IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Respondent, ) ) Circuit Court No. 94 CR 24318 v. ) ) The Honorable Judge James Linn, presiding WILLIAM NEGRON, ) ) Petitioner. ) ________________________________________________________________________ PETITIONER WILLIAM NEGRON’S SUCCESSIVE POST-CONVICTION PETITION Petitioner, William Negron, by his attorneys, THE EXONERATION PROJECT, respectfully requests relief pursuant to the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et. seq. and in support of this request alleges and states the following: Introduction 1. William Negron has spent nineteen years imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. Mr. Negron was convicted of first degree murder in connection with a drive by shooting that occurred on September 1, 1994. There was no evidence linking Mr. Negron to the car, nor any weapons recovered. Indeed, there was no physical evidence tying Mr. Negron to the crime whatsoever. Neither Mr. Negron nor his co-defendant confessed. Indeed, Mr. Negron has always asserted his innocence. 2. The only evidence connecting Mr. Negron with the shooting was the testimony of two eyewitnesses, who identified him as the person who was driving the vehicle and identified his codefendant as the shooter. 3. Newly discovered evidence, however, suggests that the two eyewitnesses provided false testimony at the behest of Chicago Police Detective Guevara, the lead investigator on the case. Detective Guevara has been accused of misconduct in almost 100 documented cases. He was found civilly liable in Johnson v. Guevara, 05-C-1042, for framing an innocent man by coercing witnesses to provide false identifications. Most recently, Detective Guevara exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege on the grounds that a truthful response to questions about whether he caused witnesses to falsely identify suspects could subject him to criminal charges. People v. Solache and Reyes, 98 CR 01244, and People v. Montanez and Serrano, 93 CR 18173. See Exhibits 26 and 51. 4. Moreover, a former Chicago police detective has come forward to blow the whistle on Detective Guevara’s improper conduct. The former detective, Bill Dorsch, testified that he observed Detective Guevara instruct a witness as to which photograph to select from a photo array before the witness made an identification, contrary to all accepted practices and procedures – an idiosyncratic allegation present in dozens of other cases of misconduct, including this one. 5. Tragically, at the time of his trial, Mr. Negron surmised that Detective Guevara’s testimony in this case was suspect. One eyewitness had previously testified that he had not been able to view the suspects well enough to make an identification. The other eyewitness admitted to being told who to pick from the photo array. And for his part, Detective Guevara was impeached numerous times by his police report and other witnesses as to how Mr. Negron and Mr. Almodovar ever came to be suspects in this case in the first place. 6. But without knowledge of the dozens of other instances where Detective Guevara mproperly induced witnesses to falsely identify criminal defendants, Mr. Negron was unable to demonstrate that the identifications in his case were similarly tainted. He and his co-defendant were both convicted solely on identifications procured by Defendant Guevara. 2   7. The new evidence, along with the inherently weak evidence presented against Mr. Negron at trial, undermines confidence in the verdict and demands that William Negron’s conviction(s) be set aside and Mr. Negron be released or, at the very least, a new trial ordered. Procedural History 8. On November 30, 1995, Mr. Negron was convicted of the first degree murders of Amy Merkes and Jorge Rodriguez, the attempted first degree murders of Kennelly Saez and Jackie Grande and aggravated battery with a firearm of Jackie Grande. Mr. Negron was sentenced to natural life in prison at the Illinois Department of Corrections for the two counts of murder and 30 years imprisonment for the two counts of attempted murder, to run consecutively. 9. On June 17, 1998, the First District Appellate court affirmed his conviction and held that 1) eyewitness identification testimony, although not corroborated by physical evidence, was sufficient to support conviction; 2) improper admission of testimony regarding prior murder of member of same gang as defendant, which was allegedly committed by members of rival gang, was harmless error; and 3) defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Negron, 697 N.E.2d 329 (1st Dist. 1998). 10. On September 15, 1998, Mr. Negron filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied his petition on October 2, 1998. 11. On July 1, 2013, Mr. Negron filed a post-conviction petition on the basis of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). I. Factual Allegations A Drive-by Shooting In the Middle of the Night 12. In the early morning hours of September 1, 1994, Amy Merkes, George Rodriguez, Kennelly Saez and Jackie Grande were in front of Saez’s apartment building located at 3918 West Cortland Avenue. (F185; G73). Just before 1:00 a.m., a blue Oldsmobile sped by. 3   (F189; G43-44). After passing the building, the car turned into an alley, stopped, and backed up towards the building where the four were assembled. (F193). 