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

ERUBY ABREGO

Petitioner-Defendant

No. 99 CR 9739

Honorable Kenneth J. Wadas,
Judge Presiding

V.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

fi .

JAfi 16 '.A3
OEOTHY .b,.w v/N
OF GiRGUiT COURT

Karl Leonard
David B. Owens
THE EXONERATION PROJECT

at the University of Chicago Law School
311 N. Aberdeen Street, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
(312)789-4955

KarI@exonerationproject.org
Attorney ID: 44407

Attorneysfor Petitioner Eruby Abrego

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

INTRODUCTION

1

II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2

III.

BACKGROUND

3

A. Jose Garcia is shot and killed; Julio Lugo is wounded

3

B. Police zero in on Juan Parra

5

C. Police arrest Jeremiah Cain

6

D. Police arrest Eruby Abrego and Nicasio Santiago

7

E. Det. Wojcik brutally beats Mr. Abrego in an effort to extract
a confession

F. The police conduct a series suggestive line-ups

8

9

G. Det. Wojcik continues to brutalize Mr. Abrego until be falsely
"confesses"

10

H. Mr. Abrego is visibly injured, as noted by bis sister, bis lawyer, and

I.

medical records

12

Nicasio Santiago's interrogation

13

IV.

MR. ABREGO'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT

14

V.

THE REAL SHOOTER IS JASON "SPIRIT" RODRIGUEZ

15

A. Nicasio Santiago told the police that Spirit was the real killer; the police
did not investigate
15
B. Spirit's girlfriend testified that Spirit confessed that be was the real
killer

C. Spirit matches the description of the shooter given by witnesses at the
scene; Mr. Abrego does not
VI.

MR. ABREGO'S TRIAL

15

17
19

A. The State's evidence at Mr. Abrego's trial

19

B. Mr. Abrego's defense case

25

 VII. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF MR. ABREGO'S INNOCENCE

30

A. Julio Lugo explains:"I really don't know who did it"

30

B. Ramon Torres reveals:"The kid, Abrego, didn't do it" and "The real
guy is still out there"

30

C. Det. Guevara has invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than admit Mr.

Abrego's innocence or answer questions about his misconduct in this
case

31

VIII. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REGARDING DETECTIVE WOJCIK.... 33

A. Det. Wojcik's "significant role" in attempting to cover up the Laquan
McDonald scandal

34

B. Det. Wojcik's false report exonerating Det. Guevara of misconduct

36

C. The FBI investigates Det. Wojcik and reports him to the CPD for
misconduct

37

D. Det. Wojcik breaks into his ex-girlfiiend's home, beats a man with a
wrench, is criminally charged, and OPS sustains a complaint against
him

38

E. A defendant Det. Wojcik helped frame is exonerated in January 2018

39

F. Dozens ofindividuals accuse Det. Wojcik of misconduct

39

1.

Physical abuse / abusive interrogation techniques

40

2.

Causing a wrongful conviction

43

3.

Forcefully entering a home without a warrant and physically
abusing the occupants

43

4.

Other searches without a warrant and abusive behavior

43

5.

Denying individuals their right to an attomey

45

6.

Refusal to investigate misconduct by other officers

45

7.

Other citizen allegations

45

8.

Ticket "scofflaw"

47

11

 IX.

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REGARDING DETECTIVE GUEVARA
AND HIS PARTNERS

47

A. Det. Guevara is a "bald-faced" liar who cannot be given "an ounce of
credibility"
B.

49

Det. Guevara invokes the Fifth Amendment about his conduct in this

case—and many others

51

C. Fourteen defendants have had convictions reversed as a result of Det.
Guevara's misconduct

52

D. The 2015 Lassar Report concluded that Det. Guevara engaged in
misconduct and contributed to the convictions ofinnocent defendants

56

E. Dozens ofindividuals have alleged that they are victims of Det.
Guevara's misconduct

1.

X.

57

Physical or psychological abuse of citizens, witnesses, or
suspects

57

2.

Claims ofrigging lineups or eyewitness identifications

62

3.

Falsifying police reports

64

4.

Warrantless searches

65

CLAIMS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Claim I: Mr. Abrego Is Innocent

65

65

Claim II: Mr. Abrego Was Denied His Right to Due Process Guaranteed by the 5th
and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 2
ofthe Illinios Constitution

68

Claim III: Mr. Abrego Was Denied His Right to Due Process Guaranteed Under
Brady v. Maryland, the 5th Aad 14th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, and Article 1, Section 2 ofthe Illinois Constitution

72

Claim III: Mr. Abrego Was Denied His Right to Due Process Guaranteed Under
Brady v. Maryland, the 5th Aad 14th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, and Article 1, Section 2 ofthe Illinois Constitution

72

Claim V: Mr. Abrego Was Denied His Constitutional Right to Effective Assistance
of Counsel Under the 6th and 14th Amendments ofthe United States

Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 ofthe Illinois Constitution

111

79

 Claim VI: The Cumulative Effect OfThe Errors That Infected Mr. Abrego's Trial

XL

Denied Him His Due Process Right To A Fair Trial

80

CONCLUSION

80

IV

 Now comes Petitioner ERUBY ABREGO,through his attorneys, THE EXONERATION

PROJECT at the University of Chicago Law School, and respectfully petitions this Court for post-

^

conviction relief pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/122-1. In support, Mr. Abrego states as follows:
I.

'**

^

INTRODUCTION

1.

Eruby Abrego is serving a 90-year prison sentence for a murder that he did not

commit.
2.

The murder was gang-related.

The evidence shows that the shooter made

representations that he was an "OA"(a member of the Orchestra Albany street gang) and that he

^

intended to shoot a member ofthe rival Latin Kings.

^

3.

Mr. Abrego was an OA.

4.

But that is where Mr. Abrego's similarities with the shooter end.

5.

At trial, Mr. Abrego presented evidence that, immediately after the shooting, the

eyewitnesses who saw the shooter described someone of a different height, weight, and skin
complexion than Mr. Abrego,even though they would later testify that it was Mr. Abrego that they
pmi

S3.W.

6.

What Mr. Abrego and his lawyer did not know at that time was that those

eyewitnesses knew that Mr. Abrego was not the killer but actively sought to shield the real shooter
m

from criminal consequences because they wanted him to instead face street justice. Simply put,
the eyewitnesses wanted the real killer to remain free so that they could exact their own vengeance.
7.

These eyewitnesses have now come forward to set the record straight: Mr. Abrego

was not the shooter.

8.

Although he ultimately provided a false "confession," Mr. Abrego did so only after

brutal beatings by Det. Wojcik. Mr. Abrego's injuries were visible at his first court appearance.
9.

Mr. Abrego's case is not the only one in which Detectives Guevara and Wojcik

 engaged in misconduct. Far from it.

10.

In the years since Mr. Abrego's conviction, dozens of credible allegations have

been made against these detectives.
11.

A Cook County Circuit Court Judge has labeled Det. Guevara a "bald-faced" liar

who has "eliminated any possibility ofhim being considered a credible witness in any proceeding"
and for whom a court "can't give an ounce of credibility."
12.

Det. Guevara's misconduct has now led to the reversal of at least fourteen

convictions.

13.

Detective Guevara has asserted the Fifth Amendment about his involvement in Mr.

Abrego's case, including when asked the fundamental question: ''"Isn't it true you attempted to
frame Eruby Abrego\^Y

14.

Det. Wojcik has now been revealed as engaging in a similarly widespread pattem

of misconduct. He retired from the police department after his "significant role" in the cover up
of the Laquan McDonald murder was revealed. The Chicago Police Department itself has
determined that the credibility of certain of Det. Wojcik's excuses for his misconduct "is very
slim."

15.

Mr. Abrego is innocent. This is proven by newly-discovered evidence. His

conviction is the product of misconduct by detectives with an extraordinary record of similar
misconduct in dozens of other cases.

16.

Mr. Abrego brings this post-conviction petition in order to remedy the substantial

denial of his rights under the Constitutions ofthe United States and the State of Illinois.
II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17.

On September 22, 2004, Mr. Abrego was convicted of first-degree murder and

aggravated battery with a firearm following a jury trial before this Honorable Court.

 18.

On October 15, 2004, he was sentenced to a total of 90 years' imprisonment(60

years for the murder and 30 years for the aggravated battery, to run consecutively).
19.

Mr. Abrego's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Abrego,371 111.

App. 3d 987(2007).

20.

The Illinois Supreme Court denied his petition for leave to appeal. People v.

Abrego,225 111. 2d 639(2007).

21.

On June 17, 2008, Mr. Abrego filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging that

his "confession" was the product ofsevere physical abuse by Chicago police detectives and raising
a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discover and investigate the fact that the
detectives had denied him access to counsel and continued to interrogate him even after he had
requested an attorney.

22.

This Court summarily dismissed the petition on August 1, 2008. Mr. Abrego

appealed and the appellate court reversed, finding that Mr. Abrego had set forth "an arguable case
that coimsel's performance fell below an objective standard ofreasonableness" and that,"[tjaking
as true defendant's claim that he requested an attorney at the time ofarrest, along with the affidavit
of his sister supporting that claim, defendant was arguably prejudiced by counsel's alleged
ineffectiveness." People v. Abrego, No. 1-08-2598 (1st Dist., June 29, 2010).

23.

Following remand, the Exoneration Project at the University of Chicago Law

School began representing Mr. Abrego.
III.

BACKGROUND

A.

Jose Garcia is shot and killed; Julio Lugo is wounded.

24.

On May 22, 1999 at approximately 5:45 in the evening, 46-year-old Jose Garcia

and his nephew,32-year-old Ramon Torres, were sitting in a parked car at approximately 3159 N.
Monticello in Chicago. (Ex. 5). They were talking to 20-year-old Julio Lugo who was
3

 accompanied by his 10-year-old cousin Isidro Quinones, both of whom were standing next to
Torres' and Garcia's car. (Id.)

25.

While the group was chatting, a Latino male wearing a sweatshirt with a hood

pulled over his head shouted gang slogans from across the street and opened fire with a handgun.
(M)

26.

Garcia, sitting in the passenger seat, was struck in the head. (Id.)

27.

Torres, sitting in the driver seat, ducked and hit the gas. After a wild drive over

several blocks, including through alleys and the wrong way down a one-way street, Torres pulled

over on Milwaukee Avenue just north of Belmont. Emergency personnel were summoned. But,
Garcia was dead by the time an ambulance arrived.(Id.)
28.

When the shooting broke out, Lugo shielded his young nephew Quinones.

Quinones was uninjured. Lugo, however, was hit once in the shoulder and once in the buttock.
Lugo was taken to the hospital and discharged several days later. (Id.)

29.

Lugo was a member ofthe Latin King street gang. (Tr. 166-YYY-167-YYY). The

shooter was suspected to be a member ofthe rival Orchestra Albany gang because, prior to opening
fire, he yelled slogans such as"OA love" and "King killer." (Ex. 5).
30.

The police reports contain varying descriptions ofthe shooter:
-

Witnesses at the scene said the shooter was a dark-skinned Hispanic male
who was 5' 7" tall; "heavy set" and about 200 pounds with curly dark hair
and a moustache.(Ex. 6);

-

Torres told one ofthe officers who interviewed him the day ofthe shooting
that the shooter was 19-22 years old,6 feet tall, and 180 pounds. (Ex. 7);

Lugo said the shooter was in his twenties, 5' 8", 200 pounds, and of a dark
complexion;(Ex. 8; Tr. Tr. A-53);

-

Witness Fred Marrero described the shooter as heavy set and 5' 7".(Ex. 9);

-

A report by Det. Guevara describes the offender as 20-25 years old, 5' 8"
4

 to 5' 10", with a medium build and medium complexion. (Ex. 5).
31.

Eruby Abrego is 5'4" with light skin. (Tr. AAAA-67;see also bttps://www.iIlinois.

gov/lDOC/QFFENDERyPages/InmateSearcb.aspx and search IDOC Number R34111).
B.

Police zero in on Juan Parra.

32.

Shortly before the shooting, Lugo(a Latin King) and Quinones bad been riding in

a car with Fred Marrero. (Tr. A-15). Police reports indicate that Marrero is a former member of
the Latin Kings, though be would deny that at trial. (Ex. 9; Tr. A-23).
33.

They were confronted by several OA gang members riding in a gold colored Chevy

Caprice who pulled over, shouted gang slogans, and threw bottles at the Latin Kings' car. (Tr. A15-A-17, DD-13-DD-14).

34.

Operating on the theory that the OAs involved in this bottle-throwing incident may

also have been responsible for the shooting, police worked to identify those OAs.
35.

An officer explored the area searching for a gold colored Chevy Caprice. He found

one and learned that it belonged to Juan Parra, an OA gang member. (Ex 10).
36.

Detectives Guevara and Halvorsen created a photo array including Juan Parra and

showed it to Ramon Torres and Julio Lugo. Neither identified anybody in this array. (Id.)
31.

Nevertheless, the police brought Parra to Area 5 at around 1:30 a.m. He was

questioned and held overnight. Parra denied any involvement and offered alibis. (Id.)
38.

The next day, Parra was given a polygraph examination with the result,"deception

indicated." (Ex. 11).

39.

The police interviewed Parra's alleged alibis. These witnesses did not corroborate

Parra's account. (Ex 10).

40.

Det. Wojcik then confronted Parra with the fact that his alibis were not supporting

Parra's version ofevents. According to Det. Wojcik,Parra now "agreed to tell the truth." (Id.)
5

 41.

According to Det. Wojcik,Parra now explained that a fellow OA named "Sef had

recently complained about some Latin Kings causing trouble, including by ramming his nephew's
car with a van. Sef further said that he and "PeeWee" had recently gotten into a fight with some
Latin Kings. {Id.)
42.

According to Det. Wojcik,Parra said that on the afternoon ofthe shooting, he went

to Kosciuszko ("Koz") Park and saw Sef, PeeWee, and "Cain." They all agreed to go to Latin
King territory to beat up a Latin King or damage their cars. They got into Parra's car and drove
toward Latin ICing territory. On the way, they encountered a car containing Latin Kings. Parra
pulled over and Sef, PeeWee, and Cain got out. The car with the Latin Kings got away. {Id.)

43.

According to Det. Wojcik, Parra said that Santiago and Cain then returned to

Parra's car. Sef did not. Parra pulled into an alley and waited. He heard several shots and saw

Sef running back to the car holding a handgun. Parra drove back to the Koz Park neighborhood
and the group split up. {Id.)

44.

According to Det. Wojcik, Parra identified Sef as Eruby Abrego and Cain as

Jeremiah Cain. He did not know PeeWee's real name. However,he asserts that officers consulted

a database of known gang members and learned that Nicasio Santiago lived in the Koz Park area
and was known as "PeeWee." {Id.)

45.

Parra was placed under arrest. {Id.)

46.

Parra would later give a court-reported statement essentially regurgitating the

version of events reflected in Det. Wojcik's report. (Tr. 90-ZZZ).
C.

Police arrest Jeremiah Cain.

47.

Based on the information Det. Wojcik claims to have leamed from Parra, police

arrested Jeremiah Cain.(Ex 10).

48.

Det. Wojcik found a handgun in Cain's bedroom. (Tr. 113-ZZZ). The State Police
6

 crime lab would later confirm that this was the weapon used in the shootings. (Tr. A-138).
49.

Under interrogation by detectives Schalk and Bogucki, Cain described a series of

events inconsistent with what Det. Wojcik claims to have learned from Parra.

50.

Cain said that he was in a car with PeeWee and "Gilbert" when they stopped to

throw bottles at a car containing Latin Kings. Gilbert and PeeWee then dropped Cain off and said
they were going to "take care ofit." Later, PeeWee and Gilbert returned and explained that they
"took care of business." They gave Cain a handgun and asked him to hold onto it. Cain stashed
the it in his bedroom. (Ex 10).

51.

This version of events did not match what Det. Wojcik believed. So, Det. Wojcik

took over the interrogation. According to Det. Wojcik, Cain then changed his story to match what
Parra had previously said. {Id.)
52.

Gilbert vanished from Cain's version of events. Instead—according to Det.

Wojcik—Cain now described a meeting in Koz Park with Mr. Abrego, Santiago, and Parra. Mr.

Abrego told Cain to retrieve the handgun Cain kept in his bedroom. Cain got the handgun and

gave it to Mr. Abrego. Cain then described riding in Parra's car with Mr. Abrego and Santiago.
He described the bottle-throwing incident. Cain now said that Mr. Abrego went to find the Latin
Kings' car while the rest waited in an alley. In this new version of events, Cain heard several
gunshots and Mr. Abrego then returned to the car and gave the handgun back to Cain. {Id.)
53.

Cain later gave a court reported statement while Det. Wojcik looked on. This

statement regurgitated essentially the same version of events as what Det. Wojcik's police report
alleges Cain had earlier told him. {Id.)
D.

Police arrest Eruby Abrego and Nicasio Santiago.

54.

Two days after the shooting, on Wednesday, March 24, 1999, Det. Wojcik and

others arrested Mr. Abrego and Nicasio Santiago at Mr. Abrego's sister's home.

 55.

Det. Wojcik had used a long screwdriver to pry open the door to the home. (Tr. W-

9, W-11). After breaking through the door, Det. Wojcik and others entered the home with guns
drawn. (Tr. W-12,T-86-87). Det. Wojcik did not have a warrant.(Tr. T-114).

56.

Det. Wojcik and other officers ordered everybody in the home to kneel with their

hands behind their heads. (Tr. AAAA-68). Det. Wojcik then asked Mr. Abrego to identify himself.
He did so. (Tr. AAAA-68-69).

57.

Det. Wojcik told Mr. Abrego,"you know what you did." (Tr. W-13, AAAA-69).

Mr. Abrego told him he had no idea what he was talking about. {Id.)

58.

Det. Wojcik became angry and hit Mr. Abrego twice in the face. {Id.)

59.

Nicasio Santiago was also in the home. (Tr. AAAA-68).

60.

Mr. Abrego and Mr. Santiago were arrested and taken to Area 5. (Tr. AAAA-69).

E.

Det. Wojcik brutally beats Mr. Abrego in an effort to extract a confession.

61.

Mr. Abrego was placed in a small interrogation room and chained to the wall. (Tr.

AAAA-70-71).

62.

The police left him there for about an hour and a half. (Tr. AAAA-71). Then three

detectives came in. (Tr. W-17).

63.

Mr. Abrego denied any involvement in the shooting and told them he was in Koz

Park at the time. (Tr. AAAA72-73).
64.

After a while, the three officers left. (Tr. AAAA-73).

65.

Shortly thereafter, Det. Wojcik came back alone. (Tr. W-18). He spent about

fifteen minutes demanding that Mr. Abrego confess. {Id.) Then,Mr. Abrego explains,Det. Wojcik
"started swinging." (Tr. AAAA-73-74).

66.

Det. Wojcik pimched Mr. Abrego in the ribs, back, and chest. "Just swinging, like

I was a punching bag." (Tr. AAAA-74).
8

 67.

He punched Mr. Abrego 20 to 25 times before deciding to leave Mr. Abrego alone

again for a few hours. (Tr. AAAA-74-75).

68.

When be came back,be told Mr. Abrego that be would rot in jail because bis friends

bad said what Mr. Abrego bad done. He showed Mr. Abrego statements provided by Cain and
Parra. Det. Wojcik left again. (Tr. W-20, AAAA-76).

F.

The police conduct a series suggestive line-ups.

69.

