IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CRIMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. No. 94 CR 24318-01 ROBERTO ALMODOVAR AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Petitioner Roberto Almodovar ("Petitioner"), pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/ 122-1 w, submits this Amended Petition requesting relief from his convictions for ?rst degree murder, attempt first degree murder, and aggravated battery, and his sentence of natural life imprisonment. In support of this petition, Petitioner states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Petitioner was convicted of ?rst degree murder, attempt ?rst degree murder, and aggravated battery after a jury trial. After a bench death penalty hearing, Petitioner was sentenced to natural life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were af?rmed on direct appeal. People V. Almodovar, No. 1-96-1017 (Ill. App. July 16, 1997). On December 3, 1997, the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Petitioner's original petition was ?led within 6 months of the denial of leave to appeal. 2. Petitioner seeks post-conviction relief because there was in the proceedings which resulted in his conviction and sentence a substantial denial of his rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Illinois. 3\ a BACKGROUND CONCERNING THE OFFENSES 3. Petitioner was convicted along with Willie Negron of the murders of Amy Merkes and Jorge Rodriguez, the attempt ?rst degree murder of Jacqueline Grande and Kennelly Saez, and aggravated battery with a ?rearm of Jacqueline Grande. The charged offenses took place in a drive-by shooting at about 12:45 am. on September 1, 1994 on West Cortland Avenue in Chicago. 4. The only evidence connecting Petitioner with the shooting was the testimony of two eyewitnesses, Kennelly Saez and Jacqueline Grande, who identi?ed Petitioner as having ?red shots from the rear seat of a car driven by Negron. There was no evidence linking either defendant with the car that all the eyewitnesses saw, a blue Oldsmobile. No weapons were recovered, and there was no physical evidence pointing to either defendant. Neither defendant made a confession or any admissions regarding commission of the offenses. 5. The evidence at trial re?ected that the shooting occurred after midnight on September 1, 1994. Kennelly Saez, Jackie Grande, Amy Merkes, and Jorge Rodriguez were sitting or standing in front of Saez?s apartment building at 3918 West Cortland Avenue. Photographs showed that between the doorway and the street there was a sidewalk and a parkway. Cars were parked along the same side of the street where the four were sitting and standing. Just before 1:00 am, the four saw a blue Oldsmobile speed by. After passing the building, the car then turned into an alley further down the street, stopped, and backed up toward the apartment building. It stopped in front of the building, in the street, adjacent to a gap between two parked ears. 6. The evidence at trial further re?ected that Jackie Grande was seated near ground- -2- level just in front of the doorway; she remained seated and did not approach the car. Kennelly Saez was standing in front of Grande; he testi?ed that he was directly between Grande and the car. Saez approached the car. There were no lights on inside the car. The passenger window was rolled halfway up. Saez testi?ed that he had only a few seconds to see the people in the car. During those few seconds, Saez ?rst looked at the driver and saw him playing with his hair. Then he looked at the rear passenger, who said, "What's up folks." Saez responded, "who's that," and at that moment, the passenger pulled up a gun in front of his face and pointed it at Saez. Saez immediately dropped to the ground and heard several shots. The car then skidded away. 7. The evidence at trial re?ected that Jackie Grande, who was seated at sidewalk level in front of the entrance to the apartment building, did not approach the car. Grande testi?ed that only a couple of seconds passed during which she was able to look at the car and its occupants from her position seated at sidewalk level. During this brief interval, she said, she looked at both the driver and the rear passenger. The rear passenger was looking down toward his lap. When the shooting started, Jorge Rodriguez opened the apartment building door, and Grande ran inside and up the stairs along with Merkes and Rodriguez. 8. While there was a dispute at trial as to whether the lighting was "good" or "poor," photographs established where the lights actually were. There was a single bare light bulb over the apartment doorway. Saez testi?ed that this light bulb illuminated the sidewalk, but did not indicate that it illuminated the street area where the offenders? car pulled up. Photographs demonstrated that there were no street lights on the side of the street that the apartment building was on. Rather, the only street light was on the other side of the street, halfway down the block, next to the alley into which the offenders' car had pulled before backing up toward the apartment -3- Point to remember: Long hair, long, rectangular face. But no notes of Guevara’s interview Jackie changes her testimony and there’s no record of Guevara’s intervi iwth her either Intersting. Jackie So it’s a lie that Grand didn’t see any photos o Almodovar and Negron pr the lineup? Carlos Olon Appellate Court ruled that this testimony should not have been admitted at trial (however, the court held that the testimony of Saez and Grande was suf?cient to uphold the convictions despite the error). People v. Almodovar, slip op. at 28. 