or school, and did not see any other people during the time he spent on that corner with Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco.? (Id. at 123, 130- 31.) Serrano and Pacheco exited the car and Montanez, who remained inside of it, placed a ?large frame, 9 mm semi-automatic pistol" in one of the vehicle?s air vents. (6/2/93 Supp. R. by (At trial, in contrast, Vicente described for the ?rst time Montanez hiding his weapon by ?plac[ing] it outside somewhere." (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at While parked on the corner, Montanez also ?p1ay[ed] with a bag of dope," i.e. heroin. (6/2/93 Supp. by 10/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 10-1 1.) Thereafter, in Vicente's presence, ?[t]he three of them were talking about a robbery they had just done, that had gone bad? because ?Tucked up" and ?went at the guy wrong." (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Gill) Montana con?rmed, ?we ?5 At trial, Vicente referred instead twice to a meeting at Harding trod Altgeld (10/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 8, 116-17.) However, later in his testimony he again began referring to Hamlin and as the site of the meeting with the defendants. (Id. at 130-131, 140.) At trial, ASA Coghlan referred to the streets only as Hamlin and Altgeld, with the refmces ocean-hag after Vicente said Harding. (Id. at 130-31, 140.) Vicente referred to Hamlin once more, in a 5/26/04 af?davit he executed recanting his statements and testimony against Montana, Serrano, and Pacheco. (5/26/04 Af?davit of Francisco Vicente.) 1? Vicente told the grand jury that he had known Montana for seven years prior to the am meeting, that he had knoWn Pacheco ?nine or eight years" before the meeting, and that he had known Serrano for "about six years? before the meeting.? (7/1/93 Grand Jury Testimony of Francisco Vicente.) Vicente and Serrano had been in a ?ght in July of 1992, ether Vicente had informed someone that Some had broken into his car. (7/13/99 Af?davit of Felix Scanner) 1n conversation with us, Serrano denied that he had broken into that car, but con?rmed the ?ght. (10/17/13 Interview with Amanda Serrano.) Vicente has not speci?cally discussed the ?ght, to our knowledge, but did tell student investigators that he ?hated? Serrano. (6/19/03 Email.) 17 Stephanie Tumor, an investigator employed by the Cook County Public Defender?s Of?ce, testi?ed that a big Catholic school there at the corner and the school is very large. it goes all the way around and all the way up to Ridgeland and all mind So it?s a very large school.? (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 42-43.) We visited that location and con?rmed the accuracy of her characterization. Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL would have never did what we did if [Serrano] never fucked up." Ud in" ?me: PM ?stood around laughing as [Montancz] yelled at [Serrano]." (Id) When Vicente asked {or clari?cation, Montancz stated ?we shot a stud" and ?we hurt um stud bad.? (M) View and *1 of the Buick conversed for three to four hours, at the corner of and My?. Vieente?s porch, and on the drive to Gold Buster's. Vicente testi?ed. (10/19/94 Trial Transcript. Vol. 2 at 12.) Montanez continued: ?the day before the three of them had spotted victim with lots of money" at an undescr'ibed location. (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Speci?cally, ?Pistol was getting change for a dollar when the victim walked in and showed a lot of money."" (Id. trial, Vicente stated for the ?rst time that Pacheco also discussed with him the fact ?rst they had spotted Vargas the night before they killed hint (10/18/94 rial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 1 Then. Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco followed him home, but held of? robbing him because ?he era with his lady and some kids." (6/2/93 Supp. R. by (At trial, Vicente testi?ed that Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco held off on the robbery ?because the guy's wife was aware that they were being followed.? (10/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at because they ?knew this guy would be a sweet victim . . . they laid out for him.? (6/2/93 Supp. R. by GIH.) According to Vicente, Montanez stated that ?they did not get money from the victim they popped, and needed to get some money to buy" heroin. (Id) In fact, they did not take anything from Vargas, Vicente testi?ed. (10/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 19.) Accordingly, Mornnez allegedly stated that ?they robbed some kid on the street with his school bags.? (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Gill.) Montanez continued, according to Vicente, stating "he took this victims [sic] three neck chains, and his bracelet? (Id) Serrano allegedly stated that ?he took the school ring off the victims [sic] ?nger." (Id) Vicente then reportedly accompanied Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco to a store called ?Gold Busters," where they fenced the gold chains and school ring ?to get money to buy haunt.? (Id) Det Halvorsen told us that he and Det. Guevara determined that Gold Busten did not (10/21/13 Interview with Ernest Halvorsen.) Said Det. Halvorseru ?Gold Busters was bullshit? (Id) We have independently determined, through a search of relevant public records, that no store called Gold Busters existed in Chicago at that time. (10/20/14 Public Records Search.) The 2/7/93 Confusion Vicente is also reported to have stated to the ?R/Dets.? on 6/2/93 that on 217/93, two after the initial reported meeting, Montanez again drove up to Vicente. (6/293 Supp. R. by GM.) That second visit, Vicente testi?ed, was motivated by Montanez's need to repair his memes, a job Vicente had agreed to do for Montanez. (10/ 18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 120-21.) When Vicente later expanded upon this in a handwritten statement (6/28/93 Vicente WW 5mm by H) and at trial, explaining that Montanez informed him that the ?day before? Montana had ?seen this Mexican guy walk into the gas station.? (10/18/94 Trial Transcript, 2 st 16.) 9 Scanned by CamScanner Ay h~ \Ll Montanez arrived, Vicente said, he ?rst ?noticed new damage to the left front feeds!" of Montancz's car. '9 (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Gil-l.) Vicente asked ??Pistol Pete? what happened to his car,? and Montanez reportedly inforrned Vicente that ?after they popped" Vargas, ?he was driving his car and smashed into I parked car as they drove off? from the scene. (Id) Vicente then sought clari?cation, asking Montanez ?what went wrong." (Id) In response, Montanez stated: The victim who Was a Mexican came out carrying a car radio. Mondo was supposed to grab the victim around the neck, so they could go into the victim's pockets. Mondo got greedy when he saw the radio and, instead of grabbing the victim he want for the radio. Thezigictim started ?ghting, and got shot. Pistol Pete and Mondo jumped back into the car. - (7d) At trial, Vicente stated for the ?rst time that he was with a ?friend? known to him only as "Rick" when Montanez described the Vargas murder on 2/7/93. (10/ 1 8/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 22.) Vicente aclmowledged that he had not, prior to trial, speci?cally discussed with anyone Rick's presence during the confession. (Id. at 1 12-13.) He stated, however, that he had previously informed ASA Coghlan that a "friend" was with him on 2/7/93. (Id) (That prior disclosure is not re?ected in the record.) As reported by Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen, the ?R/Dets. were familiar with the Imperial Gangsters Street Gang and had photos of Pistol Pete, Jordan and Mondo,? which Vicente then identi?ed as Montanez, Pacheco, and Serrano, respectively. (6/2/93 Supp. R. by - Jose Garcia, a mechanic, later submitted an af?davit in which he noted that on 2/19/93, Montanez brought in his car for repair. (3/2/95 Af?davit of Jose Garcia.) Garcia stated that it was part of his standard practice to examine customer vehicles for damage, and that there was no damage on Montanez?s vehicle. (Id) Attached to the af?davit was a receipt for repair, dated 2/19/93. Montanez told us that he damaged his car by hitting a parked vehicle when he was "high." (10/ 17/ 3 Interview with Jose Montanez.) Det. Halvorsen did not take notes during the 6/2/93 interview with Vicente, he testi?ed. (10/ 19/94 Trial Transcript, V01. 3 at 111.) t. ?9 Vicente would later tell ASA Coghlan and testify at trial that he actually noticed the on 2/5/93, but did not disclose that fact to anyone. (9/21/94 Investigative Report; .10/ 18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 120.) . 3? During the 2/7/93 meeting between Montanez and Vicente, Montanez purportedly did not describe Pacheco's inVOIVernent in the robbery or shooting. (6/2/93 Supp. R. by 10 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL f. Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen Obtain Evidence From Wilda Vargas Wilda Discusses the ?Gas-Station Incident? A130. at time unknown on 6/2/93, Det. Guevara reportedly met alone with Wilda, Vargas?s widow. (6/2/93 Supp. it by Det. Halvorsen testi?ed that while he was ?seated in the car on the street,? Det. Guevara ?Went into the house.? (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 85.) Wilda informed Det. Guevara that she, Vargas, and their children went to the bank on 2/4/93, and then, at some time between 6:40 and 7 pm, ?stopped at the gas station at North Ave. and Central Park.? (10/ 19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 12; 6/2/93 Supp. R. by Gill.) At that point, a vehicle ?pulled up and parked directly in front of them.? (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Gill.) Although Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen reported that Wilda described that vehicle as a ?tan car? (lot), Det. Guevara later testi?ed that Wilda did not describe to him the vehicle she saw, at the gas station. (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 25.) Wilda could ?see that there were three" male Latino occupants, a driver, a front. passenger, and a rear passenger. (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Wilda ?looked at the man next to her husband" and the ?man who was seated in the front passenger seat." (Id) (At trial, Wilda testi?ed, in contrast, that both passengers sat in the back seat. (10/ 19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at - Wilda inforihed Det. Guevara that after ?[h]er husband went into the station to make a purchase" the "driver of this car walked into the station behind her husband.? (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Her husband, Wilda reportedly stated, ?had a roll of money, about $350? with him (Id) (At trial, however, Wilda testi?ed several that by the time the occupant of the tan sedan entered the cashier's station at the gas station, her husband had already exited the whiq?s station and Was either pumping gas or seated in their van.? (10/19/94 Trial Transcript V01. 3 at 13, 20, Wilda and her'family and the occupants of the tan car were at the gas station together for three minutes, she testi?ed. (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 71.) At the expiration of this time, the ?people in the tan car began to follow them, all the way back to her house on Spring?eld" (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Gill.) (At trial, in contrast, Wilda testi?ed several times that she did not know whether the vehicle she saw at the gas station follotVed her all the way home?) i 2' On one Occasion, on cross examination, Wilda she testi?ed that Vargas was still in the cashier's .station when the occupant of the tan sedan entered. (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. .3 31.70.) . i 7-2 Speci?cally, Wilda testi?ed that although she and Rodrigo believed that the car followed them directly out of the gas station, they were not sure whether it followed them after they rn?lade their 11 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL Det. Guevara then showed Wilda eight black and white CPD identi?cation photos?? speci?cally, Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco plus ?ve linen.? (Id) Wilda identi?ed Momma as the person who ?followed her husband into the gas station" and Serrano as the person she ?saw seated in the front passenger seat.? (1d) She could not, however, ?see the man in the back Seat clearly." (Id) According to Vicente, that would have been Pacheco. (1d) After Wilda identi?ed Serrano and Montanez, Det. Guevara ?asked her to go with us and show us the route that they took that night at the gas station going home.? (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 10.) Det. Guevara and Wilda then exited her home, and all three drove to the gas station at the corner of Central Park and North Avenue. (Id) There, Det. Halvorsm Watched as Wilda Vargas eitplained in Spanish to Detective Guevara the events that had taken place in that gas station the day before her husband was murder (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 85.) (Det. Halvorsen told us that he did not speak Spanish. (10/21/13 Interview with Ewes: Halvorsen.? Wilda Identi?es Montana?s Cai' As also reported in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93, at time and date unknown, the regarding the location of Montanez?s car, a ?tan colored, I984, Buick gained information and a?bullet hole inthe trunk and in the le? I: Regal? with ?damage to the left front fender passenger door.? (6/2/93 Supp. by Then, Wilda, in the presence only of Det. Guevara, reportedly drove around. (Id) At that time, Wilda ?was asked if she recognized the car that had folloWed her the day before her husband was killed/?2? (Id) As reported, Wilda "positively identi?ed the 1984 2Dr. Buick Regal ?rst of several turns. 10/ 19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 53-55, 57-60, 76.) On 5/23/06, "al wrongful convictions, Wilda however, in connection with a student investigation of potentr executed an affidavit in which she asserted that she did notice that the men drove behind the van until the Vargases reached their home, but that they then ?continued driving without pausing or slowing," and that ?[th did not appear to me that we were being 'foHOWed? by these men," and that Rodrigo Vargas also did not indicate that he thought they had been followed Affidavit of' Wilda Vargas.) ii 23 We have not been able to locate this photo my among the Impounded Evidce, although a 3/8/95 Irn?pounding Order con?rms that the array was impounded, and the trial transcript It indicates that Wilda was shoWn the photo my photos at trial. (10/ 19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol 3 at 21-23.) 2" Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen both testi?ed that they did not look for Montana's car with Wilda on 6/2/93, but rather on 6/6/93. (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 10; 10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 86-87.) As reported in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93, it was not until ?6 June 93 [thatIthe R/Dets. took photos of this 1984 Buick Regal." (6/2/93 Supp. by GM.) A 6/6/93 Crime Some Processing Report con?rms this. (6/6/93 Crime Scene Processing Report by H.) 12 -vv Scanned by CamScanner of Jose Montana: as the car that followed her from the gas station." (Id) (In actuality, the car as a t?ourdmr. (Photos in Evidence.? However. prior to the 2013 post-conviction proceedings in this matter, Wilda allegedly told Russell Ainswoith and Jennifer Bonjcan, post-conviction counsel to Montana: and Serrano, respectively, that Det. Guevara had pointed out Montanez's car to her, and asked if it was the vehicle that had hollowed her home. (5/15/13 Hearing Transcript at 194-98.) Speci?cally. allegedly stated that Dots. Guevara and Halvorsen drove her around looking for the ear that blocked Vargas's van at the gas station on the eve of his murder. (Id) She allegedly stated that she Wis not able to identity the car that she saw at that gas station. She stated, allegedly, that hot. Guevara than brought her to a car and identi?ed it to Wilda as the car that had been drixen by the otTendets. (Id) Upon being pointed out the car by Det. Guevara, Wilda purportedly said only that the vehicle was "similar," at which time Oct. Guevara responded that the bullet holes in Montana?s car matched the ballistics evidence from the crime scene and that the fender damage on Montanez?s car ?matched the accounts of the crime." There is no evidence to support Det. Guevara?s alleged statement regarding the ballistics match or fender damage. In fact. the bullet damage to Montanez's car Was to a passenger side door and the trunk, neither of which would have been exposed to gun?re emanating from the driver?s side sidewalk on a one- way street (Photos in Evidence.) Wilda, allegedly, was prepared to testify to this event at the post -eonviction hearing, according to an offer of proof, but was barred from testifying by the post ~eonviction court. (5/15/13 Hearing Transcript at 194-198.) g. Sequencing of Vicente?s and Wilda?a Evidence - At trial. Dots. Guevara and Halvorsen testi?ed to the uencing of these events. Upon concluding his meeting with Vicente, Det. Halvorsen testified at he ?informed [his] partner Detectitre Reynaldo Guevara of the statermnt that I had gotten from Francisco Vicente.? (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 85.) After receiving this information Det. Halvorsen, Det Guevara testi?ed that he ?immediately? called Wilda, with whom he had been ?keeping constant contact" since the ?day after" the murder, and ?asked her if anything unusual happened the night before the murder.? (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 4-5.) In neSponse, Wilda said, ?yes.? but did not elaborate and, accordingly, Det. Guevara drove to her house with Det. Halvorsen to elicit additional information, he testi?ed. (Id. at After Det. Goevara had a conversation with Wilda at her home. she accompanied Dots. Guevara and Halvorsen to the gas station where she described the incident that occurred. (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 85.) Wilda also testi?ed to the sequencing of these events, stating several times, however, that she, rather than Det. Guevara, first introduced the incident that took place on the eve of her husband's murder. ?5 (Id. at 10-11, 36-39.) Like Det. Guevara, Wilda testi?ed that she and Det. ?5 Wilda stated three times at trial that she volunteered the 2/4/93 incident to Det. Guevara. 0n direct, she said that Del. Guevara asked her if she had been to the bank? the night before the murder, at which time she told him ?