13. At this point, none of the witnesses had been able to see any of the car’s occupants. 14. Saez approached the car and the rear passenger said, “What’s up folks.” (F196) Saez did not recognize the speaker and responded “Who’s that?” (F197) The rear passenger pulled out a gun and pointed it at Saez. (F196-F201). 15. Saez immediately dropped to the ground and heard several shots. (F201- F202, F246, F248). 16. Grande was seated, looking up at the car for a few seconds before hearing the shots fired. (G102). When the shooting started, Rodriguez opened the apartment door and Grande, Merkes, and Rodriguez ran inside. (G108) 17. Merkes and Rodriguez were each fatally shot and Grande was shot in the back as she fled from the shots. (F144 F149). Both Eyewitnesses Can Only Provide Vague Descriptions of the Offenders 18. When Chicago Police officers interviewed Saez on the day of the shooting, he described the offenders only as three male Latinos in a blue car. (F249). Saez was not able to provide a more detailed description because the events happened too quickly for him to see the offenders well. (F252). Saez did not give a description of the height, weight, facial hair, complexion, or hair of the offenders when initially interviewed by the police. (F31; F315-16; F248-52). When asked why anyone would want to shoot him, Kennelly Saez did not mention gang rivalries as a motive. (F233) 19. Chicago Police Officer Robert Lohman testified at trial that the only description he was able to obtain after talking to the witnesses at the scene, including Saez and Grande, was 4   that the offenders were three male Latinos, sixteen to twenty years old, wearing Starter Jackets (F313-14.) Detective Guevara Picks Mr. Almodovar and Mr. Negron as His Suspects Without Any Evidence Linking Them to the Crime 20. Detective Guevara began working on the case at 3:00 p.m. on September 1, 1994, fifteen hours after the shooting. (G156). Guevara did not make any notes of the work that he did. (G173) He and his partner, Detective Halvorsen, did not create any police reports relating to their work on this case until September 13, 1994, twelve days after the shooting. (G173) 21. According to his police report, it “appeared” to Guevara and his partner that the double murder was in retaliation for a gang-related murder involving a street gang called the “Insane Dragons” so they “concentrated their efforts towards identifying who in the Insane Dragons may have committed this crime.” See Exhibit 1. 22. To that end, Detective Guevara and his partner approached Chicago Police Officers Olszewski and Siwa who had just arrested three Insane Dragons on unrelated charges. Id. at 2. Olszewski and Siwa had polaroids of the three men. Id. One of these photos depicted Roberto Almodovar. Id. Olszewski and Siwa said that Almodovar “hung around” with Negron and supplied Guevara with a Polaroid photo of Mr. Negron. Id. No description—from any witness or based on any photo—of the driver of the vehicle appears anywhere in Guevara’s report. Id. 23. Although he testified at trial that he obtained the photos based on descriptions from Saez on September 1 or 2, 1994, (G158), Detective Guevara’s singular police report in this double homicide case indicates that he did not speak to Saez on September 1 or 2, and certainly did not receive a description of the shooter from him at that time. Id. Rather, Detective Guevara’s police report included only a description from Grande on September 5, 1994. This 5   was after Detective Guevara had already obtained the photos of Mr. Almodovar and Mr. Negron. Id. 24. In other words, although Detective Guevara claimed that he obtained Mr. Almodovar’s photo as a result of an eyewitness’s description, his own police report demonstrates that he did not receive any purported description of the offenders until he had already selected Mr. Almodovar and Mr. Negron as his suspects, without any rational basis to believe that they committed the crimes. (G164). Indeed, the only description he had at the time was was that the offenders were three male Latinos, sixteen to twenty years old, wearing Starter Jackets (F31314.) Guevara’s Manipulation of the Eyewitnesses 25. In April of 1995, Jackie Grande reported that after the shooting, officers came to the hospital, showed her some photographs and told her, “These are the guys who did it.” See Exhibit 2.. At a pretrial hearing to suppress the lineup identification, Grande testified that she had seen the photo arrays on two occasions. (C40-42). Detective Guevara, however, omited the fact that he showed Grande photos in the hospital from his report. He only documented showing her photos the second time – on September 5, after she was released from the hospital, and after he had impermissibly tainted her identification by telling her which photos to pick out. 26. On September 12, 1994, Guevara took Kennelly Saez and Jackie Grande to view a lineup. (G60). Saez picked out Mr. Negron and Mr. Almodovar at the line-up. (G58, G59). 