ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
MEMORANDUM
TO:

City of Chicago/Guevara Investigation - File

FROM:

Kelly Albinak Kribs
Michael Doss

RE:

Final Report on Roberto Almodovar Case

DATE:

February 9, 2015

I.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

We were retained by the City of Chicago to investigate allegations of misconduct made
against former Police Detective Reynaldo Guevara and to evaluate whether the alleged
misconduct resulted in convictions of innocent people currently serving prison sentences. This
Memorandum summarizes our conclusions from the investigation of such allegations made by
defendant Roberto Almodovar, who is currently serving a life sentence.
Almodovar was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of
attempted first degree murder. Almodovar claims that he is innocent and that his conviction was
obtained through a suggestive line-up.
In the course of our investigation, we have (i) conducted 11 interviews, including of the
defendant, his former counsel and co-defendant Negron, alibi witnesses, and one of the two
testifying eyewitnesses to the crime; (ii) reviewed transcripts and court filings of pre-trial, trial,
and post-conviction proceedings; and (iii) reviewed police made available to us that document
the investigation of the crimes at issue.
Detective Guevara declined to be interviewed by Sidley, as did one of the two
eyewitnesses to the crime, Jackueline Grande.
As explained in more detail below, we have come to the following conclusions based on
our investigation:
(i) We are unable to substantiate the allegation that Detective Guevara improperly
influenced the selection of Almodovar from a photo array and subsequent line-up. The
evidence on that issue is conflicting and inconclusive and does not provide a basis for us
to conclude that it is more likely than not that such improper conduct occurred or that it
influenced the subsequent identification.

 II.

(ii) We conclude, based on our interviews and other evidence made available to
us, that it is more likely than not that Robert Almodovar is in fact innocent of the murders
for which he was convicted. We found his alibi evidence (which witnesses continue to
support) to be compelling and to outweigh the testimony of the remaining eyewitness
who identifies him as the shooter (the second eyewitness, Kennelly Saez, no longer
identifies Almodovar as involved in the crime.)
.
INVESTIGATION SCOPE AND PROCEDURES
A.

Interviews

Sidley conducted eleven interviews in the course of its investigation of the Almodovar
case. Specifically, Sidley interviewed defendant Roberto Almodovar, his former counsel
Melissa Power and Judge Matthew Kennelly, and alibi witnesses Mary Rodriguez (Almodovar’s
aunt), Azalia Carrillo (Almodovar’s girlfriend at the time of the murders). Sidley also
interviewed one of the two eyewitnesses to the crime, Kennelly Saez. Sidley also met with
Detective Halvorsen, who assisted Detective Guevara in the investigation of the shooting. Sidley
also met with current counsel for the defendant, Jennifer Bonjean, and current counsel for the
State, Assistant State’s Attorneys Celeste Stack and Jim Papa. Those who submitted to
interviews cooperated fully with the investigation.
Detective Guevara declined to be interviewed. We also attempted to interview
eyewitness Jackueline Grande, whose last known residence is in Vancouver, Washington, but
were unable to do so despite making calls and sending correspondence. (We understand that Ms.
Grande also had declined to be interviewed by current counsel for William Negron during an inperson visit in 2013.).
B.

Document Review

Sidley’s investigation also involved the review of numerous documents received from the
State as well as from Almodovar’s and Reyes’s current counsel. Sidley reviewed transcripts
from (1) pre-trial proceedings, including the hearings regarding the defendants’ motions to
suppress the witness identifications; (2) the trial; (3) the sentencing and other post-trial
proceedings; and (4) Almodovar’s first post-conviction hearing. Sidley also reviewed a number
of police reports and crime scene records related to the case. Additionally, Sidley reviewed
various court filings and prior court opinions.

2

Privileged & Confidential

 III.

BACKGROUND FACTS
Unless otherwise indicated, the following background facts are undisputed.
A.

Almodovar Conviction and Legal Proceedings

In November 1995, Roberto Almodovar and William Negron were each convicted of two
counts each of murder and attempted murder and sentenced to life in prison. The convictions
were affirmed on appeal. Both have since filed post-conviction petitions challenging their
convictions on grounds of alleged misconduct by Detective Guevara. In particular, Almodovar
and Negron assert their innocence and contend that eyewitnesses to the shooting were
improperly influenced by Detective Guevara to misidentify them.
The defendants post-conviction proceedings are currently pending before Judge Linn in
the Cook County Circuit Court.
B.

Almodovar Background

At the time of the murders, then nineteen year-old Almodovar was working full-time at
the Farley Candy Company and taking classes to obtain his G.E.D. Almodovar had gotten the
job at Farley’s through his aunt, Mary Rodriguez, with whom he lived and who also worked at
Farley’s. Almodovar typically worked Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
He also attended G.E.D. classes at Wright Junior College from roughly 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
on Mondays and Wednesdays.
When we met with him, Almodovar told us that he and co-defendant Negron had been
close friends and members of the same gang, but that they went their separate ways; at the time
of the shooting, Almodovar contends he had not seen Negron in roughly a year.
Before his convictions in this case, Almodovar had no prior criminal convictions. He
reported that he had been arrested on multiple occasions for “mob action,” but that those arrests
always resulted in his being released on his own recognizance and the charges being dropped.
Almodovar admitted that he had been a member of the Insane Dragons street gang, but states that
he left the gang in March 1994 when his then-girlfriend, Azalia Carrillo, gave birth to their
daughter.
C.