[tJhat we went to the gas station to pay gas for the van.? (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 10-1 1.) Asked whether ?the detective asked you if you had been at the gas station." she responded, ?No, i told him that we went to the gas station." (Id. at 13 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL Gun-L1 had been in contact in the months after the murder, stating used to get in touch With him at 38 Wilda testi?ed incensistently regarding when she and the detectives Visited the gas station and surrounding streets in an effort to locate the car she saw at the gas station. describing it variously as 2/8/93 and June of 1993. (1d. at 61-62, 23-25.) (Det. Halvoraen testi?ed that ?nobody abetted her any cars" on 2/8/93. (Id. at 104)) We also asked Det. Halvorsen about the sequencing of these events. Det. Halvoraen told us that when he was on the Supp. R. in which this evidence was reported?Le, the Supp. R. dated [Guevara] came into the office and told" him ?by the way? at some point prior to 62/93, Wilda had informed him that she ?remembered something happened the before [the murder] at a gas station.? (10/21/13 Interview with Ernest Halvorsen.) Det. lialvorsen recalled exclaiming at the tim, ?You're just telling me about this now?" (Id) When we asked Det. Halvorsen whether Vicente instead might have introduced that incident into the case, Der. Halvorsen said, mo," explaining that Vicente "had no knowledge ofithat.? (Id) h. Serrano and Pacheco are Detained for Questioning On 6-?8393, Serrano was brought into Area 5 Violent Crimes for questioning. 14/93 Supp. R. by GM.) At that time, he "denied having any knowledge" of the incident, and requested a polygraph. (Id) At the conclusion of the polygraph, he was "informed that he had failed the test and that he had knowledge or participated in the incident." (Id) A report accompanying the test reads, in part, ?Deception Indicated." (6/8/93 Crime Lab Report.) "the following day, Pacheco was brought into Area 5 VC to be intervieWed. (6/14/93 supp. It by GM ll.) Pacheco, like Serrano, ?denied having any knowledge of the incident and also requested to be taken for a polygraph test." Pacheco was also ?told that he failed the test" but he ?kept on denying any knowledge of the incident.? (Id) A report accompanying his test reads, also, in part, ?Deception Indicated." (6/9/93 Crime Lab Report.) i. Tim Claims to Have Witnessed Shooting Rankine Meets with Sgt. Mingey 0n 6? 10/93, at approximately 11 pan, Timothy Rankins (aka ?Loco?), 19, a member of the Spanish Cobras street gang, was arrested moments after allegedly committing a robbery; (6110/93 Timothy Rankins Arrest Report) At 1:05 am, Demond Williams (aka ?Shorty Folks"), 15, a member of the Gangster Disciples street gang, was arrested in connection with the saline robbery, and described as Rankins?s co-perpetrator. (6/11/93 Demand Williams Arrest Report.) 36-37.) She then veri?ed that sequence when asked a clarifying question. (Id. at 38.) In a later interview with student investigators, Wilda said that she told police iDVestigators about the gas- station incident on the day that Rodrigo was shot and killed. (4/24/06 Interview with Student Investigators at 6.) l4 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL After Rankins was brought in, Sgt. Ed Mingcy decided to interview him because, as reported by Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen, ?preliminary information . . . indicated" that a victim in another case had been murdered by a Spanish Cobra. 14/93 Supp. R. 11 by Gill.) (The . defendant in that case, an Imperial Gangster, was later convicted of that murder, in part, on his alleged confession to Vicente. As noted in the introduction to this report, we investigated his case, as well, but were unable to make a ?nal ?nding regarding innocence") Rankins was reported to have revealed to Sgt. Mingey at that time that ?he was a witness to a murder that occurred in Feb. 93," which Sgt. Mingey recognized as a reference to the Vargas murder. Mingey knew Guevara and Halvor'scn ?had previously gained information as to suspects" ?in that case, and thus contacted them for purposes of requesting that they take a statement from Rankins. (Id) Speci?cally, Sgt. Mingey told us, "[t]he lead they were Working on was this Vicente guy . . .. who was Halvorseri?s snitch on other Cases." (4/7/14 Interview withEd Min gey.) There are no notes in the record from Sgt. Mingey memorializing his interview with Rankins, although he told us that he did take brief notes of the conversation, containing only Rankins?s niclmames for the assailants?Barrel Belly, Stripes, and Jokermwhi?ch he then turned over to Det's. GueVara and Halt/omen?" i Sgt. Mingey told us that Rankins was ?the best witness I ev?ethad.? (Id) Mingey? said that Rankins ?Was extremely Cooperative and easy to talk to," and that it was "obvious" after talking to Rankine ?that one, he was the offender or, two, he actually witnessed it." (Id) Sgt. Mingey continued: When I talked to this guy, I never talked to anyone who gave me more info and it turned out to be totally legit, . . I've never talked to a guy who was a better informant; He Spewed out all this information. It seems strange, but that?s exactly what happened. (17:11):3 26 The reparting in the third defendant's case indicates that the preliminary htformation pointed - at the Imperial Gangsters rather than the Spanish Cobras, as Sgt. was reported by Data. Guevara and Halvorsen to hatre believed. (6/24/93 Supp. .R. by GIH.) Moreover, Sgt, Mingey told us that he did not, in fact, participate in that murder investigation. Interview with Ed Mingey.) . 27 Serrano told us that Joker and Stripes were well?know gang members in the neighborhood._ (10/17/13 htterviewwith Armando Serrano.) Stripes, according to Serrano, lived near Monticello Park. (Id) Another Imperial Gangster, Armando Quinones (aka ?Mondo") told 1'18. in an interview on 8/9/14, too, that Stripes and Joker were Gangsters. (2014 Interview with Armando Quinones.) a 23 Mingey currently serves as the Director of Security for the Illinois Racing Board. (4 /14 Interview with Ed Mingey.) 15 Scanned by CamScanner (ii) Rankine Meets with Dets. Guevara and H117on and . Gives a Handwritten Statement . ALZ pm. on 6/11/93, Dots. Guevara and Halvorsen interviewed Rankin. (Ell-1193 Seep. R. by At 11:35 gun, he met with ASA Jon King and and gave a handwn'tten (6/1 1193 Timothy Rankins Statement by H.) Rankin: meet: can on 2/4/93 he was standing on the corner of Spaulding and Armitage, ?a hangout for Lie Gangsters Street Gang.? (Id) Rankins noted that at that time, "his gang was hie?.1111! wt: :51: Imperial Gangsters Street Gang? because they were ?part of the ?Polk Nation.? (Li) At: about 9 p.111. (101), a ?tan colored Buick Regal? drew: up. (6/14/93 Supp. R. II by GE.) Tea: ear, according to Ranl-cins, was driven by an Imperial Gangster ?he knows as Moses? er ?Bari Belly? Montana), the latter nickname a reference to his ?large stomach? (Ii) A: Gangster ?he knows as Joker" (Serrano) was also in the car.3c (Ii) Serrano exited the car and said, "1 want you to go with us tonight to go pick up some guns and drugs.? (Id) Agar-Ma: 'Rankins, he had done so with Serrano, Montanez, and other Imperial Gangstas or; two print occasions because he is fast runner and could outrun the police ifstopped with (Ii) As planned, Rankins arrived at Monticello Park at 4:30 an; ([511) There, he found. Serrano and Montanez and another Imperial Gangster ?he knows as ?Stripcsm (Pacheco)- (Li) girlfriend."Sabrina" and ?a guy he knows as Shorty Folks? (Demetri Williams were also in the park with Serrano, Montanez, and Pacheco. (Id) Then, according to he: . talked to his lfriend while Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco had a conversation by themselves? (magnet-ts ?could not hear what they were saying." (Ia) A?er a 5:12, am approached Rankins and said, ?Come on now, We?re going to do this-? (Ii) Teen, Segue azrf Montanez got into the ?same Buick that they'had been riding in earlier." (Id) Willing and Pacheco got into a ?red van with white stripes on the bottom.?32 (Ii) That aeecrii-rg-I: had been borrowed from another Imperial Gangster, but he did not know 5:21: speci?cally. (Id) Upon departing Monticello Park, Ranlcins, ?Williams, and Pacheco drove down Spring?eld and then ?parked their van at the corner of Spring?eld and Cortland." (125.) Pacheco 29 The content of that handwritten statement is almost identical to the content cfthe 6/14. 9'3 Supp. R. memorializing Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen?s 2 9.111. meeting with Rankizs. 3? For purposes of clarity, we primarily refer to the defendants as Montanez, Em, and Pacheco under cirCumstances where referred to them by purported 3? In the handwritten statement, in centrast, Rankins indicated that Williams also took part in this conversation with, the defendants. (6/1 1/93 Timothy Handwritten Statement By _32 An Imperial Gangster commonly known as Joker not Serrano), in fact, owned :ti mi White. van that Rankins described, according to Serrano. (10/17/13 Interview Serrano.) . I 16 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL exited the red and white striped \?ett end tnet Montana: and Serrano nem another "van that we: parked on Spring?eld?- let. \?etgcu?: en thl? t?m'heeo. Serrano. and htontnnee were standing on the sidewalk "about sewn or eight honm mm ttotn where we: A ?couple of minutes" later. a exited a ?gate? and a: Hopped tw Sermon. htontanee, and Pacheco. (M) Although 3911mm. Montana? and i?m?itee?t ?mid smoothing to "it! man," Rankine ?could not make out the wotdr.? UJ noth e.l that the than to: moving a "Snatch Out Radio." (It! Then the ?man than to hlne end pier van that we! parked on Springfield." (M) As he ran, Pacheco ?was yelling out, ?t?tt When the man lumped inside the van. Montanez "yelled out. ?(ltl i ?llten Serrano "pulled out a large semi-automatic pistol" and alerted ?thin into the van tht') itnnkim mold "hear the glass on the drivers Side window shatters" tlti.) et Serrano ?red into the ten ?0?0 titties." he and Montanez "ran betel: to the tan llniek and drove ott'l? (M) l?neheeo then not hook into the van, at which point he stated to itnnkinn and Willimns. ?tl?yon tell mnone what )xnt new. oe?ll kill you too.? Rankine told bets. Guevara and iiairotven that he was ?ntl?nid he would he killed,? he had not talked to anyone about the to'l lit-kl ltandmitten Statement by 11.) However. when Rankine was locked up the tot~t~etv on ell 1:93. "he asked to speak- with Sgt. Eddie Mlngev who "l?lntotlnr known and hosts?" (Mk noted "is scared of being killed by the hot emne t?otwent to Sin. Minney anyway." Uri.) Alter shared ltets. ttnevnnt and ?asked 'l?hnothy Rankins to verify the information he was providing. in: adorning the the exact location where the men was shot." (till-W} Supp. It. it by Will llet. tlalrotnen testi?ed that he said the following to at the conclusion ol?the interview: ?i wanted to itellt?tt? the in?n?ntation he was providing me he is going to ltm'e to to me that he nr?tuellv had evidence of this." (10/19/94 ?hint lpt. at 9.1.) Net. tlnirotxen testltied he then inl?onned ?that they wete going to drive Nuttit on Splitmlleid. and that 'l'itnothv Ranking should indicate- the location where the \?ietinr win: rthot.? (M. nt ?Ll iimtkilts the lUDcis. to step in front of 1518 N. Spring?eld? (i . the Verge: hotnel "pointed out the gate that the Victim walked out ol?. and pointed to the spot on the ntteet where the viettnr van was parked." (6/14/93 Supp. it. it by Alter viewed the etitne he \?t?tt?i "tettnned to [teen Five where he viewed :1 photo urrnv ennsleting ol?einht r?niot' photos, and identi?ed Snipes as Pacheco, Joker as Serrano. and thnrei Holly at Montenee. (M) lie nlso stated that he had known Montanee. Serrano. nnri i?nohet?o ltn' about "seven water? (NI ?l?imothy Handwritten Statement try it.) . On 6/15/93. Rankine appeared helln?e nod provided largely consistent with his prior statements, (Nth/93 (hand Jory that little. he also stated the following for the first time: (1) He knew Jt?t??t? l?eeheeo by the nickname ?Joninn? in addition y? Sgt. Mingey told on he. ?may hnve? known ptevionnly. inn ?i really don?t know.? (4/7/l4 Interview with lid Mlngey.) ile eontinnedr "Something tells me i may have known this guy from some plane. it he we: attested previously and it was it robbery ease, i could have been involved in arresting previously." (M) l" . Scanned by CamScanner to the nickname ?Stripes?; and (2) He knew Montanez by the nickname ?Pistol Pete," in addition to the nicknames. ?Moses? and ?Barrel Belly.? He also, at this time, did not describe his girlfriend as having been at the Monticello Park. (let) I Det. Guevara test'i?ed'before a grand jury on at which time he related the evrdenee provided by Rankins. Grand Jury Transcript.) We discussed with Det. Halvorsen his attempt to corroborate Ranki'ns?s evidence. 1/14 Interview with Ernest Halvorsen.) Said Det. Halvorsen: juSt remember this black guy that was as crazy as crazy could be. He was just making up stories. This guy was way off his bean. He didn?t have any of the facts of the caSe, to me." (Id) We asked Det. Halvorsen directly if he recalled driving to the scene of Vargas?s murder. (Id) He said: don't remember if we did or not, but I remember the guy didn?t have any of the facts. He Was sitting up in the of?ise and Mingey sent us to go talk to him. Mingey said, ?Go talk to this guy, Rankins.? Why he was up there in the ?rst place, I don?t knowinformation. Everything he had was goofy, talking to him. I imagine I told Eddie, ?This guy?s nuts)? (Id) We also interviewed Williams, identi?ed in the record as ?Shorty Folks.? 14 Interview with Demond Williams.) As an initial matter, it appeared that he learned both of the Vargas murder and his. reported connection to it from us. Williams credibly appeared baf?ed when we explained to him why we were interested in speaking with him and denied any knowledge of the crime. He claimed also not to know Montanez, Serrano, or Pacheco. (Id) Nor did he have any knowledge of Dets. Guevara or Halvorsen or Sgt. Mingey. (Id) He stated, further, he did not associate with Imperial Gangsters. As he said, would never'fuck with those guys, I would never hang with [them]. I got nothing to do with those (Id) He did. however, vividly recall Tim Rankins, and informed us that Rankine falsely implicated him in a robbery in June of 1993 for which he served four years in jail, and for which he maintained, his innocence. (Id) Said Williams: ?Rani-tins lied on and said the and him did a robbery in 1993. I was ?fteen years old. I will never forget his name.? (1rd.) At the conclusion of the interview, he said of Rankins's allegedly false statements regarding his role in the Vargas murder, ?If I ever see Tim Rankins again, I?ll kill him.? (Ii) Serrano Is Arrested One hour after Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen ?rst met'with Rankine, they arrested Serrano. (6111/93 Serrano Arrest Report.) Serrano's arrest was approved by ASA King. (Id) The arrest report indicated that Serrano was ?identified by an eyewitness Rankine], and a circumstantial witness Vicente] as the person who shot to death, Rodrigo Vargas." (Id) Later that evening, at 6:45 pm, Rankins identified Serrano in a lineup in the presence of Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen. (6111/93 Supp. R. by Rankins Line-Up.) Also at 6:45 pm. on 6/11/93, Wilda, in the presence of Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen, identi?ed Serrano as the front~seat paSSenger of the vehicle that was parked in front of her husband's van at the gas station on the evening of (6/11/93 Supp. R. by 6/11, Wilda Line- Up.) 18 Scanned by CamScanner - CONFIDENTIAL Same had several prior arrests, including arrests for possession ofrnarijuana,.armed robber-y, battery, obstnieting traffic, disorderly conduct, and assault. (5/25/93 Criminal Histories.) Serrano told us that he also stole cars and car radios on a regular basis. (8/22/13 interdew with Armando Serrano.) His primary income, however, came from selling drugs. he told us. (Id) Typically, he sold crack, cocaine, and marijuana, he said. (hi) Serrano claimed not to carry a grit, and he described himself as a low-volume, "street-level" dealer. (Id) Finally, Sm described himself to us as a "punk" and a ?typical gang banger." He insisted, however, that he ?net-n shot anyone, never killed anyone, never owned a gun.? (lot) it. Vicente Is Identi?ed as Confidential Informant Several weeks later, on 6/28/93, Vicente signed ahand-written statement, which was prepzed by Det. Halvorsen and ASA Solita Pandit. Thetein he was ?rst identi?ed as the pro-?rmly ?anonymous? witness who reportedly gave evidence against Montancz, Serrano, and Pasteur on 6/2/93. (Id) But for some minor additions and differences, described as follows, his hand-written 5' meat was consistent with the evidence re?ected in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93: (1) Vicente s-pwliically identi?ed the place where Montanez saw Vargas with money as a gas static: for the first time; and (2) During their second meeting, Vicente said, Montanez asked ?some to repair his muf?er, Vicente stated for the first time. (lat) After Vicente executed the meta-em ASA Pandit approved arrest warrants for Montancz and Pacheco. (7/3/93 Supp. R. by (351.) - . l. Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen Appear Before Grand ur'y, Montana and Pacheco Are Arrested, and Vicente and Ranidns Are Placed in Witness Quarters 0n 7/ 1/93, Det. Haivorsen appeared before the grand jury. (7/1/93 Grand Jury Two-int.) His tatirnonywas consistent with the evidence provided exclusively by (Id) Speci?cally, Der. Halvorsen testified that after Wading Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco, Vargas ?was able to run and get in his van._? Then, according to Dot. Haivorsen, closed the van door zed locked it? and ?Serrano ran up to the van, shot through the window." (14-) Vicente also appeared before the grand nry on 7/1/93. (lat) His testimony was consistent with his statement as reported by Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93. On 717/93, Vicente was named to the Witness Quarters, also known as the at the Of?ce of the State?s Attorney. (6/19/12 Subpoena Attachment 1.) The following day, 7/8/93, Montanez was arrested for the Vargas murder by Officers Lope Pena, Iris Marten, J. Silva, and R. Rodriguez. (7/8/93 Montanez, Arrest Report,) We disezssed the Montana arrest with now-Capt. Iarpe Pena. (7/7/14 Interview with Lupe Pena.) Capt. Pena said that he had gone to high school with Montanez, recalling him as a ?funny guy? and ?very personable.? ad.) He recalled, however, that Montanez later developed a heroin habit. (Ii) the day of the arrest, he said, he went to Montanez's girlfriend?s house, having been informed that Montana?s car was parked there. Capt. Pena said that alter Montan?cz's gizifriend?s father let him into the home, Montanez emerged from a hiding spot behind the door 19 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL of a bedroom. Capt. Pena said that Montanez appeared shafted to learn that there has a warrant for his arrest for murder, and would not believe it until Peru ?in a crate ch-ek met the wire in front of him." However, Capt. Pena said that Montana ?didn't go any utter learning it." Prior to 7/8/93, Montanez had an extensive criminal history, including churges for armed and simple robbery and ?rst-degree murder (of which he was acquitted in a 1991 trial. (5/25/93 Criminal Histories.) Regarding the robberies, Montana told us that be had bum: involved in ?more than ten stick ups.? (10/17/13 Interview with Jose be "stuck up drug dealers" for their "dOpe and money," he explained. Although he he?. ?Jews: to guns" and had ?handled guns,? he claimed that he had not directly used one it: a crime. (Li) Primarily, he explained, ?back then, we fought with our hands.? (11.) He conceded. hov- ever. on ?one or two" occasions, his co-conspirators had been armed with a during the course of a stick-up. (Id) Thereafter, Dets. Guev'ara and Halvorsen were noti?ed of the arrest. 