Piease raise your right hand. (Witness sworn.) THE COURT: PTease keep you are voice up a TittTe Touder so everyone can hear you the first time you respond. You may proceed. WILLIAM DORSCH, caTTed as a witness on behaif of the Petitioner, after having been first duTy sworn, was examined and testified as foTTows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SIELING: PTease state your name. A WiTTiam Dorsch, D-o-r-s-c-h. 0 Mr. Dorsch, were you previousiy empioyed by the Chicago POTice Department? A Yes. How Tong were you empioyed there? A I began my career with them on June 15, 1970 and I retired on August 14, 1994. And what units were you assigned to? A Beginning my career in patroT for eight months at the 20th District, uniform patroT for about eight months, and then I was tacticai unit civiTian dressed in 71 the 20th District, 19th District, 13th District and then I worked gang crimes west, returned to the 20th District tacticai unit and made detective in about 1985 or '86. And in what unit or area were you detective in? A Area 5. And for how iong was that? A My entire time as a detective from my promotion untii I retired in '94. And why did you ieave the Chicago Poiice Department? A Oh, I had reached 50, the minimum retirement age. 0 And during your tenure at the Chicago Poiice Department, approximateiy how many homicides did you work on? A Approximateiy 400 counting not oniy detective but gang crimes and tacticai units and so forth and so on. 0 After you ieft the Chicago Poiice Department, did you work? A Yes. What did you do? A Weii, I retired to northern Wisconsin where I was contacted by the Iocai sheriff's department asking me 72 wanted to work with them as a part-time officer. I said I wouid do that. They said I needed to be certified, so they sent me to the University of Wisconsin schooi where I had to take 40 hours onIy of a 400-hour course and I became certified, again, in jaiI procedures and patro]. When I got done with the cIass, they offered me a job teaching the very same ciasses. Other than your work with the 1aw enforcement in Wisconsin, had you had any other experience, work experience? A Wei], I've been a private investigator -- I did two years of teaching, as I said, after I got certified where I was training recruits teaching of the basic required courses, and then I went into private investigative work in the State of Wisconsin first and then I returned to Chicago in 2003, 2004. Are you a Iicensed private investigator? A Yes, I am. 0 Whiie you worked in Area 5, were you famiIiar with a poiice officer named ReynaIdo Guebara? A Yes. 0 Were you and Officer Guebara ever partners? A I don't think so. I knew him first from encounters on the street. He might have been he might 73 have been in the same gangs west unit when I was there, but I'm not sure. I knew he worked in 14, he worked in gangs west, and then I became more famiIiar with him when I was a detective and he wouid come into the Area. 0 Did you ever work on cases or were you ever assigned to the same cases as Officer Guebara? A Yes. Did one of those cases invoive Officer Guebara bringing in two new witnesses to a homicide -- MS. STACK: I'm going to object to ieading. MS. SIELING: Your Honor, we a11 know what he's going to be testifying to, it's just to bring it to his attention. THE COURT: In any event, don't iead the witness toward an answer. MS. SIELING: I'ii rephrase. BY MS. SIELING: I want to draw your attention to an incident you spoke with counseI for and Reyes iast month. Do you know the incident I'm referring to? A Yes. 0 Now, did that incident invoive a case? A Yes. Do you remember the exact year that this case 74 occurred? A I tried to recaII that with some difficuIty, but I remembered that it occurred about three months before Guebara was meritoriousiy promoted to detective, so about three months before his promotion to detective. And how did you get invoIved in the case? A I was assigned to Area 5 to homicide and poIice?reiated shootings. On this particuIar evening, I saw Guebara and another gangs officer come in and they had three peopTe with them, and the three peopIe remained in the waiting area whiTe they went into the office and taiked to the supervisors. And was there a reason that you needed to be invoTved in the case? A not untiT the supervisor came out and toId me that me and my partner were to assist Detective Guebara, that he found witnesses to an oner homicide that was months 01d and these peopIe had we were toid that they had observed the homicide when it occurred. MS. STACK: Objection, doubTe hearsay. THE COURT: OverrUTed. THE WITNESS: They had observed the homicide, written the Iicense pIate number down of the offender's car, but they never taiked to any poTice officers that 75 night or any other time untiI now when they encountered Guebara and they taiked to him about it and they brought them in. BY MS. SIELING: 0 For a ciarification, was Officer Guebara a detective at that time? A No, he was working in gangs. And what information did you know about the homicide? A because it was a homicide, soived or unsoived, I usuaIIy became famiIiar with everyone or as many of them as I couId. I recaII the event in particuIar that occurred in the Humboidt Park area. It invoived two cars. The victim was driving his car with a young girI, who was a reiative, a cousin, who was seated beside him. A car puIIed up in the opposite direction and stopped and opened fire striking onIy the driver. 0 Now, you mentioned that Officer Guebara brought in three peopIe. Can you describe those persons? A Wei], three peopIe came in with the gangs officers. Two of them turned out to be young witnesses that we interviewed and taiked to, the third person mereiy stayed out in the waiting area. We never had occasion to ta1k to him or a reason to taik to him. 76 What happened after those witnesses came in? A W911, we were advised by the sergeant to assist them, and what we Iearned was they had a 1icense pIate number that was given to Guebara and his partner by the two young boys who said they saw the homicide. So we ran the Iicense pIate, got the identity, the owner of the car. The next step was to run an IR check on them. We found out that the person did have a gun arrest which wou1d mean I wouId have a foider on fi1e, so we kept the two witnesses with us at the station. Guebara Ieft with the other person per our request to get not oniy the photo but a copy of the uuw arrest. 0 And did Officer Guebara acquire a photograph? A Yes, he did. He brought it back to us. 0 What happened after you acquired the photograph? A We waited for him to return, the purpose being we wanted to see if we couid get an identification. So we put that photo with six to eight other photos of simiIar age and appearance, and we took the two boys back to a Iarger room in the back of the Area 5 on the second f100r. I separated the two boys. I put the pictures 77 down at one end of the tabIe so onIy the one that I was caIIing up couId see him, and I asked the one boy to come up. I toId him what I usuaIIy teII peopIe is that you're here to 100k at photos. I don't know if the person that you witnessed do these things is in the photos. I want you to be carefuI, take a good Inck at them and onIy if you see the person that did the crime point him out. Do not point out anybody because that's what you think I want you to do, I want you to be sure it's the right person, not the wrong person. So with Guebara standing there with the first kid, the second kid further back in the room unabIe to see the photo spread, I spread the pictures out on the tabIe. The young man was Iooking at the photos and Iooking and Iooking, and I?m not uncomfortabIe with how Iong it takes because sometimes it takes MS. STACK: I'm going to object to the narrative here, Judge. He's ta1king about what his normaI THE COURT: 0verru1ed. THE WITNESS: Sometimes witnesses are very quick to identify, but other peopIe need more time and I?ve Iearned to give them more time. I might ask them if they're having difficuIty, does somebody 100k 1ike the person. 78 THE COURT: Do you recaII if you if you did that in this particuiar case? THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say that to him in this case. THE COURT: Ask another question. THE WITNESS: I merely toId him to Took at the photos after giving the instructions. He took a considerabie amount of time, but I was not uncomfortabIe with that, and then suddenTy Detective Guebara just reached out and put his finger right on the photo and said, "That's him," and the kid said, "Yeah, that's him. I was just about to say that was him. He Iooks a TittTe different." I said to Guebara it was unexpected, totaIIy unexpected. I've never seen that before in my career. It was something I didn't want} I wanted the witness to identify the photo and not with the heIp of someone eISe. I immediateiy ordered Guebara and this kid out of the room. Then I took the photos, I mixed them up again and giving the same instructions to the second kid, he came up and he Tooked at the photos for as much time as he coqu and he did not identify anybody. What happened after the two witnesses viewed the photo array? 