The Crime

On September 1, 1994, Jackueline Grande, Kennelly Saez, Jorge Rodriguez, and
Amy Merkes were talking on the front stoop at 3920 W. Cortland. Saez and Rodriguez were
cousins and both members of the Maniac Latin Disciples gang. 1 Around 12:45 a.m., a dark blue,
four-door Oldsmobile with three young men inside pulled up. The rear passenger, who had his
1

At times, witnesses have referred to the this gang as the Young Latino Organization Disciples or “YLODs.”

3

Privileged & Confidential

 window partially rolled down, said, “What’s up, folks?” Saez started walking over to the car,
and as he asked, “Who’s there?”, the rear passenger fired a gun at the group on the front stoop. 2
When the shooting began, Saez dove for the ground and Grande, Rodriguez, and Merkes
turned and started running into the building. Grande, Rodriguez, and Merkes were each shot,
and both Merkes and Rodriquez were killed. Grande suffered a bullet wound to the shoulder and
spent several days in the hospital before being released.
D.

Police Investigation

The first officers on the scene were flagged down by Juan Velez, an off-duty
sheriff’s deputy who saw the assailants’ car pull into his alley and turn around; shortly thereafter,
Velez heard the gunshots. 3 The initial police report from the crime scene described the assailants
as three males “16-20 yrs old wearing starter jackets,” but did not attribute the description to any
particular witness. A subsequent report dated September 1, 1994, and prepared by Detective
McDonald and Rutherford stated that the assailants were “3 male white Hispanics in their late
teens skinny medium to light complexion NFD.” 4
Kennelly Saez was interviewed that same day and described the vehicle as a “dark blue
short body Delta 88 4dr.” The September 1, 1994 report of his initial interview does not include
a physical description of any of the vehicle’s occupants. According to the report, Saez also told
police that he was member of the Maniac Latin Disciple gang and that his gang was at war with
the Dragons and Latin Kings gangs; he also stated the Dragons has been trying to “take over” the
corner where the shooting occurred.
Jackie Grande was not interviewed at the scene due to her injuries; she was first
interviewed at the hospital on September 1, 1994, by Detective Dombrowski. According to
Dombrowski’s police report, Grande described the car as a “dark blue older square mid sized
car,” and described the three occupants of the car as “male white Hispanics;” the driver was “tall
and skinny, light complexion with dark hair;” the front passenger was “skinny with a long face[,]
light face[,] wearing a black jacket and a red hat,” and the rear passenger—the shooter—was
“skinny med complexion with dark hair, clean looking.”
A subsequent police report dated September 13, 1994, 5 states that assigned Detectives
Halvorsen, Guevara, and Troken suspected that the shooting targeted Saez and Rodriguez,
members of the Maniac Latin Disciples, and was in retaliation for the shooting of Carlos Olan
(nicknamed “Popeye”), a member of the Insane Dragons gang who was killed two days earlier,
2

Some initial police reports also state that the driver was firing a weapon.

3

A September 1, 1994 report prepared by Detective Rutherford and McDonald states that Velez reported that he
“got a good look at the driver of the vehicle and believes that he could identify this person.” When Almodovar and
Negron were later brought in for a line-up, the police asked Velez to view the line-up. Velez, however, stated that
he was misunderstood; he did not get a good look at any of the individuals in the vehicle—only the vehicle itself.
4

We understand “NFD” to be abbreviation for “no further details.”

5

There are no other reports of the status of the investigation between September 1, 1994, and September 13, 1994,
and Officer Guevara admitted in testimony that he did not take any other notes or prepare any other reports.

