mm: Court of mi-
FIRST DiStl'iCt

 

 

Circuit Court No. 95 CR 18602
Trial Judge STUART E. PALMER 

Reviewing Court No. 97-1555 

 

 

THE OF THE STATE ILLINOIS: 

3098108396



vs. 

THOMAS SIERRA

  
  

 


7 1H {37 

 

AURELIA PUCINSKI
Clerk of Court

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS p" 
- Deputy

 

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 
SS:
COUNTY OF 0 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,

versus Case No. 95-18602



THOMAS SIERRA.
I REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
BE IT REMEMBERED that this cause came on
for hearing on the 6th day of February, 1997,
before the Honorable STUART E. PALMER,

Judge of said court.

PRESENT:

HON. JACK 
State's Attorney of Cook County, by
MS. PATTI SUDENDORF and
MR. JOSEPH ALESIA,
Assistant State's Attorneys,
appeared on behalf of the People;

MS. RITA FRY,

Public Defender of Cook County, by
MR. BERNARD SARLEY and
MR. PALMER,

Assistant Public Defenders,

appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

Patrice Ann Houlf

Official Court Reporter

1500 Maybrook Square, 2nd Floor
Maywood, IL 60153

708)865-6160

 

EL

 

 

 

JOSE MELENDEZ

 

called as a witness on behalf of the People of the
State of Illinois, having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Sir, would you please state your name,

and spell your name for the court reporter.

 

 

A. Jose Melendez, J-o-s-e,
M-e-l-e?n-d-e-z.

Q. Mr. Melendez, do you have a nickname?

 

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

 

A. Macho.

Q. Do you belong to a gang?

A. Yes.

 

Q. What gang?
A. Latin Kings.
Q. Do you know an individual by the name

of Alberto Rodriguez?

 

A. Yes.

Q. How do you know him?

A. He's a friend.

Q. Do you know him as more than a friend?

 

162

NH

 

 

 

A. He's a friend.

Q. Do you know him as a Latin King?
A. No.
Q. You're saying Alberto Melendez

Rodriguez is not a Latin King.
On May 23rd of 1995 was Alberto

Rodriguez a Latin King?

A. Back then.

Q. Do you know an individual by the name
of Noel Andujar?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know him on May 23rd, 1995?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Sir, you -- prior to May 23rd, 1995,
how long were you a Latin King?

A. I have been a Latin King since about
'82 or '83.

Q. Okay, and on May 23rd, 1995, you were
a Latin King, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now what's the territory of Latin

A. I don't know. It's different. There

are a lot of different territories.

 

.E 163

 

 

 

i'Q. What was your territory at the time,

A. I was in the 0.A.'s neighborhood.

Q. neighborhood?

A. Yes.
Q. And what is O.A.'s neighborhood?
A. . They?re a rival gang.

Q. And what territory or what part of the
city do the O.A.'s hang?

A. By Logan and Kedzie.

Q. Kind of the Logan Square area, is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But you live in that area, is that
correct?

A. I don't live in that area.

Q. You lived in that area?

A. - No, I live by Damen and Division.

Q. VOkay, did Noel Andujar live in that
area?

A. You could say so.

Q. Well, did you know he had a girlfriend?
that lived in that area?

A. On Kedzie and Armitage.

 

i 164

 

 

 

Q. Is that area O.A. area?

A. No.
Q. Is that area Imperial Gangster area?
A. No.

Q. What area is that?

A. It's Latin King area.

Q. How far is the vicinity of Logan and
Kedzie from where Noel's girlfriend lived?

A. About eight or ten blocks.

Q. Okay, now drawing your attention to
May 23rd of 1995, at approximately 10:00. Where
were you?

A. I can't recall.

Q. Okay, well, drawing your attention
to do you recall the night that you were shot
at?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay, and drawing your attention to
that evening. Were you driving that evening?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Okay, whose house did you go to first
before you got shot?

A. I went to Alberto?s house.

Q. And where did he live?

 

 



165

 

 

 

A. Lathrop Homes.
Q. Who did you pick up there?

A. I picked up Alberto and Noel.

Q. Where were you seated?

A. I was driving.

Q. Where was Alberto seated?
A. Besides me.

Q. Where was Noel seated?

A. He was in the back seat.
Q. Where in the back seat?

A. Right behind me.

Q. Which way did you go?

A. Well, I came down Logan from the
Lathrop Homes, and I was turning towards Kedzie
towards Armitage.

Q. Could you describe Logan Boulevard in
that area, sir?

A. When you're coming off Logan, you mak-
like a turn to get onto Kedzie, and then you
keep going straight to get to Armitage.

Q. So you were driving westbound on
Logan, right?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And you said you have to drive around

 

gm

166

 

 

 

There is a nonument in the middle of there,
isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And before you get to Logan there is

stop sign, right?

A. Yes.
Q. Like at Troy, correct?
A. There is a stop sign.

Q. Okay, and after that there is also a
light, right?
MR. SARLEY: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. SUDENDORF: It's preliminary.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Is there a light there?
A. I didn't see no light. Not as you

turn towards Kedzie, there ain't no light.

  
 
 

Q. As you were driving westbound on Troy;
it was your intention to drive all the way
around the monument and go southbound on Kedzie?

MR. SARLEY: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. As you were driving westbound on

 

a 167

 

 

 

Logan, did you notice anything unusual, sir?

A. I noticed a car in front of me.

Q. Could you describe that car for me
please?

A. It was a black car. It had custom
wheels.

Q. What kind of custom wheels?

A. It had custom wheels, just custom

wheels. It had dark tints.

Q. And where were the tints on the
windows? On all the windows?

A. Yes.

Q. Front and side?

A. Yes, all.

   
  

Q. When did you first notice the vehicle

A. Well, when I was coming to the stop

Q. Okay, and when you got to the stop
sign, were you -- did you notice anything insid.

the vehicle?

A. No.

Q. Did you see anything occur inside the
vehicle?

A. No.

 



168

:32

 

 

 

Q. What drew your attention to that
vehicle?

A. Just that it slowed down a little bit

Q. Slowed down a little bit where?

A. As I came to the stop sign, he slowed
down.

Q. So he stopped at the stop sign,
correct?

A. Yes.

  
  
 
 
  

Q. And then you stopped at the stop sign

correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was the car when you were both

stopped at the stop sign?
A. The car, his car was in front of me.
He was about ten or fifteen feet in front of me
Q. Okay, and did you ever pull up
alongside that car where you were side?by-side?
A. As I was turning.
Q. Okay, and as you were turning, the ca
was immediately to what side of you?
A. To the left hand.
Q. Okay, and did you notice anything at

that time?

 

169

 

 

 

A. Yes, there was -- somebody was
throwing up some gang signs at me.

Q. And the person that was throwing up
some gang signs, you could see that, is that
correct?

A. He had his hand to the window.

Q. And you could see that, right?

A. His hand on the window, right.

Q. What did you see him doing at the

window?
A. Throwing up the cobra.
Q. And how was he doing that, sir?

A. Throwing up the cobra like this.

 

MS. SUDENDORF: May the record reflect the

 

witness has his hand up in approximately a 
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Was he doing anything else?
A. He threw down the O.A. sign.
Q. He threw down the 0.A. sign?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you show us?
A. I really don't know.

Q. Can you show us what he was doing?

 

 

ii 170

 

 

 

A. I don't know. Something like this.

don't know.

   

MS. SUDENDORF: May the record reflect the
witness waived his hand in an using his
pointer finger and middle finger?

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Is that the sign you know for the


A. Something like that. I don't know.

Q. But he was doing that, is that

correct?

A. Yesanything with
the let me step back a second.

What is the hand signal for the
Latin Kings?
A. Like this.

MS. SUDENDORF: May the record reflect the

 

witness pointed out his thumb. The two middle
fingers are in, and the end finger is up facin
me.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Correct?

 

E. 171

 

 

 

A.

Q. What does that mean when you put you.
hand up like that?
A. That means Latin King.
Q. And did you see that person doing tha
at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you see him put down the crown?
A. No.
Q. You did not?
A. No.
Q. Okay, and what does put down the crow
mean, sir? What does that mean?
A. That's a rival gang.
Q. That's a rival gang?
A. That means King killer, you know.
Q. And when it means they're King
killers, what does that mean, sir?
MR. SARLEY: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. What does that mean, sir?
A. They're just enemies. We don't get
along.

Yes.

 

g:

is:

172

 

 

 

Q. So if somebody is putting down the
crown, you're saying that that would show they:
were a King killer, is that correct?

A. Yes.

MR. SARLEY: Objection, asked and answered

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Correct?
A. Basically, yes.
Q. Basically, yes?

Now the signs that they were
representing to you or that this person was
representing to you, the O.A.'s, is that part

the Latin Kings?

A. It's a rival.
Q. It's a rival gang, right?
A. Yes.

Q. And the Spanish Cobras, that's a riv'}
gang too, right?

A. Yes.

 

 

Q. The as you called them, is tha

Folks or People?
A. Folks.

Q. And what about the Spanish Cobras?

 

173

 

 

 

A. - Folks.

Q. And what about the Latin Kings?

A. People.

Q. So they're -- let me ask you this.
Are you familiar with the Imperial Gangsters?

A. Yes, I?m familiar with the Gangsters.

Q. You have had some contact with the
Gangsters, correct?

A. Not really.

Q. Okay, but you know of them, right?

A. Yes, I know of them.

   
  

Q. And you know what their gang sign is?

A. Yes, I know their gang sign.

Q. What is it? Show us.

A. It's like this.

MS. SUDENDORF: Okay, may the record
reflect the witness has pointed two hands
together in a configuration showing some kind 
crown.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Okay, and did you see that person

making that kind of sign, the person driving the

car?