27. In March 1995, months after viewing the lineup, but before petitioner’s trial, Saez recanted his lineup identification in the law office of Melinda Power. (F213, 216). He signed an affidavit in which he stated that he had not seen the offenders well enough to identify anyone, 6   because it was dark outside and he had smoked marijuana. He stated that he did not know who he had seen, despite his earlier identification. (G311-13). 28. At trial, Saez claimed that a gang leader had forced him to produce the affidavit, and that Guevara did not tell him who to choose. (F210, F213). 29. However, post-trial, Kennelly Saez testified that he had been shown photographs by “a Latino officer” the day of the lineup. (See Exhibit 3). 30. Saez further testified post-trial that Jackie Grande and the Latino officer came to his home and showed him two Polaroid photos. Id. at 15. Saez testified that “[the detective] said that he believed that these people—these were the guys that did the shooting and that if I was willing to come down to a lineup to point them out…When I had the picture in my hand and I was looking and then he was saying that these were the guys and all this stuff, and I looked at Jackie and she like nodded and she said, ‘Yes, that’s them.’ And so I went along with it.” Id. at 14. 31. Saez further testified that if Guevara and Grande had not told him who to choose as the perpetrators, he would not have been able to identify them. Id. at 15. After riding to the station with Guevara and Grande, Guevara told Saez not to mention that he was shown pictures before the lineup. Id. at 16. In the lineup, Kennelly Saez merely identified the people he had just seen in the photos. Id. Testimony at Trial 32. Although Jackie Grande told Melinda Power that police officers came to the hospital and told her, “These are the guys who did it,” Mr. Negron’s trial counsel failed to call Melinda Power as a witness. See, Exhibit 2. 7   33. In addition, the jury never heard evidence of Guevara’s pattern and practice of improperly influencing witnesses. 34. As a result, Mr. Almodovar and Mr. Negron were convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated battery with a firearm. Detective Guevara’s Pattern and Practice of Improperly Influencing Witnesses 35. Recently, new evidence has revealed that Detective Guevara repeatedly and improperly influenced eyewitness identifications in murder cases. The following is not an exhaustive list, but provides a number of documented allegations of that misconduct. 36. In two recent proceedings, Detective Guevara took the stand and refused to answer any questions about allegations that he manipulated dozens of witnesses to provide false identifications, instead invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to answer the questions because truthful responses could subject him to criminal liability. See Exhibit 26 (Detective Guevara’s testimony in People v. Solache and Reyes, 98 CR 01244) and Exhibit 50 (Detective Guevara’s testimony in People v. Montanez and Serrano, 93 CR 18173). 37. A number of the witnesses about whom Detective Guevara refused to testify are discussed below. For each witness who Detective Guevara refused to answer questions about, Mr. Negron has placed an asterisk (*) next to his or her name to indicate that fact.1                                                              1 So the record is clear, Detective Guevara refused to testify about his interactions with: Bill Dorsch (Exhibit 50 at 45-50), Francisco Vicente (Exhibit 50 at 22-24, 31-38, 41, 44, 45, 68-70), Timothy Rankins (Exhibit 50 at 24, 25, 43), Anna Flores (Exhibit 50 at 26, 54, 55; Exhibit 26 at 30-32), Graciela Flores (Exhibit 50 at 26, 54, 55; Exhibit 26 at 30, 31), David Velazquez (Exhibit 50 at 26, 51-54; Exhibit 26 at 20-22), Efrain Sanchez (Exhibit 50 at 27, 55, 56), Julio Sanchez (Exhibit 50 at 27, 56, 57), Adolfo Frias Munoz (Exhibit 50 at 27, 28, 57, 58; Exhibit 26 at 16, 17), Jose Melendez (Exhibit 50 at 28, 60-62; Exhibit 26 at 33, 35), Gabriel Solache (Exhibit 50 at 28, 29; Exhibit 26 at 8-11), Arturo Reyes (Exhibit 50 at 29; Exhibit 26 at 5-8, 40, 41), Virgilio Muniz (Exhibit 50 at 30, 63), Luis Figueroa (Exhibit 50 at 59; Exhibit 26 at 37-39), Angel Diaz (Exhibit 50 at 59, 60; Exhibit 26 at 38, 39, 41), Wilfredo Rosario (Exhibit 50 at 64, 65), Xavier Arcos (Exhibit 50 at 65; Exhibit 26 at 27, 28), Gloria Ortiz Bordoy (Exhibit 50 at 65, 66), Robert Ruiz (Exhibit 50 at 67; Exhibit 26 at 24-26), Leshurn Hunt (Exhibit 26 at 14, 15), 8   38. Bill Dorsch* is a former Chicago police detective. While serving with the Chicago police department, Dorsch was assigned to investigate a murder. Several months after the murder occurred, Guevara brought two juveniles to the police station who purported to have witnessed a shooting and recorded the license place of the shooter. 39. Based on the information provided, Detective Dorsch created a photo array for the juveniles to attempt to identify the shooter. While the first juvenile was viewing the photo array, and before he identified any of the photographs, Guevara pointed to the suspect’s photo and told the juvenile “that’s him.” The juvenile then agreed with Guevara, saying that was the person who committed the shooting. See Exhibit 28. 