4

Privileged & Confidential

 on August 30, 1994. The detectives believed this incident was part of an ongoing turf war
between the Insane Dragons and the Maniac Latin Disciples, and thus focused their investigation
on Insane Dragons members.
The detectives learned from Officers Olszewski and Siwa (who worked the district in
which the shooting occurred) of their recent arrests of three purported Insane Dragons members
in possession of a sawed off shotgun. Olszewski and Siwa provided photos of those three
individuals, one of whom Roberto Almodovar. According to the police report, the detectives
noted that Almodovar had a rectangular-shaped head with long hair in the back and that “this
was the description of one of the offenders provided by gunshot victim Jackueline Grande.”
(However, the report does not state when or to whom she gave this description and Grande is not
otherwise reported as having providing this description; as noted above, a September 1, 1994
report stated that she described the shooter as “skinny med complexion with dark hair, clean
looking.”) The detectives then learned from Gang Crime Specialists Rodriguez and Wiora that
Roberto Almodovar hung around with Willie Negron, another purported Insane Dragons
member, and were given a photo of Negron.
On September 5, 1994, Grande was released from the hospital, and Detective Guevara
visited her at home. He showed her a 12-photo array and, according to the September 13, 1994
report, Grande identified Almodovar as the shooter in the rear of the car and Negron as the driver
of the vehicle who “also fired a gun.”
On September 11, 1994, the police separately arrested Almodovar and Negron. When
arrested, Negron was driving a 1978 Buick Regal Coupe (as noted above, the car used in the
shooting was described as a 1985 Oldsmobile). Both Almodovar and Negron denied any
involvement in the shootings.
In his statement to police, Almodovar reportedly admitted to being a member of the
Insane Dragons, and acknowledged a war between his gang and the Maniac Latin Disciples. 6
Almodovar stated that on the day of the shooting he had worked at the Farley Candy Company
from roughly 6:00 a.m. until leaving to attend a G.E.D. classes at Wright Junior College from
6:00 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. Almodovar said that, after class, he took the bus home and was with
his girlfriend for the remainder of the evening. The police telephoned Almodovar’s 15-year-old
girlfriend, Azalia Carrillo, and asked her to come to the station for questioning, but Carrillo
never went in and the police did not follow up with her. 7
In his statement to police following his arrest, Negron reportedly admitted being an
Insane Dragons member and a good friend of Almodovar. Negron similarly acknowledged a
gang war between his gang and the Maniac Latin Disciples. Negron stated that, on the night of
the shooting, he had gone to the wake of a fellow gang member and then went out “partying”
6

As detailed further below, Almodovar maintains that he told the police he was formerly a member of the Insane
Dragons and had left the gang months before when his daughter was born.
7

As detailed further below, Carrillo explained to us that, after the initial call with the police, Almodovar Aunt,
Almodovar’s aunt, Mary Rodriguez, persuaded Carrillo her not to go to the station without a parent or lawyer given
her age and the nature of the charges.

5

Privileged & Confidential

 with fellow gang members. Negron, however, refused to identify the friend with whom he went
out or to state where they went.
On September 12, 1994, the police brought Grande and Saez into the station for a line-up.
The September 13, 1994 report states that Grande and Saez viewed the line-up separately, and
that Saez had not viewed any photos of Almodovar and Negron in advance. Independently, both
Grande and Saez identified Almodovar as the shooter in the rear of the car and Negron as the
driver and second shooter. On that same day, Saez gave a written statement memorializing his
account of the shooting and his identification of Almodovar and Negron.
No weapon or vehicle associated with the shooting was ever recovered, and the third
person in the vehicle has never been identified.
F.

The Trial and Subsequent Court Proceedings

Almodovar’s and Negron’s trial took place in November 1995. Saez and Grande
identified Almodovar as the shooter and Negron as the driver of the car. Detective Guevara
testified about the photo array that Grande viewed and the subsequent line-up that both Grande
and Saez viewed. 8 Guevara further testified that both Saez and Grande described the rear
shooter as having a rectangular face with long hair in the back. Guevara acknowledged,
however, that no police report attributed any such description to Saez, and the one report that
connects this description to Grande provides no supporting detail on when or how this
description was made. Guevara testified, however, that he obtained this description from Grande
when he called her on the morning of September 5, 1994. Guevara also testified about the police
theory that the shooting was in retaliation for the murder of an Insane Dragon who has been
killed in a drive-by shooting two days prior. The parties stipulated at trial to the initial
description provided police (recounted above) of the assailants.
Negron did not testify at trial. Nor did Negron’s counsel offer any alibi witnesses to
support his prior statement that, on the evening of the shooting, he had attended a wake and went
out with friends.
Almodovar did take the stand, testifying (as he stated to the police) that, on the night of
the shooting, he returned home at about 10:45 p.m. after a day of work and an evening of G.E.D.
classes. Thereafter, he and his girlfriend, Azalia Carrillo, got into a fight and stayed up arguing
until about 1:30 a.m. (The crime occurred around 12:45 a.m.) Almodovar’s aunt (with whom he
lived), Mary Rodriguez, and Carrillo (his girlfriend) corroborated Almodovar’s alibi. Both
testified that Almodovar got home after class, Carrillo came home with the baby shortly
thereafter, and then an argument ensued. Rodriguez and Carrillo also testified that Amaris and
Sergio Almodovar (Carrillo’s sister and Almodovar’s cousin, who are married) came over
around midnight to try and settle the dispute and that they left around 1:30 a.m.
8

Guevara testified that on September 5, 1994, he took the photos of Almodovar and Negron to Grande’s house to
conduct a photo array. Since Almodovar had long hair, Guevara said, he placed his photo in an array with photos of
five other long-haired young men, whereas for Negron, who had short hair, he placed his photo in an array with
photos of five other short-haired men. Guevara testified that Grande identified Almodovar as the rear shooter and
Negron as the driver.

