Opinion ID: 2581959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Evanston Police Department Investigation

Text: [¶ 60] About a week after the incident, Chief Harvey testified that he received an email from the mayor regarding a rumor that the officers who pursued the appellant on September 29, 2001, forced him off the road. Chief Harvey did not know the particular source of the rumor; it appears that a rumor to that effect was widespread in the community, but not attributable to a particular source or an identifiable evidentiary basis. [16] [¶ 61] Upon learning of the rumor, Chief Harvey and Lieutenant Allmaras examined the front, the rear, the back, the sides, [and] the exterior of Officer Vranish's patrol vehicle, and did not observe any physical damage to the vehicle. Lieutenant Allmaras then had another Evanston police officer photograph all of the patrol vehicles that were present during the pursuit, and according to Lieutenant Allmaras, no physical damage to the patrol vehicles was evident in the photographs. Neither Chief Harvey, nor Lieutenant Allmaras, made a written report of this investigation or informed the Wyoming Highway Patrol of their observations at the time. According to Lieutenant Allmaras, the officer who photographed the patrol vehicles did produce a written report about taking the photos of the vehicles.... [¶ 62] During an April 2002 court hearing, trial counsel stated that even before he was assigned the case (and certainly before the October 11, 2001, preliminary hearing), he heard rumors in the general community and one of the rumors was that the police officers had actually bumped ... the [appellant's] vehicle and had bumped the vehicle off the road, causing it to run into the pedestrian. Recognizing the seriousness of the allegations and the seriousness of the rumor, trial counsel developed a preliminary defense theory that the police bumped the appellant's vehicle during the pursuit, and contacted an investigator. [¶ 63] The investigator went to the crime scene, obtained and examined the police reports, interviewed people who worked in the area, and according to trial counsel, even talked to the police, who told the investigator that they were inspecting their vehicles and they were taking photos and those photos could be made available to him. Honestly, I don't know if [the investigator] told me that or not, that there were  I believe he told me that he had talked with the police and there was no damage to the vehicles. I don't know if he transmitted to me the idea that there were actual photos of the police vehicles. At that time, the investigator determined that there was simply no evidence of any kind of contact between the police vehicle and the [appellant's] vehicle and trial counsel concluded that there was not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the police officer's vehicle had come into contact with the minivan and dropped that defense strategy in October or November of 2001. [¶ 64] By April 2002, trial counsel personally contacted the police department and it appears that he talked to both Lieutenant Allmaras and Chief Harvey. They told trial counsel that the patrol vehicles had been examined and photographed, `there was no sign of damage, no sign of collision,' a written report had not been prepared, the photographs apparently remained unprocessed, and they assured trial counsel that they would get them processed and they would provide me photos of the police vehicles. Lieutenant Allmaras did prepare a written report regarding these matters in April 2002, to which report trial counsel referred during a later court hearing. Trial counsel even stated in April 2002 that he didn't see this giant conspiracy to hide evidence from the appellant. [¶ 65] By June 2002, trial counsel stated that at trial he intended to use evidence of the police department's awareness of the rumor and the department's investigation of its own patrol vehicles (rather than referring the matter to the highway patrol) in establishing in the minds of the jury the issue that there could have been a bump and there could have been a police cover up.... Trial counsel emphasized it was essential that Chief Harvey and Lieutenant Allmaras testify in person at trial so that he could question them regarding why they are investigating themselves and create an impression that they `were covering up something' or were `too dumb to bring in the Highway Patrol' or whatever the jury might conclude from that act. At trial, the appellant ultimately called Chief Harvey and Lieutenant Allmaras as witnesses during the appellant's case and questioned them about these matters. Trial counsel also cross-examined Trooper Lewis and Trooper Lankford in this regard and referred to the rumors during closing argument in attacking Trooper Lewis' investigation of the incident. [¶ 66] The appellant seems to suggest, albeit with virtually no analysis, that the alleged failure to discuss or disclose the rumor and resulting Evanston police department investigation to defense counsel or Trooper Lewis constituted a Brady violation. The appellant does not cite specifically to any portion of the record to support his contention that this information was not discussed with, or disclosed to, trial counsel. In fact, the record reveals that trial counsel had actual knowledge of rumors to this effect shortly after September 29, 2001, and had the rumors investigated at that time. Trial counsel later personally talked to Lieutenant Allmaras and Chief Harvey about the particular rumor the mayor conveyed to Chief Harvey, and the existence and results of the police department's subsequent investigation. Accordingly, the appellant has not established that the prosecution suppressed or failed to disclose any of this information. The appellant had actual knowledge of all of the information well in advance of trial [17] and clearly made use of the benefits of the information at trial. We further note that the results of the police department's investigation were not exculpatory because the officers' observations, and the photographs, of the patrol vehicles within days of the pursuit did not reveal any physical damage to the patrol vehicles.