Community Service Announcement

This post is unrelated to issues of wrongful conviction/imprisonment/execution. I post because I might hereby spare a reader some unnecessary nuisance.

Beware of a UPS malware attack.

I just received an email, allegedly from the United Parcel Service, informing me I would soon be receiving a package. It included an attachment that I was to open to see the tracking information.

I immediately smelled a big fat commie rat. The email wasn't exactly from UPS. It was from joiner22@ups.com. The attachment type looked strange: UPSnotify.rar. I had not previously seen a .rar file.  Since I know that clicking on attachments is a good way to infect my computer, I don't open attachments unless they are from someone I trust.

By comparison, when Amazon informs me they have sent my order, they put the tracking information in the body of the email. They don't require that I open a .rar attachment. Here's the body of the email I received.

Dear customer.

The parcel was sent your home address.
And it will arrive within 7 business day.

More information and the tracking number are attached in document below.

Thank you.
© 1994-2011 United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

They didn't take the time to do a mail merge. Instead of personalizing the email, they used a generic salutation of "Dear customer" followed by a period rather than a comma.

They begin the second sentence with "And."

They forgot "the" before "document" in the third sentence.

The copyright notice made me laugh.  What the hell are they copywriting?

Rather than open the attachment, if only out of  morbid curiousity, I went to Google, the source of all knowledge. And I entered the email title in the search field: United Parcel Service notification. The entire first page of hits consisted of sites explaining that my email was indeed a common malware scam. I didn't go past the first page.

The first link was from Naked Security: "Outbreak: United Parcel Service notification malware attack spammed out."

The fix is trivial. Don't open the attachment. Delete the email, empty your email trash, and go back to fretting over the wrongfully convicted.

You're welcome.

The Impending Wrongful Execution of Eric King: 5

Eric King sits on death row. The people of Arizona plan to execute him on 29 March. Though I stand mute for most executions, I fervently oppose this one. I believe Eric King may in fact be innocent of the crime for which he is to die.

This is the fifth and last part of a my series on Eric King series. Prior to reading this Part 5 you should first read Parts1, 2, 3, and 4. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. Part 4 is here. A link at the each Part will lead you to the next, leading you right back to this post.

Last Friday, I mailed a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and a copy to the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency. Limiting my self to one page, I wrote the following:

<<>>

The Honorable Jan Brewer

1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Governor Brewer,

The scaled image below shows that Arizona risks executing an innocent man. Michael Jones admits to being at the shooting. His story freed him from custody and placed Eric King on death row.

Phoenix Police Sergeant Richard Switzer, however, intercepted Jones and his companion as the two of them were walking from the murder scene. The companion fled and was not apprehended. Sergeant Switzer noted that the companion was taller than Jones. Jones is 6 feet 1 inch tall.

Eyewitness Frank Madden confirmed Sergeant Switzer's height estimate. He noted that both men were slightly over 6 feet tall. Eric King is 5 feet 8 inches tall.

I write of wrongful convictions and executions under the pseudonym The Skeptical Juror. I have publicly previewed on my blog each of the U.S. executions this year. In all cases except two, I found no possibility of innocence. I therefore stood mute on those cases, neither supporting nor opposing them. In the case of Richard Clay, I opposed the execution and wrote to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon. Governor Nixon, for reasons likely unrelated to my efforts, commuted Clay's sentence to life in prison without possibility of parole.

I now oppose the execution of Eric King. I give my reasons in an extended five-part series on my blog at www.skepticaljuror.com. I recommend that you read that series before allowing the execution of Eric King. You will learn that the evidence against King came in exchange for the freedom of the one person who admitted to being at the murder. You will learn that the testimony of those people having no motive to lie exculpated King. You will learn that the lead detective, Armando Saldate, earlier had his "honesty, competency, and overall reliability" questioned by his own department, and later played a key role in placing four other people on death row. One of those, David Hyde, had his conviction reversed and now walks free. The cases of two others, Debra Milke and Eldon Schurz, are seriously tainted by Detective Saldate's questionable "honesty, competency, and overall reliability."

