Thursday, December 22, 2011

The Santa Barbara District Attorney's office gets a "Ruse' Conviction (In the 3rd Corey Lyons Murder Trial)


According to the records I found, Barbara Scharton and Daniel Lyons both had holographic Wills. That means they are hand written, one in 1991 and the other in 1995 with no witness's required. I only mention this because I bet you all are unaware that the sister Colleen is now in possession her deceased brother's home. In fact the transfer of this property came right about the same time she switched her testimony in the second trial. Also even though the transfer was dated March 29th 2011 it was not recorded until after her damaging testimony in the then second trial on May 3rd 2011. Am I to believe that a property not yet owned by either, Barbara Scharton and Daniel Lyons would be covered in a hand written will 15 years earlier? One might think Corey Lyons defense attorney might want to know about this. And as I had mention during the second trial there once again is no media coverage for the current trial either. I have included an attachment of the above mentioned transfer document if you received this posting via email from me. Or here is a link to that document! http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/court-doc-1-lyons-property-transfer1.pdf

The Santa Barbara District Attorney's office gets a "Ruse' Conviction (In the Corey Lyons Murder Trial)


Date: 2011-12-22, 1:39PM PST
Reply to: your anonymous craigslist address will appear here


http://www.independent.com/news/2011/dec/21/da-gets-lyons-conviction-third-try/
Prosecuting attorney Ron Zonen happy the jury found Corey Lyons guilty for two counts of first degree murder and one count of burglary Dec. 21, 2011.
DA Gets Lyons Conviction on Third Try, Jury Reaches Swift Verdict By Brandon Fastman


The Santa Barbara Independent meant to say Justice was Served didn't they? Is this what is known in the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office as a "Ruse' Conviction? You want me to believe the defendants attorney requested a change of venue so as to have a jury pulled from out side of Santa Barbara. Even after Mr Lyons first two cases ended in mistrials with a vote of 7-5 in his favor? Now if that is the case Mr Lyons attorney Robert Sanger was trying to get his client convicted. Actually if you read the media stories about why the jury was pulled as it was you get two or three different versions which are all Bull Shit. Oh and don't forget the need for a gag order so as to keep us the public in the dark. I want to know what new evidence was presented to account for such a swift deliberation by the jury, which went from days to hours and from 2 mistrials to a verdict of guilty. Because of the gag Order we will never know.
How hard did the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office really work at trying to convict Corey Lyons.in the first two trials? Well based on what this juror had to say from the first trial I have a real issue with the effort and expectations of the D.A.'s office. How can one expect to convict on circumstantial evidence when in all honestly there was no real effort to gather any. I say that based on the testimony of the man whose responsibility it was to search for this evidence in the first place. Criminalist "Ullemeyer then shifted to describing to the jury how and why he processed the home's downstairs back door for fingerprints. All of the other doors and windows were locked from the inside, he explained, meaning the downstairs patio door was most likely the entrance used by the suspect or suspects. There was no indication fingerprints would have been found elsewhere, Ullemeyer said, so he didn't process any areas other than the door, its handle, and the rod -- then removed -- used to keep it from sliding open all the way. To fingerprint the entire house would have been "time prohibitive,"

Based on the efforts of the District Attorneys office the Jurors claim they just did a poor job in presenting their case, read the comments below.

http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=1215&tid=1394&art=54741

COMMENT 170522 2011-05-05 02:52 PM

"I was on the original jury for this trial and there is virtually no hard evidence to prove Corey Lyons did it. There is a Mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to him but almost no hard evidence. The thing that you have to remember in any case is that the jury is not there to say "we think so and so did it" The jury is there to decide whether the prosecution has PROVEN that so-and-so did it, and its an almost impossible job in this case" What blew me away here was the 29 comments on that web site had even though there daily email had virtually no coverage of any part of the second trial except for the verdict. http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=1215&tid=1394&art=54741

Than District Attorney Joyce Dudley was quoted as saying "justice demands that there is a retrial" . With so many county workers faced with losing there jobs is she telling there families' saving face is more important than there survival? There are equal parts to a prosecutor's responsibility and none is greater than the other. "A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign, has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant is accorded procedural justice." (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th35, 48.)

I must emphasize here that you all consider what a huge advantages the prosecution has had in both trials up to this point. The prosecution already knew after the first mistrial and the 30 days they spent presenting there case, the jury would not have convicted Corey Lyons. However based on there most recent 46 days I am hard pressed to see how there second effort was any kind of improvement. In fact in the Santa Barbara news press story yesterday juror after juror stated point blank that the prosecution did not prove their case. Prosecution 76 days Defense 0, and had Mr. Sanger used all that was available to him. I and others feel an acquittal would have been the likely out come.

So I ask District Attorney Joyce Dudley what has changed in two days after your office was defeated by the No Defense Defense, to make you feel that next time you will get an aqcuital (Magic Maybe)? You see people, that is why the absence of any accurate coverage of either trial is harmful to us all. It opens the door for a week minded person to think they can use a third try and manipulate an unjust verdict.

"Physical evidence cannot be intimidated. It does not forget. It sets there and waits to be detected, preserved, evaluated and explained." Words to live by in the future Mr. Ullemeyer. Oh that's right I found the quote on your web page @ http://ullemeyer.com/services.html than you can visit my blog @ www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2011/12/santa-barbara-police-chief-sanchez-will.html
Here is an old posting of mine dealing with the Corey Lyons trial
Third Double-Homicide Trial against Corey Lyons Expected to End in December
"Sister Colleen Lyons Zitelli testifies about a phone call she received from the suspect on the day of the shootings

According to the records I found, Barbara Scharton and Daniel Lyons both had holographic Wills. That means they are hand written, one in 1991 and the other in 1995 with no witness's required. I only mention this because I bet you all are unaware that the sister Colleen is now in possession her deceased brother's home. In fact the transfer of this property came right about the same time she switched her testimony in the second trial. Also even though the transfer was dated March 29th 2011 it was not recorded until after her damaging testimony in the then second trial on May 3rd 2011. Am I to believe that a property not yet owned by either, Barbara Scharton and Daniel Lyons would be covered in a hand written will 15 years earlier? One might think Corey Lyons defense attorney might want to know about this. And as I had mention during the second trial there once again is no media coverage for the current trial either. I have included an attachment of the above mentioned transfer document if you received this posting via email from me. Or here is a link to that document! http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/court-doc-1-lyons-property-transfer1.pdf

http://www.independent.com/news/2011/dec/21/da-gets-lyons-conviction-third-try/
Prosecuting attorney Ron Zonen happy the jury found Corey Lyons guilty for two counts of first degree murder and one count of burglary Dec. 21, 2011.