The police put together a line-up of five people: four suspects and one filler (i.e.,

one non-suspect). The four suspects were Mr. Abrego, Santiago, Gilbert Daniels, and Roger
Somarreba(who was arrested with Mr. Abrego and Santiago). (Ex. 12).
70.

This line-up procedure directly violated current Chicago Police Department

directives designed to prevent contamination of the identification procedure. These directives
state: "There shall be only one suspect per lineup." (Chi. Police Dept., Special Order S06-02,
effective Jan. 1,2016(available online at bttD://directives.cbicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57

be2-12be97cf-78912-be98-99723f421 eel0458.btmlfi. "When practical, the lineup will consist of
at least six individuals, one suspect, and five 'fillers[.]'" {Id.) These procedures are designed to
prevent false identifications. Not using these procedures renders the identifications fundamentally
unreliable. {See, Smith, A. & Cutler, B.,"Identification test reforms," in B. Cutler (ed.). Reform
ofEyewitness Identification Procedures(2013)("Smith & Cutler")).

71.

The line-up procedure ftirtber violated current police department directives because

one ofthe investigating detectives conducted the line-up. (Ex. 12). Under current directives,"[a]ll

«

lineups will be conducted by an 'independent administrator[,]"' i.e., "a lineup administrator who
is not participating in the investigation ofthe criminal offense and is unaware of which person in
the lineup is the suspect." {Id.) Here, the line-up was conducted by one of the detectives
investigating the case, rendering it fundamentally flawed. (Special Order S06-02; Smith & Cutler

 2013b).

72.

Three people viewed the lineup: Fred Marrero, Isidro Quinones, and Ramon

Torres. {Id.y
73.

After viewing this inherently suggestive and flawed line-up, Marrero—^who did not

witness the shooting—said that Mr. Abrego looked like one ofthe people who had thrown a bottle
at his car,"but he could not be positive." (Ex. 12).
74.

Quinones and Torres both identified Mr. Abrego as the shooter. (Id.)

75.

Since Santiago was not identified in the first line-up and Parra was not included,

the detectives decided to do another line-up containing Santiago, Parra, and three fillers. Marrero
and Quinones did not identify anybody in this problematic lineup. (Ex. 13).

76.

Juan Parra viewed a line-up on March 25, 1999, after being released from the

hospital. Even though he would testify five years later that Mr. Abrego was the shooter, he was
unable to identify Mr. Abrego in this lineup conducted three days after the shooting. (Ex. 14; Tr.
A-43).

G.

Det. Wojcik continues to brutalize Mr. Abrego until he falsely "confesses."

77.

After these line-ups, Mr. Abrego was left alone overnight in the interrogation room.

He was chained to the wall. He had been given no food. (Tr. W-21).

78.

Mr. Abrego was "hollering" because he needed the bathroom. The police did not

remove his restraints or allow him to leave the interrogation room. Mr. Abrego was forced to

' Although Det. Schalk testified that the witnesses viewed the line-ups separately, he is
contradicted by the police reports which suggest the three witnesses viewed the line-up jointly.
{Id.-, Tr. 43-ZZZ). To the extent the witnesses viewed the line-up together, that would violate
current Chicago Police Department directives, which state that "[e]ach witness shall perform the
identification procedures without any other witness present." (Special Order 806-02; see also
(U.S. Dept. ofJustice, Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence,"Eyewitness Evidence:
A Guide for Law Enforcement(1999) at 27 (available online at https://www.ncirs.gov/pdffiles1/
nii/178240.pdf)("Technical Working Group 1999")).
10

 urinate in the interrogation room. (Tr. AAAA-77).
79.

When Det. Wojcik returned, he saw the urine and "snapped." {Id.)

80.

Det. Wojcik hit Mr. Abrego about twenty times while Mr. Abrego was chained to

the wall. (Tr. W-24-25). Det. Wojcik left again. Mr. Abrego cried from the pain. (Tr. W-26).

81.

In the early morning hours ofFriday, March 26, Det. Wojcik returned. Mr. Abrego

had not eaten since his arrest days earlier. He was in pain. He felt like he had to vomit. He asked
Det. Wojcik to get medical attention. Det. Wojcik took him to the bathroom. Mr. Abrego vomited.
It was bloody. He showed Det. Wojcik and asked to go to the hospital. (Tr. W-28-29).

82.

Det. Wojcik said,"just tell me whatever I want to hear, and I'll take you wherever

you want to go." (Tr. W-30).

83.

Mr. Abrego agreed to do so. "I told him whatever he wanted to hear. I thought he

was going to beat on me some more." (Tr. AAAA-80).

84.

He gave a court-reported statement to an Assistant State's Attorney. Det. Wojcik

was present the whole time (although his presence is conspicuously omitted from the statement
itself). (Tr. AAAA-81).

85.

Mr. Abrego gave the statement to the Assistant State's Attomey because he was

"scared, hungry" and afiraid of"getting beat." (Tr. AAAA-81-82).

86.

The statement consists largely of the Assistant State's Attomey reciting Det.

Wojcik's version of events and asking Mr. Abrego to confirm it, which he does by repeatedly
sajdng "ma'am, yes, ma'am." {See, e.g., Ix. 204-YYY).
87.

The statement was false.

88.

Indeed, certain details of the statement are blatantly wrong.

Mr. Abrego

intentionally peppered the statement with verifiable falsehoods and intemal inconsistencies in

11

 order to serve as a discrete red flag. (Tr. AAAA-82)("So that could be like a flaw, you know,that
is not true.").

89.

For example,the statement says that part ofthe reason Mr. Abrego wanted to go to

Latin King territory on the day ofthe shooting was because "the Kings were out there who got us,

got me and my nephew and little sister and all ofthat.'''' (Tr. 209-YYY)(emphasis added). Mr.
Abrego does not have a little sister. His sister is 12 years older than him and was 32 at this time,
while Mr. Abrego was 20. (Tr. AAAA-62-63).
H.

Mr. Abrego is visibly injured, as noted by his sister, his lawyer, and medical
records.

90.

After Mr. Abrego provided his false confession, he was allowed a visit with his

sister. He looked "pretty rough." Bruises were starting to show. He asked his sister to bring him
clean underwear because he had wet himself when he was not allowed to use the bathroom. (Feb.
24,2001 Hmg. Tr. at 73).

91.

The next day, Mr. Abrego appeared for a bond hearing. (Mar. 27, 1999 Hmg. Tr.

92.

At the hearing, Mr. Abrego's counsel advised the court that Mr. Abrego had been

at 1).

beaten by the police. (Id. at 3).

93.

Mr. Abrego had visible cuts on his chest at this hearing. (Id. at 4).

94.

He had visible bruises on his arm. (Id.)

95.

Mr. Abrego reported that he had been coughing up blood. (Id.)

96.

At this hearing, the State did not dispute the obvious injuries Mr. Abrego had

sustained. (Id.)

97.

After that hearing, Mr. Abrego was taken to Cook Coimty Jail. During the intake

process at the jail, Mr. Abrego reported that he had been vomiting blood. The medical history
12

 form created by an EMT upon intake reports: "Patient states emesis (vomiting with blood due to
altercation one day earlier.)" (Feb. 24, 2001 Hmg Tr. at 123). Incongruently, it further states
"denies any medical problem" and that the patient's "chief complaint" is "none." (Jd.) The EMT
claims that he did not note any bruises, swelling, or injuries to Mr. Abrego's body. (Tr. 196-ZZZ-

197-ZZZ). However,and contradictorily, he also reports that a"physician assistant is only brought
in to check an inmate if a problem is detected by an EMT." (Jd. at 124). In this case, a physician's
assistant was brought in. (Id.•, see also Tr. 189-ZZZ).

98.

The physician's assistant wrote down "[t]here was vomiting two days ago, one

episode. One blood streak." (Feb. 24, 2001 Hmg Tr. at 124). He further documented that Mr.

Abrego "feels fine" now and is not currently experience hematemesis (the vomiting of blood).
(Id)
I.

Nicasio Santiago's interrogation.

99.

When Nicasio Santiago was first questioned, by Det. Schalk, he said that he was

not involved in the shooting. Rather, he indicated that he had heard that an OA called "Spirit" had
done it. (Tr. 76-ZZZ; Ex. 10).

100.

Then, Det. Wojcik talked to him. Santiago again denied any involvement.

However, according to Det. Wojcik, Santiago eventually decided to "tell the truth." (Ex. 10).
101.

According to Det. Wojcik, Santiago then told him essentially the same story as Det.

Wojcik had originally elicited from Cain. (Id.)

102.

Santiago would later sign a handwritten statement prepared by an assistant State's

attomey reiterating this story and implicating Mr. Abrego. (Id.)

103.

Ofcourse, Det. Wojcik testified that he never abused Santiago, denied him his right

to counsel, or otherwise mistreated him. (Tr. T-53-55, 61).

104.

That is not how Santiago remembers it.
13

 105.

Santiago says he was hit repeatedly and choked. (Tr. 241-ZZZ-243-ZZZ).

106.

He was shown statements by others in this case and told "this is the story[.]" (Tr.

243-ZZZ). When Santiago denied any knowledge,"he grabbed me by my throat and put a pen
right undemeath my chin like he was trying to stab me with a pen." (Tr. 244-ZZZ).
107.

Like Mr. Abrego, Santiago included in his statement facts that were blatantly and

verifiably false. He did not go to Wright college (Tr. 245-ZZZ); his nickname is PeeWee, not
"Pistol" {id.y, he does not have a nephew named "Josh"(Tr. 246-ZZZ).
108.

Santiago testified that he gave his statement for one straightforward reason:

"Because the police made me." (Tr. 249-ZZZ).
IV.

MR.ABREGO'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT

109.

Mr. Abrego filed a motion to suppress his false confession. So did co-defendants

Cain and Santiago.

110.

Det. Wojcik testified for the State. He repeatedly denied Mr. Abrego's allegations

of abuse. {See generally Tr. T-24-U-25). To the contrary, Det. Wojcik testified that he treated
Mr. Abrego to McDonald's. (Tr. T-60).
111.

Det. Wojcik further denied hitting co-defendants Cain and Santiago. {See generally

Tr. T-24-U-25).

112.

Mr. Abrego testified and described the abuse he suffered at the hands of Det.

Wojcik. (Tr. W-4-W-95).

113.

The Court denied Mr. Abrego's motion to suppress.(Tr. W-104). The Court relied

in part on the fact that the intake document firom the Cook County Jail did not indicate any bruises.
{Id.) However, the primary reason the Court denied Mr. Abrego's motion is this: "Wojcik's
testimony is in my view believable. I do not believe the defendant." {Id.) Based on this, the Court
concluded "I believe he was treated humanely, fairly, and the statement was not coerced." {Id.)
14

 114.

The Court reached this conclusion without the benefit of significant of newly-

discovered evidence regarding Det. Wojcik's pattern of misconduct, in this case and many others.
Likewise,the Court was not aware ofnewly-discovered evidence regarding Det. Guevara's pattem
of misconduct in both this case and others. (See infra Sections VII(C), VIII, and IX).
V.

THE REAL SHOOTER IS JASON "SPIRIT" RODRIGUEZ

A.

Nicasio Santiago told the police that Spirit was the real killer; the police did
not investigate.

115.

As noted above, Santiago told the police on day one that the shooter was an OA

called "Spirit." (Tr. 76-ZZZ; Ex. 10).
116.

He testified at trial that he was there when the shooting happened and that he saw

Spirit do it. Mr. Abrego was not there. (Tr. 238-ZZZ-239-ZZZ; 278-ZZZ).

117.

Det. Schalk testified that Santiago told him that Spirit was the killer. But, without

further explanation, he testified that the police "attempted to" pursue this tip, but that it did not
"lead anywhere." (Tr. 84-ZZZ).

118.

The police reports do not indicate that the police pursued the lead at all.

B.

Spirit's girlfriend testified that Spirit confessed that he was the real killer.

119.

Elizabeth Montalvo testified that she was living with Spirit at the time of the

shooting. (Tr. SS-13). They were boyfriend and girlfiiend. (Tr. SS-13-SS-14). She was also
fiiends with Mr. Abrego. (Tr. SS-50).

120.

On the day ofthe shooting. Spirit was wearing a black hoody. (Tr. SS-15).

121.

So was the shooter. (Tr. 356-ZZZ(Ramon Torres); A-18(Santiago); WW-41 (Det.

Schalk); WW-37(police officer Eduardo Rios); Ex. 15 (Isidro Quinones)).

122.

The day of the shooting. Spirit told Montalvo that he "had to go prove something,

he had to go take care of something." (Tr. SS-15).

15

 123.

A few hours later, Spirit returned and appeared "very nervous." (Tr. SS-16). He

closed all the blinds in the house. (Jd.)

124.

When Montalvo asked Spirit what was wrong, he would only say "not to worry

about it." (Jd.)

125.

For the next few days. Spirit stayed home almost all the time, which was unusual.

(Tr. SS-17). Then he decided that "he had to hide." (Id.)
126.

Montalvo insisted on being told why. (Tr. SS-17).

127.

By way of explanation. Spirit said "he looked the guy in the eye and just shot

him[.]" (Tr. SS-18).
128.

Spirit told Montalvo that he had to hide and "as soon as everjdhing was clear that

he would come back." (Tr. SS-19).

129.

He returned a couple of days later and told Montalvo "they had found somebody

else they were charging for it and he was all right. He wasn't going to get charged for it; so he had
nothing to worry about." (Tr. SS-20).

130.

At some point. Spirit and Montalvo broke up. (Id.)

131.

Spirit was worried Montalvo would tell somebody what she knew. So, he stalked

and beat her. He threatened that, if she were to tell anybody what she knew,"it would be worse
than what he did already." (Tr. SS-20).
132.

Montalvo got a restraining order. (Tr. SS-22).

133.

Nicasio Santiago also threatened Montalvo. (Tr. SS-50). He promised to "beat

[her] up"if she "would say anything." (Tr. SS-51). He told her "to keep [her] mouth shut." (Tr.
SS-57).

134.

Montalvo never told the police about Spirit's confession because she was scared

16

 and because she knew that the restraining order was no protection. (Tr. SS-51). In fact, he had
violated it before and Montalvo "called the police and they didn't do anything about it." (Tr. SS51-52).

135.

The Court ruled that there were not sufficient indicia of reliability to admit

Montalvo's testimony regarding Spirit's confession. (Tr. HHH-62-63). In particular, the Court
did not believe that Spirit or Santiago would have attempted to intimidate Montalvo because it did
not make sense for the "the gang [to have] selected, it's okay for this member of the gang to take
the fall for a murder" in order to protect a "co-gang-banger fiiend, Jason Rodriguez .... They're
sacrificing one gang member for another gang member." (Tr. SS-62-63). Respectfully, the
evidence presented was not that "the gang" had pressured Montalvo not to implicate Spirit or
Santiago, it was that Spirit and Santiago themselves had threatened her not to do so.
C.

Spirit matches the description of the shooter given by witnesses at the scene;
Mr. Abrego does not.

136.

Four witnesses testified at trial that they saw the shooter: Isidro Quinones, Ramon

Torres, Julio Lugo, and Nicasio Santiago.

a. The police reports do not indicate that Quinones provided the offender's height.
He told Det. Schalk that the shooter had a dark complexion. (Tr. W-41).

b. As noted above, Torres told police that the shooter was 6 feet tall, 180 pounds.
(Ex. 7).

c. Lugo told police the shooter was 5' 8" with a dark complexion. (Tr. A-53; Ex.
8).

d. Santiago testified that Spirit was the shooter and that Mr. Abrego was not there.
(Tr. 238-ZZZ-239-ZZZ; 278-ZZZ).

137.

With regard to the offender's skin tone, the police reports describe him as a "black

Hispanic." {E.g., Tr. 93-ZZZ).

17

 138.

This is Spirit:

(Ex. 16).
139.

Montalvo testified that he is "five-eleven, six-feet. He's very dark complected"

and has a "heavy build."(Tr. SS-22). The most recent arrest report for him indicates he is 5' 9".

(Ex. 17). The State introduced a mug shot of Spirit which indicated he was 5' 7". (Tr. WW-44).
140.

This is Eruby Abrego:

liiM

(Mr. Abrego's IDOC mugshot,available online at https://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/
18

 pub showfront.ast)?idoc=R341 i n.

141.

He is 5'4" with light skin. (Tr. AAAA-67; Tr. 59-ZZZ(Det. Schalk agreeing Mr.

Abrego does not have a dark complexion); see also https://www,iliinois.gov/IDOC/OFFENDERy
Pages/ImnateSearch.aspx and search IDOC Number R34111).
VI.

MR.ABREGO'S TRIAL

142.

Four individuals were charged in this case:

a. Juan Parra had a bench trial before this Court. He was found not guilty.{People
V. Parra, Jan. 22,2001 Hmg. Tr. at 152). This Court expressly held that it did
not believe his statement was sufficient to prove his guilt: "[t]he only evidence
against the defendant is what is contained in the statement[.]" {Id. at 151). The

statement was "not enough" to find Parra guilty on an accountability theory.
{Id. at 151-152)

b. Nicasio Santiago had a trial before this Court and was found not guilty. (Tr. A34).
c. Jeremiah Cain had a bench trial before this Court and was convicted.

d. Eruby Abrego had a jury trial before this Court and was convicted.
A.

The State's evidence at Mr. Abrego's trial.

143.

Isidro Quinones testified that, on the day ofthe shooting, he was 11-years-old. (Tr.

110-YYY). He described riding in a car with Julio Lugo and Fred Marrero when they were

confi'onted by passengers in another vehicle who yelled "King Killer" and threw bottles at them.
(Tr. 111-YYY-l 12-YYY). He testified that Marrero dropped Lugo and him offat a grocery store.
They then saw Ramon Torres and his uncle driving nearby. They stopped and talked. (Tr. 116YYY).

144.

Quinones testified about the shooting. He said that the shooter was about 30 feet

away. (Tr. 118-YYY). He recognized the man as one ofthe people who threw bottles at their car

earlier. {Id.) The man asked Lugo "What you is?" (Tr. 118-YYY). The man pulled a hood over
his head, took out a gun, and fired at them. {Id.) Torres sped off. (Tr. 119-YYY). Lugo pushed
19

 Quinones behind a tree. {Id.) Quinones identified Abrego as the shooter in court. (Tr.l20-YYY).
145.

Federico Marrero testified about the OAs throwing bottles at his car. (Tr. A-12—

A-17). He described how, after he dropped Quinones and Lugo off, he heard gunshots and saw
Quinones and Lugo running toward his car. (Tr. A-17). Lugo had been shot. (Tr. A-18). He
drove Lugo to the hospital. {Id.) He described tentatively identifying Mr. Abrego in a photo array
as one ofthe people who threw a bottle at the car. (Tr. A-22). He testified that he never saw the
shooter. (Tr. A-32).

146.

Julio Lugo, who was on parole for aggravated battery of a peace officer, testified

that he was previously a member of the Latin Kings. (Tr. A-36, 37). He described riding in

Marrero's car with Quinones when a man threw a bottle at them and yelled anti-Latin King slogans.

(Tr. A-37-39). Lugo described speaking to Torres and Jose Garcia after being dropped off by
Marrero. (Tr. A-41).

147.

Lugo described seeing a man with a brown hood who said "OA's" and started

shooting. (Tr. A-42). He was hit in the shoulder and buttocks. (Tr. A-43). Marrero drove him to
the hospital. (Tr. A-46).

148.

Lugo testified that he had told the police the shooter had a dark complexion. (Tr.

