Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid

From the Huffington Post:

On May 5 at around 9:30 a.m., several teams of Pima County, Ariz., police officers from at least four different police agencies armed with SWAT gear and an armored personnel carrier raided at least four homes as part of what at the time was described as an investigation into alleged marijuana trafficking. One of those homes belonged to 26-year-old Jose Guerena and his wife, Vanessa Guerena. The couple's 4-year-old son was also in the house at the time. Their 6-year-old son was at school.

As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway. The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.

The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.

I can now report a number of new details that further call into question the police account of what happened that morning. But first some context:

The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.



Jose Guerena



The department's excuses for keeping all of this information under wraps make little sense. In his May 18 press release (PDF), for example, Ogan wrote, "The investigation that lead to the service of the search warrants on May 5 is a complicated one involving multiple people suspected of very serious crimes. Sometimes, law enforcement agencies must choose between the desire of the public to quickly know details, and the very real threat to innocent lives if those details are released prematurely." Dupnik used the same line of reasoning with Brodesky. "Those are the real sensitive parts of why we are having difficulty with trying to put information out publicly--because we don't want somebody getting killed," Dupnik said.

The problem with that explanation is that the search warrants and affidavits weren't sealed until four days after the raids were executed, right at about the time the troubling questions about Jose Guerena's death began to make national headlines. If revealing the details of this investigation -- which remember, was initially described by the Sheriff's Department as a marijuana investigation -- could endanger lives, why weren't the warrants and affidavits sealed from the start? It isn't difficult to understand why some would suspect a cover-up, or at least an attempt to suppress details until the department can come up with a narrative that mitigates the damage. In any case, it's awfully audacious for a police agency to scold the media for not trusting them and for "spreading misinformation" just days after revealing they themselves released bad information.

Full article can be found here.

California Creating Mortgage Fraud Task Force

From the Los Angeles Times:

California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, saying that years of unscrupulous lending still haunts the state, is creating a 25-person task force to target mortgage fraud of any size — from small operations that preyed on troubled borrowers to corporations that sold risky loans as safe investments.

The team of 17 lawyers and eight special agents from the state Department of Justice will pursue three major areas, Harris said in an interview:

•Corporate fraud, including instances in which bundled mortgages were sold as securities to the state or its pension funds under false pretenses. Harris said her office plans to prosecute some cases under California's False Claims Act, which she described as "one of those very powerful tools that California uniquely has … to pursue, in essence, what are false claims that are submitted to the state."

•Scams, including instances in which consultants, lawyers and others took fees from people in foreclosure, saying they would help the homeowners get loan modifications or other remedies, but delivered nothing.

•Fraudulent lending practices, including deceptive marketing, failure to fully disclose loan terms and qualifying people for loans who couldn't afford the terms.

Harris said the mortgage fraud that ultimately led to the housing crash continues to be a drag on the state, causing huge losses in jobs, property values and state revenues.

"We are looking at a situation of up to $640 billion in wealth having been lost because of this wave of foreclosures that has hit the state," Harris said, referring to the decline in homeowner equity. "There is a direct connection" between mortgage fraud "and the issue that we are challenged with in terms of our state budget crisis."

Creation of the state's Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, which Harris will announce at a news conference Monday in Los Angeles with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, comes as other states turn up the heat on the lending industry.

New York Atty. Gen. Eric Schneiderman is seeking records from three major Wall Street banks as part of a broad investigation into the mortgage crisis. Also, a months-long investigation by all 50 state attorneys general into the foreclosure practices of the nation's five largest mortgage servicers is continuing.

Harris said her initiative was distinct from the multistate investigation because it would go after all aspects of the mortgage-lending business. Harris, formerly San Francisco's district attorney, made a campaign promise last year when running for attorney general that she would crack down on mortgage fraud.

Many Wall Street financial institutions — private equity firms, hedge funds and banks — bundled often poor-quality mortgage loans into securities during the boom years and sold them to major investors, including pension funds. That resulted in billions of dollars in losses when borrowers defaulted on the loans, triggering the financial crisis.

Harris said that although successful prosecutions of major players in the mortgage meltdown have been difficult, the severity of the crisis called for a tough-minded approach to mortgage fraud, one that could target executives of major financial institutions.

"If the evidence leads us there, no case will be too big or too small to pursue," Harris said. "There remain millions of people affected by the mortgage crisis."

Angelo R. Mozilo, whose Calabasas-based Countrywide Financial Corp. was a major underwriter of risky subprime loans, agreed to a $67.5-million civil settlement with federal regulators but was not prosecuted criminally, despite a nearly three-year investigation by the Justice Department. Countrywide was acquired by Bank of America Corp. in 2008.