DA Gets Lyons Conviction on Third Try

Jury Reaches Swift Verdict

By Brandon Fastman
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Santa Barbara’s law enforcement community packed a courtroom today to hear the verdict in the Corey Lyons murder trial. After two mistrials, the second ending in a hung jury, the prosecution secured a stunningly swift verdict. The jury, selected in Solvang and bused in from North County every day, deliberated for only five hours. Judge Brian Hill accepted their decision only 24 hours after closing arguments ended.
Lyons was found guilty on two counts of murder with enhancements for financial gain, lying in wait, and committing multiple murders. Each enhancement makes Lyons eligible for life without parole. He was also found guilty of burglary. Sentencing is scheduled for February 7.
Police apprehended Lyons at 9 a.m. on the morning of May 4, 2009. His brother, Daniel, and Daniel’s partner, Barbara Scharton, had been shot to death in their weekend home on the Mesa at around 1:30 a.m. They lived in Fresno where Daniel worked during the week.
“Quite frankly, it’s time to end this case once and for all,” said defense attorney Robert Sanger in his closing argument. He questioned law enforcement’s investigation including their collection of evidence, the integrity of the perimeter police formed around Daniel Lyons’s home after the shootings, and their scientific exactitude in examining the gunshot residue found on Corey Lyons.

Photo Gallery

Corey Lyons Murder Trial
Prosecuting attorney Ron Zonen, who had recently retired but tried this case at the urging of District Attorney Joyce Dudley, agreed that it was time to end the trial but interpreted the substantial yet largely circumstantial evidence quite differently than Sanger. He said in his own closing that it was “arrogant” of his opponent to call the police investigation shoddy.
Zonen contended that Lyons single-handedly killed the couple with three weapons. “There is no entry in Craigslist for assassin,” he told the jury during his rebuttal in an attempt to discount the possibility of an accomplice. Scharton was shot with a shotgun and .22 caliber gun, Daniel with a shotgun and .38 caliber gun. Aside from the difficulties of finding an accomplice, Zonen argued that Lyons was well motivated.
Later on the morning of May 4, he would have had to sign over a large chunk, if not most, of his assets — $100,000 and an undeveloped piece of property along with another $150,000 within the next five years for which there would be a lien on his home — to his brother who had brought a lawsuit against him in 2008. Daniel sued Corey for a number of breaches including worker’s compensation fraud after the latter — who worked as a contractor under the name Select Construction — built a weekend home for the former.
Daniel and Corey had not talked for 15 years previously, and apparently Daniel hired Corey as a form of reconciliation. The defense contends that Daniel set Corey up.
Unlike in previous trials, however, the prosecution did not focus on motive. Instead, Zonen focused on the evidence tying Lyons to the crime, and establishing a timeline of his whereabouts during the night in question.
The prosecution also decided to go all-in on the importance of gunshot residue found on Corey, his gloves, and fanny pack. The defense argued strongly that residue particles could have been transferred to Corey from police officers, the police cruiser that transported the defendant to the station, or from the station itself. Therefore, the D.A. commissioned a study of the amount of particles present hanging around the police station on a day in which officers had been taking target practice in the basement firing range to prove that the number of particles on Corey’s hands was uncommonly high.
Corey Lyons leaves the courthouse in handcuffs July 2, 2009
Click to enlarge photo
Paul Wellman (file)
Corey Lyons leaves the courthouse in handcuffs July 2, 2009
The quick conviction was a victory for the Santa Barbara law enforcement community whose public image has taken some hits this past year. The same judge presiding over the Lyons case threw out a high-profile DUI case against investigative journalist Peter Lance, who accused his arresting officer of several improprieties including using pre-filled blood test waiver forms. The city has hired investigators to review those accusations. The police department is also facing scrutiny over the arrest of Tony Denunzio, a DUI suspect who some witnesses said was the victim of brutality. The DA did not charge Denunzio with resisting arrest or the arresting officer of using excessive force.
The large turnout of law enforcement officials for today’s verdict suggests that when Sanger demeaned the investigation of the Lyons and Scharton murders, he touched a nerve. “The police did an excellent job of working this case up and investigating it. Very good job,” said Zonen after court recessed.
For his part, Zonen says that he is re-entering retirement. What's not yet clear is whether the longtime prosecutor's retirement will be that of the cowboy walking off into the sunset after one last gunfight or that of a heavyweight boxer who makes a career of coming out of retirement.
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Santa Maria Superior Court Judge Kuns Rules Police Misconduct in Robbery Case, the use of “Ruse Affidavit” is basis for Misconduct!

 
Definition of RUSE: A ruse is an action or plan which is intended to deceive someone.

“Law enforcement cannot violate the law to enforce the law,” Santa Maria Superior Court Judge Kuns said in her opening statement.

The “Ruse Affidavit’ files used in this case can be viewed @ http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/eliz-docs-ruse-warrant.pdf

http://www.kcoy.com/story/16361987/judge-rules-police-misconduct-in-santa-maria-robbery-case#.TvE1zAfzuak.facebook
Judge Rules Police Misconduct in Santa Maria Robbery Case, the use of “Ruse Affidavit” to be basis for misconduct! Posted: Dec 20, 2011 8:45 AM PST Updated: Dec 20, 2011 8:45 AM PST
SANTA MARIA – Jesus Quevedo is an alleged Santa Maria gang member and is accused of two home invasion robberies earlier this year in April. Two detectives assigned to the Santa Maria Police Department's Gang Suppression Unit got a search warrant for Quevedo's home to collect evidence in the case against him. 
When the detectives went to Santa Barbara County Jail to show Quevedo the search warrant order signed by a judge, they also showed him what's called a "ruse affidavit" containing false information and witness accounts. A ruse affidavit is a police tactic used in criminal cases involving gang members to get confessions in order to avoid problems like witness intimidation. If no such witness even exists (Many times the witness is a fictional character so the need for a ‘Ruse’ does not even exist)
In the Quevedo ruse, the police detectives used information involving unsolved robbery cases in Santa Maria and even one in Santa Ynez. Jesus Quevedo's  y filed a motion for misconduct and the judge ruled in Quevedo's favor. 
"They included information about a legitimate victim where the victim supposedly ID'd my client, that wasn't true and so the court made a ruling that they had unnecessarily endangered members of the community, she found that to be a basis for misconduct", says Quevedo's defense attorney David Bixby, "she also found that they had brought disrepute to the judiciary by affixing a false document to one that was legitimate where a judge had actually signed the order."