40. Dorsch then directed Guevara to leave the room and had the other juvenile view the same photo array, and he was unable to make any identification. Id. 41. Based on the first juvenile’s identification, the suspect was charged with murder. Subsequently, Dorsch spoke to the two juveniles without Guevara being present. The juveniles admitted that they had been paid to falsely claim that the suspect was the person responsible for the shooting. After prosecutors spoke to the two juveniles, the suspect was released. See Exhibit 28. 42. Guevara’s activities have drawn the interest of federal law enforcement officers. In 2001, the FBI authored a special report detailing the criminal activity of Chicago Police Officer Joseph Miedzianowski and his associates, including Detective Reynaldo Guevara. The report details that Guevara, while acting in his capacity as a police officer, would apprehend drug and gun dealers and then allow them to “buy their way of trouble.” According to the report, Guevara also took bribes to alter both positive and negative lineups of murder suspects. Finally,                                                                                                                                                                                                  Adrian Duta (Exhibit 26 at 15, 16), Voytek Dembski (Exhibit 26 at 18, 19), Daniel Pena (Exhibit 26 at 22-24), Annie Turner (Exhibit 26 at 28, 29), Samuel Perez (Exhibit 26 at 32-34), Juan Johnson (Exhibit 26 at 33, 34), and Thomas Sierra (Exhibit 26 at 34, 35). 9   the report states that Guevara, using an attorney as a conduit, would receive cash in exchange for the ultimate dismissal of murder cases he investigated. See Exhibit 4 at 13-14. 43. In 1989, Detective Guevara coerced Samuel Perez* into falsely identifying Juan Johnson as the person who killed Ricardo Fernandez. Guevara put Perez inside his car, showed Perez a photo of Juan Johnson, and told Perez that he wanted Juan Johnson to take the blame for the murder. Unsurprisingly, Perez subsequently falsely identified Johnson as a murderer. See Exhibit 5. 44. In 1989, Detective Guevara also coerced Salvador Ortiz into making a false identification of Juan Johnson, which he later recanted. See Exhibit 6. 45. In 1989, Detective Guevara coerced Virgilio Muniz* into making a false identification by repeatedly threatening Muniz that if he did not identify Manuel Rivera as the murderer, Muniz would “go down for the murder.” See Exhibit 7. 46. In 1989, Detective Guevara coerced Virgilio Calderon Muniz (unrelated to Virgilio Muniz, described in the above paragraph) into making a false identification by telling him who to identify and making a veiled threat as to what would happen if he did not. See Exhibit 8. 47. In 1991, Detective Guevara coerced Wilfredo Rosario* into making a false identification and giving false testimony before the Grand Jury by threatening Rosario that if he did not identify Xavier Arcos* as the murderer, Rosario would be “pinned” for the murder. Guevara fed Rosario details of the crime, such as the number of shots fired, the type of vehicle used in the crime, and the participants in the crime. Rosario recanted his identification of Arcos at trial. Though Arcos was still found guilty of murder by a jury, the appellate court overturned the conviction based on the lack of sufficient evidence. See Exhibit 9. 10   48. In 1991, Detective Guevara physically coerced sixteen year-old David Velazquez* into making a false identification and giving false testimony by taking him to a rival gang’s territory, beating him while chained to a wall at Area 5, and threatening to “get you for anything I can” if he did not talk. All of the false details of Velazquez’s statement were provided by Guevara. See Exhibit 10. 49. In 1993, Detective Guevara coerced an identification from Carl Richmond by threatening Richmond that he could make his life very uncomfortable if Richmond did not identify Robert Bouto as the murderer of one of Richmond’s friends. Richmond, who was familiar with Guevara’s tactics, believed that Guevara would honor this threat. See Exhibit 11. 50. In 1993, Detective Guevara used physical violence and inducements to coerce Francisco Vicente* into giving false testimony at the joint trial of Armando Serrano, Jorge Pacheco, and Jose Montanez. When Vicente initially refused to cooperate, Guevara hit him in the head and then promised him money and a favorable disposition on unrelated pending charges. Guevara then provided Francisco Vicente with the details of the crime. See Exhibit 12. 51. In 1993, Detective Guevara beat Timothy Rankins* with a flashlight, threw him out of his chair, and placed him in a chokehold to induce a statement implicating Armando Serrano, Jorge Pacheco, and Jose Montanez. As a result, Rankins testified falsely against the men in the Grand Jury. See Exhibit 13. 52. In 1993, Detective Guevara hit Armando Serrano* in the face with an open hand while Serrano was shackled to a police station wall in an attempt to get Serrano to confess to murder. When Serrano’s mother and father arrived at the police station they could hear their son screaming for a lawyer. See Exhibit 14. 