The evidence of Eric King's guilt, as portrayed in the image above, is so easily understood that his execution, if allowed to proceed, may become as notorious as that of Cameron Todd Willingham, late of Texas. Governor Perry wrestles to this day with Willingham's execution. Governor Nixon's decision to spare Richard Clay, on the other hand, has proven to be unremarkable. Governor Nixon seems to have received neither praise nor scorn. I ask that you consider clemency for Eric King.

Respectfully,
[signed]
John Allen
skepticaljuror@gmail.com

<<>>

Contact information for Governor Brewer is here.

Contact information for the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency is here.

If you oppose the execution of people who may be factually innocent, please contact both the Governor and the Board. Please express yourself firmly but respectfully.

I offer my sincere best wishes to Eric King, his family, his friends, and his supporters.

The Impending Wrongful Execution of Eric King: Errata

I have received an email from Kricket Schurz, wife of Eldon Schurz. I summarized the case of Eldon Schurz when discussing (in Part 3) the role Armando Saldate had played in placing five people on death row under questionable circumstances.

Kricket Schurz corrects me on two points and criticizes my summary of her husband's case.

First, she points out that prosecutor Levy's first name is Noel, not Harold. For some reason, I used Noel approximately half the time when discussing the King's prosecutor in Part 4, and I used Howard the other half. I have no explanation why. The point is, however moot due to the other, more significant error she pointed out.

Noel Levy did not prosecute Eric King. I suspect that I had read so much about the team of Saldate and Levy putting people on death row under questionable circumstances that I merely assumed Levy prosecuted King. As I review my resources, I find not a single reference to Levy in the King case. Once again, the error is entirely mine.

I have corrected Part 4 to remove all mention of Levy and of other cases he worked on. With respect to King's prosecutor, I refer to him now only in vague terms such as King's prosecutor or the prosecutor.

With respect Kricket Schurz' criticism regarding my summary of her husband's case, she notes only that I "totally misrepresent" it. She offers no specific point of error, so I'll assume she believes my summary is generally off target.

For her presentation of her husband's case, I refer you to the home page of her site Arizona Death Penalty Injustice and to the specific page dealing with the case of Eldon Schurz.

While I relied primarily on King's appellate decision for matters related to King, I relied on Kricket Schurz' site for much of what I wrote about the other cases of potentially innocent people on Arizona's death row. I recommend her site as a starting point for anyone wanting to delve deeper into these cases.

I note here that Kricket Schurz is one of three women responsible for the Arizona Death Penalty Injustice site. The other two are Sherry Breznicki and Judie Wilson-Spowart.

I always appreciate feedback from readers, particularly when they point out my errors so that I can correct them.

The Impending Wrongful Execution of Eric King: 4

Eric King sits on death row. The people of Arizona plan to execute him on 29 March. Though I stand mute for most executions, I fervently oppose this one. I believe Eric King may in fact be innocent of the crime for which he is to die.

This is the fourth part of a five-part series. Prior to reading this Part 4 you should first read Parts1, 2, and 3. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. A link at the each Part will lead you to the next, leading you right back to this post.

Overview

Eric King was executed based entirely on the word of Michael Page Jones and Nekita Renee Hill. Jones had a substantial reason to tell the State what it wanted to hear: his freedom, even his life. Hill also had substantial reason to tell the State what it wanted to hear: her boyfriend's freedom, even his life. Before trial, Jones and Hill told the police what they wanted to hear. All charges were then dismissed against Michael Jones. He walks free today as Eric King faces the needle.

At trial, Jones and Hill were both extremely reluctant to testify, to repeat what they had told the police when Jones' life, rather than King's life, was on the line. In his opening statement, King's prosecutor forewarned the jury that his two star suspects were unwilling to stand behind the story they had previously claimed as true. Regarding Jones, the prosecutor said:

You will hear from a man by the name of Michael Page Jones. Mr. Jones was with Eric King that night. In fact, at one time Mr. Jones was charged as an accomplice. The case was later dismissed. Michael Jones was with Mr. King. He told the police officers later in December exactly what happened. I can't guarantee you what Mr. Michael Page Jones is going to say when he gets on the stand, ladies and gentlemen, but he was there that night and he has information, and I suggest to you that if he testifies truthfully as he should, he will implicate the defendant, Eric King, without a doubt.