A-53). He initially denied describing the shooter as 5' 8", with short black hair, and 200 pounds,
which is what the police reports reflect him having said. {Id.) He later admitted that he gave this
description, but stated that "it happened quick." (Tr. A-54).

149.

He denied testifying previously that he described the shooter as 5' 9," dark-

complected, and wearing a darkjogging suit. (Tr. A-55). He also denied telling Det. Guevara that
the shooter was 5' 10".(Tr. A-55).

150.

Lugo testified that he viewed a line-up, but was unable to identify anyone.(Tr. A-

20

 47). Lugo identified Mr. Abrego in court as the shooter. (Tr. A-43).

151.

Ramon

Torres, who was then-serving a SO-month sentence for a "weapons

charge," also testified. (Tr. 142-YYY). He is a former member of the Insane Unknowns street
gang. (Tr. 144-YYY). He described driving down Belmont Avenue with his uncle Jose Garcia,

when they saw Julio Lugo with a child, and pulled over to talk to them. (Tr. 144-YYY). Torres
described seeing a "yoimg kid" approach, display "gang signs," pull out a gun, and start shooting.
This person was wearing a brown hood over his head. (Tr. 149-YYY). Torres described driving
away, but pulling over on Milwaukee Avenue, where he realized that Garcia had died. (Tr. 151YYY-152-YYY).

152.

Torres testified that he identified Mr. Abrego as the shooter in a line-up. (Tr. 162-

YYY). He identified Mr. Abrego in court as the shooter.(Tr. 147-YYY).

153.

Antonio Vasquez testified that he was a security guard who purchased the handgun

used in the murder. (Tr. A-65). He had been charged with a felony for illegally transferring the

gun, but this was reduced to a misdemeanor for which he would receive a conditional discharge in
exchange for his testimony against Mr. Abrego.(Tr. A-65-66).

154.

According to Vasquez, he knew Mr. Abrego and Santiago because they had lived

in the same building at one time.(Tr. A-67). Vasquez had a Firearms Owner's Identification Card.
(Tr. A-69). He testified that he spoke to Santiago in October 1998 and that, following this
conversation, he went to a gun store with Gilbert Daniels to buy two guns. (Tr. A-73). He

identified the murder weapon as one of the guns he purchased. (Tr. A-77). He testified that a
member of the OAs had given him five rocks of crack cocaine in exchange for the guns. (Tr. A77-78).

155.

Aforensic scientist specializing in firearms testified that the gun recovered from

21

 Cain's bedroom was the murder weapon. (Tr. A-138-141)
156.

A forensic scientist specializing in latentfingerprints testified that a print found

on the gun did not match Mr. Abrego,but that she could not say whether or not it belonged to Spiri
because she did not have a palm print of Spirit's to which she could compare it. (Tr. A-155-158).
157.

^

Det Raymond Schalk testified that he brought Marrero to look at a car, which

Marrero then identified as the one that had contained the men who threw bottles at them. (Tr. 35ZZZ). He testified that he interviewed Juan Parra, together with Detectives Wojcik and Engel.
(Tr. 37-ZZZ). He said that Parra implicated Santiago, Cain, and Mr. Abrego leading the detectives

p,

to arrest Cain. (Tr. 38-ZZZ). They recovered a revolver from Cain. (Tr. 38-ZZZ-40-ZZZ).
158.

Det. Schalk described putting Mr. Abrego in a line-up viewed by Torres, Quinones,

and Marrero. (Tr. 44-ZZZ). He said that Marrero tentatively identified Mr. Abrego as the man
fim

who threw the bottle and Torres and Quinones identified Mr. Abrego as the shooter. (Id.) He said
that Lugo later viewed a line-up, but did not identify anybody. (Id.)

159.

m

According to Det. Schalk, the next night, he interviewed Mr. Abrego together with

Detectives Wojcik and Bogucki. (Tr. 47-ZZZ). He then contacted police officer Derek Smith,
who worked part-time as a security guard at Koz Park. (Id.) Officer Smith came to Area 5, spoke

to Mr. Abrego with Detectives Wojcik and Schalk. (Tr. 48-ZZZ). Officer Smith said that he had
«

seen Mr. Abrego at Koz Park on the evening ofthe murder, but not until 6:30 p.m. (Tr. 75-ZZZ).

160.

According to Det. Schalk, a half-hour later—following another interview with Det.

Wojcik—^Mr. Abrego agreed to speak with an Assistant State's Attorney. (Tr. 49-ZZZ4).

^

161.

On cross-examination, Det. Schalk denied that Quinones described the shooter as

5' 9" with a dark complexion. (Tr. 52-ZZZ). He claimed to not recall his testimony of January
17, 2003, where he stated that Quinones provided that exact description. (Tr. 54-ZZZ). He also

22

 claimed that he was "mistaken" when, during this prior sworn testimony, he stated that Lugo had
provided a similar description. (Tr. 55-ZZZ).

^

162. Det. Schalk denied that police officer Robert Smith had told him that Torres
described the shooter as 6-feet tall. (Tr. 61-ZZZ). He further denied that two other officers had

told him they received descriptions of a 5' 9" shooter. {Id.) However, he then acknowledged that

^

the police reports indicate those officers took descriptions of shooter standing 5' 9" with a dark
complexion. (Tr. ZZZ-64).
163.

^

Det. Schalk agreed that Mr. Abrego did not have dark curly hair at the time of his

arrest.(Tr. 95-ZZZ).
164.

He also acknowledged that a police report written by Officer Jaks described as

being 5' 7", with a dark complexion, heavyset, and with dark curly hair.(Tr. 93-ZZZ).
pa,

165.

He acknowledged that he himself wrote a report describing the shooter as 5' 8".

(Tr. ZZZ-81).

166.

Det. Schalk admitted to signing a report which stated that Mr. Abrego is 5' 3". (Tr.

57-7.7.7.)

167.

Defense counsel had Mr. Abrego stand, and Det. Schalk maintained that Mr.

Abrego—^who is 5' 4"—was in fact 5' 7". (Tr. 59-ZZZ). However, he acknowledged that Mr.
«

Abrego is not dark-complected. (Tr. 59-ZZZ).

168.

Det. Schalk denied that he showed the statements of Santiago, Cain, and Parra to

Mr. Abrego. (Tr. 66-ZZZ).

169.

Det. Schalk admitted that Santiago told him that Spirit had committed the murder.

(Tr. 76-ZZZ). He claimed not to know that Spirit is 5' 9" with a dark complexion. (Tr. 77-ZZZ).
170.

Det. Schalk said that he never noticed any injuries to Mr. Abrego. (Tr. 88-ZZZ).

23

 171.

testified that he arrested Cain. (Tr. 112-ZZZ). While other

officers took Cain to Area 5, he and Det. Engel searched Cain's bedroom. (Tr. ZZZ-113). They
foimd a revolver. {Id.) He testified that he later spoke with Cain and Parra, before going to search
for and arrest Santiago and Mr. Abrego. (Tr. 116-ZZZ-l 17-ZZZ).
172.

Det. Wojcik testified that he interrogated Mr. Abrego five separate times, and had

entered the interrogation room on various other occasions. (Tr. 136-ZZZ). However, he did not

document all ofthese encoimters. (Tr. ZZZ-138).
173.

Det. Wojcik testified that Mr. Abrego waived his Miranda rights and told Det.

Wojcik that he was an OA,but that he was not involved in the shooting. (Tr. 118-ZZZ-l 19- ZZZ).
He said that Mr. Abrego had told him that he was at his sister's apartment at the time of the
shooting. (Tr. 120-ZZZ). Det. Wojcik told Mr. Abrego that he already spoken to his sister. (Tr.

121-ZZZ). Mr. Abrego, according to Det. Wojcik, then stated that he had actually been in Koz
Park. {Id.)

174.

Det. Abrego described interrogating Mr. Abrego a second time, together with

Detectives Bogucki and Schalk. (Tr. 122-ZZZ). Mr. Abrego said that he was in Koz Park at the
time, and that a security guard named "Smitty" had seen him. {Id.) At 9 p.m.. Officer Derek Smith

spoke with Det. Wojcik and Mr. Abrego. (Tr. 124-ZZZ). Officer Smith told Det. Wojcik that he
did not see Abrego until after 6:30 p.m. because that was the time the gym—^the part ofKoz Park
where he worked—was available to Mr. Abrego; prior to that time it was open only to children.
(Tr. 143-ZZZ).

175.

According to Det. Wojcik, at 9:30 p.m., Mr. Abrego "said it was an accident" and

that "he wanted to shoot the Latin King, but he didn't want anybody else to get hit." {Id.)
176.

Det. Wojcik denied abusing Mr. Abrego and testified that Abrego never urinated

24

 on the floor. (Tr. 138-ZZZ). He said that he never saw Mr. Abrego vomit blood. (Tr. 164-ZZZ).
177.

Det. Wojcik admitted that he had learned of the other description of the shooter.

(Tr. 147-ZZZ).

178.

Det. Wojcik admitted that he was with the Assistant State's Attorney when she first

spoke to Mr. Abrego. (Tr. 151-ZZZ).

179.

AssistantState's Attorney Andrea Turano-Michiels testified that she met with Mr.

Abrego aroimd 3:00 a.m. (Tr. 185-YYY). She did not document this conversation in any way,
but instead testified about it fi-om memory. (Tr. 230-YYY).

180.

She says that she asked Mr. Abrego to choose how he wanted to memorialize his

statement, and he chose to have it court-reported. (Tr. 185-YYY). According to Ms. TuranoMichiels, she asked Mr. Abrego how he had been treated, and he expressed no objections. (Tr.

186-YYY). Mr. Abrego said that he had been allowed to use the bathroom, had been allowed to
sleep, and that he had eaten a sandwich and a hamburger. (Tr. 186-YYY)
181.

At 6:15 a.m., she interviewed Mr. Abrego in front of a court-reporter and Det.

Bogucki. (Tr. 186-YYY). Ms. Turano-Michiels read the court-reported statement to the jury. (Tr.
192-YYY).

182.

Ms. Turano-Michiels testified that she did not see bruises on Mr. Abrego's face or

wrists, but acknowledged that she did not view Mr. Abrego's stomach or chest. (Tr. 223-YYY224-YYY).

B.

Mr.Abrego's defense case.

183.

In defense, Mr. Abrego called Daniel Gallagher, the public defender who

represented him at his bond hearing. (Tr. ZZZ-171). Mr. Gallagher testified that Mr. Abrego told
him that he had been beaten by the police and was coughing up blood. (Tr. ZZZ-173).
184.

At the bond hearing, Mr. Gallagher asked the court to take note of the bruises on
25

 Mr. Abrego's arm and the cuts on his chest. (Tr. 174-ZZZ).

185.

Mr. Gallagher, who represented about 100 defendants during a typical weekend

bond hearing such as Mr. Abrego's, acknowledged that did not make a report about these injuries
or ask his office to investigate them. (Tr. ZZZ-178-180-ZZZ).
186.

Alfons Loveless testified that he was a paramedic for Cermak Health Services.(Tr.

187-ZZZ). He examined Mr. Abrego—along with 75 to 100 other patients—when Mr. Abrego
arrived at Cook County Jail. (Tr. 188-ZZZ, 201-ZZZ). Mr. Abrego complained that he had been

throwing up blood. (Tr. 188-ZZZ). Loveless did not document any cuts or bruises in his report.
(Tr. 196-ZZZ).

187.

Loveless testified that a physician's assistant reported a blood streak on Mr.

Abrego. (Tr. 201-ZZZ).

188.

Loveless recorded Mr. Abrego's height as 5' 6". (Tr. 198-ZZZ).

189.

Officer Edwardo Rios testified that, although he did not personally interview any

witnesses, he was at the crime scene and prepared a report in which he described the shooter as a

5' 9", with black hair, a black hoody, and a dark complexion. (Tr. 215-ZZZ-217-ZZZ).
190.

Officer Theodosia Jaks testified that she responded to the crime scene, did not

speak to any witnesses herself, but prepared a police report containing information provided by

other officers. This report described the shooter as 5' 7", 200 pounds, heavyset, with curly hair
and a mustache. (Tr. 220-ZZZ). Officer Jaks testified that she believed that this description
originally came from Marrero, although both Lugo and Torres were also named on her report.(Tr.
228-ZZZ,229-ZZZ).

191.

Nicasio Santiago testified he was a member of the OAs and in prison on a drug

charge. (Tr. 223-ZZZ). He testified that, on March 22, 1999, at 4 p.m., he was driving with

26

 "somebody" who had a dark complexion, was a little shorter than 6' 2", and had curly hair.(Tr.
234-ZZZ). He said they got into an altercation with some with some Latin Kings.(Tr. 235-ZZZ).
Mr. Abrego was not there. (Tr. 234-ZZZ-235-ZZZ).

192.

Santiago and the other person then left the area,"picked something up," and came

back to look for Latin Kings. (Tr. 236-ZZZ).
193.

He watched as the other man showed gang signs to "some guys," who in tum

displayed gang signs back. (Tr. 238-ZZZ). The other man then pulled his hood up and started
shooting. (Tr. 239-ZZZ). They ran. {Id.)
194.

Santiago testified that, when he was arrested two days later, a detective noticed an

OA tattoo and punched him in the stomach. (Tr. 241-ZZZ).

195.

After his arrest, Santiago initially denied any involvement. However,he eventually

told the detective that he had heard that the other man was the shooter. (Tr. 242-ZZZ). The
detective told Santiago to stop lying, swore at him, hit him, choked him, and handcuffed him to
the wall for one to two hours. (Tr. 243-ZZZ). The detectives did not ask him with this other
person looked like. (Tr. 333-ZZZ).
196.

Eventually, the police showed Santiago two written statements and said "this is the

story[.]" (Tr. 243-ZZZ).

197.

When Santiago said that he still did not know what they were talking about, a

detective grabbed him by the throat and "put a pen right undemeath [his] chin like he was tr3dng
to stab [him] with a pen." (Tr. 244-ZZZ).

198.

He finally agreed to sign a statement. He did so "[b]ecause the police made me"

and he was afi-aid. (Tr. 249-ZZZ).

199.

Santiago's statement included facts that were verifiably false. He did not go to

27

 Wright college (Tr. 245-ZZZ); his nickname is PeeWee, not "Pistol" {id)\ he does not have a

nephew named "Josh"(Tr. 246-ZZZ). As he gave the statement to the Assistant State's Attorney,

Det. Bogucki was present and would say "no" if he got something "wrong."(Tr. 297-ZZZ).
200.

Santiago testified that in April of 2004 he was in a holding cell awaiting a court

appearance when he met a Latin King; Lugo.(Tr. 251-ZZZ). Santiago says he told Lugo that he

knew the case against Mr. Abrego and Cain was "bogus" and Lugo agreed that it was "bogus."
(Tr. 251-ZZZ). Santiago asked Lugo why he would lie at Mr. Abrego's trial and Lugo said: "I'm
a Latin King." (Tr. 251-ZZZ).

201.

On cross-examination, Santiago finally admitted that the dark-complected person

he had seen do the shooting was Spirit.

202.

He admitted that he had made the arrangements with Vasquez to purchase the

revolver. (Tr. 284-ZZZ).
203.

On April 17, 2002, Santiago provided Mr. Abrego's defense coimsel with a

statement that exonerated Mr. Abrego. (Tr. 321-ZZZ). Santiago admitted that he felt a loyalty to
Mr. Abrego as a fellow OA,but that it would not be a "violation" to testify against him. (Tr. 327ZZZ).

204.

Det Jerome Bogucki testified that he interviewed Marrero and Quinones. (Tr.

AAAA-18). Det. Bogucki initially testified that Marrero told him the shooter was 5' 7" (Tr.
AAAA-19), but agreed on cross-examination that Marrero did not provide a description of the
shooter, but rather ofone ofthe men throwing bottles. (Tr. AAAA-21).

205.

Det Ernest Halvorsen testified that his partner, Det. Guevara, wrote a report and

signed Halvorsen's name to it using Halvorsen's name and without ever showing it to Halvorsen.
(Tr. AAAA-51 ("He signed my name to this.")). This is consistent with Det. Guevara's wide-

28

 ranging pattern offalsifying police reports and eliciting false statements from witnesses. (See infra
Section X).

206.

Eruby Abrego testified in own defense. Mr. Abrego explained that he was not in a

car with Santiago on March 22, 1999 and was nowhere near the crime scene. (Tr. AAAA-66—
AAAA-67).

207.

Mr. Abrego described his arrest. Det. Wojcik told Mr. Abrego he was in big trouble

and hit him twice in the face. (Tr. AAAA-69).
208.

The police took Mr. Abrego to Area 5 and handcuffed him to the wall in an

interrogation room. (Tr. AAAA-71). He testified regarding the abuse he endured there and the
circumstances under which he provided his false confession. (See supra Section V).
209.

Mr. Abrego testified about the injuries he sustained. (Id.)

210.

He fiirther testified about telling his public defender Dan Gallagher about the

injuries and describing them to the EMT and the physician's assistant at Cook County Jail. (Id.)
211.

Mr. Abrego testified that he knew Jason Rodriguez, that his nickname was Spirit,

and he was about 5' 11", with a dark complexion and wavy hair. (Tr. AAAA-66).
212.

Mr. Abrego testified that he himself was 5' 4" tall and had always had light skin.

(Tr. AAAA-67).

213.

Mr. Abrego denied participating in the gun purchase from Vasquez, but admitted

to knowing Vasquez. (Tr. AAAA-96).

214.

The parties stipulated that Officer Robert Smith interviewed Torres, who told him

that he heard the shooter state "get out of the hood," and that the shooter was 6-feet tall, 180
pounds, had black hair and wore a black zippered jacket with a hood, dark jeans, and white gym
shoes. (Tr. AAAA-125).

29

 VII.

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF MR.ABREGO'S INNOCENCE

215.

Newly discovered evidence proves Mr. Abrego's innocence.

216.

Three eyewitnesses at trial pointed to Mr. Abrego as the shooter: victims Julio

Lugo, Ramon Torres, and Isidro Quinones. No other witness stated that they saw Mr. Abrego
commit this crime.

217.

Lugo, who was himself shot twice in this incident, has now revealed that he never

saw the shooter clearly and has no idea who did it.
218.

Torres, who was shot at and saw his uncle fatally shot in the head while sitting next

to him, has revealed that he knows for a fact that Mr. Abrego is not the shooter.
A.

Julio Lugo explains:"I really don't know who did it"

219.

At trial, Lugo identified Mr. Abrego as the shooter. (Tr. A-43). He did so because

"The police came and said 'this guy did it'" and '"we got the guy, it's this guy.'" (Ex. 1 at^7,
8).

220.

Lugo "just went by what the police said." (Id. at ^ 8).

221.

Lugo has now explained: "I really don't know who did it." (Id. atf 6).

222.

At the time ofthe shooting, Lugo "did not get a clear view"ofthe shooter. He"did

not recognize him." (Id. at ^ 5).

223.

Lugo was not particularly concerned with accurately identifying the shooter

because, as he puts it, "I don't give a fuck who did it. They're all in the same gang and they all
know something about who did it." (Id. atf 9).
224.

"Whoever really did it... God will punish them." (Id. atf 10).

B.

Ramon Torres reveals: "The kid, Abrego, didn't do it" and "The real guy is
still out there."

225.

Like Lugo, Torres identified Mr. Abrego at trial as the shooter. (Tr. 142-YYY).

30

 However, he now explains that his testimony was false. (Exs. 2 and 3).