 

174

 

 

 

 

A. No, I didn't.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. No.
Q. How many other signs did you see the?

person doing? 
A. They didn?t do anything. He didn't 
anything, but throw the cobra and throw down 
0.A.
Q. Okay, so he threw up the cobra, is
that correct?

A. Yes.

 

Q. And when you say throw up, I just wan
to make it clear to everyone what is happening
When you say throw up the cobra, that means
they're representing cobra, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Which means to you what?

A. That he's a cobra.

Q. All right, when you say he was
throwing down the O.A., what does that mean top:
you, throwing down?

A. Well, he disrespecting O.A.'s.

Q. That would be Similar to like the King

killers being 0.A. killers, correct?

 

175

 

 

 

A. Something like that, yes.
Q. Did you at any time represent your

gang affiliation?

   

A. No.

Q. I'm sorry?

A- NO, I didn't.

Q. When you saw this person flagging, di?

you ever flag or show hand gestures?

A. No.

Q. Did anybody in your car?

A. No.

Q. Was anybody in your car -- strike
that.

Okay, after you saw the
representations with the hands, what's the next;
thing that you saw, sir? 

A. I seen that they were going to open
the doors. So I threw my car at the door.

Q. Okay, before you had seen that they
were going to do anything with the cars, did yo
see anything happen between the driver and
passenger of that car?

A. Not really.

Q. Did you see any movement?

 

 

 

 

A. Well, the driver, he was making -- he
was going to the door panel for something, but
didn't see nothing. I didn't see nothing come'
out of nobody's hands.

Q. I understand that, but did you see 
driver do something? Did you see some kind of
movement coming from the driver?

A. Like I said, went towards the door
panel. That was it.

Q. Okay, and that's the next thing you
saw?

A. Nothing. He was going to open the
door, and I threw my car at him.

Q. Did you see the driver remove an
object and hand it to the passenger?

A. No, I didn?t.

Q. Let me ask you something, sir. You_

 

were asked to testify in this case on Monday, i
that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. SARLEY: Objection.
THE COURT: What is your objection?
MR. SARLEY: Could we have a side bar?

THE COURT: Sure.

 


\In

177

 

 

 

 

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUT OF THE7
PRESENCE OF THE 
MR. SARLEY: Judge, my objection is if
counsel is trying to elicit the witness at som

point is asserting his fifth amendment

    

privilege, that?s my objection.
MS. SUDENDORF: I will not ask him anything
concerning his fifth amendment right.
THE COURT: Where are you going?
MS. SUDENDORF: He was under court order.r
He refused -- I offered him immunity. He
refused to speak to me at any time about this
case. I can ask him about that.
THE COURT: We'll be back in a minute.
(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE 
MR. SARLEY: What I was saying what this
person did was he on Monday indicated he wished?
to assert his fifth amendment privilege. Youri
Honor at first ruled he had such a right, and
the state gaVe him immunity.

He continued to assert his fifth

 

 

 

 

amendment right, and your honor ruled he didn'p
have it. And then he continued to refuse to

testify. His motivation or stated motivation
for not wanting to testify was asserting his

fifth amendment right.

I believe it is improper to brim
out in front of the jury for the state to then
say they want to bring out in front of the jury
he's refusing to testify, but not say why.

The clear implication, the clear?
inference, he's sitting there in a D.0.C.
uniform coming out the back, clearly someone
coming out of the jail. Clear implication this;
guy has something pending, and he's refusing to;
testify. He's taking the fifth.

If they don't say specifically

   
 
 

didn't you refuse, didn't you take the fifth an
didn't you refuse to testify is the same thing.

They're inferring the same thing, and that's

 

completely improper. That can't get it in front
of the jury.

THE COURT: No? Why?

MR. SARLEY: Because a witness is not

permitted to take the fifth in front of a jury 

 

 

179

 

 

 

 

or I believe assert that at one point he's going

  
   
 
  

to take the fifth in front of the jury until he
got immunity. It's totally prejudicial. i
MS. SUDENDORF: I'm not asking if he
asserted that fifth amendment. Clearly my
inquiry to this witness at the time he refused,
to testify that he was given immunity by us, by
the state, to testify in this case. And despit
being given immunity, he still refused to i
testify.

Subsequently he's before us on
today's date and testifies and has refused to
speak to me or counsel prior to this about this;
case. I

THE COURT: All right, has he at this pain
gone inconsistent on you?

MS. SUDENDORF: Yes.

MR. SARLEY: I think with one minor thing.
at this point.

MS. SUDENDORF: I?m setting the groundwork.
I know it?s one thing. I'm expecting more. 
Believe me.

THE COURT: All right, well, you know,

you're not going to ask him if he took the fift

 

 

 

 

amendment?
MS. SUDENDORF: No.
THE COURT: What are you going to ask him?f

MS. SUDENDORF: He refused to testify. Hef

  

was in court. The state gave him immunity forj;
his testimony, that he refused, he still refusea
to testify, that he refused to testify
yesterday, that today's date he said he would
testify, but refused to talk to the state prior;
to any testimony.

MR. SARLEY: Judge, he has a right to
refuse to testify, at least assert his Fifth
Amendment privilege.

THE COURT: Not any more he doesn't.

MR. SARLEY: But on Monday he did because?h:
your honor so ruled he had legitimate fifth
amendment privileges, he was going to
incriminate himself.

Then they gave him immunity if he
asserts his fifth amendment privilege. Your
honor rules he doesn't have it. All of that is?
extremely prejudicial. It's not proper for a
jury to hear that a witness is asserting the 

rights he has.

 




on


 

 

 

It's just like a defendant not

testifying. You're not going to testify 
THE COURT: I agree with you halfway, andii
here is what I'm thinking. At the initial I.

initially when he asserted his right against

    
  
 
 

self incrimination, he did so within his rights:
And then when he was given immunity and told he;
didn't have a right not to testify, he did so,_i
guess.

Okay, my thinking is that you
should be allowed to question him from the point
he was given immunity. I don't think you shouldi
question him before he was given it. You should{
bring out the fact he refused to testify before,_
He was given immunity because I ruled that was
legitimate.

So, you know, I know it sounds 
like I'm giving you half a loaf. I think thatf'isl.
where the demarcation is. I think if you 
start -- if you start at the point you're
testifying pursuant to the grant of immunity,
and you have been told you have to testify.
After you were told you have to testify, you #3

still refused and now where you're at, I don't

 

as;

182

 

 

 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  

have any problem with that.
I think it's dangerous to get to

the point where he was given immunity. Then we
are getting to the position that a witness is 
basically been told he has the right to take the
fifth and did, okay?

MR. SARLEY: Could I have just a moment
please, judge?

(SHORT PAUSE WAS HAD.)

MR. SARLEY: Well, judge, I would object t6
the whole thing, but specifically as to your I
ruling, if your honor is of a mind to rule that;
way, I would ask that you start after the granti
of immunity. In other words that the jury is 2?
not instructed that he's been given immunity
because I don't know what the fact he's been
given immunity has to do whether he's refusing 
to testify. Ii

THE COURT: It shows that he doesn't have:
the right to refuse, and he refused anyway. Is;
that what you're trying to prove?

MS. SUDENDORF: Right.

THE COURT: That's my ruling.

 

133

 

 

 

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THE
HEARING OF THE 
THE COURT: Go ahead.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Sir, on Tuesday you were in this
court, correct?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And you were given immunity for your
testimony, isn't that correct?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And that was from the State's
Attorney's Office, is that correct?

A. I don't know.

 
 
 

Q. Well, you were given immunity for your
testimony, isn't that correct?

A. The judge told me about that, not you?

Q. Okay, and after you were told about 
that immunity, you refused to testify still,
isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And on Wednesday's date you came to
court and took the stand? ?1

A. Yes.

 

184

 

 

 

Q. And you refused to testify, isn't the

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And today's date you came to court,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you changed your mind. You wereii

going to change your mind, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But you would not talk to me, right? 
A. Right.
Q. Now, sir, after you say that you saw?
the driver reaching into the side door panel,
what is the next thing that you saw?
A. I told you I didn't see anything. If
saw the door open, and I threw my car at it.
Q. You said you saw someone open --
MR. SARLEY: Asked and answered three
times.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. You saw someone open the door?
A. A little bit.
Q. Which door? 

A. The passenger's door.

 

 

 

 

Q. Passenger door closest to you?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you saw that door come up,
what's the next thing you saw happen?

A. Nothing. I just threw my car at it.

Q. When you say you threw your car at it,
what specifically did you do?

A. I threw my car at the doorHuhdidn't.

Q. You didn't make any contact with the
car?

A. No.

Q. What's the next thing that happened?

A. Nothing. I just heard gunshots.

Q. Where were the gunshots coming from?f
A. From the door that was on.
Q. Could you describe the gun?

A. No, I can't.

Q. How many gunshots came your way?
A. I don't know. I couldn't count. 
Q. Where were you driving when the

 

 

 

 

gunshots came?

A.
Q.
monumentanyone call you?

A.
Q.
A.
Q.
passenger
was going around the monument.

Did you go all the way around the

Not really.

Where did you go?

I tried to turn on Wrightwood.
And did you turn on Wrightwood?
Yes.

When you turned on Wrightwood, did

The car was behind me.

Was it still shooting at you?

 

No, it wasn't.
When did the car or the person in that~
side stop shooting at you? I
It was around the monument.
Right around the monument?
Yes.

When you turned on Wrightwood?
Yes.

Is that about when it stopped?
Yes.

Did the car keep following you?