16. At trial, the prosecution also offered evidence that on March 1, 1995, in an interview by Almodovar's original attorney, Melinda Power (and witnessed by Margaret Power), Kennelly Saez signed an af?davit in which he stated that he had not had a good opportv? This is REALLY see the offenders and did not know who he had seen, despite his earlier identi?cati important, particularly to Guevara?s defense. We 19) At trial, Saez claimed that his gang leader, "Kiki," had coerced him to give thi. abSOIUte'y need to get to Saenz. was at attorney Power's of?ce with Saez, verbally directing him what to say and an Power's questions. The defense made no effort to rebut this testimony and in particular did not call either attorney Melinda Power or Margaret Power as witnesses. 17. Almodovar offered an alibi defense at trial, claiming that he was at home at 1732 N. Spring?eld (his aunt and uncle's house) when the shooting occurred. To support the alibi, trial counsel called only Almodovar, his girlfriend Azalia Carrillo (the mother of his child), and his aunt Mary Rodriguez. Collectively, they testi?ed that Roberto worked that day at Farley Foods, attended classes at Wright College after work, and arrived home after 10:00 pm. Azalia arrived later. An argument between the two of them ensued. It lasted a long time and got loud. Later Azalia's sister and the sister?s husband arrived and tried to calm things down. Eventually everyone left because Mary said it was getting too late. The others went to bed about 1:30 am. Roberto was there the entire time. 18. Almodovar's trial counsel did not call at trial any of the other persons who were present at the Rodriguez home on the night of the shootings. The prosecution took pains in its -6- cross examination and argument to point out that the defense had failed to call these key witnesses. The prosecutor argued to the jury, don?t know what they saw. Maybe it wasn't the same thing that we've heard testimony about from the other witnesses. Maybe that?s why they?re not here." EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE PETITION 19. In support of his Amended Petition, Petitioner submits the af?davits and other evidence cited in support of his original Petition. These include the following: Exhibit 1 - Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 - Exhibit 5 - Exhibit 6 - Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 - Exhibit 9 - Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 - Exhibit 12 - Exhibit 13 - Exhibit 14 - Exhibit 15 - Af?davit of Melinda Power Af?davit of Margaret Power Investigator's reports regarding Kennelly Saez Af?davit of Raphael Mojica Af?davit of Gladys Almodovar Sworn Statement of Joseph Leary Af?davit of Francis Dyra Af?davit of Mary Rodriguez Af?davit of Paula Calvert Af?davit of Amaris Almodovar Af?davit of Sergio Almodovar Jr. Af?davit of Jose Rodriguez Jr. Af?davit of Jose Sanchez Af?davit of Todd Pugh Af?davit of Matthew F. Kennelly In addition, Petitioner submits the video tape that is referenced in Exhibits 14 and 15. This tape is already part of the Court record in this case. 20. Petitioner further submits the following material that accompanies this Amended Petition: Exhibit 16 - Chicago Police Department Supplementary Reports dated 9/ 16/94 (6 pages) and 9/14/94 (2 pages) Exhibit 17 - Notes of interview of Jackie Grande on 4/6/95 Exhibit 18 - Sworn statement of Kennelly Saez dated 8/6/98 Exhibit 19 Af?davit of Matthew F. Kennelly Exhibit 20 - Items from Court ?le in People V. Kennellv Saez, Case No. 93 CR 7892-02 KENNELLY SWORN STATEMENT 21. On August 6, 1998, Petitioner's counsel took a sworn, court-reported statement from Kennelly Saez, the State's key eyewitness. (Exhibit 18) 22. In his sworn statement, Saez described the tactics that were used by the police to ensure that he would identify Almodovar and Negron in the lineup. On the day that he saw the lineup, Jackie Grande and "a Latino of?cer" came to his house. (This was almost certainly Detective Guevara; according to trial testimony, it was Guevara that supervised the lineup process.) While outside Saez's house, the of?cer showed him two Polaroid photos and repeatedly asked Saez, "Are these the guys?" Jackie Grande said that the two were in fact "the guys.? Saez went along with what they were saying. As Saez put it in his sworn statement, "she's sure, he's sure. Well, I said, ?Yes. These are the guys.? 23. In his sworn statement, Saez stated that the fact that Grande and the of?cer -3- seemed sure that the two men in the Polaroids were the offenders helped him to make the "identi?cation." Before that, Saez was not sure. "If [the of?cer] would have came by himself, I would have said don't know.? The reason for this was that he had seen the shooter for only a few seconds, during which he was "[b]asically looking at the gun." Indeed, Saez reported, when he initially saw the shooter before he pulled up the gun, the shooter?s head was bent forward and Saez could not see his face straight?on. 24. In his sworn statement, Saez stated that the of?cer, while showing the Polaroids to Saez, ?ipped one of them over, revealing the name "Joker" (this was Almodovar's "street name") written on the back. Saez reported in his sworn statement that this fact indicated to him that the man in the Polaroid (Almodovar) was a gang member and helped make him "sure" of the identi?cation. 