226.

Mr. Torres has explained that "the kid, Abrego, didn't do it." (Ex. 2 atf 7).

227.

Mr. Torres has explained that he falsely implicated Mr. Abrego for two reasons;

(1) the police told him to; and (2) he wanted the real killer to remain on the streets so that his
family and friends could exact their own revenge on him. {Id.

8-9).

228.

Because revenge was never taken,"the real guy is still out there." {Id)

229.

Mr. Torres has now explained that it was Det. Guevara who asked him to falsely

identify Mr. Abrego. (Ex. 3 atf 3). He further recalls that Det. Guevara was "always harassing"
people in his neighborhood and that he remembers Det. Guevara "harassing" him on prior
occasions. {Id.)

230.

Mr. Torres now explains: "I want justice for my uncle." (Ex. 2 atf 10).

C.

Det. Guevara has invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than admit Mr.

Ahrego's innocence or answer questions about his misconduct in this case.

231.

When asked under oath at a deposition if he "attempted to frame Eruby Abrego in

conspiracy with other Chicago police officers," Det. Guevara invoked his Fifth Amendment right

not to incriminate himself criminally. (Ex.4 at 485:23-486:5).^
232.

Indeed, Det. Guevara pleaded the Fifth in response to each of the following

questions:

a. "Isn't it true that you manipulated witnesses to get them to select Eruby Abrego
from the line-up?"(id. at 490:1-7);

b. "Isn't it true you manipulated witness identifications and live line-ups during
the Jose Garcia investigation?"(id. at 483:16-22);
c. "Isn't it true that you coerced Ramon Torres to falsely ID Eruby Abrego?"(Id.
at 484:15-485:3);

^ Exhibit 4 is an excerpt from the deposition. The full deposition is provided on the attached CD
as exhibit 20-8.
31

 d. "Isn't it true you coerced Lugo ... to falsely ID Eruby Abrego?"(id. at 485:514);

e. "Isn't it true that you coerced Isidro Quinones to falsely identify Eruby
Abrego?"(id. at 484:8-13);
f. "Isn't it true that you coerced Fred Marrero to falsely identify Eruby Abrego?"
(id. at 484:15-20);

g. "You told Isidro Quinones, Ramon Torres and Fred Marrero to choose Eruby
Abrego in the line-up, didn't you?"(id. at 490:9-15);
h. "Isn't is it true you tried to coerce Eruby Abrego into giving a false confession?"
(id. at 485:16-21);
i. "Isn't it true that Detective Wojcik beat up Eruby Abrego very badly?"(id. at
486:7-12);

j. "Isn't it true you performed unduly suggestive photo identifications during the
Jose Garcia investigation?"(id. at 483:24-484:6);
k. "Isn't it true that you were present when Detective Wojcik beat up Abrego?"
(id. at 486:14-19);
1. "Isn't it true that Abrego was spitting up blood after his beating?"(id. at 486:21
-487:2);

m. "You knew that Eruby Abrego's will was eventually overcome by being beaten
and that he gave a false confession, correct?"(id. at 490:17-23);
n. "Isn't it true you fabricated evidence, including falsifying police reports in
connection with the investigation ofthe Jose Garcia murder?" (id. at 483:1-6);

0. "Isn't it true that you created police reports containing false information in the
case?"(id. at 488:16-22);

p. "Isn't it true in that case that you interviewed a number of witnesses, but signed
Detective Emest Halvorsen's name on your police report?"(id. at 487:7-14);

q. "Isn't it true you withheld exculpatory evidence from prosecutors, criminal
defendants, and their attorneys during the Jose Garcia investigation?" (id. at
483:7-14);

r. "Isn't it true that you knew that Jason Rodriguez was the shooter, not Eruby
Abrego?"(id. at 487:16-21);

s. "Isn't it true that Nicasio Santiago told that you Rodriguez was the shooter and
not Eruby Abrego?"(id. at 488:8-14);
32

 t. "Isn't it true that you knew that Eruby Abrego didn't match the description of
the perpetrator of the Garcia homicide, but nonetheless took steps to implicate
and ensure the conviction of Mr. Abrego?"(id. at 488:24-489:8);

u. "Isn't it true that you knew that eyewitnesses described the shooter as being
5'10" tall with dark complexion?"(id. at 489:10-16);

V. "And you knew Eruby Abrego was 5'4"inches with light complexion,correct?"
(id. at 489:19-23); and
w. "Are you asserting the Fifth Amendment with regard to my questions about the
... Jose Garcia murder because answering the questions would incriminate
you?" (id. at 491:9-12).

233.

A court may draw an adverse inference in a post-conviction proceeding from an

officer's assertion ofthe Fifth Amendment,and,indeed,should draw "a negative inference" when

the State produces no evidence to rebut the allegations. People v. Whirl,2015IL App(1st) 111483,
HI 105-07.
VIII. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REGARDING DETECTIVE WOJCIK

234.

As noted above, this Court denied Mr. Abrego's motion to suppress after

concluding that Mr. Abrego was treated "humanely" and "fairly." (Tr. W-104). This conclusion
was made without the benefit ofnewly discovered evidence that thoroughly discredits Det. Wojcik
(as set forth in this section) and Det. Guevara(as set forth in the next section) and reveals them to

have perpetrated a pattern and practice of misconduct, and then falsely denied the misconduct in
court.

235.

The jury in this matter heard testimony from Det. Wojcik—and from witnesses

corrupted by his misconduct—^but never heard the newly-discovered evidence regarding Det.
Wojcik's pattern and practice of misconduct.
236.

In fact, Mr. Abrego's trial counsel attempted to introduce testimony from two

witnesses who would have testified about a widespread pattern of abuse by Det. Wojcik and his
reputation for dishonesty. In opposition to the presentation of these witnesses, the State argued
33

 that "Det. Wojcik is not on trial in this case" and evidence related to Det. Wojcik's background
and character for untruthfulness was only "being used to dirty-up this officer and shift the focus

away from the defendant who is standing trial here. Detective Wojcik is not on trial." (Tr. 205ZZZ, 206-ZZZ). The Court agreed, finding that "this is just some type of an attempt to create
something that doesn't exist." (Tr. 208-ZZZ).
237.

Newly-discovered evidence demonstrates that Mr. Abrego was not "attempt[ing]

to create something that doesn't exist." There is now substantial evidence corroborating that Det.

Wojcik did engage in a pattem and practice ofinvestigative misconduct.

238.

The allegations against Det. Wojcik come from a variety of sources, ranging from

the FBI, which investigated potential crimes by Det. Wojcik; to the City of Chicago's Office of
the Inspector General; to the Chicago Police Department itself which sustained allegations against
him; to the dozens of citizens who have filed complaints about him; and to Det. Wojcik himself
who has confessed to falsifying police reports.
239.

None ofthis information was available to Mr. Abrego's defense counsel at the time

of his trial. (Ex. 18).

A.

Det. Wojcik's ''significant role" in attempting to cover up the Laquan
McDonald scandal

240.

In October 2014, Laquan McDonald was shot to death by Chicago Police officer

Jason Van Dyke. Det. Wojcik was the "approving supervisor" involved in the subsequent
investigation. He approved police reports which later-released video revealed to be categorically

false. (See Ex. 19-1)1
241.

These false police reports formed the foundation of what the State's Attorney's

^ The exhibits regarding Det. Wojcik's pattem and practice of misconduct are included on the CD
attached to this petition as Exhibit 19. Counsel for Mr. Abrego will be happy to provide hard
copies to the Court or the State, if so requested.
34

 Office has said was a "conspiracy to conceal the true facts ofthe events surrounding the killing of
Laquan McDonald[.]" The police reports, according to the State's Attorney's Office,"contained

important false information in an attempt to prevent or shape any criminal investigation." (Ex. 19-

2). Although the State's Attorney's Office brought charges against several individuals with respect
to these falsehoods, it has not charged Det. Wojcik.

242.

The City of Chicago's Office ofthe Inspector General investigated certain aspects

ofthe McDonald matter. The Inspector General's report is not public and counsel for Mr. Ahrego
does not have access to it. However, it is known that Det. Wojcik refused to participate in the
investigation or to comply with a subpoena for his testimony. This prompted the Inspector General
to file a declaratoryjudgment action seeking to compel Det. Wojcik's compliance. In that lawsuit,
the Inspector General explained that Det. Wojcik "directly and actively supervised the lead
detective assigned to CPD's investigation ofthe Laquan McDonald incident." (Ex. 19-3 at 1). It
was Det. Wojcik that "approved the case supplemental reports that contained CPD's investigative
findings." (Ex. 19-4 at 1).
243.

The Inspector General further explained that Det. Wojcik, through counsel, had

repeatedly declined to state whether "he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against selfincrimination out of concern for possible criminal exposure in connection with his role in the
McDonald investigation." {Id. at 2). Det. Wojcik deciding to take the Fifth was "one possible
outcome" that the Inspector General was "mindful" of. {Id.)

244.

Beyond that,the Inspector General noted that"all its investigatory files and reports"

are confidential pursuant to the Municipal Code and so the "details ofthe instant investigation are

significantly limited" in its court filings. {Id. at 10, n.4). "However, GIG is prepared to outline in

further detail the significant role Wojcik played in CPD's response to the McDonald shooting

35

 through an in camera submission ifso directed by the Court." {Id.)(emphasis added).
245.

The Cook County Chancery Court ultimately entered judgment for the Inspector

General. Ferguson v. Wojcik, No. 2016 CH 15928, July 6, 2017 Order(docket sheet available at
httr)s://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcountv/FindDock.aspx?NCase=2016-ch-15928&Search
Type=0&Database=3&case no=&PLtvpe=l&sname=&CDate=l.

246.

The United States Department of Justice specifically cited the false police reports

Det. Wojcik had approved as an example of what it called "highly troubling" procedures. (Ex. 195 at 57).

247.

Laquan McDonald's family sued Det. Wojcik, the City, and others. The City

promptly paid a $5 million settlement.(Ex. 19-6).

248.

Alma Benitez witnessed the shooting of Laquan McDonald. When she attempted

to take photos and videos of the incident, she was taken into custody and held overnight. When
she told her interrogators that she had "witnessed a Chicago police officer shoot and kill a civilian,"

she was told that what she had seen was "not really what happened." The officers pressured Ms.
Benitez to "retract and/or forget what she witnessed." The officers confiscated Ms. Benitez's
phone and attempted to remove any recordings of the incident. The officers then manufactured
false police reports regarding their treatment ofMs. Benitez. Ms. Benitez brought suit against Det.
Wojcik and others in October 2016. (Ex. 19-7). The matter has been stayed until such time as the
Decorum Order in People v. Van Dyke is lifted. (Dkt. Nos. 28 and 31 in Benitez v. Wojcik, et at.,
No. 16-CV-9847, N.D. 111.)).

B.

Det. Wojcik's false report exonerating Det. Guevara of misconduct

249.

In 2000, Det. Wojcik was assigned to investigate allegations made against Det.

Guevara by a defendant named Juan Hernandez. Mr. Hemandez had filed a complaint reporting
that Det. Wojcik had framed him for a murder that he did not commit and had used improper line36

 up techniques in the process. Det. Wojcik decreed that Mr. Hernandez was not a reliable witness

because "no allegation of police impropriety ... had been brought forth" during Mr. Hernandez's
trial. (Ex. 19-8). That was not true. Eight months before Det. Wojcik's report, Mr. Hernandez
did raise this precise issue in court. (Ex. 19-9).

250.

The charitable explanation for this discrepancy is that Det. Wojcik did not engage

in a minimally adequate investigation before clearing Det. Guevara. The other explanation is that
Det. Wojcik lied.

C.

The FBI investigates Det. Wojcik and reports him to the CPD for misconduct.

251.

On June 30, 1988, the FBI registered a complaint against Det. Wojcik with the

Chicago Police Department's Office of Professional Standards("OPS"). The FBI reported that it
was "conducting an investigation in to the alleged extortion of a weapon from a F.B.I, informant"
by Det. Wojcik and police officer Hector Vergara. "The Federal authorities involved in this

investigation were operating under an assumption that the Accused officers wanted a weapon
delivered to them for other than lawful purposes." (Ex. 19-10).
252.

The FBI "monitored telephone conversations between the Confidential Informant,

[redacted] and Police Officer (now Detective) Anthony WOJCIK arranging the delivery of a
firearm to the Accused officers." "A meeting was arranged, under surveillance by F.B.I, and
investigators from the Internal Affairs Division." A rifle with a telescopic sight was transferred

from the informant to Det. Wojcik. "It was later discovered that the weapons' telescopic sight had
been removed, and neither inventoried nor returned to the owner." (Id.)
253.

Det. Wojcik was interviewed as part of the internal affairs investigation. (Ex. 19-

11). He claimed that he had been "cultivating this individual as a Confidential Police informant"

and was"unaware that he was already an informant for the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation." (Ex.
19-10). The OPS investigators concluded that "there is no evidence to indicate extortion was the
37

 motive or goal ofthe Accused," in part because "one ofthe missions ofa tactical unit is to recover
firearms from the street before they can be used in violent crimes." {Id.)
254.

However, OPS found that Det. Wojcik had failed to properly inventory recovered

property and had made a "false report" about this incident. OPS recommended a reprimand. {Id.)
D.

Det. Wojcik breaks into his ex-girlfriend's home, beats a man with a wrench,
is criminally charged, and OPS sustains a complaint against him

255.

In August 1994, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik

struck him in the head and face and damaged various items of property. In the course of
investigating this incident, OPS learned that Det. Wojcik had broken into his ex-girlfnend's

residence, leaving "one of the locks on her door ... completely broken off." In the apartment, he

discovered his ex-girlfiiend asleep in bed with another man. The couple woke up to find Det.
Wojcik in the bedroom. The man, naked, got out of bed, only to have Det. Wojcik punch him in
the mouth and hit him in the back of the head with a steel pipe-wrench. The man lost two dental

caps in the beating. The beaten, naked man then ran from the apartment and to a neighbor's
residence and asked her to call the police. The police came and the man was taken to the hospital.
(Ex. 19-12).

256.

Det. Wojcik's ex-girlfiiend did not cooperate with the OPS investigation because

"she still loves Detective Wojcik and did not want to do anything that would jeopardize his position
with the Police Department." The man who Det. Wojcik battered also decided not to cooperate
with OPS, and "informed Detective Division personnel that he did not want to pursue prosecution
of Detective Wojcik, under the condition that he was reimbursed for dental costs." {Id.)
257.

Det. Wojcik told OPS that the only reason he was at his ex-girlfiiend's apartment

was to "take her out to breakfast." When he got there, the door had a damaged lock, so he went

inside because he was "concerned about [her] safety." When he got to the bedroom, the victim

38

 "came flying" out of the bed and "collided with Detective Wojcik," which led Det. Wojcik to
believe that the man "was attacking him." According to Det. Wojcik, the victim's injuries were
the result of Det. Wojcik's efforts at "self-defense." {Id.)
258.

OPS found Det. Wojcik's story "not credible" and believed that "the likeliness of

[the victim] awakening suddenly from an alcohol assisted sleep,jimiping out of bed, and 'fljdng'
out the bedroom door all for no apparent reason, is very slim." {Id.)
259.

OPS sustained an allegation that Det. Wojcik had violated "Rule 8,""disrespect or

maltreatment of any person." It concluded that Det. Wojcik had "forced entry" into his exgirlfnend's home and had "struck [the victim] about the head and face[.]" OPS recommended that
Det. Wojcik be suspended. {Id)

260.

Det. Wojcik was criminally charged with battery. He was acquitted at a bench trial.

The CPD redacted large portions of its reports on this incident, including the entirety of a
memorandum about the incident from the Acting Chief of the Detective Division to the
Superintendent of Police. Petitioner will seek unredacted copies during discovery in this matter.
{Id.)

E.

A defendant Det. Wojcik helped frame is exonerated in January 2018.

261.

Just seven days prior to the filing of this Petition, the Cook County State's

Attorney's Office moved to vacate the conviction of Thomas Sierra, which resulted from an
investigation in which Det. Wojcik (and Det. Guevara, as set forth below) played a substantial

role. {See Ex. 19-13). Additional information regarding this case is presented below.
F.

Dozens of individuals accuse Det. Wojcik of misconduct.

262.

Det. Wojcik is among a small number of officers with an extraordinarily high

number of citizen complaints.
263.

The following is a listing of the evidence of Det. Wojcik's misconduct currently
39

 available to Mr. Abrego. Mr. Abrego intends to supplement this list with additional evidence as

discovery in this matter progresses."^
1.

Physical abuse / abusive interrogation techniques

a. In September 1989, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Det.
Wojcik and others physically and verbally abused him. This included yelling
"1 am going to break your fucking arm" and proceeding to twist his arm behind
his back until his elbow fractured. It also included throwing him to the ground
and kicking him. (Ex. 19-14).

b. In November 1989, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Det.
Wojcik had pointed a gun at him,struck his car with a squad car, threw him and
another individual to the ground,kicked him and another individual in the face,
and punched him and two others in the face. (Ex. 19-15).
c. In March 1991, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Det. Wojcik
had pxmched him in the face during his arrest and while he was being held in an
interrogation room. The citizen required medical attention at a hospital. Det.
Wojcik admitted to OPS investigators that he struck the citizen in the face, but
claimed he did so "to control him" after he became violent. (Ex. 19-16).
d. In September 1991, Gilbert Renslow sued Det. Wojcik and the City of
Chicago, among others, alleging excessive force. The City settled the matter
for $3000.(Ex. 19-17; see also Renslow v. Chicago, 1991 WL 296732, No. 91
C 5560(N.D. 111. Jan. 14, 1992)).

e. Det. Wojcik beat Roosevelt Myles in December 1992 and attempted to force
him to falsely confess to a crime that he did not commit. Det. Wojcik beat Mr.
Myles with a phone book and a flashlight while Mr. Myles was handcuffed to
a wall and "kept slapping [him] until [he] said [he] will sign a statement." (Ex.
19-18). Det. Wojcik likewise coerced witnesses into falsely identifying Mr.
Myles.(M;Ex. 19-19; Ex.19-20).

f. On July 2,1994,a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik
was verbally abusive and threatening during a traffic stop and proceeded to use
his police car to push the complainant's car into a tree, contrary to Det. Wojcik's
claim that the complainant's car had "jumped into gear and took off." (Ex. 1921).

g. In April 1995, Angel Rosado was arrested and handcuffed to a wall in an

4

Because many ofthe documents Mr. Abrego relies on for this section were produced pursuant to
a Freedom of Information Act request, the names ofthe complainants are redacted. It is therefore
impossible to determine which of these complaints are duplicates of those listed above. Mr.
Abrego will be able to clarify this as discovery progresses in this matter.
40

 interrogation room. Det. Wojcik and another individual asked him about a
homicide. When Rosado said he did not know anything about it, the detectives
"got physical" and "repeatedly smacked" Mr. Rosado and choked him. The
abuse "went on for hours." Det. Wojcik advised Mr. Rosado as to what other
witnesses had said. Because Mr. Rosado was "fatigued and tired of being
roughed up" by Det. Wojcik, he "finally went along with [the police] and made
a statement." (Ex. 19-22).