11   53. In 1995, Detective Guevara arrested Edwin Davila and, in an attempt to coerce a confession, chained him to the wall of an interrogation room and told him that he was going to frame him for murder. After Davila told Guevara that he did not do it, Guevara forced Davila to participate in a lineup in which two witnesses identified Davila as the perpetrator, despite the fact that each of those witnesses had previously told the police that they had not been able to see the shooter. See Exhibit 15. 54. In 1991, Detective Guevara told Efrain and Julio Sanchez to pick David Colon out of a lineup. As a result, these men falsely claimed that Colon had committed murder, but later came forward to bring Detective Guevara’s misconduct to light. See Exhibit 16. 55. In 1995, Detective Guevara coerced Evelyn Diaz into making a false identification and providing false testimony to the Grand Jury by threatening Diaz that if she did not identify Luis Serrano as the shooter, her children would be taken away by the Department of Children and Family Services. See Exhibit 17. 56. In 1995, Detective Guevara told Luis Figueroa to falsely identify Angel Diaz* as the perpetrator even though Figueroa did not see anything. Figueroa identified Diaz but recanted his identification at trial. See Exhibit 18. 57. In 1995, Detective Guevara coerced Gloria Ortiz Bordoy* into making a false statement and testifying falsely against Santos Flores* at trial. During Ortiz Bordoy’s six-to-eighthour interrogation, Guevara yelled in her face, threatened that her children would be taken by the Department of Children and Family Services, called her “the B word,” and “raised his hand” saying that he “felt like smacking” her. Finally, without reading its contents, Ortiz Bordoy signed a statement that the detectives wrote out for her because she just wanted to “get out of there.” See Exhibit 19. 12   58. In 1995, Detective Guevara coerced Rodolfo Zaragoza, who was a victim and an eyewitness to a crime, into making a false identification and providing false testimony. Zaragosa was intimidated by Guevara and identified Ricardo Rodriguez as the offender because Guevara told him that Rodriguez was the shooter. See Exhibit 20. 59. In 1995, Detective Guevara engaged in misconduct when he told Jose Melendez* to falsely identify Thomas Sierra as the shooter even though Melendez did not see the shooter. Melendez identified Sierra, but recanted his identification at trial. See Exhibit 21. 60. In 1996, Detective Guevara coerced Maria Rivera into making a false identification of a man in a lineup by unzipping his pants, and propositioning her. Rivera later told the prosecutor that she had falsely identified an individual in a lineup at Guevara’s direction. The prosecution later abandoned murder charges against the individual whom Rivera falsely identified in the lineup. See Exhibit 22. 61. In 1997, Detective Guevara coerced Robert Ruiz* into making a false identification. Guevara detained Ruiz repeatedly over the course of a ten-day period, locking him in an interrogation room without food, water, or a bathroom. Though Ruiz kept telling Guevara that he had not seen the shooter or the driver involved in the crime, Guevara told Ruiz whom to identify and what to say in his statement. Ruiz finally implicated Freddy and Concepcion Santiago in the murder because Ruiz believed that Guevara would continue to harass him until he changed his story. Ruiz recanted his identification at trial, and the judge found Freddy and Concepcion Santiago not guilty. The trial judge found it disturbing that Guevara was the lead detective in the case because the victim was Guevara’s nephew. See Exhibit 23. 62. In 1997, Detective Guevara withheld physical evidence and failed to disclose the exculpatory statements of witness Ruth Atonetty to Ariel Gomez. Gomez was accused of firing 13   multiple shots from a car into a crowd. Ruth Antonetty told Guevara that she heard multiple shots coming from within the crowd, not from Gomez’s vehicle. Guevara continued to pressure her to change her account, and when she would not, he told her he “had other witnesses” and “didn’t need her.” As a result, Ariel Gomez did not have access to key Brady material at his trial. See Exhibit 24. 63. In 1998, Detective Guevara used suggestive tactics to force twelve-year-old Orlando Lopez to falsely identify Jacques Rivera as the person who shot Felix Valentin. As a result, Rivera was convicted of murder. In 2011, Lopez testified at an evidentiary hearing that he had never been able to identify Rivera as the murderer. As a result, Rivera received a new trial. Ultimately, the State’s Attorney dropped all charges against Rivera. See Exhibit 25. 64. In November 2001, Detective Guevara’s girlfriend, Judith Martinez, attended a trial in which Guevara was testifying and observed the testimony of trial witnesses. She then conferred with Guevara, even though the Court had ordered all witnesses excluded from the courtroom to prevent collusion among the witnesses. See Exhibit 26. 65. In 2011, the first district granted Tony Gonzalez a post-conviction hearing on the basis that Detective Guevara conducted an unduly suggestive lineup wherein he concocted an array in which Gonzalez’s photo was the only one that stood out from the rest in a photo array. See Exhibit 27. 