Harris' office reached a $6.5-million settlement this year with Mozilo and another former executive of Countrywide who the state had accused of predatory lending. Consumer advocates decried that settlement as far too small to be meaningful.

Full article at the LA Times can be found here.

DNA Evidence Clears Dallas Man After 27 Years

He said he didn’t commit the crime, and DNA proof set him free.

Johnny Pinchback was released from prison after 27 years. He’s the 22nd person cleared by DNA in Dallas County.

With a roar of applause from friends and family, Johnny Pinchback is a free man. But his story starts 27 years ago, on Illinois Street in Oak Cliff.

Two girls were adbucted and raped. Because the girls picked Pinchback out of a photo line-up, he was put away for 99 years.

But Pinchback won’t complete that sentence. Thanks to DNA evidence, he was cleared of the crime, and with the simple words from the judge he can start to get his life back to normal.

“Mr. Pinchback, you’re free to go,” said Judge Don Adams.

“I’m feeling love. I feel good,” said Pinchback.

In 2007, the Innocence Project of Texas received a letter from Pinchback claiming he didn’t do the crime.

“He went on our waiting list, just like every other individual that applies to our organization,” said Natalie Roetzel, Chief Staff Attorney.

There were over 1,000 people on that waiting list ahead of him, and two years later, the project launched a formal investigation.

“We finally got to it, we realized it was perfect for DNA testing,” said Roetzel.

There was little evidence in the case and there was a possibility the DNA testing wouldn’t even clear his name. But Pinchback never gave up, especially when he witnessed other prisoners being released for crimes they didn’t commit.

Full article at KDAF can be found here.

2011 NDIA Regional Conference

2011 NDIA Regional Conference

September 15-16, 2011

The Sheraton Denver Downtown Hotel

1550 Court Place

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: 303-893-3333

Toll Free: 1-800-325-3535

www.sheratondenverdowntown.com

Guide to Tracing Your American Indian Ancestry

From the U.S. Department of the Interior

Establishing Your American Indian Ancestry

Some people want to become enrolled members of a federally recognized tribe. Others want to verify a family tradition (belief, fact or fiction, passed from generation to generation) that they descended from an American Indian, either in their distant or near past. While others might want just to learn more about the people they descend from and where they lived.

When establishing descent from an American Indian tribe for membership and enrollment purposes, the individual must provide genealogical documentation. The documentation must prove that the individual lineally descends from an ancestor who was a member of the federally recognized tribe from which the individual claims descent.

When people believe they may be of American Indian ancestry, they immediately write or telephone the nearest Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) office for information. That is not the best place to start. Many people think that the BIA retrieves genealogical information from a massive national Indian registry or comprehensive computer database. This is not true. Most BIA offices, particularly the central (headquarters, Washington, DC) and area (field) offices do not keep individual Indian records and the BIA does not maintain a national registry. The BIA does not conduct genealogical research for the public.

White House Wants To Extend FBI Director

President Obama has asked Congress to extend the term of current FBI director Robert Mueller for two years.

Listen to the story at NPR here.

ROBERT SIEGEL, host:

To Washington now, where the White House is asking Congress to extend the tenure of FBI Director Robert Mueller.

As NPR's Carrie Johnson reports, Mueller's term had been set to expire in September, but President Obama wants him to stick around until 2013.

CARRIE JOHNSON: Robert Mueller became FBI director only a week before the September 11th attacks. Since then, he's labored to get agents to gather intelligence and anticipate terrorist threats in advance. It's one of the hardest jobs in government: sleepless nights with few public rewards. The White House says it's grateful Mueller has agreed to stay at a time of rapid change in the national security ranks.

Here's spokesman Jay Carney talking to reporters today.

Mr. JAY CARNEY (White House Press Secretary): Remember we have a change at CIA. We have a change at the Defense Department. This willingness of Director Mueller to continue to serve for two more years helps provide continuity which is important.

JOHNSON: The decision requires approval from Congress, but lawmakers from both political parties are already expressing support, so is the Justice Department. In a recent interview with NPR, Attorney General Eric Holder said nobody does it better.

Mr. ERIC HOLDER (Attorney General): Bob Mueller, I think, has been a great director in that he's understood both what his responsibilities are and what the limits are to that job.

JOHNSON: Holder and Vice President Joe Biden had been leading the search for Mueller's replacement. It hasn't been easy. A couple of high-profile candidates, Judge Merrick Garland and former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, said they weren't interested.

Carrie Johnson, NPR News, Washington.

Military Crime Lab's Problems Widen

By Marisa Taylor and Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

The military's premier crime lab has botched more of its evidence testing than has been previously known, raising broader questions about the quality of the forensic work relied on to convict soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

Now, the Supreme Court could weigh in, while two senators want the Pentagon to open a full-blown investigation. If they start looking, Pentagon officials will find that the crime lab's problems extend beyond one discredited analyst.