25. While traveling to the police station, the of?cer told Saez that they were going to go see a lineup and that the two guys that he saw in the picture were going to be in the lineup. The of?cer also told Saez that he didn't want anyone to know that he had shown Saez the pictures. (As noted earlier, Guevara stated in his police report that "Kennelly Saez had not Viewed any photos of Roberto Almodovar or William Negron prior to the line-up." (Exhibit 16, p. Saez reported in his sworn statement that she he viewed the lineup, he "recognized immediately" the same two individuals whose pictures the of?cer had shown him just before, and he picked them out as the offenders. Saez con?rmed in his sworn statement that the two men in the Polaroids were Almodovar and Negron. 26. Scholarly research con?rms what common sense tells us: that showing a suspect?s photo to a witness just before the witness sees a lineup in?uences the witness to identify that -9- :i it [5:13; same person in the lineup. G. Wells E. Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony: Perspectives, pp. 127?29 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1984) (viewing photographs interferes with witness's memory for the actual event and tends to lead to lineup identi?cation of "familiar faces" previously seen in photographs). And in this case the in?uence was even more pointed, as Saez was for all practical purposes that the men in the Polaroids were the offenders. 27. Shortly before trial, Saez stated, he was incarcerated in the County Jail on a petition for violation of probation. In his sworn statement, Saez reported that the prosecutor in Almodovar's case had him brought to the State?s Attorney's Of?ce to discuss Saez's testimony at the then-upcoming trial. They were upset about Saez's af?davit given to Almodovar's counsel ?l 16 Exhibit 3) in which Saez had disavowed his identi?cations. According to Saez, he told the prosecutor that he would testify for the State if he could be released from jail. HP stated that while the prosecutor initially stated that "I'm not going to make you any prom" Did this happen? Need: 1? - went on to state that "Most likely we'll get it out," and that Saez?s understanding was that OW up prosecutors were probably going to be able to get him out of jail if he testi?ed at Almod - trial. For this reason, he was willing to testify for the prosecution. 28. Saez stated in his sworn statement that he was released shortly after his testimony in the present case. Court records con?rm that Saez?s violation of probation matter came to an end on November 30, 1995, just two days after his testimony at Almodovar and Negron?s trial. The case against Saez bears Case Number 93 CR 7892. Court records re?ect that the petition for violation of probation was ?led on September 11, 1995, with a "no bail" order. Saez was in custody as of November 20, 1995. On November 30, he was found guilty of the violation of probation, his probation was terminated unsatisfactorily, and he was sentenced to 10 days in -10- 1 custody, time considered served. It would appear that Saez was released that day. See Exhibit 19; Exhibit 20) GROUNDS FOR RELIEF 29. The State failed to produce to the defense material evidence that would have impeached its witness Kennelly Saez and that would have exculpated petitioner, in violation of the State?s obligations under Brady v. Ma?land, 373 US. 83 (1963) and its progeny (under both federal and Illinois constitutional provisions). Given his vantage point (he was closer to the offenders' car than Grande and was standing between that car and Grande, who was seated at ground level), Saez's testimony was critical to the prosecution's case. In particular: a. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that Saez was shown photographs of Almodovar and Negron immediately before seeing the lineup. b. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that Saez was told by a police officer and Grande that the men in the Polaroids were the offenders. c. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that it was indicated to Saez by the same police of?cer that one of the men in the Polaroids (Almodovar) was a gang member. d. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that Saez was told by the same police of?cer that he was going to see a lineup that included the two men whose pictures he had just seen. e. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that Saez was told by the same officer not to tell anyone that he had seen photos before the lineup. f. The prosecution failed to produce to the defense the Polaroid photos that -11- 51?. had been shown to Saez immediately before he Viewed the lineup. g. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that it had an understanding with Saez that if he testified for the prosecution, he would be released from custody on his violation of probation matter. h. The prosecution failed to correct the statement in its Answer to Discovery that it was unaware of any evidence or witnesses that would be favorable to the defense. h. The prosecution falsely advised the defense that it had no exculpatory informed 30. The State failed to produce to the defense material evidence that would have impeached its witness Jacqueline Grande and that would have exculpated petitioner, in violation of the State's obligations under Brady V. Ma?land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny (under both federal and Illinois constitutional provisions). In particular: a. The prosecution failed to produce photographs of the defendants that had been shown to Grande while she was in the hospital recuperating from her injuries (and was told, "these are the guys who did b. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that Grande was shown photographs of Almodovar and Negron immediately before seeing the lineup. c. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that Grande was told by the same police of?cer that she was going to see a lineup that included the two men whose pictures she had just seen. d. The prosecution failed to inform the defense that Grande was told by the same officer not to tell anyone that she had seen photos before the lineup. -12- e. The prosecution failed to produce to the defense the Polaroid photos that had been shown to Grande immediately before she viewed the lineup. 31. The same evidence as set forth above would have undermined the credibilit another witness for the prosecution, Detective Renaldo Guevara, in that it would have sh Potentially really importa he had engaged in an concerted effort to influence the identi?cations made by Saez and Gr and had then attempted to conceal this effort by preparing a false police report (stating mat no photographs had been shown to Saez prior to the lineup). This further demonstrates the materiality of the matters set forth above and also re?ects a separate violation of the State's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US. 83 (1963) and its progeny (under both federal and Illinois constitutional provisions). 32. Indeed, the evidence as set forth in Kennelly Saez?s sworn statement establishes that Detective Guevara testi?ed falsely under oath at trial as to a material matter when he testi?ed as follows: Q: You never, Of?cer, made any attempt to present those photographs to Kennelly Saez. Isn't that correct? A: That's not correct. I did try and never got in contact with him. (Transcript 11/29/95, p. 188) Detective Guevara was an ?agent of the prosecution" such that his false testimony is attributed to the State. A conviction based on such false testimony violates petitioner's rights to due process and a fair trial under the federal and Illinois constitutions. 33. Petitioner was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial, in Violation of his rights under the federal and Illinois constitutions, because his trial attorney: a. failed to investigate or present evidence showing that there was no -13- connection between either of the defendants and the type of automobile identi?ed by the witnesses as having been driven by the perpetrators; b. failed to investigate or present evidence showing that due to poor lighting conditions on the night of the shooting, as well as the angle of available street lighting, the State's two eyewitnesses, Kennelly Saez and Jacqueline Grande, could not possibly have seen the assailants' faces (Exhibits 14, 15, and video tape); c. failed to investigate or present evidence showing that the State's primary eyewitness, Kennelly Saez, had been shown photographs of the defendants immediately before viewing an in person lineup (Exhibits 3 18); (1. failed to investigate or present evidence showing the effects of post- traumatic stress disorder upon a key eyewitness, Jacqueline Grande, and how that would have impacted her testimony and her identi?cation of petitioner and his co-defendant (Exhibit 1 1111 exhibits attached thereto); e. failed to present evidence showing that Ms. Grande had been shown photographs of the defendants prior to viewing a photographic array from which she selected the defendants? pictures (Exhibit 1 Exhibit 17); f. failed to investigate and present available witnesses who would have supported petitioner?s alibi (Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13); g. failed to investigate or present evidence showing that, contrary to his trial testimony, State?s witness Kennelly Saez was not threatened into giving a recantation of his identi?cation (Exhibits 1 h. failed to investigate or present evidence showing that Kennelly Saez had -14- I,m C.) as seen petitioner at some time prior to the shooting, which evidence would have tended to explain how Saez could have erroneously identi?ed petitioner as one of the perpetrators (Exhibits 4 and i. failed to investigate or present evidence showing that petitioner was innocent of the crimes and that persons other than petitioner had committed the crimes. 