h. In October 1998 a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik
had struck an individual on the head with a shotgun during an arrest. The victim
was treated at the hospital for a laceration to the head, which he told doctors
was caused by being struck with the shotgun. (Ex. 19-23).
i. In August 1999, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det.
Guevara had grabbed his face and arms, placed him into a headlock, and
elbowed him while attempting to force him into a lineup. An OPS investigator
himselffurther reported that Det. Guevara had "failed to provide for the safety
and security of[redacted] who was injured in his custody, and failed to seek
medical treatment for him[.]" During this same incident, Det. Halvorsen
"grabbed [the victim's head] and twisted it" and, according to an OPS
investigator,"failed to provide for the safety and security of[redacted] who was
injured in his custody, and failed to seek medical treatment for him[.]" Also
during this incident, Det. Wojcik struck the victim in the face five to ten times.
The detectives refused to allow the victim to speak to an attorney. Following
the incident, the victim—a federal prisoner taken from the Metropolitan
Correctional Center to Area 5—^was examined by a Federal Bureau of Prisons
physician's assistant and was treated for "bruises to the face, body, right wrist
and both arms, and a contusion to the inner elbow and scalp." The victim
reported to federal officials that "CPD officers physically abused him" and
"roughed me ... up." Federal officials photographed the victim's injuries. The
victim was taken to the hospital for treatment where he reported being "hit by
police officers." (Ex. 19-24).
j. In March 2001, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik
slapped him two or three times on each side of the face, punched him in the
stomach, and kicked him when he fell to the floor. Det. Wojcik later slapped
him three to four times on each side of the face, grabbed him by the throat,
threw him down, and slapped him again. Det. Wojcik further refused to allow
him to speak to an attorney.(Ex. 19-25).
k. In August 2001, Det. Wojcik arrested Miguel Skerrett, a 47-year-old married
father oftwo children. (Ex. 19-26). Det. Wojcik questioned Mr. Skerrett about
a crime that had occurred at a grocery store. Mr. Skerrett denied any knowledge
and asked to speak to a lawyer, even producing an attorney's business card that
he had with him. No lawyer was ever summoned. During a second
interrogation, Det. Wojcik "struck" Mr. Skerrett, pushed his head "up against
the wall," called him a liar, punched him in the stomach, and kicked him in the
41

 back after he fell to the ground. At that point, Mr. Skerrett told Det. Wojcik he
"would be willing to cooperate with him, whatever form or fashion, as long as
he stopped striking [him]." Mr. Skerrett advised Det. Wojcik that he was HIVpositive,that this made him particularly susceptible to pain, that he had multiple
lipoma in his body at that time, and that he "couldn't sustain him striking me
any longer." Det. Wojcik then told Mr. Skerrett what to say and Mr. Skerrett
provided a false confession.
1. In August 2001, Phonakone Sangathit was arrested and beaten by two
Chicago Police detectives. Detective Wojcik later came into the room and told
Mr. Sangathit that he "knows what's going on" and that he "is trying to help"
Mr. Sangathit. Det. Wojcik promised Mr. Sangathit that if he cooperated,"he
will make sure that Det. Bella and Det. Balodimas won't hurt [Mr. Sangathit]
or put their hands on [him] anymore." Mr. Sangathit told Det. Wojcik that he
knows nothing about the crime they were investigating, that he was scared for
his life, and that he wanted to call his family and his lawyer. Det. Wojcik then
said "tell me the truth or I will get Det. Bella and Det. Balodimas back in here
and they will beat you until you tell the truth." When Mr. Sangathit again said
he knew nothing about the crime, Det. Wojcik punched him several times in the
chest, punched him in the back of the head, and grabbed him by the neck and
choked him while slamming his head into a wall. As a result, Mr. Sangathit
"blacked out." When he came to, Det. Wojcik was standing in front ofhim and
said "I'll just say you admitted something to me so they won't have to come
back in here and beat you to death." (Ex. 19-27).
m. In March 2004, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that he was
placed in an interrogation room in Area 5 and Det. Wojcik held him by the arms
while another detective held his legs and a third punched him 15 to 20 times in
the ribs. After his release from custody, the victim was treated at the hospital
for swelling and bruises to his ribs. He told the doctors "it hurts to breathe."
(Ex. 19-28).

^

pm

(■m

n. In July 2005,Janet Yurus was arrested by Det. Wojcik and others. Ms. Yurus
repeatedly asked for a lawyer, but was denied. At the time of her arrest, Ms.
Yurus was on numerous medications as a result of knee surgery, shoulder
surgery, an ankle edema, and arthritis. She was placed unbuckled into the hack
of a police van and transported to the station. During the drive to the station,
she was knocked out of her seat and suffered a laceration to her face. Upon
arrival at the station, her requests for medical attention were denied. Det.
Wojcik repeatedly promised Ms. Yurus that she would be released if she told
the police "what they wanted to hear." Det. Wojcik "threatened to lock [her]
up and charge [her] with murder"for the death ofher son, an unrelated incident
that had already been determined to be an accident. Det. Wojcik also threatened
to "lock up her daughter and call DCFS to have her grandchildren taken away."
(Ex. 19-29).

n

0. In December 2007, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that he was
42

 held for three days by Det. Wojcik without charges before he was released.(Ex.
19-30).

2.

Causing a wrongful conviction

p. In response to a lawsuit filed against the City, OPS investigated eight officers
including Det. Wojcik,for their involvement in a wrongful conviction. The socalled "offender" alleged that, in October 1988, he was forced to sign a false
confession following threats by Det. Wojcik and others. (Ex. 19-60).
3.

Forcefully entering a home without a warrant and physically abusing the
occupants

q. On March 21, 1988, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Det.
Wojcik had attempted entry into her home by forcing the door open and failed
to properly identify himself as a police officer. The citizen further complained
that an officer working with Det. Wojcik was verbally abusive and also slapped
a suspect several times in the head and kicked him in the body. (Ex. 19-31).
r. On February 10, 1995, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Det.
Wojcik came "bursting into the house," searched her home without a warrant,
and choked her and threw her to the ground. The citizen required medical
attention fi-om a hospital for her injuries. (Ex. 19-32).
s.

4.

Det. Wojcik burst into 17-year-old Danny Ramirez's bedroom in July 2001,
"grabbed [him] by the hair" and "pulled him fi-om [his] bed." Det. Wojcik was
apparently looking for a suspect, because he showed a photograph to Mr.
Ramirez and demanded to know if the photo was of Mr. Ramirez or somebody
else. Det. Wojcik and others proceeded to search the apartment. Mr. Ramirez
was later taken to Area 5 where other detectives threatened him. (Ex. 19-33).
Other searches without a warrant and abusive behavior

t. Det. Wojcik was accused ofsearching a citizen's apartment without permission
or lawful justification and was verbally abusive in October 1989. (Ex. 19-34).
u. A citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik had entered her
apartment without a search warrant or permission in February 1992 while
searching for a suspect. (Ex. 19-35).

V. In October 1992,a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Det. Wojcik,
together with Detective Robert Lenihan, searched her home without a warrant
or permission. (Ex. 19-36).

w. In January 1995, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Det. Wojcik
had entered her residence without a warrant or permission and had pointed a
gun at her. (Ex. 19-37).

43

 X. In June 1995, a citizen filed complaint with OPS reporting that officers pushed,
punched, and kicked her in the stomach as they forced their way into her

residence. (Ex. 19-38).^
y. In January 1996, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS that Det. Wojcik and
others entered her apartment without a warrant in search of a suspect. (Ex. 1939).

z. A citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik had, in
February 1996, searched her car, bags, and person without permission or a
warrant and had made threatening statements including "I'll knock your fixcking
block off." Det. Wojcik explained to OPS that his actions were justified
because he had mistaken the woman's make-up case for a chrome-plated
handgun. (Ex. 19-40).

aa. In December 1997,two citizens filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det.
Wojcik searched their apartments without a warrant or permission while
looking for a suspect. (Ex. 19-41).
bb. In October 1998, an attorney filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det.
Wojcik entered and searched his client's residence without a warrant or
authorization. (Ex. 19-42).
cc. A citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that, in December 1999, Det.
Wojcik searched her house without a warrant or permission while allegedly
searching for a gun. (Ex. 19-43).
dd. A citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that, in April 2000, Det. Wojcik
entered and searched a residence without a warrant or permission and arrested
an individual without probable cause. (Ex. 19-44).

ee. A citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that, in April 2001, Det. Wojcik
searched her residence without permission or a warrant and was verbally
abusive. (Ex. 19-45).

ff. A citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that, in July 2001, Det. Wojcik
searched an apartment without permission and stole $1400, which was not
inventoried or retumed. (Ex. 19-46).

gg. A citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that, in January 2002, Det.
Wojcik and others engaged in a search without warrant orjustification.(Ex. 1947).

hh. In July 2003, according a complaint a citizen filed with OPS, Det. Wojcik
5

Although Det. Wojcik is not specifically named in the OPS report on this incident,it is understood
that Det. Wojcik was involved because the Chicago Police Department produced the report in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request for records regarding Det. Wojcik.
44

 searched a home without a warrant or permission. (Ex. 19-48).

ii. A citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that, in July 2006, Det. Wojcik
and others searched her residence without a warrant or justification and
damaged the door to her residence in the process.(Ex. 19-49).
A citizen filed a complaint with IPRA reporting that Det. Wojcik and others
had searched her apartment without a warrant or justification in July 2014.
(Ex. 19-50).

^
5.

Denying individuals their right to an attorney

jj. An attorney filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik refused to
allow her to speak to her client at Area 5 in July 2001. (Ex. 19-51).
kk. An attorney filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik prevented
him firom communicating with his client at Area 5 in August 2002. The client
told OPS that she had repeatedly requested to talk to her attomey, but was
ignored. (Ex. 19-52).

«

*1

m

m

(■II

11. An attomey filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Det. Wojcik barred him
from speaking to his client at the police station in July 2009. (Ex. 19-53).
Falsifying police reports
mm. In June 2004, Seneca Smith was shot multiple times by Chicago Police
officers. Det. Wojcik investigated the shooting. Det. Wojcik then filed false
police reports to "cover for" the wrongful actions of the officers who shot Mr.
Smith. (Ex. 19-54).
6.

nn. In January 2009,a citizen filed a complaint with the Independent Police Review
Authority ("IPRA") reporting that Det. Wojcik, then a Lieutenant, refused to
initiate a complaint about the conduct ofseveral officers. The citizen explained
that those officers pushed the victim, placed a foot on his back, put him in a
chokehold, kicked him, punched him in the face, waved a pocketknife at him
and threatened to cut him, pushed him down the stairs, and stomped on him.
The victim required treatment at the hospital. The officers further caused
injuries to a woman at the scene during the arrest for which she too required
treatment at the hospital. (Ex. 19-55).
7.

pii«

(-»

Refusal to investigate misconduct by other officers

Other citizen allegations

00. Over the course of investigating this matter, counsel for Mr. Abrego has also
become aware of additional individuals who, on information and belief, have
been victim to Det. Wojcik's pattern and practice of misconduct. However,
discovery is necessary in order to elaborate upon these individuals' experiences.
This includes the following individuals:
45

 pp. Laron Betts;

qq. Mario Cervantes;

rr. Daniel Garcia, on whom Det. Wojcik planted evidence;
ss. Jamie Garcia;

tt. Charles Haslett;
uu. Jamie Hauad;

vv. Tyrese Hawkins;

ww. Ricky Hill, who was forced to give a false confession after being subjected
to physical abuse;
XX. Richard Kupferschmidt;
yy. John LaVelle, who was denied access to an attorney by Det. Wojcik;
zz. Dwight Little, who Det. Wojcik forced to give a false statement;
aaa.

Willie Lloyd;

bbb.

Ryan Murphy;

ccc.

Angel Navarro;

ddd.

Juan Ortiz;

eee.

Ricardo Pabon;

fff. Lenin Perez;

ggg.

Roberto Perez;

hhh.

Keith Pinkley;

iii. Marcos Ramirez;

jjj. Alfi*edo Ramos;
kkk.

Jesus Rodriguez;

111. Carlos Santos;

mmm. Terrence Sparks;
nnn.

Peter Zefkiles.
46

 000. The Independent Police Review Authority responded to a Freedom of
Information Act request for documents regarding Det. Wojcik. It reported
possessing eighteen files regarding Det. Wojcik,totaling over 1500 pages. (Ex.
19-55). Petitioner will seek the underlying documents in discovery. However,
IPRA provided general information regarding these allegations. For those for
which IPRA provided a "reporting category," they are listed as involving
allegations of"Excessive Force / On Duty- Injury." (Ex. 19-57).
ppp. The CPD's FOIA response also included the first two pages of an OPS
complaint,but omitted the portion which reveals the substance ofthe complaint.
Petitioner will seek the remainder ofthis document in discovery. (Ex. 19-58).
8.

Ticket "scofflaw"

qqq. Det. Wojcik was among a group of215 CPD officers who had "accumulated
numerous unpaid parking tickets" and failed to pay them. He paid the ticket(s)
after OPS initiated its investigation. OPS sustained the allegation against Det.
Wojcik for having violated "Rule #1" for his "violation of any law or
ordinance" in that he "failed to pay overdue parking tickets which cause [him]
to be placed on the Department of Revenue scofflaw list" and for having
violated "Rule #2" for "conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to
achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department"in that he,
"by not adjudicating the parking tickets ... thereby placed [him] on the city's
Scofflaw list, brought discredit to the Chicago Police department." (Ex. 19-59).

264.

Mr. Abrego reserves the right to further supplement this section with additional

evidence regarding Det. Wojcik as that evidence is uncovered in discovery and as investigation
continues.

265.

None ofthe foregoing information was available at the time of Mr. Abrego's trial.

Mr. Abrego's defense counsel has sworn under oath that, had he been aware of these allegations,

he would have investigated them and used the information to impeach Det. Wojcik's credibility
and to attack the reliability ofthe State's case. (Ex. 18).
IX.

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REGARDING DETECTIVE GUEVARA
AND HIS PARTNERS

266.

Ramon Torres, one ofthe witnesses to identify Mr. Abrego as the shooter and who

has now recanted that testimony, provided his false identification to Detectives Guevara and
Halvorsen. (Ex. 3 atf 3).
47

 267.

As noted above, this Court denied Mr. Abrego's motion to suppress after

***

concluding that Mr. Abrego was treated "humanely" and "fairly." (Tr. W-104). This conclusion

^

was made without the benefit ofnewly discovered evidence that thoroughly discredits Det. Wojcik
(as set forth above) and Det. Guevara (as set forth helow) and reveals them to have perpetrated a

"
^

pattern and practice of misconduct, and then falsely denied the misconduct in court.
268. Likewise,the Court heard testimony from Det. Guevara,but never heard the newlydiscovered evidence regarding his pattern and practice of misconduct. Similarly, the jury heard
from witnesses corrupted by Det. Guevara's misconduct, but never heard about his pattern and

^

practice of similar misconduct in dozens ofother cases.
269.

Mr. Abrego's trial coimsel attempted to introduce testimony from a Northwestern

law professor who would have testified ahout a pattern of misconduct by Det. Guevara. The Court
harred the professor from testifying because the testimony was "not relevant." (Tr. 210-ZZZ).
270.

However, substantial newly-discovered evidence exists corroborating that Det.

Guevara engaged in a pattem and practice ofinvestigative misconduct and the evidence is relevant.
m

This includes:

a. the December 2017 ruling by a circuit court judge that Det. Guevara had told
"bald-faced lies," "eliminated any possibility of him being considered a
credible witness in any proceeding," and about whom one "can't give an ounce
of credibility to something he said 20 years ago";

«

b. Det. Guevara's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate
himself when asked questions about his police work in numerous proceedings,
including when asked about his conduct in this case;

«

c. the dismissal of murder charges against and/or the exoneration offourteen men
who were framed for crimes they did not commit by Det. Guevara and his
partners;

(■■I

i»i

d. an investigation and report commissioned by the City of Chicago (the "Lassar
Report"), which concluded that at least four cases investigated by Det. Guevara
resulted in the conviction of innocent men, and that it is more likely than not
that Det. Guevara engaged in misconduct in two cases; and
48

 e. dozens of citizen complaints lodged against Det. Guevara.
A.

Det. Guevara is a "bald-faced" liar who cannot be given "an ounce of
credibility."

271.

Based upon "the uncontradicted accounts" of "abuse, coercion and improper

influence in addition to the negative inference drawn from Detective Guevara's assertion of his

5th amendment privilege," the Honorable Judge Obbish ordered a new suppression hearing in the

matter ofPeople v. Solache and Reyes. (Ex. 20-1).^
272.

Prior to the suppression hearing, Det. Guevara's attorneys advised the court that he

planned to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in response to questioning. As a result, Det. Guevara
was given immunity by the State and ordered to testify. See Megan Crepeau, Judge says

controversial ex-Chicago police detective 'has to testify,' Chi. Trib., Aug.30,2017(quoting Judge
Obbish).

273.

A new suppression hearing was held and Det. Guevara testified.(Ex. 20-2, 20-3).

274.

Despite Judge Obbish's order that he could no longer invoke the Fifth Amendment,

Det. Guevara took the Fifth when asked if he was a Chicago police detective at Area 5 in March
1998.(Ex. 20-2 at 16-17). In all ensuing questions, Det. Guevara testified he did not remember or
recall. (Id. at 17-18).
275.

The matter was continued until October 30, 2017. Det. Guevara took the stand

again. Once again, despite a court order ruling that he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment

because of a grant of immunity, Det. Guevara persisted in taking the Fifth to all questions related

to his interactions with the defendants.(Ex. 20-3 at 33-34). At that time, upon a motion by the
State, Judge Obbish signed an order compelling Det. Guevara's testimony and conferring use

^ The exhibits regarding Det. Guevara's pattern and practice ofmisconduct are included on the CD
attached to this petition as Exhibit 20. Counsel for Mr. Abrego will be happy to provide hard
copies to the Court or the State, if so requested.
49

 immunity on him.(Id. at 34-35).
276.

Det. Guevara then testified that he did not remember anything about his interactions

with the defendants and did not remember anything about the homicide investigation. He also

testified that he did not think that anything would refresh his recollection. (Id. at 35-36).
277.

The State then attempted to refi^esh his recollection with a police report related to

the investigation, but Det. Guevara refused to read it. (Id. at 37-38). Upon the State's motion, the
Court then declared Det. Guevara a hostile witness. (Id. at 38-39). Thereafter, Det. Guevara
persisted in his refusal to read or review documents to refi"esh his recollection.(Id. at 40-42).

278.

Det. Guevara was asked a series of questions asking him if he ever physically

abused the defendants. Detective Guevara persisted that he did not remember the case, but stated

that "it's something that I would not have done."(Id. at 43-45). Judge Obbish struck the portions
of his testimony where he stated he "would not have" done it. (Id.). Ultimately, Det. Guevara

answered "no" when asked if he punched the defendants.(Id. at 44-45).
279.

On December 13, 2017, Judge Obbish suppressed the defendants' confessions.

Judge Obbish concluded that Det. Guevara "lied in front of me." (Ex. 20-4)(People v. Solache,
Dec. 13, 2017 Hmg.Tr. at 37). In fact,"he lied in front of me under oath multiple times[.]" (Id.)
280.

"He just flat out lied." (Id. at 39).

281.

Det. Guevara told "bald face lies." (Id. at 44).

282.

With respect to Det. Guevara's denial of having abused the defendants, the court

concluded that his "half-hearted flimsy'no,I would never do that' is not the testimony ofa credible
witness." (Id. at 44).

283.

Det. Guevara "showed what he was made of and what he truly is[.]" (Id.)

284.