Regarding Hill, the prosecutor said:

Who else? Renee Hill is here. Renee Hill at one time was the girlfriend of Michael Jones. Renee Hill currently lives in the Projects. She is on welfare, and she is scared to death. She comes to Court today not voluntarily, but because Detective House managed to go out and find her over the last 24 or 36 hours and bring her to the Court. She is scared. Whether she should be or whether she shouldn't be, ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't matter, because in her own mind she is scared. She does not want to testify. She does not want to come into this courtroom under any circumstances. Ladies and gentlemen, she will be brought into this courtroom, and you will hear her testify.

Sure enough, Michael Jones feigned memory loss, though he eventually sort of, king of remembered. And sure enough, Nekita Renee Hill was explicit that she did not want to testify, though she did not apparently ever say she was scared, much less scared to death. That characterization came only from the prosecutor.

In opening statements, the attorneys (allegedly) are to limit themselves to outlining the testimony the jury will hear. An attorney is not allowed, at least in theory, to tell the jury that any witness (much less his own) will be lying if he tells a story different than the attorney wants the jury to believe. An attorney is not allowed to divine the current and future thoughts of any witness (much less his own) to predispose the jury's thoughts.

The jury is, in theory, required to render a verdict based on the facts of the case as presented by the witnesses. To present them with the speculative opinions of the State's prosecutor before the defense has an opportunity to utter a word is prosecutorial misconduct. King's post conviction appeal was, in fact, based in part on the very misconduct cited above.

Appellate courts, being interested in the efficient adminstration of justice, are reluctant to intervene while justice is being adminstered. When faced with the clear misconduct in the King case, they handled it with bluster and a tell. First the bluster, then the tell.

Michael Jones

Relying on State v. King, I offer the following judicial bluster regarding the prosecutor's prediction that his own witness would lie.

After the prosecutor completed his opening statement, defendant asked for a mistrial, claiming that the prosecutor vouched for the credibility of Michael Page Jones. The trial court denied the motion and stated that he did not "believe there was a clear vouching of the witness." Moreover, the trial judge noted that he had admonished the jury before opening statements that none of the statements were evidence and that he would be giving a similar admonition before closing arguments.

"The object of an opening statement is to apprise the jury of what the party expects to prove and prepare the jurors' minds for the evidence which is to be heard." [citation] Yet, "it is improper for the prosecution to vouch for the credibility of a government witness." [citation] There are "two forms of impermissible prosecutorial vouching: (1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness's testimony." [citation] "The first type of vouching involves personal assurances of a witness's veracity...." [citation] "The second type of vouching involves prosecutorial remarks that bolster a witness's credibility by reference to matters outside the record." [citation] With these statements, the prosecutor was voicing his expectation that Jones's testimony would be consistent with the earlier statements that he made to the police, and that he would implicate King. At the same time, however, the state was preparing the jury for the possibility that Jones might testify otherwise. We fail to see, nor does defendant explain, how, by suggesting that one of its own witnesses might lie on the stand, the state was vouching for the credibility of its witness. ... Because we find that the state did not vouch for the credibility of its witness, we find no error.

The prosecutor's misconduct with respect to Jones falls in the category of vouching. The jury is required to render their verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. They are not supposed to base their verdict based on assurances from the prosecution that the defendant is guilty. This is in part because juries will assume that the prosecution has inside knowledge of the case that the jury will not be allowed to hear. The concern is that the jury will convict based on evidence they believe the prosecutor has rather than on evidence they hear in court.

The appellate court blustered. "We fail to see ... how, by suggesting that one of its own witnesses might lie on the stand, the state was vouching for the credibility of its witness."

Regarding that finely tuned observation, and just that observation, I agree. The prosecutor wasn't vouching for his own witness. He was trashing his own witness. He didn't want the jury to believe the testimony of his own witness, he wanted them to disbelieve it.

The prosecutor was vouching for his case, not for his witness. That's a subtlety I'm sure was not lost on the appellate court judges. They simply ignored it so that the adminstration of justice could proceed.

There was a method to the prosecutor's madness. He knew that Jones planned not to testify as the State wished, despite the court's transparently false assertion that the prosecutor "was voicing his expectation that Jones's testimony would be consistent with the earlier statements that he made to the police." King's prosecutor therefore painted Jones as a liar, thereby opening the door to bring Detective Armando Saldate to the stand.