79 I've got a probiem here. I want to get an identification that's positive from the witness. MS. STACK: Your Honor, it's nonresponsive. He was asked what did he do next, and he begins this narrative about his whoie thought process, in generai. THE COURT: Sustained. Ask another question. BY MS. SIELING: What did you specificaiiy do after finishing the photo Iineup? A I went to the first person away from Guebara and asked him is this the person that is the offender because he had he1p in identifying him. He was adamant, he kept saying, yeah, it's him. I know it?s him. He Iooks a Iittie bit different, it was a whiIe ago. So I had to take that for what it was knowing that the second kid couidn't identify him, but I knew I had to now caii fe10ny review. 0 Did you ca11 feiony review? A Yes. What happened? A Wei], whoever it was responded to Area 5 and they wouid have been aiiowed to interview both witnesses, and they wouid have been appraised of the fact that one person did identify and one person didn't identify. 80 And what happened after feiony review interviewed the witnesses? A Wei}, there was -- we were not done with the process. Now that we have an identification of photos, I knew that we might be abie to resoive -- MS. STACK: Objection, Judge, same objection. What happened next? THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. SIELING: 0 After feiony review spoke with the witnesses, what did you do? A We met with both witnesses, Guebara and his partner, and asked that they take the witnesses home as we were going to try to iocate the person that was identified and try to have a 1ineup as soon as possibie. We were hoping for the next day and that's what we did. 0 So the next day did you go to the suspect's home? Yes. And was the suspect there? Yes, he was. What happened when you arrived? We knocked on the door, identified ourseives, he invited us into the room. We told him we wanted to 81 taTk to him about an incident that occurred, we asked him some things about himseif. MS. STACK: Objection to I'm not sure of the foundation. Who is he with when this happens? THE COURT: A11 right. Go ahead, expand on foundation as to who eTse was present. THE WITNESS: It woqu have been -- my partner, I beTieve, was Johnston. We went there together. We identified ourseTves Tike I said, and he ton us that he was a coTTege student that worked -- went to DePaui and worked at WaTgreens, and we ton him we needed to bring him in as he had been identified in an incident. BY MS. SIELING: Did the suspect accompany you back to the station? A Yes, he did. 0 And what happened when you arrived back at the station? A Then we woqu have -- then we contacted gangs and asked Guebara to pick up the two witnesses. And what happened when the two -- did the two witnesses come back to the station? A Yes. And what happened when they came back? 82 Weii, we needed to now do a physicai 1ineup, even though one had not identified the photos, I wanted him to 100k at the physicai 1ineup not knowing if he couid identify him from the physicai 1ineup. And what happened with the physicai 1ineup? A We did two 1ineups separate, none of them inciuded Guebara. We brought the first person in who identified the photo and he did pick the person out of the 1ineup as the same as the photo; and the second person who didn't identify the photo couid not pick anybody out of the 1ineup. After the physicai 1ineup, what happened next? A I had to recontact feiony review and ask that they come in and advise them that we had a 1ineup. And just to clarify, was anyone with the two witnesses when they came back to the station? A Yes. Who? A The same third person that was with them the first day. And once you caiied felony review, what happened? A Weii, they responded to our request. 0 And did feiony review approve the charges? 83 Yes. The foIIowing day did you do anything further on the case? A The foIIowing day I had my partner, I ton him we're going to go back out and pick up the witnesses, and we went and picked up both witnesses. We taIked to both of them about the fact that I was not comfortabIe with the way that first identification went down and wanted to know if they were comfortabTe with putting perhaps an innocent person in jaiI. I just didn't feeT something was wrong, and they both ton us that they didn't want to put an innocent person in jaiI, but they had been paid by the third person to identify this kid and that they were paid money to do it. And that third person that paid them, was that the same person that accompanied them to the station? A Yes. MS. STACK: I didn't hear that. THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. STACK. The same person that what? THE COURT: Accompanied them to the station. MS. STACK: Thank you. BY MS. STACK: After you picked up the witnesses, what did you 84 430.7%.) with them? A Took them immediateiy to Branch 66 right here in this buiiding. Can you expiain what Branch 66 is? A It?s on the 4th fioor. It's right across from the Grand Jury. It's a piece where you bring witnesses to serious offenses where they have a first-time interview before the case wouid be taken down to the main court for assignment. And what happened what you brought the witnesses to Branch 66? A They met with we informed the state's attorney that was handiing the case in 66 that these two kids had picked out somebody the night before weii, one of them had picked out the offender as the offender, and this kid was charged and now they were recanting because they were paid. They met with the state?s attorney, toid him the same thing, that they had been paid money and this was not the offender, so we asked that this kid be reieased. As far as you know, were the charges dropped? A Yes. 0 I'd 1ike to discuss for a moment your 85 reTationship with the BToom LegaT CTinic. As a private investigator, have you done work for the BToom LegaT Ciinic? A Since about 2011 I've been invoTved there, yes. MS. STACK: I'm sorry, done work with what? THE COURT: The BToom LegaT CTinic. MS. STACK: Judge, I asked for this information and was vehementTy objected to. withdraw the objection right now, but MS. DANIEL: She's not going to go into it. We don?t need to go into it. THE COURT: The objection is withdrawn. Proceed. MS. STACK: Premature. BY MS. SIELING: Are you currentTy an investigator on the on this case, the SoTache and Reyes case? A I've never been invoTved in this case. I know nothing about it. MS. SIELING: No further questions. MR. VAIL: A very brief examination, your Honor. THE COURT: A11 right. MR. VAIL: First I'd Tike to, for the record, your Honor, adopt on behaif of Mr. Reyes and present on his 86 lIlI?a llil I IBIISI DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. VAIL: Detective Dorsch, my name is Andrew VaiT. I represent Petitioner Reyes. Detective Dorsch, coqu you teTT us why are you testifying in this proceeding? MS. STACK: Objection, reievance. MR. SAUNDERS: It goes to credibiTity, your Honor. MS. STACK: withdraw the objection. THE COURT: Objection is withdrawn. THE WITNESS: It was an unusuaT event. It's been on my mind so much so that it's even been I've even written about it on my Web page. BY MR. VAIL: I have one other question for you, Detective Dorsoh. Was there any Chicago PoTice Department ruTe or poTicy that woqu have prevented Detective Guebara by recording either by audio or video his interrogation of my cTient, Mr. Reyes? A I'm not invoTved in that at 311. MS. STACK: Objection. This is beyond the scope. MR. VAIL: Thank you. 87 1 beha1f the testimony nnunTl gm; THE COURT: Cross? MS. STACK: Thank you, Judge. BY MS. STACK: You weren't here to hear yourseif described, but how many years were you actuaiiy a detective with Chicago? A A Eight or nine, I beiieve. Not 24 years, correct? Right. And when you turned 50, you retired, is that what you testified to? A A A 80 Yes. And you went to Wisconsin? Yes. And your purpose was to retire? Sometimes your dreams become your nightmare, So you've been working for how many years since you've been retired from A I've been working as a private investigator since 1996. And that career started in Wisconsin? A Yes. 88 And when did you move back to The end of 2003. What brought you back to our great state? I guess I missed the type of work I aiways d?d. I had sons on the poIice department here and famiiy here. So you came back for famiiy or you came back for work or A Both. 0 A combination. Okay. Now, your website taIks quite a bit about your work for defense attorneys, correct? A Yes. And you've worked for the Innocence Project, your website says? A I first worked with the Innocence Project for the University of Wisconsin Law Schooi. And when was that? A Oh, 2000. I brought them a case that I fe1t that the person was innocent. Yeah, your website makes quite a few comments that you're the one that brings these cases to the attention of Innocence Projects and groups Iike the BIoom Legai CIinic. 