 

li-?i?

1: 187

 

 

 

Yes.

How far, sir?

Until Kimball.

Where did you go?

I made a right.

0n Kimball?

Yes.

Where did the other car go?
It kept going straight.
What did you do next?

Nothing. I made a U-turn and went

back the same way I came. I went down Kedzie

trying to

Q.

get to the hospital.

Before you went down Kedzie trying tog-'-f

get to the hospital, did you see if anybody had"

been injured in your car?

A.

I told Alberto and Noel to check

themselves.

Q.
A.
looked in
Q.
A.

Q.

Did Alberto tell you he was okay?
Alberto told me he was okay. When he
the back, he said Noel was shot?

Did you see Noel shot?

Yes, I seen him shot.

Where was he shot?

 

5% 188

 

 

 

A. - He was shot in the back of the head.

Q. Was he saying anything?

A. No.

Q. What was he doing?

A. He just sat in the back.

Q. After you made a U-turn, you said you
were turning southbound on Kedzie, is that
right?

A. I came back right up Wrightwood, and 
went down toward Armitage.

Q. And as you were going towards
Armitage, did anything happen over at Fullerton,i
just about Fullerton?

A. Cop stopped me.

Q. What happened then?

A. I told him call-an ambulance.

Q. Did you tell him what happened?

A. I told him somebody just shot at us.
Q. Did you give a description of the car?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you just give a description of the

guys in the car?
A. Nb, I didn't.

Q. Did you tell the police officer that

 

189

 

 

 

there were two male Hispanics in the front?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell them that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Is that who was in the front two male
Hispanics?

A. Yes.

Q. There were two male Hispanics and one

male black in the back of the car?
A. Yes.

Q. That's what you told the guy, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Because that's what you saw, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also gave a description of the

car, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the description of the car was
what?

A. I just told you, black car, custom

wheels and dark tints.
Q. After you spoke with that police
officer, the ambulance came, right? 

A. Yes.

 

 

 

 

Q. And they took Noel away, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What's the next thing that happened?

A. They took us to Area Five.

Q. You talked to some detectives, is that
right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Detective McMurray?

A. I think so. I think I remember.

Q. Do you know Detective Wojcik?

A. Yes.

Q. Were those the two detectives that
talked to you that night?

A. They talked to me.

Q. They were at the scene right after the.
shooting, right?

A. I don?t recall.

Q. Well, did anybody, either McMurray or
Wojcik, you know who they are, did they talk to
you after that police officer talked to you at
the scene?

A. No, the detective talked to me.

Q. Wojcik?

A. No.

 

E: 191

 

 

 

Q. McMurray?

A. No.

Q. Okay, well, at the scene did any
detectives talk to you in a police car?
A. Detective Daley was the only one.

Q. Who did?

A. Daley.

Q. Okay, and did anybody else talk to your

in a police car?

A. No, they took me to Area Five.

Q. And you were brought to Area Five,
correct?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And were you brought in the same car

or different car as Rodriguez?
A. I think it was the same car.
Q. So you and Rodriguez were in the same

car, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You went over to Area Five?

A. Yes.

Q. When you got to Area Five, you sat

there for aWhile waiting to talk to McMurray and?

Wojcik, correct?

 

 

 

 

MR. SARLEY: Objection to the leading.

MS. SUDENDORF: If I may call this witness
as an adverse witness.

THE COURT: Let's step on the side.

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY3)

MS. SUDENDORF: Your honor, I'm asking to
call this witness as an adverse witness on
numerous points, and for those reasons that's
why I'm asking to lead. I heard shots is
nowhere near the paper.

THE COURT: What do you mean by "the
paper?.

MS. SUDENDORF: The police repert. The
police reports, any of the police reports, as to
who he.5poke to and what was said.

MR. SARLEY: Well, judge, he hasn't said
anything that is inconsistent with anything
important. He hasn't said it wasn't. He hasn't
denied any indication or anything like that at
this point.

His story is somewhat similar to

Mr. Rodriguez. There are different points, and

 

 

 

 

 

if you want to nitpick about some impeachment on
statements that are typed summaries by police
officers for instance, rather than actually
seeing the gun being passed, all he saw was the
man lean over like he was getting something.
That's not major impeachment. That's not a
major difference.

MS. SUDENDORF: Really?

MR. SARLEY: I mean the other stuff isn't
even impeachment. He said he saw two Hispanics
and a black in the car. I don't know. I'm not
sure what else the impeachment is to tell you
the truth.

THE COURT: What else is there?

MS. SUDENDORF: About the throwing down the
crown, you know, but just seeing the car and not
saying he saw anybody in the car other than a
male Hispanic.

THE COURT: Here is the thing. Do you
expect if you asked him did you see the person
fire the shots, you expect him to say no?

MS. SUDENDORF: Yes.

THE COURT: Why don't you ask him, and then?

I'll declare a hostile witness.

 

 

 

 

MR. SARLEY: I object. This witness never
made a sworn statement it was Mr. Sierra.

MS. SUDENDORF: Really?

MR. SARLEY: A sworn statement.

THE COURT: Not a sworn statement, that
doesn't matter.

MS. SUDENDORF: Right.

THE COURT: In a pretrial hearing I was
given a signed statement he even indicated he
saw the person that shot him and identified him.
If he says that, I'm going to declare him a
hostile witness and allow him to be
cross-examined.

MR. SARLEY: We object.

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THE
OF THE 
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. SUDENDORF: Okay.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Let me just take you back before the
police even got there. You said that you
observed the driver looking like he's doing

something in the panel of his car right before

 

195

 

 

 

the shooting happened, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you said you saw the
passenger door open, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the person in the passenger side
starts shooting at you, is that correct?

MR. SARLEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Is that correct though?

A. Yes, opened the door.

Q. Now prior to that did you say that
person put a hood over his face?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay, so you?re able to see him move
the hood over his face, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What color was the hood?

A. I think it was white or gray. I'm not
too sure.

Q. You think it was white or gray?

A. Yes.

 

 

 

 

Q. Before he put that hood over his face,
were you able to see him?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. And I'm going to ask you to look
around the room. Do you see the person present
in court today that you saw shoot at you and
your car and Noel Andujar?

A. No, I don't, ma?am.

MS. SUDENDORF: Your honor, at this time I
seek to call Mr. Jose Melendez as an adverse
witness.

MR. SARLEY: Objection.

THE COURT: That will be allowed.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Now when you got to Area Five, you
spoke with Detectives McMurray and Wojcik, is
that correct?

A. I'm not too sure. I also talked to
Guevara.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I talked to Guevara.

Q. You talked to Guevara later on. I'm
talking about the day of the shooting, the day

the shooting happened.

 

1
?w

\0


 

 

 

A. I probably did talk to McMurray, but I

 

don't know. I don't remember.

 

Q. Okay, but you remember going to Area
Five, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told the detectives what you
saw, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You told them because your friend

 

Andujar had just been shot, right?
MR. SARLEY: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he got shot.
THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. That was your car that had been shot

at, right?

A. Yes.
Q. Your car is full of bullets, right?
A. Yes, bullet holes.

Q. It had bullet holes?

 

A. Yes.

Q. How many bullets?

 

A. Probably three or four.

Q. What about your windows, how are

 

:3 198

 

 

 

after the
A.
Q.
holes?
A.
broken.
Q.
A.

ones.

Q.

Some of them got shot off.

Some of them got shot off?

Yes, the back ones.

How many of your windows were intact
shootout?

What do you mean by that?

Are there any left without bullet

Yes, there was only two that were

Which ones were those?

The back window and one of the little

Now how many bullets would you say

were flying in your direction that night?

A.

I can't tell.
More than three?

I don't know. They shot. They shot

When you say plenty, how many is that,

I don't know. I wasn't counting.

When you say plenty, like ten to

 



199

 

 

 

twenty?
MR. SARLEY: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Probably ten.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Would it be more than ten to twenty?
A. Probably ten.
Q. Probably about ten shots?
A. Probably about ten, yes.
Q. Now when you talked to the detectives
at the area, would this be at approximately 1:00.
to 1:15 in the morning?
A. I can't recall.
Q. Did you ask how Noel was doing?
A. They told me how he was going to do
when he was in the car. He was going to die.
Q. Who told you that?
A. The detectives.
Q. Okay, and at that point you believed
that your friend was going to die, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time you talked to the
detectives, right?

A. Yes, I talked to the detectives.

 

200

an

 

 

 

Q. And you told the detectives that
everything you told us, you know, you told the
detectives let me strike that.

You told the detectives that you
had left the Lathrop Homes on the way to North
Avenue and Spaulding, right?

MR. SARLEY: Objection, not impeaching.

MS. SUDENDORF: Your honor, it's
prelieinary.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I was going toward Spaulding.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. And you told them that Nuni, that's
Noel Andujar?s nickname?

A. Yes.

Q. And Titi, whose nickname is that?

A. Alberto's.

Q. The three of you were going in your
vehicle westbound on Logan Boulevard, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were driving with Rodriguez in
the passenger front seat and the victim in the
driver's side, right?

MR. SARLEY: Objection, not impeaching.

 

 

E: 201

 

 

 

THE Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. You told the detective you were
driving the auto. Rodriguez was the passenger
in the front seat, and the victim Nuni was in
the driver's side rear seat, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. As you were driving around the Logan
Square monument, you saw the Buick?

MR. SARLEY: Objection, asked and answered.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. That also headed westbound, right?

