"0?13 SS: STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OFICOOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS N0. 93 CR 18173 VS. Charge: Murder ARMANDO PACHEEO and JOSE 7-1 APPEARANCES: HON. JACK State's Attorney of Cook County, By MR. MATTHEW COGHLAN and MR. DAN WEISS, Assistant State's Attorneys, on behalf of the People; MS. DONNA MAKOWSKI, MR. GREGORY VAZQUEZ, Attorneys at Law, on behalf of the Defendant Serrano; MS. RITA FRY, Public Defender of Cook County, By MS. CLARE HILLYARD, Assistant Public Defender, on behalf of the Defendant Pacheco; MR. GEORGE GRZECA, Assistant Public Defender, on behalf of the Defendant Montanez. Nancy C. LaBella, CSR, RPR Official Court Reporter C.S.R. 084-002970 01561 Date of Hearing: 10-13_94 Page Numbers: 1 through 146 LIST OF WITNESSES CK RDX RCX Francisco Vicente 3 32/110/117 131 141/143 2 JR-L 01562 called as (Whereupon the following'is an Excerpt of Report of Proceedings in the above?entitled cause.) if 'k ?k ?k 1k? 'Jr FRANCISCO VICENTE, a witness on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, being first duly sworn, Was examined, and testified as follows: Q. your last A. Q. A. Q. A. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COGHLAN: Would you please state your full name and spell name? Francisco Vicente, Francisco, how old are you? I'm 24 years old. Are you also known as Chino?_ THE COURT: Chino? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. A. Q. A. Q. COGHLAN: Q. Can you spell that? You're presently in custody, is that correct? Yes, sir. Mind if I call you Chino? No, that's all right. Q. Presently you have four cases against you, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have an armed robbery or you have four armed robberies and a robbery, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. THE COURT: Four or five? MR. COGHLAN: There's a total of four cases, Judge, three armed robberies and a robbery. THE COURT: You said four armed robberies. MR. COGHLAN: I'm sorry. I misspoke. MR. COGHLAN: Q. How many armed robbery oases do you have against you? A. Three and a simple robbery. Q. How in return for your testimony in this case and other cases I have indicated to you that I would recommend a total of nine years in the Illinois Department of Corrections on your cases, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that would be three years on the robbery case, is that correct? A. YES, Sir! Q. By the way what name did you use when you were '1 arrested for that robbery case? A. Carlos Morales. Q. And then on the three armed robberies what name did you use for those? A. I used Francisco Vicente. Q. And I offered six told you I would recommend six years to the judge on those cases, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. That six years would run concurrent on all those armed robberies and consecutive to the three years on the robbery? A. Yes, sir. Q. Francisco, do you know Armando Serrano? A. Yes, sircourt today? A. Yeah, he's the guy right there, the last guy. Q. On the right or on the left? A. On this side. MR. COGHLAN: For the record may the record reflect the in?court identification of the defendant Armando Serrano? THE COURT: The record so reflects. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Do you know George Pacheco? A. Yes, sircourt today? ?72 JR-L 01565 Yes, sir. Q. Would you point to him and describe what he's wearing? A. He's wearing a D.O.C. top, he's in the middle. MR. COGHLAN: May the record reflect the in?court identification of the defendant George Pacheco? THE COURT: So reflects. MR. COGHLAN: Q. And do you know Jose Montanez? A. Yes, sircourt today? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you point to him and describe what he's wearing? A. He's the last guy on this side. THE COURT: Everybody is wearing D.O.C. uniforms; they're all sitting. THE WITNESS: He's on this side in the buttoned up shirt. MR. COGHLAN: Q. On the far right? A. Yes, sir. MR. COGHLAN: May the record reflect the in?court identification of the defendant Jose Montanez? THE COURT: It does. MR. COGHLAN: Q. How do you know the three defendants? 73 They're in the same organization. Q. What organization is that? A. Imperial Gangsters. Q. Imperial Gangsters is that a street gang? A. Yes, sir. Q. Armando Serranor how long have you known him? A. I've known him for about six years. DEFENDANT SERRANO: Seen him around. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Do you know him by any other names? THE COURT: Hold on. You don't have to say anything. MR. COGHLAN: May the record reflect the defendant Armando Serrano said he just seen him around. THE COURT: Right. Next question. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Do you know Armando Serrano by any other names? A. Mando. THE COURT: Mongo? THE WITNESS: Mando. MR. COGHLAN: Q. A. Q. How George Pacheco, do you know him by any other names? A. Sir. Q. What other names do you know him by? 7% JR-L 01567 Jordan. Jordan? Yeah. Jose Montanez, do you know him by any other names? Yes, sir. What do you know him by? Pistol Pete. How long have you known Jordan or George Pacheco? For about nine, eight years. And is he also a member of the Imperial Gangsters? Yes, sir. How about Pistol Pete or Jose Montanez how long have you known him? A. Q. A. Q. For about seven years. Is he also a member of the Imperial Gangsters? Yes, sir. I'd like to direct your attention to the morning of February 5th of 1993. THE COURT: Give me that again MR. COGHLAN: Q. February 5th, 1993. Do you remember where you were that day? A. Q. A. Yes, sir. Where were you? On Harding and Altgeld. 7% THE COURT: Harding and what? THE WITNESS: Altgeld. MR. COGHLAN: Q. What were you doing? A. I was standing out there on the corner. Q. Did you see the defendants that day, that morning? A. Yes, sir. Q. What time? A. It was about 8 o'clock, 9. Q. Had you been up all night? A. Yes, sir. Q. And would you describe to the judge what were the circumstances when you saw the three defendants? A. They drove up in a Buick Century. MS. HILLYARD: Excuse me, could we ask the witness to move over to his left? THE COURT: Tell you what you do, Clare, move over to the jury box. Feel free to take any position in the courtroom that enables you to look at the witness or an exhibit at any time. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Chino, I'll ask you to speak up so that everybody can hear you. A. Okay. Q. They drove up in a Buick, is that correct? A. Yes. 7/ JR-L 01569 0 THE COURT: Buick Century. MR. COGHLAN: Q. And what color was the car? A. Ten. Q. Did you recognize the car? A. Yes. Q. And what did you recognize it as? A. As being Pistol Pete's car. Q. Had you seen Pistol Pete in that car before? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was driving the ear when they pulled up? A. Pistol Pete. Q. When they pulled up was anyone else in the car with Pistol Pete? A. Yes. Q. Who? A. Mando and Jordan. Q. When they got there what happened next? A. They pulled over, rolled down the window and Pistol Pete started talking to me. Q. What did Pistol Pete say to you? A. What was I doing out there, you know, so early in the morning. I told him I was hanging out. Q. What happened then? A. Jordan and Mando jumped out the car, Pistol Pete 10 r7 7JR-L 01570 stood in the car playing with a bag of dope.' Q. When you say a bag of dope MR. GRZECA: Objection, Judge. THE COURT: What? MR. GRZECA: It's a conclusion. THE COURT: Subject to cross examination. If he knows it's a bag of dope it's a bag of dope. Sat in the car playing with a bag of dope. MR. COGHLAN: Q. What kind of dope? A. Heroin. Q. What did it look like? A. White powder substance. Q. Have you seen that before? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever used it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you using it that night? A. Yes, sir. Q. When was the last time you used it before you saw these three defendants? A. About seven hours before they drove up. Q. So were you still high on heroin when you saw them at that time? A. No, I was coming down off of it. 11 7 5JR-L 01571 What happened next after you saw Pistol Pete. playing with the bag of dope? A. Q. A. say. He pulled out a gun from under the dashboard. Could you describe the gun? Big hand pistol, automatic, 9?millimeter I would Have you ever seen that type of gun before? Yes, sir. What happened then? He grabbed the gun and reached over to his right and went into a vent and stuck the gun into a vent. Q. A. Q. A. Who did that? Pistol Pete. What happened then? He rolled up the window, jumped out of the car, locked it, threw the keys over to the grass. Q. Why did he do that? A. Just in case if the police drove up. Q. What happened then? A. We talked for a little while; they were arguing. Q. How long did you talk to them? A. I talked to them for about three, four hours. Q. Were you talking to one defendant or all the defendants? 12 7 7JR-L 01572 Well, I was talking to all of them; Q. Now are you still on -- what street were you on at this time? A. I'm on Altgeld. Q. Altgeld? A. Yeah. Q. And you're on Altgeld when you're talking to them now, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you tell the judge the conversation that took place between yourself and the three defendants? A. Well, Your Honor, they were talking about that they had committed a murder. THE COURT: Wait, who said this? THE WITNESS: Pistol Pete, Jordan and Mando. They were arguing and MR. COGHLAN: Q. Did you hear Pistol Pete say anything? A. Yes, Pistol Pete stated that Mando fucked up MR. GRZECA: I'll also ask if he could keep his voice up. THE COURT: George, move up. Telling the guy to keep up, if you want to hear a little better go ahead. Go ahead. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Did you hear Pistol Pete say 13 01573 :taky??anything? A. Yeah, he claimed that Mando had fucked up and went at the guy the wrong way. Q. And did Mando or Jordan respond to that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who said what? A. Mando and Pistol and Mando and Jordan stated that they can always get another Vic. Q. When they said Vic what did you believe that to mean? A. Believing that they can always stick somebody else up. Q. Did Pistol Pete say anything else? A. Yeah, he claimed that Mando went at the guy the wrong way and if he would have never went at the guy and grabbed the radio that everything would have gone right. Q. And did Armando Serrano say anything in response to that? A. They just started calling each other names, bitches. Q. What were they calling each other? A. They were calling they were disrespecting each other, calling each other bitches, and this and that, punk this, punk that. 14 CO7 JR-L 01574 mow ?rmMontanez When Pistol Pete was Pistol Pete or Jose was saying that Mando fucked up how far away was Armando Serrano at that time? A. We were in a crowd, talking right close to each other, distance. Q. A. THE MR. MS. THE How far? What was the distance? Few feet away. Were you all participating in the conversation? Yes, sir. VAZQUEZ: Objection to the form of the question. COURT: What's your objection? VAZQUEZ: Calls for a conclusion. HILLYARD: And leading. COURT: Objection sustained. I get stereo objections. MR. COGHLAN: Q. When Pistol Pete said that Mando fucked up did Armando Serrano respond to that? Yes, sir. What did he do or say? He said that if he could have if Pistol Pete would have grabbed the guy by the neck maybe they had a better chance of getting the guy's money. Q. response And did George Pacheco or Jordan say anything in to Pistol Pete's statements? 