89 MS. DANIEL: Objection. BIoom LegaI CIinic is not mentioned on Mr. Dorsch?s website. THE COURT: What?s the question again? MS. STACK: The question is withdraw it and rephrase it. THE COURT: Very weTI. (WHEREUPON, a certain document was marked Respondent's Group Exhibit No. 1, for identification, as of 2f13f2013.) BY MS. STACK: I'm going to show you what mark as Respondent's No. 1. It is a copy of your resume that's attached to your website. There are four stapIed pages and one Ioose page. caTI it Respondent's Group No. 1, I guess. MS. DANIEL: I haven't seen this exhibit. Maybe I have, but maybe if I coqu just see it -- MS. STACK: I'm marking it for you, Ms. DanieT. have it in a second. May I approach? CounseI, I have copies for you, too. Before we started, they asked if we were using anything other than the materiaTs on his website and I said no. 90 MR. VAIL: Your Honor, I wiTT object to the reTevancy of this Tine of questioning. THE COURT: What is your next question? BY MS. STACK: Have you had a chance to review that? A Yes. You have yourseTf Tisted as an expert witness, is that correct? A I've been used as an expert witness and quaiified as such in court, yes. What have you been quaTified as an expert in? A In homicide. In homicide? A Homicide investigation. Who offered you as an expert in homicide investigation? THE COURT: Who offered him or who MS. STACK: Who offered him. THE WITNESS: The case of Evan Zimmerman in northern Wisconsin -- BY MS. STACK: Who offered you as the expert? A I don't remember now. Was it the Defense or the State? 91 The State -- no, it wouid have been the Defense. We were appeaiing the case. 0 Right. You testified for the defense as an expert? A Yes. Yes. And was your roie there to criticize the job that the originaT officer had done in the caseright by procedure and other evidence. 0 I'm sorry, to do what by -- to get it right? A To correct some errors. As a matter of fact, the case was thrown out. So when you testified as an expert, you were caIIed by the defense to criticize the job that was done by the originai poTice, correct? A Yes, but I need in that case, your Honor, I didn't testify, they threw it out before they got to it. MS. STACK: Judge, I have another objection to the nonresponsive answers. THE COURT: A11 right. Mr. Dorsch, piease oniy respond to the question that has been put to you by the attorney. THE WITNESS: Yes. I understand. THE COURT: Strike the Tast portion of his answer. 92 45-03MS. STACK: How many years did you work in Area 5? Eight or nine years. And that was between '84 and '96? ?94 I Ieft. Before you Teft the State, correct? Yes. Now, this incident that you just described in great detaiI for the judge, when did that occur, what year? A To the best of my memory, it's about three months or Tess before Detective Guebara was promotedstruggTe with what year he got promoted. You don?t know what year? A Now I think I?m better 0 Can you name a year? THE COURT: Let him try to one person at a time. MS. STACK: A11 right, Judge. THE COURT: For the benefit of everyone here, most importantTy the benefit of the court reporter. A11 right. Ask a question. BY MS. STACK: Can you name the year that it occurred? 93 think it was '88 or '89. So you don't know whether it was 1988 or 1989? I've tried through FOIA requests and other means to get this case better identified with no cooperation from the Chicago Poiice Department. 0 A A away. Is that -- I'm asking what you remember. Okay. I remember it was about '88 or '89. '88 or '89? Yeah. And you were just throw that haif question When was the first time that you told the attorneys representing Soiache and Reyes here that you had evidence against Ray Guebara? A A 0 They caiied me and asked for a meeting. They ca11ed and asked for you? Yeah. Expiain what happened to the Court there. How did you get invoived in this case? A I was asked to meet with them. When was this? At their offices. Maybe a month ago. And that was the first time you had taiked to 94 them about Ray Guebara suggesting -- A Yes. 0 Okay. And that was about a month ago in January, right? A About that time. And they to your knowTedge, did they memoriaTize that interview in a two~page memo? A I have no idea what they did. 0 They didn't show you the memo that -- any Idocuments they wrote? MR. SAUNDERS: Objection, your Honor. This mischaracterizes the document that I beTieve Ms. Stack has in her hand. MS. STACK: Tay a foundation for that. THE COURT: The objection is overruTed. MS. STACK: I thought he woqu know about it. BY MS. STACK: I?m going to show you what mark as Respondent?s No. 2. It is a two-page document entitTed Interview of WiTTiam Dorsch, dated January 11, 2013. (WHEREUPON, a certain document was marked Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, for identification, as of 2/13/2013.) MS. STACK: CounseT, I'm sorry, I onTy have one copy 95 this. MS. DANIEL: I object to the showing of a witness a report that he didn't write and had no knowiedge of. MS. STACK: That's what I'm trying to ascertain. THE COURT: What is the purpose of showing it to him? MS. STACK: It's a memo that was drafted concerning an interview with him. Judge, I objected to his name appearing Tast month with no expianation. THE COURT: My question is when you show an exhibit to a witness, it's usuaTTy done with a purpose. And so if you show him the exhibit, what is the purpose? Are you going to impeach him with something that was said? MS. STACK: What I was trying to do was I asked him if he was aware that this existed. THE COURT: And he said no. MS. STACK: He gave a number of answers, and I was just going to show him and ask had he ever seen this before. It's reaTTy a Tot of much ado about nothing, but there are impeaching facts in here, and if he -- THE COURT: You can use the statement as an impeaching document, if you choose to, based on what he may or what woqu be attributed to him as he gave the 96 statement to the attorneys. MS. STACK: I'm not sure who have to caTI to prove it up, Judge. May I approach the witness and see if he's famiTiar with this? THE COURT: Go ahead. BY MS. STACK: Have you ever seen this two-page document that is a memorandum of your meetings with the attorneys? A No. Can you Took at the date? Is that the date -- A I woqun't recaII the date. 0 It's Tast month, January 11th? A I have a pretty busy caTendar. I don't recaIT the date. 0 Did you meet with attorneys for Petitioners more than once in the month of January 2013? A No. So you met with them onTy one occasion? A One occasion onTy. And if this is dated January 11th, that describes a meeting that woqu probany be the occasion? MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Specuiation. Sustained. 97 MS. STACK: What month did this occur where you observed -- THE COURT: About a month ago. MS. STACK: Judge, I'm sorry. BY MS. STACK: Drawing your attention back to the misconduct that you aTTegedIy saw Ray Guebara observe, what month did that occur? A I?m not sure. Do you remember what the weather was Tike, what season it was? A I remember that I was at the shooting scene, it was not winter definiteTy, it was more 1ike spring or summer. And do you remember the address of the shooting scene? THE COURT: Aren't you asking him about the month when the incident that he's testifying to about Guebara took piace. MS. STACK: Right. THE COURT: I don't know if that's the same as the shooting or not. THE WITNESS: Yeah. BY MS. STACK: 98 A11 right. You don't know what month the shooting occurred, correct? MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained as to the overru1ed. You may answer. THE WITNESS: The shooting was more 1ike summer. BY MS. STACK: What was the name of the murder victim? A I don't reca11. What was the name of the person in the car with the murder victim? A A11 I reoa11 is it was a 13-year-o1d re1ative, and she went back to Puerto Rico the very next day. What was her name? A I don't reca11. It wou1d have been in the reports. How 01d was the murder victim? A I don't reca11 anymore. Was it a ma1e or a fema1e? A Ma1e. Were you assigned the murder case? Was that your murder case? A No. When were you first assigned it? 99 Technicaiiy assigned it? It was the date that Guebara waiked in with the witnesses. And you got invoived with this because your supervisor asked you to f0110w~up on the peopie that Guebara had brought into the station, right? A Correct. 0 What was the name of the first witness that was brought in? A I don't recaii. How 01d was it a maie or femaie? Both were about 15. A Maie or femaie? A Maie. What was the name of the second one? A I don't reca11. What was the name of the man that brought them into the station? A Guebara. Didn't you say that the two boys were brought in A They a11 came together. THE INTERPRETER: I'm having a difficuit time iistening to the witness and the interjecting -- not aiiowing the witness to answer. 100 THE COURT: PTease give a pause before you begin your next question. MS. STACK: I apoiogize. BY MS. STACK: What date did these witnesses come into the station? A I don't recaii. What year was it? MS. DANIEL: Asked and answered, Judge. MR. VAIL: Join. MS. STACK: As the judge pointed out, there's two separate instances, the actuaT murder and date the witnesses came into the station. THE COURT: This is cross-examination. The objection is overruied. BY MS. STACK: 0 Was it stiTT summer? A Yeah, Tate summer, earTy faTT. What kind of car was invoTved in the murder? A The onTy description that came was from the 13-year-01d passenger and she described the Targe white car as the offender's vehicie. What was the name of the suspect in the photo array? 101 don't recaTT. How many photographs were in the photo array? A Because there was one person that was that we were Tooking at, there were six to eight. 