7/10/93 Supp. by Montanez was identi?ed in a lineup by Wilda ?as the person she saw the night before in the gas Station staring at the Victim and his money." (7/10/93 Shipp. R. by 01H, Linot?j: Retort.) Det. Guevara testified at trial that he was with Wilda when she identi?ed Montazee. (1&2 KIN Trial Transcript at 11), whereas the 7/10/ 13 Supp. R. Line~Up Report indicates that ?ts. Guevara and Halvorsen were both present.? (?mom Supp. R. by 0/14, Line-Up Regen) At ?re time of the lineup, Montanez was wearing a jacket with his first name. appuqu to the front of the jacket. (Photos in Evidence.) On 7/12/93, Pacheco was arrested by Of?cers Penn and Marion. (7/11?93 merino Arrest Report.) Thereafter, Dots. Guevara and Halvorsen were noti?ed of the arrest and Dec Guevara alone interviewed him. (7/13/93 Supp. R. by Det. Guevara asked wheL?ter Pacheco would talk about ?the incident? to which Pacheco responded, he ??vould think about it.? (M) Arnhem the impounded evidence in this case contains lineup photos with Pacheco (Photos in Bridexxe). and the 7/ 13/93 Supp. R. notes that line-up photos were taken, no line~up involving Pitch/ew- is reported in the record. Pacheco had prior arrests for possession of marijuana (multiple times), trespass of: vehicle, discharging a weapon within city limits, and mob action. (5/23/93 Histories.) On 1 1/14/90, he was arrested for ?rst-degree murder and armed robbery, but was released the following day without being charged. On 7/3 0/93, Rankins was also placed into the Q. (3/6/12 Rankins Disposition Sheet) . There, Vicente and Rankins appear to have met for the first time, as there is no evidence that we 3" As noted above, Det. Halvorsen was involved in that case peripherally, as an either of Montnnez?s co-defendant. (6/24/90 Jose Baez Arrest Report by H.) 3? Montanez told us that he knew Det. Guevara but not Dot. Halvorsen prior to his arrest. (10/17/13 Interview with JoseMontanez.) - 20 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL are aware of that Vicente and Rankins knew each other prior to their time in the Q. in a- sworn statement given to Serrano?s post-conviction counsel, Jennifer Bonjean, Rankins said that alter meeting Vicente in the Q, Vicente told him that Det. Guevara wanted them to coordinate their statements and instructed Vicente ?to go over my statement with me." 12 Rankin: Sworn Statement at 28.) Rankins then told Vicente that he would not "get on the stand and testify against an innocent person." (Id. at 28.) Thereafter, according to Rankins, Vicente began to pressure Rankins to cooperate. (Id. at 28-29.) That pressure, according to Rankins, caused Rani-zips to attack ViCente with a pool stick. (Id) Rankins told us he was removed from the after the incident (3/211 4 Interview with Timothy and the record con?rms that he was placed back in the Cook County jail and, on 10/ 18/93, under house arrest. (3/6/12 Rankins Disposition Sheet.) In a discussion with student investigators, Vicente partially corroborated story regarding the altercation, though he claimed to be the aggressor rather than Rankins. Vicente said that he ?chased this guy with a stick and beat this black guy in the so I could get out of there." (Francisco Vicente Af?davit Notes.) m. Montanez?s Parents Reportedly Attempt to Bribe Wilda As documented in an unattributed handwritten General Progress Report dated . 8/2/93, Montana's parents reportedly offered Wilda ?a couple thousand dollars to come to the pro-hearing of their son (lose Montanez) and say that it Was someone [else] and not thier [sic] son that killed her husband? (W93 GPR.) In response, Wilda reportedly stated ?she would not do such thing At that point, Montanez's parents reportedly ?got very upset and left." (Id) Reportedly, the conversation was also witnessed by James Montalbano, for whom a phone number was provided. (Id) Our private investigator attempted to locate Montalbano, but no one by that name could be connected to the phone number listed on the report. We discussed this incident with Montanez. (2013 Interview with Jose Montanez.) He told us that his parents had in fact met with Wilda, but had not offered her any money. (Id) Instead, he said, his parents ?wanted to lmowwhy she" had implicated him. (Id) His parents. he said, we're "just tryingto help him out.? (Id) Montanez did not instruct them to meet with her, he said. (hi) n. Rankine Recants On 3/29/94, Rankins recanted his statement and grand jury testimony implicating Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco in the Vargas murder.3 (3/29/94 Rankins Recantation.) In the handwritten statement, Rankins alleged that after he was arrested on an armed robbery charge, two unnamed "police" stated that they would have the charge ?drop? in exchange for ?tes'ti?e on a murder case for us." [sic] Allegedly, when Rankins protested, know noting about the . murder case so how is Im going to testie?e to something Iknow nothing about the police 35 Rankins?s handwritten statement was purportedly obtained from Montanez?s family by undergraduate students investigating potential wrongful convictions. (5/4/03 Email.) The circumstances of the execution of this recantation are unkno'Wn to us. 21 Scanned by CamScanner stated, "your testi?e cause if not were charge you with this fucking murder." Him. according to Ranlcins, the police ?start telling me what to say" to the ?sate attorney (Ii) Rankin: continued, the ?reason why I sign the statement {or the State Attorney cause the petite: threat me with case and that the State maid me 3 offer I couldn?t refuse [sic] Retires noted that he is certain ofMontanez, Serrano, and Pacheco's innocence because ?sergeant Eddx Mingy told me the reason why they get these guys is cause he couldn?t catch the: c: any case but he knew that they sailing drugs (Ii) Finally, Rankins slleged that he was in Indiana, on the day of the Vargas murder, and that his mother, Ella Rankins, and Janet Clark, could corroborate that.? (Id) For each, be provided a phone number. as) Rulers claimed to have ?writ[ten] th[e] statement on my own behalf? no deal or threats has been i (Id) In 1999, 2012, and 2014, provided additional mcantation esidence. Those recantations are detailed below. 0. Vicente Provides New Evidence to ASA Coghlan On 9/21/94, Vicente met with ASA Coghlan and State's Attorney Investigator Jose Martinez for purposes of preparing for trial, at which time Vicente modi?ed his statements end grand jury testimony implicating Montana, Serrano, and Pacheco in the Vargas minder. (9/21/94 Investigative Report.) Speci?cally, upon being asked to renew Dets. Gueurs and Halvorsen's Supp. R. dated 6/2/93, in which the substance of Vicente's evidence nus ?rst reported, Vicente stated that the report is ?besically correct? but offered several modi?catiors (Id) First, Vicente stated that ?when [Montanez] was yelling at [Serrano], [Serrano] responded by saying that [Montanez] should have ?ganlced' the victim himself so that [Serrano] could have gone through the victim?s pockets/'3' (1d) Vicente condoned, ?[Paeheco] took [Serrano's] side during the conversation and told [Montanez] that ?yeah, you?re bigger than us, you should have ganlced him from behind.? (Id) (Prior to this time, only Rankins had attributed inculpatory statements to Serrano and Pacheco.) Second, Vicente stated that Montana, 5:111:20, and Pacheco were arguing about the robbery?Montana ?was angry because the victim had a lot of money and the robbery had gone bad" because they did not obtain anything from Vargas. (1.3.) In response, according to Vicente, Serrano said, ?'well, we can always do another one,"? meaning to commit another robbery/Id.) Third, ieente stated that on 2/7/93, ?Mourns: had said that [Pacheco], not [Montanez], was driving the car as the defendants ?ed the murder ?7 We obtained Indiana medical records for Rankins from February of 1993, continuing his hospital admission, but they Were for several days alter the Vargas murderalleged. (2/17/93 Rankin$ Medical Records.) 3? Ganlting, Vicente explained, is a ?street saying meaning to grab someone by the neck in a choke hold." (9/21/94 Investigative Report.) 22 Scanned by CamScanner Sim CONFIDENTIAL scene?? (1d) Fourth, Vicente stated that he had actually "noticed the bullet holes and damage to Montanez?s ear? the first time he saw Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco?Le, on the morning of 2/5/93?aithough that fact'had not been reported in Dets. Guevara or Haivorsen's report or in his handwritten statement, which both indicated that he did not notice the damage until 217/93. (Id) Vicente later testified that prior to meeting with ASA Coghlan on 9/21/94, he had had six or seven meetings with him. (10/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 126.) He testified, too, that he had not previously provided to CPD, or shared with the Grand Jury, any of the information shared with ASA Coghlan on 9/21/94. (Id. at 124-26, 138-39.) Vicente reaponded affirmatively when ASA Coghlan questioned whether Vicente was "recovering from [his] heroin addiction? on 6/2/93v?when he initially gave a statement against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco?and, accordingly, whether his ?recollection of those events clearer as [Vicente] recovered more and more from [his] addiction to by 9/21/94. (Id. at 139?40.) p. Alibi Evidence Montanez and Pacheco offered some alibi evidence prior to, during, and after trial. Serrano did not. Regarding Montanez, before the commencement of the trial, Montanez ?led an Amended Answer to Discovery and noted that he would assert an alibi defense. (10/11/94 Montanez Answer to Discovery.) Speci?cally, he stated that he was with his parents during the time of the offense. He did not assett such a defense at trial, however. On 3/15/95, Montanez's girlfriend, Jacqueline Pacheco (no relation to Jorge), submitted an af?davit in which she stated that Montanez was with her from 5 pm. on 2/4/93 until 8:30 em. on 2/5/93. (3/15/94 Af?davit of Jacqueline Pacheco.) She noted further that Montanez's defense counsel was aware of this alibi prior to trial but considered it unlikely to sway the ?nder of fact given that she was Montanez?s girlfriend. (Id) Pacheco stated further that Montanez?s car was damaged on 3/13/93. (Id) This assertion would later be corroborated by Montanez?s mechanic, as explained above. (3/2/95 Affidavit of Jose Garcia.) Regarding Jorge Pacheco, on 7/ 13/93, in the presence of ASA Kevin Hughes and possrbiy Det. Guevara, Pacheco provided a partial alibi, stating that he was with his girlfriend, Michelle Zaleske, ?on the date in question." 13/93 Supp. R, by GM.) On 7/ 13/93, Zaleske gave a statement to Dot. Guevara and ASA Hughes in which she provided a partial alibi for Pacheco. (7/13/93 Zaleske Statement by G.) Speci?cally, Zaleske stated that she was with Pacheco at her Des Plaines, Illinois, home until 3 pm. on 2/4/93, the day before the Vargas murder. ZaJeske stated further that Pacheco returned to her home in Des Plaines at 7:30 pm. on 2/4/93, where he remained until 9 pm. The evidence indicates further that Zaleske stated that she did not see Pacheco from 9 pan. on .2/4/93 until 7 pan. on 2/5/93. (Id) At trial, Zalesko testi?ed consistent with this information. (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 62.) A diary that she 3? At trial, Vicente would elaborate, confirming that the feet that Pacheco was driving also meant that Pacheco ?had smashed the car? when he ?ed the scene. (10/18/94 Trial Transcript,.Vol. 2 at 23.) 23 Scanned by CamScanner -l'i?Li! mum CONFIDENTIAL claimed corroborated this account was offered into evidence, but not admitted. (Id. at 66.) Also, on 9/30/94, State's Attorney investigators Martinez and Thomas Finnelly interviewed Felix Rodriguez, the err-husband of Jorge l'acheco?s sister. (9/30/94 Investigative Report.) Rodriguez stated he was ?home all day" with Pacheco on 2/5/93, the date that Vargas was murdered and, thus, "knows that Jorge didn't do this shooting." lle reportedly quali?ed the alibi defense, hmvever, by noting that "he was drinking most of" the relevant day and, thus, ?doesn?t remember what time he went to bed or ii'Jorge went to bed before him or if Jorge even went to sleep." (Id) Reportedly, he noted that if contacted by defense counsel he would testify on Pacheco's behalf ?because he has had trouble with the Police and States Attorney before?.? and ?wouldn?t help. them." Uri.) lie reportedly stated further that "he likes Jorge Pacheco very much? and ?wants to See Jorge get out of jail." (ht) - 1 Serrano told us that he would be "lying" if he said he knew where he was the night before . the Vargas murder. He Speculated that he was ?running the streets" as he ?didn?t have a job? at that point. (10/17/13 Interview with Armando Serrano.) lie said that he was usually at home with his parents and now cit-wife at 5:30 am, but said that he has attempted to come up with a veri?able alibi for years for the relevant dates, and has been unable to do so. (Id) Serrano told us that he considered Vicente's and Rankins's evidence incredible, among other reasons, because Vargas's car radio was playing when his body was discovered. (8/22/14 Interview with Armando Serrano.) That evidence, according to Serrano, indicated that Vargas was in his car, warming up the engine, and listening to the radio. when he was shot. However, Serrano is mistaken. As discussed above, Vargas's radio was not on when Vargas was murdered?win fact, Vargas's body was discovered atop his radio. Serrano received his information while later researching the case, he said, from a Chicago Tribune article in which the fact was erroneously reported. q. The Trial On 10/18/94, the trial of Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco began. Vicente, Wilda, Velez, Shoop, Dets. Guevara and Ilalvorsen, Investigator Martinez, and Of?cer Show testi?ed for the State. For Pacheco, alibi witness Zaleske testi?ed. Of?ce of Public Defender In'Vestigator Stephanie 'l?u'rner testi?ed for Serrano. Montanez did not put on any witnesses. Francisco Vicente Vicente responded af?rmatively to ASA Coghlan?s question of whether "in return for your testimony in this case and other cases I have indicated to you that I would recommend fa total of nine years on your cases." (10/ 18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 4.) On cross, Vicente acknowledged that each of his three pending Class charges for arrned robbery carry sentences of between six and thirty years and his single simple robbery charge carries a sentence of three to seven years. (Id. at 72, 76.) On cross, Vicente also described his living arrangements in the Witness Protection Quarters, and stated that CPD bought him a Walkman, Nike track suits, and cigarettes, and allowed him ?home-cooked meals,? visits with friends, and visits with his girlfriend. (1d. - Vicente correctly identi?ed each of the three defendants in court. (Id. at 5-6.) 24 -. Scanned by CamScanner . I CONFIDENTIAL (ii) Wilda Vargas Upon being asked to perform an in-court identi?cation of the man Who entered the cashier?s station, the vehicle?s driver, she chose Serrano initially, an action attributed in the record to Montancz. (10/ 19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 17-18.) (After ASA Coghlan asked the defendants to stand up, however, Wilda correctly identi?ed Montanez. (Id. at 18-19)) On being asked to perform an in-court identi?cation of one of the passengers (described in the Supp. dated 6/2/93 as a front-seat passenger), she chose Pacheco twice, although at the line-up Vargas identified Serrano as the only passenger she saw. (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 19, 23.) (She was reported to have stated at the time that she was not able to see the rear seat passenger?? Pacheco?clearly. (6/2/93 Supp. R. by Gary Shoop Vargas?s neighbor, Sh00p, testi?ed that he was unable to de?nitely state that Montanez?s car was the car he saw after hearing gunshots, although he said that it was ?similar? to the car he saw and ansWered af?rmatively when asked if it ?appear[ed] to be the same car." (10/18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 1 at 47.) On cross, Shoop testi?ed that he told CPD that the vehicle was ?possibly a two door? and had not told CPD that the car was two-toned with a vinyl top. (Id. at 54.) He testi?ed, however, that he believed his original description consistent with Montanez?s car. (Id. at 47.) Shoop testi?ed further that as the auto drove away, he heard its ?tires squealing? as it rounded several corners. (Id. at 44.) He did not, however, hear a subsequent car crash. (Id. at 44, 53.) He also testi?ed on cross that he did not see any passengers in the-car. (Id. at 52.) (iv) Investigator Jose Martinez State?s Attorney Investigator Martinez testi?ed that he tried, but failed, to locate Martins.? (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 3233.) His efforts, Martinez testi?ed, included contacting "a girlfriend by the name of Janet Clark in Gary, Indiana," a name that appears within Rankins's 3/29/94, handwritten recantation, but nowhere else in the record. (Id. at 33.) Martinez testi?ed further that Clark ?said she hasn't seen Rankins for about a year and couldn?t give me any other information on Rankins at all." (Id) At the conclusion of Martinez?s testimony, ASA Coghlan requested a continuance ?to make one last effort to locate Timothy Rankine.? (Id. at 34.) The Court denied the request, explaining that the State had already devoted a day to the task without success. Det. Halvorsen ?0 Although not in the record, Rankins was arrested on a domestic violence charge along with a Sabrina Hernandez less a month before trial,- but failed to appear for a scheduled hearing I days before the commencement of the Montanez/Serrano trial. (9/15/94 Rankins Domestic Documents.) We consider it likely, but cannot assert de?nitiVely, that this is the same Sabrina referenced in the statements against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. 25 Scanned by CamScanner . CONFIDENTIAL . Det, Halvorsen testi?ed to the genesis of and content of Rankins?s evidence. (10/19/94 Tnal Transcript, Vol. 3 at 89-93.) Det. Halvorsen also testified that he did not discuss with the State's Attorney possibly charging Rankins with murder. (Id. at 106.) (vi) Verdict and Findings At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court found all three defendants guilty. (10/21/94 Tue! Transcript at 119.) Therea?er, Serrano, Montanez, and Pacheco each moved for a new trial, 10/95 Hearing.) The court granted Pacheco?s motion, acquitting him, but denied Montanez's and Serrano?s motions. (Id. at 30?3 1.) Montanez and Serrano were later sentenced to ?fty-?ve years. (3/3/95 Hearing at 97.) r. Vicente is Sentenced on, on 9/23/96, approximately two months after the last of the three cases in which Vicente provided evidence concluded with a guilty verdict, Vicente was sentenced on his three armed robberies and one simple robbery. (9/23/96 Francisco Vicente Change of Plea Hearing.) ASA Dillon represented the State at that hearing and recommended a sentence of nine years. (Id) Vicente was sentenced in accordance with the State?s request. Before the sentencing judge was also a letter from Lt. Earl F. Tucker, a Division Nine Shi? Commander. (9/22/96 Letter from L.T. Tucker.) In that letter, Lt. 