Normally, and I used that word loosely, Saldate would not have been allowed to tell the jury what Jones told him. That is hearsay. It's best that the jury hear directly from the witness rather through an intermediary. Unfortunately, there are more exceptions to the hearsay rule than there are holes in Albert Hall. The exception the prosecutor set up in this case is "prior inconsistent statements."

In theory, Saldate was brought before the jury to explain only that Jones had made prior inconsistent statements. In reality, Detective Armando Saldate was brought before the jury because the State had a losing case without him. Saldate's job was to tell the jury what Jones allegedly told Saldate in the privacy of the interview room. Once again, the jury would be asked to rely on the "honesty, competency, and overall reliability" of Detective Armando Saldate.

The prosecutor wasn't vouching for Michael Jones. He was vouching for Armando Saldate. From what I've learned of Saldate, he certainly needed it.

Nekita Renee Hill

Again relying on State v. King, I offer the following judicial bluster regarding the prosecutor's pronouncement that Hill was "scared to death."

Equally unpersuasive is defendant's claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by declaring that Hill feared for her safety... Defendant argues that the clear implication of the statement that Renee Hill was afraid to testify was that "King or others acting for him had threatened her," and that the state's "reference to Hill's fear called the jury's attention to matters it would not have been justified in considering."

We begin by noting that defendant did not object to this statement until after Hill testified. This court has repeatedly held that the defendant must voice his objection to arguments that are objectionable, and failure to do so constitutes a waiver of any right to review. [citation] Thus we conclude that by failing to object to the prosecutor's comments in a timely fashion, defendant waived any objections that he may have had to these comments.

Defendant argues that even absent objection, the introduction of these statements was fundamental error because it prevented him from having a fair trial. We disagree.

Defendant moved for a mistrial after Hill's testimony and argued that the combination of her testimony and the prosecutor's opening statements concerning Hill's fear made it impossible for him to get a fair trial. The trial court denied the motion, stating:

[Hill's] demeanor obviously indicated she did not want to be there. She was a very reluctant witness. It was obvious she was under a great deal of stress and anxiety and fear, and she never indicated that fear was coming from any specific individual or defendant or anybody from his family.

We have reviewed both the opening statements and Hill's testimony on direct examination, and we agree with the trial court's conclusions.

Moreover, far from being a matter that the jury is not justified in considering, Hill's unwillingness to testify goes directly to her credibility. As with Jones, the prosecutor had no idea what Hill would say once she was on the stand. [That sound you just heard was the BS detector going off. -- tsj] The prosecutor rightly anticipated that he would have to provide the jury some explanation for Hill's eventual refusal to identify defendant. [This sentence contradicts the prior claim that the prosecutor had no idea what Hill would say. -- tsj]

... Thus, we conclude that the state did not err either in eliciting testimony concerning Hill's reluctance to testify or in preparing the jury for the possibility that Hill was going to be a reluctant witness.

King's prosecutor was clearly suggesting that Hill feared King, presumably on the off chance King would be acquitted and would extract revenge. Or something like that. The appellate court implicitly acknowledged that point.

Hill testified that she called the police after seeing the surveillance pictures broadcast on television. She admitted that she identified defendant as the person in the picture. When asked whether defendant was the person depicted in the surveillance photograph, however, she repeatedly stated that the person in the picture did not look like defendant. Her fear and anxiety over testifying certainly served to bolster her earlier identifications over her trial testimony.

The court presumes Hill told the truth earlier about being able to identify King on the video, but lied on the witness stand about being unable to identify King on the video because she was afraid of, of, ... of something.

Perhaps Nekita Renee Hill was reluctant to perjure herself  at trial where a man's life was at stake.

Perhaps Hill feared the wrath of the State for telling the truth.

The Tell

You don't have to rely on me to understand that the apellate court was wrong in its ruling. The apellate court told you so itself, in its own opinion. It told you so in the form of a tell.

From Wikipedia, we find this description of a tell.

A tell in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player's behavior or demeanor that gives clues to that player's assessment of his hand. A player gains an advantage if he observes and understands the meaning of another player's tell, particularly if the tell is unconscious and reliable. Sometimes a player may fake a tell, hoping to induce his opponents to make poor judgments in response to the false tell.