66. In 1982, Detective Guevara and another officer arrested and physically assaulted Annie Turner* for smoking on a bus. Guevara called her a “bitch” and pushed her out the back door of the bus. He twisted her arm, threatened to “snap” it, and handcuffed her so tightly that her skin broke. He also hit her across the face with a metal bracelet he was wearing and called 14   her a “nigger bitch.” Turner sought medical treatment and filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Standards. See Exhibit 29. 67. In 1982, Detective Guevara and three other officers broke through Almarie Lloyd’s locked front door and conducted a warrantless search of her home. When Lloyd asked who they were, she was told to shut up. The officers terrified Lloyd, her brother, and two children, and left the home in shambles. Lloyd filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Standards the next day. See Exhibit 30. 68. In 1983, Detective Guevara and other officers forcibly removed Leshurn Hunt* from his home and handcuffed him to a ring in the wall at the police station where he was beaten about the head, face, and body until he confessed to murder and robbery charges. Hunt was detained for approximately 23 hours and deprived of food, water, and sleep until after he confessed. Hunt sought medical treatment for his injuries and filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Standards. Witnesses who saw Hunt while in custody corroborated his claim of a beating by the police. The criminal court judge suppressed Hunt’s confession, and a jury returned a favorable verdict in a related civil rights action on Hunt’s claim of excessive detention against the City of Chicago. See Exhibit 31. 69. In 1984, Detective Guevara and other officers physically assaulted Graciela Flores* and her 13-year old sister Anna during a search of their home, during which the officers did not identify themselves as police. Guevara repeatedly slapped Graciela, called her a “bitch” and pulled her hair. As a result of this incident, Graciela’s arm was put in a sling and she spent one week in the hospital. See Exhibit 32. 70. In 1985, Detective Guevara attempted to coerce a false statement from Reynaldo Munoz. Guevara handcuffed Munoz and put him in the back of a squad car. When Munoz denied 15   knowing the people Guevara was asking about, Guevara repeatedly hit him in the mouth with his fist. Guevara then took Munoz to rival gang territory where he allowed rival gang members to spit on Munoz and beat Munoz about the head. See Exhibit 33. 71. In 1986, Detective Guevara threw Rafael Garcia against a car, struck him in the face several times, kicked him and hit him in the head. Garcia filed a complaint with the Chicago Police Department’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS). Although Guevara denied the charges, Garcia’s complaints were corroborated by physical evidence, as he was treated at the hospital for lacerations to the head. After an investigation into the incident, OPS found that Guevara had lied about the incident and recommended that Guevara be suspended for two days. See Exhibit 34. 72. In 1986, Detective Guevara and two other officers coerced a confession from Daniel Pena* by beating him about the face and ribs with their hands and about the groin and thighs with flashlights during an interrogation. Pena was taken to see a doctor where he complained about being beaten by the police. The doctor found bruising to Pena’s legs and abrasions and lacerations to Pena’s nose. Family members corroborated Pena’s claim that he had been beaten while in police custody. See Exhibit 35. 73. In 1986, Detective Guevara pulled over Melvin Warren because Warren cut him off while driving westbound on Augusta Boulevard. Guevara called Warren a “nigger dog” and “threatened to tear [Warren’s] head off.” Guevara hit Warren in the face with a closed fist and then forced him down into the front seat of his car and began to choke him. Two eyewitnesses confirmed that Guevara initiated the beating. In response to this incident, Warren sought medical treatment and filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Standards (OPS). OPS sustained 16   Warren’s allegations that Guevara had physically and verbally assaulted him and recommended that Guevara be reprimanded. See Exhibit 36. 74. In 1989, Detective Guevara coerced a false confession from Victor Vera by transporting him to rival gang territory and threatening to release him unless he confessed to the murder of Edwin Castaneda. Fearing for his life, Vera agreed to falsely confess to a crime he knew nothing about. See Exhibit 37. 75. In 1991, Detective Guevara coerced David Rivera into signing a confession for murder by intimidation, threats, and inducements. Guevara told Rivera that if he confessed he would serve seven years in prison whereas if he did not confess, he would be sent away for fifty years. Guevara then promised Rivera that if he signed a statement, he could go home. See Exhibit 38. 76. In 1991, Detective Guevara coerced a false confession from Daniel Rodriguez through the use of threats and intimidation. While en route to the police station, Guevara threatened to harm Rodriguez’s family if he did not cooperate. Once at Area 5, Rodriguez was chained to a wall, denied food, water, and use of a restroom, and beaten by Guevara’s partner, Detective Ernest Halvorsen in the chest and torso. Guevara provided details of the crime to Rodriguez to include in Rodriguez’s false confession. See Exhibit 39. 