Judge Obbish found that Det. Guevara "has eliminated any possibility ofhim being

50

 considered a credible witness in any proceeding." {Id. at 38).
285.

The Court concluded; "I can't give an ounce of credibility to something that he

said 20 years ago—^nothing—^because if he would lie after he's been given immunity in front of
me under oath, ... what would make this Court... believe that he was telling the truth when he
originally testified[?]" {Id. at 45-46).

286.

On December 21, 2017, the State dropped all charges against both defendants.

Megan Crepeau, Prosecutors drop murder charges against 2 who allege cop beat them into
confessing, Chi. Trib., Dec. 21, 2017 (available online at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/
local/1?reaking/ct-met-conviction-tossed-ex-detective-guevara-20171221 -storv.html).

287.

None ofthis information was known or could have been discovered by Mr. Abrego

or his counsel prior to trial.
B.

Det. Guevara invokes the Fifth Amendment about his conduct in this case—

and many others
288.

As noted above, Det. Guevara invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer

questions regarding his misconduct in Mr. Abrego's case. This included in response to questions
such as whether he had "attempted to frame Eruby Abrego,""manipulated witnesses to get them
to select Eruby Abrego"; "tried to coerce Eruby Abrego into giving a false confession"; and
"fabricated evidence."(Ex.4 at 485:23-486:5,490:1-7,485:16-21,483:1-6).
289.

Det. Guevara has also invoked the Fifth Amendment with regards to many other

instances of misconduct.

290.

On March 8,2017,in the context ofpost-conviction proceedings regarding William

Negron and Roberto Almodovar, Det. Guevara invoked the Fifth Amendment 159 times. (Ex.205).

291.

On June 17, 2013, in the context of a post-conviction hearing in the matters of

51

 Armando Serrano and Jose Montanez, Det. Guevara repeatedly took the Fifth when asked about

his prior investigative work. (Ex. 20-6). This included when he was asked whether he had ever
shown a photo to a witness and told that witness to identify that person as the suspect. {Id. at 30).
292.

With respect to Thomas Sierra, Det. Guevara was asked whether he instructed a

witness named Jose Melendez to identify Sierra's photo and a specific car. Det. Guevara took the
Fifth. {Id. at 60-63).

293.

As noted above, in the context of the post-conviction hearing in the matters of

Arturo Reyes and Gabriel Solache, Det. Guevara took the Fifth to every question posed on July
29,2013. (Ex. 20-7).

294.

On December 23, 2013, in the context of his deposition testimony in federal

litigation {Rivera v. Guevara), Det. Guevara repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked
about his prior investigative work. Indeed, he invoked the Fifth Amendment well over 1600 times
with regard to at least 31 individual defendants. (Ex. 20-8).

295.

A court may draw an adverse inference in a post-conviction proceeding from an

officer's assertion ofthe Fifth Amendment,and,indeed,should draw "a negative inference" when

the State produces no evidence to rebut the allegations.Peo/j/e V. Whirl,2015 ILApp(lst)111483,
Vi 105-07.

296.

None ofthese instances ofDet. Garcia invoking the Fifth Amendment were known

or could have been discovered by Mr. Abrego or his counsel prior to trial.
C.

Fourteen defendants have had convictions reversed as a result of Det.
Guevara's misconduct

297.

On September 28, 1991, Juan Johnson and Henry Johnson were convicted of

murder. Following years ofpost-conviction litigation, both men's convictions were vacated. Juan
was retried. A jury acquitted him on February 23, 2004. A federal jury later awarded Johnson

52

 monetary damages based on evidence that the original eyewitnesses recanted their testimony and

revealed that they were coerced by Det. Guevara to identify Johnson. (See Juan Johnson, Nat'l
Reg. of Exonerations, http://www.law.umich.edu/sDecial/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?

caseid=333n. Henry chose to plead guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for a sentence of
time-served.

298.

Jacques Rivera was convicted of murder in 1989 on the basis ofthe testimony of

an eyewitness. During a June 2011 post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the eyewitness testified
that he falsely identified Rivera at the behest of Det. Guevara. The court subsequently vacated
Rivera's conviction, and, on October 4,2011, the State dropped the charges. Rivera was awarded
a certificate ofinnocence on September 5,2012.(Ex. 20-9).

299.

Testimony provided during Rivera's subsequent civil suit demonstrates that, Det.

Guevara submitted a false report claiming that the victim, Felix Valentin, had identified Rivera as
the perpetrator even though he was in a coma and on a breathing machine at the time ofthe alleged
identification. (Ex. 20-10). Det. Guevara stated in a police report that Valentin had positively

identified Jacques Rivera as his assailant in a book of photographs on September 10, 1988. The

report was not written until after Valentin's death, so it was impossible to verify with Valentin
himself. However, the physician at Cook County Hospital who treated Valentin testified that, at
the time Det. Guevara claimed to have interviewed Valentin, Valentin was unresponsive to both

painful and verbal stimuli (id. at 28, 34), his pupils were dilated and non-reactive to light (id. at
29),he was fully intubated and on a ventilator(he had a mask on and a tube going down his throat)

(id. at 41-42, 45-47), and there was no indication that he regained responsiveness at any time (id.
at 34). Indeed, according to the doctor, Valentin could not have spoken, could not have looked
through a photo album, and could not have communicated with his eyes (id. at 55-56). Det.

53

 Guevara's claim to the contrary was a complete fabrication.
300.

On June 7, 2016, the First District Appellate Court issued opinions in the matters

of Jose Montanez and Armando Serrano. See People v. Montanez, 2016 IL App (1st) 133726
and People v. Serrano, 2016 IL App (1st) 133493. The opinions reviewed multiple allegations of
misconduct levied against Det. Guevara which constitute "profoundly alarming acts of
misconduct" that "warrant closer scrutiny by appropriate authorities." Montanez at f 1; Serrano

atf 1. Following remand,on July 20,2016, Judge LeRoy K. Martin entered an order vacating the
convictions of Montanez and Serrano upon agreement of the State. On November 2, 2016,
Montanez and Serrano were certified innocent. (Ex. 20-11). Co-defendant Jorge Pacheco had
previously been acquitted. Montanez, 2016 IL App (1st) 133726 atf 10.

301.

On April 14,2017, the State dropped all charges against Roberto Almodovar and

William Negron. Referring to the evidence of the pattem and practice of Guevara's misconduct,
the State's Attorney stated:

After a thorough and deliberate review of the evidence and arguments
presented to the circuit court, the State's Attomey's Office has concluded
that the evidence presented could change the result ofthis case on retrial.

In light ofthis decision, we have determined that proceeding with this case
is no longer in the best interests of justice and we are withdrawing our
opposition to petitioners' request for a new trial. Based on the totality ofthe
evidence currently available, the office has concluded that it is insufficient
to support a retrial ofthis case.
Foxx Drops Case Against Pair in Alleged Frame-Up By CPD's Guevara, CBS, April 13, 2017,
available

at http://chicago.cbslocal.eom/2017/04/13/charges-dropped-william-negron-roberto-

almodovar-kimberlv-foxx-revnaldo-guevara-chicago-police-detective/.

302.

In 2016,nearly three decades after his conviction, Jose Maysonet's conviction was

vacated when it was discovered that Maysonet's trial attorney, Richard Beuke, served as Det.

Guevara's lawyer at the same time Beuke was representing Maysonet.(Andy Grimm, Doublemurder charges dropped after 5 cops say they'll take the Fifth, Chi. Sun-Times, Nov. 15, 2017).
54

 Maysonet alleged that Det. Guevara had targeted him for arrest because Maysonet refused to pay
protection money to the detective, and that during the investigation and interrogation, Det. Guevara

^

beat him with a flashlight and a phone book. Id. On November 15,2017, prosecutors dropped all
charges against Maysonet after Det. Guevara, his partner Det. Halvorsen, and supervisors Edward
Mingey, Frank Montilla, and Roland Paulnitsky all alerted the court that they would invoke the

^

Fifth Amendment ifthey were called to the stand. Id.
303.

In 2000, the murder conviction of Angel Rodriguez was reversed by the appellate

court, which foimd that the testimony of the State's purported eyewitness was not credible and

^

directed that Rodriguez be released without retrial. People v. Rodriguez,312 111. App.3d 920,923
(1st Dist. 2000).

304.

^

As noted above. Judge Obbish suppressed the confessions of Arturo Reyes and

Gabriel Solache during a December 2017 hearing at which he concluded that Det. Guevara had
"flat out lied." (Ex. 20-4 at 39). Judge Obbish found that Det. Guevara's denial of having abused

defendants "is not the testimony of a credible witness." {Id. at 44). Det. Guevara "has eliminated
mm

any possibility ofhim being considered a credible witness in any proceeding." {Id. at 38). A court

"can't give an ounce of credibility to something that he said 20 years ago—nothing[.]" {Id. at 4546).

I

305.

The State proceeded to drop all charges against both defendants. Megan Crepeau,

Prosecutors drop murder charges against 2 who allege cop beat them into confessing, Chi. Trib.,
Dec. 21, 2017 (available online at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ local/breaking/ct-met^

conviction-tossed-ex-detective-guevara-20171221-storv.htmP.

'
Mr. Abrego does not yet have in his possession relevant transcripts from the Maysonet matter
but reserves the supplement this petition with the transcripts and use them at any hearing in this
matter.

55

 306.

On January 9, 2018, the Circuit Court of Cook County vacated the conviction of

Thomas Sierra, with the assent of the State's Attorney's Office, after it was shown that Det.

Guevara had manipulated a witnesses into falsely identifying the defendant. (Ex. 20-12).
307.

Santos Flores was coerced into providing a false confession. The conviction was

reversed on appeal because the "circuit court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress the
statement." People v. Flores, 315 111. App. 3d 387, 394(2000).
308.

None ofthis information was available to Mr. Abrego's defense counsel at the time

of his trial.

D.

The 2015 Lassar Report concluded that Det. Guevara engaged in misconduct
and contributed to the convictions of innocent defendants

309.

The City of Chicago hired former United States Attorney Scott Lassar, now ofthe

law firm of Sidley Austin LLP,to investigate certain allegations regarding Det. Guevara.
310.

In 2015, Lassar concluded that four different men that had alleged misconduct by

Det. Guevara are "most likely innocent." {See Ex. 21).^ These men include Almodovar, Serrano,
Montanez, and Robert Bouto.

311.

Almodovar, Serrano, Montanez are discussed above. In the case of Bouto, the

Lassar report describes improper identification procedures, including suggestive "show-ups" and
subsequent lineups conducted after Det. Guevara had informed witnesses that they had picked the
wrong individuals in the first instance. Det. Guevara also threatened to frame witnesses ofcharges
ifthey failed to cooperate with him.

^ While the majority or the entirety of the "Lassar report" has been tendered to counsel at the
Exoneration Project by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Petitioner's counsel is imclear
whether certain portions ofthe report are currently imder seal. Previously, members ofthe State's
Attorney's Office have taken the position that the Lassar report is "protected." Although Petitioner
has no desire to have these reports sealed, in due regard ofthe State's position and until this issue
is clarified. Petitioner seeks leave to file portions ofthe Lassar report under seal. Accordingly, the
Lassar report excerpts is filed on a separate disk and under seal.
56

 312.

The Lassar Report specifically finds that it is "more likely than not that Det.

Guevara engaged in misconduct in two instances" in the Bouto case, including that "it is more

likely that not that [Det. Guevara] told [a witness], and perhaps others, who to select from the
lineup." (Ex. 21 at 58).

313.

None ofthis information was available to Mr. Abrego's defense counsel at the time

of his trial.

E.

Dozens of individuals have alleged that they are victims of Det. Guevara's
misconduct

314.

Allegations of Det. Guevara's investigative misconduct include the manipulation

of eyewitness identifications, the use of force or other illegal tactics during interrogations of
suspects, and extortion and bribery. What follows are brief descriptions ofindividual allegations.
1.

Physical or psychological abuse of citizens, witnesses, or suspects

a. In 1984, Det. Guevara and other officers physically assaulted Graciela Flores
and her 14-year old sister Anna Flores 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,
Graciela's arm was put in a sling and she spent a week in the hospital.(Exs. 2013,20-14).

b. In 1986,Det. 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 fi*ont seat ofhis

car and choked him. Two eyewitnesses confirmed that Guevara initiated the
beating. Warren sought medical treatment and filed a complaint with OPS.OPS
sustained Warren's allegations that Guevara had physically and verbally
assaulted him and recommended that Guevara be reprimanded.(Ex. 20-15).

c. In 1986,Det. 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 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, OPS foimd that Guevara had lied
about the incident and recommended that he be suspended for two days.(Ex.
20-16).

57

 d. In 1986, Det. Guevara and two other officers coerced a confession from Daniel

Pena by beating him in the face and ribs with their hands, and 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.(Ex. 20-17).
e. Det. Guevara abused Timothy Rankins by putting a phone book over his head
and beating it with a flashlight, threw Rankins out of his chair, and placed
Rankins in a chokehold to induce him to sign a pre-prepared statement
implicating Serrano and Montanez. As a result, Rankins testified falsely before
the Grand Jury.(Ex. 20-18). Further, Det. Guevara hit Armando Serrano in
the face and body 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.
(Ex. 20-19).
f. In 1993, Det. Guevara used physical force and threats to coerce a false
confession from Adolfo Frias-Munoz to the murder of Dora Alva. Over the

course ofa two-day interrogation, Frias-Munoz was handcuffed to a ring on the
wall of the interrogation room, hit in the face by Det. Guevara, and beaten by
two other officers. Though isolated in a locked interrogation room, FriasMunoz could hear his wife screaming and his son crying in another room.
Guevara also brought Frias-Munoz's nephew into the room, who appeared
beaten about the face. 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. FriasMunoz then signed a statement he could not read.(Ex. 20-20).

g. According to an affidavit of attorney Jed Stone, in 1997, Det. Guevara arrested
Voytek Dembski, a Polish national who did not speak English. During a
subsequent interrogation, Dembski alleged that Det. Guevara beat, slapped, and
yelled at him while he was handcuffed to a chair in an interrogation room.
Guevara later got a partner to secure a statement from Dembski in English,
which Dembski signed even though he could not read it.(Ex. 20-21).
h. In February 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 offood, 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 Himt while in custody
corroborated his claim of a beating by the police. The criminal court judge
58

 suppressed Hunt's confession, and Hunt brought a successful civil rights action
against, inter alia. Detective Guevara. (Exs. 20-22, 20-23).

i. In 1993, Det. Guevara arrested fifteen year old Elizer 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.(Ex. 20-24).
j. During an interrogation in 1995, Det. Guevara threatened to hit Gloria Ortiz
Bordoy, threatened that her children would be taken by the Department of
Children and Family Services, called her "the B word," and told her that she
was involved in the crime and was "going down for a long time" during an
hours-long interrogation. Finally, without reading its contents, Bordoy signed a
statement that the detectives wrote out for her because she just wanted to "get
out of there." Det. Guevara kept trying to make her say things she was "not
aware of."(Ex. 20-25 at 44-82, 101-06). The defendant in that case, 17-yearold Santos Flores, was locked in an interrogation room for many hours and
Det. Guevara refused to allow him to call his family or an attomey.

k. In May 1991, after sixteen-year-old David Velasquez told Detective Guevara
he knew nothing about the murder of"Junito," Det. Guevara took Velasquez to
a rival gang's territory and falsely alerted local gang members that Velasquez
was responsible for the murder of Junito (a member of the local gang). After
Velasquez begged Guevara to put him back in the police car, Guevara and his
partners drove Velasquez to the station, where they chained him to a wall, beat
him, and threatened him if he did not falsely implicate Daniel Rodriguez as
"Junito's" shooter, Guevara would "pin" Velasquez with it. As a result of Det.
Guevara's conduct, Velasquez implicated Rodriguez in a false statement; all of
the details in the statement were provided by Guevara.(Ex. 20-26; Ex. 20-27 at
B18-22).

1. In 1991, Det. Guevara coerced a false confession from Daniel Rodriguez to
the murder of Jose Hemandez ("Junito"). While en route to the police station

after Rodriguez's arrest, Guevara told him Rodriguez he could cooperate and
make it easy on himself, or not, in which case Det. Guevara would raid his
house and frame his girlfriend Gloria. During the interrogation, Guevara's
partner beat Rodriguez. Guevara then told Rodriguez exactly what to say.
Rodriguez eventually signed the false statement.(Ex. 20-28).
m. Arturo Reyes and Gabriel Solache testified that in 1998, during their
interrogations, Det. Guevara repeatedly struck and beat them while they were
handcuffed as they denied the accusations that they committed a murder and
stole a baby. Det. Guevara threated Reyes with the electric chair during a threeday-long interrogation. Reyes eventually signed a false inculpatory statement.
For his part, due to the Guevara's beatings, Solache signed a statement in
English that he could not read or understand. He signed it because Det. Guevara
59

 told him to sign it.(Exs. 20-24, 20-25, 20-26, 20-27).
n. In 1998, in investigating the case in which Gabriel Solache and Arturo Reyes
were convicted, Det. Guevara repeatedly hit Rosauro Mejia in an attempt to
coerce a confession from him. Guevara similarly pulled Adriana Mejia's hair
and struck her on the back of the neck while interrogating her. Adriana also
testified that Det. Guevara threatened her with life in prison. Rosauro never
confessed and was finally released after being held in custody for three days.
(Ex. 20-33 at Q22; Ex. 20-34).
0. At the trial of Xavier Arcos, Wilfredo Rosario swore under oath that in 1991,
Det. Guevara threatened that Rosario would be framed for the murder of

Orlando Garola if he didn't falsely implicate Arcos. Rosario said that Guevara
instructed him to say he heard "five to seven shots." The detectives told him
that he was "either going to cooperate with us or we're going to charge you,
lock you up and let the Nation [a rival gang] deal with you."(Ex. 20-35 at J3439). The appellate court found the State's evidence so lacking in the case that
they reversed Arcos's conviction outright. See People v. Arcos, 282 111. App.
3d 870(IstDist. 1996).
p. Adrian Duta testified that in 1994, Det. Guevara interrogated him about a
murder he knew nothing about. During the interrogation, Guevara became mad,
smacked him in the head with a folder, and punched him in the stomach. After
getting punched, Duta signed a statement prepared by Det. Guevara, because
Guevara promised him he could go home if he did so. Duta did not go home,
but as soon as his dad visited him in the county jail, Duta told his dad what
Guevara had done.(Exs. 20-36,20-37).

q. In 1989, Det. Guevara coerced a false confession from Victor Vera to the
murder of Edwin Castaneda. While Vera maintained his innocence and refused

to implicate himself, Guevara threatened to lock up Vera's brother and parents
ifhe didn't confess. Det. Guevara also promised Vera that"nothing would come
back to" him and that Guevara would give him "total control over the Spanish
Cobras neighborhood" if he admitted his involvement. When that still did not
work, Det. Guevara drove Vera to rival gang territory and announced on a
bullhorn that Vera was in the car, and tried to shove Vera out ofthe car. At that

point, fearing for his life, Vera agreed to falsely confess.(Ex. 20-38).
r. Det. Guevara threatened to "put a case" on Carl Richmond if he did not
implicate Robert Bouto in the May 14, 1993 shooting of Salvador Ruvulcaba.