"At the time the ruse was proposed to us by the police department, based on our legal analysis it was a proper ruse," says Chief Deputy District Attorney Stephen Foley, "the judge has disagreed with us and we respect the judge's decision and we will move forward.  (Maybe it is time for our Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office and Law Enforcement to start learning and practicing the Law) The courts have routinely allowed the police to use ruses and ruses are particularly effective in gang cases because they are so hard to solve."(Definition of RUSE: A ruse is an action or plan which is intended to deceive someone. By definition it seems it would be a crime if used by law enforcement and those prosecuting the case)
The judge's ruling means any evidence collected with the search warrant and ruse affidavit cannot be used in court case against Jesus Quevedo. The two Santa Maria Police Officers involved in the use of the ruse affidavit remain on duty and were not sanctioned by the court.( Why not and what is to prevent anyone from committing this crime again?) But they were admonished by the judge in her ruling for what she called skirting the law to enforce the law. A preliminary hearing for Jesus Quevedo is planned for the coming weeks. In the meantime he remains in custody at the Santa Barbara County Jail. END OF STORY
Based on the Judges actions my concerns are founded!
Several weeks ago I received a request from a reader of my blog (www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruptionblogspot.com) for some help. They felt I might be able to help expose their legal concerns about the use of a “Ruse Affidavit ‘in a Santa Maria Superior Court Criminal case. So I reviewed the forwarded file and immediately had some very serious concerns. This statement where the investigating officer admits he committed perjury in an effort to obtain what could only be considered a false conviction sent up huge red flags.

I Sergeant Cohen had previously prepared a ruse affidavit. The ruse affidavit contained details of two crimes for which the possible suspect was being investigated. “Many of the details were true, and many were fabricated”.
When confronted about using a judge's signature on a signed warrant with an untruthful Affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury, Sgt. Cohen advised David M. Bixby, attorney for the defendant, that he received his instructions to do so from the District Attorney's Office.
  After reading Officer Cohen’s statement I just cannot believe that law enforcement was unaware that they had committed perjury and with the assistance of the Santa Barbara County District attorney’s office no less. Deputy District Attorney Bramsen did not return phone calls from the Sun reporter but Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Foley confirmed Police Officer Cohen had met with Bramsen before employing the ruse.“Our office was consulted by the police department on this particular ruse,” Foley said. “The police did in fact say, ‘Would this be a legal ruse?’ and [Bramsen] researched it and felt, based on her legal research, it was a legal ruse.”
In order to make my point about how utterly ridiculous the idea of a ‘Ruse Affidavit’ is or that it could even exist. I Googled the term in hopes of finding a definition, none was found. However I was able to find separate definitions for Ruse and Affidavit;

Definition of RUSE: A ruse is an action or plan which is intended to deceive someone.
Definition of AFFIDAVIT: A sworn statement in writing made especially under oath or on affirmation before an authorized magistrate or officer that the information before him is true and verifiable.
Now here is my attempt to define the term ‘Ruse affidavit’ based on how it is being used in the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office;

Definition of RUSE AFFIDAVIT:  obtaining a judicial signature with a fabricated sworn statement included as part of the affidavit. The only purpose of this act is to induce statements from a suspect under investigation, by presenting these known false statements and or facts as true.

In closing even presiding Judge Kuns knows that “Law enforcement cannot violate the law to enforce the law,” as reflected in her opening statement. So what happens next, are charges going to be filed against the attorneys from the District Attorney’s office with the California State Bar?  As well as against the police who committed perjury when they used the “Ruse Affidavit’ in their efforts to obtain a false conviction.

Sometimes all we really need is a little common sense!


Below is a copy of the Santa Maria Sun story that appeared last week.  
http://www.santamariasun.com/cover/7541/walking-the-line/