'Dicker described Vicente?s assistance in procuring for him photos of a corrections of?cer ?standingin the cell with his arm around several inmates and money on the bed." As a result of that assistance, Lt. Tucker noted that has been brought to my attention that his life, along with his families (sjic) has been threatened after he gets out .. [and] states attorney John Dillon is aware of the danger his family is in." (Id) Tucker noted further that ?the service that he gave us is extraordinary.? (Id) He concluded with ?any consideration that you deem ?t may or may not have any in?uence on future actions.? As explained above in the Bouto secti s. Rankins Recants Again ral more times in the years after the trial, ankins continued to maintain that his evidence fabricated, he alleged different misconduct As noted above, Rankins recanted seve speci?cally in 1999, 2012, and 2014. Although against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco had been and perpetrators within each iteration. 1999 fornia, petitioned, pro se, for-relief under i On 4/30/99, Rankine, incarcerated in Cali (4/30/99 Timothy Rankins ?l983 Claim.) As Section 1983, naming ASA Coghlan as defendant. additional defendants, he named ?John Doe 1-3 Detectives at Grand and Central Police Station,? Cook County State?s Attorney Jack O?Malley, and ASA Jack Hines. Rankins alleged "therein that in 1993 ?Doe'# 1-3 beat and force? him to ?sign a statement" underth of being ?beat and charge[d] with murder." (Id) Rankins alleged further that ASAs Coghlan and Hines and State's Attorney O?Malley physica 11y abused him and threatened that he would ?go down for the crime" if he didn?t testify against ?George Pacheco and two more peOple." (Id) 26 Scanned by CamScanner - CONFIDENTIAL Then, according to Rankins, he was ?charge[d] with arm robbery and placedin jail and that in the witness program were another witness on the case was hired by the defendant ?0 tcaCh plaintiff what to say." (Id) When he got out ofja?il, Rankins was told by State?s Attorney O?Malley that "if he came to court against the state" he would be charged with murder and ?his family will be killed" (Id) Rankins then ?ed to Puerto Rico to evade/?being harassed." (Id) Rankine has discussed his Pucrto Rico trip on several subsequent occasions, including in a 6/23/99 letter to Montanez (6/23/99 Rankins Letter)'and in a 3/2/14 interview with us. In the letter to Montanez, Ranidns said that he asked Montanez?s father and his private investigator Julio Lebron to take him to Puerto Rico, and that Montanez's family was exceedingly gracious to him during that time. (6/23/99 Rankins Letter.) Rankins also wrote in the letter that he slept at Montanez?s sister?s house in Chicago and Puerto Rico, slept at Montanez's grand parents?s house ?for two days,? and ?ate your families table with all this you showed me much love even though I sign a statement against you by force.? (Id) Rankine was paroled out of custody on 7/28/94 (8/26/14 Rankins Qtstody Record) and was arrested and charged with battery in Chicago on 9/19/94 14/ 14 Rankins Background), and his trip to Puerto Rico likely occurred some time between those two dates. (ii) 2012 On 4/4/12, Rankins, incarcerated at a federal prison in West Virginia, provided a sworn statement to Bonjean, Serrano?s current post-conviction counsel. (4/4/12 Rankins Sworn Statement.) According to Rankins, Det. Guevara informed him that Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco had previously provided evidence against Rankins?s brother."l (Id at 10.) Then, according to Rankine, Dets. Halvorsen and Guevara and Sgt. Mingey gave him a prepared statement against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. (Id. at 12.) Det. Guevara ?threw his statement on the ?oor with three pictures in front of me and he said, these are the guys who did the murder.? (Id) said that Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen and Sgt. Mingey provided Rankins with nicknames?Barrel Belly, Stripes, and JokerP?hut not birth names for the men depicted in the photos. (Id. at 17-18.) Det. Guevara informed Rankins ?you need to study that statement and you?re going to sign it.? (Id. at 12.) Rankins stated that Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen and Sgt. Mingey also brought him to the murder scene. (Id. at 22.) . When Rankins refused to cooperate, Det. Guevara kicked him out of a chair, lie-alleged. (Id. at 11.) Det. Guevara assaulted him further, kicking him, beating him with a phone book and a ?ashlight, and choking him, Rankins claimed. (Id. at 12-13, 18.) AlthOug'h Det. Guevara doled out most of the physical abuse, Rankine alleged that Det. Halvorsen and Sgt..they participated, too. (Id. at 13.) a . ?1 In- our interview with him, Serrano confirmed this fact. (8/22/14 Interview with Armando Serrano.) He said that he had been the target of a murder. attempt by Rankins?s brother,'and, that being the case, later testi?ed at his sentencing hearing. (Id) 27 Scanned by CamScanner bulb- a o CONFIDENTIAL lie was "assaulted until [he] signed the statement," Rankins said. (Id. at 19.) Rankins alleged that he later informed ASA Coghlan that his statement implicating Serrano, Montanez, and Pacheco was fabricated and coerced. (Id. at 21.) According to Rankins, ASA Coghlan responded: don't care what you're saying, you're going to get on the stand and you?re going 1? tell me what this statement said." (Id. at 21-22.) Rani-tins stated that he was housed in the State's Attorney Witness Quarters. (Id. at 23.) While in the Witness Quarters, Rankins stated that he met on multiple occasions with Dct. Guevara and ASA Coghlan. (Id. at 25.) While in the Witness Quarters, Ranlcins also alleged that he received "shoes, jumpsuits, cigarettes, special visits, [and] phone calls." (107.) He continued: ?[y]our girlfriend or your family could come down and they could sit with you and watch a movie and they can cook food in the (Id. at 26.) Rankins stated that conjugal visits - were possible, but that he did not have any. (Id. at 26-27.) Det. Guevara, according to Rankins, also provided him with cash in the Witness Quarters, on occasion. (Id. at 26.) i Vicente was also in the Witness Quarters at that time. Rankins stated and the record evidence con?rms. (Id. at 24; 6/19/12 Subpoena Attachment.) Allegedly, Vicente informed i Rankins that Det. Guevara had instructed that they were to ?go over our statements with each other[], so that he could know what I'd say in Court and I could know what he had to say in' Court.? 12 Rankins Sworn Statement at 28.) Vicente also informed Ranki'ns that he had been abused by Det. Guevara. (Id. at 27-28.) When Rankins told Vicente that he would not ?get on the standand testify against an innocent person,? Vicente raised his own ?armed robbery cases.?.? (Id. at 28.) Vicente explained, according to Rankins, that some cases that he himself was going to get off on that was promised him.? (Id. at 28-29.) When Vicente persisted, Rankins stated that he beat Vicente with a broomstick. (Id) (Vicente has related a similar account, although he said that he was the one who hit Rankins with the stick. (Francisco Vicente Af?davit Notcs.)) That ?ght, according to Rankins, resulted in his transfer out of the Witness Quarters. (4/4/12 Rankins Sworn Statement at 29.) Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen and ASA Coghlan approached him after and stated, should have just cooperated and stayed inside the witness quarter protection program and that everything would have been alright." (Id) 2014 (3) Interview We interviewed Rankins on 3/2/14. (3/2114 Interview with Timothy Rankins.) Rankins said that he was shown three Polaroid photos of the three defendants by Dets. Guevara and and told that the man wearing a striped shirt (Jorge Pacheco) would Halvorscn and Mingey, be known as "Stripes" in his statement, that the man with ?a big stomach" (J 051: Montanez) would be known as ?Barrel Belly,? and that the man smiling (Armando Serrano) would be_ known (Id) Rankine said: ?There was no line-up and there was no photo array. There were three photos and they came and told me, ?This is who killed this man, this is what you?re gonna say.? (Id) - . . 'l After being told what they Wanted him to attest to, Rankins said, was shepherded by the detectives to the of?ce of ASA Coghlan, in whose presence Rankins said he was beaten ?28 Scanned by CamScanner I I CONFIDENTIAL by Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen: ?l was punched in my private, I was hit in my much, pan-shed in my stomach. given water. Every time I drank water. I?d get punched? (Id) Rankin said that Sgt. hlingey was present for much of this exchange, but would occasionally leave the root: (M) Rankins said that he explained to ASA Coghlan that ?if they put me on the stand to say anything. I'm gonna tell the truth. I'm gonna tell how they beat me up." Rankin: said that ASA Coghlan then took him to a judge's chambers. where Rankin: told the judge, wasn't there. 1 wasn?t there. This is a lie.? (lot) The judge responded: ?You signed it. this is what you're gonna testify to, and we?re gonna get this case over with." (Id) Rankins stated that he visited the judge?s chambers "six to eight times." (Id) According to Ranidns. at some point. Det. Guevara and ASA Coghlan told him, ?If you back out on us. we could just kill you." (Id) In order to assist him in committing to memory the details of the story they wanted him to tell, said that he was taken to the scene four times. (Id) Rankins said that Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen took him to the scene the ?rst time, that ASA King took him the second time, that ASAs King and Coghlan took him the third time, and that the fourth and ?nal time he was taken by ASA Coghlan, Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen, and Sgt. Mingcy." (14.) He said that he was taken to the scene, meci?cally, "to memorize how We got there. where the people were standing, and what took place.? (Id) Rankins said that he was eventually placed on house arrest, ending his incarceration for the armed robbery which is corroborated by a 10/18193 court order. (3/6112 Rankins Disposition Sheet.) He said that during the course of his house arrest, he was visited frequently by Det. Halvorsen. (?2114 Interview with Timothy Rankins.) Rankins Said that Det. Halvorscn would supply him with money - $15,000 overall - and remind him that he was expected to testify as a ?key witness" in the MonmnerJSerrano/Pacheco trial. (Id) Rankins said he continually told Det. Halvorsen that he was going to decline to go through with his testimony. (Ii) said that Det. Halvorsen?s steady supply of cash Was not unusual, pardonme in this case. (Id) He said, used to get called by these guys. and if I was with a girl and she needed anything or I needed money to do anything, I got it from them. It wasn't a problem. This was how bad they wanted this case." (141.) Rankins also said that during that time, ?Halvorsen, Mingey, Guevara'and these other dirty detectives were grabbing us and putting guns on us.? (Id) Rankins said that he remembered the names of fellow gang members who could corroborate this aspect of his story, but declined to share their names during the interview, allegedly for fear of retaliation. Rankin: said that Dets. Haivorsen and Guevara had been running a drug trade in the neighborhood they patrolled, and he speculated that Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco had declined to participate with thent,? and perhaps being charged with the Vargas murder served as retaliation by the detectives. (Id) ?2 Other than re?ected in Rankins's recantation, there is no evidence that any ASAs accompanied Rankins on a site visit. Moreover, Sgt. Mingey told us that he did not socornpany Dots. Guevara and Halvorsen when they went along with Rankins to the Scene for purposes of verifying his evidence. (4/7/14 Interview with Ed Mingey.) I 29 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL Rankins said that he returned to the continental United States from Puerto Rico before the commencement of the hiontanchSerrano/l?aeheco trial. Some time after his retum, Rankins said, he was arrested, and approached again about testifying at trial against the three defendants in the Vargas trial. (Id) He said: said if you put me on the stand, l?rn gonna tell you the truth. That's when the judge and the state's attorney and IIalvorsen and Mingey (said). 'l.oolt, uclre gonna say we just can't find you.? (Id) According to Rankins, the judge said that the prosecution could ?always use Vicente" instead as a witness "to seal the deal.? (Id) Rankin: said that the judge in this incident was a different judge than the one he had met with several times in the months prior. (Id) He did not know the judge's name. (Ii) (13) The Second Section 1983 Claim On 3/31/14 Rankins once again ?led a law suit under Section 1983, naming as defendants Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen, Sgt. Mingcy, Judge Coghlan, Area 5 Chicago Police Department. the Rochelle andElgin, Illinois, police departments, John Doe correctional of?cer, John Doe police of?cer, State?s Attorney John Doc 1, State's Attorney John Doc 2, the Chicago division of the O?iee of State?s Attorney, the Illinois Department of Corrections, the. Illinois Department of Justice, the cities of Chicago, Elgin, Rochelle, Pasadena, and Oregon [sic], the California Department of Justice, the Pasadena State?s Attorney's Office, the Oregon State's Attorney?s Of?ce, the Rochelle Public Defender's Of?ce, Judge John Payne, Mr. F.N.U Miller, Corporal F.N.U. Hilliard, and the Ramada Inn and Suites. (3/31/14 Timothy Rankins Claim.) According to Rankins, in approximately June of 1993, Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen and at 5.) Det. Guevara told him ?they need me to do them a fat/or." (Id) Although Rankins ?knew these detective?s to make people sale drugs for them when they is caught or do some dirty works agust other people [sic]" Rartkins told them ain't doing anything." (Id) Det. Halvorsen responded, ?yes you is" and Rankins was placed in a car with Dcts. Guevara and Halvorsen and Sgt. Mingcy. (Id) Det. Guevara said, ?Loco you going to put three guys astray for us? who ?don?t want to do what we tell them." Det. Guevara continued: ?they have to these are our streets." When Rankins refused again, Det. Guevara "srnack[ed]" him with the back of his hand. (Id) Sgt. Mingey then explained that failure to cooperate would lead to an armed robbery charge, which would entail a six- to thirty-year sentence. (Id) . Rankins was taken to the Grand and Central police station and placed in an interview room with Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen and Sgt. Mingey, he said. (Iii) When Ranlcins refused to cooperate ,once again, Det. Halvorsen ?jump up and smack me out the chair [sic]" and ?punch me in the stomack [sic]? and ?slam my face on the table while I was cull? from behind [sic] (Id. at 5.6.) Sgt. Mingey told Rankins that Rankins had the ability to ?make this stop.? (Id. at 6.) After Rankins refused again, Sgt. Mingey placed him in a "choke hold" while Det. Halvorsen continued to punch him. (fat) At that point, Rankins said, he agreed to cooperate. (Id) Sgt. Mingey approached Rankins. (Id. I After further resistance, Rankins said, he signed an already prepared Statement. (Id) Rankine was then instructed ?to say everything on the statement to the state?s attorney John Doe 1 who came and seen us." (Id) Rankins told him that the ?police beat me and made me sign that statement." ASA John Doe I stated, allegedly, don't care what happen to you[,] I 30 Scanned by CamScanner just care about getting promoted (Id) Several days later, Rankins was taken before ASA Coghlan. (Id) He told ASA Coghlan that he was "beat and made to sign a statement and it was a lie." ASA Coghlan responded, don't care what happen to you or anyone else[,] Pacho[,] Montanez[,] and Surrano is going down for this murder Rankins was "taken before the Grand Jury and I told them I was beaten." (Id) At that point, Rankins was removed from the grand jury room and "told by Judge John Doe til I, l?m crazy[,] I was facing 30 years[,] and if I don't go and say what 1 stated on the statement[,] I'll be gone for a long time." (Id. at 6-7.) Rankins relented then, and ?told the Grand Jury what the statement said," (Id. at 7.) Later, Rankins entered the Witness Protection Program, where he met ?witness John Doe a witness" against ?Surrano, Pacheco and Montanez That witness informed Rankins that he was "getting paid by the State's Attorney Of?ce and all his cases would be drop or he would be given liss time for all his crimes (Id) Several weeks later, Rankine ?beat witness John Doe with a pool stic ASA Coghlan then asked Rankins if he wanted to ?play Hard Ball?" When Rankins reiterated that he would not give false testimony at trial, ASA Coghlan removed him ?rm the witness quarters and placed him in the ?county jail very late at night" in a "cell with Montanez[,] the defendant in the murder.? (Int) Montanez, according to Rankins, said ?a few wanted to kill" Rankins, but'he instructed them not to because doing so would ?fuck my ease up" and ?start another gang war.? (Id. at 8.) Then Montancz presented Rankins and a corrections officer with ?a copy of the statement I sign[ed] by force.? (Id) Recognizing that Rankins was ?the key witness"I in the ease against Montanez, the corrections of?cer assigned Rankine to a different cell. (Idi) Later, after being placed on home monitoring, Rankins met with a lawyer who reviewed Rankins?s statement against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. (lat) The lawyer said "he didn't want anything to do with the case" because Rankins ?implicated myself in a murder? but ??vas not charge with the murder (Id) The lawyer. thought that indicated ?something was very wrong." - While on home monitoring, Rankins said he Was ?bother twice a week by Halvorsen showing up at my house letting me know they keeping 9. on me.? (Id) Det. Guevara also came by on occasion and gave Rankins money, ?telling me to take it, or they know I tum on them [and] will kill me." (Id) Later, Rankins was ?caught at gun point by Guevara" and instructed to ?keep quiet about things cause people will lose they jobs fartiin and they life (Id. at 9.) Before that would happen, Det. Guevara stated, Rankins ?yvill [lose those (11) In 1997, after Rankins was charged in Ogle County, Illinois, he contacted ASA Coghlan and threatened to meet with CBS and WGN reporters regarding the Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco matter unless the-Ogle County charges were dropped. Coghlan contacted Judge John Payne and several unnamed Ogle County State?s Attorneys, said. Ogle County personnel ?beat and sexually assaulted? Rankins. (Id) Rankins was then told to 31 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL ?keep my mouth close[d]" about "Montanez and Surrano [sic]" unless he wanted to serve a longer sentence or ?be killed." (Id. at 9-10.) In 1998, Rankins said he was ?contacted by Couglin [sic] and Guevara" who stated that ?Surrano was appealing his case and I?ll have to testify and keep him in prison (M 21f Rankms was given $10,000 to ?travel to California and Vegas.? (Id) In Pasadena, Rankins and several friends rented a room at the Ramada Inn. After Rankins and his friends participated in an ?orgy? with several prostitutes, Rankins received a phone call from Det. Guevara and ASA Coghlan. (Id. at 10-11.) Det. Guevara stated, according to Rankins, ?see no matter were you "go we are? there. (Id. at 11.) ASA Coghlan told Rankins the "fun" he just had would ?coSt? him if he did not keep ?quiet.? (1d) Later that evening, Rankins was arrested for raping one of the prostitutes. (Id) Several weeks later, Rankins was informed by Pasadena prosecution perSor'i?nel that ASA Coghlan ?asks us to work with you? and ?want you to keep your mouth closed on the Surrano ease . In 2013, after Speaking with Bonjean "a few times," Rankins Was ?threatened? by ?lawyers? and an ?investigator? who ?said they work for Coughlin and Gueverra (Id. at 12.) Later that year, Rankine was contacted by telephone and informed that he was a ?walking dead man.? (Id) t. Vicente Recants On 6/19/03 Vicente told students investigating possible wrongful convictions that the - confession evidence he shared against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco (and against Bouto and the third defendant, too") had been fabricated, after he had allegedly been ?coerced? and ?heat? by Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen, (6/19/03 Email.) Serrano, who he ?hated,? and Montanez were innocent, he stated. On later occasions he negotiated for various bene?ts in return for executing an af?davit and his potential testimony in connection with the MontanezJSerrano post- conviction matter. On 8/24/04 and 9/ 16/05,- respectively, Montanez and Serrano moved for post-conviction relief, primarily relying on Vicente?s allegations.? (8/24/04 Montanez PoStconvict?ion Petition; ?3 Det. Halvorsen told us that he did not remember that Vicente had also received a confession in the third defendant?s matter, stating: ?That?s news to me.? (7/1/14 Interview with Ernest . Halvorsen.) When we asked him to examine the Supp. R. attributed to him and Det. Guevarta reporting Vicente?s information, Det. Halvorsen expressed surprise, stating: ?He got another one? In the Cook County jail?? (Id) Det. Halvors?en then stated of Vicente, ?This guy?s a roving confession elicitator" [sic]. i ?4 Previously, on 8/9/99, Serrano had petitioned pro se for post-conviction relief under the Illinois Post-Convicti on Act, but his petition was dismissed as untimely. (S erranoPostconvic?tion Petition at 2.) On 10/27/00, Serrano petitioned, pro se, for federal habea's relief, alleging, among other things, that ?