A tell may be common to a class of players or unique to a single player. Some possible tells include leaning forward or back, placing chips with more or less force, fidgeting, doing chip tricks, or making any changes in one's breathing, tone of voice, facial expressions, direction of gaze or in one's actions with the cards, chips, cigarettes or drinks.

An underlying rule to many tells is: Weak means strong, strong means weak. Thus, players who hold weak poker hands attempt to convince other players at the table that they are strong: staring down an opponent, throwing chips down forcefully into the pot in an effort to discourage others from calling. Whereas, players who hold strong hands tend to try to disguise their hand as being weak. They attempt to fly under the radar by being a passive player at the table: not making direct eye contact, softly tossing the chips in, friendly and talkative. They're deliberately trying not to come across as intimidating, so as to entice a call.

From the same appellate's court ruling in State v. King, I present the appellate court's tell.

Although we conclude that the trial court did not commit fundamental error in this case, we caution lawyers against making overreaching factual assertions during opening statements. Opening statements are intended to inform the jury of what the party expects to prove and prepare the jury for the evidence that is to be presented. [citation] Opening statements are not, however, the appropriate forum to argue a case. [citation]

In this case, the prosecutor wanted to prepare the jury for the fact that Hill might be a reluctant witness. To accomplish this, the state commented that Hill was "scared to death." The court can envision different factual circumstances where the use of this type of improper but colorful hyperbole during opening statements could have unduly prejudiced the defendant. Although we believe no such prejudice occurred in this case, we caution lawyers against straying too far from the purpose of the opening statements by "arguing" a case through its characterization of the evidence that it intends to offer at trial. This kind of reference is better left for closing arguments -- where a prosecutor can properly refer to evidence actually in the record.

In other words Mr. Prosecutor, you did nothing wrong. Don't do it again.

Conclusion 

I will conclude this series in Part 5, now available here.

ERRATA: Included as a separate post, here.

The Impending Wrongful Execution of Eric King: 3

Eric King sits on death row. The people of Arizona plan to execute him on 29 March. Though I stand mute for most executions, I fervently oppose this one. I believe Eric King may in fact be innocent of the crime for which he is to die.

This is the third part of a five-part series. Prior to reading this Part 3 you should first read Parts1 and 2. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. A link at the each Part will lead you to the next, leading you right back to this post.

Armando Saldate

So far, I have based almost information relating to King's case on the appellate ruling King v. Schriro. From reading the appellate decisons, nothing particularly unusual pops out regarding Armando Saldate. Recall that he was the detective who built the case against King by extracting information from Michael Jones in exchange for Jones' freedom / life. In browsing the internet, however, Saldate's role in this case adds considerably to my unease about King's conviction.

Counting his role in King's case, Armando Saldate has played a central role in placing five people on Arizona's death row. That makes him an ace. Unfortunately, the convictions are remarkably shaky. I'll summarize those other cases in a bit. First, I'll discuss an issue reflecting poorly on Saldate's character and performance as a detective.

In 1973, 13 years before Armando Saldate was to become the key figure in the Eric King case, he was suspended for conduct unbecoming an officer. I quote below from the separation notice.

In accordance with the provisions of Rule 19A of the Personnel Rules of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, you are hereby suspended from duty, without pay, for five (5) working days, effective Wednesday, September 5, 1973, through Sunday, September 9, 1973, inclusive.

On August 15, 1973, at approximately 8:40 P.M. while on duty, you stopped a woman at 1100 East Mohave for a traffic violation; a faulty tail light. You then determined that she did not have a driver's license and commenced writing her two repair order citations for he violations.

You also learned there was the probability a traffic warrant for her arrest existed. You did not verify the warrant, nor did you make an arrest as she promised to take care of the warrant in the near future.

To show her gratitude for not going to jail on receiving moving vehicle citations, the woman offered to kiss you. You proposed that the two of you go to a less conspicuous place and suggested 300 East Maricopa Freeway. The woman agreed, and you followed her to that location. There, you leaned inside the car, kissed her and deliberately began making advances and took liberties which amounted to conduct unbecoming an officer. Therefore, you have subjected yourself to disciplinary actions under the provisions of Phoenix Police Department General Order 3.3.4(7). Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and General Order 3.3.4.