15 g2 JR-L 01575 have been Q. Yes, sir. What did he say? That Pistol Pete was the biggest one that he should the one to grab him.by the neck. Did any of the defendants indicate whether or not they had first seen the victim? A. Q. Jordan or had first A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. What was the question again, sir? Did any of the defendants, did Pistol Pete or Armando Serrano indicate when tell you when they seen this victim that they had shot? Yes, sir. Who said that? Pistol Pete did. When did he say that? He told me that same morning. Was Armando Serrano and George Pacheco present when he said that? A. Q. A. Yes, sir. What did he say? Pistol Pete stated that they went to a gas station the day before, they had drove up to a gas station and Pistol. Pete stated he went into the gas station to get change for a dollar to walk into make some phone calls and he seen this Mexican guy the gas station and the Mexican guy pulled out a 16 g3 JR-L 01576 Lwrei? big knot of money. Q. A. Q. A. gank him. Q. A. Q. they were them? A. Q. Did he say anything else? Yes. What did he say? That they were going to gank him; they had plans to What does gank mean? They're going to stick him up. Did any of the defendants indicate whether or not going to stick him up that first day that they saw They were planning to. Who said that? Pistol Pete. When did he say that? That same morning. And were the other two defendants present? Yes, sir. Did he indicate why they did not rob him the first time they saw the victim? A. Yes, sir. MR. GRZECA: I'm going to object. I think these questions are leading in nature. THE COURT: They are directed. There's a conversation 17 Li JR-L 01577 that took place over three or four hours. lo elicit that would take about three or four hours so an examiner may direct towards certain parts of the conversation and you may cross examine as to the entirety of the conversation. Okay, proceed. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Did Pistol Pete indicate why they did not rob the victim that first day? A. Yes. Q. And when did he indicate that? A. That same morning. Q. And what did he say? A. He said they didn't stick him up because the guy's wife was aware that they were being followed and they had two kids in the car with them. Q. What happened do you recall if strike that. During all these statements that Pistol Pete made did Armando Serrano ever say I don't know what you're talking about? MR. VAZQUEZ: Objection. THE WITNESS: A. No, he didn't. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Did George Pacheco ever say to Pistol Pete I don't know what you're talking about? MS. HILLYARD: Objection. THE WITNESS: A. No, sir. 18 $55 JR-L 01578 THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. COGHLAN: Q. What happened next? How long were you talking to these three defendants out there on Altgeld? A. We were talking for a little while. Q. And then what happened? A. We drove off to Gold Busters. THE COURT: Drove off what? THE WITNESS: A. Before driving off we went to the back of my porch and continued the conversation. do recall that, continued the conversation. MR. COGHLAN: Q. And do you remember what was said then? A. Yesr I was going inside to get a bite to eat before leaving to Gold Busters and I do recall them talking about sticking someone else up. Q. What did they say? A. They said they stuck up a young school boy, a white boy with a school bag. Q. Did the defendants indicate whether or not they had recovered any or received any property from the victim that they had shot? A. No. MR. GRZECA: Judge, I'm going to object at this time based on the fact that this is crimes that they're not 19 g6 JR-L 01579 charged with and they're getting the prejudicial effect of eliciting testimony of other crimes that they have not even a scintilla of evidence to prove up. MR. COGHLAN: I'm talking about the same THE COURT: That's your objection? MR. GRZECA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: The mental state of the defendants on the date in question, whether it relates to this particular crime this charge, murder, robbery, and the other crimes and then the other crime are all probative to that issue. That mental state is always of paramount importance. He's relating a conversation by the accused defendants and it reflects about their mental state so it's admissible. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Do you understand that I'm still talking about the victim who they went at with the radio? A. Yes. Q. Is that who they were still talking about later? A. On the back porch, yes, sir. MR. VAZQUEZ: Objection, form of the question. He can ask what was said. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Did any of the defendants tell you with reference to the individual who was shot with the radio, did any of them tell you whether or not they got any money 20 off that person? A. No. MR. GRZECA: That ansWer was no? MR. COGHLAN: Q. No, they didn't tell you or no, they didn't get any money? A. No, they didn't get any money. Q. How do you know that? A. Because they said, Pistol Pete stated they didn't get any money because Mando went at him the wrong way. MR. VAZQUEZ: 'Objection as to that. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Now you said you went to Gold Busters, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is Gold Busters? A. It's a jewelry store. They buy gold. Q. What were you going there for? - A. To sell the gold they had. They had some gold, some jewelry. Q. Now I'd like to direct your attention to a couple of days later, February 7th, a couple of days after this conversation with the three defendants. Did you have another conversation with the defendant Jose Montanez or Pistol Pete? 21 01581 Yes. And where did this conversation take place? Hirsch and Lemoyne. Who else was present? Me and Pistol Pete. He drove up alone. THE COURT: What was the place of this conversation again? MR. COGHLAN: Hirsch and Lemoyne. THE COURT: Okay. MR. COGHLAN: Q. And what kind of car was he driving? A. Q. A. Q. A. friend of Q. A. Q. He was driving the same Buick. Was anyone else present? A friend of mine. Who was that? His name is Rick, I don?t know his last name, a mine. Was he a member of the No, sir. And what was said by yourself and what was said to you by Jose Montanez? A. Well, he asked me to tie up his muffler because his muffler was hanging and I did tell him to stop by the neighborhood, that I would get some tools and tie it up for him and he stated if I hooked up his muffler that he would 22 %Ct JR-L 01582 turn me on to a few bags of dope. Q. And what happened then? A. I asked him how did he get all the damage to his car 'cause his fender was messed up. Q. And what did he say? A. And he said that they had smashed the car. Q. Who had smashed the car? A. He said Jordan had smashed the car. Q. Did he tell you when? A. Yeah, he said when they were driving off, when he stuck the Mexican stud up that Jordan had smashed the car. MR. COGHLAN: May I approach the witness? THE COURT: YES. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Francisco, I'm going to show you what has been marked as People's Exhibit No. 9 for Identification, and also I'll show you what I'll mark as People's Exhibits No. 22, 23 and 24 for Identification. People's Exhibit No. 9, do you recognize what's in that? A. Yeah, that's the fender, that's Pistol Pete's car. THE COURT: Pardon me, the fender? THE WITNESS: Yeah, damaged fender. MR. COGHLAN: Q. That's Pistol Pete's car? A. Yes, sir. Q. And numbers 22 and 23 and 24. What's in that 23 qo JR-L 01583 photograph? A. The bullet holes that I asked him about. MR. GRZECA: Judge, Iim going to object at this time because he's introduced three of them and I don't know which one he's referring to. MR. COGHLAN: I'll clarify, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. MR. COGHLAN: Q. With reference to all four of these photographs do you recognize the car in those photographs? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whose car is that? A. Pistol Pete's car. Q. How People's Exhibit No. 24 does that show any damage to the car? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what damage is there? A. To the left fender, driver's side. Q. Did you ask Pistol Pete about the damage to that left front fender? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what did he tell you? A. He said that after sticking the Mexican guy up that Jordan had smashed into a car. Q. Now in People's No. 23 for Identification do you 24 q/ JR-L 01584 see some more damage to the car? A. Bullet holes. Q. And did you obserVe that damage to the car when you saw Pistol Pete or Jose Montanez on February 7th, 1993? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ask him about that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ask him whether or not that happened during the course of the robbery? A. Yes, sir. MR. GRZECA: Judge, I'm going to object. THE COURT: That's leading. Sustained. MR. COGHLAN: Q. What did he say regarding that damage? A. He said that somebody had shot at him and I asked him who. He said that for me not to worry about, that he took care of it. I MR. GRZECA: Judge, I'm going to ask that that THE COURT: Sustained. Doesn't prove issues in this case other than the car had various sources of damages. MR. COGHLAN: Q. These exhibits, People's Exhibits Nothey truly and accurately show how Jose Montanez' car looked in February of 1993? A. Yes. 25 6 JR-L 01585 You didn't come forward and tell the police about your conversation right away, is that correct? A. No, sir. Q. And in May of 1993 you were arrested on your armed robbery cases, is that correct? A. IYes, sir. Q. Now on that date did you tell the police about your conversations with these defendants right away then? A. No, sir. Q. However is it true that you did tell them about another case that about another conversation you had with a different defendant, is that true? A. Yes, sir. Q. In fact at this point you're a listed witness in two other cases, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I'd like to direct your attention to June 2nd of 1993. Were you in the State's Attorney's Office on that day? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why were you at the State's Attorney's Office? A. I was talking to a State Attorney. Q. Which State's Attorney? A. I was talking to you. 26 0/3 Was that on this case or another case? A. No, I was talking to first I started talking to John Dillon about the Robert Boutos case. Q. On June 2nd you were up there talking to John Dillon, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. On June 2nd did you tell the detectives regarding your conversations with the defendant? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who did you tell? A. Detective Harveson Q. Would you describe to the judge the circumstances under which you came forward with this information? A. On one of my armed robberies I got arrested with Pistol Pete but it's a different Pistol Pete, some other guy called Pistol Pete. Q. And what happened? A. And Detective Harveson asked me if I knew Pistol Pete and I told him yes, I did and he asked me if it was the same Pistol Pete; I told him no, they Weren't; there were two different Pistol Pete's MR. GRZECA: Judge, I'm going to object at this time. THE COURT: What's your objection? MR. GRZECA: To the narrative. 27 THE COURT: Well, that was explicit as'to a particular question. As to general MR. GRZECA: Judge, Ifll withdraw that. THE COURT: It's like an arrow fired. You can't take it back. You can't withdraw an arrow that's fired. Objection overruled, all right. Go ahead. Next question. MR. COGHLAN: Q. So you had been arrested on one of your cases with MR. GRZECA: Judge, I'm going to object then now. THE COURT: It's premature. I don't know what you're objecting to. Let the man ask a question then you can object to it. MR. COGHLAN: Q. So you had been arrested with an individual, another individual with the nickname of Pistol Pete, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. THE COURT: You're objecting to that? MR. GRZECA: No, Judge. THE COURT: Good. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Now when Detective Halverson asked you about Pistol Petee what did you tell him? A. I told him I knew two Pistol Pete's, the one that I had the armed robbery with and the defendant sitting over 28 9?6 JR-L 01588 there on the left side. - I Q. Did you talk to him some more then after that? A. Yes. Q. Did you indicate to him about your conversation with the defendant? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what happened then? A. He brung me a photo of Pistol Pete. Q. How many photos did he bring you? A. He hrung me about six, seven photos, different photos. MR. COGHLAN: May I approach the witness? THE COURT: Yes. MR. COGHLAN: Q. I'm going to show you what I'll mark as People's Group Exhibits No. 25. I ask you to take a look at those. THE COURT: How many are there? MR. COGHLAN: There's three right there. THE COURT: A, and then. MR. COGHLAN: Q. Do you recognize those? A. Yes. Q. What are those? A. This is Pistol Pete, the second one is Jordan and the third one is Mando. 29 JR-L 01589 Are those the photographs that you'identifiEd;as the Pistol Pete strike that. Are those the photographs that you identified for Detective Halverson on June 2nd? AJ Yes. Q. When you first came forward the first time you told anything cooperating with the authorities was on the Robert Boutos case, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why did you come forward with Robert Boutos? A. 'Cause he was bragging about killing one of the Q. Are the Imperial Gangsters folks or people? A. Folks. When you talked to them when you told them about what he said were you made any promises with regard to your cases? A. No, sir. Q. When you were up talking to State's Attorney John Dillon in June of 1993 were you made any promises with regard to your cases? A. No, sir. Q. When you spoke to Detective Halverson and told him about what the defendants had said did he make you any promises with regard to your cases? 30 0?7 JR-L 01590 No, sir. Q. You later gave a handwritten statement and testified before the grand jury, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. In any of that time when you testified there and gave those statements were you made any promises with regard to your cases? A. No, sir. Q. Since then however you were eventually offered or made strike that. Since then our office and I have indicated that we would make a recommendation, isn't that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have previously also been on probation for narcotics, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. MR. COGHLAN: One moment please, Judge. THE COURT: Sure. MR. COGHLAN: I have no further questions at this time. THE COURT: Cross examination on behalf of Mr. Serrano please. MS. MAKOWSKI: Your Honor, Mr. Vazquez went to the bathroom. 31 JR-L 01591 THE COURT: Let?s take a -- anybody else have to;go to the bathroom? MS. HILLYARD: Yes. THE COURT: Call a recess for five minutes. Sir, don't say anything to anybody while we're on recess, none of the lawyers or anybody. THE WITNESS: Okay. (Whereupon, the case was recessed after which the following proceedings were had.) THE COURT: Let the record reflect the defendants are present in court in their own proper person and by and through their lawyers. Have the witness retake the stand. Be seated please. Cross examination on behalf of Mr. Serrano. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. VAZQUEZ: I Q. Sir, you said that on February 5th Mr. Montanez pulled up in a car, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when he pulled up in the car Armando Serrano and Mr. Pacheco got out of the car, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you told the judge that at that time you saw 32 qq JR-L 01592 Mr. Montanez stick a gun from under the dash'into an air vent, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was the only time you saw him do that, correct? A. Yes, sirthat later on, is that right? A. Well, when we were going to Gold Busters he did take the gun out of the car and he stashed it. Q. He took it back out of the air vent and put it back in the air vent? A. Yes no, not back into the air vent. Took it out of the air vent, placed it outside somewhere. Q. But you remember testifying before a grand jury, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that was on July lst, 1993, correct? A. Yeah, I think so. Q. At that time you were under oath? A. Yes, sir. Q. Same kind of oath you're under today? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were asked certain questions and you gave 33 \00 JR-L 01593 certain answers, is that right? A. Yes, sir. THE COURT: That was July '93? MR. VAZQUEZ: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. And at that time you were asked this question and you MR. Page counsel? MR. VAZQUEZ: 12. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. At that time you were asked this question: While you were driving to Gold Busters did you see Pistol Pete do something in the car? Answer: Yes, sir. What did you see him do? Answer he pulled a gun from under his driver's side of the dash and stuck it in an air vent. That's what you told the people at the grand jury, correct? A. That was after he got there to the scene where I was at, he stood in the car, played with a bag of dope, before jumping out the car he grabbed the gun from under the seat, put it in a vent. Q. Let me back up. You recall being asked these questions and you gave these answers strike that. So you're saying that when he first pulled up on February 5th, 1993, he took the gun out from under the dash and put it in 34 JR-L 01594 the air vent, right? A. Uh?hUh. Q. Then you went to Gold Busters three, four hours later, correct? A. No, we went to Gold Busters about 9:30, 10 o'clock. Q. An hour later? A. Yeah, an hour later or two. We were talking for a while. Q. Is it true at that same grand jury hearing you were asked these questions and you gave these answers: After you had that conversation with Pistol Pete did all of you leave Hamlin and Altgeld together? Answer: Yes, sir. How did you leave that area? Answer: We left in his ear. Question: Where were you going to? Answer: To Gold Busters. On your way to Gold Busters whose car were you in? Answer: Pistol Pete's. MR. COGHLAN: I would object to all that, Judge. It's not impeaohing. MR. VAZQUEZ: Your Honor, it will be impeaohing in a moment. THE COURT: So far it's not. MR. VAZQUEZ: I understand. THE COURT: So go ahead. MR. COGHLAN: I also object to the form of the 35 JR-L 01595 question, Judge. THE COURT: No, the form seems proper, were you asked the question, did you give this answer. Go ahead, next question. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Question: That is the same Buick Regal you referred to earlier? Yes, sir. Question: Who was driving the car? Answer: Pistol Pete was. Question: While you were driving to Gold Busters did you see Pistol Pete do something in the car? Answer: Yes, sir. What did you see him do? He pulled a gun from under his driver's side of the dash and stuck it in an air vent. Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers? A. If that's what I said in front of the grand jury. I do recall now that he did leave the pistol before we left to Gold Busters. Q. So what you're saying is what you told the grand jury -- A. We didn't want to drive with the pistol in the car because they knew they had did that murder and they knew they were going to get caught up with that pistol in the car, sir. Q. That was your conclusion, correct? A. No, that was our conclusion in the car before we left without the pistol in the car. 36 6?s JR-L 01596 Well, what you're saying now is that what yod told the grand jury wasn't correct, is that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection, Judge. THE COURT: Sustained. You can't ask the witness to characterize his testimony. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Is that what happened what you told the grand jurf? A. Well, it's a little mistaken. MR. COGHLAN: Objection, told what? THE COURT: The question he just asked him on page 12, that series of questions. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Is that what happened, sir? A. No, what I'm telling you now is what happened. The rest of that statement is what happened though. Q. You were asked about that same hiding the gun under the dash by Detectives Halverson and Guevara, right? A. Yeah, Harveson. Q. And that was on June 2nd, 1993, correct? A. Yeah, I'm not too sure about the date. Q. But it was the first time you spoke to him, is that right? A. Yes. Q. This interview that you had with Detective Halverson he interviewed you also with a State's Attorney 37 JR-L 01597 present at one time, is that right? A. Q. A. Yes, sir. That was later, correct? Yes. MR. VAZQUEZ: Your Honor, may I ask the State to produce the original because of the poor nature of the copies that he's tendered to me. MR. COGHLAN: I don't believe I have the original. THE COURT: Why don't you ask one of your co?counsel? MS. HILLYARD: They're all just as bad. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sir, you gave a statement to a State's Attorney, is that right? A. A. Q. Yes, sir. Her name was Solita Pundit, is that right? Yes. It was a lady, correct? Yes. This was on June 28th, 1993, correct? I'm not too sure about the date. It was after you talked to Halverson, right? Yes. But before you went to the grand jury? Yes. She wrote out things you were saying, right? 38 3 JR-L 01598 correct? A. Q. Yes. You were speaking, correct? Yes. She was writing it down as you were speaking Yes. Then after you stopped speaking she stopped writing, correct? A. Q. you wrote A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. statement A. Q. A. Yes. Then she showed you a copy of this statement that out, correct? Yes. Then she had you read it? Yes. And you signed it? Yes. I'd like to show you that statement. Is this the we're referring to as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2? Well, let me see the signature on it. I can't hear you, sir. I want to see the signature on that. I'll tell you if I signed if it's the statement Q. Look at it. THE COURT: It's a copy, right? 39 ?Qh JR-L 01599 MR. COGHLAN: Here's another copy. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. That's the statement we're referring to? A. Yes. Q. Does it say in your statement this is a six page statement, is that right? A. Let me count the pages and I'll tell you. Six, yes, it is. Q. Does it say in your statement: Francisco then went into the car with Mando and Jordan and Pistol Pete who was in the driver's seat. Francisco THE COURT: What page is the signature on? MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. What page is the signature on? The signature is page six, right? A. Yeah, all of them got my signature on them. Q- On page four does it not state: Francisco stated that he got into the car with Mando and Jordan and Pistol Pete who was in the driver's seat. Francisco saw Pistol Pete take a large 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol from under the dashboard the heating ducts in the dashboard. Is that what it says there? A. Let me read it and I'll answer your question. Q. We'll let you read it and you can answer the 40 \6/1 JR-L 01600 question. You don't remember what you wrote, do you?: A. I'm reading. Q. Do you remember what you wrote without reading it? A. Not clearly. Q. You have to read it in order to remember what you told the State's Attorney, is that what you're saying? A. No. MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE WITNESS: A. What I'm trying to say is MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: What's your objection? MR. COGHLAN: It's argumentative with the witness. THE COURT: Sustained. THE WITNESS: A. I do recall what happened. THE COURT: Don't answer that question. Read the paper. THE WITNESS: You can?t read this statement the way it should_be read. It's all fucked up. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. When you say it's fucked up what do you mean by it's all fucked up? A. Look at the letters on this page. Q. You signed it, didn't you? A. Yeah, but the statement wasn't like this. It was in paper and pen and ink. This is a copy. I can't read it. 41 JR-L 01601 MR. VAZQUEZ: Your Honor, We ask for production MR. COGHLAN: Judge, I'll stipulate as to what it says in the statement. THE COURT: Okay, what does it say. MR. VAZQUEZ: What I just read. MR. COGHLAN: What are you looking for? MR. VAZQUEZ: The State is willing to stipulate that Francisco then stated he got into the car with Mando and Jordan and Pistol Pete who was in the driver's seat. Francisco saw Pistol Pete take a large 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol from under the dashboard the heating ducts in the dashboard. MR. COGHLAN: I'll stipulate that that is contained in the handwritten statement. THE COURT: Going back to Mr. Coghlan's objection, the scope of the direct examination did not cover the trip to this fence over at Gold Busters so it's not impeaching. MR. VAZQUEZ: Yes, he said he went to Gold Busters. THE COURT: No, no, I agree he said he went to Gold Busters but it's not you're offering it for prior inconsistent statement. It's not prior inconsistent statement to his testimony on direct examination. MR. VAZQUEZ: Pardon? THE COURT: It's not inconsistent with his testimony on 42 01602 direct examination because he was not asked about what; transpired on the trip to Gold Busters. MR. VAZQUEZ: Your Honor, when we discussed the grand jury he had said that at that time he saw him take it back out of the heating duct and put it under the dashboard. THE COURT: I understand. You're cross?examining as to the State's the witness as to a prior inconsistent statement on direct to show either or both of two purposes. It doesn't meet the criteria of a prior inconsistent statement with his direct testimony. MR. VAZQUEZ: Okay. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Well, sir -- THE COURT: It's admissible not as a prior inconsistent statement but as his ability to recollect. It's not a prior inconsistent statement as to also it's not related to a material fact in issue. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sir, before you were arrested and placed into custody on these three armed robberies and the robbery you had a problem.with heroin, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. You were using China white? A. Yes, sir. Q. That's a type of heroin? A. Yes, sir, that's China white, heroin. 43 01603 smoke it? A. picked up correct? A. Q. It's a type of heroin that's so pure that you can No. You can snort it, can't you? Yes, sir. Costs about $350 a gram sometimes? Yeah, you could say, depends where you buy it from. You had a drug habit, is that right? Yes. And because of that habit and addiction you then these cases that you're in custody for now, Yes. And these cases we are.talking about are the cases that occurred in July of '92, correct? A. I'm not too sure about the armed the days I caught the armed robberies. Q. Well, did you have one in February of '93, do you recall that? A. What was it again? MR. COGHLAN: Objection, Judge. THE COURT: What's your objection? MR. COGHLAN: As to the specifics of the dates of the armed robberies 44 JR-L 01604 THE WITNESS: Isn't it on my rap sheet? THE COURT: Quiet. MR. COGHLAN: stipulate that he has the armed robberies and that he was arrested for them in May, Judge. He's been in custody ever since then. THE COURT: Well, I understand but if it's relevant perhaps to his inquiries are the time of the incident, he can go into the substance insofar as when they allegedly occurred because if they are on or about the same time we're talking about in this case. He's relating to a transaction, a conversation he had with the defendants in February. This is all timely so this is proper cross examination. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. And these cases that this habit caused you to pick up they occurred in early 1993, is that right? A. Yes. Q. The habit was a daily habit, correct? A. Yes. Q. And no doubt it was a bad habit, right? A. No, no doubt about that; it was a bad habit. Q. Pardon? A. It was a bad habit. Q. Cost you money? A. Yes. 45 H?k . JR-L 01605 Spent hundreds of dollars on China white? Not daily. You spent hundreds of dollars weekly? No, not hundreds of dollars weekly; whatever I could spend, whatever I could spend. Q. Al I can?t hear you, sir. Whatever I could spend to get high weekly that's what I would spend. It wasn't hundreds and hundreds of dollars. Q. A. Q. right? A. Q. A. Q. Two, 300. Two, 300 a week? Yeah. You had this habit for definitely more than a year, Just about. Had it for more than three years, didn't you? No. Well, how long would you say you had the problem with drugs? A. Q. With China white? Yes. For about a year. Before that you used cocaine? Yeah. Marijuana? 46 JR-L 01606 Yes, sir. Q. A. No, sir. Q. Any other drugs? A. That's about it. Alcohol. Q. And your addiction became so bad that it began to control you, isn't that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Well, it made you do things that you otherwise wouldn't do, right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Well, it caused you to pick up these robberies, right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. . MR. VAZQUEZ: Your Honor, then I want a side?bar out of the presence of the witness because I'm allowed to cross examine on the extent of his addiction. THE COURT: This isn't related to the extent of a person's addiction. It's asking the witness to characterize an addiction. It's the proper subject matter for medical personnel but not court personnel. I mean, if you're interviewing a person for drug treatment and diagnosis fine 47 01607 but the frequency of usage of dope that's proper but ydu've gone into that. The cost of it is proper. But to characterize it as -- asking the witness to characterize certain aspects of it that's beyond the knowledge of the witness. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Well, sir, you needed to get money to buy this drug, correct? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: A. Yes. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. And you needed money so bad that on January let, 1992 you offered to suck the penis of a police officer for $40 to get this MR. COGHLAN: Objection. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. heroin? A. That's bullshit. THE COURT: Objection sustained.- That's not a crime. It's remote in time, it's '92. This relates tc social behavior. MRI. VAZQUEZ: I'm trying to show MR. COGHLAN: I'm objecting. MR. VAZQUEZ: how bad his addiction to heroin was. If his addiction was so bad that he's offering to suck the penis of a man for $40 to buy dope then his addiction is 48 6 01608 something that could be serious enough that can affect the extent of his need. THE COURT: That assumes he wouldn't do that without a drug habit. MR. VAZQUEZ: Well, okay. MR. COGHLAN: Objection, Judge. I would object to counsel asking this witness any questions about any other crimes and the specifics of any other crimes other than what he's testified to already. THE COURT: I'm not going to restrict cross examination in that fashion. Objections can be made on an item by item basis. Next question. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Well, sir, you were arrested in 1990 for possession of cannabis, is that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm not going into the facts. MR. COGHLAN: Objection. MR. WEISS: Just the fact that he's arrested is not relevant. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Let's talk about how you used the alias Carlos Morales. You were arrested for possession of cannabis, correct? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. 49 mo MR. VAZQUEZ: (skim Your Honor, this is relevant for establishing the use of an alias. THE second question; I'll strike it if it's not. COURT: second question? MR. correct? MR. MR. denies THE VAZQUEZ: COGHLAN: VAZQUEZ: COURT: I'll strike it if MR. name . MR style. THE chooses. MR. Judge. THE COGHLAN: VAZQUEZ: COURT: COGHLAN: COURT: they're not shown question. MR. VAZQUEZ: I think if the prefatory question is the Q. What's your This was on September 2nd, 1990, Objection. I have to lay a Your objection is it's not shown to Tell him to ask I don't have to He has a right to foundation in case he noted and continues. be relevant. if he's ever used that cross examine in his frame the questions as he I object that they're improper questions, I'll entertain a motion to strike if to be relevant and probative. Q. Next And this occurred around 1527 North 50 Rockwell, correct? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You were arrested by Officer Crespo? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: One at a time. MR. VAZQUEZ: He could be my rebuttal officer. THE COURT: You're seeking to impeach a witness by showing prior arrests. MR. VAZQUEZ: No, I'm not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Your line of questioning is if your line of questioning is to show a person's obscurities of identity by using aliases that's quite proper but going into the details of an arrest MR. VAZQUEZ: The name of the officer? THE COURT: Of an arrest for something for which he was not convicted is improper. It's not probative to the issues before me. MR. VAZQUEZ: First of all he was convicted. Second of all MR. COGHLAN: Objection. MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm.not seeking to introduce the conviction. THE COURT: Then you should do that. 51 Wm?ww MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm seeking to introduce'that he used the alias. THE COURT: I understand. Your objection is sustained as to the previous one that question everything after concerning you were arrested for the marijuana in 1992. MR. VAZQUEZ: 1990. THE COURT: 1990. Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sirr when you were arrested you did not give the police officers your real name, did you? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COGHLAN: Objection as to THE COURT: Time, you're talking about 1990? MR. VAZQUEZ: Right. THE COURT: Fine. His objection is proper but I'm referring you to a 1990 transaction. As to that, go ahead. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Is that correct, sir? A. Yes. Q. You did not give them the name of Francisco Vicente? MR. COGHLAN: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: No, he didn't get a chance to answer. Overruled. 52 MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Did you, sir? A. Did I what? What was the question? Q. Did you give them the name of Francisco Vicente? A. No. Q. That's your real name, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. You gave them the name of Carlos Morales, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And that was a lie, wasn't it? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Well, when you gave that name to the police officer you knew it wasn't true, correct? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Your intention was to deceive Officer Crespo, wasn't it? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Well, sir, the name of Carlos Morales is not a name you made up, is it? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. 53 1 310 01613 MR. VAZQUEZ: Your Honor, I can show that this person Carlos Morales whose name he gave was the name of someone he knew. MR. COGHLAN: So what? MR. VAZQUEZ: Someone who was a witness THE COURT: Let him make his offer. MR. VAZQUEZ: Someone who was a witness against him in a case when he beat up his mother and that not only after giving his name did he go to court using the name, sign the bond slip using that name, but when he was arrested he tried to escape from custody which shows that he gave false information so that he could flee. He gave false information because then he THE COURT: That would not be relevant to this here. You may probe on the basis of an alias, use of another name and the implicit deception involved in that. The substance of those other things, assuming all you proffer is true, is not probative of the issue at this time. MR. VAZQUEZ: You don't think that credibility THE COURT: I have ruled. Ask your next question. Obviously credibility is a relevant issue. What you think probes the issue of credibility and what I think is collateral to that is at variance. Ask your next question. 54 01614 MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sir, you gave the name of Carlos Morales strike that. Carlos Morales was not involved in this possession of cannabis, was he? MR. Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You gave his name because he was a witness against you? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You gave his name because he was a witness against you when you were charged with beating up your mother? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. When you appeared in court and you were allowed on bond you signed the name of Carlos used the alias again, is that right? I MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. COGHLAN: Judge, I ask that counsel be directed to desist from going into this line of questioning. THE COURT: I said object item by item. Objection will be sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sir, the reason you used the name of 55 I 01615 Carlos Morales is because you knew that if you failed to appear in court that then they would go looking for Carlos Morales and not you? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Is that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. I sustained the objection. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. There was a warrant issued for your arrest on that case? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Now, sir, you used an alias on another occasion, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And July 25th, 1992 you Were arrested for a robbery, is that right? A. Yeah. Q. I can't hear you. A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you say? A. Yes, sir. Q. And at that time you gave when you were arrested 56 01616 the police officers asked you your name, right? A. Q. Yes, sir. And at that time you gave them the name of Carlos Morales again, is that rightYeah. I can't hear you. Yes, sir. And that was the second time you did it, correct? Yes, sir. Now they also asked you if you had another name at that time, correct? MR. COGHLAN: THE COURT: MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Objection, foundation. Sustained. Well, sir, you were arrested for a robbery that occurred on July 16th, 1992, correct? A. Q. A. Q. Yeah. At 2254 North Throop, correct? No, I'm not too sure about the address. When you were arrested you were arrested by Pena, Severino and Marron, is that right? A. Q. A. Q. Yes, sir. And they asked you your name, is that right? And you gave them the name of Carlos Morales, 57 JR-L 01617 correct? A. Yeah. Q. And you also when they asked you if you had any other names or aliases you told them Francisco Cruz, is that right? A. No, sir. Q. You never used the alias of Francisco Cruz? A. No, not to my knowledge. Q. Did you ever tell Officers Pena, Severino or Marron that your other name was Francisco Cruz? A. No. Q. Now when you were arrested MR. COGHLAN: Judge, I would strike that. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You then spoke to a Detective Boyle, is that.right? THE COURT: When is this now? THE WITNESS: A. I don't recall. MR. VAZQUEZ: On the same case, Your Honor. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Did you tell him your name was Francisco Cruz? A. I don't recall. Q. Now, sir, the reason you gave the name of Carlos Morales this time was because you knew if you didn't show up in court and a warrant was issued they wouldn't come looking 58 35 JR-L 01618 front of MR. THE on there' A. Q. A. MR. THE object. MR. THE THE MR. is that right? COGHLAN: Objection. COURT: Objection sustained. VAZQUEZ: Q. Well, sir, You didn't show up in Judge Suria on December 2nd, 1992, did you? COGHLAN: Objection. COURT: Objection sustained. VAZQUEZ: Q. 5 three of them, is that right? Now the cases that you're testifying Yes, sir- They're all murders, right? Yes. WEISS: Objection. COURT: One at a time. Either Coghlan or Weiss At least as to one in particular. WEISS: Withdraw, Judge. COURT: Okay. Answer the question. WITNESS: A. Yes. VAZQUEZ: Q. All involving statements by persons that were accused of murder, right? A. Q. did you? Yes. And none of these murders you actually witnessed, No. 59 Now you began telling the police about these;murder confessions to you just after you were arrested on these new armed robberies and the bond forfeiture out of Judge Suria's courtroom, is that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. It's a compound question. Ask it properly. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sir, you began telling the police about these murder confessions just after you were arrested, right? A. Told them about one murder case. Q. You told them about one murder confession right after you were arrested, is that what you're saying? A. Yes. Q. And this is when you were arrested on the series of armed robberies and the bond forfeiture, right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, you're not getting the bond forfeiture in. Strike it.- MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm sorry, Your Honor. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. The robbery and the three armed robberies after that arrest, is that right? A. Yes. Q. I can't hear you. 60 JR-L 01620 Yes. Q. You were at the 25th District lockup, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you knew at that time you were in custody for a series of armed robberies when you were there, correct? A. Yes. Q. And this series of armed robberies had occurred on the northwest side of Chicago, correct? A. Yes. Q. On Fullerton from Pulaski to Laramie, correct? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You knew that you could be charged at that time when you were at the 25th District station with several armed robberies, didn't you? 1. A. Yes. I i Q. And you knew you were being held for additionaTiyf lineups at that time, correct? I MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sir, while you're in the lockup here at the 25th District station, correct? A. Yes. 61 JR-L 01621 And you did not want to be in jail'at that time, did you? A. I was in jail. Q. Well, you did not want to be in jail though, did you? MR. Objection. MR. VAZQUEZ: Motive to THE COURT: That's proper. If he said yes I'd be puzzled. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You did.not want to be in jail, did you? A. Yes. You did? I didn't. Yes. A Q. You knew you were in trouble, right? A Q. And you knew that you might go to jail, correct? A . I was in jail. Q. You knew that you might go to the Illinois State penitentiary though, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. So on that day of May 15th you spoke to Detectives Halverson and Guevara that someone had spoken to you in the lookup, right? 62 Q6) JR-L 01622 was being his case, A. Yes. You told them about that, correct? Yes. And you told them that someone in the lockup who investigated for murder told you about the facts of correct? Yes. And told you that he did it, correct? Yes. This was not a friend of yours, was it? No. It was someone you didn't know, correct? No. Correct? I didn't know him. Correct? Correct, I didn't know him. And he didn't know you either, right? No. Is that right? That's right. He was just another person in the lockup, correct? Yes. And this person, this stranger that confessed to 63 20 JR-L01623 name was Robert Boutos, is that right? Yes. And he confided in you and told you about his killing somebody, correct? A. Q. Yes. And after all that you gave the detectives this information, right? A. Q. Yes. And you said there was no deal they gave you at that time, correct? A. Q. A. Yes. They made you no offers of any kind? None whatsoever. No reward? None whatsoever. They gave you nothing? Nothing. You even put that statement in writing, didn't you? The statement with Robert Boutos? Yes. What does that have to do with this case though? Did you put it in writing? Yes, I did. You even testified four days later in front of the 64 I 3\ JR-L 01624 grand jury, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And after all that you received no deal? A. No deal. Q. No help? A. On my cases? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. No promises of any kind? A. No promises of any kind. Q. Then there was another confession though that you could give them, right? A. Yeah. Q. There was the case of Gerardo {sic.) Iglesias, is that right? A. Yes. THE COURT: Who? Iglesias is his first name? MR. VAZQUEZ: Gerardo Iglesias. THE COURT: Lives next door to Julio. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Gerardo Iglesias, is that right? And you were in Cook County jail with MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: What's your objection? MR. COGHLAN: This line of questioning on this case 65 1 27a JR-L 01625 happened after Routes and after this case. That's not, relevant as to coming forward in this case. MR. VAZQUEZ: He's coming forward THE COURT: The interest and bias and prejudice of the witness is relevant in this case. The particularities of the statement Iglesias related to him is not. MR. VAZQUEZ: And I haven't asked that. THE COURT: And the place where it's located is not. MR. VAZQUEZ: Well, the place of the interview is. I was trying to show the place of the interview to lay a foundation for this statement. THE COURT: For foundation, yes, that's proper. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You spoke to him on June 25th, 1993, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you're able to remember the dates of this stuff, is that right? I A. Yes. Q. And you remember specifically that it was on June 25th, 1993, correct? A. Yeah, I just went to court. THE COURT: Sustained. Listen, I'm not going you're not going in to these collateral matters. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. And at that time he gave you a 66 13/5 JR-L 01626 statement regarding his case, is that right?' MR. Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sirr you're testifying in the case of Gerardo Iglesias, is that right? MR. Objection. MR. VAZQUEZ: Your Honor, he's saying that there was no deal up to a certain point. THE COURT: I understand. MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm trying to show that he has all these confessions. THE COURT: I understand exactly what you're doing and I understand what he's doing too. But you're going too far afield in certain dimensions. -Ask your questions that you think appropriate and I'll rule the way I think appropriate. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. When you spoke to Mr. Iglesias you received he gave a confession to you about his murder case, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you then told the detectives about that confession of Gerardo Iglesias, is that right? A. Yes. Q. You told Detective Halverson and Guevara? 67 3 01627 Yes. And after you told them that you received no deal, is that right? A. Q. MR. No, I didn't receive no deals. They didn't make you any promises, correct? COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. A. Q. correctthings to A. Q. VAZQUEZ: Q. Did they? No. And you even put that statement in writing, Yes. And after that there was still no deal, correct? No deal. No promises? No promises. No break in your possible sentence? No. And now then there's this case, correct? Yes. And you're saying that Mr. Montanez said certain you, is that right? YES .. And now that's a total of three murder cases where 68 65 JR-L 01628 people have confessed to you, is that right?' A. Yes. Q. And now however, now you receive something for your work in this case, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Now after three you are getting a deal that involves you pleading guilty to four cases, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you'll plead guilty to the robbery, is that right? A. Yes, simple robbery and the three armed robberies. Q. And that's the robbery under the name of Carlos Morales, correct? A. Correct. Q. And then the three armed robberies under your other name, Francisco Vicente, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now one of these cases you are charged with the robbery of a bicycle, correct? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. That robbery case is pending in front of Judge Suria, is that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. 69 ?39? JR-L 01629 THE COURT: Enstained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sir, you have a second case in front of Judge Suria, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that is a robbery involving a handgun, is that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. The part,r is the armed robbery involving a handgun that's admissible. MR. VAZQUEZ: But you sustained the objection. THE COURT: I'm reversing myself as far as that. You can go into that part but I don't want to you can ask him to these armed robberies and whether a deadly weapon is involved to show the nature and extent of the offenses to a person that may expect to receive a compromise for his testimony in this case. Go ahead. MR. COGHLAN: Judge, an armed robbery is an armed robbery. THE COURT: Nor if he used a chicken or he used an icicle or he used a Tommy gun it's all different. MR. COGHLAN: A chicken or an icicle are not dangerous weapons. THE COURT: Depends on how you use them. If it's a frozen chicken it can be an armed robbery. I've seen it 70 >37 01630 charged that way. Excuse me, it may have been a frozen turkey. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Sir, You have a second case pending in front of Judge Suria, is that right? A. Yes. Q. That's an armed robbery where you're charged using a handgun, is that right? A. Yes. Q. That's one of the oases that?s part of this deal? A. Yes. Q. One of the cases you are going to plead guilty on? A. Yes. Q. You also have a third case, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that's pending in front of Judge Suria as well, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you're charged with armed robbery at gunpoint in that case, is that right? A. I used a gun one time. Q. Well, you're charged with a third pending case with an armed robbery by gunpoint, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And your deal is to plead guilty to that, is that 71 3 JR-L 01631 rightwell? A. Q. A. Q. right? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. So that's two with the use of a gun, correct? Yes, that's what I'm being charged with. Now you have a fourth pending case, is that right? Yes. And that's in front of Judge Suria, correct? Yes. And you're charged with armed robbery on that case Yes. And that's at knife point, correct? Yes, that's what I'm being charged with. That's what you're pleading guilty to too, is that Yes. And that's part of this deal, is that right? Yes. As part of this deal you're supposed to serve three years on_the Carlos Morales robbery case, right? A. Q. Yes. And you of course were aware that you could receive three to seven years on that case, is that right? A. Yes. 72 3 JR-L 01632 that Q. You did not want to serve the seven years, right? A. Right. MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You did not want to serve any time on case, right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. And you knew when you were working out this deal that you had been on felony probation before, is that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: A. Yes. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You knew that you had other convictions in your background, correct? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Goes to how MR. COGHLAN: Only one conviction, Judge. MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm not impeaching him with a felony conviction. THE COURT: You're trying to show the nature and extent of the ramification of the promises made in exchange for his ?3 ?10 01633 testimony. So prior convictions may be considered by the Court in meeting out a sentence that would tend to show how much benefit is inuring to the witness for his testimony. But things that aren't convictions I don't want to hear about. MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm not asking him what he's been convicted of. THE COURT: Convictions only. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. And you knew you had a possession of cannabis conviction-in your background, is that right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: What's wrong with that? MR. COGHLAN: Possession of cannabis? He doesn't have a conviction, Judge, he has a supervision. MR. VAZQUEZ: He has a conviction for that and it's 14 days time served. MR. COGHLAN: That's incorrect. MR. VAZQUEZ: That's not incorrect. Your Honor, if the court file is here. He can deny it. MR. COGHLAN: It's a misdemeanor any way. THE COURT: Judges can consider misdemeanor convictions and juvenile convictions in their sentencing so it impacts the benefit he would receive. Some judges, not myself, consider things that have various weights. 74 JR-L 01634 MR. COGHLAN: I'll withdraw the objection. THE COURT: That all goes to the benefit that a witness reoeiVes from making a deal, Go ahead. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. You have a conviction for possession of cannabis, don't you? A. Yes. Q. You received 14 days time served? A. Yes. Q. You also have a conviction for the solicitation of male prostitution, correct? A. Yes. Q. On a man? A. That's what they said. MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: That wouldn't be the charger solicitation of a man. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. So now you understand though on this robbery you're receiving the lowest possible penitentiary sentence you can get? A. Yes. Q. And on the second caser that's the armed robbery using a handgun you know that was a class felony, right? A. Yes. Q. I can't hear you. 75 I?Iil .JR-L 01635 years for was? right? A. Q. Yes. And you understood that you could receive 6 to 30 that case? Yes, I understood that. And you didn't want to serve the 30 years, did you? Of course not. In fact you didn't want to serve even six, is that Well, I'm pleading guilty to it. And you're going to get a recommendation or a sentence of six years on that case in addition to the robbery case, is that right? A. Q. right? Q. A. Q. Yes. And at that point it totals nine years, is that Yes. Now then you had a third case, is that right? Yes. That third case was also class X, correct? Yes. You knew you could receive 6 to 30 years on that case, correct? A. Q. Yes. And again you didn't Want to do the 30, right? 76 H3 JR-L 01636 course not. Q. You didn't want to do anything, correct? A. Hell no. Q. In fact you're not doing any extra time on that case, are you? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection is sustained. The sentences speak for themselves. The witness is not to be asked to characterize the impact of the sentence. Go on with your next question. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Did you know that the sentence was going to be concurrent with your other sentences? A. Yeah. Q. So you knew that you would do no extra time by pleading guilty to that? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: That's all right. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Is that right? A. Of course. Q. Pardon? A. Yes. Q. And you had a fourth case, is that right? A. Yes. Q. That's the armed robbery by knife point? 77 01637 Yes. That was a class Of course. You knew you could get 6 to 30? Of course. You didn't want 30? Hell no. You didn't want any time, right? No. You're going to plead guilty to that case, right? Yeah. You're going to get six years, is that right? Yes. You're not going to do any extra time for it, is that right? A. Q- A. Q. No. Are you? No. So you in fact you're getting zero for that, right? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. That's counsel's misstatement of the law. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. When they made this offer to you did they tell you that receiving the that pleading guilty on 78 L16 JR-L 01638 the third and fourth armed robbery case was as if they: dropped it? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Did they tell you that? MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Now, sir, you were put in the witness quarters, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in fact when you were there you were provided with NeWport Lights, is that right? A. Yes. Q. I can't hear you. A. Yes. Q. They took you shopping in Cicero, correct? A. They never took me out shopping. Q. Did they ever buy you anpthing? A. They bought me a Walkman radio. Q. They bought you a Nike suit? A. Yes. Q. They bought you a sweat suit? A. Yes. Q. A Bulls suit. A. No, my family brung that. 79 )qg JR-L 01639 quarters, A. They served you restaurant food in the witness is that right? You get a home?cooked meal. You get a home?cooked meal there, right? Yes. It's not like the Cook County jail food, right? No, you still eat the Cook County food; three meals a day from Cook County, you still eat it. I was eating Cook County food. Q. And right now the State?s Attorney's Office is the one that's watching you, is that right? A. Q. right? A. Q. Yes. These are the people you're testifying for, is that Yes, sir. And they let you see your friends in the jail, is that rightquarters? Yes. You get to see your girlfriend? Yes. Your boyfriend? N0 boyfriends. Are you allowed to have sex in the witness 80 [Ll/l JR-L 01640 Hell no. I wish. Q. Now on February 5th you said you had this conversation with Mr. Montanez. At first you saw Pacheco and Serrano sitting in the car, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And Pacheco and Serrano got out of the car? A. Yes. Q. Now what you had heard was that they were talking about some kind of robbery that had gone bad, is that right? A. Yeah. Q. You really didn't know what they were talking about at that time, did you? A. No, I didn't know who they shot. I knew that they had shot somebody. Q. You had heard them talking about a robbery that had gone bad, is that right? A. Yeah. Q. And you didn't know what they were talking about, is that right? A. I knew they were talking about a robbery that had gone bad. I was there. I was present in the conversation. Q. And when you heard them speaking about that you asked Montanez something, is that right? A. Yeah. 81 JR-L 01641 You had asked him what he was talking about, right? A. Yeah. Q. You didn't ask Serrano what he was talking about, did you? A. Serrano was mouthing. He was mouthing. Q. You didn't ask Serrano what he was talking about, did you? A. Well, no, I didn't. Q. You didn't ask Pacheco what he was talking about, did you? A. No. Q. You asked Montanez, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And Montanez said they would never have done what they did if Mando never fucked up? That's what he said, right? A. Yes. Q. He used the word they, right? A. Yeah, they would have never did what they done if Mando would have never fucked up. Q. And those were his exact words? A. Yeah. Q. Now because Mando fucked up they did something, is that right? 82 0? JR-L 01642 'Cause they did it together. Q. Is that right? A. Yes, because they-did it together. MR. COGHLAN: Objection, Judge. I'd ask that the witness be allowed to answer the question. THE COURT: Your objection is sustained. Let the witness answer the question. You're asking the witness to characterize the statement of the other person. MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm.asking him to repeat what was said. THE COURT: You asked something other than that. You asked him to characterize the statement of the defendant number three, Mr. -- MR. VAZQUEZ: Montanez. THE COURT: Mr. Montanez. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Montanez made this statement that they would never have done what they did if Mando never fucked up, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Serrano didn't say that, did he? A. No. Q. Pacheco didn't say that, did he? A. No. Q. And Jordan was there laughing, is that right? A. Yes. 83 {50 JR-L 01643 And Armando was sitting there, is that right? A. Yeah, he was there. Q. You then questioned Montanez further about this, is that right? A. Yes. Q. You did not ask Jordan what are you laughing at, did you? A. No. Q. You didn't ask Serrano why he was sitting there, did you? A. I don't recall if he was sitting there. Q. You didn't ask him why he was standing there, did you? A. No. MR. COGHLAN: Objection, ask him what? THE COURT: Objection is overruled. He didn't ask him why are you sitting there? Go ahead. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. When you asked Montanez what he was talking about he answered you the second time, is that right? A. What was the question again? Q. You said that you asked Montanez a second time what he was talking about, is that right? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall what he said? 34 \6 01644 know he did say that the robbery would have never gone bad if they Mando would have never fucked up. Q. And that's all you remember, is that right? A. I remember the whole conversation. Q. Well, he was the one who spoke to you, is that right, not Pacheco? A. Everybody else was talking, laughing. Q. They weren't talking to you, were they? A. We were talking among us four. Q. I'll show you what has been marked Defendant's Exhibit No. 2 for Identification, your written statement. Can you read your statement and show the judge where it says you were talking amongst us four? A. You can't see most of this writing, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're having difficulty reading it? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. VAZQUEZ: Your Honor, we ask that the original be produced because otherwise it deprives us of effective cross examination of the witness. THE COURT: Well, can you stipulate to the contents of it? It will obviate the need for going in to that. MR. COGHLAN: Judge, I'll stipulate that it does not say in there that we were all talking amongst us four, in so many words, in these exact words. 85 'THE COURT: Okay. You accept that stipulation?l MR. VAZQUEZ: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Now Mr. Montanez never told you where this occurrednever told you who it occurred to, did be? A. He said a Mexican. Q. That's a Mexican neighborhood, isn't it? A. Latino neighborhood. Q. It's a Latino neighborhood? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Mexicans are Latinos, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. He didn't tell you what the person actually was doing at the time he was shot, did he?