0 You don't remember the exact number? A It wouid have been standard for me to do six or eight to one. I appreciate your extensive experience, but what do you remember about this particuTar case, sir? Do you remember how many photographs were used? A I know that those photographs are inventoried. Do you know how many photographs were used? A Six to eight. 0 The answer is no? MR. VAIL: Objection, mischaracterizes. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. STACK: Once these boys were brought into the station -- THE COURT: Which occasion? BY MS. STACK: 0 On the second occasion when you say Ray Guebara brought the two witnesses in, right? A And the third person, too. 102 What was the third person's name? A I never taiked to himwas about three or four years cider than the boys. 0 You never ta1k to him. Did you record his name somewhere? A He never went past the waiting room. I was never made known that he was part of the case. 0 Did his name ever appear in the case reports? A No. Yet he was the man that you uitimateiy determined had brought faise witnesses into your statement, correct into your station? A Yes. And just to be ciear, at the end of this event that you described, it was this third unknown man that waIked the two teenage boys into the station that toid them to give faise evidence, correct? A Correct. 0 And not Ray Guebara? A I didn't ask I'm asking you A I never taiked to the third person. 103 And it's your testimony that when they brought these two witnesses in, they ton you that you got the IR and eventuaTIy put together a photo array, correct? A Correct. What happened when you got the photos together to show to the boys? Can you describe that again for me? A We took the photos back to the Targer room in the rear of the station. 0 Who is MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor. If she woqu a110w the witness to finish his answer. MS. STACK: I apoTogize. THE COURT: He's answering I think that wouid be an appropriate thing to cTarify. THE WITNESS: Detective Johnston and myseTf. BY MS. STACK: EarTier when you mentioned Detective Johnston, you said he was probabTy your partner around that time. Do you have an actuaT memory of Detective Johnston being present for this event or are you supposing that it was probabTy him? A No, I beiieve it was Johnston. Detective, when you use the terminoTogy beTieve" 104 MS. STACK: So you have a memory of him? A Yes. Who eise was there? A In the back room? 0 Yes. A The two gang crimes officers, one of which was Guebara. Who was the other? A I beTieve it wouid have been Steve Gawyrs. I'm_ not sure, though. Can you spe11 that Iast name? A G-a-w-y-r-s. And about how 01d was that officer? A N911, he's retired now. He's probabiy about 60. Do you know where he Tives? A No, I don't. A A Yes. It gives the impression that you?re guessing. It was 3111 Johnston. MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: OverruTed. MS. STACK: I just wanted to cTarify. 105 And you're saying that he was present for this, correct? MR. VAIL: Objection. THE COURT: Overruied. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. STACK: 0 He was there for the photo array? A Yes. What happened next? A Where are we in the photo array? Wei], my understanding is you, Johnston, Guebara and the third -- excuse me, the fourth officer whose name I didn?t quite get THE COURT: that again. THE WITNESS: G?a-w-y-r-s. BY MS. STACK: You go into a room and is that in the Area or the district? A The second fToor area. The second fToor of Area 5? A Right. 0 And you take the two witnesses and there's four officers and you go and -- what happens next when you get into the room with the two witnesses and the 106 photo array? A Wei], you never want both witnesses to Took at the same time. I separated them. 0 Mr. Dorsch, pIease. A I separated them. You separated them? A Yes. Describe how you did that? A I teII one officer who is not going to see the photos the first show to stand towards the back of the room. So who did you teII MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Stack you're interrupting. MS. STACK: I'm sorry, Judge. I'm sorry. MR. VAIL: Objection to those comments, your Honor. BY MS. STACK: Who took the first witness with away? A He didn't take them away I mereTy asked them to move to the other end of the room. Who did that? A I did. 0 Then what happened? A Gave instructions to the other person who was 107 there with.Guebara, me and my partner, to Iook at the photos but teIIing him again that the person may not be in those photos, to be oarefui, take his time and to point out onIy a personaI he can identify, don?t point someone out because you think you have to. So you're a1] stiII in the same room together? A Yes. So the witnesses were not separated? A They're separated by meaning that he can?t see the photos. I don't want him to see the photos. Okay. You don?t remember the names of the witnesses, right? A No, I don't. 0 So Iet's caII the one that you say was suggested to by Ray Guebara, witness number one. Did witness number one see the photo array first? A The identifying person was the first person and he saw it first. 0 Okay. So you took him to the other side of the room? A After he was done? You're taiking about the first witness after he was invoIved in the photo Whoever saw the photo array first, I wouid Iike you to describe that. 108 asked him to Teave the room with Officer Guebara. I?m sorry, can you repeat that? A I toid the first person to Teave the room with Officer Guebara. And by "the first person, are you saying witness number one who was suggested to aTTegedTy? A Yes. MR. VAIL: Objection. BY MS. STACK: 0 Okay. THE COURT: Let's take a five?minute break. Take a breath, and I?m going to take one, too. Let's try to move the hearing aiong with appropriate questions, appropriate responses and appropriate objections and a TittTe Tess dripping sarcasm and hostiTity towards everybody. A five-minute recess. (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.) THE COURT: resume with the cross-examination of the witness. The record wiTT refTect that parties are present. Ms. Stack, you may continue. BY MS. STACK: Going back to the photo array which is the 109 basis for your testimony here today. Witness number one wouId be the number that Ray Guebara pointed to the photograph, okay? A Yes. And witness number two wouid the other 15-year-01d that was with him, okay? A Yes. And witness number three wouid be the gentieman that brought them to the station, just to give him a name? A "Witness" is not how I refer to him. 0 Give him any name you want so we can move it? A Companion. Companion. A11 right. So companion is outside, witness one and two are with you and three other officers and describe what happened with the photo array briefiy. A The first one. 0 Start from the beginning, the first witness who saw the first photo array. A To make sure that they view them one at a time I separated them. Number one came up with Guebara to the tabie where I spread out the photos. I gave him instructions 110 Who, you? Yes, instructions. A You gave him the instructions? A Yes. Okay. A I asked that he 100k at the photos and point out someone if he recognize him as the person and gave him time to view the photos. Okay. A And then a very awkward moment when suddenIy Detective Guebara reached out and put his finger right on the photo and said, "That's him" (indicating). And then what happened? A That's the -- number one aImost immediater said, "Yes, that's him. I was going to point him out. He just Iooks a IittIe different." Now, where was witness number two when Guebara did this? A In the room but positioned in the corner with where he couIdn't view the photos. Okay. What happened next? A I immediater asked Guebara and number one to Ieave. I asked number two to come up and I reshuferd the photos on the tabIe so they weren't in the same 111 order. Same instructions, I asked him to review the photos and I gave him time to do so. 0 I?m sorry? A I gave him time to view the photos. 0 What happened next? A He cou1d not identify anyone. Backing up a iittIe bit. When witness one and two first came into the station, did you speak to them to ascertain what they had witnessed of the crime? A Yes. And you got a narrative from them about what they saw at the crime scene, correct? A Yes, it was that they had been on the street, witnessed the shooting, wrote down the iicense pIate number and never ta1ked to the poIice. Did they describe the opportunity that they had to view the person who shot the gun at the murder victim? A They said they were -- we wanted to know where they were. They said they were in such a position they couid see the driver's side of the vehicie, which wouId have been the shooter's side. 0 A11 right. So after witness number two couId not pick anybody out of the photo array, what did you do 112 next? A I went out and taiked to number one. What happened after that? A Because he was insistent that he was about to identify the person without any heip, I caiied feiony review. 0 So you're saying because witness number one was adamant about the identification, you caiied feiony review? A Right. 0 And you started the process with feiony review to bring charges against the person who had been identified by witness number one, is that correct? A Start, yes. You started paperwork with the Chicago poiice in addition to the caii? A No, not at that time. What eise did you do to start formai charging of the person identified by witness number one? A Made preparations for the next date to try to find the person and bring him in for a 1ineup. 