Walking the line

Legal questions arise in interrogation tactics used on suspected gang members

BY JEREMY THOMAS

Dressed in a light blue jumpsuit, Frank Godinez is led into the Inmate Reception Center at Santa Barbara County Jail. Once locked inside, he turns around, stoops low enough for the guard to remove his handcuffs through a slot in the door, and approaches the jailhouse phone. Brow furrowed, his voice carries tinges of anger and desperation.
“I’m getting railroaded,” he says through the receiver. “I’m getting crucified for something I didn’t do, and the tactics the Gang Task Force is using to build a case against me are unethical.”
Godinez, who police say is a Northwest gang member, has been behind bars since March 13, following his arrest on a parole violation and his suspected role in the stabbing of a Tulare man at a Santa Maria motel, for which he was subsequently charged with attempted murder.
On Nov. 3, while still incarcerated, Godinez was also charged in connection with the cold case murder of Michael Christie, who was killed by a single gunshot wound outside a Santa Maria apartment complex in December 2005. Santa Maria police had tagged Godinez as the prime suspect at the time of the murder, but didn’t have enough evidence to charge him with the crime.
However, in April, the Santa Maria Police Department’s Gang Task Force, working in concert with the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office, obtained “newly acquired information” on the case—specifically, sources say, an audio recording police have interpreted as a confession.
Godinez, who has a protective court order barring him from personally accessing discovery in his case, claims he had nothing to do with the murder, and contends law enforcement violated his rights in the method used to obtain the new information. Godinez says—and anonymous sources close to the case confirm—it came through the use of a little-known and legally questionable police tactic known as a “ruse affidavit.”
“They attached a false affidavit to a search warrant under penalty of perjury and gave it to me,” Godinez said. “They’re using this fake affidavit against me and trying to pass it off as being true in a court of law. They’re trying to get me to admit to something I didn’t do.”
Unbeknownst to Godinez at the time, his cellmate, whom he’d known for years, was actually a wired informant who tried to get him to talk about the fabricated information in the affidavit for several hours. The ruse lists several real names as well as false details, including Godinez bragging about committing the murder, eyewitnesses at the scene positively identifying Godinez as the shooter, a 22-caliber handgun traced to Godinez, and a declaration by Christie after he’d been shot, uttering the name “Frank” with his dying breaths.
“It was all made up,” Godinez says. “They’re trying to say I’m a hardcore gang member or whatever. They’re saying I’m one of the top dogs, but it’s all a bunch of lies. … Basically they’re using these guys as their little decoys, and if I’m this hardcore gang member, you’re putting their lives in danger over fake paperwork.”
Given Godinez’s history as a multiple felon, it would’ve been easy to dismiss his claims as the last-ditch fantasies of a man facing the rest of his life behind bars—if not for the fact there are others sharing similar stories. One by one, the Sun received calls from inmates over a period of nearly two months, each claiming they had been similarly handed false paperwork, passed off as legitimate court documents.
If it all seems fantastic, think again. In at least one of the cases, it’s proven to have occurred.
The case of Jesus Quevedo
In October, the Sun received a letter from a Santa Maria man named Jesus Quevedo, who wrote from county jail. An alleged West Park gang member already being held on two charges of home invasion robberies, Quevedo expressed outrage with the tactics used on him by the SMPD’s Gang Task Force.
“While I was already in custody on an unrelated charge, Detective Sgt. Daniel Cohen of the SMPD presented an affidavit to the Honorable Judge Jed Beebe so that he could issue a search warrant for my residence,” Quevedo wrote. “Judge Beebe granted the warrant in good faith. Sgt. Daniel Cohen detached the original affidavit and attached a ruse affidavit.”
To qualify as valid, search warrants must be signed by both a judge and a police officer; the officer signing as a sworn affiant to the basis for the search warrant request under penalty of perjury. In Quevedo’s view, the officer had broken the law.
“These people need to be exposed,” Quevedo continued. “This is a true injustice.”
Police reports obtained by the Sun verified Quevedo’s claims, showing SMPD Gang Task Force officers had indeed presented Quevedo with a search warrant issued by Judge Beebe on April 15, with a false document included.
“I had previously prepared a ruse affidavit,” Cohen wrote in his report in Quevedo’s case. “The ruse affidavit contained details of two crimes for which Quevedo was being investigated. Many of the details were true, and many were fabricated.”
The ruse highlights several actual unsolved robberies, including a home invasion in Santa Ynez, where an eyewitness describes a man matching Quevedo’s characteristics fleeing the scene. A mugshot of a smiling Quevedo is circled with a “100%” marked over his name, indicating the victim of the invasion also had positively identified Quevedo as the robber.
Other fabrications include an anonymous neighbor seeing a car matching Quevedo’s parked outside the scene of one of the robberies, as well as statements from confidential citizens alleging Quevedo’s strong ties to the Mexican Mafia.
In the report, Cohen goes on to say he attached a copy of the false affidavit to the face pages of the search warrant signed by Judge Beebe, which he and SMPD Det. Michael Parker then handed over to Quevedo in his holding cell on April 18.
An informant wired for audio—the same one used in Godinez’s case—was then sent in to speak with Quevedo regarding the information in the ruse. However, convinced his cell was wired, Quevedo wasn’t talking, and the officers reported nothing of value from the encounter. In the report, Cohen states that he returned to Quevedo’s cell and took the paperwork back, telling Quevedo he’d been given it in error.
Quevedo’s lawyer, David Bixby, contends that Cohen’s actions were criminal violations of Penal Code 118—a state perjury law making the use of a false court document a felony—as well as a section in the government code making the falsifying or altering of court documents a felony. Bixby said when he confronted task force officers regarding the ruse, they responded that they’d taken their orders from the District Attorney’s Office.
 In September, Bixby filed a motion for prosecutorial misconduct in Quevedo’s case and requested that the court disallow any evidence gained through the use of the affidavit, as well as further sanctions to “send a resounding warning to the over-zealous prosecution.”
“What happened is just flat wrong,” Bixby wrote in the motion. “It is disheartening to see that the District Attorney’s Office is submerging this misconduct in a pool of argument that continuously side-steps the question of why management in the prosecutor’s office would not only sanction, but abet, this kind of behavior.”
In a written opposition to the motion, the DA argued there was nothing improper about the use of the ruse affidavit in Quevedo’s case, because prosecutors and police never intended the document to be used in court, either to obtain a search warrant or to coerce a false confession.
When questioned by the court regarding the motion, Sgt. Cohen testified he’d approached Deputy District Attorney Ann Bramsen for her advice on the legality of the ruse affidavit. Bramsen testified she’d never seen or read the affidavit and couldn’t recall exactly what advice she’d given the officers.
Asked to comment, the Santa Maria Police Department referred all questions regarding Quevedo’s case—and the ruse tactic in general—to Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Foley and Deputy District Attorney Bramsen. Bramsen did not return phone calls from the Sun, though Foley confirmed Cohen had met with Bramsen before employing the ruse.
“Our office was consulted by the police department on this particular ruse,” Foley said. “The police did in fact say, ‘Would this be a legal ruse?’ and [Bramsen] researched it and felt, based on her legal research, it was a legal ruse.”
The DA’s office argues the officers were only given conceptual approval on the ruse affidavit and not a “green light” to actually implement it.
“We don’t tell [police] what to do,” Foley told the Sun. “What we do is tell them whether it would lead to admissible evidence or not, and it’s done in a general way. It’s not like the police say, ‘We want to do this on this case; give us the OK.’”
Foley added that courts have routinely validated police use of ruses, which are especially important in gang crimes because of the heightened threat of witness intimidation. Foley further explained the basis for the DA’s opposition to the misconduct motion.
“The ruse was never something submitted to a judge,” Foley said. “It was a true search warrant. The only thing that was a ruse was something created by the police officer. Based on our research, we had a good-faith belief that was a legal ruse.
“Our aim is to hold those accountable who commit crime, and that includes violent crime committed by gang members,” Foley added. “Here at the District Attorney’s Office, we are dedicated to doing justice and being ethical, and we will continue to ethically prosecute crimes.”
On Dec. 5, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Kay Kuns ruled on Bixby’s motion, announcing that while the court found the ruse didn’t constitute perjury because there was no intent on behalf of the police or prosecution to publish or use the false document in court, it “skirted the boundaries” of legality.
“Law enforcement cannot violate the law to enforce the law,” Kuns said in her opening statement.
“Did law enforcement violate the law?” she concluded. “I can’t say they did. However, they came very close to doing so, especially on the falsifying charge.”
With several Santa Maria police officers—including Mark Streker and Parker—looking on in the courtroom, Kuns then ruled there had been misconduct on the part of the prosecution and police in two areas. Firstly, the use of the ruse had endangered the safety of citizens in the community, Kuns ruled. Putting false information in the hands of defendants, she said, placed victims at greater risk of being further victimized and resulted in a “heightened sense of jeopardy and danger” in both victims and witnesses.
Kuns also found misconduct in a second area, ruling that by using an actual court order made to appear as if the court officially sanctioned it, the DA and police undermined public confidence in the court system.
“To the extent that this particular ruse in this court’s mind did erode integrity in the court and its orders, and gave the appearance the court is somehow collaborating with law enforcement in the ruse, this type of conduct cannot be tolerated, and the court finds it to be misconduct,” Kuns declared.
While the judge stopped short of issuing any sanctions against Cohen, Parker, or the DA’s office, she ruled all evidence obtained through the use of the ruse affidavit would be inadmissible in Quevedo’s case.
“The police can do a lot of things,” she said. “But when they use a false affidavit, intending for it to be believed as true, with the judiciary’s signature, that conduct cannot be tolerated.”
Is it legal?
David Bixby, Quevedo’s attorney, had mixed feelings about Kuns’ decision. While he applauded the judge’s findings of misconduct, he felt the ruling could have gone further.
“I respectfully disagree that the court did not make a finding that [police] specifically committed crimes, because I think they did,” Bixby told the Sun. “The bottom line is … they knew they were incorporating false information in those documents. I don’t see where just because you’re a police officer out to get crooks gives you the right to violate a statute.”
Bixby said the use of the tactic, in addition to being legally questionable, has given gang members more incentive to commit violence against law enforcement, jail guards, and the community.
“As far as I’m concerned, they still don’t get it,” Bixby said. “I’m going to bring this to the proper authorities to make sure they understand they can’t be acting like this.”
When asked to comment, Foley said the DA’s office is considering Kuns’ ruling and has had discussions with police about how to move forward.
“Certainly the judge disagreed with our legal analysis,” Foley said. “We disagree with her interpretation of the law, but we definitely respect the decision of the judge.”
With the apparent legal gray area surrounding the use of false affidavits, the Sun sought outside experts in proprietorial methods to comment on the matter.
Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor, said while police are allowed to use ruses to interrogate suspects, involving the court in the ruse, as happened in Quevedo’s case, went too far.
“It’s troubling,” Levenson said. “Personally, I think this crosses the line, because you’re taking a court document and altering it. That has the stamp of the court on it, and I think that involves the court in the deception. That’s where I think it’s problematic, and I think many judges would agree.”
With no case law to fall back on, Levenson said prosecutors didn’t necessarily break the law. However, she said she would never have personally done it, and never saw it done in all her years as a U.S. attorney.
“There are all sorts of ruses I’ll admit we would use, but switching out court documents or altering court documents, I would not have done,” she said. “I would be worried about giving [police] a green light to make up any facts they want and putting them on what appears to be a legal document, and then letting everybody else suffer the fallout.”
Even if the tactic isn’t illegal, Levenson said, it doesn’t mean it’s an appropriate method of prosecution, regardless of whether or not the documents were intended to be used in court. She added she felt Kuns made the right ruling in disallowing evidence obtained using the ruse against Quevedo.
“You don’t get to profit from your bad behavior,” Levenson said. “They may need to rethink their strategy.”
The Sun also contacted the Los Angeles County DA’s office to weigh in on the tactic. A spokesman for the office said it’s not their practice to comment on the tactics of other law enforcement agencies, but appeared surprised by the inclusion of false court documents in the process.
Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the state Attorney General’s office, told the Sun the office was “unaware” of such a ruse tactic, but declined further comment.
The Southern California American Civil Liberties Union’s senior staff attorney Peter Bibring also weighed in from Los Angeles.
“Deliberately creating false court documents undermines the integrity of the courts and our justice system, and is not something police or prosecutors should be doing,” Bibring said.
More importantly, he added, “Police and prosecutors who falsely identify people as witnesses against a suspected violent criminal put those people in danger, likely in violation of not only the Constitution but also their basic duty to protect the public. An officer who deliberately put members of the public in danger to solve a case will likely be held responsible by courts for any harm that results.”
 It remains to be seen what impact Kuns’ ruling will have on other defendants who claim to have had ruse affidavits used on them for interrogation purposes.
Godinez, who appears likely to be the most affected, is scheduled back in court on Dec. 15 for a hearing in front of Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Edward Bullard, whose signature appears on the original search warrant issued in his case.
Godinez’s lawyer, Brad Cornelius, said he’s planning to file a motion similar to Bixby’s, and Godinez himself believes Kuns’ ruling could open the door for his murder charge to be dropped.
“I’m not going to let them bulldoze me in court,” Godinez said. “I’d like the truth to come out and go back home with my family.”
Staff Writer Jeremy Thomas can be contacted at jthomas@santamariasun.com.
The “Ruse Affidavit’ case files used in the Santa Maria Robbery case can be viewed @ http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/eliz-docs-ruse-warrant.pdf
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Litos Restaurant of Santa Barbara will be featured on the Food Networks 'Diners Drive-Ins and Dives' hosted by Guy Fieri