_ A. Well, he did say that the person was going into his van. Q. Pardon? A. He did say the Mexican was going into his van with a radio in his hand and then Mando went at him the wrong way. Q. I'd like to show you your statement, six page statement. Would you kindly examine it and show Us where in the statement it says that the person was going to their van? 86 1/ 01646 9/ original MR. say that with the MR. A. THE THE THE again. THE time. please. THE MR. You got a better statement than this? copy? VAZQUEZ: Montanez radio? VAZQUEZ: The Will counsel stipulate that it doesn't said that the victim was going to his van Q. You want to read your statement? Have you got a better copy than this? COURT: WITNESS: COURT: VAZQUEZ: COURT: COGHLAN: COURT: COGHLAN: Are you unable to read that statement? Yeah, here, look at it. Just answer my question. We ask that the original he produced If you can stipulate it will save us some I'm reading it, Judge. Just one moment Okay. I'll stipulate, Judge, that in the handwritten statement it does not specifically say that the victim was going to his van. THE MR. COURT: VAZQUEZ: Okay. Accept that stipulation? Well, with minus the word specifically. It doesn't say anything about going to the van in the statement at all. 87 01647 THE COURT: stipulated. MR. VAZQUEZ: Okay, it does not say that, so Q. Now'when you were speaking to Montanez you were looking at Montanez, is that rightYes. You were paying attention to him? Yes. Listening to what he was saying? Yes. And how long did this conversation take place? About 45 minutes, an hour, while we were out there. And you said that you had done some heroin not about seven hours before and you were just coming down, is that right? A. Q. A. Q. AI MR. COGHLAN: Yeah. What kind of heroin did you use? White dope. Where did you get it from? The dope THE COURT: MR. VAZQUEZ: Objection. Objection sustained. Q. When you say you were coming down can you describe for the judge what the effects are of coming down from your China white? 88 01648 Well, I Was coming off of it, the high, you know, I was coming down off the high. I wasn't feeling high anymore, you know. Q. that what A. Q. But you knew you were coming down off the high, is you're saying? I was. You said that Mr. Montanez was playing with a bag of dope, is that rightthey were Q. A. Yeah. Did any of you guys do any of that dope? Well, not me. I had my own dope. What kind of dope did you have? I had China white. Was Serrano doing some of that dope? Yeah. He was getting high on heroin then? Yeah. - And Paoheoo was getting on heroin then? Yeah. They were high already. And they were doing they were high already and doing more in front of you, is that right? Pistol Pete was doing some. Pardon? Pistol Pete was doing some. 89 1 01649 And Serrano and Pacheco? Well, not in front of me. Not on my back porch, they weren't. Qt said they A. How about when you saw them get out of the car, you were high? Yeah, they were high. They were high and how could you tell they were Because a person the effect of dope makes you drowsy, makes you sleepy like. Q. A. those are Q. A. Q. A. Q. all these A. Qi- And they looked drowsy? Yeah, they did. And they looked sleepy? Scratchy, you know, the effects of China white the etfects. They looked drowsy, is that what you're saying? Yeah, they looked sleepy like. They looked sleepy? Yeah, they were high. And this is how they were while Montanez was saying things, correct? Yeah. You did not know what Mr. Serrano was thinking at that time, did you? 90 5 R- 01650 13$ You don't know what he was looking at while you were talking to Mr. Montanez, do you? A. No. Q. You did not know whether he was daydreaming or listening to something else, do you? A. No. Q. Is that right? A. No. Q. Can't hear-you. Is that right? A. That?s right, I don't know. Q. And Mr. Montanez never went specifically up to Mr. Serrano and said you shot himnever went up to Mr. Pacheco and said you shot a man, did he? A. No. Q. All this other stuff about we had seen a guy in a gas station and he had a lot of money and so we followed him home that's what he told you on February 7th, correct? A. Nor he told me that the same morning. Q. When you were talking to him, is that right? A. No, when I was talking to -- Q. Montanez? 91 01651 1 . Montanez and the whole crowd, all three. Q. But Montanez is the one who told you that, correct? A. Yes. They were all bragging about it. It was discussing it in front of me. MR. VAZQUEZ: Objection, no question pending. Ask the witness be instructed to THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Now on September 21st, 1994, you met with Matt Coghlan, is that right? A. Yeah, I think it was Matt Coghlan. Q. That's this person right here, right? A. Yes. Q. And you met with him at that time, is that right? A. Yeah. Q. And when you Spoke to him where did you Speak to him? In his office? A. Yes. Q. And you were brought over from the witness quarters, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you spoke to him about this case, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you spoke to him about the conversation that you had with Mr. Montanez, correct? 92 r1 01652 Yes. Q. About the one you had on February 5th,r 1993r correct? A. Yes. Q. And then you also spoke to him about the interview you had with Detectives Guevara and Halversonr is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that's the interview that occurred on June 2nd, 1993, the first one, correct? A. Yes. Q. And in this interview you had with the detectives that was where they were asking you about what Mr. Montanez said, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you and Matt Coghlan went over the reports that the detectives made of this interview, correct? A. Yes. Q. And at that time when you went over the reports that's when you were speaking to him in preparation for testifying here today, correct? A. Yes. Q. And there just happened to be a State's Attorney investigator present, is that right? A. I think. I don't recall. 93 01653 And you can read, right? A. Yeah. Q. And when you Went-over the reports did Matt Coghlan read them to you or did you read them yourself? A. I read it myself. Q. And after you read the reports you told Matt Coghlan that the reports were basically correct, is that right? A. Yeah. Q. And you said that the report was basically correct because there were some things that were not in the report that you noticed, is that right? A. No. Q. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you discussed those missing pieces of information with Matt Coghlan, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And then you went on to add or tell him this new information, correct? A. Yes. Q. And one of the things that you told him was that Armando Serrano said you should have ganked the victim, is that right? 94 I 01654 Yes. Q. And you told Matt Coghlan ganked meant choke or choke hold, is that right? A. Yes. Q. But when you testified here earlier you told the judge that ganked meant robbery? A. Yeah, when you put somebody in a choke hold and you rob them. Q. That's how you do it, is that right? A. No, that's what gank is. That's what they call ganking. MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: The witness has explained the answer. He answered what ganking is. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. And the information that you went on to tell Mr. Coghlan were things that you noticed were not in the report, is that right? - A. Yes. MR. COGHLAN: Objection. THE COURT: What's your objection? MR. COGHLAN: Why doesn't he just ask him it's improper impeachment. MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm not attempting to impeach. MR. COGHLAN: It's not inconsistent with anything he 95 01655 I said today. MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm getting there, Your Honor. I don't have to do it his way. THE COURT: Read the question back. MR. VAZQUEZ: Could we read the question before it though, Judge? THE COURT: No, wait a minute. I get to ask the reporter which questions I want to hear. MR. VAZQUEZ: Well, I'm asking Your Honor if we can hear the question before. THE COURT: Read the last question. (Record read.) THE COURT: That's proper. That's a proper question. MR. VAZQUEZ: Q. Is that right, sir? A. Yes. Q. And what was not in the report that you now told Mr. Coghlan was that Armando responded to Pete saying you should have ganked the victim yourself so that I could have gone through his pockets? A. Yeah, him and Jordan. Q. That's what you told that's what you wished to add and told Mr. Coghlan, right? A. Yes. 96 (om?L 01656 course you never told the detectives that, is that right? A. No. Q. Is that right? A. No. Q. I can't hear you. a. That 5 right . Q. And then after speaking with Mr. Coghlan the second thing that you noticed that was not in this basically correct report was that Jordan Pacheco said yeah, you're bigger than us, you should have ganked him from behind. That was the second statement you wished to add or tell Mr. Coghlan, correct? A. Correct. Q. And of course you never told the detectives that, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the third thing that you wished to add three weeks before trial was that they were calling each other bitches, is that right? A. Yeah. Q. And of course you never told the detectives that, correct? A. Correct. 97 01657 And the fourth thing that you noticed that wasn't in the detectives' report of this June 2nd conversation was that Armando said well, we can always do another one, is that right? Q. Correct. And of course you did not tell the detectives that on June 2nd, 1993, correctdon't recall. Is that correct? I don't recall telling them that. You don't recall telling them that, right? No. Now when you Were interviewed by Detectives Guevara and Halverson on June 2nd they did give you an opportunity to tell them what you knew, right? A. Q. did they? A. Q. they? Q. A. Right. They didn't put a time limit on your conversation, Nope. And they never said hurry up, we got to go, did Nope. They let you talk and you did, is that right? Yes. 98 A R-L 01658 Cw And that interview that you had with the detectives took place four months after the February 5th conversation, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the interview that you had with Matt Coghlan where you remembered these four other statements, that took place about 20 months after the conversation you had with Montanez, correct? A. Yeah, correct. Q. Did you also discuss with him how this information was also missing from your grand jury testimony? A. Yes. Q. And in that discussion you had gone through your grand jury testimony, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you can read, right? A. Yes. Q. And so you read through that, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you noticed that that information was not in your grand jury testimony, correct? A. Correct. Q. So there was nothing in your grand jury testimony about Mando saying you should have ganked him, correct? 99 ?F?i?L?m 659 [my