0 Okay. Did you bring him in for a 1ineup the next day? A Yes. 113 And witness number one identified him again, correct? A Yes. And did you piece the suspect under arrest at that time? A Yes. And after you piaced the suspect under arrest, did you caii feiony review again? A Yes. And did you ask for charges? A Yes. And it was based on witness number one and his 1ineup identification, correct? A Yes. And someone came out from feiony review? A Yes. And they taiked to witness number one? A Yes. And do you remember that feiony review ASA's name? A No. Do you remember whether it was a man or a woman? A No. 114 you remember if they were 01d or young? No. White or Biack? N0. Any detaii about the ASA at a1]? No. Did they physicaiiy come to Area 5? Yes. Did they interview witness one? Yes. Did they take a handwritten statement from witness one? A I don't recaii. Did they approve charges of murder against the suspect? A Yes. And the suspect was processed and sent to Cook County Jail? A We out the arrest report, the compiaint, and deiivered them to the district iockup. And you signed the compiaint against the suspect? A I see that my name is on it, but it's not my signature. 115 Whose signature was it? A I'm sorry, I'm thinking of another case. I'm confused. 0 That's a11 right. A I don't know whose name was on the complaint. You don?t know whose name was on the compiaint? A No. And a11 this taiking about it you don't remember the name of the person that was arrested? A 20-some years iater, oniy unusuai occurrences cause you to remember certain things. 0 So he was processed, the case was approved. What happened after that? A Mow and my partner were sitting down at our desks when suddeniy the father of the designated offender came in in tears asking to speak with us. 0 So this wouid be the father of the man that you had just gotten murder charges put against? A Yes. And by the way, when you caiied feiony review to get those murder charges approved against that suspect, it was you that caiied in the case and not Ray Guebara, correct? A It wouid have been either me or my partner. I 116 don't know which one of us caIIed. So the suspect's father came into the station crying? A Oh, yes. 0 And then what happened? A He asked if he couId speak with us. He sat down at the tabIe with us. He said his son was a hard-working kid, he never was in troubIe. What was this man's name that spoke to you? A It was his father. I don't know his name. 0 And based on the conversation with the suspect?s father, what happened after that? A I had toId the father that your son had 3 UUW arrest, and he said weII, he's not a gangbanger. He did get arrested once with a gun. I had the arrest report for the gun. I reviewed the arrest report. Probany then for the very first time it was as the young man had toId me, that he got arrested with a gun one time. He said, did a stupid thing. I was driving down an aIIey, I saw a gun Iaying there. I got out of my car, picked it up, saw that the frame was broken. I threw it in the trunk of my car, I drove a few bIOCks and I was stopped and arrested." When I reviewed the case report after the father had been with me, I did see that the gun 117 broken frame. 0 But the suspect had ton you that story before because A I brought THE COURT: PTease. PTease. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. BY MS. STACKyou before? Yes. But you didn't check it out when he ton it to you the first time? A We were busy with the other stuff. 0 And you remember the detaiTs of that UUW arrest, correct? A I remember that it was -- the poTice arrested him, found a gun in the trunk, and the gun was Tisted in the report as having a broken frame and it was inoperabTe. What was the first name of the man that this happened to? What was the name of the suspect? A Excuse me, the victim? The man that you faTseTy brought charges against? A I don't remember. 118 01-Detective, it was you that continued with this case after you saw Ray Guebara suggest to this witness who to pick in the photo array, correct? A Correct. 0 You did not contact your immediate supervisor and report Ray Guebara right then and there, did you? A I don't know. 0 You don't know? A I don't know if I did. 0 Did you contact Ray Guebara's supervisor and say he just ruined a murder case for us and toid the witness who to pick out of a photo array? A I don't know how to respond to that. It's a topic weii-known amongst other detectives. Is it amusing? A No, it's a topic that is weII?known, an incident that is weII-known by other detectives over years of conversation. Weii, then, somebody must remember the name of this case, then, huh? A It's in the Chicago Poiice Department fiies, I know that. But you were unabie to find it? A They're not as cooperative to me now as they 119 were when I was working. 0 Did the attorneys you work for have subpoena power? A I haven't discussed that with them. So right after it happened, you didn't report it to anybody? A Report the 0 Guebara's misconduct, the basis for you being here today. A I couidn't get into his mind. I didn't know what was his motivation. Was it an overanxious irrationai act? I say "irrationai" because it's against a11 protocoi to do that. you were suspect of the identification of witness number one, correct? A But I as sti11 hopefui that the next day the Iineup might make the second person identify him. 0 Let's taik about the next day. So you don't do anything day number one. Day number two you proceed with this case that is aiready tainted, and you take it to the text step. You bring this suspect in, you put him in a Iineup, and you Iet this witness who you know his identification via photo array has been tainted, you Iet him sit in the Iineup, 120 correct? MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor. It wasn?t even a question. THE COURT: Overruied. BY MS. STACK: Did you put on a Tineup with this witness? A I have to. And the witness picked out the suspect, correct? 1 A He picked out the same person that he picked out from the photo the day before. 0 And this is the point when you said, right, I?ve got to stop this. We're taking it to the supervisors. We can't Tet this case go any further," right? A No. The next step was to caTT feiony review and see what they thought about the identification. 0 And you caTTed feTony review about this bad identification? A I caHed him and ton him I was not comfortabie with the identification. 0 Did you teTT him what Ray Guebara did? A I was more interested in getting the case right and not Tooking at -- sometimes you don't want to ask 121 certain questions if you don't want the answer. I didn't want to know what was in his head. 0 Did you te11 feIony review what Ray Guebara did? A I don't beiieve I did. Do you remember who you taIked to in fe10ny review? I A No. MaIe, femaIe? A It was two days, two different peopIe. I don't reca11 who they were. You don't remember either person? A No. I?ve handIed so many cases, I don't remember. So after the Iineup, you officiaIIy arrested and booked this man, Iocked him up and had him charged with murder one, right? A Based on approva] of charges by feIony review, yes. feIony review based those charges on what you toId feIony review, correct? A Not on1y what I teII them, what the witnesses te11 them. Was feIony review present when Ray Guebara 122 suggested who to pick in that photo array? A No. So our main suspect is shipped off. Is it the same night his poor father comes into the station? A The second night, yes. He?s in the Iockup. So his son is sti11 in the iockup? A Uh-huh. Were you ab1e couId you stop it then and get the son sent home that night and report this misconduct and stop this case? A It wouIdn't have been proper. It was going to Branch 66 in the morning. The father was asking me what do I do, he's never been in troubIe, do I get a 1awyer. And I instructed him just to go to Branch 66 tomorrow and -- for bond court and see what happens. 0 I'm sorry, can you piease eprain to me at the beginning of your answer you said it wasn't proper? A Pardon me? When I asked you if you reported the misconduct then when the father came in, you said it wasn't proper. you expiain that, piease? A I don't think I remember the question being put to me Iike that. MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor, mischaracterizes 123 the testimony. THE COURT: Ask another question. BY MS. STACK: Why didn't you report the conduct when the father came in? A I was -- to teTT the father? Why didn't you teTT your supervisor and stop this? A I ton the supervisor that I was uncomfortabie, that I was going to be picking up the two witnesses in the morning, which I did. They were aware that I was picking them up again in the morning to taTk to them. You were going to pick him up in the morning -- A I was working evenings. I picked them up in the morning. 