34. Petitioner was convicted despite the fact that he is innocent of the crimes charged, as demonstrated by the exhibits supporting the original Petition and this Amended Petition, the evidence introduced at trial, and other evidence that petitioner will adduce hereafter and at a hearing. In fact, the crimes were committed by persons other than petitioner. See generally People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 665 1330 (1996). WHEREFORE, petitioner Roberto Almodovar respectfully requests that he be granted relief from his conviction and sentence in this case. 4WW Attorney for petitioner #90203 Matthew F. Kennelly Cotsirilos, Stephenson, Tighe Streicker, Ltd. 33 North Dearborn Street Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 263 -0345 -15_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Matthew F. Kennelly, an attorney, certi?es that on August 21, 1998, he caused a copy of the foregoing Amended Petition for Post Conviction Relief to be sent by ?rst class mail, postage prepaid, to Cook County State's Attorney Richard A. Devine, 500 Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Illinms 60602. 6 UV, WW Matthew F. Kennelly -16- STATE OF ILLINOIS 3 SS: COUNTY OF COCK MELINDA POWER, being first duly sworn, on oath states: I. I am an attorney licensed to practice in Illinois. . was attorney of record for Roberto Almodovar Jr. along with Scott Frankel until we were replaced as counsel of record by Clarence Burch. 2. On March 1, 1995, as attorney for Mr. Almodovar, I interviewed Kennelly Saez at my office located at 2048 w. Division in Chicago. I knew Mr. Saez to be one of the eyewitnesses to the shooting of Amy Herkes, Jorge Rodriguez, and Jacqueline Grande. 3. Mr. Saez came to my office with another young man. asked Mr. Saez why he and the other man had come together. Mr. Saez told me that because my office was located in a neighborhood controlled by the Latin Kings, a rival gang, he did not want to travel alone. 4. The interview of Mr. Saez was witnessed by my sister, Margaret Power, who works as a translator in my law office. 5. Mr. Saez answered all of my questions on his own. His companion did not pass answers on to him, tell him what to say, or signal answers to him. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Saez's companion was silent throughout my interview of Mr. Saez. 6. Mr. Saez told me that he was there of his own free will and had not been pressured or threatened by anyone. 7. I prepared a statement for Mr. Saez to Sign under oath JL 1" based upon what he had told me in the interview. I then read it to him out loud, then Mr. Saez read it and signed the statement. A copy of the statement is attached to this Affidavit. 8. During the time that I represented Mr. Almodovar, I Aalso interviewed Jacqueline Grands, on April 6, 1995. Amy Myers accompanied me and was present for the interview. A COpy of my ?notes of the interview are attached to this Affidavit. 9. Ms. Grande informed me that she had been visited in the hospital by a police officer or officers who had shown her photographs of persons and asked her if any of them had been involved in the shootin . This event was not recorded in any police report that was produced to me in discovery. Had I remained Mr. Almodovar?s counsel, I would have pursued this matter through the filing of further motions. 10. Ms. Grande also informed me that when she was shown photos by the police, she was told ?these are the guys who did it." I felt that this was significant in attempting to refute her apparent identification of Mr. Almodovar as one of the persons who had shot at her and the other victims. 11. As attorney for Mr. Almodovar, I also subpoenaed Ms. Grande's hospital records. These records, copies of which accompany this Affidavit, reflect that Ms. Grands was suspected of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder we interviewed a nurse who had treated Ms. Grande at Mount Sinai Hospital, who informed us that Ms. Grande seemed very upset and depressed and cried a lot during her stay in the hOSpital. Because of her extreme reaction, it was thought that she might be a~ ief that these facts tended {1 0 underCJL H5. rande'e certaznty tn her identification, he: susceptibility to Suggestion at the time of the identification. and he: abilzty t: he: assailants. If I had remained as Mr. ALnodover'I attorney, I would have pursued the matter learned tnat Almodover had retained Mr. Burch as substitute couzeel, I atte?pted to contact Mr. Burch no thl: I could arrange to speak with him about the case and transfer my files to him. 1 tricd to Hr. Burch 3 or 4 times, but he not return :y calls. Eventually he lent someone to up the case file, which I-turned over to him in its entire: . The file incluscd, among other things. Mr. Saez'a sworn statement. the notes of my interview with He. Grande and other relevant persona, Me. Grande'o medical records, and the transcript of a pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress identification. at whizh the facts set forth in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of this AffidaVit were dtecLoeec :n court. 13. Mr. Euro? never spoke with :e either in person or by telephone. Further afflant sayeth not. and a orn to before me this day of February. 1996. 933K333: may, F-: 2.51322 :1 r. -: v, b: r: In: an: fut) 'u ,4 WSMIHowhnl . . . 1 Mil-Wm I 1! A 5.5/1" ?muons. consultatm charge In previslonal diagnosas?rinsfer?s ?mb 01M odiauon. clc.) (mom progress of use. comp dugnosh. condition on dischuqo, to patient. FORMAT: Proud? Numb-e4 Tm: PROBLEM Sub'pdm Obith A Analysu Finn (NE. DATE 1 L1, - 1 NH 'tz' - - *v CIJLW 7 0? (an 55/ V. 4 wiriuo vlcu-t. we Kw?; ?r ?5 EACH ENTRY MUST BE DATED AND SIGNED. TITLE CLEARLY ?I-S-m-vsun-gq . 