The scrutiny comes after McClatchy published a series of stories detailing how a former long-time forensics analyst at the Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory made false statements and mishandled dozens of tests.

A follow-up McClatchy investigation reveals that a second lab analyst, responsible for firearms, was quietly fired for making a false statement and destroying evidence. The lab subsequently had to review 541 firearms cases to make sure they were thorough, properly conducted and met legal requirements. Ultimately, officials determined that none of them needed full retesting.

More recently, a third lab analyst, who handles fingerprints, was found to have erred in at least three cases, one involving murder.

But the previously undisclosed problems go beyond discredited or flawed individual analysts. Some lab employees "do not like...(the) leadership style" of a top lab manager, an Army official conceded in a court deposition in March. Six formal discrimination or retaliation complaints have been filed against lab management in the past three years. One was filed by the lab's former chief attorney, who had helped oversee prior internal investigations into the lab's mistakes.

"The problem is not with just one person, but systemic," said David Sheldon, an attorney for a former Navy man who's challenging the lab's work in an appeal to the Supreme Court. "It's as if (the lab) has had no oversight, and one has to seriously question whether or not it can effectively police itself."

The Atlanta-based lab, commonly known as USACIL, serves all the military branches, handling evidence in more than 3,000 cases annually. The director, Larry Chelko, has been in charge since 1993.

On May 12, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, a Democrat, joined a Republican member of the committee in asking the Defense Department's inspector general to investigate the alleged misconduct of one analyst, Phillip Mills.

"Falsified lab tests could have contributed to criminals remaining free and innocent people being wrongfully convicted," wrote Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. "The failure to address these issues in a timely manner could damage the nation's trust in the military justice system."

Lab officials have vigorously defended their oversight and the handling of mistakes and misconduct.

"As with all crime labs across the county, human error does occur from time to time," the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, which oversees the lab, said in a statement. "The control mechanisms designed to identify and correct those issues have proven very effective."

The Army added that the lab's leadership, including Chelko, handled the problems appropriately.

Still, lab officials have been close-mouthed with the news media and slow to inform defense attorneys about mistakes.

The lab never publicly acknowledged the extent of the problem with Mills' work. Many defense attorneys never learned of the massive retesting effort. When McClatchy asked whether other analysts had made mistakes, the military initially refused to say, acknowledging problems only when confronted with details obtained from outside sources.

The military also turned down or responded narrowly to numerous open records requests McClatchy filed that sought more information about Mills' cases, citing privacy rights.

Military officials say they can't comment in detail about the most recent mistakes for fear of tainting jurors. They also can't discuss the discrimination allegations because of privacy laws.

McClatchy pieced together a fuller picture after independently obtaining military documents and conducting dozens of interviews.

In March, McClatchy revealed the military's three-year, $1.4 million internal review of Mills' work. The reviewers disagreed with Mills' DNA results 55 percent of the time. More broadly, they found that Mills neglected tests and overlooked evidence. Making matters worse, officials found that evidence had been routinely destroyed by investigators in hundreds of other cases and therefore couldn't be retested. The investigators had been following policy at the time.

"The result," forensics analyst Robert Shaler noted in an independent review of the lab, "might have led to a miscarriage of justice."

While investigating Mills, lab officials learned of firearms analyst Michael Brooks' mistake.

Brooks had said he'd examined a hat for gunshot residue and concluded that the weapon had been fired at close range. His supervisor, however, later discovered the hat hadn't been tested. The victim allegedly had shot himself in the right temple, but the hole in the hat was on the left side.

Brooks, who could not be reached for comment, later destroyed evidence from the case file and lied about his actions, investigators concluded.

The lab fired him in 2006.

More recently, a latent fingerprint examiner has been found to have missed several fingerprints. The examiner isn't accused of misconduct, but her mistakes could cast doubt on the overall quality of the lab's work.

The examiner's mistakes came up earlier this year in a pre-indictment hearing of Army Spc. Neftaly Platero. He's accused of killing two of his 3rd Infantry Division roommates and wounding a third in Iraq last year.

The forensic evidence is especially important in Platero's case because the victim who survived doesn't remember the events, said Platero's attorney Guy Womack.

Womack received two separate fingerprint reports with troubling differences prepared by lab examiner Shauna Steffan. In the second report, she identified Platero's prints where she hadn't noticed them before. The lab wasn't required to directly inform Womack of the reasons for the disparity, but he uncovered it during cross-examination.

"I asked why it was retested," Womack said, "and she started squirming."

A review of Steffan's other work found that she'd made similar mistakes in two other cases, Womack said.

When contacted by McClatchy, Steffan said she was instructed not to talk to the media. The Army later said that Steffan didn't wish to be interviewed.