 Lito's Restaurant of Santa Barbara will be featured on the Food Networks 'Diners Drive-Ins and Dives'.
MON. DEC. 26 @ 10PM, TUES. DEC 27 @ 1AM, & FRI. JAN. 6, 2012 @ 9PM. Which of course is hosted by Guy Fieri .



Congratulations to Ernie the Jimenez Family,The Lito's crew and Smiley!

Your friend

Larry 'Magic' Mendoza
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Saturday, December 17, 2011

The Santa Barbara Grand Jury to review my research into fraud and corruption with the S.B.C.E.R.S. Pension Fund

 Gentlemen I forgot to mention that I recently received a letter from the Santa Barbara Grand Jury. In it the letter the Grand Jury acknowledged having received my correspondence dated 12/03/11 and that it would be brought before the full Jury. I just thought I would share that. And yes it is about my pension research.





















Larry
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

We need a better understanding of of both past and present Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System (S.B.C.E.R.S.) reported Pension Values. I have researched this issue for two years now and my findings differ from Santa Barbara elected officials by almost 2 BILLION DOLLARS!



If you want to better understand the current SBCERS pension crisis you have to know where to look and what you are looking at.Santa Barbara County has attempted to deal with the PENSIONS unfunded liability for the past 24 years by contributing an additional 55% (yearly average) above the required normal level. While at the same time the pension now reports earning an outstanding 8.5% yearly compound return on investments for the same time period. The current pension deficit values just do not seem possible based on those two factors alone, but wait I have more. 


To verify the 8.5% 24 year compound average returns on investments go to the 2011 Valuation report @ http://sbcers-trustee.com/Documents/2011-10-26-002b-BOR-ActuarialValuationJune30,2011.pdf  And review the SBCERS Pensions 24 year Compound Investment Return average found on page 26. I wonder why that data was not included in the just released 2011 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 which you can find @  http://sbcers-trustee.com/Documents/2011-12-14-013c-BOR-2011CAFR.pdf


http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/SBC/RPAAC/C%20-%20Employer-Employee%20History%20of%20Costs.pdf Page five of this report represents the Employer Cost History for the SBCERS Pension paid by the County. This pension cost history document was created and used in 2009. Based on the contribution levels claimed under the “Normal’ and ‘Unfunded’ levels in this document, I was able to determine that Santa Barbara County has been contributing above the normal rate by a 24 yearly average of 55%. This document also gives past funding and unfunded levels starting with December 31st 1986. Based on other documents I am about to share with you we cannot trust the reported values in this 2009 History of Cost report.


I was able to find on Wall Street and verified through our State Controller’s archived audits. That Santa Barbara County elected officials originally reported to both that the SBCERS pension was at least 100% funded in 1986 and 1991. So if the SBCERS pension fund was a 100% funded in either of those years we now have a few serious problems. As you can clearly see in this document taken from a 1991 bond offering by Santa Barbara County the values being reported differ greatly from the 2009 cost history above for 12/86 and 12/88. http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/92bondmarketsbcountyfullyfundedpension.png
The next issue that has been created because of my irrefutable findings is again with the values being reported in the 2009 Employer Pension Cost History. This chart reports funding ratios that drastically differ from those found in the State Controllers archived reports. The 2009 history of cost chart shows that on 12/31/86 our SBCERS pension was only 67.10% funded yet the archived State Controllers Audit shows the fund to be 102% funded. The 2009 report claims the pension was only 67.20% funded on 12/88 while the archived Controllers Audit for shows a 91.00% funded value. Again we have another huge discrepancy between the two sources for 12/31/90. The 2009 document shows a 61.40% funded vs. the Controllers reported 82.9% level.
Please keep in mind that regardless of the differences in values and funded levels the same source provided all the different figures, our Santa Barbara County Elected Officials.
 The change in values clearly occurred between 1995/96 and 1996/97. Review this 1995/96 State Controllers report found @ http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1995-962.pdf . All the data in it matches the higher values found with the State Controller and Wall Street. However just one year later again in State Controllers report @ . http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1996-971.pdf . The SBCERS pension values now magically match with this 2009 history of cost document. http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/SBC/RPAAC/C%20-%20Employer-Employee%20History%20of%20Costs.pdf . So why was the pension values and funded levels retroactively altered and by whom?