7 in? i . Mount Siml Hospltal Medical Center -, chm-notem1m nn??mR?bWW octgl/cu - - :9 04/28/74 CCHSUMS ra?ve orders. please- . U, an adm?ssions, transfers and post-Ope ?on: procedure Iude :he {allowing Informs ?formed. condmon. allergles, diet. vital signs, activity, laboratory as. med?ca?ons, lmravenous ?uids. and special precautions. mom (HEW 00.61 ATE or noun or ENTRY ENTRY IMMUSEUAWW I I 27:? woe/4,; 7/ 6L rv SHEET ALL ORDER Hmoum? ORDE a; Army SIATE CF 3 SS: SQUNIY (YICK vh?drkar POKER, being fir 1. I am at:cr:ey K9 hlV. do?: work for hat a: 2. On March 1, 199 when aHe was taking 1 stat Saez. Hr. Baez Hal accom 3. Mr. SIS: anawere 0th.? nan did not tell hi. 4. Melinda prepare Ste: signed the acutement. to this Affidavit. I sigg statement. Further affiant nayet Substribed aqd awor to refer. me th;a of February. 1996. L: NC 2 pu 1c In? BREPN S. FELDMAN 'ub?c. SM. 01 Who?s "1 30" 7-141"! N31 4. 1996 WV. ind: duly sworn, on oath Izateo: Pcwer'l oiuzqr and on occasion :ran?lator. niod Melinda'l q;cutionl on his cvn. who: Ld t: ?1 not. a eta?ement for Mr. - r1:.11 boing in Melindu?a office from a witneaa named Kennelly by anotkar young man. The to any or give bin any answers. Sac: to liqn. Mr. A copy of the statement is attached ch: and ?3 witness :o ch. WVwa Margar?gn??wet .. DATE: 4 FEB. 96 CASE NO: KENNELLY REPORT: ON 3 FEB. 1996, I SPOKE TO KENNELLY SAEZ IN FRONT OF HIS HOME (3914 W. CORTLAND) AND IN MY VEHICLE. THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THAT CONVERSATION. KENNELLY BEGAN BY SAYING THAT THE OFFENDERS SHOT AT HIM AND HIS FRIENDS OVER THERE, INDICATING 3920 W. CORTLAND. THE. THE DETECTIVE PICKED ME UP SHOWED ME SOME PICTURES AND I IDENTIFIED THE TWO GUYS. T. DID YOU GET A GOOD LOOK AT THE YEAH, IT HAS A BLUE OLDS. HAVE YOU SEEN THE CAR AROUND SINCE THE THE POLICE HAVE IT. KENNELLY WAS THEN INFORMED THAT THE CAR WAS NEVER RECOVERED, KENNELLY SEEMED SURPRISED AND SAID, I THOUGHT THEY HAD THE CAR. WHO TOLD YOU THEY RECOVERED THE I FORGET, BUT SOMEONE DID. I THEN ASKED KENNELLY IF HE WOULD STAND WHERE HIS FRIENDS WERE STANDING JUST PRIOR TO THE SHOOTING. RENNELLY AGREED AND I TOOK THE ENCLOSED PICTURES. l. KENNELLY JUST PRIOR TO SHOTS BEING FIRED. 2. WHERE JORGE WAS STANDING. I 3. WHERE JACKIE WAS SITTING. 4. WHERE AMY WAS SITTING. i 5 VIEW OF AUTO FROM POSITION. WHILE SEATED IN MY CAR RENNELLY WAS ASKED IF HE EVER DROVE AROUND THE AREA OF SPRINGFIELD AND IF HE EVER SAN PEOPLE PLAYING BASKETBALL. HE REPLIED ALL THE TIME THATS THE NEXT BLOCK, POINTING EAST. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAY HAVE SAW ROBERTO PLAYING I KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE PLAY THERE. AFTER INFOPMING HR. MATTHEW KENNELLY OF THE ABOVE CONVERSATION I WAS INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO MR. RESIDENCE AND OBTAIN A SIGNED STATEMENT AS TO HIS RECOLLECTION OF VIEWING AND LINEUP. 4 FEB. 1996, 11:40 AM. I RETURNED TO ABOVE LOCATION AND SPORE T0 HR. SAEZ. MR. SAEZ AGAIN STATED THAT HE WAS SHOWN OF ROBERTO AND WILLIE PRIOR TO VIEWING A LINEUP. STATEMENT ENCLOSED. 8B NWOXVQ bk?m IFW Q?g?x E. MANN \k?o QNW \af?w \Uw Fm \moo? 03%. Wme QSQRAV \w ?m R83 3 x? uwkga EN $0 \mkm. ix SEAN 8AM v5 EKG KY mug? gf??m gnaw. \Swo $3 Ki . Ev xx. Ex ?\cb $260 URGES. NRVWAV NRO ?ox \anC WNEV nw??mhw \me alm?x \x?xtn?. .Eb mg w? a Sui \L?k it? I Tl 3F A RAPHAEL reirg first du?y swor., on states years old. i live wit? r, mother a- 41-: Rugusta in Chicago. Roberto Almodovar Jr. is my couSin. '5 -v I 7?1 r- *Fl: sf??nwner qF 193' 4. Mary Rodriguei is my aunt. oi-in3 it. - or - - Lsed to spend a lot of time at my aunt's ?case at *7?v N. .. v- o- Springfield in Chicago. Roberto Was lixing -nere at the timeuse: a: set up a bacnei-a-- --.oss -.- street from my aunt's house on Springfield. Fabert: used to play basketball there. Others would play too, includ;?" my couSLr Joey Rodriguez. I would sometimes watch the others pla". 4. I came to court for part of Robertc?s trial. I saw a witness named Kennelly Sae: testify. I recognized hi: as some::e who had been by when Robert: was playing ball out in front across 0 the street. I thi (I) my mother and my aunt Gladys. 'h .J 01 Further af~' r? (n I Subscribed and sworn before me this (Q44 dai of February. 1?96. Notary Public (J IRENE DMTO Notary PM. sun of Mind: Hy mg? Indra 11 1999 {cw} val-x F) - 1 a?oin? ., the A 4 HF Jug-u: 511??: J3. Clh-E UP Q: :sc.=YS reLng first duly sworn, on oath states I am defendant Poberto Almodovar Jr.?s aunt. I live a: 4463 W. George in Ch;cago. 2. I was present in court for Roberto's trial. During the trial, my nephew Faphael Mcjica told his mother and me that he had recognized Kennelly Sae as someone who had been past the house where Robert: was liVing with my sister Mary. Raphael said that Kennelly Sae: tight have seen Roberto outside the house. 3. I tol? Roberto?s attorney Clarence Burch about what Raphael had said. Gladys Almo?ovar Subscribed and sworn tc before me this /0 -?day of February, 1996. a Notary Public IRENE "drvw?hsuuoumwb 21? saga; SIATEMEST OF STATE OF ILLINOIS )59: COUNTY OF COOK M. LEARY. Doing first duly sworn, on oath Itoton: 1. I on ten: of tho Adult Laarning Skills Program of Wilbur wright College. located ut 3&0: North Austin Avonue in uicago. 