A. It was going westbound.

Q. And then it stopped right in front of
you at the stop sign just east of the circle
drive, right?

MR. SARLEY: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And after the Park Avenue moved from

the stop sign, it slowed down in the left lane

 

E3202

 

 

 

and waited until your car pulied up?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. That's what you told the detectives,

right?
A. Yes.
Q. And as you continued west toward the

stoplight, you observed the occupants of the
vehicle to be throwing down the crown. Do you
remember telling the detective that?

A. No.

Q. Okay, you didn't tell the detective
that you saw the occupants throwing down the
crown, correct?

They never threw down the crown.

MR. SARLEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. I'm asking you what you told the
detective. Did you tell the detective that?

A. I didn't tell the detective that he
threw down the crown.

Q. And that you told the detective that

 

i 203

 

 

 

 

was representing the Latin King street gang with:
their hands, right?

A. They never threw down no crown.

Q. Okay, you didn't tell the detective
that. That is what I'm asking you.

A. I didn't tell nobody that.

Q. Did you tell the detective that you
did not represent your gang?

A. I don?t --

MR. SARLEY: Objection, not impeaching.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Did you then tell the detective that
when the -- you were at the stoplight at Logan
and Milwaukee, that the occupants of the Park
Avenue now directly to your left kept throwing
down the crown and also started representing
cobra? Did you tell them that?

A. They never threw down the crown. They
did throw the cobra.

Q. And at that time did you tell the
detective that you observed the driver reach to
the driver?s side door panel and remove an

object and hand it to the passenger? Did you

 

 

 

 

tell the detective that?

A. No, I didn't see no object in nobody'sr
hand.

Q. Did you then tell the detective that
the passenger flung up his hood and that you
then knew that something was up and pulled away
from the light into the circle drive?

A. Yes.

Q. You told them?

A. Yes.

MS. SUDENDORF: Okay, one moment please.

(SHORT PAUSE WAS HAD.)
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Now after you had this discussion with

the detectives, were you later contacted by

anybody from the Chicago Police Department?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. Were you ever contacted by a Detective
Guevara?

A. Only place I seen Guevara was in Area
Five.

Q. You went to Area Five?

A. Yes, they picked us up.

Q. On May 30th, right?

 

g?zos

 

 

 

A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, it was a couple of days almost a

week after the shooting? Would that be correct,

A. 'Probablythe Area with?

A. With Alberto.

Q. With Alberto, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did you get there?

A. I think they picked us up. I'm not
too sure.

Q. You could have gotten there on your
own?

A. We didn't get there on our own. I
think Guevara picked us up.

Q. After he picked you up, he talked to
you?

A. Yes, he talked to us.

Q. And you were shown a photo array, a
photo Spread, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many pictures were in that

photo, sir?

 

?g 206

 

 

 

 

A. I can't recall.

Q. Okay, was it more than one?

A. Yes, it was more than one.

Q. Was it about six?

A. Maybe.

Q. And after he showed you the photo

array, did you point out a picture to that
detective as to who shot Noel Andujar and you?

A. I told them I didn't see the person
that shot.

Q. Did you point out a picture to the
detective?

A. I pointed a picture he told me to pick-
out.

Q. Okay, I'm going to show you what has
been previously marked as People's Group 13A
through E. I want you to take a look at these
photos, sir.

Are those the photos that were
shown to you at Area Five on May 30th 1995?

A. Yes, they was.

Q. And those were the photos shown to you.
by Detective Guevara, right?

A. Yes.

 

a: 207

 

 

 

 

 

Q. When he showed you those pictures, he
asked you if you could identify anybody from
that photo array, right?

A. Yes, I told him.

Q. Did he ask you that?

MR. SARLEY: Objection. Let the witness
answer.

BY MS . SUDENDORF:

Q. Did he ask you that, sir?

A. He asked me what?

Q. Did you recognize anybody from those

photos? Did he ask you that?

A. Yes, he asked me, and I told him I
didn't.

Q. Did you point out anybody in those
photos?

A. I pointed out the one he told me to
point out.

Q. What did he say to you exactly, sir?
Tell me what he said to you.

A. I think that day I was mad, I was
angry. My friend got shot, and he told me to
point him out because he had reason to believe

this was the guy.

 

3: 208

 

 

 

 

Q. Detective Guevara told you to identify?

 

People's Exhibit No, 

A. Yes, he told that? Tell me exactly
what happened when the detective did that.

A. Guevara had the picture in his hand,
and he had the other ones on the table.

Q. Okay.

A. Yes.

Q. And they were all laid out on the
table first, is that correct?

A. He had this one in his hand all the
time.

Q. So this one for the record, People's
Exhibit 13C, was never out of the detective's
hand, is that correct?

A. No.

Q. Only the other five were in front of
you, is that correct?

A. Yes, they was on the table.

Q. And this is the one that remained in
his hand just like this?

A. 'Yes.

Q. First he asks do you recognize anybody

 

 

 

 

oyer there as being the shooter, right, and you
said no?

MR. SARLEY: Objection, asked and answered.:

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Didn't you just tell us --
THE COURT: One at a time.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Let me --

THE COURT: One at a time.

Hold on, Mr. Melendez. Let her
finish, and you can answer.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Didn't you just testify when the
detective showed you those pictures all of thosei
pictures were in front of you, and you could not,
identify the shooter. Isn't that what you just
said?

A. Right, I didn't identify the shooter.
I picked the one he had in his hand. He told mef
he had reason to believe that was the one that

did the shooting.

 

Q. But first you said that all of the

pictures were in front of you, isn?t that

 

210

 

 

 

correct?

MR. SARLEY: Objection, arguing.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. So all of them were in front of you?

A. The one in his hand too.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Either the one was in front of you or
it was in his hand, but it wasn't in both
places.

A. He was sitting.

MR. SARLEY: Objection, argument.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: He was sitting next to me.
He had the picture in his hand too. He's right
next to me. The pictures are all in front. He
had that one in his hand.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Okay, so was the picture in his hand
or was it in front of you? Which was it?

A. In his hand.

Q. Who else was in the room beside
yourself and Guevara?

A. I don?t recall.

 

211

 

 

 

 

Q. Anybody else in there?

A. I don't recall.

Q. How long were you in there with him?

A. I don't recall. I can't tell you. I
don't recall.

Q. Now after the photo array, did you do
anything else at the police station?

A. Not that I can think of.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Not that I can think of.

Q. Let me ask you this. Did you see a
lineup?

A. No, I never did.

Q. Okay, did you ever see six people

standing in a row, and you identified one of
those individuals?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. All right, I'm going to show you
People's Exhibit No. eleven. Do you recognize
what that is?

A. It's a lineup, but I went in front of
no lineup.

Q. Okay, did you see a lineup? Did you

ever see?

 

212

 

 

 

 

 

A.

Q.

I never went in front of a lineup.

At Area Five you never went in front

of a lineup?

A.

Q.

I never went in front of a lineup.

Did you talk is okay, at Area Five

were you talked to anybody else besides

Detective Guevara?there.

Q.

Maybe Officer McMurray.

Officer McMurray maybe?

Yes.

I'm sorry?

Officer Murray (sic) was there.
You mean McMurray, right?

I don't know his name.

The big officer?

The big heavyset officer.

You talked to him that night?

Not the same night when Guevara was

Do you remember going to look at a car

in the parking lot?

A.

Yes, I remember.

Okay, that happened the Same night,

 

E: 213

 

 

 

night.

Q.
A.

Q.

I can't recall if it happened the same

But you remember doing that, right?
Yes?

Who did you go out there with?

with Guevara.

And who else?

And I think Alberto went out too.

How did it happen? Tell us what you

did when you went out in the parking lot?

A.
Q.
A.
Q.

carWent outside to look at the carcar. Yes, I saw a car.

And what did you say when you saw the
I didn't say nothing. That wasn't the?

Okay, who said anything about the car?i
You said if I seen the car.
Okay.

I seen a car. He took me outside to

And you Saw a car, right?

I saw a car.

 

214

 

 

 

Q.
A.

Q-

color was

A.
Q.
A.

Q.

the car?

A.

Q.

A.

to do?

told

car?

look

Q.
A.

Q-

What kind of ear did you see?
It was a Buick.

Okay, and when you saw the Buick, whatt
it?

It was black.

What kind of wheels did it have?
It had regular wheels.

And did you do anything when you saw

No, I didn't do nothing.
What happened?

What do you mean? What you expect me

What happened when you got to the car?
Nothing. I looked at the car. And I
that wasn't the car.

Who did you tell that was not the car?
Guevara.

What about Rodriguez?

I don't know what he told them.

Did the detective take you to that

Guevara took us outside to the car to

at the car.

 

Si 215

 

 

 

 

Q. Exactly what did he do? Tell me how
this happened.
A. Came out of the building, went to the

lot and looked at the car.

Q. Just one car?

A. Just one.

Q. How many cars were out there?
A. There was hardly no cars in the

parking lot. There was only the two detectives'
car, and the black Buick was right there.
Q. How many cars does that parking lot

hold, sir?

A. It was nighttime. Hardly no cars out
there.
Q. That's not my question, sir. My

question to you is 
A.7 I didn't know.

Q. How big is that parking lot?

 

A. I don't know.
Q. Does it hold more than ten cars?
A. Yes.

Q. Does it hold more than twenty?
A. Yes.

Q. Does it hold like one hundred oars?

 

 

216

 

 

 

 

A. Maybe.
Q. Have you seen one hundred cars parked

in that parking lot?

A. In the daytime when I go into court
maybe.
Q. How about the nighttime when you went

to court? The day of the shooting how many cars?
parked?

A. I didn't go to court the day of the
shooting.

Q. You went to Area Five?

A. Yes, I went to Area Five.

Q. How many cars in the lot that night?

A. Maybe about five or six.
Q. Five or six cars?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay, after you told the detective
that that was not the car, let me just show you

just so we all are clear, People's Exhibit No.