0 But you got charges approved? A Charges were approved that night, yes. So you took the witnesses to Branch 66 the next morning? A After they ton us that they had been paid by the third person to finger this kid because this young man didn?t even know that -- weTT, didn?t even know, he did know I Tearned Tater, that he had been dating the third man's ex-girTfriend. That's what they ton us, 124 43.0010 that?s what they ton peopTe in Branch 66. Was that the reason when they admitted they'd been paid off by the, quote, companion, was that the reason you decided to stop the prosecution of this man? A Immediateiy. But you didn't stop it when you knew Ray Guebara made the onTy identification tainted, did you? A I didn't know if it was impuisive on his part or if he was part of it, and I didn't want to know the answer after a whiTe. After the third person who was with him unknowing to me participated in a1] the rides, I knew nothing of the conversations that they had prior to being at the station, I didn't even want the answers to that. I was focused on getting an innocent kid out of jaiT on charges that I feTt he didn't deserve of. 0 That's right. You became focused on that, but not untiT the kid admitted he had been paid off by the companion? MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. THE WITNESS: I think THE COURT: Sustained. THE WITNESS: Sorry. THE COURT: Ask another question. 125 MS. STACK: You knew that Ray Guebara had pointed out who to pick in that photo array and you proceeded through with charges contacting feTony review a number of times -- THE COURTE Rephrase. Rephrase. Form of the question. BY MS. STACK: 0 Mr. Dorsch, isn't it true that it wasn't Ray Guebara's actions that caused you to finaTTy do the right thing on this case, is it? A It started me to question the entire identification. 0 It started you? A Yes. Yet you took no action, arrested an innocent man, got charges against him, had him Tocked up and proceeded with his prosecution untiT the witness finaTTy admitted he was bribed, correct? MR. VAIL: Objection, compound, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. STACK: 0 Again, when was the first time that you remembered this piece of evidence? 126 Which piece? 0 When was the first time that you toId the attorneys in this courtroom about this evidence? A About this case? 0 Yes, about the misconduct of Ray Guebara? A I hadn't met them untii I was Iong retired. I wasn't invoIved with any of these peopIe. I never worked with them. It was a month ago was the first time? A No, I had conversation in 2011. In 2011? A Right. 0 When in 2011was invited to a piay at the Iaw schooi for the very first time, I had never been there before, a piay by John Conroy. And it was at that event that I met many peopIe at Northwestern, and one of them that I met was Jane RaIey. We just had a conversation, and then about a month or so Iater, I wanted to ask her about a case that I had been working on for three years for nothing about a kid that is in jai] here, in Cook County, I?ve been working on Is that the Jacques Rivera case? A No, it's a different case. 127 03014}:- took that case to meet with Jane hoping that they might be interested in taking it. Did they take the case? A No. But they you have since deveioped a working reTationship with them, correct? A Weii, them and many other agencies. Mr. Dorsch, do you -- did you meet with the attorneys for the Petitioners and describe this incident that you just testified to the Court? MR. VAIL: Objection. I woqu just Tike ciarification given that there?s two sets of counseT. MS. STACK: Judge, there's impeachment here. They're aware of it. I'm trying to move through the process of setting the foundation. THE COURT: Ms. Stack, peopTe object. ReTax. MS. STACK: A11 right. THE COURT: Let me ruTe. MS. STACK: I apoTogize. THE COURT: Just rephrase your question just to be a Tittie more specific as to exactiy what you're, you know, going to ask him. MS. STACK: Yes, your Honor. 128 MS. STACK: On January 11, 2013 between 10:00 and 11:00, were you at the Law Offices of Jenner BTock with WiTTiam yourseTf, David Saunders, Andrew VaiT, Jane RaTey, Staes and Lindsay SieTing? A I did have a meeting with those persons. The date and time, I don?t recaTT. defer to -- Does that sound famiTiar? A Yes. 0 And did you discuss the incident that you gave evidence about today on that date and time? A Yes. And on that date and time when you taTked to those peopTe, did you mention anything about the father coming in and teTTing you about the A I aTready knew about the UUW. THE COURT: That wasn?t the question, Mr. Dorsch. PTease answer the question. THE WITNESS: PTease repeat the question. BY MS. STACK: 0 You're weTcome to view this, but did you teTT them that it was the father's emotionaT pTea to you about the UUN that got you to take a Took at the son's case -- take that back. 129 Did you mention the father of the suspect to the attorneys? A I don't know. 0 Is there anything that wouid did you when you ta1ked to the attorneys, did you te11 them that this murder investigation occurred in '89 or '90 instead of '88 or '89 as you testified today? A It's been difficuit, but I may have, I don't know. So now it couid have been '88, '89, '90? A I think it was '88 or '89. CouId you have strike that. Did you te11 the attorneys that you thought it was ?89 or '90? A I think I usua11y referred to it as being three months before Guebara was meritoriousiy promoted. That wouId be a definitive way I cou1d identify it by date. 0 Did you te11 them that it occurred in 1989 or 1990? A I don't recai]. 0 Just to be ciear, you never reported this incident to anybody in your chain of command at the Chicago PoIice Department, correct? A Many peopIe knew of it. 130 Did you report it -- A Many peopTe knew of it, and they never made an officiai report of it. THE COURT: You need to answer the question, Mr. Dorsch.. Did you report that -- what you described to me today about Detective Guebara's actions that happened in front of you, did you report that to any of your supervisors in the Chicago Poiice Department at or about the same time that it happened. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. STACK: Who? A I don't recaTT. Can you describe what position this person occupied? Was it your sergeant, for exampie? A I don't know what sergeants were present that day, but it was -- I don't want to eTaborate. us what you remember about reporting this incident? A It was the subject of conversation for a Tong time. Gossip, you mean? A Even today when you see peopie. Wei], wiTI you pTease give us the names of 131 other peopTe that know about this incident? A I don't -- guess you'd have to go to the roster wouid be the best way for me to say who knew about it. How do you remember then that everybody knew about it? A I didn't say everybody knew about it. 0 Give me the names of the peopTe that do know about it. A Detective Guebara. 0 Okay. A Detective Garz, Bi11 Johnston, myseif. Did Detective Johnston report this? A He was with me the whoie time. He went with me the next day. The next day? A To pick up the boys. THE COURT: You reaTTy didn't answer the question. THE WITNESS: Sorry. Did he report it? BY MS. STACK: Did Detective Johnston report this to anybody at CPD at or during around the time during this incident? A Report or talk is two different things. We taTked about it, but we never reported it. 132 Did the other officer, the gang officer, Officer Garz, did he ever report it to anybody? A I don't know. In the years after you Teft the Chicago PoTice Department, did you ever teTT anybody that you saw a poTice officer teTT a witness who to pick out of a photo array? Did you ever report Ray Garaa (sic) after you Teft MR. VAIL: Objection. THE WITNESS: Ray Garza? THE COURT: Rephrase your question. BY MS. STACK: After you Teft CPD, did you ever report this incident to anybody? A Report or taTk to anybody? Report it. THE COURT: Report it when you say report it -- MS. STACK: A11 right, cTarify it. BY MS. STACK: Did you ever report this to anybody at CPD after you Teft A No. Did you ever report it to anybody at OPS after you Teft 133 0301-No. When was the first time that you brought it up to Petitioner's attorneys? MR. VAIL: Objection. We've asked this question a coupTe times, your Honor. THE COURT: OverruTed. You may answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. I had a conversation with Jane RaTey at Northwestern, the first officiaT visit I had when I went there to see if she was interested in this. BY MS. STACKshe was interested in the case I had brought. Can you give us a month and date? THE COURT: That was not anything to do with -- THE WITNESS: Nothing to do with this, your Honor. BY MS. STACK: Can you give us an approximate time frame of that? THE COURT: Rephrase your question. He's answering something that has nothing to do with any case invoTving Detective Guebara the way I understand his answers. MS. STACK: Okay. 134 THE COURT: I thought your question was when was the first time he brought the subject of his testimony earTier today to the attention of the attorneys. EarIier I beIieve he testified that it was Tast month. MS. STACK: Correct, Judge. Thank you. BY MS. STACK: As to the subject of Ray Guebara's actions that you testified about today, when was the first time that you discussed it with any of the Petitioner's attorneys? A The first time that I discussed it was in my very first meeting, officiaT meeting with Jane RaIey which was probabTy about 2010, Tate 2010, earTy 2011. Since that time, did you try to find out any of the names of the peopTe in this case? A Oh, yes. What efforts did you make? A I went to the Chicago PoTice Department seeking the honorabTe mention that was given to me for soTving this case. I went there because when it was given to me, I threw it in the garbage. I didn't want it, but I thought now that it might heIp me I thought it might heIp me recaTI the incident because that honorabTe mention wouId have name and RD number. 