Officer Saldate, although your actions to this matter were encouraged by the woman involved, the situation became even more aggravated when she offered, and you agreed, to meet later for the purpose of engaging in an act of sexual intercourse. When you got off duty, you went to the meeting place, but left when you found she was not there.

When you were interviewed by your supervisors concerning this incident, you specifically denied going to meet the woman after completing your shift.

In addition, you omitted some of the details of the incident regarding the liberties you took with the woman. This was discovered later when you were given a polygraph examination. You then admitted the complete details of your involvement and now realize your actions were grossly improper.

Officer Saldate, your past performance as a police officer has been satisfactory. However, because of this incident, your image of honesty, competency, and overall reliability must be questioned. Therefore, so must your value to the department be questioned.

Actions such as those you have exhibited while on duty, in full uniform, not only demonstrates extremely poor judgement and lack of concern for your profession, but also reflects directly upon the Phoenix Police Department as a whole, and will not be tolerated.

This suspension is intended to impress upon you the seriousness of your actions and to serve as a reminder that future infractions of this nature will result in more severe disciplinary action or dismissal.

I hesitate to include such material, so remote in time. I do so, however, because Saldate's own employer ruled that his "honesty, competency, and overall reliability must be questioned." It must be questioned still because it seems as if Saldate continued to mix sexual improprieties with dishonesty. It must be questioned to this day because a man's life depends on the integrity of his performance and integrity.

As late as 1989, three years after his central role in King's conviction, Armando Saldate was interviewing Sandy Pickinpaugh, sister of Debra Milke, one of the people Saldate helped place on death row. During that interview, Saldate volunteered a bizarre story. He claimed that while interviewing Debra Milke she flashed her breasts at him in order to, to, ... well that part is not really clear.

Saldate: So me and her talking and I'm telling her I'm not going to tolerate that. She's not going to do it. She -- dress looked very nice. She wraps the front of her blouse and she pulls it up to her eyes, she didn't have no tears, to wipe her tears away but she didn't have any.

Pickinpaugh: (Inaudible). 

Saldate: Yeah. Which quickly exposed her (inaudible). I didn't really pay that much attention to -- I knew, you see, my job, in my position I know what she was doing to me. I knew what she -- (inaudible). But see, I'm there for information, okay. And she's like trying to see if I -- 

Pickinpaugh: It's working.

Saldate: It's working. If he's looking at my breasts then I may be able to talk myself out of this. Okay. So that's what I'm telling you. That's the type of manipulation she does.

We can't check the recording of Milke's interrogation to see if Saldate was telling the truth or lying, or simply fantasizing. We can't check the recording because there is no recording. Saldate explained variously that he forgot to turn the recorder on, or that Milke would not allow him to record it.

We can't check with any one of the other people in the interview room, because there was no one else in the room. Saldate had instructed everyone else to leave.

We can't check with anyone who monitored the interrogation through a one way mirror, since apparently no one monitored the interview.

We can't check his contemporaneous notes. He destroyed his notes.

We know that he did not mention the incident in his paraphrased report of the interrogation, nor when he was in front of the grand jury, nor when he was in front of the jury.

Best I can tell, Armando Saldate never mentioned this alleged incident again.

What we can do is examine a news photo (or video freeze frame) taken of Debra Milke in the custody of Armando Saldate. I link to the photo below.

From the photo, we can see that Debra Milke was not wearing a blouse, as Saldate claimed she opened. She was wearing a long sleeve sweater. The reference explains that Debra Milke was wearing a white cardigan sweater and a pink T-shirt. 

Saldate should never have been alone in the interrogation room with a female suspect without someone monitoring the interview. It was a violation police procedures. Such procedures are intended to prevent  sexual impropriety, or false allegations of such impropriety. Saldate orchestrated a situation in which he was alone with Debra Milke, without monitoring, without recording, without notes. He then, based on the photo, lied about Debra Milke exposing herself to him.

And, as an aside, he claimed she then confessed to murdering her son.

"Officer Saldate, ... because of this incident, your image of honesty, competency, and overall reliability must be questioned.

Debra Milke

In December 1989, two men known to Debra Milke took her four-year old son to see Santa Claus at the mall. They then took him to the desert and shot him in the back of the head.