 

10.
Ms. SUDENDORF: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Showing you what has been marked as

 

217

 

 

 

People's Exhibit No. 10. 715 that the car that
you did not identify?
MR. SARLEY: Objection, form of the
question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I didn't identify this car.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. But that's the car you stopped at,

A. What you mean I stopped at?

Q. Is that the car that you stopped at
over in the parking lot?

A. That's the car he took me to.

Q. That the detective took you to?

A. He took me in front of the car.

Q. It was parked just like that?

A. I don't know.

Q. Well, look at it.

A. I don't know.

MR. SARLEY: Objection.

THE WITNESS: He could have took the
picture at different angles.

MR. SARLEY: She's badgering the witness.

When she doesn?t get an answer, she like badgers

 

218

 

 

 

until she gets an answer she likes.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MS. SUDENDORFthe same
position when you sat in the parking lot?

A. It depends on what position he took
the picture.

Q. You don't know?

A. No.

Q. Okay, after you went out to see the
car, did you speak with anybody else at Area
Five?

A. I can't recall.

Q. Well, did you speak to an Assistant
State's Attorney?

A. I don't think soshow you something.
I'm going to show you did you tell another
person or individual what occurred that night
beside Detective Guevara?

A. Maybe McMurray.

Q. McMurray and Guevara?

A. Right.

Q. What about an attorney of some sort?

 

219

 

 

 

Did an attorney introduce himself?
A. I didn't see an attorney.

Q. What about an attorney by the name of

 

Bill Farrell, William Farrell?
A. I don't recall that name.
Q. Do you remember an individual at Area
Five preparing a handwritten statement of what
you saw on May 23rd, 1995?
A. I think Detective Wojcik or McMurray
was writing that statement down.
Q. Let me show you what has been marked
as People's Exhibit No. 14.
MS. SUDENDORF: May I approach the witness?-
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. I'm going to show you what has been
marked as People's Exhibit No. 14 for

identification. Is this your signature?

A. Yes, that's my signature.
Q. Is this your signature down here?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you sign that?
A. Yes, I signed.

Q. Did you sign page one?

 

if 220

 

 

 

 

A. Yes.

Q. Did you sign page three?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you sign it up here?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also signed it down here?

A. Yes.

Q. And tell me what is it. What is that?

A. That's a statement.
Q. Okay, and that's a statement that you

gave at Area Five, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And present at that statement was you,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was also Detective Guevara?

A. Maybe, yes.

Q. That's Detective Guevara's signature?

A. Yes.

Q. And also an Assistant State's Attorney(
by the name of William Farrell?

A. I didn't see him.

Q. Was there an individual anybody

else present when you were preparing this and

 

221

 

 

 

when this document was signed? 'When this
document was signed, anybody else besides you
and Guevara?
MR. SARLEY: Objection, your honor, to you
were preparing.
THE COURT: She modified that.
MR. SARLEY: He didn't write it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I told you no.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Just the two of you?

A. Me and Guevara.

Q. Who wrote this out? Who wrote it?

A. I think Guevara.

Q. Did you see him?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. Guevara wrote all this out?

A. Yes.

Q. After he wrote down the statement, he

asked you to sign it, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he asked you to sign it after you
made any changes, right?

A. I don't know if he made any changes.

 

222

 

 

 

Q. Well, did he ask you to make any

initials on the statement?

A. Initials?

Q. Initialswell, are those youri

initials on page two?
A. I didn't put no initials.
Q. Did you not put those initials on page_
two?
A. I didn't put those initials.
Q. On page three up there 
A. No, I didn?t put that.
Q. What about here on page two 
A. No, I didn't put that either.

Q. Did you tell Detective Guevara that

 

after you were being advised and stating that
you understood that William Farrell was a lawyer*
and prosecutor and not your lawyer and that he
was working with the police that you would agree
to give the following statement? Did you tell
Detective Guevara that?

MR. SARLEY: Objection.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall.

 

Eh
Eta

as 223

 

 

 

MR. SARLEY: If it's meant to be
impeaching, it's not impeaching.
THE COURT: Overruled. It's foundation.
Overruled.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Did you tell Detective Guevara that?
A. I don't remember telling Guevara that.
Q. Did you tell Detective Guevara when he
was preparing this statement as you say that you
were twenty-six years old and that you live at
1742 West Division, Chicago, Illinois now and
that you can speak read and write English?
MR. SARLEY: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Side bar.
(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE 
MR. SARLEY: It's hearsay. I mean the
witness hasn't even been asked those questions,

but is being asked whether he said those

 

questions. So it's either proper impeachment or?
it?s hearsay, and it?s not proper impeachment.
THE COURT: GO ahead.

MS. SUDENDORF: Your honor, I?m trying to

 

224



 

 

 

lay the foundation to get the statement in one
fifteen ten one because he has indicated that
this statement was made by a detective, not even
with the State?s Attorney, but by a detective.
And, you know, he made the

statement. So I?m laying the groundwork for the
statement. So I did put it under one fifteen
ten one.

MR. SARLEY: If it needs to be gotten into,
the statement, the first thing about the

statement is that it's got to be inconsistent,

 

and so far I don't see any I mean no part of
it.

THE COURT: But he denies making the
statement at all. He denies making the
statement. So everything in it isn't
consistent.

MR. SARLEY: But he didn't write the
statement. Somebody else wrote it.

THE COURT: But if he denies this, his
statement, then everything in it is
inconsistent.

MR. SARLEY: Well, what do you mean by his??

statement? Did he say certain things in it or

 

 

 

 

did he write the thing or sign the thing? He
admitted signing it.

THE COURT: Ask him if this if this is 

MS. SUDENDORF: What he told Guevara.

MR. SARLEY: Then he has to read it.

MS. SUDENDORF: That's what I'm trying to.
do.

MR. SARLEY: All you have to say at the
time you signed it, did you read it, and was it
a rendition of what you said.

THE COURT: Sustained for now because of
the foundation requirement.

MS. SUDENDORF: Okay.

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THE
HEARING OF THE 

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Talking about People?s Exhibit No. 14,?
okay. Before you signed the statement, did you
read the statement?

A. Yes.

Q. And after you read the statement, you
signed the statement, is that correct?

A. Yes.

 

226

 

 

 

Q. And you signed the statement because
it was the truth, right?

A. No, it ain't the truth.

Q. But you signed the statement?

A. I signed it. I was mad. I was angry.
My friend just got killed. I signed it.

Q. Okay, and in the statement you told
the detective that you were twenty-six years
old, right?

A. Yes, I'm years old at the

time.

Q. You told them you live at 1742 West

Division, right?

A. Yes.
Q. You speak, read and write English?
A. Yes.

Q. You told him on May 23rd you drove to
your friend, Alberto Rodriguez' house at 2617
North Hoyne to pick him up, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told him that you arrived at
Alberto Rodriguez' the house at approximately
10:00, right?

A. I think so. I'm not too sure.

 

227

3.13

 

 

 

 

Q. Take a look at the statement.

A. If that's what it said. I signed
that. I signed it.

Q. And you signed that you left the house:
at approximately 10:00 right?

A. Probably did, and I can't recall.

Q. And did you also tell and sign the
statement that said that you picked up your two
friends, Alberto and Noel?

A. Yes, I picked them up.

Q. And that you, Alberto and Noel began
driving towards Noel Andujar's house on Kedzie
and Armitage Street?

A. Yes.

Q. That as you approached the stop sign
at Milwaukee and Logan, you noticed a black Park;
Avenue sedan waiting at the stop sign?

A. Yes.

Q. It was occupied by one male black in
the back seat and two male Hispanics in the
front seat, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And yen told them that you pulled up"

next to the black Park Avenue sedan and looked

 

Wm




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at the passenger sitting in the front passenger
seat and saw the passenger ?throwing down the
crown" and representing. Isn't that what you
said?

A. He never threw down the crown.

Q. Isn't that what you told the
detective?

A. I didn't tell the detective that.

Q. Isn?t that what he wrote on the
statement?
A. That's what he did?

Q. Isn?t that what the State's Attorney
wrote on the statement?

A. I don?t know if that's what the
State?s Attorney wrote. I saw Guevara write the:
statement.

Q. Just so we understand, the only people
present when this statement was being written
are you and the detective, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That you knew the passenger's actions
to be gang symbols, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. That you began to drive away and the

 

229

 

 

 

 

 

 

Park Avenue followed on your left hand side,

right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you continued to look at the car's%

occupants to its left, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that you saw the passenger pull up
a white hood over his head and open the door,
right?

A. White or gray hood, yes.

Q. And that you began to accelerate and
saw the passenger of the Park Avenue shooting at_
your car, right? That's what you told the
detective, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that he turned right on Kimball
and the Park Avenue continued down on
Wrightwood, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You then told the detective that you
then found out that your friend, Noel Andujar,
was shot in the head, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You then followed them, that you saw 

 



is 230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

photo lineup of six photos on May 30th, 1995, at
Area Five, right? You told them that, right?

A. I saw some photos.

Q. You then told them that you picked out
the man that you saw shooting at him in his car
on May, 23rd 1995, and that man was later
identified as Thomas Sierra, right?

A. I picked out the one he told me to

pick out.
Q. But you told the detective?
A. Because he had reason to believe it

was the guy.

Q. You told the detective you picked out
the man you saw shooting at you and your car on
May 23rd, 1995. That's what you told the
detective, right?

A. That's what I signed.

Q. That's what you signed?

A. Yes.
Q. With only the detective, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then you told the detective that
you saw a lineup on May 30th, 1995 and you

picked out the man that shot at you and your car~

 

231

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on May 23rd, 1995, correct?