6

Privileged & Confidential

 Both Almodovar and Negron were convicted of two counts and murder and two counts of
attempted murder, and sentenced to life in prison The convictions were affirmed on appeal.
Both Almodovar and Negron initiated post-conviction proceedings in 1998. Negron’s
was denied at the outset, but Almodovar’s proceeded to a hearing. Almodovar’s counsel at the
time, Matthew Kennelly, 9 argued that Detective Guevara had improperly influenced the
eyewitness identifications—the sole basis for the convictions. As discussed in greater detail
below, Saez then testified that Guevara and Grande showed him a photo array in advance of the
line-up and indicated who to identify. Both Guevara and Grande testified that this did not
happen. The court dismissed the petition and found Saez’s rendition of the photo array “totally
incredible.”
In April 2010, Almodovar filed a successive post-conviction petition based on new
evidence of Guevara’s alleged pattern and practice of misconduct. Though the trial court
initially denied the petition on procedural grounds, it was reversed on appeal. On remand,
evidentiary hearings have recently begun and are ongoing.
III.

Allegations of Wrongdoing Against Detective Guevara
A.

Allegations of Misconduct

Almodovar alleges that Detective Guevara improperly influenced the witness
identifications by steering Saez and Grande to identify him and his co-defendant Negron. In
particular, the Almodovar contends that before his line-up, Guevara showed both Saez and
Grande photos of Almodovar and Negron and indicated that they had been involved in the
shootings. We discuss the facts related to these allegations in more detail below.
1.

Kennelly Saez

Saez has given different accounts of his identification of Almodovar and Negron over the
course of the case.
First, Saez identified Almodovar and Negron in a police line-up on September 12, 1994.
This fact is recorded in a Detectives Halvorsen’s and Guevara’s September 13, 1994 report,
which also notes that “Saez had not viewed any photos of [Almodovar and Negron] prior to the
line-up.”
However, on March 1,1995, Saez went to the offices of then-counsel for Almodovar,
Melinda Power, and told Power that his September 12, 1994 identification of Almodovar and
Negron was inaccurate. Saez signed an affidavit, prepared by Power and by her sister Margaret
Power, who works as Melinda’s interpreter, stating that he “told the police that it was Roberto
Almodovar and William Negron because [he] believed it was them, but really [he] couldn’t see,”

9

Matthew Kennelly is now a federal district court judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

7

Privileged & Confidential

 and that he “looked at photographs and picked out a person [he] thought was the shooter, but [he]
was wrong.” In interviews, both Saez and Melinda Power confirmed this meeting.
Power reported that Saez came to her office with another young man, explaining he
brought his friend as a safety precaution because Power’s office was in rival gang territory. 10
Power then interviewed Saez, in the presence of her sister Margaret, and Saez answered her
questions while his companion remained silent. Saez told Power he was there of his own free
will and, after she prepared the affidavit, he reviewed it and signed it. Power’s account of her
meeting with Saez was consistent with the affidavits she and her sister Margaret gave in
connection with Almodovar’s first post-conviction petition and with Power’s testimony at a 2014
post-conviction hearing.
At the subsequent trial, however, Saez testified that his statement to Power had been
coerced by his fellow gang members and that the person who accompanied him was actually a
high-ranking member of the gang who came to ensure Saez recanted his identification. As
previously noted, Saez then made an in-court identification of Almodovar and Negron.
In February 1996, Saez again changed his story in a statement to an investigator sent by
Almodovar’s post-trial counsel, Matthew Kennelly. Saez told the investigator that, before he
viewed the line-up, an officer showed him pictures of Almodovar and Negron. Kennelly later
obtained a sworn statement from Saez in August 1998 in which Saez stated that, three or four
days after the shooting, Grande came by his apartment and told him that a police officer wanted
to meet with him. Saez said that he went downstairs where he met with a Latino police officer
who had two photos in his hand of Almodovar and Negron, and asked “Are these the guys?”
According to Saez, Grande then said, “Yes, those are the guys.” Saez stated that he didn’t know
whether Grande had already seen the photos, but he got the impression that she had. The Latino
officer told Saez that the men in the pictures were Insane Dragons. Saez stated that he then
agreed with Grande, essentially because Grande and the officer seemed so confident that the men
in the photos were the assailants and, without their influence, he would not have been able to
identify the men as the assailants. (Saez did not identify the Latino officer as Detective Guevara
at the time, although there is no dispute that Detective Guevara arranged for Saez’s attendance at
the line-up.)
Saez stated he then went in the officer’s squad car with Grande to view a line-up, and, on
the way, the officer told him not to tell anyone that he had seen the photos. Saez also stated that,
on the way to the line-up, Grande continued to talk about her confidence that the men in the
photos were the assailants. At the line-up, Saez he recognized the two men from the photos he
was shown—Almodovar and Negron—and identified them as the shooter and the driver,
respectively.
In his sworn statement, Saez explained his trial testimony by contending that he was
hoping his testimony would allow him to obtain favorable treatment from the state regarding a
pending violation of a parole charge. In particular, he said that the week before the Almodovar10

Power’s account to Sidley of her meeting with Saez was consistent with the affidavits and testimony she gave in
connection with Almodovar’s first post-conviction petition.