Saldate arrested Debra Milke and interviewed her as just described. He claims she confessed to hiring the two men to murder her son so that she could collect on his $5000 insurance policy As noted previously, no one else was in the room, no one monitored the interrogation, the recorder was not turned on, and Saldate destroyed his contemporaneous notes.

Saldate claimed he arrested Milke because Roger Scott, one of the two men who murdered Milke's son, told him that Milke hired them to kill Christopher. Scott allegedly confessed this to Saldate in a car, as Scott was leading the police to the body. Scott's enroute confession is as questionable as Milke's flashing breast confession. The other officer in the car with Saldate and Scott somehow never heard Scott confess.

Scott did, however, later provide the State with evidence they wanted to hear in exchange for his life. Based on his purchased testimony and her alleged confession, the jury found Debra Milke guilty of capital murder. 

Debra Milke remains on Arizona's death row to this day.

Jim Styer 

Jim Styer is one of the two men who took Christopher Milke, Debra's son, to the desert. The other was Roger Scott. The big question was which of the two men was going to die for the shooting, and which was going to spend his life in prison. Because Roger Scott implicated Debra Milke, and because Jim Styer refused to do so, Roger Scott was sent to prison and Jim Styer was sent to death row.

[Debra Milke's supporters argue the wrong people are on death row. They argue that Debra's ex-husband (and Christopher's father) hired Roger Scott to commit the murder, that Roger is the one who shot Christopher, and that Debra was not involved in any fashion.]

David Hyde

Less than two years after extracting disputed and undocumented confessions from Debra Milke and Roger Scott, Armando Saldate extracted a confession of murder from David Hyde after six hours of interrogation. Once again, Saldate was alone with Hyde. Once again, the interrogation seems not to have been recorded or witnessed. Once again, everyone had to rely on Saldate's paraphrased recounting of the interrogation. Once again everyone was forced to rely on Saldate's "honesty, competency, and overall reliability."

David Hyde was convicted and sentenced to death. Unlike the others, however, David Hyde had his conviction reversed on appeal, in part due to the unlawful confession extracted by Armando Saldate. Hyde pled no contest to second degree murder rather than risk a retrial, and walked free.

Eldon Shurz

Eldon Shurz is on death row for pouring a gallon of gasoline on a man confined in a small chain link pen and setting him on fire. Shurz admits to knocking the man down during a fight, but claims he was walking away from the scene when someone else lit the man on fire.

From the appellate decision:

Bahe was on the ground and, in an attempt to get away, crawled under a chain-link fence into a small enclosed rectangular space between a stairwell and a brick wall. Schurz picked up the plastic jug, smelled its contents, and then splashed gasoline on Bahe. Using a lighter, Schurz ignited a small puddle of gasoline. When the flames failed to spread to Bahe, he kicked the burning puddle toward him. Bahe went up in flames. After Schurz and Allison fled, Bahe managed to crawl under the fence and out of the enclosed space.

The State's case is shaky indeed. The victim's clothes were never tested for residual gasoline, and they did not smell of gasoline when removed from their sealed bag before trial. The state was forced to call in a snitch to bloster their case. Worse yet, they had no confession from Shurz, even though Armando Saldate worked on the case.

In this case, however, Saldate assisted with the prosecution in another, and unbelievable fashion. The State's case was that the victim had crawled under the fence into the enclosed, locked area before he was burned, and crawled back out afterwards. It was necessary to explain to the jury why the victim was found outside the enclosed area. To accomplish this, Armando Saldate transformed himself from master interrogator into an arson expert. Though members of the fire department were involved in the case, it was Armando Saldate who testified as the State's arson expert, though he was clearly unqualified to do so.

Saldate assured the jury that there had indeed been fire inside the fenced enclosure. He figured that out based on charring along the sidewalk. Even though he was not an arson expert, or even a member of the fire department, and even though the sidewalk has been sprayed with a fire hose and fire extinguisher prior to his arrival, he somehow knew and testified that the victim had been burned while within the enclosure, just as the State wanted the jury to believe.

Conclusion

Armando Saldate played a key role in Eric King's conviction. He obtained the confession from Michael Jones that sent Eric King to death row. However, because of Saldate's history of unprofessional behavior, both before and after the King trial, Saldate's "honesty, competency, and overall reliability must be questioned."

In Part 4, we'll look at the prosecutor and the appellate court. 

ERRATA: Included as a separate post, here.