A. Never went to a lineup.

Q. That's what you told the detective?

A. I never been to no lineup.

Q. That's what you signed though, right?

A. That's what I signed, yes, but I never
went to no lineup.

Q. And then you told the detective that
you had been treated well by the police and the
Assistant State's Attorney. Did you tell the
detective that?

A. Treated well? What do you mean by
treated well?

Q. Did you tell the detective or the
State?s Attorney that you had been treated well
by the police and the Assistant State's
Attorney?

A. I never said. The State's Attorney
wasn't there.

Q. Right. And did you state that --

MR. SARLEY: Objection, your honor, to the
comment.

THE COURT: The word right will be

stricken.

 

232

 

 

 

 

 

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. And did you state that you were made
no promises or were not threatened in any way?

A. I wasn?t made no promises.

Q. Did you state you were not under the
influence of drugs at the time you gave the
statement?

A. Yes, I stated that.

Q. Did you state you read this entire
statement out loud and that you made any and all;

corrections to the statement that you saw

 

necessary?
A. I don't recall reading the statement.
Q. You don't recall reading the

statement.
A. No, he read it to me.

Q. Who did?

 

A. Guevara.
Q. And then you signed it?

A. Then I signed it.

 

Q. You now have a pending murder case,

don't you?

 

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you are currently awaiting trial

 

233

 

 

 

 

on this murder case, correct?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And while you are awaiting trial on
this murder case, you are incarcerated?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And while you are incarcerated, there

are many gangs in the jail, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. There are Latin Kings back there,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. There are I.G.'s there, correct?

A. I don?t know.

Q. I'm sorry.

A. I ain't ran into none.

Q. But there are Imperial Gangsters,
correct?

A. Maybe.

Q. Okay, and what about Spanish Cobras?
A. Yes, there are Spanish Cobras.

Q. And what be 

A. There are a little of everybody in

there.

Q. That's who you're staying with right

 

234

 

 

 

 

now, correct?

A. I'm staying with a little of
everybody.

MR. SARLEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. A little of everybody, a little of
every gang?

A. Right.

Q. How long has Noel Andujar been dead

now? How long, sir?

A. Since '95.
Q. Since May almost two years ago, right?
A. Yes.

MS. SUDENDORF: May I have a moment please?
(SHORT PAUSE WAS HAD.)
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. You're also the same Jose Melendez
that has been convicted of aggravated battery
and armed robbery back in April of 1993, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did six years Department of
Corrections then too, correcthalf years.

 

235

 

 

 

Q. Well, but your sentence was six years?j
A. Yes.

Q. The person that you identified on

People?s 13C, the photo that you identified, do

you see that person in court today, 

that

A. I see him in courtcourt?
A. Yes, he's here.

Q. Point him out.

A. He's sitting by his lawyer.

Q. What is he wearing?

A. He's wearing a white shirt.

Q. Does he look the same as he did in
picture?

A. He's looked the same, yes.

MS. SUDENDORF: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Sarley?
MR. SARLEY: Thank you, judge.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SARLEY:
Q. Mr. Melendez?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You said that you after the shooting

happened you told well, you spoke to a

 

g. 236



 

 

 

uniformed police officer right away.
A. I talked to the uniformed officer when

I was going back down south towards the

hospital, and I stopped on Fullerton because he

stopped me.

Q. You had a few words with the uniformed
officer?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you talked to some detectives

later that night?

A. Right. I talked to Detective Daley.

Q. Okay, and do you remember where that
was?

A. We was right there on Fullerton and
Kedzie.

Q. The uniformed officer you talked to,

he asked you what you sawf some questions like
that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told him that the person that
did the shooting was a Hispanic guy, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't give any other description.*

You couldn't give any other description, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. No.

Q. Because you didn't see much more than

A. The car had tint windows.

Q. You told that officer the car had
tinted windows?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told the officer that the
offender was a Spanish Cobra?

A. Yes, that's what he threw up.

Q. Because he threw up a Spanish Cobra

A. Yes.

Q. You told that also to the uniformed
officer right away?

A. Yes.

Q. You also told the officer at the time
you were in the Latin Kings?

A. Yes.

Q. And you?re saying in fact the car
these shots came out of was a Buick Park Avenue?:

A. Yes, it was a Buick Park Avenue.

Q. It had dark tints?

A. Dark tints and custom windows.

 

238

 

 

 

 

 

MR. And if I may approach the
witness, your honor?

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

BY MR. SARLEY:

Q. I'm going to show you three pictures
that I have marked as Defense Exhibit 1, 2, and
3 for identification. I Show you -- these are
pictures of the car. Do you see the?

A. This ain't the car that did the
shooting.

Q. That's the car you saw in the parking
lot?

A. Yes, that was the one in the parking
lot.

Q. And the difference between this car
and that car are the windows, right?

A. And the rims.

Q. And the rims.

Okay, what's the difference with
the rims?

A. Those are factory rims. The custom
wheels, they're different than those.

Q. So this car looks similar because it's.

the same style?

 

239

 

 

 

A. It looks similar because it's a Buick.

Q. It's even a Park Avenue?
A. Yes.

Q. But it's not the same car?
A. It's not the same car.

Q. And when you talked to a detective
later that night the detective asked you about
what you saw?

A. Yes, he asked me.

Q. And by the way, you weren't able to
recognize or know who the person was that did
the shooting was, do you?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. And you told him that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you told that to the detective at
the police station?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And when you described to the
detective at the police station the person, all

you could tell him was it a male Hispanic?

A. Yes.
Q. That was a Spanish Cobra?
A. Yes.

 

lg

:3240

 

 

 

 

 

Q. Because he represented Spanish Cobras?_

A. Yes.

Q. After you talked to the detective at
the police station that night, then you went
home, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was May 30th about a week later

 

that they had you come back down to the police
station?

A. That's when they picked me up.

Q. And you said you went down. Do you
remember did you go down with Rodriguez or not?
A. I think. I'm not too sure, but I

think he was there with us.

Q. Okay, and that's when Detective
Guevara showed you some photographs, right? Is
that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And these six photographs that counsel
just showed you are the photographs that Guevara
showed you back then?

A. Yes.

Q. And Guevara told you that he had'

reason to believe that did you say that 13C was

 

 

 

 

the guy that did it?

A. Yes.

Q. And he separated he separated that
photograph from the rest of them?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And you said something about being mad
at the time?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. So you went along and picked out that
photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. But that wasn't true?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. And in the statement you signed, it
says that the photograph you picked out was the
person that did the shooting, right? It says
that in the statement?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. That's not true either, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And as a Latin King, somebody that is

in the Imperial Gangsters is your enemy, is that

 

right?

A. Yes, they are.

 

a; 242

 

 

 

 

MR. SARLEY: If could I have a moment
please, your honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(SHORT PAUSE WAS HAD.)
BY MR. SARLEY:

Q. The State's Attorney asked you some
questions about being in court yesterday or the
day before yesterday?

A. Yes.

Q. Actually weren't you brought over to
court last week?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And did the State?s Attorney -- did
one of the State's Attorneys talk to you last
week?

A. They tried to.

Q. So you didn't talk to them at all
about this case or what happened in this case?

A. I didn't want to talk.

Q. But you knew why they were bringing

you over here?

 

A. Yes.
Q. And what you're saying is if you were
to go along with what you put what was signed:

 

 

i243

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in this statement, that would be a lie?

A. Right.

MR. SARLEY: Okay, no further questions,
your honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. What did Rodriguez say when you went
by that car out in the parking lot? What did he;
say?

MR. SARLEY: Objection, improper rebuttal,
asked and answered.

MS. SUDENDORF: He asked who was with.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SARLEY: Improper rebuttal.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. What did Rodriguez say?

A. I don't know.

 

Q. Did he say anything when he got to thef
oar? 

A. I don't remember him saying anything.

Q. Do you know whether he identified the
car to the police?

A. I don't think so.

 

if: 244

gears;

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q. You don't think so?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. What did he say? What did Rodriguez
say?

A. I don't know. I never asked.

MR. SARLEY: Objection, asked and answered
several times.

THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. What did he say?

A. I didn't hear him saying anything.

Q. Was he right by you?

A. I can't recall.

Q. Do you remember him being out there
with you?

A. He was out there, yes.

Q. Okay, and who else was out there
beside you and Guevara?

A. Guevara was out there.

Q. All right, and you went straight up to}
the car, right?

A. We went to the car.

Q. Okay, what was the distance between

you and Rodriguez at that time?

 

?2245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. I don't remember.

Q. Was it as close as you are to this
young lady over here?

A. I don't remember.

MR. SARLEY: Objection. Excuse me
objection, improper rebuttal. I never talked
about Rodriguez looking at the car on
cross-examination.

MS. SUDENDORF: Yes, he did.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Indicating approximately seven or

eight feet.

Were you about this close?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Further away?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember that, do you?
A. No.

Q. Let me ask you one other thing. If
like a Spanish Cobra kills a Latin King, a Latin
King would then try to kill a Spanish Cobra?

A. Probably.

Q. Probably?

 

kt

246

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Probably.

Q. Or if a Spanish Cobra killed an O.A,
an O.A. would probably try to kill a Spanish
Cobra, right?

A. Probably.

Q. And that's the way you deal with
things on the street?

A. Maybe.

Q. Do you -- have you ever heard of that
in your gang that that happened?

A. I don't know. Things happen everyday.

Q. If one person gets killed from your
gang that one of your guys goes out and killed
someone from that gang is how you guys do things
out there sometimes?