[t]he State knowingly used the perjur'ed testimony of Francisco Vicente who was a professional snitch who had already testi?ed in .two other (10/27/00 Serrano '32 Scanned by CamScanner Serrano Postconviction Petition at 2.) At a hearing, both Det. Guevara and Vicente appeared, but invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. (7/22/13 Hearing.) On 5/16/13, during the pendency of the Montana/Serrano post?conviction matter, a . former inmate,- Valentine Gomez (aka ?Tornato'j, testi?ed that in 1995 or 1996 Vicente told him then that ?he had caught a case and in order for him to cut a deal with some of?cer, he ?lied on? Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco and ?pointed the finger? at them. 16/93 Hearing at 108-09.) Vicente also told Gomez that his trial testimony ?was a lie.?? (Id. at 109.) Gomez testi?ed further that he had not seen Serrano or Montanez for nearly twenty years and that he had not spoken to them about their case or Vicente's statements to him. (Id. at 111.) On cross exam, Gomez testi?ed that although he was acquainted with both Montanez and Serrano he did not know them to be friends and had never seen them together. (Id. at 119-20.) 3. Analysis First we analyze the evidence obtained ?nrn Vicente and Rankins. Then we analyze the evidence obtained from other sources. a. The Evidence Provided by Vicente and Rankins As was also the case in the Bouto and third defendant matters, the infonnants?here, Vicente and details about the murder that they could only haVe learned through participating in or witnessing the murder, by learning about it from the participants after its commission, or by learning of it from another party knowledgeable about it, a category that includes the police investigating it or-veri?able eyewitnesses to it. in particular, provided detailed information about the murder, including regarding its location, Vargas?s van, the radio, and that the gunfire shattered the passenger Window. First we consider Vi'cente's evidence, then we consider Rankins?s evidence. 0) Vicente?s Evidence To determine whether it is more likely that Vicente obtained the evidence from Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco or from one or more of the other categories of possible sources identi?ed above, we analyze that evidence as it relates to the following: (1) whether it includes veri?able information not previously obtained from other sources; (2) the introduction of the evidence regarding a 2/4/93 incident with the vibtirn; (3) its possible corroboration by Wilda and other sources; (4) its consistency (or lack'thereot); (5) the purported circumstances of its receipt; and (6) its recantation. Inclusion of Verifiable Information Not. Previously Obtained from Other Sources Habeas Petition.) His federal habeas petition was dismissed as untimely on 7/24/01. (7/24/01 Serrano Habeas Dismissal.) 33 Scanned by CamScanner ALCONFIDENTIAL For purposes of assessing whether Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco confessed to Vicente, or whether Vicente instead became knowledgeable about the crime through othersourees, it is useful to consider whether Vicente provided any veri?able information that had not been reported to police prior to Vieente?s statement. We begin with Vieente's description of the genesis of the crime. According to Vicente, Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco decided to rob Vargas because they spotted him displaying a signi?cant amount of cash. At least as early as the ?rst day of the inchtigation, a General Progress Report noted that 'a receipt for $300 was found on the person of Vargas. Moreover, Vargas was discovered with $190 in cash in his Wallet. Relatedly, as we explain below, the . 214/93 incident with Latino men was likelier than not known to police before Vicente reportedly discussed it with Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen. 7' Second, Vargas?s pull-out car radio played a signi?cant role in Vieente?s story. Vargas was found holding such a radio, as reported in a Supp. R. which issued the day after the murder. Third, Vicente stated that Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco were in Montanez?s car when they spotted the victim and, the following morning, committed the crime. As early as 2/5/93, the day of the shooting, it was reported in a GPR and a Supp. R. that several of Va?rg?as?s neighbors, including State?s witness Gary Shoop, saw a brown or light brown ear driving north on Spring?eld alter the shots were ?red. Fourth, Vicente described the victim, Vargas, as a "Mexican." 0n 216/93, the day alter Vargas was murdered, Dets. Sehak and Jack reported that Vargas had been born in Mexico. Moreover, it is not clear how Montanez, Serrano, or Pacheco would know the victim?s country of origin. ?To summarize, we ?nd that all of the verifiable information that Vicente allegedly provided had been previously mentioned in some form in the investigation record, and that Vicente did not introduce any new, veri?able information. The Introduction of Evidence Regarding a '214193 Incident Involving Latino Men and the Victim Making some determination of whether Vicente ?rst introduced evidence regarding an incident on the eve of Vargas?s murder involving several Latino men and the victim is instructive. If Vicente ?rst introduced into the case that no one else knew about it, and Wilda subsequently con?rmed that information?it would be meaningful evidence that Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco confessed to him. If, however, Wilda ?rst introduced that information, then Vieentc?s knowledge of it would not establish that Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco confessed to him, for Vicente could have learned the information from another source, including police who may have previously received that information from Wilda. 34 Scanned by CamScanner Slifi'ijii'v'l CONFIDENTIAL We first consider evidence suggesting that Wilda merely con?rmed information ?rst introduced into the case by Vicente. We then examine evidence suggesting that Wilda Introduced into the case the evidence prior to its alleged reporting by Vicente. First, as detailed above, at trial Det. Guevara testi?ed that he contacted Wilda after speaking with Vicente on 6/2/93, asking her ?if anything unusual happened the night before the murder.? Det. Guevara was suggesting, we believe, that Vicente introduced the incident, and that Wilda then confirmed it. Second, there is no mention of the incident in the record until Dcts. Guevara and Halvorsen ?led the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93. Although the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93 does not reference the sequence of evidence-gathering, the introduction of the incident in that report would tend to suggeSt that the incident had not been discussed by Wilda prior to the meeting she had with Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen as re?ected in that report. - Regarding the evidence that Wilda ?rst introduced evidence about a 2/4/93 confrontation into the case, we consider the follbwing. First, Wilda stated at trial on several occasions that she introduced the incident into the evidence. That is, Wilda testi?ed that she volunteered the evidence to them. Related to this point, Det. Guevara and Wilda both testi?ed that they were in frequent contact, commencing the day after Vargas was murdered. it is unlikely that Wilda would not have shared this detail during one of these conversations. Seeond, Det. Halvorsen told us that Wilda, not Vicente, ?rst introduced into the case the evidence of a 2/4/93 confrontation. (10/21/13 Interview with Ernest Halvorsen.) Of course, in connection With this point, we do not overlook the fact that Det. Halvorsen was speaking to 'us about an event that occurred more than twenty years ago. Still, Det. Halvorsen's statement to us is consistent with Wilde's testimony. Third, the important Supp. R, dated 6/2/93, which memorialized Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen?s meetings with Vicente and Wilda, did not itself indicate that Wilda corroborated evidence ?rst provided by Vicente. With regard to Vicente and timing, the Supp. R. reads, "On 2 June 93, the R/Dets. had a meeting with a circumstantial witness who for his own safety must remain anonymous at this time.? With regard to Wilda and timing, the Supp. R. reads, ?On 2 June 93, Det. R. Guevara interviewed Wilda Vargas, the victims [sic] wife." Although icente's evidence precedes Vargas?s evidence within the report, there is no indication Within this or other Supp. R.?s that we reviewed that this is a meaningful distinction. This is particularly so where, as Det. Halvorsen explained to us, the report was prepared on word processing software. - (10/21/13 Interview with Ernest Halvorsen.) Moreover, there is no statement of sequencing within the report. For instance, the report does not state that Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen (or anyone else) met with Vicente and then met with Wilda, or that Wilda con?rmed evidence previously provided by Vicente. The document asserts only that Dets. Guevara and HalVorsen spoke to Vargas and Vicente on the same day, bot does not indicate at which time or in what order they spoke. . *5 That the supp. R. dated 6/2/93 is backdated, i.e. it reports activity occurring on 6/6/93, four days later, is another reason that the report itself is an unreliable metric of sequencing in connection with the gas station evidence. 35 Scanned by CamScanner Corroboration ovaidence Provided by Vicente For purposes of assessing the veracity of Vicente?s purported receipt of confession evidenCe, it is also useful to consider whether Vicente's evidence is corroborated by other sources and evidence. First, we consider whether Wilda did or did not corroborate aspects of Vi?cente?s evidence. Then we consider whether other witnesses or evidence did or did not corroborate Vicente?s evidence. (1) Corroboration by Wilda Here we consider evidenbe that Wilda did and did not corroborate other evidence reportedly disclosed to Vicente by Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco: We begin with the ways in which she corroborated evidence. To begin, the record evidence indicates that Wilda identified Montanez and Serrano in Area 5 station line-ups conducted by Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen gas station the night before her husband?s murder. If reliable, these line-tip identi?cations would tend to corroborate Vieente?s evidence that Montanez and Serrano spotted Vargas the day before _he was murdered. Second, the Supp. R. dated 6/2193 indicates that Wilda identi?ed Montanez?s car in the presence of Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen as the car she saw at the gas station. If reliable, this is meaningful corroboration, as well, of Vicente?s evidence. - We now consider Ways in which Wilda did not corroborate evidence reportedly disclosed to Vicente by Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. First, while it is important to Vicente?s evidence regarding motive that Montanez saw Vargas, with his money visible, Wilda testi?ed in answer to three separate questions at trial that her husband Was already out of the store and back to the family van by the time that Montanez entered the store. (However, she stated otherwise on one occasion at trial, at the cc?mclusion of her testimony, "on cross examination.) If Wilde?s ?rst three responses are accurate?i.e., that Vargas was out of the gas station store by the time the driver of the tan car entered the cashier?s line? there would no longer exist an incentive for the defendants to target Vargas as a potential robbery victim; the driver of the tan vehicle would not have seen his money. Second, Wilda failed several times at trial to accurately identify Montanez and Serrano, which may raise questions regarding the reliability of her reported photo array and lineup identi?cations. Third, Wilda?testified in response to multiple questions at trial that she did not see the car follow her husband home, although she acknowledged that Det. Guevara reported differently in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93. (10/19/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 at 55-56.) Absent following the Vargases home, the Latino men spotted at the gas station would have no way of knowing where they lived. (As noted above, years later, however, in an af?davit eitecuted on. 5/23/06 in 36 Scanned by CamScanner . CONFIDENTIAL conjunction with a student investigation of potential wrongful convictions, Wilda did state that the vehicle from the gas station was still behind her when she and Vargas arrived at home, although she did not believe they were being ?followed.") Fourth. although Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen reported and testi?ed that Wilda was riding with them when she spontaneously identi?ed Montanez?s car outside his girlfriend's house as the car that she saw at the gas station, Wilda herself has allegedly since said that she did not, according to Montanez?s and Serrano's post conviction attorneys. Speci?cally, she reportedly stated that Det. Guevara pointed out the car to her, at which point she conceded only that it was similar to the car she saw at the gas station. Relatedly, Det. Guevara testi?ed that Wilda did not describe to him the car she spotted at the gas station (10/21/94 Trial Transcript at 25), which may suggest that she could not have identi?ed Montanez?s car without. assistance. (2) Corroboration of Vicente?s Evidence by Other Sources or Evidence We also consider whether Vicente?s evidence is corroborated by other witnesses or evidence. First, we examine Vicente's linking of the Vargas murder to a botched robbery. Second, we examine Vicente?s linking 0f Montancz's car to the Vargas murder. Third, we examine Vicente's trial testimony concerning ?Rick? and a purported trip to ?Gold Busters? with Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. i) Regarding a Purported Connection Between the Vargas Murder and an Attempted Robbery A signi?cant component of the evidence provided by Vicente is-his statement and testimony that Montanez, Serrano, and Pachecokilled Vargas a?er attempting to rob him. We consider here evidence that Vargas?s murder did and did not arise from a failed robbery. We begin with the latter. There is no signi?cant evidence that Vargas had any meaningful enemies and, accordingly, would have been the subject of a targeted and planned crime, rather than the victim of a robbery perpetrated by strangers, such as Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. irst, while students investigating the case spoke with Vargas?s brother Ramiro Vargas, who told the students that Vargas?s family had speculated that the killing had been related to the drug trade, we are aware of" no evidence supporting Ramiro?s speculation. (3/7/03 Email.) Second, although some of his co-workers told police that Vargas?s employers had been ?grouchy? about his continuation of a worker?s compensation lawsuit (2/5/93 General Progress Report at 11), there is no follow-up indicating that this was examined further or considered to be a credible lead. Moreover, such a lawsuit does not seem likely to motivate a planned killing. Third, while Vargas?s family member's reportedly told students investigating the case that an eat-girlfriend ?stalker? might have been upset that Vargas's ?rst wedding anniversary with Wilda was nearing, . we are aware of no evidence this theory. (5/4/03 Email.) 37 . . Scanned by CamScanner Regarding the possibility that Vargas?s murder did not result from Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco?s failed attempt to rob Vargas, we consider the following. First, the story of a sidewalk confrontation between the defendants and Vargas and a botched ?ganking? while struggling over a car radio is not corroborated by the and ear witnesses to Vargas?s murder. 