77. In 1992, Detective Guevara engaged in misconduct when he interrogated Jacqueline Montanez without a youth officer present. The appellate court reversed and remanded Montanez’s conviction for murder, noting that “not only was defendant interrogated before having an opportunity to confer with a concerned adult, but, worse, any opportunity to do so was effectively frustrated by police.” See Exhibit 40. 17   78. In 1993, Detective Guevara arrested fifteen year old Eliezar Cruzado and threatened him with life imprisonment if he did not make a statement implicating himself in a murder. Guevara also told Cruzado that he could go home and see his family again, but only if he agreed to make a statement. At the time, Cruzado had a limited ability to read and write. See Exhibit 41. 79. In 1993, Detective Guevara used physical force and threats to coerce a false confession from Adolfo Frias-Munoz*. Over the course of a two-day interrogation, Frias-Munoz was handcuffed to a ring on the wall of the interrogation room, hit in the face with an open hand by Detective Guevara, and beaten by two other officers. Though isolated in a locked interrogation room, Frias-Munoz could hear his wife screaming and his son crying in another room. Guevara threatened Frias-Munoz that if he did not confess, his wife would go to prison and his children would be taken away. Frias-Munoz, who did not speak English, agreed to give a statement to an assistant state’s attorney. Frias-Munoz spoke in Spanish and Guevara translated the statement so that the prosecutor could write the statement in English. Frias-Munoz then signed a statement he could not read. See Exhibit 42. 80. In 1994, Detective Guevara, after 14 hours of interrogation, coerced a confession from Adrian Duta* by hitting him in the face with an open palm, punching him in the stomach, and telling him he could go home if he signed a statement. When Duta’s father came to see Duta at the station house, Duta was exhausted and crying and repeatedly said that he did not know what he had signed and had only signed the document so he could go home. Duta complained to his father of being struck in the head and stomach by Guevara. See Exhibit 43. 81. In 1995, Detective Guevara and his partner Detective Ernest Halvorsen coerced a confession from 17-year-old Santos Flores after handcuffing him to the wall of a locked interview 18   room and refusing his requests for an attorney. During the course of the 11-hour interrogation, Guevara yelled at him, slapped him numerous times on the side of his head, and told him that if he did not confess he would never see the light of day. Flores eventually gave a statement to the police indicating his involvement in the crime. Flores’s statement was ruled inadmissible on appeal on the grounds that it was elicited in violation of Miranda. See Exhibit 44. 82. In 1997, Detective Guevara coerced a false confession from Voytek Dembski* by beating him while chained to a wall in a locked interrogation room. Dembski, a Polish National who did not speak English, was interrogated by Guevara without Miranda warnings, without notification to the Polish consulate, and without a Polish language interpreter. Dembski could not read the statement he eventually signed as it was written in English. See Exhibit 45. 83. In 1998, Detective Guevara repeatedly hit Rosauro Mejia in an attempt to coerce a confession from him. Rosauro never confessed and was finally released after being held in custody for three days. See Exhibit 46. 84. In 1998, Detective Guevara repeatedly pulled Adriana Mejia’s hair and struck her once on the back of her neck while she was interrogated. See Exhibit 47. 85. In 1998, Detective Guevara repeatedly threatened and beat Arturo Reyes* in an attempt to unconstitutionally coerce Reyes into giving an incriminating statement. After two days of isolation and interrogation, Reyes provided a false statement. See Exhibit 48. 86. In 1998, Detective Guevara repeatedly struck Gabriel Solache* on the left side of his head and in the stomach while Solache was chained to the wall of a locked interrogation room. After 40 hours of interrogation, Solache gave a false statement so the beating would stop. Solache sought medical treatment for his injuries and sustained permanent hearing loss to his left ear. See Exhibit 49. 19   II. Claim One: Actual Innocence 87. Petitioner incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully restated 88. It is well-established that Illinois has no interest in wrongfully incarcerating herein. innocent persons. Procedurally, doing so “would be fundamentally unfair.” People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 487, 665 N.E.2d 1330, 1336 (1996); see also U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV. Substantively, imprisoning the innocent would be “so conscience shocking as to trigger the operation of substantive due process.” Washington, 171 Ill.2d at 487-88, 665 N.E.2d at 1336; see also U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV. 89. Thus, a defendant who is actually innocent of the offense for which he stands convicted may bring a free-standing claim of actual innocence, seeking reversal of his conviction. To prevail, the defendant must present supporting evidence, which is new, material, and noncumulative, and which would probably change the result on retrial. Washington, 171 Ill.2d at 489, 665 N.E.2d at 1336. 