A. Sometimes.

MS. SUDENDORF: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Sarley, anything else?

MR. SARLEY: One moment please, judge.

THE COURT: Yes.

(SHORT PAUSE WAS HAD.)

 

247

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. SARLEY:

Q. Mr. Melendez, and what you're saying
when you signed that statement, you were mad?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And you wanted revenge?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't care who it was
against?

A. As long as it was a rival member.

MR. SARLEY: No further questions.

MS. SUDENDORF: I have nothing further of

witness.
Thank you.

THE COURT: Take Mr. Melendez back.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)

MS. SUDENDORF: We have Mr. Bill Farrell.
(WITNESS SWORN TO TESTIFY.)

THE CLERK: Thank you. Have a seat please.

 

E248

 

 

 

 

 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY WILLIAM FARRELL

   

called as a witness on behalf of the People of the
State of Illinois, having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Sir, would you please state your name,

and spell your last name?

A. William Farrell, as in Frank

-awr-r-e-l~1.

 

Q. And, Mr. Farrell, what is your
occupation?

A. I'm a lawyer.

Q. And how long have you been an
attorney?

A. About three and a half years.

Q. And are you licensed to practice law

in the State of Illinois?

A. Yes, I am.
Q. Are you currently working?
A. The law firm of Gardner, Carten and

Douglas in Chicago.

Q. What type of work do you do with them,?

sir?

 

i 249

 

 

 

A. Cooperate law.

 

Q. Drawing your attention back to May of

1995. Where were you working then?

 

A. Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

Q. And how long were you working with the
State's Attorney's Office? When did you start
and finish?

A. I started as an Assistant State?s
Attorney in September of 1993, and I left there
to go to my current position in April of 1996.

Q. Were you working as a Cook County

State's Attorney's on May 30th of 1995?

A. Yes.
Q. In what capacity, sir?
A. I was an Assistant State?s Attorney,

and I was assigned to the Felony Review Unit of

the office.

 

Q. Could you tell us what the Felony
Review Unit of the State's Attorney's Office
does?

A. Yes, it's a group of thirty-six
Assistant State's Attorneys broken down into
four different teams. And within those teams,

each of the people are assigned to different

 

 

 

 

areas of the city broken down according to
different detective areas within the city. 'What
we do is investigate violent crimes and other
felony crimes.

Q. What are your hours you were working
as a Felony Review Assistant?

A. Every shift is a twelve-hour shift,
and it would either begin at 5:30 a.m. and go to;
the 5:30 p.m. or visa versa beginning at 5:30
p.m. and work to 5:30 the next morning. So thatx
there are at least nine Assistant State's

Attorneys on duty to conduct these

 

investigations twenty-four hours a day every dayk
of the year.
Q. Were you working in the evening hours

of May 30th, 1995, in the Felony Review Unit

 

assigned to the north side?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And does the north side include Area
Five?

A. yes.

Q. And where is Area Five located in
Chicago?

A. I believe at Grand and Central in

 



251

 

 

 

Chicago.

Q. Okay, and did you receive an
assignment relative or involving a homicide
investigation of Noel Andujar and aggravated
discharge of a firearm as to Alberto Rodriguez
and Jose Melendez at Area Five?

A. Yes, I did.

 

 

Q. Did you receive that assignment on May'

30th, 1995?

 

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately what time was it that
you arrived at the area at the time?

A. I believe it was about 7:30 p.m.

Q. And when you arrived at the area at
the time, did you meet with any detectives?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what else did you do relative to
this investigation in preparation?

A. I spoke with the detectives that were
also assigned to that case and reviewed the
notes and the police reports that they had
generated during their investigation. And then
I began speaking to different people.

Q. And did you have an opportunity -- did

 

EEZSZ

 

 

 

you learn whether or not there had been any
lineups done prior to your arriving at that
area?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you in fact find out whether
an individual had been identified by two
separate individuals at Area Five Violent
Crimes?

A. That's correct.

MR. SARLEY: Objection, hearsay.

MS. SUDENDORF: It's preliminary.

THE COURT: Come on up here.

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE 

MS. SUDENDORF: Number one, it's
preliminary, and number two, incorporated in the
statement which is why, and the lineup is
referred to in the statement.

MR. SARLEY: It's just hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, you know, you?ll be able
to go into that, into the statement, but the way?
it was phrased right now, it's hearsay. so I'll

sustain the objection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MS. SUDENDORF: Okay.

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THE
HEARING OF THE 

BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Did you make yourself familiar with
whatever police reports were available at that
time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you bring yourself up current to
the investigation prior to speaking to anybody
at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you speak with an individual at
Area Five Violent Crimes at approximately 8:40
in the evening by the name of Jose Melendez?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And where did you speak with that
individual?

A. I spoke with Jose Melendez as well as
Detective Guevara in an office area in the back
of Area Five which on the second floor of that
police station.

Q. When you first saw Jose Melendez, how

 

254

 

 

 

 

did you introduce yourself to him?

A. I introduced myself to him by saying
my name is Bill Farrell. I was a lawyer and a
State's Attorney and a prosecutor.

Q. Did Jose indicate that he understood
that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Jose tell you anything in regards
to the homicide of Noel Andujar?

A. Yes.

Q. After he told you what happened with
respect to Noel Andujar, did you make any

requests of the witness at that time?

 

A. Yes, I did. I asked him if he would

 

be willing to reduce that statement to writing.
Q. And what did he say?
A. He said yes, he would.

Q. And prior to you making that request

 

of him, was the detective in the room the entiref

time where you were speaking with this man?

A. No, he was not.

Q. Did you ever ask the detective to
leave?

A. Detective Guevara did leave the room

 

255

 

 

 

?at which time I had continued conversations with*
Jose Melendez.

Q. Did you ask the detective to leave?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Why did you ask the detective to
leave, for what purpose?

A. I do that as standard practice when
speaking to all witnesses so that I will be able;
to ask this question. And the question is have
you been treated well by anyone else who has
talked to you, and most notably all the police
officers.

Q. Did Jose Melendez tell you at any
point he had been mistreated?

A. No.

Q. Did he ever at any point tell you that
Detective Guevara was feeding you a line of 
was feeding you a line of baloney?

MR. SARLEY: Objection.

THE WITNESS: No, he did not.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Did he ever tell you that Detective?

Guevara was forcing him to make any part of the

 

256

 

 

 

 

 

?statement?

A. No, he said he had been treated fine
by the detective.

Q. I'm going to show you what has been
previously marked as People's Exhibit 14 for
identification. Do you recognize what People's
Exhibit 14 is?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that?

A. This is the statement, the summary of
the statement, that Jose Melendez gave to me
which I wrote up and reviewed with Mr. Melendez.

Q. Okay, and when you wrote up the
statement, was the detective back in the room
again?

A. I believe he was, yes.

Q. And did you prepare that in front of
Mr. Melendez?

A. Yes.

Q. And as you prepared that in front of
Mr. Melendez, tell the ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, did you read that statement out loud
'to him or did he read the statement,

Mr. Melendez?

 

 

 

 

 

 

257

 

 

 

 

 

A. I read the entire statement out loud.
He had an opportunity to read the first few
lines of the statement. So I was assured that
he knew how to read and write English.

Q. And did he do that?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And did you make or ask him or make
any requests of him as if there were any errors
in the statement itself?

A. Yes, I did thatthat, sir?

A. Well, as I could I spoke with
Mr. Melendez. He gave me his story of what had
happened. I asked him if he would be willing tod
reduce this to writing which he said yes.

And I suggested that he could
write it or I would write it for him. He said
he would like me to write it. I told him if
that were the case, I would write it, and we
would review it together which is what we did.

I asked him to read the first
couple of lines so that I knew that he would be
able to read the statement. I then read the'

entire statement out loud to him telling him if

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there were any changes he wanted to make to the

statement, we would do that, for him to just let

me know, and in fact he did have changes he

wanted to make as we went through the statementf
Q. And did you make those changes on the

document where he requested those changes?

I did.

A. Yes,

Q. Were those subsequently initialled by

himself and by people such as yourself and the

 

detective?

A. That's correct.

Q. Once those changes were made, did the
defendant did Jose Melendez then sign that
statement?

A. Yes, he signed it at the bottom of

each page

Detective Guevara and I as witnesses.

Q. And your signature appears on the
bottom of each of those pages, is that correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And as does Detective Guevara,
correct?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. As does Jose Melendez, correct?

 

 

 

and at the end of the statement as did}

 

 

55:3
age

3mg 259

 

 

 

 

 

A. Yes.

MS. SUDENDORF: Your honor, I would ask if
the I ask that People's Exhibit 14 be entered
into evidence and that he be able to publish
that statement.

THE COURT: All right, 14 is admitted and
may be published. 

THE WITNESS: The statement reads as
follows: Statement of Jose M. Melendez taken
May 30th, 1995, at 2040 hours at Area Five
Violent Crimes. Present A.S.A. which stands for;
Assistant State's Attorney, W.P. Farrell, Jr.,
and Detective Guevara.

This statement is taken regarding;
the murder of Noel Andujar which occurred on May:
23rd, 1995, at 2600 North Kedzie at
approximately 2230 hours.

After being advised and stating
that he understood that William P. Farrell, Jr.
was a lawyer and a prosecutor and not his lawyerf
and that he was working with the police, Jose
Melendez agreed to give the following statement
in summary and not word for word.

Jose Melendez states that's he's

 

260

 

 

 

 

 

twenty?six years old and lives at 1742 West
Division Street in Chicago, Illinois. Jose'
Melendez states that he can speak, read and
write English.