If you take the time to review the documents and follow along with my concerns in order I am sure you will come to have the same concerns as I. In review I am questioning how If you start with a 100% fully funded pension value. Then you contribute yearly 155% of the normal required contribution rate. While earning an outstanding 8.5% compounded yearly return on investments  How can the SBCERS Pension be anything but currently fully funded and with a huge reserve. . IT IS JUST NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THE PENSION TO BE ANYTHING ELSE!




S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Legal questions arise with interrogation tactics used on suspected gang members by our Santa Barbara County Law Enforcement and Distinct Attorneys Office.

 I was contacted by a reporter from the Santa Maria Sun News Paper recently because I challenged the Constitutionality of a "Ruse Affidavit" on my blog. Someone familiar with the defendants in this story came to me asking for help.
Here are some files that I have that pertain to this incredible story, including the original two versions that I altered in this previous posting. In the posting below I also give the exact page location of the two referenced passages. Please review and share these passages with everyone. I was sent these files by a very concerned citizen!
Last week I spoke with a reporter from the Santa Maria Sun Newspaper about the following passage he found on my blog."I just cannot believe the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office or County Law Enforcement. Here is a clear act of conspiracy by those for mentioned with what I am about to share. This case is far too hot and I will say dangerous for me to get involved with. But it does have relevancy in regards to the fact that the SB D.A. and Law Enforcement are willing to commit crimes , sign phony documents, commit perjury, in order to pick and chose who the punish with criminal offenses. The next passage was taken from the bottom of page 8 of the attachment.(not shared on my blog) Where a County law enforcement officer admits to perjury in order to obtain a false conviction.

I Sergeant X. XXXXN #xxx58 had previously prepared a ruse affidavit. The ruse affidavit contained details of Two crimes for which XXXXXXO was being investigated. Many of the details were true, and many were fabricated. The ruse affidavit contained details regarding the robbery that occurred in Santa XXXXXX, as well as a home invasion robbery involving XXXXX XXXXX.

This passage was taken from page three of the attachment lines 17,18, and 19. When confronted about using a judge's signature on a signed warrant with an untruthful affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury, Sgt. Xxxxxn advised X, attorney for the defendant, that he received his instructions to do so from the 'District Attorney's Office"



2 comments:

http://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif
Well Written. totally absorbed in reading this is amazing.
http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif

Magic said...
I was contacted by a reporter from the Santa Maria Sun News Paper recently because I challenged the Constitutionality of a "Ruse Affidavit" on my blog. Someone familiar with the defendants in this story came to me asking for help. The actions by the investigating officers as well as the prosecutors in this story are disgraceful. “Law enforcement cannot violate the law to enforce the law,” Santa Maria Superior Court judge Kuns said in her opening statement. So what is the public to think when the former acting District Attorney Ann Bramsen appears to be covering up the actions described in this story? Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the State Attorney General’s office, told the Sun the office was “unaware” of such a ruse tactic, but declined further comment. So what is the public to think about the Attorney Generals reluctance in dealing with this highly alarming situation? The Southern California American Civil Liberties Union’s senior staff attorney Peter Bibring also weighed in from Los Angeles. “Deliberately creating false court documents undermines the integrity of the courts and our justice system, and is not something police or prosecutors should be doing,” Bibring said. More importantly, he added, “Police and prosecutors who falsely identify people as witnesses against a suspected violent criminal put those people in danger, likely in violation of not only the Constitution but also their basic duty to protect the public. An officer who deliberately put members of the public in danger to solve a case will likely be held responsible by courts for any harm that results.” The reporter obviously had a lot to consider here and I agree with the ACLU’S public safety issue, but I have another equally important concerns. Since there was no real witness for the investigating law enforcement or Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office to call on. They obviously never intended to try this case before a jury and here is why. “The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.[1] The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings”. This information was found @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause I close with this; how can the defense prepare to defend their client against a nonexistent witnesses or facts? The use and then pulling of the “Ruse Documents” seems to be without question, both illegal and Unconstitutional. The Men and Women in our military give their lives daily to assure us that our Constitution cannot and will not be abused by anyone under any circumstances. Because of this we all should be able to take comfort in knowing our way of life is preserved. That is unless you live in, are charged in, and finally prosecuted in Santa Barbara County California. WE HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTY AND ALL THE LANDS IT COVERS.

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Today's Santa Maria Sun NP story;Legal questions arise with interrogation tactics used on suspected gang members by our Santa Barbara County Law Enforcement and Distinct Attorneys Office

Last week I spoke with a reporter from the Santa Maria Sun Newspaper about the following passage he found on my blog."I just cannot believe the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office or County Law Enforcement. Here is a clear act of conspiracy by those fore mentioned with what I am about to share. This case is far to hot and I will say dangerous for me to get involved with. But it does have relevancy in regards to the fact that the SB D.A. and Law Enforcement are willing to commit crimes , sign phony documents, commit perjury,  in order to pick and chose who the punish with criminal offenses. The next passage was taken from the bottom of page 8 of the attachment.(not shared on my blog) Where a County law enforcement officer admits to perjury in order to obtain a false conviction.

I Sergeant X. XXXXN #xxx58 had previously prepared a ruse affidavit. The ruse affidavit contained details of Two crimes for which XXXXXXO was being investigated. Many of the details were true, and many were fabricated. The ruse affidavit contained details regarding the robbery that occurred in Santa XXXXXX, as well as a home invasion robbery involving XXXXX XXXXX.

This passage was taken from page three of the attachment lines 17,18, and 19. When confronted about using a judge's signature on a signed warrant with an untruthful affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury, Sgt. Xxxxxn advised X, attorney forthe defendant, that he received his instructions to do so from the 'District Attorney's Office"

Now many of you who receive my emails have already received a copy of these files that the above passages were pulled from. You can be sure theses attached files need to be investigated further.
http://www.santamariasun.com/cover/7541/walking-the-line/

Walking the line

Legal questions arise in interrogation tactics used on suspected gang members

BY JEREMY THOMAS



Dressed in a light blue jumpsuit, Frank Godinez is led into the Inmate Reception Center at Santa Barbara County Jail. Once locked inside, he turns around, stoops low enough for the guard to remove his handcuffs through a slot in the door, and approaches the jailhouse phone. Brow furrowed, his voice carries tinges of anger and desperation.
“I’m getting railroaded,” he says through the receiver. “I’m getting crucified for something I didn’t do, and the tactics the Gang Task Force is using to build a case against me are unethical.”