'Both Anna Velez and Judy Milinkovic likely would have seen Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco on the sidewalk beside Vargas?s heme waiting for him to exit the gate, but did not. Indeed, Velez provided evidence tendingto indicate that Vargas was sitting in his car, warming the engine, at the time of the confrontation that resulted in his death. Moreover, witnesses Hector and Iris Melendez. who were near enough to the crime scene to have reported hearing footsteps, did not report hearing a mugging (or the shouts described by (215/93 GPR at 8.) Second, the physical evidence at'the scene is examined for consistency with the tale of a failed robbery. As an initial matter, it is unlikely that the defendants would shoot to death their target, but then not steal the goods that they were after, particularly under circumstances where those items were accessible. Having shot out a portion of the window, the assailants need only have reached into the van, unlocked the door, and taken Vargas?s money and radio. (Photos in Evidence.) Relevant to this point, Vicente described Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco as suf?ciently in need of cash to procure drugs that they'then committed a second robbery, this time in broad daylight. Under such circumstances, it is not clear why the perpetrators Would not take the extra few seconds to obtain Vargas?s cash or his radio. At 5:32 9.111., the extra risk from that action may have been marginal. Relatedly, Vargas was discovered lying face down between the front seats of his van', positioned in a fashion indicating that he was, according to CPD, shot ?as he sat in his vehicle preparing to go to his place of employment." He was holding .his radio, his lunch bag was his body, and his scarf, hood, and baseball cap were not disturbed. (Photos in Evidence.) it is unlikely that Vargas, after being confronted on the sidewalk by three assailants, Would have held onto both a radio and a plastic lunch bag while running to his van, locking the doors behind him, starting the vehicle, and positioning himself to drive away. Indeed, on-scene investigators determined that there was no evidence of a struggle. and the medical eitaminer determined that Vargas had no defensive wounds. (2/6/93 Supp. R. at 7.) ii) Regarding Possible Connections BetWeen Montanez?s Car and Ithe Shooting Another important component of Vicente?s evidence is the link between Montanez's car and the Vargas murder. We consider here evidence that Montanez?s car was connected to the Vargas murder. We then consider eviden'ce that Montanez?s car was not connected to the Vargas murder. I Regarding the former, we consider the following. First, Vargas's neighbor, Gary Shoop, testi?ed that the car he saw fleeing the crime scene was similar to Montancz's car. The evidence indicates that Montanez purchased his car on before the murder. (6/6/93 Montancz Vehicle History.) It is at least possible, then, that the car that Shoop viewed was Montanez?s. 38 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL Second, Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen reported, in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93, that Wilda identi?ed Montanez's ear. Assuming the reliability of that identi?cation, that is meaningful evidence that Montanez's vehicle was involved in the murder. Regarding the possibility that Montanez's car Was not connected to the Vargas murder, we now consider the following. First, as detailed above, Der. Guevara testi?ed that Wilda did not describe to him in advance the car she later purportedly positively identi?ed, which may diminish the importance of the identi?cation because it suggests she did not recall the car with particularity. Moreover, Wilda allegedly informed post-conviction counsel to Montancz and Serrano that Det. Guevara engaged in misconduct in connection with her identi?cation of that car, which, if true, ?rrther calls into question the reliability of that identi?cation. Furthermore, it is unlikely that she would rem ember the car after four months when she did not mention the incident the day of the murder. Second, although Vicente purportedly asserted that Montanez explained to him that there was damage to his front fender because be crashed his car ?into a parked car as they drove off,? there is no reference in the investigation record of such a car crash in the vicinity of the crime. Indeed, although ten ear and eyewitnesses described hearing the shooting, and described hearing the tires squeal as it rounded corners several blocks away, none described hearing a car crash. (2/5/93 Supp. 2f6/93 Supp. R.) Third, Montanez?s mechanic attested in an af?davit that Montanez brought the car into his shop for repair well after the shooting, and it did not have any damage. Relatedly, Montanez's former girlfriend executed an a?idavit attesting similarly. Montanez informed us that he crashed his car in March of 1993 when he was under the in?uence of narcotics. (10.17/13 Interview with Jose Montanez.) Fourth, Montanez?s car was a distinctive, two-toned vehicle?its body was light tan and its vinyl top was dark brown, which did not reference prior to trial. Mlinkovic also described viewing a brown car driving away from the scene, and did not describe it as two-toned . or reference the vinyl tap. Such distinguishing details are the sort that we expect Shoog would have shared with on~scene personnel given the speci?city of his description on scene. - Relatedly. Montanez?s car was a four-door sedan, whereas Shoop told police the car he saw may . have been a two-door. . ?5 As we noted in our discussion of the Robert Bouto ease, in "Eyewitness Testimony? and law professor Elizabeth F. Loftus terms such details that are noted by many witnesses ?salient details,? which have a ?high probability of being spontaneously mentioned by individuals who witness a particular event." A two-toned color scheme on a qualify as such a detail, meaning it would be unlikely that multiple witnesses viewing the ear would fail to note that aspect of its appearance. as Scanned by CamScanner Finally, tan was a popular color for cars produced in the 19805 and early 19905", and Montanez drove a sedan, a very popular body style. Considering the size and population density of the city of Chicago, a description of a tan or brown sedan may not have meaningfully limited the universe of possible vehicles used in commission of the crime. Regarding ?Rick? and ?Gold Busters? We consider here two additional pieces of evidence that Vicente provided against Montanez and Serrano. First, we consider Vicente?s testimony that the second time that Montanez confessed to him, Vicente was with his friend ?Rick.? Second, we consider Vicente?s statement and testimony regarding a trip to "Gold Busters" with Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco to fence gold. We begin with Rick. Vicente's trial testimony stands as the only reference to Rick in the record, and nothing in the record corroborates Vicente's testimony regarding him. Although Vicente testi?ed at trial that he informed ASA Coghlan on 9/21/94 that he was with a friend: when Montanez confessed on 2/7/93, (l0/ 18/94 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 at 112-113), that purported statement is not re?ected in the record, and we consider it unlikely that both ASA (20ng and Investigator Martinez would have failed to note such a detail if provided to them. We note, too, that Montanez may have been unlikely to have confessed to murder in front of a stranger, and Vicente did not allege that Rick and Montanez were acquainted. Second, we examine Vicente's statements and testimony regarding Gold Busters. Wihile Dets. Halvorsen and Guevara both included the Gold evidence in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93, and Vicente testi?ed to it at trial, Det. Halvorsen told us, as noted above, that he and Det. Guevara investigated that portion of Vicente?s story and determined that Gold Busters did not exist. Also as noted above, we have independently determined that no store called Gold Busters existed in Chicago at that time. Consistency of Vicente?s Evidence We consider here internal consistencies and inconsistencies in connection with evidence provided by Vicente, parameters also useful for assessing credibility. - First, we describe the internal consistencies in connection with evidence provided by Vicente. Prior to his recantation in 2003, Vicente spoke on the record titre times about the confession he allegedly received from Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco: (I) As an unidentified con?dential informant, as documented in a Supp. R. prepared by Dots. Guevara and Halvorsen dated 6/2/93; (2) In a handwritten statement memorialized by ASA Solita Pandit and Det. John. ?Today?s Popular Car Colors Rev No Engines," Washington Post, 4/23/12. the most popular car colors during the relevant time ?7 See Kelly, (noting that brown and beige were among period). 40 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL Halvorsen on 6/28/93; (3) Before the grand jury on 7/1/93; (4)1?0 ASA Coghlan and Martinez on 9/21/94; and (5) At trial on 10/ 1 8/94, In all but the 9/21/94 statement, which is limited to new or altered information Vim: related a complete telling orretellin of the confession. In each instance, he was seeing 11:8 3: intersection, when Montanez pulled up in his car, with Serrano and Pacheco. Consistently, Montanez explained to Vicente that the three men saw Vargas with money out the "11:53:: and folldwed him to his home because of it, electing to hold off on robbing him then beeanserls wife and children were present. Also in each instance, Vicente said that Montana: told him the: Vargas was shot after Serrano attempted unsuccess?illy to steal his pull-out radio. He also consistently told of a second meeting, with Montanez, that occurred two ?1235 later, and atni?n?n l?i/IontanerT explained ?irther the events of that morning. Now, We. examine the internal inconsistencies in connection with Vicente?s widen; We begin by examining the additions and alterations Vicente made to his widen: on 9/21/91. in a meeting with ASA Coghlan and Investigator Martinez. Then we examine inconsistencies that arose at trial. . 'In Vicentc?s original statements, Pacheco and Serrano had not spoken in front office about their role in the murder. In the 9/21/94 update, however, Vicente said that Sesame and Pacheco made inculpatory statements. It may be notable that prior to Rankins?s maturation, which predated the 9/21/94 meeting, Rankins?s alleged eyewitness account was the only evidence that attribtited comments speci?cally to Serrano and Pacheco admitting in the shooting. A Second, while Vicente, in his initial statements to police, said that the defendm had indicated that Montanez was the getaway driver after the Vargas shooting, in the 9/21/94 rqort and at trial, Vicente described Pacheco as the driver instead. Recall that in Ranitiris?s Pacheco drove the striped van while Montanez drove his Own sedan. Third, as reported in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93, and also in the hand-??ne; szatemt executed a few Weeks later, Vicente reportedly stated that he ?rst noticed damage to W?s car on 2/7/93, two days after he initially Spoke to the defendants about the Vargas minder. 02: 9/21/94, however, he stated that he ?had noticed the bullet holes and damage to Montana?s car when he ?rst talked to the defendants on during the ?rst ptnported conversation with defendants. Regarding trial inconsistencies, ?rst, as reported in the Supp. R. dated 6/2493, and also i: the hand-written statement executed a few weeks later, Vicente reportedly stated that he spoke with the three defendants outside, on the corner, and during" a trip to Gold Busters At tial, however, Vicente said that the conVer'sation with the defendants" took place in considerable part on his porch, . 41 Scanned by CamScanner . CONFIDENTIAL - Second, Vicente introduced for the ?rst time at trial the assertion that Montanez disposed or the murderweapon, his 9 mm gun, somewhere outside the vehicle before driving to Gold Bcs?m. Pre'nousl he had only said that Montanez hid the gun in the car?s heating vent. Finally, at trial, as discussed above, Vicente for the ?rst time introduced a new witness to the confession?Ride . 3: The Circumstances of the Confession?s Pnrported Receipt by Vicente We consider here the circumstances of the purported receipt by Vicente of confessioii midence. The record indicates and Vicente testi?ed that he received the confession from the defer.de after meeting with them at 8:30 or 9 am. on 2/5/93 at the corner ofHamlin and A geld strees. We consider ?rst Ways in which the circumstances of the receipt of the purported confession contribute to its reliability. Then we consider ways in which the circumstances of its remip: detract from its reliability. Regard'mg the former, we note, ?rst, that'this was, we have veri?ed, the neighborhood 132:. Vicar: lived in at the time. It would, therefore, make some sense that Vicente would have been time at that location. Second, Vicente knew Montanez and Serrano, and possibly Pacheco and, accordingly, may have had reason to converse upon seeing each other. Speci?cally, Montana told us that he had recruited Vicente into the Irnperial Gangsters well before the Vargas trier, although he said that they did not have contact after that. (10/ 17/ 13 Interview with Jose Montana-z.) Vicente later referred to Montanez as a ?friend? in conversation with . smdems investigating the case. Regarding Serrano, Vicente and Serrano had a prior altercation, above. In fact, Vicente told students investigating the case that he ?hated Serrano.? At trial, Vimte stated that he had known Pacheco for ?nine, eight years," although he does not elsewhere dismiss a prior reladombip with Pacheco, and we have not been unable to locate any evidence from Pacheco. 1. Third, Montanez, Sen?ano, and Pacheco were at least acquainted with each other and, thcs, it is at least plausible that they would have committed a crime tOgether. Speci?cally, . Serrano told us that he was ?aware of? Montanez and Pacheco, but ?didn?t really hang" with either regularly. (10917113 Interview with Armando Serrano.) Serrano also said that he had smoked marijuana with Pacheco a few times, and knew his girlfriend or sister, but that he had not socialized with Montanez. (Id) Montanez said he knew Serrano, but did net socialize with due to their di??erences in ages. (10/17/13 Interview with Jose Montanez.) Montanez said hi he knew Pacheco better, and had ?partied? with him on several occasions, but had not pattimt? in criminal activity with either man. (Id) . . . 4 We consider now the ways in which the of its purported receipt detract from its reliab?ity. 42 Scanned by CamScanner SIii'ii?'il First, Vicente testi?ed that he was not aware of the fact that Our Lady of Grace Ca- 13c church and school are situated at Hamlin and Altgeld, notwithstanding the fact that the complex dominates several blocks there. Relatedly, Vicente testi?ed that he did not see other than the defendants during the heurs he spent at the corner, notwithstanding the fact that on {It morning of 25/93 (a non-holiday weekday), clergy, church employees, Pm teachers, and other staff would likely have been arriving for the start of the work at! school. day. Second, recall that Vicente discussed Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco ?ailing? a: each other about how they had just killed someone. During that conversation, they were also purportedly using heroin. But for the church and school complex, this was not an otherwise vacant neighborhood. On the corners not dominated by'the church and school, focr- and ?re story brick homes and apartment complexes stand. It may have been unlikely that Montana, Serrano, and Pacheco would haVe handled a ?rearm, used heroin, and shouted about a meme: next to a church and school in a crowded neighborhood. Moreover, no one reported overheartg their argument about amurder or witnessing them use drugs. Third, according to our research, the outside temperature was in the high 205 and low 36's Fahrenheit, during that time period, which may have made it dif?cult to spend the entire ennui"; and morning outside. Fourth, the relationship between Serrano on one hand and Vicente on the other hand, my not have been such that he would have been likely to have confessed to him. It is also possfeie that Pacheco did not know Vicente, a circumstance which would also tend to make Pacheco tmlilcely to confess murder to Vicente. Fifth, the relationship among the individual defendants may fret have been such that they were likely to commit a crime together. In fact, there is no evidence that weave aware of indicating that any defendant had committed a'crime with any other prior to their reported involvement in the Vargas murder. (1) Vicente?s Reca'ntation (1) Consistency or Inconsistency Vicente has stated on several occasions that he fabricated the evidence he provided against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco, although he has provided inconsistent reasons for having done so. We examine here the ways in which those recantations are consistent and the ways in which they are inconsistent. Some time prior to 2003, rmdergraduate students investigating potential ?mng?fl convictions were informed that Vicente had told his co-defendant in another case, Valentine Gomez, aka ?Tomatof that he had ?admitted to falsely testifying against? Montanez and Serrano. (5/21/03 Email.) There is no. evidence that Vicente told Tomato that he had been coerced to do so. Instead, Vicente apparently informed Tomato that he had been mediated by the promise of sentencing leniency. 43 Scanned by CamScanner ., 1.. 9* Dc"- . 1 Sim CONFIDENTIAL 5?29 '33 Rise-z: teld invesn'gating possible wrongful conviction: that the frieze: be sited against Mentanez, Serrano, and Pacheco was fabricated, but this tin-cg; :12: he v-zs ?coerced? and "seat" by Dets. Guevara and Halvorren. (6/19/03 (2) Potential Incentives for Providlng False Evidence or Falsely We de?ed \?zeerne's sing bene?ts for providing evidence above, in our cf the Races: Bent: case. To m, Vicente was facing a possible 5:12:12 med rnhhezies. in exclnange for his cooperation as an informant in the three cues, Vie-- was sentenced instead to nine years and served only three. He also hug-a. 2: ins: Sta: Witness quarters bene?ts at Cook County Jail, such as better meals and om- and ?contact visits? with family members. other incentives to provide false evidence against the defendants, we note that Vase-n: had a pre-existing bad relationship with Serrano, as detailed above. u..