8

Privileged & Confidential

 Negron trial, he had been arrested on a parole violation and, while in jail, was contacted by ASA
Callahan about testifying at the Almodovar-Negron trial. Saez stated that he told the ASA that
he would testify if the ASA could get him out of jail. According to Saez, ASA Callahan said he
could make no such promises, but Saez nonetheless understood that, if he testified for the state,
they would likely obtain his release. Notably, Saez’s probation was terminated on November 30,
1995, two days after his November 28, 1995 trial testimony.
Sidley interviewed Saez in July 2014 and he recounted the same core facts reflected in
his sworn statement with Kennelly described above. Saez elaborated to explain that the Latino
detective spoke Spanish and made Saez feel “cool” with the officer, like he could trust him.
When the detective showed him the photo, 11 Grande exclaimed, “That’s him! That’s him!” Saez
said that Grande seemed so sure of her identification he just went along with it, even though he
was not himself able to provide an identification. Saez further explained that at the time he was
very upset by the murders of his cousin and his girlfriend, and he wanted someone to pay.
In our interview, Saez also stated that when he went to Power’s office he was in fact
accompanied by a gang leader, Kiki, who was pressuring him to recant his earlier identification.
Saez understood that leaders of the Maniac Latin Disciples agreed with leaders of the Insane
Dragons that Saez would not testify against Almodovar and Negron. Saez noted that, in
pressuring him to recant, the gang was actually encouraging him to testify truthfully because he
could not, in fact, identify either Almodovar and Negron. Saez further explained that he
ultimately agreed to testify after speaking with ASA Callahan because he saw it as “his ticket
out” of jail on the probation violation charge. Saez stated that he was being “selfish,” and a
“young kid” in offering to testify in exchange for assistance from ASA Callahan. Saez reported
that Callahan never promised to get him off but that he “would see what he could do.” 12 Saez
also stated in our interview that when Kennelly’s investigator got in touch with him a few
months later after his trial testimony, he “decided to come clean.”
In our interview, Saez also gave his view of the reasons for the shooting. He believed
he was targeted because he held a leadership role in his gang, which he described as the Young
Latino Organization Disciples or YLODs , and thus would be considered a “trophy.” He
disagreed with the police theory that the shooting was connected with a turf war, and, said he had
never heard of Carlos Olon or any theory that he was shot at in retaliation for Olon’s murder.
Saez told us he did not separately talk with Jackie Grande about her identification of the
assailants. He said he distanced himself from her after the shootings.
In sum, since Saez’s August 1998 sworn statement to Kennelly, he has consistently
maintained that (i) he saw photos of Almodovar and Negron before the line-up, (ii) that his lineup identifications were based on his prior viewing of the photos and the comments made by
11

Saez only had a memory of seeing Negron’s photo and identifying him. He remembered going to the line-up and
identifying two assailants, but he couldn’t really picture Almodovar. He did, however, recall that the defendant that
was not Negron had the same nickname as him (Saez)—“Joker.” Indeed, both Saez and Almodovar were
nicknamed “Joker.”
12

Callahan testified at the post-conviction hearing that he never said anything to Saez to give him the impression
that he would try to help him resolve his violation of parole.

9

Privileged & Confidential

 Grande and Detective Guevara, (iii) that Guevara told him not to tell anyone he saw the photos,
and (iv) that he in fact could not identify any of the assailants. He testified on these points at a
1998 post-conviction hearing for Almodovar, at a June 2008 deposition in connection with the
Juan Johnson civil suit, and most recently in our meeting with him in July 2014.
2.

Jackueline Grande

Jackie Grande, however, has disagreed that her identification of Almodovar and Negron
was improperly swayed by Detective Guevara. The initial allegation that Guevara influenced
Grande’s identification comes from Melinda Power, Almodovar’s original attorney. In our
interview (and previously), Power reports that she and her investigator, Amy Myers, interviewed
Grande outside the Jewel grocery store where Grande worked on April 6, 1995 (six months after
the shooting). Power recalls, and her notes from the conversation reflect, that Grande told her
that, while she was in hospital, two police officers visited her, showed her six to nine photos, and
said, “Here are the guys who did it.” In our interview, Power said she was never again able to
speak with Grande about the murders.
Grande has denied having this conversation with Power. Instead, she has consistently
maintained that when she viewed the photo array on September 5, 1994, Guevara did not make
any suggestions as to who she should identify and that she identified Almodovar as the shooter
and Negron as the driver on her own. For example, at the motion to suppress hearing, Grande
testified that while two male officers showed her a photo array in the hospital, they did not say,
“These are the guys who did it” or anything similar. Mot. to Suppress Hrg. Tr. 21-25.
We attempted to speak with Grande, sending letters to her last known address (confirmed
by counsel for Negron) in Vancouver, Washington and making telephone calls to a number we
obtained for her. She did not respond to our letters and we were unable to reach her by
telephone. In our interview with Negron’s current counsel, Russell Ainsworth, he recounted
having appeared at Grande’s house in Vancouver and speaking with her briefly at her front door.
He stated that she was “hostile” to him once she learned the purpose of his visit, and made clear
to him that she “knows what she saw” and would not be changing her identification testimony.
Aside from her interactions with Power, there are some inconsistencies in the record
regarding the descriptions of the assailants that Grande reportedly gave to police at various
times. For example, as noted above, the initial reports of the three assailants were that they were
three males “16-20 yrs old wearing starter jackets,” and “3 male white Hispanics in their late
teens skinny medium to light complexion NFD.” Neither description is attributed to a particular
witness, however.
Besides the line-up and photo array issues, counsel for Almodovar has also highlighted
apparent discrepancies in the descriptions given by Grande. As noted above, the first description
attributed to Grande (by Officer Dombrowski during a hospital visit) describes the driver as “tall
and skinny, light complexion with dark hair,” the front passenger as “skinny with a long face[,]
light face[,] wearing a black jacket and a red hat,” and the rear passenger—the shooter—as
“skinny med complexion with dark hair, clean looking.” Detective Guevara testified that when
he telephoned her on September 5, 1994, Grande described the shooter somewhat differently, as

