Opinion ID: 2234065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 34

Heading: Vela's Evidence

Text: Vela was born in California on October 10, 1980, the youngest of three children. He grew up in a neighborhood where violent crime, gang activity, and drug trafficking were commonplace. Vela's mother left the family home when he was approximately 2 years old. As a child, Vela was cared for by his father but primarily by his sister, the oldest of the three children. When Vela's mother left the home, an uncle who was a drug dealer came to live with the family. When Vela was a teenager, he reestablished communication with his mother. Vela's sister was approximately 7 years old when her mother left the home. When she was 14, she moved out of the family home to a residence about two blocks away, but she maintained daily contact with her family, including Vela. Later, Vela's sister moved back to the family home with a man she later married. On two occasions during his teenage years, Vela lived in Mexico, first with his grandparents and later with his sister and her family. Vela left school during the ninth grade and did not receive any further education. For approximately 3 years, he worked as a trucker's helper, as noted above. When Vela was in his late teens, his sister learned that he was drinking alcohol and using drugs. Concerned by this, Vela's sister decided that he should move to Madison, Nebraska, to live with his father, who had recently moved there from California to take a job at a meat-packing plant. Vela arrived in Madison in July 2002. Family members described Vela as a good kid and as a simple, nonviolent person with a childlike personality. One described him as a big, little kid. Family members stated that Vela was quiet and respectful, but that he was a follower who was always looking for approval and was easily influenced by others. Family members stated that the bank murders were completely inconsistent with Vela's character and personality. Two persons who worked with Vela in California gave similar statements. There was evidence that Vela had been beaten by Sandoval and others after he had disclosed plans to rob the bank to another person. Vela offered and the court received an affidavit and deposition of Galindo, who stated that he became acquainted with Vela in the summer of 2002 and introduced him to Sandoval, Rodriguez, and others. In the affidavit, Galindo stated that Vela was slow and a follower and that he always did what others told him to do. Galindo stated that it was Sandoval's idea to rob the bank and that Galindo asked Vela to participate. He stated that Vela was scared and did not want to rob the bank but that Sandoval told him he was obligated. The court also received portions of statements and testimony given by Sandoval in which he described Vela's involvement in the crimes in a similar fashion. Sandoval was described by one of his former teachers and a former school principal as a student with a charismatic personality who always had a following and was a natural-born leader. After his arrest for the bank murders, Vela told members of his family to look for a letter he had left for them in his father's apartment. The letter was found and turned over to the Madison County sheriff's office. It was in an envelope on which Vela had written the date 9/22/02 and an instruction that it was not to be opened until October 10, 2003. The letter states in part, I dont know when but my death will come because I got in something real bad! Im sorry Dad it was just [a] bad choice to come to Nebraska. The letter further instructed Vela's family members that if they wished to avenge his death, they should come to a bar in Madison and ask for Galindo, Baby Joe, and Smiley. The parties stipulated that Baby Joe was Sandoval and that Smiley was Rodriguez. Vela reoffered and the court received certain evidence which had been received during the mental retardation hearing. He also offered certified copies of sentencing orders in two unrelated first degree murder cases from another district court, in support of his argument that the notice of aggravating circumstances in his case was inadequate and for the purposes of proportionality review. The presiding judge sustained the State's relevance objections to both exhibits.