-ng Regarding inner-shes to falsely recent, we note that Vicente informally recanted on 6'19 '33 and enty late: negotiated for incentives in exchange for possibly executing a recantation and a: the post-conviction matter. Similarly, we are not 27-22:: ofzzy eaidexe that Montana or Serrano coerced Vicente to recent prior to 6/19/03. (ii) Rnnkins?s Evidence To dezeznine whether it is more likely that Ranlcins witnessed the murder or instead Ernest of the fro: one or more of the other categories of sources identi?ed above, we analyze the: side-nee as it relates to the following: (1) its inclusion of veri?able information not gen-Em? obtained from other sources; (2) its corroboration; (3) the circumstances of its mi?; and is recantation. (3) Inclusion of Veri?ahle Information Not Previously Obtained from Other Sources For greases of assessing whether Rankins witnessed the murder or instead became; Wedge?le about the crime through other sources, it is useful to consider whether Rankins presided a; seri?ahle information on 6/ 1 1/93 that had not been reported to police previously. First, Ranks stated that Vargas was confronted over a pull-out radio. As we noted" 2307:, that Vargas was fotmd with a pull-out radio was a detail included in the Supp. R. ?led the afzr the main, and Vicente reportedly provided this information, too. Second, Rankins stated that Vargas was shot to death while inside a blue-gray van parked in front of his borne, a fa: rep-cred early in the police investigation. Third, Ranltins allegedly accurately identi?ed the :z'ce and model ochnmez?s car four and a half months after he allegedly witnessed the Sawing. (6/1133 General Progress Report.) By the time that Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen 44 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL spoke to Rankins, they had already purportedly identi?ed Montanez's Buick Regal as the \?ChiClc involved in the shooting, based in part on Vicente's evidence. We are aware of no veri?able information obtained from Rankins that had not already been obtained from other sources, including Vicente. Corroboratlon Evidence For purposes of assessing the veracity of Rankins's evidence, it is also useful to consider whether the evidence not previously known to police prior his statement to ASA King and Det. Halvorscn on 6/11/93 can be corroborated by other sources and evidence. First, we consider whether it is corroborated by ear and eyewitnesses to the crime or by any other veri?able evidence. Second, we consider whether Demond Williams (aka ?Shorty Folks") and Sabrina corroborated Rankins?s evidence. Third, we compare Rankins?s evidence to Vicente?s evidence. (1) Corroborating Rankins?s Evidence with Ear and Eyewitness Evidence and Other Veriflable Evidence First, Rankins described the three defendants waiting on the sidewalk in front of Vargas?s home, then surrounding Vargas when he exited his gate, and ?nally Montancz and Pacheco yelling out encouragement to Serrano to shoot Vargas. Arnong the many eyewitnesses interviewed on 2/5 and 2/6/93, not one saw the defendants waiting on the sidewalk or surrounding Vargas. Nor did any ear or eyewitness hear the purported exhortations (or, indeed, any voices at all issuing from outside during the relevant time {mine that might have represented what Rankins described). However, a number of ear and/or eyewitnesses would have had an opportunity to see three assailants on the street and/or hear these shouts, including at the very least, Velez, Milinkovic, and Melendez. Related to the above evidence, Rankins stated several times that he was parked, inside the van, seven or eight houses away from the Vargas home. This would have been well over two- hundred feet from where Vargas was walking when he was purportedly apprehended by Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco, while it was dark out.? We have con?rmed, by visiting the site after Sundown, that at the distance described by Rankine it likely would have been impossible to determine that Vargas was carrying a radio. Not only that, but it likely would have been impossible to clearly see Vargas, the assailants, and Vargas?s 'van, at all. It likely would have been impossible to see Vargas exit his gate. Finally, it likely would hBVe been impossible to hear the encouragements?Jr??Do him! Do him!? and "?Go ahead! Go ahead!" attributed to Padheco and Montanez, respectively?at all, let alone to be able to attribute them, from that distance, to individual assailants. ?3 The sun rose at 6:58 on 2/5/93, nearly an hour and a half after the shots that killed Vargas. 4S Scanned by CamScanner TIAL Second, the nicknames Rankins assigned to the assailants do not match the known nicknames of the three defendants. In the course of oer investigation, we have. not uneorered any evidence that linked any of the three defendants to any of the nicknames appearing in Rankins's statement. in an interview with us, Rankins offered an explanation: He was shown photos of the three defendants, one showing an overweight Montanez (hence, Barrel Belly), one shouting Pacheco dressed in a striped shirt (hence, Stripes), and one showing Serrano smiling (hence, Joker). (312/14 Interview with Timothy Rankins.) From those photos, Ranicins said, the detectives invented the nicknames assigned to the defendants in his statement. We have identi?ed in the record and examined what we presume are these photos, and note that the defendants? appearance therein is consistent with Rankins?s characterization. (Photos in Evidence.) Also regarding nicknames, Serrano told us during his interview with us that upon arresting him, Guevara kept referring to him as ?Joker? in front of groups of other police of?cers, which he said he did not understand. (8I22/l4 Interview with Armando Serrano.) Third, Rankins also described a second get-away vehicle, a van with distinctive stripes. There is no other evidence in the record regarding such a vehicle. (2) Corroborating Rankins?s Evidence with Demand Williams and Sabrina Rankins?s evidence is also not corroborated by the two additional participants?Demond Williams (aka ?Shorty Folks") and Sabrina?he introduces into the story of the Vargas shooting. There is no evidence in the record that police sought to con?rm Rankins?s account "with Williams even though Williams was in custody on the charge that brought Rankine into custody and i . remained there until the completion of his four-year sentence, well after the trial of Montenez, Serrano, and Pacheco. As noted above, we spoke to Williams, who credibly professed no knowledge of the Vargas murder, and thus couldnot corroborate Rankins's account. Finally, the record reflects?and there is no allegation in the record?that Dots. Guevara or Halvorsen were able to corroborate Rankins?s evidence with Ranlcins?s alleged girlfriend, Sabrina. We believe she was arrested alongside Rankins prior to the start of Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco?s trial, thus potentially affording the opportunity to do so. (3) Corroborating Rankins?s Evidence With Vicente?s Evidence Rankins?s evidence corroborates Vicente?s evidence in some instances, and in other instances it adds additional details that cannot be reconciled with the account allegedly tendered by Vicente. Regarding the ways in which Rankins?s evidence corroborates Vicente?s, we first note that in both informants? stories, the three defendants all approached Vargas on the sidewalk: outside his home. Also according to both, Serrano then attempted to steal the victim?s pullLout radio. Then, according to both Rankine and Vicente, Vargas was shot after ?eeing to his van. 46. Scanned by CamScanner s??ts?tsr The presided by Rankins, however, also di?em from Vicente's in several Signi?cant ways. According to Ranlo?ns, there was not one vehicle, Montanez?s car, but two, a van driven by Pacheco, at the scene of the Vargas murder. There were also two people present in Rankins's telling of the story, Rankins and Williams. Additionally, in Story, Montanez and Pacheco loudly encouraged Serrano to shoot Vargas after he wired the robbery attempt. Vicente did not relate this exchange, and did not identify a shooter in any ofhis ?ve antennas. It is also notable that in Vicente"s telling, all three defendants arrived in one car, that driven and owned by Montanez. Rankins?s Recantation has stated on multiple occasions that he fabricated the evidence he provided gins: Men-ta: z, Serrano, and Pacheco. We examine here the ways in which those recantations are consistent and the ways in which they are inconsistent. we also examine potential bene?ts is: may hate tainted either his initial statements against the defendants or the subsequent series of rem-mica. I (1) Consistency or Inconsistency We begin with consistency. Rankins is consistent in one of his core assertions, that he did not witness Mentanez, Serrano, and Pacheco murder Vargas. He has consistently alleged that he was provided the story by police and prosecution personnel?but by an inconsistent cast of cinnactm. In each instance, of?cial personnel o?ued to dispense with his armed robbery charge exchange for cooperating, and threatened him with malicious prosecution for the Vargas :25: should he not cooperate- But for his recantation, Ranlcins has also cthiStently 522d since then that he was taken to the scene of the Vargas murder and provided the salient dct?s of the murder, although by an inconsistent cast of characters. inconsistencies, We continue with Rankins?s allegations regarding physical abuse. Notably, there is no such allegation in his 1994 recantation, and the allegations instead is: a::ise ?re years later, beginning in his ?rst ?1983 claim. While it is true that Rankine has aIeged abuse in every instance since then, the actual abuse alleged has varied considerably since that ?ne. Similarly, recantations implicate a tremendously varied and continuously exgzdizzg cast of characters. Notably, he did not name Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen in any of 12?s recantntions until speaking with Jennifer Bonjean, Serrano '5 post cOnv'iction counsel, in 2012. Prior to that time, with one exception, he referenced police personnel only anonymously, by ?e desigation ?John Doe Detectives 1-3? and ?police?? (2) Potential Bene?ts for Providing False Evidence or Falser Recanting ?9 ?mi: the 3/29/94 rec'antation, Rankins referred to gt. Mingey by name. (3/29/94 Rankine Restoration.) 47 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL Rankins did not allege speci?c sentencing bene?ts discussed with him for cooperating in the investigation, and since he ended his cooperation before the Montanez/S errano trial and did . not testify, unlike in Vicente's case there is no con?rmed record of bene?ts received. He has Said, rather, more generally, that CPD and State?s Attorney?s Of?ce personnel would ensure that he Would be provided bene?ts in connection with his armed robbery charge if he were to cooperate. For instance, in his 3/29/94 recantation, Rankins said that two unnamed of?cers told him that ?you have an arm robberyand we can get it drop," and that ?the state maid me an offer I couldn?t refuse." Moreover, he Spent at least a portion of his pre-trial incarceration in comparative comfort??rst in the Witness Protection Quarters known as the and later at home on electronic monitoring. Rankins told its that he did not recall the circumstances under which be drafted and eiecuted his initial handwritten recantation. However, studentinvestigators said in emails related to their investigation of Serrano?s case that executed the recantation at the behest of private investigator Julio Lebron, who was at the time working for the Montanez family. (10/20/03 Email; 12/19/03 Email; 5/4/03 Email.) Perhaps bolstering the theory that Montanez?s family was involved in procuring Rankins's initial recantation, Rankins wrote a letter to Montanez, which the Montanez family forwarded to the student investigators, indicating that Montanez?s father arranged his trip to Puerto Rico, where he stayed at times with Montanez family members. Regarding ?nancial bene?ts, Rankins?s 1999 1983 claim included a prayer for relief of ?22.80 billion dollars.? In his 2014 ?1983 claim, Rankins requests relief in the amount of $3.780 million, with $4.280 million of that [sic] to be given to the Chicago Public Schools, and also makes several non-monetary requests for relief, such as an exemption from registering as a sex offender. Findings on Vicente and Rankins?s Evidence We begin with Vicente?s evidence. We ?nd it more likely than not that Vicente fabricated the confession he purportedly obtained from Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. First, Vicente did not provide to police veri?able information that had not already been obtained from other sources. Had Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco confessed to him,'we would expect that he would know some accurate information that was unknown to police prior to the reporting of his evidence in the Supp. R. dated 6/2/93. . . 1 Second, we ?nd it more likely than not that Wilda, rather than Vicente, introduced the evidence regarding an incident involving several Latino men and the victim on the eve of his murder, thus indicating that Vicente did not have independent knowledge of this critical fact. Third, the remainder of Vicente?s'evidencc lacks meaningful corroboration. We begin with Wilda. As an initial matter, Vicente described Montanez spotting Vargas?s money, but Wilda testi?ed, primarily, that Rodrigo had returned to the van prior to the arrival of the relevant vehicle, thus negating motive. Related to that point, Vicente described Montanez following home the Vargas family but Wilda testified, primarily, that the vehicle did not follow them home, thus 48 Scanned by CamScanner sims's? CONFIDENTIAL Nisan! mere-mm} ?mm La: Irma-?1: 1mg; Warm-z? mg gnu in :em: re: we: Emmi; ?tritium-mu then In": minim.? limb. 1'18 Comm m: m: m: ?'ilm mun-93"- Ln tame rm,? ?um? um" a. mwum raft-?r: 132.?, {mm gt: ?unitaqw ?n'urr-u air-rue fr 6 fem-J. mun-mic r19 ?1 Sum'e curry e! a: nut-- . the! Teen: nu em- tin-i; an cur-me e! were?: AI that! sum. Year-rte div-arti'V! e! rug; be. en. en- ce '1'01?731?11 sweetest been? ?.115 I m'u'e? err-r12 we?! 3 fr" 11?s? 1? FILI mi p13?, '1 rift! 0" drink?) re ce?e-r gem-4e ?1215i, he ?t'ezgu tn 93?? 22'} a: he pen-r. 1?s: r! (name Maine! I?m rep-emf 37,: u: the". In my. I dean mm v.13. the Sh?e'l Penn-3 t: that rim. ?9 (arm satiety ear. \?x'pi am}: he" niaer Lt euzlm title racism; (em! dun teed-2:2: h; n: 22:: who, 11! title lee-pm: ha luff rd c. fix! \?izmtc?i rude-ace trending Mama?: mde in the tho Led: mace}: newt-entice: In? truce" Mend the {comm} mum eat-med In: men ma?a: dream mm er. mm! mm. Itn?nzd: ?mute ?and that Marmot: mud he! at Ihzie Seen; the were. no ?mum meeting hum; etuh. end Maezme: rimmed evidence that. i! urmfe. would tend t: Mitre the: he (1: It! sedan-?3: in Hui-Feller} Sharp and 01hr: eye-1min dd rm'x?ie detest-dice: efthe easy-end [eh away a: the: continua with Mmtnez't in my [~21 the man ewes!qu mm Fcuem, Vicente?: (?deuce regents; Gcid Beaten ad Riel ll? be Kenning the hits, we mm" here the mist-1:511in tut Vicente, he testi?ed. we:qu Ext to ASA Cochin dam-.1 the: 9719? axe-ting. Ihieh mended not ?:27 by ASA comm ha also by [sweetener Mmmez. After the mm mm Mm pet-pun! en Invulmlint Ref-or. it. end denim; the the! heme premded. lmnugnm report de not reference Rick Sm Rick would be under .1196: to the contusion. one monk! expat the pretence chiek to be manned in the neat if it were related by Vicente. Finn. Vicente pame a significantly uttered brewer! o! the confusion needy eighteen mm: and be pmponedly ten-wed it. ?inch mm undenmna his cedabiluy. Seven! 0! those [hard deuih eppomoned blame to Scum and Puheeo in ways that only Mia?s wean! Ind before. Related to 12m point, Itme auegediy toId Vicente We they?rere in the muses: was the! he did not plan to coopente in the mum. which may have proud?! Vicente the motive and information requiem} to modify his Ice-om Sixmthe repatedcimimmneex ofthe intoquutioathe veracity of Vicente'e evident. Seventh. ifVioeate bed this information. it is liker he would have mind it with the mature [or his timed mbbeties. . 49 Scanned by CamScanner I CONFIDENTIAL Eighth, Vicente had a meaningful incentive to provide false evidence. In contrast, he recanted to Tomato without incentive and to students investigating potential prior to negotiating for bene?ts in exchange for future testimony. Regarding his recantation, Vicente?s belated claim of abuse in this and the Route and third defendant cases is incredible. Vicente has demonstrated~more than amply?41121 sentencing benefits were more than suf?cient motivation. we also give some weight both to the fact that we consider it unlikely that Vicente would have obtained three separate confessions to three unrelated crimes and that we have independently detennined that Vicente likely fabricated those other confessions, too. For all of these reasons, we find that it is likely that Vicente fabricated the evidence he provided against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. The most likely scenario, we ?nd, is that Wilda at some point related the evidence regarding the 2/4/93 incident to Del. Guevara, as Dct. Halvorsen told us and as she testi?ed, and perhaps even to other CPD personnel or non-State personnel such as friends or neighbors. Then that aspect of the case was for some reason and by some unknown means related to Vicente during the course of the investigation. We also ?nd it more likely than not that Rankins fabricaied the evidence that he witnessed the Vargas murder. FirSt, Rankins, like Vicente, did not provide any veri?able evidence that had not already been reported by other sources. Second, Rankins's account of the Vargas murder is not corroborated. As an manor, Rankins's evidence regarding an attempted mugging and exhortations to murder cannot be reconciled with car and eyewitness accounts of the Vargas murder. Related to that proposition, Rankins's own account of witnessing the murder is not credible. because he described himself-? consistently? having witnessed the crime from a vantage point from which he could not have seen or heard what he described. Additionally, Rankins attributed to the defendants nicknames that likely were not associated with them, a mistake he would not have made had he participated with the defendants in a robbery scheme and witnessed the conversations he claimed to have witnessed. Finally, Williams repudiated Rankins?s evidence and there is no evidence that police were able to corroborate it with Sabrina Third, Rankins had incentives to provide false evidence against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco, including the fact that had, like Vicente had, an adversarial history with Serrano, and so a reason to implicate him, given the chance. In the third defendant?s case, we did not find that it was more likely than not that the defendant was actually innocent or that there was misconduct by Guevara. However, we did for several reasons determine that the confession to Vicente in that matter, purportedly occurring in the ?Bullpen? waiting room at the Cook County Jail while the two were surrounded by severalother people, was fabricated, 50 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL For these reasons, we ?nd it more likely than not that Rankins?s evidence was fabricated. As with Vicente, we ?nd that the most likely scenario is that Rankine learned the facts of the case from some unknown person or persons during the course of the investigation. Although not dispositive, we also give some weight to the fact that Ranlcins has consistently recanted the evidence he provided against Montanez, Serrano, and Pacheco. (We note that if Rankins?s evidence regarding his temporary incarceration with Montanez is acctn'atc. it is conceivable that Montanez coerced Rahkins into recanting. Assuming such a factor motivated his initial recantation, we consider it somewhat unlikely that Rankins would continue to recant to this day. Moreover, any such coercion would not-negate the other defects with R'ankins?s evidence identi?ed above). Regarding the abuse alleged by Rankins, however, we cannot credit at all his sprawling and lurid tale of a vast conspiratEy involving extreme physical coercion at the hands of dozens of police and prosecution personnel from this and several out-of?state jurisdictions. Dee Halvorsen described Rankins to us as ?Crazy,? and we suspect that his assessment is Correct. b. The Case Without Vicente?s and Rankins?s Evidence Having found it more likely than not that the evidence provided by Vicente and'Ranlcins was fabricated, we turn to the question of what the identi?cation evidence, standing alone, nonetheless may indicate. We-begin our analysis with the evidence provided by WildagSecond, we examine the evidence provided by Shoop. The Evidence Provided By Wilda First we discuss reasons that Wilda?s evidence might tend to indicate that the defendants are guilty. Second, we discuss reasons that Wilda?s evidence may not tend to bolster a theory that the defendants committed the murder. Regarding the former, Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen?s Supp. dated 6M93 indicated that she identi?ed Montanez and Serrano from a black-and-white photo array during a meeting with Det. Guevara at her home on 6/2f93, although we have been unable to locate those photos, which renders us unable to evaluate the photo array. The investigation record also indicates that Wilda identi?ed Serrano and Montanez from lineups in the presence of Beta. Guevara and Halvorsen. Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen?s Supp. dated 6/2/93 indicated that Wilda identi?ed Montanez?s car as the vehicle she saw at the gas station the night before the murder. Finally, an unattributed GPR indicated that Wilda refused Montanez?s parents offer to implicate someone other than their son in Vargas?s murder, although We have not been able to corroborate the content of that meeting. (As noted above, Montanez con?rmed to us that her parents had, in fact, met with Wilda, but stated they did not attempt to bribe her, but merely Wanted to know why she had identi?ed their son. (10/ 17/ 13 Interview with Jose Montanez.)) Such a refusal would, of course, suggest that Wilda strongly believed Montanez, at least, was guilty. . We now discuss reasons that Wilda?s evidence may not indicate guilt, beginning with her identi?cations of Montanez and Serrano. As an initial matter, as detailed above, Wilda was 51 Scanned by CamScanner saints; CON Fl DENTI AL unable to untihly identify Hammer and Serrano at trial Although this does not necessarily mean that her prior identi?cations were unreliable, her trial performance does increase the likelihood that hr: prior identifications lacked reliahilzty Moreover, Wilda, by her own account. only 7.;th the i atmo men at the gas station tor approximately three minutes Related to Lhat point, the that apparently consider them a snilitiently obvious threat to cause her to focus intently on them, as the Initially told that her husband had ?no enemies" and she could think til "no reason" for the murder. Additionally, Wilda allegedly ?rst identi?ed Montanez and Serrano from an array of black and white photographs during a private meeting with Dct. (inc-vain tour months after the purported gas station sighting. The lineup identi?cations occurred beginning: several days a?cr that, on {if} U93 for Serrano and 7/10/93 for Montanez?i.c., more than ?ve months after the brieleve-of-rnurder incident. Recall that Montancz was wearing a jacket with his name rmhlamned on the front during the line-op. Also, for reasons we discussed in our analysis of the evidence provided by Vicente and Rankins, Wilda's line-up and photo- array identi?cations are not bolstered by Vieente?s and Rankins?s evidence, which we conclude was more likely than not fabricated. There are also reasons to doubt the reliability ofWilda?s identi?cation of Montanez's car, reportedly in June of 1993. First. this identi?cation suffers from one of the same problems that casts her identi?cations of the defendants themselves into doubt: The length oftime (approximately four months) between the gas station incident and the identi?cation of Montancz's car may have made an accurate identi?cation nearly impossible. As well, as detailed above, Wilda allegedly told post conviction counsel for Montanez and Serrano that Det. Guevara pointed Montanez's car out to herI told her that it was the get-away car, and that she then merely told him it was "similar" to the car she recalled from the gas station incident. Additionally, as noted above, Wilda?s evidence suggests that the Latino men she saw at the gas station had neither motive nor Opportunity to target Vargas. That is, there is some reason to doubt that the men she saw at the gas station were connected in any way to the murder of her husband. (ii) The Evidence Provided by Shoop 5 First we discuss tensions that Shoop's evidence might tend to indicate that the defendants are guilty. Second, we diseass reasons that Shoop?s evidence may not suggest that the defendants committed the murder. Regarding the former, Shoop told police in the hours after the shooting that he saw an older, light brown sedan. possibly a two-door vehicle, pulling out of the neighborhood, giving a description of a vehicle style (common at the time) that had some similarities with Montanez?a car. Regarding the latter, as discussed above, Montanez's car was actually a two-toned (brown and tan) four-door sedan with a vinyl rooftop, distinctive features that Sh00p did not describe in the a?ermath oi' the shooting, and which he may have been unlikely to have omitted had he seen Montanez's car. We note, however, that Shoop testi?ed at trial that Montanez's car was "similar" to the vehicle he saw departing the scene, notwithstanding these differencesa. 52 . Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL Finding Regarding the Case Without Vieente?s and Rankins's Evidence l-?or the reasons detailed above, we ?nd that the identi?cation evidence provided by Wilda and Sheep is, standing alone, unreliable and insigni?cant. summary, Wilda?s identi?cations or? both the defendants and Montanez's ear, for the reasons describe above, are nn-eliable. Moreover, there is some evidence suggesting that her identi?cation of Montanez?s car was l_v sumtested by Der. Guevara. As noted above, Wilda reportedly stated that Dct. Guevara pointed out the car to her and then provided false evidence regarding bullet holes and body damage linking it to Vnrpas?s murder. Thus, we ?nd it more likely than not that Wilda did not see Montanea or Serrano at the gas station. Related to this ?nding, we also ?nd it more likely than not that the incident Wilda witnessed on the evening of 2/4/93 was wholly unrelated to \?arpas?s murder for the reasons explained above regarding lack of motive and lack of As well, neighbor Shoop tendered a very general description of a common style of car during the time period, but did not describe the distinctive features of Montanez?s car. Thus, we ?nd it more. likely than not that Shoop saw a car other than Mo?ntanez?s departing the scene of Vargas?s murder. Conclusion a. Regarding Allegations of Misconduct Vicente?s and Rankins?s Evidence lloth Vicente and Rani-rims had knowledge of the crime that'someone told them. It was either the perpetrators, the police, someone else, or some combination. it is alsoposs?ible that the polioe provided the evidence \vittiugly, unwittingly, or through someeombination. It is also possible that the police provided information to only one of them. We. first turn to facts that make misconduct less likely than it otherwise would be. First, the two informants, Vicente and Rankins, told two stories that containcd'material differences. First, as discussed above, there is no evidence we are aware of that the three defendants were ever known by the nicknames Rankins provided. If Dets. Grievara and Haivorse'n were working in concert to set up these defendants, it is inconceivable that they would supply a completely different set of nicknames to Vicente and Rankins, let alone the wrong ones. Second, Rankins placed two extra people at the scene: Himself and Denrond Williams, aka Shorty Folks. Third, Rankins placed an extra vehicle at the scene, a car driven by Pacheco, whereas in ViCente?s telling all three defendants traveled in Montanez?s vehicle. Fourth, in Rankins?s story, Pacheco and hlorrtarrez shouted encouragement to Serrano, the shooter. (A shooter was never identi?ed by Vicente.) Second, as in the Douro case, where Vicente reportedly ?rst provided confession evidence to someone other than Dcts. Guevara or Halvorsen, an informant here made ?rst contact regarding the ease with someone other than Dots. Guevara and Halvorsen. Here, the 53 Scanned by CamScanner sums? .. mu maivdh. ?a Inn-m he ?an a?ch woman nu ?mwmm ?hm unm?n? 3" MM 330*? *m ?mm vm aura-0 out -hut you up?. 3? pvmuml h- ?u "Run-0.0. [Hm-rd "w cm "usury-w :1 we? {mm in "gnu-uku- i "m .. nu- u-vouwmuv ms m?bo who-WI. hum on?! in. tom-1? Om' a .0 H1 0" .I?uhlmubu Willa". Twang: .wo - poouu ?a a u'Jio-d" In.? cud-OCH" h. 3' mu?. thu 'm . a. Ian! n1 in It yr Ow?hw? I'V'dm our" HI m- uwwm 0&1'00? your. .5 Iitvumi ?wouw mr-v-o nus ovum alum" on: than 0.. 4 ?in 93mm?. u? "my man-- an! yaw-m an?. i- with an. Ind him. 3 mm Jinn-o [wry-m!? N'Htw O. mtm-w a? v-mm.? Law-tn v' Mum?u?vo nu-Q uu? .ow?z kha- 00 ?For? *0 wum- .v 0-1 rum :Iv? 4s ton-to 1 N. ?aw? . in. nut..va mu. hm? ?0m?m?l-?3?3'um?p? vc?h 'w "hm u. wand 70-- aura- WI 0- it?? i 1. - an" ?rm i'uwm out an ml 9 ma?a. In- 3100?? . .0 . ans-w; 6.: out I a 1" 9.. in? Hahn-van! Noun-v HM "nah ?In Wk now up.? rthO?o?uM-il ?ll him mum:- 'm Inn? he. 0% Wot? nan-n; ?up Mud-c Ammsao van.? ?a p: on Pm' an! "-1.th ways." - human NH :3 ?m Mammal-.1 sheaf Ian 0 nah-ma unnum- and numb? fun?? am in. Iu?om, In hot milk no max-o1 mu. "hot: '08. an ?nun-l um! ?ll annouzmum {nun-Alan Irv-twang and? run fun 41M ?can, 3. mu Haun- an! ?(an an: an ch'uwuam 7k (in: ddb?f?i?uk h: an. a .113 ml POAMANO, no tau-.1 nun -335 Mt ?a M. nicot- pvqu a mam a: mm nu Irma-4 \a M. Alum-d cam-q OI. a an nun" a slug-um an: Yum at hum but. at can. pu In mg I .- ?iguana?- )4 saith CONFIDENTIAL the facts were provided to Vicente and Rankins, intentionally or not, by one or both of the detectives. Third, there are two instances in which Det. ilalvorsen has admitted to us that portions of the informants? story that became key components of the narrative told at trial were fabricated or otherwise not true. Dct. llalvorsen told us that he and Det. Guevara knew that Gold Busters did not exist, which we con?rmed. Nonetheless, Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen reported it as fact and Vicente testi?ed to its existence. Second, Dct. Ilalvorsen informed us that Rankine did not have ?any of the facts" correct. Nonetheless, Det. Halv0rsen himself testi?ed at trial to the evidence provided by Rankine, and Det. Guevara did so before the grand jury. Fourth. it is notable that this is the second of three cases from the summer of 1993 in which Vicente provided confession evidence against defendants in morder cases. Although we above found it more likely than not that Vicente fabricated the Bouto confession on his own, without willful police misconduct, that does not mean that that is the case in this instance, as well. It is unlikely that Vicente would have obtained multiple murder confessions in three cases investigated in the same year by the same two detectives. Also, unlike in Bouto, where Vicente had veri?ed access to the defendant because the two were jailed in the same cell block, here no such veri?able meeting occurred. in fact, we ?nd it unlikely that Vicente would have elected to provide evidence against Bouto immediately upon being incarcerated but withheld the ,cVidence of Montanez and Serrano's guilt for weeks, given that he was incentivizcd to provide as much evidence as possible to secure sentencing bene?ts. Filth, we ?nd it improbable that Det. Halvorsen did not take notes during his meeting with Vicente, as he testi?ed at trial. Vicente?s story about the purported confession was taking place over multiple days and multiple locations and involving three defendants and the victim. It seems dif?cult to believe that he would have been able to accurately'n'ansfer the telling of such a story to a report by memory, unless he had a role in developing it. Sixth, police did not charge Rankins as an accomplice to the Vargas murder, despite his alleged proximity to it and purported confession to agreeing to accompany the men on a drug and gun run. Perhaps even more tellingly, they did not charge or eyen attempt to discuss the crime with Williams, aka Shorty Folks, who was at the scene according to Rankins's statement, and available to provide evidence because he was incarcerated for the entire relevantperiod. That Dets. Guevara and Halvorsen did not attempt to speak with Williams makes it possiblerthat'they did not believe Rankin's story, but were willing to use it at trial. Seventh, also related to Rankins?s role, we ?nd the one-hour time span reported between Dc13_ Guevara and Halvorsen?s initial meeting with Rankins and the arrest of Serrano to be improbably short, raising the possibility that Rankins?s evidence did not actually motivate the arrest of Serrano, contrary to reports in the record. This is particularly true because Det's. Guevara and Halvorsen allegedly drove Rankine to the scene of the shooting in that time frame, as well, to test Rankins?s knowledge of the crirne. Relatedly, inconsistencies regarding the reported genesis of Rankins's involvement with the case seem to weigh in favor of misconduct. While Dets. Guevara and Halvor'sen wrote in their 6/ 14/93 Supp. R. that Rankine was questioned 55 Scanned by CamScanner CONFIDENTIAL by Sgt. .?vlirzgey regarding an unrelated murder when Rankin: revealed his knowledge about lhe Vargas murder, tr. an interview with us Sgt. Mingey said he did not investigate the other crime. Eighth, and again related to Rankine, Rarkins's later statements that he was taken to the Scene and Det. llalvorsen's corroboration of that fact, would have offered an easy opportunity to provrde Ptankins with the {acts of the case. i Finally, related to both informants, we find it important that neither provided veri?able information about the crime that was not previously known. Between two informants relating - detailed accounts, we would expect that verifiable details would have emerged that were previously tmkno-a'n about the crime scene. As discussed above in detail, none did, thus making it more likely than it would otherwise be that the facts of the case were shared with the by CPD personnel. Looking at all the facts known to us, we cannot conclude whether or not there was 7 misconduct by the police regarding the alleged confessions. There are too many possibilities, too easy inconsistent few, and a lack of credible witnesses. Due to inconsistencies in the portion of Vicente?s and Rankins's allegations of abuse, we find it more likely than not that neither Dets. Guevara nor Halvorsen engaged in physical abUSe I of the two informants. (ii) Wilda Vargas?s Evidence i We next turn to possible misconduct related to the participation of Wilda in the investigation. First, we discuss reasons that make it less likely that Dets. Guevara, Halvorsen, or both misconduct in their contact with Wilda. Next, we discuss reasons that make 'it more likely that Dcts. Guevara, Halvorsen, or both participated in misconduct in their contact with Wilda. Regarding the facts that make misconduct more likely, we recall that Wilda told post- corm'ction counsel for Montanez that she did not independently identify Montanez's vehicle to Der. Guevara- as was argued at trial, but rather that he pointed the car out to her as they drove past it. Relatediy, Wilda allegedly revealed that Det. Guevara told her that the bullet holes in Montanez's car matched ballistics tests from the crime scene, which was not true and was never argued by the State. However, we were not able to interview Wilda for purposes of examining the validity of these allegations. Regarding facts that make it less likely that Dets. Guevara, Halvorsen, or both committed miscondna related to their contact with Wilda, we first note that Wilda did not allege misconduct at trial, in particular when she was asked about her identi?cations of a photo array includin" the defendants, line-ups including Montanez and Serrano, and the identi?cation of Montanez's vehicle. - 56 Scanned by CamScanner 7; :mcmm mum Must mom ?u ruminant ?mt-n. ?at! 0 mr I'm-mt. (no. ?rm-um mo. was. tun abr?mlhm. d! Human" I. lag-um (bin at Tum. hr mm on?: awn, 0v null!" mt nmu pub-l OMu-udrm Irl ?373.51." 7: I it?qu 11m ?0 ya"! tut ham 3mm: um'm M: err gown ham (my-.1 F-m. ?an (?What ?t 31"? L?M.wc the n? ant-v ruin-1 am! pom-MIT, it ?rst?: murm?uv! 1: t" .Mrrt tan: 1: rr'g'nn' 'a'unw a" ?m?vr-w: E1 pun-c n' Arman .1'cumr 1 Nu Err-?A "Mil. an ?ml: wt hr car up ?(unn In! ha." air 2.: [cit-:1 um it ?than nay-n1 h? mm?rd- and luv mi? w-m-m .?Mvvd num- I mau?h ?rwif Put". In?! ?our: Yum . ASA I ramsm?y aha-(Pd "urn - (Lu: 91?1": shit W16: (135F311 unm?. the drum:er Imam, t??w IN town?. in pa u- (I: {8.32.1 (3.15121 umfnum. ??ld??111th m? hm hm San-d. opium: uhvw? was? ?w by Wait ad;er from tho mirr'mui namehey: :12: 1r. tumult}, W'Ja?n 15cm!er mm in In a! Mans-902?. u: mv?. cm" pang-n Alan MW Shtur'a (mica: net. but ?ma: ubmyw I Watchman-me Mm?: Mn tuner-co m. swim; In 13.5: tut-sumac). the me: could no: Law was Macauz?t may .6 not [0110? ?rm It} the an hour Mon-mu, that tum: to trim: nu hid gum-4 Vugu?l manty Ind Ln" am: it int-xi, (ht) 1-le Law inn-.1 c2: {a wort 315.33 m. u. mural bout a: limb in 61703!? mi Aha. ?uni-1w mm: lo a: hm: [hm- nudmts mum's; to :12; cht. but non: dd Lulu-L Vela} nadmcc n;qu um \?uw uu Indy unwed (main; (unusual mm mm! norm Funny. had the man bun- by illogid. M566 dispodtivc. bu do uh inn 51 Scanned by CamScanner - CONFIDENTIAL WC ?5513? 557213 F331. ten-mate: ca, Saran: mutated ants-9121:! fast regardmg the earn: szene. an error the per-punter weal: :ct lziety line made as d. :led 23,031,5331331323. us that Vargas's :ar rate was rhyme Nd} discovered. Second, the: the; common gang there is no signzt'i:an'. 1er bet-wee: Serrano or. the one hand and Pacheco and Montanez or. the other hand Third. Dee- testimony regarding the genesis of his solving the case, implicated Montanez not Serrano Finally, we found credible Serraoo's protestanon of innocence when we met with him Regarding Montanez, first. Montanez has presented some evidence that his ca: was not damaged until well after Vargas's murder. Second, Capt. Pena told us that Montana seemed genuinely shocked when he was arrested for Vargas's murder. Third, me also found credi?ele Montana's protestation of innocence when we met with him. There is also some additional affirmative evidence ofinnoeence. First, Vicente and Rankin: both maintain that Montanez and Serrano are actually innocan Second. CPD reported that the Vargas murder appeared to be similar to the crime perpetrated against Rojo and Salazar, and that crime was committed by African-American men. Third, no physical evidence links the defendants to the crime: (1) no weapon was recovered. (2) Montanez's car either tested negative for gun shot residue or was not tested for it; (3) the who either tested negative for Serrano's ?ngerprints or it was not tasted for them; and (4) the medical examiner did not report defensive wounds that might point to an attempted mugging. Fourth, the untainted physical evidence suggests that Vargas was murdered in a planned "hit" by someone familiar with his unusual work schedule, and there is no evidence linking Montanez or Serrano to a crimeofor-hire scheme. Having considered these flaws, we conclude that the only remaining potential evidence of guilt is as follows: (1) Montanez and Serrano were members of the Imperial Gangsters street gang, and knew each other. (2) Montanez and Serrano committed crimes. although there is no evidence that they committed crimes together; (3) Montanez and Serrano both committed armed robberies and, indeed, Montanez committed them with some frequency, (4) Montanez and Serrano used drugs and, in fact, Montanez sometimes committed robberies for the purpose of obtaining money to buy heroin; and (S) Serrano stole ear radios with some frequency. That evidence, however, may not make Montanez or Serrano meaningfully more likely to have . committed this crime than many other members ofa Chicago street gang in 1993. Looking at all the evidence, we conclude that Montanez and Serrano are more likely than not actually innocent. 58 Scanned by CamScanner