‘I had nothing to do with it’:
Nearly six years after it happened, the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office charged Frank Godinez, 31, in connection with the shooting death of Michael Christie after “newly acquired information” surfaced in April.
PHOTO COURTESY OF SANTA MARIA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Godinez, who police say is a Northwest gang member, has been behind bars since March 13, following his arrest on a parole violation and his suspected role in the stabbing of a Tulare man at a Santa Maria motel, for which he was subsequently charged with attempted murder.
On Nov. 3, while still incarcerated, Godinez was also charged in connection with the cold case murder of Michael Christie, who was killed by a single gunshot wound outside a Santa Maria apartment complex in December 2005. Santa Maria police had tagged Godinez as the prime suspect at the time of the murder, but didn’t have enough evidence to charge him with the crime.
However, in April, the Santa Maria Police Department’s Gang Task Force, working in concert with the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office, obtained “newly acquired information” on the case—specifically, sources say, an audio recording police have interpreted as a confession.
Godinez, who has a protective court order barring him from personally accessing discovery in his case, claims he had nothing to do with the murder, and contends law enforcement violated his rights in the method used to obtain the new information. Godinez says—and anonymous sources close to the case confirm—it came through the use of a little-known and legally questionable police tactic known as a “ruse affidavit.”
“They attached a false affidavit to a search warrant under penalty of perjury and gave it to me,” Godinez said. “They’re using this fake affidavit against me and trying to pass it off as being true in a court of law. They’re trying to get me to admit to something I didn’t do.”
Unbeknownst to Godinez at the time, his cellmate, whom he’d known for years, was actually a wired informant who tried to get him to talk about the fabricated information in the affidavit for several hours. The ruse lists several real names as well as false details, including Godinez bragging about committing the murder, eyewitnesses at the scene positively identifying Godinez as the shooter, a 22-caliber handgun traced to Godinez, and a declaration by Christie after he’d been shot, uttering the name “Frank” with his dying breaths.
“It was all made up,” Godinez says. “They’re trying to say I’m a hardcore gang member or whatever. They’re saying I’m one of the top dogs, but it’s all a bunch of lies. … Basically they’re using these guys as their little decoys, and if I’m this hardcore gang member, you’re putting their lives in danger over fake paperwork.”
Given Godinez’s history as a multiple felon, it would’ve been easy to dismiss his claims as the last-ditch fantasies of a man facing the rest of his life behind bars—if not for the fact there are others sharing similar stories. One by one, the Sun received calls from inmates over a period of nearly two months, each claiming they had been similarly handed false paperwork, passed off as legitimate court documents.
If it all seems fantastic, think again. In at least one of the cases, it’s proven to have occurred.
The case of Jesus Quevedo
In October, the Sun received a letter from a Santa Maria man named Jesus Quevedo, who wrote from county jail. An alleged West Park gang member already being held on two charges of home invasion robberies, Quevedo expressed outrage with the tactics used on him by the SMPD’s Gang Task Force.
“While I was already in custody on an unrelated charge, Detective Sgt. Daniel Cohen of the SMPD presented an affidavit to the Honorable Judge Jed Beebe so that he could issue a search warrant for my residence,” Quevedo wrote. “Judge Beebe granted the warrant in good faith. Sgt. Daniel Cohen detached the original affidavit and attached a ruse affidavit.”
To qualify as valid, search warrants must be signed by both a judge and a police officer; the officer signing as a sworn affiant to the basis for the search warrant request under penalty of perjury. In Quevedo’s view, the officer had broken the law.
“These people need to be exposed,” Quevedo continued. “This is a true injustice.”
Police reports obtained by the Sun verified Quevedo’s claims, showing SMPD Gang Task Force officers had indeed presented Quevedo with a search warrant issued by Judge Beebe on April 15, with a false document included.
“I had previously prepared a ruse affidavit,” Cohen wrote in his report in Quevedo’s case. “The ruse affidavit contained details of two crimes for which Quevedo was being investigated. Many of the details were true, and many were fabricated.”
The ruse highlights several actual unsolved robberies, including a home invasion in Santa Ynez, where an eyewitness describes a man matching Quevedo’s characteristics fleeing the scene. A mugshot of a smiling Quevedo is circled with a “100%” marked over his name, indicating the victim of the invasion also had positively identified Quevedo as the robber.
Other fabrications include an anonymous neighbor seeing a car matching Quevedo’s parked outside the scene of one of the robberies, as well as statements from confidential citizens alleging Quevedo’s strong ties to the Mexican Mafia.