10

Privileged & Confidential

 having a rectangular-shaped head with long hair in the back. (As noted above, this description
was the stated reason for Guevara initially selecting Almodovar’s photo as a possible suspect.)
At trial, these descriptions were raised with Grande, who testified that, while at the
hospital, she described the shooter as “light skinned, long curls” and [h]e looked clean and his
face was thin and long.” When defense counsel confronted her with the descriptions from
Dombrowski’s report, Grande said that she didn’t recall what exactly she told him.
B.

Analysis of Misconduct Allegations.

The evidence regarding the allegation that Guevara improperly influenced the
identifications of Almodovar is mixed and inconclusive. Grande has consistently denied that
Guevara engaged in any misconduct that led her to identify the assailants. Power’s description
of Grande’s statement about a police hospital visit is credible, especially given her supporting
notes prepared immediately afterward that recount Grande’s statement that police showed her 69 photos and said “Here are the guys who did it.” But Power is unable to say that this visit
included Detective Guevara (Grande’s alleged statement to Power does not say so, and she was
visited by other police while in the hospital). Moreover, Power’s notes from this meeting further
state that Grande “is sure it is them because she had a good opportunity to see them,”
undercutting a claim that her identification was the result of improper influence.
If believed, Saez’s current statement that he was shown only pictures of Almodovar and
Negron by Guevara before attending the line-up, and was counseled by Guevara not to mention
these photos, would support a finding of misconduct against Guevara. However, Saez’s shifting
stories over time and under oath leaves us unable to reach a conclusion of misconduct in reliance
on Saez’s say so. This is not to say that his current description of events is incredible or
unbelievable—he in fact has consistently maintained this description of events since 1996, has
given believable (but uncorroborated) explanations for his prior statements, and has no apparent
motive today to take this position falsely. But despite the fact that Saez’s statements today, for
those reasons, might reasonably be believed, there is at least equal cause to disbelieve them,
given that he has shown himself willing to lie and that Grande’s testimony is to the contrary.
For these reasons, we do not find that the evidence renders it more likely than not that
Guevara engaged in misconduct in connection with the identification procedures used with
Grande and Saez that improperly influenced their identification of Almodovar.
IV.

Actual Innocence Claims
A.

Evidence Supporting The Conviction

As explained above, the only evidence at trial specifically linking Almodovar to the
drive-by shooting was the testimony by Grande and Saez identifying Almodovar as the rear
shooter. There is no physical evidence connecting Almodovar to the shooting. No weapon used
in the shooting was ever recovered, nor was the car used in the shooting. Grande has
consistently maintained her identification of Almodovar and has given no indication of any

11

Privileged & Confidential

 change of heart. Saez, in contrast, has recanted his trial testimony and has instead stated (since
1996) that he is unable to identify the assailants who shot at him and the others. 13
B.

Evidence Of Actual Innocence.

Roberto Almodovar has consistently presented an alibi defense to his conviction, which
has been corroborated by others. Significantly, Almodovar’s alibi defense continues to be
supported by his aunt Mary Rodriguez 14 and his former girlfriend, Azalia Carrillo, as well as
other third-party witnesses. We summarize below our investigation of this alibi defense.
Mary Rodriguez. In our interview of Almodovar’s aunt, Mary Rodriguez, she
recounted the details of this alibi and who had previously testified at trial. In our meeting, Mary
Rodriguez stated that on the night of the shooting, Almodovar arrived home at about 10:30 p.m.
after working all day and attending his G.E.D. class in the evening 15 and found that his girlfriend
was still out with their baby. When Carrillo arrived shortly thereafter, Almodovar and Carrillo
went to their room (which was the first floor dining room converted to a bedroom) and began
arguing about whether Carrillo should have been out so late with the baby. Rodriguez asked
them to keep it down because her son Joey, who slept on the couch in the living room just
outside Almodovar’s and Carrillo’s bedroom, had his first day of school the next day, September
1, 1994.
Mary Rodriguez reported that the argument escalated, prompting her to call Sergio
Almodovar, Roberto’s cousin, who was married to Carrillo’s sister, Amaris Almodovar. Sergio
and Amaris came over in an effort to mediate the argument; they all reportedly stayed until
roughly 1:30 a.m., when Rodriguez finally demanded that they leave and that everyone go to
bed.
Rodriguez stated that she was able to place the date of the argument as the evening/early
morning of the shooting (September 1, 1994), because September 1 was the date that her son
Joey began school that year. Rodriguez stated (as she also relayed in her earlier affidavit) that
the school year actually began on August 30, 1994, but Joey attended a private school and
Rodriguez did not have the funds to pay tuition until August 31, 1994. She told us that she took
August 31st off from work so she could pay the tuition and go shopping with Joey for other
school supplies he needed. An affidavit from the principal of Joey’s school, Paula Calvert, that
was submitted in support of Almodovar’s post-conviction petition, confirms that Joey did not
attend school until September 1, 1994, two days after the official start of the school year. Mary’s