Full article can be found here.

Justice Department Asks Appeals Court To Reconsider Ruling Allowing Challenge To Warrantless Wiretapping Law

From the ACLU:

The Justice Department late Thursday petitioned a federal appeals court to rehear a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which gives the executive branch virtually unchecked power to collect Americans' international emails and telephone calls. In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously ruled the plaintiffs have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Now the government wants all 11 judges of the appeals court to reconsider that ruling.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in July 2008 on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive and sometimes privileged telephone and email communications with colleagues, clients, journalistic sources, witnesses, experts, foreign government officials and victims of human rights abuses located outside the U.S. The Justice Department is arguing that the plaintiffs should not be able to sue without first showing that they have, in fact, been monitored under the program – information that the government refuses to provide.

"The Obama administration's effort to shield government surveillance programs from judicial review is disappointing and dangerous," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, who argued the case before the appeals court. "If the administration's argument were to prevail, Americans' privacy rights would be left entirely to the mercy of the political branches. The appeals court should reject the administration's petition for rehearing and instead allow the trial court to evaluate the constitutionality of the surveillance statute our clients have challenged."

The government's latest request comes just after the FBI provided a surprising explanation for withholding information about its surveillance activities under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Despite a lawsuit by the ACLU, the government has refused to identify which telecommunications companies are facilitating the warrantless wiretapping program because, the FBI's court filing said, "The stigma of working with the FBI would cause customers to cancel the companies' services and file civil actions to prevent further disclosure of subscriber information." The filing added that such consequences would also prompt the companies themselves to resist taking part by filing lawsuits of their own.

"The government doesn't want Americans to know whether their internet or phone companies are cooperating with the government's dragnet surveillance program because people and businesses might file lawsuits asserting their constitutional rights," said Alexander Abdo, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The government should not be withholding information simply to insulate its surveillance activities from judicial review. The courts have an important role to play in ensuring that government surveillance is consistent with the Constitution."

More information about the ACLU lawsuit challenging the FAA is available at: www.aclu.org/national-security/amnesty-et-al-v-clapper

More information about the FOIA lawsuit for records about the FAA, including the FBI's response, is available at:  www.aclu.org/faa

Texas Man Exonerated by DNA

A Texas man was freed Thursday after DNA exoneration in the latest Innocence Project victory and highlights the dangers of eyewitness misidentification. In 1984, two girls under the age of sixteen were on their way home from a store in their Dallas neighborhood when they were approached by a man wielding a gun. He took the girls to a nearby field and said he would shoot them if they did not comply and proceeded to tie them up and rape them. After the rape, the girls went to a nearby house where they called police. They were taken to the hospital and were later shown photo montages where they picked Johnny Pinchback out of the photos. Mr. Pinchback insisted he was innocent, however he was convicted in trial and was sentenced to 99 years imprisonment.

Mr. Pinchback never gave up and thanks to DNA evidence and the Innocence Project of Texas, he was determined to be innocent and will be released. Dallas County District Attorney had this to say:

"Thanks to the thorough investigation by our Conviction Integrity Unit and the continuous advances in DNA technology, Johnny Pinchback will regain his freedom as we have concluded that he did not commit this crime," Watkins says in a prepared statement. "As always, we seek justice on legitimate post-conviction claims of innocence to ensure we get to the truth, and when the truth reveals that an individual was wrongfully convicted, we take action to correct that injustice."

Pinchback, who is now 55, will become the 26th wrongfully imprisoned Dallas County man given his freedom in the past decade -- and the 22nd cleared by DNA evidence since 2001.

Full story here

Eyewitness Identification - Getting it Right

False Confession Information

Wondering whether you have a false confession on a case? Worried about a coerced confession? Need a false confession expert? Look no further than False Confessions.org. The website is an information gem that includes sections about how false confessions happen, case notes from actual false confession cases, information on experts, and information on confession reform. The site further has a blog with updates on false confession cases including media links to current cases and information. Of particular use is the research section which includes briefing on cases. Additionally, the expert section has a detailed list of experts that includes contact information, links to articles the experts have published, and cases of note the experts have worked on.

Scene Preservation for Court using I-Pad

Have an I-Pad, I-Phone, or other smart device? You can use Google Maps with street view and the Screenshot feature when you are talking to a witness in order to look at the "scene" if you are interviewing the witness away from the scene. While it is not a substitute for actually visiting the scene, this can be a handy device for showing a witness a layout. With the I-Pad, you could even have the witness write or "sign" their statement or a photograph of a scene using one of the many note apps that are available. Two blogs in particular have really good examples of these techniques: I-Phone J.D. and Walking Office. Each of these sites have numerous tips for the savvy I-Pad/I-Phone equipped investigator or attorney.