0 So you're teITing the Court that you got an 135 award for so]ving this crime? A Yes, I did. Which crime was that? A The murder that we were investigating when Guebara brought the two kids in for the shooting. Right. 0 The murder. 80 you eventua11y found more witnesses on this case? A No. When you say "soIved," do you mean when you admitted to the State's Attorney?s Office that you had brought a witness who he watched and suggested to MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor. BY MS. STACK: You got an award for that? A I found it 1aughab1e, too. Let's ta1k about the other crime that happened here that you just described. The, quote, companion that brought the two 15-year-01ds to the station and that is the person that, according to your testimony, toId the to about this murder. A Yes. What did you do as far as bringing charges against him? A I returned to Area 5 from the Branch 66. I 136 informed them that the charges had been thrown out against the person that we rested the night before. Who is "them"? A The supervisors, whoever they were at the time on that day. And I was informed that we were never going to ciear this crime, they were going to carry this ciear ciose, and it is today on the books as a ciear CTosed even though that case never went to triai and nobody ever appeared in bond court that day or never was charged past that day. So that case has been carried as ciear cTosed based on the faTse identification of a person that night who got charged by feiony review who 12 hours Tater I got reieased. And if it's found, it's going to show it was ciear ciosed and it remains ciear ciosed on the Chicago Poiice Department's fiies and records, and we were not aiiowed to work it. But despite your skiTTs, we've never found an RD number, name of any reievant person in the case or been abie to find any documentation that confirms this case. MS. DANIEL: Objection, your Honor, this is not a question. This is argument. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. STACK: 137 Have you found any RD numbers for this case? MS. DANIEL: Objection, your Honor. She's asking what He found, not what the witness has found. THE COURT: I thought he said MS. STACK: cTear that up. BY THE COURT: Have you found the RD number for this case? A I cannot get access as I am no Tonger a member of the Chicago PoTice Department. So you have no investigative skiTTs these days to find the case? MR. VAIL: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. STACK: You haven?t tried to find this case at a1]? A No, I have, very much. 0 Have you found any documents supporting what you testified to? A No poTice officers are going to give me any documents because they woqu be in troubTe for giving me an outside member of the poTice department those documents. 0 Have you found any documents that convert this 0889 - - 138 Loom can't search documents. 0 Is that Thank you. Back to the man who paid the 15-year-01ds to Tie. Did you pursue any action against him? MS. DANIEL: Asked and answered, Judge. MS. STACK. I don't think he answered it. THE COURT: Wei], I wouId agree. I don't beiieve he answered it either. He went back to the homicide case, so that was cTear cIosed. THE WITNESS: It is ciear ciosed, no more work is necessary. THE COURT: But she's taiking now about the case of the companion. THE WITNESS: I won't have access to anything so I can't charge him. I?m a civiTian. THE COURT: Back then, back in 1988 or 1989 or 1990, what happened back then? THE WITNESS: No, they refused. It was a cTear cTose case. They wanted no more action. THE COURT: The companion's case was a cTear c]ose? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Or the homicide, I'm sorry, it was a 139 cTear cTose. THE WITNESS: The homicide was cTear cTosed and no one wanted us to foTTow-up on anything. BY MS. STACK: And you're saying that you got an award for this case, I just want that to be cIear. MR. VAIL: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. STACK: Did you incTude that in your conversation with counseT on January 11, 2013? A I don?t think so. 0 FinaTTy, Mr. Dorsch -- you aTready described your meeting with Ms. RaTey in 2010 or 2011? A Yes. And at some point you became a consuTtant for the BToom LegaT CTinic? A I work for a variety of cTinics. They are one of them. I've worked for Cook County PubTic Defender's Office on homicide cases, too. Okay. In reference to the attorneys who represent Mr. SoTache, Jane RaTey and Karen DanieT A Yes. As you know, they are empToyees of the 140 430310 Northwestern University Bloom LegaT CTinic Center and un1awfu1 conviction, correct? A Jane Ra1ey? 0 Yes. A And Karen DanieT, yes. 0 And you have performed work for them, correct? A Yes. 0 And wou1d it be fair to say that between November 16th of 2011 and January 18th of 2013 you have been paid $43,278.43 by them? A I'm not sure of that amount. I know for the Tast amount my 1099 was 30,000. 0 If I was to teT] you that they gave you that figure, woqu that sound about accurate to you? A Yes. MS. STACK: Thank you. THE COURT: Any other questions on behaif of Mr. SoTache? MS. SIELING: Yes, your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SIELING: 0 Okay. You ton Ms. Stack that $43,000 was a reasonabTe amount that you were paid by the TegaT chain? A That sounds about right. 141 Was that work done for just Ms. Raiey and Ms. Danie]? A No. 0 Was the majority of the work done for other attorneys? A Yes. MS. SIELING: Thank you for your time. We have no further questions. MR. VAIL: Very briefiy, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. VAIL: Detective Dorsch, you were asked a Titany of questions about at the time having not reported officiaITy this incident with Detective Guebara, do you recaTT that examination, Mr. Dorsch. Why didn't you immediateiy report it? A My task at hand was getting a proper and truthfui identification of an offender on the homicide. I struggied to get it and get past what had happened. I had hoped that maybe the second day the Tineup might give me the second offender, giving me an ID which woqu soiidify -- and then we'd maybe write?off that pointing as an error, a mistake, but it went the way it went. 142 cTear, is it your testimony today that others at the department were aware of this incident invoTving Detective Guebara? A Yes. THE COURT: 1'11 Tet the answer stand. I heard him testify to that. BY MR. VAIL: FinaTTy, Detective Dorsch, why come forward to testify under oath to this judge about this incident? A When I was first gave this information to Jane RaTey, it was in a conversation about a whoTe mess of other things. I never knew that it was going to Tead me here today, but I've a1ways tried to do the right thing, so I'm here. MR. VAIL: Thank you. THE COURT: Any other questions? RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. STACK: Concerning your expenses and fees that are -- MR. VAIL: Objection, beyond the scope of any re-examination, your Honor. MR. PAPA: It's based on Northwestern. THE COURT: OverruTed. 143 MS. STACK: Are you paid on a commissionthe civii cases that are brought by the Center on Wrongfui Conviction? A I get about haif of what I get in the private practice. I make doubie the money with other attorneys and other cases. I work for I just got paid by the State Pubiic THE COURT: Do you get paid by the hour? THE WITNESS: I usuaTTy biTI for hourTy and expenses. THE COURT: Do you get paid by commission? THE WITNESS: No. Never. MS. STACK: Thank you, Judge. .THE COURT: Any other questions? A11 right. MR. RALEY: Your Honor, I think there's some confusion. The Center of Wrongfui Convictions does not bring civii suits against there's no -- I thought that the question that Ms. Stack asked was whether he gets a cut of the Center THE COURT: Piease, that's a coiTateraT issue. That isn't going to heip me in any event. The answer that I?m using is that he gets paid for his services based on his 144 hour1y bi11. EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: 0 Mr. Dorsch, when you witnessed Detective Guebara, as you say, sudden1y reach out in front of you and point out one of the photographs that you had put into the photo spread, at any time did the did you report that in any written po1ice report you prepared for that homicide investigation? A No. Your testimony seems to me that peop1e in the Area or in the po1ice department 1oca1e, Area 5, a11 seem to know about this, but as far as you know, none of your fe11ow officers officia11y reported it to their supervisors? A Correct. 