‘THIS IS A TRUE INJUSTICE’:
While in custody on unrelated charges, Jesus Quevedo, suspected of committing several home invasion robberies, was presented with a “ruse affidavit” by Santa Maria Gang Task Force detectives in the presence of a wired informant. The affidavit was under the face sheet of a valid search warrant for his home, signed by a judge, and contained false information from witnesses identifying him as the robber.
PHOTO COURTESY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL
In the report, Cohen goes on to say he attached a copy of the false affidavit to the face pages of the search warrant signed by Judge Beebe, which he and SMPD Det. Michael Parker then handed over to Quevedo in his holding cell on April 18.
An informant wired for audio—the same one used in Godinez’s case—was then sent in to speak with Quevedo regarding the information in the ruse. However, convinced his cell was wired, Quevedo wasn’t talking, and the officers reported nothing of value from the encounter. In the report, Cohen states that he returned to Quevedo’s cell and took the paperwork back, telling Quevedo he’d been given it in error.
Quevedo’s lawyer, David Bixby, contends that Cohen’s actions were criminal violations of Penal Code 118—a state perjury law making the use of a false court document a felony—as well as a section in the government code making the falsifying or altering of court documents a felony. Bixby said when he confronted task force officers regarding the ruse, they responded that they’d taken their orders from the District Attorney’s Office.
 In September, Bixby filed a motion for prosecutorial misconduct in Quevedo’s case and requested that the court disallow any evidence gained through the use of the affidavit, as well as further sanctions to “send a resounding warning to the over-zealous prosecution.”
“What happened is just flat wrong,” Bixby wrote in the motion. “It is disheartening to see that the District Attorney’s Office is submerging this misconduct in a pool of argument that continuously side-steps the question of why management in the prosecutor’s office would not only sanction, but abet, this kind of behavior.”
In a written opposition to the motion, the DA argued there was nothing improper about the use of the ruse affidavit in Quevedo’s case, because prosecutors and police never intended the document to be used in court, either to obtain a search warrant or to coerce a false confession.
When questioned by the court regarding the motion, Sgt. Cohen testified he’d approached Deputy District Attorney Ann Bramsen for her advice on the legality of the ruse affidavit. Bramsen testified she’d never seen or read the affidavit and couldn’t recall exactly what advice she’d given the officers.
Asked to comment, the Santa Maria Police Department referred all questions regarding Quevedo’s case—and the ruse tactic in general—to Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Foley and Deputy District Attorney Bramsen. Bramsen did not return phone calls from the Sun, though Foley confirmed Cohen had met with Bramsen before employing the ruse.
“Our office was consulted by the police department on this particular ruse,” Foley said. “The police did in fact say, ‘Would this be a legal ruse?’ and [Bramsen] researched it and felt, based on her legal research, it was a legal ruse.”
The DA’s office argues the officers were only given conceptual approval on the ruse affidavit and not a “green light” to actually implement it.
“We don’t tell [police] what to do,” Foley told the Sun. “What we do is tell them whether it would lead to admissible evidence or not, and it’s done in a general way. It’s not like the police say, ‘We want to do this on this case; give us the OK.’”
Foley added that courts have routinely validated police use of ruses, which are especially important in gang crimes because of the heightened threat of witness intimidation. Foley further explained the basis for the DA’s opposition to the misconduct motion.
“The ruse was never something submitted to a judge,” Foley said. “It was a true search warrant. The only thing that was a ruse was something created by the police officer. Based on our research, we had a good-faith belief that was a legal ruse.
“Our aim is to hold those accountable who commit crime, and that includes violent crime committed by gang members,” Foley added. “Here at the District Attorney’s Office, we are dedicated to doing justice and being ethical, and we will continue to ethically prosecute crimes.”
On Dec. 5, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Kay Kuns ruled on Bixby’s motion, announcing that while the court found the ruse didn’t constitute perjury because there was no intent on behalf of the police or prosecution to publish or use the false document in court, it “skirted the boundaries” of legality.
“Law enforcement cannot violate the law to enforce the law,” Kuns said in her opening statement.
“Did law enforcement violate the law?” she concluded. “I can’t say they did. However, they came very close to doing so, especially on the falsifying charge.”
With several Santa Maria police officers—including Mark Streker and Parker—looking on in the courtroom, Kuns then ruled there had been misconduct on the part of the prosecution and police in two areas. Firstly, the use of the ruse had endangered the safety of citizens in the community, Kuns ruled. Putting false information in the hands of defendants, she said, placed victims at greater risk of being further victimized and resulted in a “heightened sense of jeopardy and danger” in both victims and witnesses.
Kuns also found misconduct in a second area, ruling that by using an actual court order made to appear as if the court officially sanctioned it, the DA and police undermined public confidence in the court system.
“To the extent that this particular ruse in this court’s mind did erode integrity in the court and its orders, and gave the appearance the court is somehow collaborating with law enforcement in the ruse, this type of conduct cannot be tolerated, and the court finds it to be misconduct,” Kuns declared.
While the judge stopped short of issuing any sanctions against Cohen, Parker, or the DA’s office, she ruled all evidence obtained through the use of the ruse affidavit would be inadmissible in Quevedo’s case.
“The police can do a lot of things,” she said. “But when they use a false affidavit, intending for it to be believed as true, with the judiciary’s signature, that conduct cannot be tolerated.”
Is it legal?
David Bixby, Quevedo’s attorney, had mixed feelings about Kuns’ decision. While he applauded the judge’s findings of misconduct, he felt the ruling could have gone further.
“I respectfully disagree that the court did not make a finding that [police] specifically committed crimes, because I think they did,” Bixby told the Sun. “The bottom line is … they knew they were incorporating false information in those documents. I don’t see where just because you’re a police officer out to get crooks gives you the right to violate a statute.”
Bixby said the use of the tactic, in addition to being legally questionable, has given gang members more incentive to commit violence against law enforcement, jail guards, and the community.
“As far as I’m concerned, they still don’t get it,” Bixby said. “I’m going to bring this to the proper authorities to make sure they understand they can’t be acting like this.”
When asked to comment, Foley said the DA’s office is considering Kuns’ ruling and has had discussions with police about how to move forward.
“Certainly the judge disagreed with our legal analysis,” Foley said. “We disagree with her interpretation of the law, but we definitely respect the decision of the judge.”
With the apparent legal gray area surrounding the use of false affidavits, the Sun sought outside experts in proprietorial methods to comment on the matter.
Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor, said while police are allowed to use ruses to interrogate suspects, involving the court in the ruse, as happened in Quevedo’s case, went too far.
“It’s troubling,” Levenson said. “Personally, I think this crosses the line, because you’re taking a court document and altering it. That has the stamp of the court on it, and I think that involves the court in the deception. That’s where I think it’s problematic, and I think many judges would agree.”
With no case law to fall back on, Levenson said prosecutors didn’t necessarily break the law. However, she said she would never have personally done it, and never saw it done in all her years as a U.S. attorney.
“There are all sorts of ruses I’ll admit we would use, but switching out court documents or altering court documents, I would not have done,” she said. “I would be worried about giving [police] a green light to make up any facts they want and putting them on what appears to be a legal document, and then letting everybody else suffer the fallout.”
Even if the tactic isn’t illegal, Levenson said, it doesn’t mean it’s an appropriate method of prosecution, regardless of whether or not the documents were intended to be used in court. She added she felt Kuns made the right ruling in disallowing evidence obtained using the ruse against Quevedo.
“You don’t get to profit from your bad behavior,” Levenson said. “They may need to rethink their strategy.”
The Sun also contacted the Los Angeles County DA’s office to weigh in on the tactic. A spokesman for the office said it’s not their practice to comment on the tactics of other law enforcement agencies, but appeared surprised by the inclusion of false court documents in the process.
Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the state Attorney General’s office, told the Sun the office was “unaware” of such a ruse tactic, but declined further comment.
The Southern California American Civil Liberties Union’s senior staff attorney Peter Bibring also weighed in from Los Angeles.
“Deliberately creating false court documents undermines the integrity of the courts and our justice system, and is not something police or prosecutors should be doing,” Bibring said.
More importantly, he added, “Police and prosecutors who falsely identify people as witnesses against a suspected violent criminal put those people in danger, likely in violation of not only the Constitution but also their basic duty to protect the public. An officer who deliberately put members of the public in danger to solve a case will likely be held responsible by courts for any harm that results.”
 It remains to be seen what impact Kuns’ ruling will have on other defendants who claim to have had ruse affidavits used on them for interrogation purposes.
Godinez, who appears likely to be the most affected, is scheduled back in court on Dec. 15 for a hearing in front of Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Edward Bullard, whose signature appears on the original search warrant issued in his case.
Godinez’s lawyer, Brad Cornelius, said he’s planning to file a motion similar to Bixby’s, and Godinez himself believes Kuns’ ruling could open the door for his murder charge to be dropped.
“I’m not going to let them bulldoze me in court,” Godinez said. “I’d like the truth to come out and go back home with my family.”
Staff Writer Jeremy Thomas can be contacted at jthomas@santamariasun.com.


S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!