13

Police reports note witnesses reporting hearing numerous shots with someone repeatedly yelling “Joker.” But
because both victim Saez and defendant Almodovar acknowledged having had the nickname “Joker” we do not
view that evidence as material to question of Almodovar’s innocence claim.
14

Mary Rodriguez reports consistent employment over the past plus-twenty years by Farley’s Candy Company
(Farley has been acquired and now operates under a different name). She is married and has one son, Joey. She still
lives in the same house she shared with Almodovar at the at the time of the shooting.
15

Almodovar’s attendance at both work and school were corroborated by other undisputed evidence submitted in
connection with his post-conviction petition.

12

Privileged & Confidential

 statements in our interview were consistent with her prior trial testimony and her affidavit
submitted in support of Almodovar’s 1998 post-conviction petition.
Azalia Carrillo. In our interview of Almodovar’s former girlfriend, Azalia Carrillo, she
recounted the same essential story about the fight she had with Almodovar on the night of the
shooting (consistent with her trial testimony). She estimated the time of the fight as 11:00 pm.
She also stated that when the fight ended, she and Almodovar went to bed, and he stayed in bed
until he got up to go to work the following morning. Carrillo also explained that she had
scratched Almodovar on the face during the fight, when he was holding her down, and she
recalled that Almodovar later told her he was embarrassed to go to work with the scratch on his
face. (Almodovar’s scratched face also was corroborated by an affidavit from a co-worker that
was prepared in connection with his post-conviction proceedings.)
Carrillo also corroborated Almodovar’s claim that he had left the Insane Dragons gang by
the time of the shooting. She said she understood he had left the gang around time when they
had a baby together approximately three months before the shooting, and that she no longer saw
gang members coming around during that period. (She confirmed that Almodovar was a
member of the Insane Dragons gang when she first met him.) Carrillo also explained that, after
Almodovar’s arrest, she spoke with an officer on the phone who and initially agreed to go to the
station for questioning, but afterwards Almodovar’s aunt, Mary Rodriguez, persuaded her not to
go. (Rodriguez separately reported that she was concerned about sending fifteen year-old
Carrillo to the police station without a parent or a lawyer.) Carrillo stated that, at Rodriguez’s
urging, she did not respond to the original police request about Almodovar’s whereabouts the
night of the shooting, and the police did not separately follow up with her. Carrillo stated further
that she long ago ceased having any contact or relationship with Almodovar. However, her
daughter (by Almodovar), now twenty, still has some occasional contact.
Roberto Almodovar. When we met with him, Almodovar recounted the story of his
fight with Carrillo in a manner consistent with both his prior testimony and with his other alibi
witnesses. He restated that the day after the fight, he got a ride to work from his neighbor, Jose
Sanchez, who told Almodovar that he heard the argument from next door, and that Sanchez
teased Almodovar about the scratch on his face and getting beat up by his girlfriend.
Almodovar also told us about an incident that occurred sometime between the shooting
and his arrest that, he believes, explains why his photo was presented to the detectives as one of
three possible Insane Dragon suspects. He told us that on September 4 or 5, 1994, he was
“hanging out” with his cousin Sergio Almodovar after work and Sergio drove to a house he was
moving out of “to pick up something” (Almodovar could not recall what). Almodovar reports
that, while at Sergio’s house, neighborhood friends “Dean” and “Russell” came over. The four
were inside the house when officers arrived and accused them of having a gang meeting and
proceeded to search the house. One of the officers, Officer Olszewski, found a sawed off
shotgun elsewhere in the house and questioned Sergio about it in another room. Almodovar
reports overhearing Olszewski hitting Sergio and asking about a drive-by shooting. Almodovar
stated that Sergio separately asked him to “take the rap” for the shotgun, but Almodovar refused.
All four were taken to the police station where Polaroid pictures were taken of each of them,