2. I hava :ov;owod wright Collagc'u rcoordl to :hoy relate 20 Roberto Alhodovtr. (social lecur;:y n;?ber 353-66-3355). Th. rocordl reflect that Hz. Almodovu? was regiltorod on studont at Collog- for the full term of 195?. Tho record. also reflect Chit Mr. Alrodovnr was present in class on Mondty, Augllt 29, 1994 and Wednesday, lugUI: 2994. was held in the evening. A copy of Mr. Almodovar'n record to: th. 1994 {all term are attached to thin Affidivit. It in part of the crditary couru: of busineul oi Wright College to make and keep ouch records. Ind thin particulxr record won made and kept in :he ordisnry course of Wright Collogo'o business. A. I do nOt have notnry public available to notarizc my signatlro. but 2 am lign;ng :hio etotencnt with the that 2 an under onth. n11: February 1995 1L2: Him. .0 now" Mu: Jd nu: IMO "in I002 I cu;.anv;? J: 1x?$tio uz?n STATE OF ILLINOIS 3 COUNTY OF cooxl SS- FRANCIS DYRA, being first duly sworn, on oath states: 1. I teach at W?lbur Wright College, located at 3400 N. Austin Ave. in Chicago. As of August 31, 1994, I was teaching an ?ntermediate GED class 3: Wright College. 2. I remember Roberto Almodovar Jr. He was a student in an intermediate GED class that I was teaching as of August 31, 1994. The class was held on Mondays and Wednesdays starting at 6:00 p.m. 3. Mr. Almodovar was present at class on Wednesday, August 31, 1994. To the best of my recollection, the class ran until about 9:15 or 9:30 me 4. I recall being interviewed by a Chicago police detective sometime in September 1994. The detective asked me if Mr. Almodovar had been present at clals on Augnst 31, 1994. I told the detective that Mr. Almodover had been at that evening. 5. I do not recall ever speaking with an attorney named Clarence Burch representing Mr. Almodovar. Further effient sayeth not. Francis Dyra KJ Subscribed and swor to before me this day of February. 1996. JduaA.Rakma Noun Public. Sun of numb Commission. 'm 7507 .LSLS re; sizzf 93-51?35: STATE ILLINOIS SS COUNTY CF COOK MARY RCDRISUEZ, being first duly sworn, on oazn states: I am defendant Roberto Almodovar Jr.'s aunt. I live with my family at 1732 N. Springfield in Chicago. Roberto and his girlfriend Azalia Carrillo (who went by the nickname Sassy} and their baby were liying at my house on August 31 - September 1, 1994. Zr 1 testified at Roberto's trial about evenzs that occurred at my house on the night of August 31 - September 1,4 1994. 5. One of the main reasons I remembered the events of that night was that this was the night before my son Joey's first day at school, Maternity B.V.M. School had actually started earlier that week, but Joey did not start on time because we had not been able to pay his tuition. I paid the tuition on August 31, which meant that Joey would be able to start school the next morning, September?l. 4. I explained all of this to Roterto's lawyer, Mr. Clarence Burch. I also obtained from the school a record of Joey's attendance which showed when school started and when Joey's first day at school was. A copy or that recoru Lb attached to this Affidavit. It shows that Joey in fact started school on September 1. Mr. Burch did not ask me about this at Is there a scratch on Almodovar?s booking photo if 2 he was booked shortly after the fight? the trial. I I a "1 CG 'l:Fv?r hp Yo-r- r?C. I 9-:25 a. - . . I Ovd l-vbeJ-vv ?r Owl-4- wayuv a - b? frq? at. bAAy 4tefore me Chl??j- of February, I . . /a3u(ga - Notary Pub?; Sate ot llainois Pub ic i U, Cemmuatn {sane-s Jane 13. 1398 Notary mva-?chunsumn I FFJLA CF. STATE OF ILLINOIS 88: CCUNTY CF COOK Paula Calvert, being first duly sworn, on oath states: I a: the Principe; of Meternity B.V.M. School, loceted at 1537 North Lawndale in Chicago. 2. I have reviewed Maternity recorde as they relate to Jose Rodriguez Jr. Jose is currently 1 student at Maternity B.V.M. and was also a student here during the :994-1995 school year. 3. The school's record! reflect that the first clans day of the :994-1995 school term was August 33, 1994. Jose was absent from Iohool on August 30 and August 31, 199?. September 1 ti 199$ was the first day he was present at school. e. The school's record. also reflect that Jose?e initiel tuition payment for the 1994-1995 school year was paid on August 31. 1994. S. A copy of Jose's attendance record is attached to thin Affidevit. It is part of the ordinary course of business of Maternity B.V.M. School to make end keep such records, and this particular record wee made and kept in the ordinary course of the school?s Further nftient eayeth not. Paula Celvert Subscribed and two to before me this [??w;day oi February. 1996. QM- hm Notary Public PAAWSOL $uu TLRY must 51 NE 0 :3 cowssIm unn?501o700 Aux-V? at 30*: ~03 new? team: Home-m: me.- .2 ?5 5 ?1 3' ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO 1994 - 1995 GRADE 7 . . .V.H. 1 Va 8 cm Ch cago STUDENT Rodriquez, Jose Jr. DATE OF BIRTH FIRST 1 MIDPLE MONTH DAY 3% x. . R: SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING REPORT 105mg? . . . . . &M(o?wmn I504) Mrs-emu . 3 1mm .w . . Tuiyut Amount 3 IUD: Hana-1 (L191. Sum. 1 $11-an ac quwl um coma A nee-to 74070 4? rum: cums! . mm coma I?gultl? Slurp]: qu-?r?vt{ugn?u "?11 1 1:4 1: 214311;)? I115 13:3110:10 a all31:: 32mm, on: "1.5m W714. COMMENTS: I 1. I an the Sister of Aza?ra Carrillo. Azalia ?as a tab, daughter Roberto Elmodcvar Jr. is tne tazj's fatter. 3n Argus: family. 