90. Newly discovered evidence demonstrates that Detective Reynaldo Guevara systematically used improper investigatory techniques, including improperly influencing eyewitnesses, conducting suggestive lineups, coercing witnesses through intimidation and force, and abusing civilians. 91. The evidence of Guevara’s pattern of improperly influencing witnesses qualifies as new evidence because it could not have been discovered at trial by the exercise of due diligence. 92. The evidence of Guevara’s pattern and practice of improperly influencing witnesses is of such a conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial. 20   The principle evidence presented at trial against Mr. Negron was the testimony of eyewitnesses Kennelly Saez and Jackie Grande. In light of the newly discovered evidence, Kennelly Saez’s recantation and Jackie Grande’s statement to Melinda Power that police told her “[t]hese are the guys that did it,” become more credible. 93. Although Mr. Negron has always maintained his innocence, it was only with the emergence of this new evidence that proving his innocence has become possible. III. Claim Two: Brady 94. Petitioner incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully restated 95. Detective Guevara was aware of his pattern and practice of improperly herein. influencing the identification of eyewitnesses and the State had a duty to furnish this information to Mr. Negron. 96. It is well-settled that the prosecution has a duty to disclose evidence that is materially favorable to a criminal defendant; the failure to do so violates due process. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.83, 87 (1963). The prosecution bears the burden of learning of any evidence favorable to the defendant, which is “known to others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995). 97. The standard of review is whether “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 434 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)). “The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.” Id. 21   98. Had this evidence been available to the defense, counsel could have presented it both at the pretrial motion to suppress Grande’s identification and at trial. In a case such as this one, where guilt or innocence depended entirely on the credibility of the eyewitnesses and Detective Guevara, the newly discovered evidence is material and undermines the validity of the conviction. 99. The State’s failure to disclose this favorable evidence deprived Mr. Negron of his right to fundamental fairness and due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under analogous provisions of the Illinois Constitution. IV. Claim Three: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Trial 100. Petitioner incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully restated 101. Mr. Negron’s counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient herein. performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). An attorney’s performance is deficient when the “representation falls below an objective standard of reasonableness” of “prevailing professional norms.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. To demonstrate prejudice a petitioner must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694. 102. Strickland includes a “duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. 103. Despite the fact that Melinda Power should have been investigated as a witness who could rebut the identification of Jackie Grande, she was never contacted nor called to 22   testify. Ms. Power stated at the motion to suppress hearing that Jackie Grande told her that the police came to Grande in the hospital with photos of Almodovar and Negron and stated, “These are the guys who did it.” Negron’s counsel should have been aware of this because it occurred in open court. Because Grande’s identification was central to the case, the failure to call Melinda Power in rebuttal was unreasonable. There is a reasonable probability that if the jury had heard the testimony of Melinda Power, coupled with the recantation of Saez, the result of the proceeding would have been different. CONCLUSION 104. Wherefore, Petitioner William Negron, though his attorneys, moves this court to consider the prejudicial impact of each of the above-stated deprivations of his constitutional rights singly, or in combination with one another. Accordingly, William Negron respectfully requests the following relief: A. Outright reversal of his conviction; B. Vacation of his conviction followed by a new trial; or C. A hearing in which proof may be offered concerning the allegations contained in his petition. Respectfully Submitted, _________________________ Attorneys for William Negron Jon Loevy Russell Ainsworth Tara Thompson David Owens Theresa Kleinhaus THE EXONERATION PROJECT University of Chicago Law School 6020 South University Ave. 23   24 Chicago, IL 60637 ID: 44407