At the lineup,"Detective Guevara told the other witnesses and me that they had
the shooter, and that all we had to do was identify Bouto as the shooter. He
whispered to each of us what position the suspect would be in." Each witness
went in separately, but each came back "and confirmed to the other witnesses
that the suspect was in that position." Richmond complied and implicated Bouto

because Guevara promised to "make [his] life uncomfortable" if he didn't.
From past experiences with Guevara, Richmond knew to take this threat
60

 seriously, and Richmond agreed to testify falsely because of Guevara's threat.
Further, while at the police station, Richmond also heard Bouto getting beat up
in an interrogation room.(Ex. 20-39).
s. In 1995, Det. Guevara arrested Edwin Davila and, in an attempt to coerce a
confession, chained him to the wall of an interrogation room and told Davila
that he was going to frame him for murder. After Davila told Guevara that he
did not commit the murder, 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.(Ex. 20-40 at 19, 84-112).
t. In 1995, Det. Guevara coerced Evelyn Diaz into making a false identification
and providing false testimony to the Grand Jury against Luis Serrano by
threatening Diaz that ifshe did not identify Serrano,her children would be taken
away by the Department of Children and Family Services. Guevara pointed to
a particular photograph and told Diaz "that was the guy."(Ex. 20-36 at 51-52,
70-71).

u. In 1995, Det. Guevara coerced Rodolfo Zaragoza into falsely identifying
Ricardo Rodriguez as a shooter. Guevara intimidated Zaragoza into identifying
and later testifying against Rodriguez. Zaragoza identified Rodriguez because
Guevara told him that Rodriguez was the shooter.(Ex. 20-42).
V. In 1998, Detective Guevara used suggestive tactics to force twelve-year-old
Orlando Lopez to falsely identify Jacques Rivera. As a result, Rivera was
exonerated.(Exs. 20-43, 20-44).
w. In 1991, Det. Guevara coerced David Rivera into signing a confession by
telling him that if he confessed and pleaded guilty, he would serve seven years
in prison whereas if he did not confess, he would be sent away for fifty years.
Det. Guevara also promised Rivera that if he signed a statement at the police
station, he could go home.(Ex. 20-45).
X. In 1985, Det. Guevara arrested Reynaldo Munoz and questioned him about
multiple crimes. Det. Guevara hit Munoz in the mouth with his fist. He drove
Munoz to rival gang territory, stopped the car, pulled Munoz out, and let rival
gang members spit and beat Munoz. Det. Guevara threatened to leave Munoz
and let the rival gang members do to him "whatever they were going to do."
(Ex. 20-46).

y. In an FBI report detailing the criminal activity of Chicago Police Joseph

Miedzianowski,^ Detective Guevara was named by some of the same
^ Miedzianowski has been called "the most corrupt cop in the city's history." He is currently
serving a life sentence in federal prison. Todd Eighty & Matt O'Connor,Rogue cop gets life, Chi.
61

 informants who implicated Miedzianowski. The report indicates that Guevara,
in his capacity as a police officer, would apprehend drug and gun dealers and
then allow them to "buy their way oftrouble." According to the report, Guevara
also took bribes to alter both positive and negative lineups of murder suspects.
Finally, the report states that Guevara, using an attorney as a conduit, would
receive cash in exchange for the dismissal ofmurder cases he investigated.(Ex.
20-47).

z. In 1982, Det. 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 ofthe bus. Guevara 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 her a "nigger bitch."
Turner sought medical treatment and filed a complaint with OPS.(Exs. 20-48,
20-49).

aa. In the Sierra case, Jose E. Melendez(a different person than the Jose Melendez
discussed above) reported that Det. Guevara and other detectives physically
abused him during the investigation and retaliated against him when he could
not provide information about that homicide by charging him in the murder of
Ruben Gonzalez. He was later acquitted of all charges. Melendez averred that
he was pulled over by police, taken to Area 5, and questioned about whether he
knew anything about a shooting. The detectives beat him up when he told them
he knew nothing about the shooting.(Ex. 20-50).
2.

Claims of rigging lineups or eyewitness identifications

bb. Former Chicago police detective William Dorsch has testified under oath that
roughly three months before Det. Guevara was promoted to detective, Guevara
brought two juveniles to the police station that purported to have witnessed a
shooting and recorded the license plate ofthe shooter in a murder Det. Dorsch
was investigating. Based on the information provided, Det. 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." Thejuvenile then agreed with Guevara,saying that was the person
who committed the shooting. Det. Dorsch then directed Guevara to leave the
room and had the other juvenile view the same photo array; this juvenile was
unable to make any identification. Based on the first juvenile's identification,
the suspect was charged with murder. Subsequently, Det. Dorsch spoke to the
two juveniles without Guevara 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

Trib., January 25, 2003 (available online at httt)://ai1:icles.chicagotribune.com/2003-01-25/
news/0301250139 1 ioseph-miedzianowski-gang-members-badge).
62

 released.(Ex. 20-51 at 75-85).

CO. In February 1997, Jose Melendez testified that he viewed a photo array
prepared by Det. Guevara. Even though Melendez told Guevara that he "didn't
see the person that shot," Guevara held up a specific picture and told Melendez
to pick that person out. Melendez identified that person because his fiiend was
the victim and Guevara told him he had reason to believe that person was the
killer.(Ex. 20-52 at E207-12).
dd. Virgilio Calderon Muniz(who is not the same individual as the Virgilio Muniz
in the preceding paragraph) swore under oath that in April 1989, Detective
Guevara pointed to a picture of Victor Vera and ordered Muniz and Angel
Lauzerique to identify Vera in the lineup. Muniz said the detectives said "they
were going to have trouble every time they seen \sic\ us" if they didn't make
the identifications.(Ex. 20-53 at D48).
ee. In 1989, Det. Guevara coerced both Samuel Perez-Melendez (as well as

Salvador Ortiz) into falsely identifying Juan Johnson and others as the
individuals who killed Ricardo Fernandez. Perez-Melendez explained that
Guevara put him inside his car, showed Perez-Melendez a photo of Juan
Johnson, and told Perez-Melendez that he wanted Juan Johnson to take the
blame for the murder. Based upon his past interactions with Det. Guevara,Perez
took it as a threat and believed that Guevara would frame him for the murder if

Perez did not implicate Johnson. Perez subsequently falsely identified Johnson
even though he did not witness the murder and even though he never told Det.
Guevara he could make an identification. For his part, Ortiz testified that Det.
Guevara "suggested" that Perez should implicate Johnson.(Ex. 20-54 at 65-70;
Ex. 20-55 at 109-12).

ff. Virgilio Muniz has sworn under oath that in 1989, Det. Guevara coerced him
into falsely identifying Manuel Rivera during a lineup and interrogation as the
murderer of Marlon Wade. Det. Guevara pointed to a picture of Manuel Rivera
and told Muniz:"1 know it was him so tell me now." Guevara "pressur[ed] and
scar[ed]" the teenager by repeatedly telling Muniz that if he didn't make the
identification, he would "go down for the murder." Muniz explained that he,
Genaro Roza,and Loretta Hellen then spoke and agreed they would all testify
against Manuel Rivera to protect themselves because even two years later, Det.
Guevara was"still on our ass, pressuring and demanding we show up to testify."
(Ex. 20-56).

gg. Det. Guevara told Efrain Sanchez and Julio Sanchez to pick David Colon out
of a lineup. As a result of pressure from Detective Guevara, these men did so
and falsely claimed that Colon had committed murder.(Ex. 20-57).
hh. Francisco Vicente averred that Det. Guevara threatened him when Vicente

initially refused to falsely implicate Serrano and Montanez. (Guevara had
previously beaten Vicente). Det. Guevara promised Vicente money and aid on
63

 unrelated pending charges if he cooperated. Vicente implicated Serrano and
Montanez only after Det. Guevara gave him all ofthe details ofthe crime.(Ex.
20-58).

ii. In the Almodovar case, Det. Guevara showed Kennelly Saez a photo array and
told him that"that these people—^that these were the guys that did the shooting."
(Mr. Abrego does not presently have a copy ofthis exhibit, but his counsel has
requested it and will tender it forthwith).

jj. In 1995, Det. Guevara told Luis Figueroa to falsely identify Angel Diaz as the
shooter of his girlfiiend Yolanda Leal even though Figueroa did not see the
shooter. Figueroa identified Diaz but recanted his identification at trial. He
testified that he identified Diaz after Det. Guevara "told me to pick him out"

and "told me [Diaz] was the one that did it and he wants to take him down....
[W]hen 1 got there he was asking me ... what did you see, you know, I told
him 1 could not see anything, and he told me 'I found out who did it and his
name is Angel Diaz." (Ex. 20-59).
kk. At the trial of Gabriel Solache and Arturo Reyes, Maria Rivera testified that,
in a different murder investigation, Det. Guevara pointed out a specific
individual at a lineup and told her to identify that individual.(Mr. Abrego does

not presently have a copy of this exhibit, but his counsel has requested it and
will tender it forthwith).

11. Salvador Ortiz signed a declaration stating that Det. Guevara told him to pick
out particular individuals from a lineup related to the murder of Ricardo
Fernandez. Juan Johnson was charged, convicted, and after many years
exonerated as a result of this false identification orchestrated by Guevara.(Mr.

Abrego does not presently have a copy of this exhibit, but his counsel has
requested it and will tender it forthwith).
mm. Robert Ruiz testified that in 1997, Det. Guevara arrived at the wake of
Ruiz's fnend and told Ruiz he wanted to talk to him. In the days thereafter, Det.
Guevara had Ruiz detained several times for hours each time, and eventually

just told him that two people had been implicated in the shooting. Guevara then
told Ruiz "exactly how to say the story." Ruiz implicated Freddy and
Concepcion Santiago in the murder because Ruiz believed that Det. Guevara
would continue to harass him until he changed his story.(Ex. 20-60 at 75-79,
141-44).
3.

Falsifying police reports

nn. On December 28, 2017, BuzzFeed News published a detailed investigation of
Det. Guevara and his partners' investigation of the murders of Noel Andujar
and Ruben Gonzalez. Chicago Police Officer Ron Malczyk, who worked with
Det. Guevara and his partners on the cases, is quoted as saying in reference to
Det. Guevara's investigation, '"Did they once-upon-a-time me? - Did they
64

 make it up? 'It wouldn't be the first time.'" See The Night Shift, BuzzFeed
News {available at https://www.buzzfeed.com/melissasegura/how-to-closetwo-stubboni-murder-cases-in-one-night-chicago).

00. Det. Guevara coerced witnesses into falsely implicating John Martinez in the
1998 murder of Daniel Garcia. Specifically, Det. Guevara coerced Melloney
Parker into falsely identifying Martinez by promising to have a warrant for her
arrest quashed if she cooperated. (Ex. 20-61).

pp. Det. Guevara coerced witnesses into falsely implicating Anthony Rosario in a
murder.
4.

Warrantless searches

qq. In 1982, Det. Guevara and three other officers broke through the locked front
door of Almarie Lloyd and conducted a warrantless search ofher home. When
Lloyd asked who they were, she was told to shut up. The officers terrified
Lloyd, her brother, and her two children, and left the home in shambles. Lloyd
filed a complaint with OPS the next day.(Ex. 20-62).
315.

316.

The sheer number of complaints filed against Det. Guevara is stunning.

Mr. Abrego reserves the right to further supplement this section with additional

evidence regarding Det. Guevara as that evidence is uncovered in discovery and as investigation
continues.

317.

None ofthe foregoing information was available to Mr. Abrego's defense counsel

at the time of his trial. Mr. Abrego's defense counsel has sworn under oath that, had he been

aware of these allegations, he would have investigated them and used the information to impeach
Det. Guevara's credibility and to attack the reliability ofthe State's case. (Ex. 18).
X.

CLAIMS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

318.

Mr. Abrego is entitled to relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act pursuant to

the following claims.
CLAIM I; MR.ABREGO IS INNOCENT.

319.

Mr. Abrego re-alleges every paragraph of this Petition and expressly incorporates

them as iffully set forth herein.
65

 320.

Newly-discovered evidence, alone and in combination with the evidence he

presented at trial, "establishes a substantial basis to believe that the defendant is actually innocent

^

by clear and convincing evidence." 725 ILCS 5/122-1(a)(2).
321.

^

At least five pieces of newly-discovered evidence create a substantial basis to

believe that Mr. Abrego is innocent.

^

322. First, Julio Lugo—a victim who was shot twice in the underlying incident—^has
come forward to state categorically that Mr. Abrego is not the shooter and that his testimony at
trial to the contrary was false. (Ex. 1). As Mr. Lugo now explains,"I really don't know who did

^

it." {Id. at Tf 6). Rather, he "just went by what the police said:'we got the guy, it's this guy.'" {Id.
atf 8). This is directly contrary to the State's assertion at trial that the line-ups in this case "were

run purely." (Tr. AAAA-254). We now know that the procedures used to encourage witnesses
m

to identify Mr. Abrego were not "pure"—they were a sham.

323.

Second,Ramon Torres—another victim—^has also explained that his identification

at trial of Mr. Abrego as the shooter was false. As he puts it,"the kid, Abrego, didn't do it." (Ex.

2 at ^ 7). Rather, he"went along with what the police wanted him to say" because he "wanted the
real killer to remain free" so that his fnends or family could get their own revenge. {Id. at

8,

9).

I*

324.

Third, Det. Guevara has invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than admit to his

misconduct in this case. This includes in response to questions as to whether he "knew that Jason

Rodriguez was the shooter, not Eruby Abrego,""knew that Eruby Abrego's will was eventually
^

overcome by being beaten and that he gave a false confession," "attempted to frame Eruby
Abrego,""manipulated witnesses to get them to select Eruby Abrego," and "fabricated evidence."
(Ex.4 at 483:1-6, 485:23 -486:5, 487:16-21, 490:1-7,490:17-23).

66

 325.

A court may draw an adverse inference in a post-conviction proceeding from an

officer's assertion ofthe Fifth Amendment,and,indeed,should draw "a negative inference" when
the State produces no evidence to rebut the allegations. People v. Whirl,2015IL App(1st) 111483,
105-07.

326.

Fourth, newly-discovered evidence establishes Det. Wojcik's pattem and practice

ofinvestigative misconduct and shows that Mr. Abrego is actually innocent. People v. Tyler, 2015

IL App (1st) 123470, f 200 (explaining that "the evidence of systemic police misconduct is
sufficient to support defendant's claim of actual innocence, and the trial court erred when it did
not advance this evidence to a third-stage evidentiary hearing").

327.

This is particularly true in this case, where the State mocked at trial "the biggest

frameup, the big conspiracy to get Eruby Abrego." (Tr. AAAA-180). It told the jury that Mr.
Abrego's allegations of abuse and misconduct were "hogwash" that "should insult you." (Tr.
AAAA-174). It said there was no evidence to "prove a police officer beating." (Tr. AAAA-256).

328.

But, there was a "frameup" and there was a "conspiracy." It was not "hogwash."

329.

There was evidence "to prove a police officer beating." We now know that it was

par for the course for Det. Wojcik. If the jury had known that, it would not have convicted Mr.
Abrego.

330.

Fifth, newly-discovered evidence establishes Det. Guevara's pattem and practice

ofinvestigative misconduct and shows that Mr. Abrego is actually innocent. Tyler, 2015 IL App
(1st) 123470,1200.

331.

Here again,the evidence is not "hogwash," and it would have changed the result of

the trial if the jury had heard it.

332.

Standing alone, each of these pieces of newly-discovered evidence is sufficient to

67

 entitle Mr. Abrego to a new trial. In combination with each other, his entitlement to a new trial is

^

^

even clearer.

333. When considered in combination and together with the evidence of innocence
presented previously (including Elizabeth Montalvo's testimony that Jason "Spirit" Rodriguez
confessed to being the shooter and Nicasio Santiago's testimony that he was with Spirit when he

^

did it), there is simply no question Mr. Abrego deserves a new trial.
CLAIM

II;

„

MR. ABREGO

WAS

DENIED

HIS

RIGHT

TO

DUE PROCESS

GUARANTEED BY THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2 OF
THE ILLINIOS CONSTITUTION.

334.

^

Mr. Abrego re-alleges every paragraph of this Petition and expressly incorporates

them as iffully set forth herein.
335.

The newly-discovered evidence set forth above with regard to Detectives Wojcik's

and Guevara's investigative misconduct is conclusive enough that it would have changed the result

p,,

of Mr. Abrego's trial. Mr. Abrego's due process right to a fair trial was violated by their
misconduct.

336.
sum

A post-conviction petitioner who sets forth newly-discovered evidence of police

misconduct that supports a claim that the investigative misconduct procured an unconstitutional
conviction is entitled to a hearing. See People v. Patterson, 192 111. 2d 93, 145 (2000); People v.

King, 192 111. 2d 189, 198-99(2000)(new evidence of police misconduct, which did not come to
«

light imtil after the defendants' trials, was sufficient to call for relaxation of resjudicata and to
require evidentiary hearings on the petitioners' claims oftorture);People v. Cannon,293 111. App.
3d 634(1st Dist. 1997); People v. Mitchell, 2012 IL App (1st) 100907(1st Dist. 2014); People v.

Nicholas, 2013 IL App (1st) 103202,% 44;People v. Whirl, 2015 IL App (1st) 111483; People v.
Tyler, 2015 IL App(1st) 123470(due to the pervasive patterns of misconduct, courts reconsidered
68

 the voluntariness ofthe defendants' alleged confessions that would otherwise be barred).
337.

With respect to Det. Guevara specifically, the appellate courts have repeatedly held

that newly-discovered evidence of his investigative misconduct represents a due process issue, is
cognizable under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, and warrants evidentiary hearings. See People
V. Reyes, 369 111. App. 3d 1, 14-24(2006){ciXing Patterson, 192 111. 2d 93);People v. Almodovar,
2013 IL App(1st) 101476. The appellate courts have so held for both allegations ofDet. Guevara's
misconduct during interrogations as well as his identification procedures.

338.

In doing so, the courts have relied on many of the same allegations raised in this

Petition. See e.g., Reyes, 369 111. App. 3d at 15-17 (citing to the allegations that Det. Guevara
improperly influenced the identification testimony ofthree witnesses).

339.

Notably, the courts in Reyes and Almodovar reached their conclusions even prior

to the Lassar report (which substantiated that Det. Guevara had a pattern of misconduct and
concluded that at least four ofGuevara's victims were innocent), prior to many ofthe exonerations

listed in Section X(C) above, prior to Detective Guevara's repeated invocations of the Fifth
Amendment(including with respect to this case), and prior to a Circuit Court Judge declaring that

Det. Guevara is a "bald-faced" liar who has "eliminated the possibility of being considered a
credible witness in any proceeding." See supra Section X; see also Whirl, 2015 IL App (1st)

111483, Tfl07 (explaining that in a post-conviction proceeding, a negative inference should be
drawn where a detective takes the Fifth Amendment when asked about allegations ofmisconduct).

340.

A petitioner is entitled to relief under a due process claim based upon newly-

discovered evidence of a pattern of misconduct by the investigating police officers ifthe evidence
is (1) of such conclusive character that it will probably change the result on retrial;(2) material

and not merely cumulative; and(3)discovered since trial and ofsuch character that the defendant

69

 in the exercise ofdue diligence could not have discovered it earlier. Mitchell at^61 (citing People
V. Orange, 195 111. 2d 437,450-51 (2001)); Tyler at^j 158.
341.

The standard requires the court to determine whether the allegations undermine the

credibility ofthe investigating officers to the extent that the result ofa new trial would be different.