2. am married to Eerg;: As of 339-5t 31 - Septemrer 1, 1994, we -ive: Me-r:se 3. I remember the night of August 31 September 1, 1994. That evening my husband and went out to dinner with Azalia. we dropped her off at Mary Rodriguez's house sometime in the late evening and returned to Melrose Park. 4. After Sergio and I got home, we had to return to Mary Rodriguez?s house. We were asked to help break up an argument between Roberto and Azalia. We got back to Mary's house sometime between 11:00 p.m. and midnight. 5. When we arrived at Mary?s house, Robert: and Azalias were there and were having an argument. Sergio and I tried to break up the argument but ended up getting into the argument ourselves. 6. Sergio and I left Mary's house to return to our home around 1:30 a.m. on September 1. The argument had quieted down, a, Ci a? Notary ?ub1ic .3 i\..aln. I F- . ?Ma! - Februar'. this [5 day 996. 7 j. 4? AY?i?avar Sb A. everything the a. .. AS (1 r-w that my husba up; ..-.about wna in 5? never Ou:emerheII) S: ..s ,ri - by:Ens-- *yDUbv?. u: being -rrs- sw-r*. Ca-? sta-soberto rimodovar or as marries tc Amaris ELmCdovar, who is the sister of Roberto girlfriend on A 4. 4 or nigis- J- - September -, Q:sert?: and Aza-;snare at h. 5::ertc?s a;n: Mary Rodriguez and her family. 3. I remember the night of August 31 Septe?ber 1, 1994. Amaris and I went out to dinner that night with Azalia. We dropped her off at Mary Rodriguez's house sometime in the late evening and returned to Melrose Park. 4. After Amaris and I got home, we went back to Mary Rodriguez?s house because we got a phone call asking us to come help break up an argument between my cousin and Azalia. We got baok to Mary?s house sometime between 11:00 p.m. and midnight. 5. When we arrived at Mary's house, Roberto and Azalia were there and were in an argument. Mary Rodriguez, her husband, her son, and her mother Julia, my grandmother, were also there; I tried to break up the argument but Amaris and I ended up becoming part of the argument. 6. Amaris and I left Mary's house to return to our home I. ever iewed .wuwu r41 wt?? R0 3. or Janua no-5 . n12; attorne 1 me 1n Almadovar HEN J. Rlv'r RA 4 IC 5131? of "I??ois =21? {-315 In: .3 1.investiga Ir 1 1 ?990. a ad .- g. vv- z-v? f??A -J?hix - coo? - J: -os; c? being -irs: 3a-, sacr?, c- -ath s_a Vary noor-gae_ one case Iiocrigue: St Springfield in Chicago Back in August and September 1994, r; :cus;* 3::erto Alrodovar Jr. and F-s "irlfr'eus SassJ were -iving 2. I remember he night of as: 31 - Septerre: l, ?394 I rerercer that nigtt because 'nere ?as a big argurent, an: because September 1 was my first day of scnoc-. I ended up staying up until about 1:30 a.m. because of a big argument that involved Roberto and Sassy. My mother was very upset that this argument was keeping me up on a school night. 3. Sometime after Roberto and Sassy got into a big argument which was very loud. Part of the time I was in my room. and I could hear them arguing because the house is not very big. Most of the time i was sitting in the living room, which is in the front room of the house. Robert: and Sassy's room was right next to the living room. They were in their room part cf the time and in the living r::m part of the time. 4. At some point that night, my cousin Sergio Jr. and his wife Amaris, who is Sassy?s sister, came over to try to calm things down. It took quite a while for things to get calmed ,Af} :9 3. Serg;_ I: and hue: terember my saying the to go to bed. Ste ?as utset night. 6. From the time Sassy Amaris left, Feterto was more tuan a few ninttes, 7. Sore--me before the Roberta's attorney everytnieg 1 :e?enbezed tnat went t0 testify and Gladys came out tnlat Mr. Burch tol me after all. Further affiant say Subscribed and swept to before me this of February, IRENE NumSUhd luanmunuw-unulua ?tened H?a' rrbn- vi. ., using me as a witness F. a. he was aited outside the (- and told me not ESE 93129 to USE me as a CCEICICOE. 0A by ourt on the day be nervous. I Rodrigu r:;no - -. a 2. :na: everyone he ate or a sense; 6 or hearing -2: :vtewed :3 Mr. Buzz? ,4qh- my .15. . .- a? ?vr?a-o to poxnt my aunt T- b? U?dst in :f I Jr that I was supposed itness \Ll} 2. As of August 31, 1994 and September 1, 1994, was living in Chicago on North Springfield with my parents next do to Jose and Mary Rodriguez and their children. Mary?s nephew Roberto Almodovar also lived with them along with his girlfriend and their baby. They had been living there for a few mont .. . At tha- time. I was worki?g a: FarleY's Candy located at 4500 W. Belmont in Chicago. Roberto also worked a: Farl?y's Candy. 2 used to drive him to work a lot of the time because he did not have a car. 4. I remember that some time in September 1994, Roberto stopped coming to work. I heard he had been arrested for a shooting. 5. One day in the beginning of Sept :ber 1994, before stopped coming to work. I remember seeing Roberto with scratches on .is face one morning. At this point in time, I d: not remember the exact date. The night before I saw Roberto with the scratcnes, there had bee: a very loud and very between Roberto and his girlfriend and otuer people at Rodriguez house. Their house was very close to ours, and I knew Roberto's voice, so I could hear that an argument was going on. c. The argument w3ke me up. This was around 11:45 p.m.