Jose Melendez states that on hay-
23rd, 1995 he drove to his friend's, Alberto 
Rodriguez' house, at 2717 North Hoyne to pick
him up. Jose Melendez states that he arrived at
Alberto Rodriguez' house at approximately 10:00'
p.m.

Jose Melendez states that he

  
 
 
  
  

picked up his two friends, Alberto Rodriguez and:
Noel Andujar. Jose Melendez states he and
Alberto Rodriguez and Noel Andujar began drivingf
towards Noel Andujar's girlfriend's house on
Kedzie and Armitage.

Jose Melendez states that as theys
approached the stop sign at Milwaukee Avenue and;
Logan Boulevard, he noticed a black Park Avenue
sedan waiting at the stop sign occupied by one:
male black in the back seat and two male
Hispanics in the front seat.

Jose Melendez states that he? 

pulled up next to the black Park Avenue sedan

 

261

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and looked at the passenger sitting in the front
passenger seat and saw the passenger "throwing--
down the crown" and representing. Jose Melendez
states that he knew the passenger's actions tog
be gang symbols.

Jose Melendez states that he?
began to drive away and the black Park Avenue
followed on his left hand side. Jose Melendez-
states that he continued to look at the car and
its occupant to his left. Jose Melendez states
that he saw the passenger pull up a white hood
over his head and open his door. Jose Melendez
states he began to accelerate and saw the
passenger of the Park Avenue shooting at his
car.

Jose Melendez states that he
turned right on Kimball, and the Park Avenue
continued on down Wrightwood. This was one_of
the places where there was a change. I had?;
written down Kedzie, and Mr. Melendez corrected
me and made that Wrightwood. Jose Melendez.i
states that he then found his friend, Noel 
Andujar, had been shot in the head.

Jose Melendez states that hegsaw

 

3% 262

 

 

 

 

 

 

a photo lineup of six photos on May 30th, 1995
at Area Five Violent Crimes. Jose Melendez
states that he picked out the man he saw
shooting at him and his car on May 23rd, 1995,:
and that that man was later identified as Thomas
Sierra.

Jose Melendez states that he.saw:
a lineup on May 30th, 1995, and he picked out?p
the man that shot at him and his car on May
23rd, 1995. Jose Melendez states that he's been
treated well by the police and the Assistant
State's Attorney.

Jose Melendez states he was not
made any promises and was not threatened in-
any way. Jose Melendez states that he was not
under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the
he gave this statement.

Jose Melendez states that he has
read this entire statement and that he's made'
any and all corrections to this statement that-
he deemed necessary.

And then it's signed by Jose
Melendez, Detective Guevara and myself. And asf

we have said, before each page is signed by the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

263

 

 

 

 

 

 

three of us.
MS. SUDENDORF: Nothing further.

BY MR. SARLEY:

Q. Mr. Farrell, how long were you in-the
Felony Review Section of the State's Attorney?s
Office? I

A. From start to finish.

Q. Like all the time?

A. Thirteen months.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Thirteen months.

Q. And in those thirteen months, how many

statements of witnesses in this form and when I
say this form I mean the form of People's
Exhibit No. 4 would you say you took?

A. Are you referring to the form that:

it's written on?

 

Q. Right.
A. I don't know the number.

Q. Hundreds?

 

A. No.
Q. Fifty to one hundred?

A. Probably, yes.

 

2% 264

 

 

 

Q. And when the witness or the person
agrees to put their statement in writing, your
objective is to put down in writing what theit
person said, right? I

A. My objective to put down in a summary
form all of the details that the person hash.
given me, yes. I

Q. But you're interested in making sure-
that you're accurately putting down what the
person says?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you're not in the business at that
point of evaluating the credibility of that
person, right?

MS. SUDENDORF: Objection, your honor.vli
Strike that. Strike that.

THE COURT: You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

BY MR. SARLEY:

Q. Well, what I'm saying is you're not'
going to write something different than what he
tells you even if you think that maybe the
person is not telling the truth?

A. Part of my investigation, as I have

 

$265

 

 

 

 

 

 

suggested, entails interviewing witnesses to try?
to get obviously the truth.

Q. No, I understand that, but just
talking about a written statement. You want to
accurately put down in a written statement unat'
the person says?

A. That's correct.

Q. And whether you think it's a load of
crap or not, you still want to put it accurately?
down the way the person said it, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's what you did in this case?-

A. Correct.

MR. SARLEY: No other questions. Thank
you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. SUDENDORF:

Q. Did you have any reason to believervi
that anything contained in People's Exhibit No.
14 was a load of crap? I

MR. SARLEY: Objection. 

THE WITNESS: I had every reason to believe
that it was absolutely accurate because it was 

substantiated by all of the other evidence.

 

gazes

 

 

 

 

 

THE COURT: Come on up. 
(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUT Qantas-
PRESENCE OF THE JURY3) I 

THE COURT: Yes, from the door you opened.

MR. SARLEY: Wait a minute. I 

whether this was accurate or not. I'm askin?ff

whether this guy writes down what people saygy

MS. SUDENDORF: That's not what he askaa."

That?s not what he asked.

MR. SARLEY: Regardless of whether or.not
true.

MS. SUDENDORF: That's correct.

MR. SARLEY: I did not say that.

MS. SUDENDORF: Which is what you did-int
case. 

MR. SARLEY: Excuse me. I said to him when

you're taking the statements, all you're

interested in is getting is accurately writi??j

down
down
load

?crap*

what they say. And when you?re writianit
accurately, you don?t care whether it's a?
of crap. I never asked if it was a load Of

orthat;""?

 

THE I understand that. You saidhi

 

?=267

 

 

 

 

you write down exactly what the person says

regardless of whether you think it's a load of

crap or not. I don?t know why you used that

word.

MR. SARLEY: I didn't know what else to-

at the time? I?m not asking him to evaluate
credibility of anybody. I'm asking if he
accurately wrote it down.

THE COURT: Your response?

MS. SUDENDORF: He asked that, and then

said whether if it?s full of crap or not, 13'

that correct, which is what you did in this
case.

MR. SARLEY: Wrote it down.

THE COURT: Well, I'll allow it.

MR. SARLEY: Allow it?

THE COURT: Him to answer.

MR. SARLEY: What question?

THE COURT: Did you have any whatever it

is -- do you have any reason to believe that
this was a load of crap.

MR. SARLEY: Based on what I asked.

THE COURT: That's what-you asked.

MR. SARLEY: Most respectfully, that's

say'

the 

he

 

268

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ridiculous.
BY MS. SUDENDORF:
Q. Did you have any reason to believe"
that People's Exhibit 14 was a load of crap?i'
A. No, I did not.
Q. Why?
MR. SARLEY: Objection to that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. SUDENDORF: I have nothing further.

MR. SARLEY: If I could have a moment;

(SHORT PAUSE WAS HAD.)
MR. SARLEY: Nothing else.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Farrell, you're excused.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)

THE COURT: All right, ladies and
gentlemen, I believe that we are through for the
day, and I will excuse you at this time. 

Please remember not to discuSS
this matter amongst yourselves or with anyone
else.

And I would like to start a

 

269

 

 

 

 

little earlier tomorrow. How about if you guys,
members of the jury, be here at 10:00, and 

try to get started about 10:30.

THE
now?

MR.
thinking

THE
think we

MR.

MR.
Mr.

MR.

were all

wouldn't

THE

MR.

THE

10:30 on

instruction conference before that?

Palmer won't be here Monday.

Okay, thank you very much.

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE 

COURT: All right, anything else right

SARLEY: No, I don't think so. Are yOu
that we might finish tomorrow? 2
COURT: I would like to do so if yog 
could. -
ALESIA: Yes.

SARLEY: We would like to a lot.

ALESIA: We have our witnesses. They

here today. I don't see why they'
be here tomorrow.

COURT: How many more witnesses?
ALESIA: At least five.

COURT: Let?s try to get started at;?

the bOttom. Do you want to do the j?fy

 

pg

270

 

 

 

 

MR. ALESIA: You have the instructions new.
THE COURT: I have the instructions, but?
there have been some changes since that time;
MR. ALESIA: Maybe at lunch break.
MR. SARLEY: I don?t think I can get begs,
any earlier than 9:30. I have to 
THE COURT: This doesn't have to be on the
record. I
(WHICH WERE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS
HAD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE

0N SAID DATE.)

 

 

 

 

 

?&271

 

 

 

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 
SS:
COUNTY OF 

I, PATRICE ANN HOULF, Official Court
Reporter of the Circuit Court of Cook County; do
hereby certify that I reported in shorthand they
proceedings had on the above?entitled 
I thereafter caused the foregoing to be

transcribed into typewriting, which I hereby_

 

certify to be a true and correct transcript of the
proceedings had on said date before the HONORABLE

STUART E. PALMER, Judge of said court.

Official Court Reporter

C.S.R. #084-001613

 

?g

5: 272

 

(Rev. 2/18/93) 

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK

I, AURELIA PUCINSKI, Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Cook County, in said County and State, and Keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify the

above and foregoing to be a true, perfect and complete copy of . .A. .TEN.V01..UHE 
RECORD CONSI STING OF THE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS, ONLY. NO PRAECIPE HAVING BEEN







in a certain cause . . . . . . . . . . . . pending in said Court, between
The People of the State of Illinois WERE Plaintiffs and
1:11. QMAS: .SIERRA. . . . . WAS. . . . . ., Defendant. . . .

i

Witness: AURELIA PUCINSKL,
Clerk of the court, and the Seal thereof, at Chicago

In said County, 3.5.1- .Y. 19 . .

if}. W910: Rum/(Mag . . ..

Clerk

 

PUCINSKI, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

 




7


 

m,