0 And you did not officia11y report it to a supervisor? A I did not. 0 A11 right. And you did not te11 the assistant state's attorney at fe1ony review who came out after the photo array? A I don't think I to1d her that. It was a fema1e? 145 Weii I said "her." I don?t know who it was. So the oniy way wouid it be fair to say that peopIe were taiking about this because wouid have been because either you or your partner or one of those two gang crimes officers was te11ing everybody that Detective Guebara did this, is that correct? A Correct. That award that you received for soiving a case, when did that take pIace? A Just a few days it was 0_ Was it after the murder suspect had been reieased? A It was aimost given as a joke, your Honor, and that's why I treated it the way I did. 0 But it was after he had been reieased? A Oh, yes. 0 Do you recaii who gave you that award? A It was right out of the sergeant's office. I'm not sure who it was or who prepared it. Was it a joke award? I know that's how you're saying you took it, but was it done as a joke amongst feiiow officers or was it reaiiy something that the department ordinariiy wouid have done? A Normaiiy the copy wouid go to the downtown 146 headquarters. I took it as a joke that it was meant to be a joke, but in seeking to try to identify the incident better, I did make an effort in the 1ast year to see if they had it oniy to Iearn they threw everything away from officers gone after ten years or something 1ike that. But I get the sense, then, that it was reaIIy sort of a joke amongst the poIice officers? A That's exactiy the way I took it. A11 right. Did you ever pIace in any poIice report the statement of witness number one and witness number two that companion had paid them to make an identification?' A I didn?t write a report, but the same statements were made to the attorney in 66, so he had his fiIe foIder. I don't know if he was writing, I don't know what he wrote. 0 This incident, this incident regarding what you a11ege Detective Guebara did here which caused you to be startied, was it something that aiways sort of bothered you? A Yes, it?s a1ways bothered me. I take great pIeasure in putting great cases together and I a1so took pieasure in the fact that I saved a kid from going to jai1 for a crime he didn't do. 147 But you can't remember this person's name that you saved? A I'm on the outside now, your Honor. 0 But you can't remember? A Oh, no, I can't remember. I'm sorry I didn't keep something but I didn?t. And you can't remember the name of the person that was murdered? A I can remember the Iocation, I can remember the proximity of where we made the arrest. I recai] where he went to schoo] at DePaui University and worked at Waigreens at six corners, but to identify him better than that, I was on1y Iooking to get him out for something he didn't do. 0 Going back, then, to your first the first time that you met with -- I beIieve it was Ms. Raiey, you said that you were bringing the Northwestern University whatever the various projects or organizations there that are reIevant here, you were attempting to bring them a case of somebody you feIt had been improperIy imprisoned for a crime? A Yes. I worked for a case in Wisconsin with the Innocence Project. I knew nothing of Northwestern's work, but I thought they might be he1pfu1. 148 that was your purpose in meeting with the attorneys the first time? A Correct. And that case that you had hoped that they might take an interest in, did that case invoive Detective Guebara? A No. Is it at that first meeting though you say you brought up Detective Guebara to the attorneys at Northwestern or was it back I'm trying to figure out when it is the first time that you toid the attorneys who represent Mr. Soiache, those are the attorneys at Northwestern, when is the first time that you toid them about this incident that you testified to here today? A The peopie on the Soiache case. 0 The Soiache team, which are the 1adies that are seated there, when is the first time that you toid Soiache's attorneys or -- A I never knew about the Soiache case or don't. 0 When is the first time that you with respect -- I'm not taiking about their case, but what I'm taiking about the attorneys. When is the first time that you spoke to those attorneys that are now a11 here 149 sitting around in front of you in court about the events of Detective Guebara surprising you by reaching out in Ithe middIe of one of your photo show-ups and identifying the suspect? A As far as the group there, in January, the other group wouId have been -- it wouIdn't have been a group, it wouId have been with Jane. 0 That was when? A That was about the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011. How did Detective Guebara and this incident come up in that case since Detective Guebara wasn't inv01ved in the case that you were bringing to them? A I understand, your Honor. I had gone to Northwestern for the first time in my Iife because I was invited by John Conroy who did the investigation of the Burge case. He did a big investigation and wrote an articIe or a book about it, I never read itinvited me to Northwestern to see a review of the pIay he had put together. It was there that I met not onIy Jane RaIey but two dozen other peopIe and had brief conversations and some became aware that I was a detective, so forth and so 150 on, exchanged business cards with some. One of them was Jane, and because I wanted to get this other case there I came there, and a conversation that day with her sitting down in her office, we ta1ked about a 1ot of prob1ems with the Burge case and other officers, and I brought up -- I asked even about myse1f, if I was invo1ved in any cases because I hand1ed a 1ot of cases. I don't know what's going on, I've been gone for years but I know these things can Sometimes come back. I asked about that, and that's how it started. That's how it started right there. 0 You brought it up? A Yes. THE COURT: I don't have any questions. a11ow the attorneys for So1ache to ask any questions at this time, if you wish. MS. SIELING: We have nothing. THE COURT: Anything on beha1f of Mr. Reyes. MR. VAIL: No, your Honor. THE COURT: State? MS. STACK: No, Judge. THE COURT: A11 right. You may step down. A11 right. This wou1d be an appropriate time to take a break. The officers wi11 -- continue the 151 writs untiT tomorrow. (WHEREUPON, discussion was had off the record.) THE COURT: We can?t get started at 10:00. I think we'TT be abTe to get started very shortTy thereafter. continue this matter untiT tomorrow. PTease be here by 10:00. MR. VAIL: As you're aware, we intend to put on Mr. Reyes tomorrow. I beTieve there wiTT be no other Tive witnesses. THE COURT: When are you going to submit of the other matters to me? Off the record. (WHEREUPON, discussion was had off the record.) MS. STACK: To reserve my record and preserve my arguments that we feeT very strongTy about, we'd Tike to address the reTevancy of those document. THE COURT: What is going to be submitted, a1] of those binders? Is it that I'm Tooking at? MS. DANIEL: Yes. THE COURT: Can you Teave it today, Teave them today so you don't have to carry them and Tet me perhaps respond to-you tomorrow, Ms. Stack. 152 43-0010 MS. STACK: I woqu suggest is just Tike, for instance, they say we have the case of John Doe, we beiieve it's reievant because he testified that Ray Guebara did XYZ. We respond, and we say John Doe is irreievant because it?s dissimiiar in this way. And that's the way we've done it before. We just want to submit ora] argument on those factors that are set out. I reaITy woqu give my Scout's honor to do the best to keep it, you know, to the point and take a Took, Tike I said, at the ones where they are coerced confession ciaims in that time frame to pare it down. I'd say there's 10 to 12 that we're objecting to, so TiteraITy my argument can be that fast. I rea11y do think it wiTT protect the record on this, Judge, to -- they're advocating that you consider a1] the evidence and then make the reTevancy finding. Wei], of course -- THE COURT: We11, I brought that on myseTf, too, so I can't -- I can?t bIame them for that. MS. STACK: This is a perfectTy reasonabie time to stiTI do it, Judge, the arguments. We can get them done in an hour. THE COURT: Like I said, 1'11 Tet me Tisten tomorrow. MR. VAIL: Your Honor, if I may finish, given that 153 intend to put on the one iive witness, we inquire whether the State is tending to put on any witnesses tomorrow so we can prepare. THE COURT: Do you have any that you wouid be going MS. STACK: It was our understanding we were going to finish their case in this period and move to ours afterwards. MR. VAIL: That wasn't our understanding, your Honor. THE COURT: WeiT, it's probabiy the oniy practicaT way that it can be done. MS. STACK: PTus, we can't reaiiy know -- THE COURT: I understand. deai with it tomorrow. Let's get the Test iive witness for the Petitioners on the stand tomorrow and give me an opportunity to try to digest the various requests that are being made. (The above?entitied cause was continued untiT 2f14/2013.) 154 STATE OF ILLINOIS SS: COUNTY OF 0 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL DIVISION I, Dusza, OfficiaI Court Reporter of the Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department, Crimina] Division, do hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had on the hearing in the aforementioned cause; that I thereafter caused the foregoing to be transcribed into typewriting, which I hereby certify to be a true and accurate transcript of the Report of Proceedings had before the HONORABLE JAMES M. OBBISH, Judge of said court. OfficiaI Court Reporter E11en Dusza, CSR 84~3386 Circuit Court of Cook County Date: {bf 53%? 155