See Almodovar at ^ 69(explaining that "[t]he new evidence merely sought to establish a pattern
and practice of abuse by Detective Guevara, which, if true, would have a severe negative impact
on the credibility of Detective Guevara's testimony that no such abuse occurred in defendants'
case"); Tyler at f 193 (citing Patterson, 192 111. 2d at 145)(noting that the standard requires the
court "to determine whether any of the detectives who interrogated the defendants may have
participated in systemic and methodical abuse and whether those detectives' credibility at trial
might have been impeached as a result").

342.

Both appellate court decisions in Almodovar and Reyes establish that the allegations

against Detectives Wojcik and Guevara outlined in this Petition are material and either newlydiscovered or could not have been discovered with due diligence. See Reyes at 18-19; Almodovar
at ft 67-68. Many of these allegations mirror the ones discussed in those appellate decisions,
which found that in cases from the same era (the defendants in Reyes went to trial in June 2000,

and Mr. Abrego's trial began in 2004), evidence of detectives' misconduct that pre-dated their
trials was nevertheless newly-discovered.
343.

Of course, other evidence in this petition—like the Lassar report; Det. Guevara's

repeated invocation of the Fifth amendment about his own misconduct in this case and others,
along with Det. Wojcik's misconduct in this case; Det. Guevara being declared a "bald-faced" liar
by a judge; Det. Wojcik's involvement in covering up the Laquan McDonald scandal; etc.—long
post-date Mr. Abrego's trial and so could not have been discovered earlier. See Whirl, 2015 IL

70

 App(lst) 111483,1107.

344.

The newly-discovered evidence relating to Det. Guevara's and Det. Wojcik's

investigative misconduct is conclusive and would likely change the result on retrial. Both
detectives were involved in fundamental aspects of the investigation in this case and their

credibility was of paramoimt importance. See Almodovar at 168.
345.

Here, the Court denied Mr. Abrego's motion to suppress his false confession

because it credited Detectives Wojcik and Guevara. It later denied Mr. Abrego's motion to present

witnesses to testify about what was known at that time regarding the detectives' patterns of abuse.

The Court held that "this is just some type of an attempt to create something that doesn't exist."
(Tr. AAAA-287).

346.

We now that this this is not "something that doesn't exist." An overwhelming

amount ofevidence proves beyond any doubt that these detectives engaged in a widespread pattern
of misconduct.

347.

In order to find Mr. Abrego guilty, the jury must have credited the testimony ofthe

detectives and the witnesses that they tainted.

348.

Mr. Abrego was unable to effectively impeach those witnesses with evidence

regarding the detectives' widespread pattern of abuse and misconduct.
349.

He was unable to counter the State's falsehood that his allegations of misconduct

were "hogwash." (Tr. AAAA-174). He was imable to produce the evidence the State told thejury
was lacking: evidence to "prove a police officer beating." (Tr. AAAA-256).

350.

The newly-discovered evidence of the detectives' pattern of misconduct is of such

conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial, it is material and not merely
cumulative, and it could not have discovered at the time of Mr. Abrego's trial. Mitchell at f 61;

71

 Orange, 195 III. 2d at 450-51; Tyler at ^ 158.
351.
CLAIM

Mr. Abrego's due process rights were violated.

III: MR. ABREGO

WAS DENIED

HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

GUARANTEED UNDER
V. MARYLAND,THE 5TH AND 14TH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND
ARTICLE 1,SECTION 2 OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION.

352.

Mr. Abrego re-alleges every paragraph of this Petition and expressly incorporates

them as iffully set forth herein.
353.

"As stated by the United States Supreme Court xa. Brady,ihe prosecution must

disclose evidence that is favorable to the accused and 'material either to guilt or to

punishment.'" People v. Harris,206 111. 2d 293,311 (2002)(quoting RraJy v. Maryland,373 U.S.
83, 87(1963)).

354.

The Brady "rule encompasses evidence known to police investigators, but not to

the prosecutor." People v. Beaman, 229 111. 2d 56, 73 (2008)(citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S.
419(1995));see also People v. Mitchell, 2012 IL App (1st) 100907,

71-72(2014)). To comply

with Brady, the prosecutor has a duty to learn of favorable evidence known to other government
actors, including the police. Id. (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437). "The Supreme Court has,
therefore, noted 'the special role played by the American prosecutor in the search for truth in
criminal trials.'" Id. {qpoXing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999)).

355.

A petitioner establishes a Brady violation by "showing that; (1) the undisclosed

evidence is favorable to the accused because it is either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the
evidence was suppressed by the State either wilfully or inadvertently; and (3) the accused was
prejudiced because the evidence is material to guilt or punishment." Id. at 73-74(citing People v.
Bun,205 111.2d 28,47(2001)and Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281-82)).

356.

"Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the
72

 proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed." Id. (citing Harris, 206

I11.2d at 311; Kyles,514 U.S. at 434; and United States v. Bagley,473 U.S. 667,682(1985)."To
establish materiality, an accused must show 'the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to
put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.'"Id.(quoting
People V. Coleman, 183 I11.2d 366, 393 (1998)).
357.

"In making the materiality determination, courts must consider the cumulative

effect of all the suppressed evidence rather than considering each item of evidence
individually." Id.(citing People v. Hobley, 182111.2d 404,435(1998)and Kyles, 514 U.S. at 43641).

358.

"Impeachment evidence may be considered material to guilt." People v. Harris,

206 111. 2d 293, 312(2002)(citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154(1972)).
359.

A Brady violation is never harmless. Beaman,229 111. 2d at 74; Coleman, 183 I11.2d

at 393; Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436.

360.

Mr. Abrego is entitled to relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act because the

State violated his rights by withholding Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
I.

THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT DET.GUEVARA KNEW ERUBY ABREGO
WAS

INNOCENT

AND

FABRICATED

INCULPATORY

EVIDENCE

CONSTITUTES A BR4i)r VIOLATION

361.

As noted above, Det. Guevara was asked under oath a series ofquestions regarding

his misconduct in this case. {Supra Section VII.C).

362.

Det. Guevara was specifically asked questions regarding his knowledge of Mr.

Abrego's innocence:

a. "Isn't it true you attempted to frame Eruby Abrego"
b. "You knew that Eruby Abrego's will was eventually overcome by being beaten
and that he gave afalse confession, correct?";

73

 c. "Isn't it true youfabricated evidence, including falsifying police reports";

d. "Isn't it true that you knew that Jason Rodriguez was the shooter, not Eruby
Abrego?";

e. "Isn't it true that you knew that Eruby Abrego didn't match the description of
the perpetrator of the Garcia homicide, but nonetheless took steps to implicate
and ensure the conviction of Mr. Abrego?"
(Ex.4 at 485:23-486:5,490:17-23, 483:1-6, 487:16-21, 488:24-489:8)(emphases added).

363.

Det. Guevara invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all of those questions.

364.

Indeed, Det. Guevara invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked: "Isn't it true you

(Id.)

withheld exculpatory evidence from prosecutors, criminal defendants, and their attorneys during
the Jose Garcia investigation?" (Id. at 483:7-14).

365.

As noted above, a court may draw an adverse inference in a post-conviction

proceeding from an officer's assertion of the Fifth Amendment, and, indeed, should draw "a

negative inference" when the State produces no evidence to rebut the allegations. People v. Whirl,
2015 ILApp (1st) 111483,111105-07.

366.

Here, the negative inference to be drawn is that Det. Guevara knew Mr. Abrego

was innocent, fabricated false evidence to frame him, and withheld exculpatory evidence, all in
violation ofBrady.
367.

Det. Guevara's knowledge of Mr. Abrego's innocence and the steps he took to

fabricate inculpatory evidence and withhold exculpatory evidence constitutes a blatant Brady
violation.

368.

"(1) [T]he xmdisclosed evidence is favorable to the accused because it is either

exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the State either wilfully or
inadvertently; and (3) the accused was prejudiced because the evidence is material to guilt or

74

 punishment." Beaman,229 111. 2d at 73-74.
II.

THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE TO THE DEFENSE DETECTIVE WOJCIK'S
INVESTIGATIVE
CONSTITUTES A

369.

MISCONDUCT
IN
VIOLATION

THIS

CASE—AND

OTHERS-

In violation of Brady, the State withheld from Mr. Abrego exculpatory evidence

regarding Det. Wojcik's investigative misconduct in this case and his widespread pattern and
practice of misconduct in other cases.

370.

Rather, instead of disclosing the evidence of Det. Wojcik's misconduct, the State

specifically sought to prevent such evidence from coming to light, including by arguing to the
Court that"Det. Wojcik is not on trial" and that evidence ofDet. Wojcik's misconduct was simply
"being offered to dirty-up this officer and to shift the focus away from the defendant who is
standing trial here." (Tr. 206-ZZZ).
A.

The State failed to disclose Det. Wojcik's misconduct in this case

371.

Det. Wojcik engaged in substantial investigative misconduct in this case.

372.

In addition to having beaten Mr. Abrego and forcing him to provide a false

confession, Det. Wojcik engaged in misconduct which was unknown to Mr. Abrego and which
Det. Wojcik suppressed.

373.

Detective Guevara repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about his

and Det. Wojcik's conduct in this case.

374.

The negative inference to be drawn from Det. Guevara's invocation of the Fifth

Amendment is that he knows Det. Wojcik engaged in this misconduct and they withheld this
information from Mr. Abrego.
375.

The evidence was not disclosed to Mr. Abrego. (Ex. 18).

376.

This undisclosed evidence is exculpatory. It impeaches the State's witnesses. It

was not disclosed to Mr. Abrego. This prejudiced Mr. Abrego because the evidence is material to
75

 his guilt or innocence. That is a Brady violation. Seaman,229 111. 2d at 73-74.
B.

The State failed to disclose Det. Wojelk's pattern and practice of misconduct

377.

Evidence of Det. Wojcik's widespread pattern and practice of investigative

misconduct is set forth above.

378.

Det. Wojcik was aware of his own conduct.

379.

Det. Wojcik's knowledge of his pattem and practice of misconduct is imputed to

the State. Seaman,229 111. 2d at 73; Kyles, 514 U.S. at 419; Mitchell, 2012 IL App (1st) 100907,
11171-72.

380.

The information was not provided to the defense. (Ex. 18).

381.

The failure to disclose this information, including those allegations which pre-date

Mr. Abrego's 2004 trial, constitutes a Brady violation. See People v. Tyler, 2015 IL App (1st)

123470, H 210-211 (2015)(finding that, where pattem and practice of misconduct "is newly
discovered sufficient to relax the requirements ofresjudicata, and that it is unreasonable to expect
defense coxmsel to discover who these individual detectives were abusing unless counsel

interviewed every suspect who was detained by them. This same rationale applies to the State as

well"); but see People v. Orange, 195 111. 2d 437, 456-58 (2001); People v. Mahaffey, 194 111. 2d
154, 171-74 (2000) (rejecting the argument that ''Brady requires the prosecution to disclose
information about misconduct in unrelated cases known only to individual police officers where

the nexus between the other cases of alleged abuse and the defendant's case was not known until
years after the defendant's trial").
III.

THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE TO THE DEFENSE DETECTIVE WOJCIK'S
INVESTIGATIVE MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE—AND OTHERSCONSTITUTES A BRADY VIOLATION

382.

In violation of Brady, the State withheld from Mr. Abrego exculpatory evidence

regarding Det. Guevara's investigative misconduct in this case and his widespread pattem and
76

 practice of misconduct in other cases.
A.

The State failed to disclose Det. Guevara's misconduct in this case

383.

Det. Guevara engaged in substantial investigative misconduct in this case.

384.

Ramon Torres has explained that Det. Guevara asked him to falsely identify Mr.

Abrego. (Ex. 3 at f 3). He recalled that Det. Guevara was "always harassing" people in his
neighborhood and that he remembers Det. Guevara "harassing" him on prior occasions. (Id.) Mr.
Torres has explained that "the kid, Abrego, didn't do it." (Ex.2 atf 7).

385.

In fact, Det. Guevara himself has, via the negative inference to be drawn from his

invocation ofthe Fifth Amendment, admitted to engaging in misconduct in this case.
386.

As noted above, Det. Guevara pleaded the Fifth Amendment rather than answer

questions regarding his involvement in this case. Those questions included;
a. "Isn't it true that you coerced Ramon Torres to falsely ID Eruby Abrego?"

b. "You told Isidro Quinones, Ramon Torres and Fred Marrero to choose Eruby
Abrego in the line-up, didn't you?"
c. "Isn't it true you attempted to frame Eruby Abrego"

d. "You knew that Eruby Abrego's will was eventually overcome by being beaten and
that he gave afalse confession, correct?";

e. "Isn't it true youfabricated evidence, including falsifying police reports";
f. "Isn't it true that you knew that Jason Rodriguez was the shooter, not Eruby
Abrego?";

g. "Isn't it true that you knew that Eruby Abrego didn't match the description ofthe
perpetrator of the Garcia homicide, but nonetheless took steps to implicate and
ensure the conviction of Mr. Abrego?"

h. "Isn't it true that you manipulated witnesses to get them to select Eruby Abrego
from the line-up?"

i. Isn't it true you withheld exculpatory evidence from prosecutors, criminal
defendants, and their attorneys during the Jose Garcia investigation?"
(Ex. 4 at 485:23 - 486:5, 490:17-23, 483:1-6, 487:16-21, 488:24 - 489:8, 490:1-7, 490:9-15,
77

 483:7-14)(emphases added).

387.

The negative inference to be drawn from Det. Guevara's invocation of the Fifth

Amendment is that he did engage in investigative misconduct in this case and then withheld the
fact that he had done so, in violation of Brady. See Whirl, 2015 IL App (1st) 111483,
388.

105-07.

The evidence was not disclosed to Mr. Abrego. (Ex. 18).

389. "(1) [T]he undisclosed evidence is favorable to the accused because it is either

exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the State either wilfully or
inadvertently; and (3) the accused was prejudiced because the evidence is material to guilt or
punishment." Beaman,229 111. 2d at 73-74.

B.

The State failed to disclose Det. Guevara's pattern and practice of misconduct

390.

Evidence of Det. Wojcik's widespread pattem and practice of investigative

misconduct is set forth above.

391.

Det. Guevara was aware of his own conduct.

392.

Det. Guevara's knowledge of his pattem and practice of misconduct is imputed to

the State. Beaman,229 111. 2d at 73; Kyles, 514 U.S. at 419; Mitchell, 2012 IL App (1st) 100907,
71-72.

393.

The information was not provided to the defense. (Ex. 18).

394.

The failure to disclose this information, including those allegations which pre-date

Mr. Abrego's 2004 trial, constitutes a Brady violation. See People v. Tyler, 2015 IL App (1st)

123470, m 210-211 (2015)(finding that, where pattem and practice of misconduct "is newly
discovered sufficient to relax the requirements ofres judicata, and that it is unreasonable to expect
defense counsel to discover who these individual detectives were abusing unless coimsel

interviewed every suspect who was detained by them. This same rationale applies to the State as
well"); but see People v. Orange, 195 111. 2d 437,456-58 (2001); People v. Mahaffey, 194 111. 2d
78

 154, 171-74 (2000) (rejecting the argument that "Brady requires the prosecution to disclose

information about misconduct in unrelated cases known only to individual police officers where
the nexus between the other cases of alleged abuse and the defendant's case was not known until
years after the defendant's trial").
CLAIM V: MR. ABREGO WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE 6TH AND 14TH
AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND

ARTICLE 1,SECTION 8 OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION.

395.

Mr. Abrego re-alleges every paragraph of this Petition and expressly incorporates

them as iffully set forth herein.

396.

The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee a person

accused of a crime the right to counsel, as does Article I, Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution of
1970. U.S. Const, amend. VI & XIV; 111. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 8.

397.

This right to counsel is fundamental and is aimed at protecting the right to a fair

trial, and it includes the right to effective representation. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688
(1984); People v. Perez, 148 I11.2d 168, 592 N.E.2d 984(1992).
398.

Ineffective assistance of counsel exists where counsel's performance fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that the result of the
proceedings would have been different absent counsel's errors. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687;

People V. Weir, 111 I11.2d 334, 337, 490 N.E.2d 1, 2 (1986). "A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland,466 U.S. at 694.

399.

Mr. Abrego raises as an alternative claim an allegation that he received

constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. This claim is asserted to the extent that(1)this
Court concludes that Mr. Abrego's trial counsel had the ability to learn ofthe evidence contained
in this Petition supporting Mr. Ahrego's other claims; and/or (2) other evidence to which Mr.
\

79

\
\
\

 Abrego does not yet have access supports this claim ineffective assistance ofcounsel. Mr. Abrego
will seek leave of the Court to supplement this claim in the event he obtains other information in
support ofit.
CLAIM VI; THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ERRORS THAT INFECTED MR.
ABREGO'S TRIAL DENIED HIM HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL.

400.

Mr. Abrego re-alleges every paragraph of this Petition and expressly incorporates

them as if fully set forth herein.

401.

Even if, individually, the errors and other matters alleged in this Petition are not

found to be sufficiently prejudicial to grant Mr. Abrego post-conviction relief, the cumulative

effect ofall the matters alleged in this Petition deprived Mr. Abrego ofhis fundamental due process
right to a fair trial. See People v. Jackson, 205 111. 2d 247, 283 (2001)("individual errors may

have the cumulative effect of denying a defendant a fair hearing").
402.

Accordingly, where,as here,cumulative error is present,the Illinois Supreme Court

"has reversed convictions and sentences when it was clear that the cumulative effect ofthe errors

deprived the defendant of due process." Id.
403.

As such, concems of fundamental fairness and cumulative error demand that Mr.

Abrego be granted a new trial.
XI.

CONCLUSION

404.

For the reasons stated above. Petitioner Eruby Abrego respectfully requests that

this Court(a) docket this petition;(b) grant discovery as necessary to further prove the foregoing
claim;(c) grant an evidentiary hearing where proof may be offered conceming the allegations in
this petition; and(d)vacate Mr. Abrego's conviction and grant him a new trial.

80

 DATED: January 16,2018
«

Respectfully submitted,
ERUBY ABREGO

By:
:
Counsel for Petitioner

Karl Leonard
David B. Owens
THE EXONERATION PROJECT

at the University of Chicago Law School
311 N. Aberdeen Street, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
(312)789-4955

Karl@exonerationproject.org
Attorney ID: 44407
Attorneysfor Petitioner Eruby Abrego

81

 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 651(c)

I, Karl Leonard, have consulted with Petitioner Eruby Abrego by mail and by telephone to
ascertain his contentions regarding the deprivation of his constitutional rights, have examined the
record of the proceedings at trial, and have set forth in the foregoing Amended Petition for PostConviction Relief an adequate representation of Mr. Abrego's contentions as best they can be
ascertained given the available information at this time.

^

DATED: January 16,2018
Karl Leonard
THE EXONERATION PROJECT

at the University of Chicago Law School
311 N. Aberdeen Street, 3rd Floor

Chicago, IL 60607
(312)789-4955

Karl@exonerationproject.org
Attorney ID: 44407

Attorneyfor Petitioner Eruby Abrego

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of January 2018,1 caused a copy of the foregoing
Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief to be served via hand-delivery to:

Ms. Carol Rogala
Cook County State's Attorney's Office
2650 South California Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60608

DATED: January 16,2018
Karl Leonard
THE EXONERATION PROJECT

at the University of Chicago Law School
311 N. Aberdeen Street, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
(312)789-4955

Karl@exonerationproject.org
Attorney ID: 44407

Attorneyfor Petitioner Eruby Abrego