13

Privileged & Confidential

 including Almodovar. Almodovar stated that although he had previously been arrested for mob
action, this was the first time his picture had been taken.
Notably, Almodovar admitted in our interview that each of the men in the house, other
than him, were then-current members of the Insane Dragons gang. This arrest for mob action a
week before the shootings thus raises a real question as to Almodovar’s claim that he had by that
time withdrawn from the gang. The police reports we have received confirm this arrest on
September 4, 1994, and identifies Almodovar as a member of the Insane Dragons gang; the
reports of this arrest further state that the Dragons were at war with the Disciples gang (Saez’s
gang and noted “shootings in the past week.” 16 (The reports we have received do not reflect any
further pursuit of claims against Almodovar for this early September arrest.)
Alibi Corroboration. Almodovar’s alibi is also corroborated by various affidavits and
supporting documents obtained by his post-conviction counsel. These include, most
significantly, a statement from a school principal confirming the date of Joey Rodriguez’s first
day of school as on the same date as the shooting (corroborating Mary Rodriguez on this point),
and a statement from Jose Sanchez (Almodovar’s neighbor) confirming the fight between
Carrillo and Almodovar and Sanchez’s remarks about the scratch on Almodovar’s face the next
morning. These affidavits also include statements from Amaris and Sergio Almodovar, who
reported having come to the Rodriguez home to mediate the fight between Almodovar and his
girlfriend Carrillo.
IV.

Conclusion.

Regarding the allegation that Detective Guevara improperly influenced the selection of
Almodovar from a photo array and subsequent line-up, the evidence is conflicting and
inconclusive. Our investigation thus does not provide a basis for us to conclude that it is more
likely than not that such improper conduct by Guevara occurred or that it influenced the
subsequent identification by victim Jackie Grande. In particular, Grande has never waivered in
her testimony that she was not steered by Guevara to identify either defendant. Although she
declined to be interviewed by us, we do not view that denial as raising a question as to her prior
testimony, and her remarks to Negron’s counsel in 2013 indicate that she would likely present
the same testimony now if required to do so. Counsel Melinda Power’s report regarding
Grande’s prior statement is credible, especially given Power’s contemporaneous notes, but we do
not view that as sufficient by itself to find that Grande’s identification was based on improper
conduct by Guevara. Finally, witness Kennelly Saez’s flip-flopping statements in this regard,
even though now explained by him in a credible fashion, are insufficient in our view to
undermine Grande’s contrary position. That said, given Saez’s recantation of his own
16

For his part, Almodovar contended that officer Olszewski had “something against him” and had previously
arrested him for mob action that Almodovar felt was unfounded. Almodovar reported that Olszewski once
threatened him while he was walking down the street with Carrillo and told him, “You’ll be going away for a long
time.” Almodovar suggested officer Olszewski may have somehow improperly influenced the use of his photo in
Detective Guevara’s photo array, and noted that, after his arrest for these murders, officer Olszewski popped his
head in the holding cell, said “Gotcha!” and walked away laughing. However, the records we have reviewed
provide no corroboration for Almodovar’s suspicions about officer Olszewski’s conduct.

14

Privileged & Confidential

 identification, we conclude that his prior testimony against Almodovar should be given little
weight in our evaluation of their actual innocence claims.
With regard to Almodovar’s claim of actual innocence, we conclude that it is more likely
than not that he is in fact innocent of the murders for which he was convicted. The evidence
linking Almodovar to the shooting is slim—the testimony of one remaining victim-eyewitness
(given Saez’s recantation) under undisputedly challenging circumstances: the assailants were
inside a car; only moments passed between their arrival and shots being fired; and the shootings
occurred in the middle of the night. Moreover, Almodovar’s alibi evidence is compelling, with
multiple witnesses recounting a similar story of a fight between Almodovar and his girlfriend on
the night of the shooting. A critical component of this alibi – the date of the fight between
Almodovar and his girlfriend – was supported not only by Mary Rodriguez and her son but also
the school principal’s affidavit and related records. We of course recognize that Almodovar’s
relatives would have a motive to lie about his alibi, and that both Rodriquez and Carrillo testified
at trial and their testimony was apparently rejected by the jury. However, we found Mary
Rodriquez (who has been steadily employed and has no apparent criminal record) to be
forthcoming and credible in our meeting with her, and her position on the key facts has remained
consistent over the years. Similarly, we found Carrillo to be credible, and took note that her lack
of any apparent ongoing relationship with Almodovar lessens any incentive she might have to lie
on his behalf (for example, she could have simply declined our interview request, as did Jackie
Grande). Finally, we note that when the shooting occurred Almodovar appeared to have
redirected his life, as confirmed by independent sources—he was working six days a week,
attending night classes to obtain his G.E.D., and helping to raise his infant daughter. 17 In sum,
we conclude that Almodovar’s alibi evidence substantially outweighs the evidence against him
by a single credible eyewitness.

17

In reaching this conclusion, however, we did not consider Almodovar’s claim that he was no longer a member of
the Insane Dragons’ gang at the time of the shooting. The evidence of his withdrawal is based largely on his own
say so, and his arrest a week before with other admitted gang members raises questions about his claim. We thus
believe the evidence of his alleged withdrawal from the gang is inconclusive.

15

Privileged & Confidential