The Following Points Raised Against

Former Phoenix Police Detective
Armando Saldate

are taken from Superior Court of Arizona
No. CR 89-12631, Exhibit 12



Return to previous page eMail a friend Download this page in Acrobat format printable version
Bookmark and Share


DR 81 - 095490 State vs. Barnwell

On August 29, 1981, the defendant attempted to rob a convenience store at gunpoint. When the clerk said she could not open the register, he shot her, but she did not die. In 1981, DET. SALDATE investigated an armed robbery for which John Barnwell was arrested. On June 30, 1982, DET. SALDATE met with a confidential informant who had detailed information about the crime, and who stated that a Mark Balady had committed the robbery. Unfortunately, SALDATE failed to promptly investigate this lead, and Mark Balady committed suicide several days after June 30, thereby destroying potentially exculpatory information.


CR - 130403 State vs. Yanes

The defendant was a security guard at a tire shop. He lived with the victim, Eleanor Paez, in a trailer on the premises. On November 23, 1982, the defendant was seen drinking at a tavern near the tire shop. The defendant left the bar, only to return at 8:30 p.m. in a hysterical state, shouting that someone had shot his wife. He ran back to the tire shop while two bar patrons followed him. When the patron arrived, the defendant was telling his dead wife to wake up. Ray Silva, one of the patrons, pushed him away and began mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, at which time the defendant went berserk and charged him. Silva picked him up and dropped him on his head, rendering him unconscious. The defendant was later charged with second degree murder.

On November 24, 1982, DETECTIVE SALDATE questioned the incoherent defendant while he was strapped and handcuffed to a hospital gurney. At the time of the interview, the defendant was intoxicated, and was also suffering from brain damage caused by a skull fracture.

The case was tried to a jury, and the defendant was found guilty of second degree murder. Upon an application for post conviction relief, the trial court granted a new trial. The statements were suppressed in a Voluntariness Hearing, causing the State to dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence.


CR - 130819 State vs. Starks

On December 14, 1982, the defendant robbed the manager of a gas station at gunpoint. The defendant wore gloves on his hands and a black stocking over his head. The defendant fled on foot with $61.00.

On December 16, 1982, the defendant went to a different gas station and asked the manager for a job application. When finished filling out the application, the defendant robbed the manager at gunpoint and fled with $1,666.37.

On December 15, 1982, Detectives Espindola and SALDATE interrogated Richard Starks. In several affidavits, the defendant swore that during the interrogation the Detective asked him questions without reading him his Miranda rights. They also took his girlfriend into custody, and threatened to book her into jail if he did not sign a confession. The defendant's girlfriend also signed an affidavit confirming the above events.

Next, DETECTIVE ESPINDOLA told him that he would get 40 years in prison, and that he better say good-bye to his family. Furthermore, the detectives purposely gave him false information in an attempt to coerce a confession. Finally, the detectives refused to give him protection from other suspects, even though he was already a witness for the State. The defendant eventually signed a confession written by the detectives, and was charged with armed robbery.

The defendant pled guilty to both counts of armed robbery and was sentenced to 5.25 years in prison. The defendant entered a plea agreement before the court could rule on a Voluntariness Hearing. Upon an application for post conviction relief, the sentence was vacated, and the defendant was sentenced to seven years probation. (due to defendant's medication ?)


CR-143926 State vs. Webster

On September27, 1984, the defendant robbed a restaurant at gunpoint while three witnesses were present. The defendant was charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault.

On October 17, 1984, DETECTIVE SALDATE showed a photo line-up to two robbery witnesses. After they tentatively identified the defendant, DET. SALDATE applied for a search warrant. In his affidavit, DET. SALDATE swore that both witnesses had identified the defendant as the perpetrator, when in reality both had merely stated that the defendant "looked" like the perpetrator. DET. SALDATE also failed to mention that both witnesses had stated earlier that they could only "possibly" identify the suspect. Also, the suspect had been described as very dark complected, while the defendant was very light complected. Finally, SALDATE failed to note that the others in the photo line-up looked very little like either the suspect or the defendant.

Even if the warrant had been valid, SALDATE and other officers seized items outside the scope of the warrant. The items seized were not stolen, embezzled, or used in a crime, and therefore had no evidentiary value.

Finally, assuming the police did have probable cause to arrest the defendant, they could have arrested him on October 17, 1984. Instead, they kept him under surveillance until he got into his car so that they could conduct a pretextual contemporaneous search of the vehicle.

During trial, SALDATE testified that the defendant was in jail for the offense, even though counsel did not ask him for that information. Defense counsel immediately requested a mistrial, which the court denied.


CR - 161282 State vs. Rodriguez

On August 29, 1986, the victim and a witness were riding their bicycles when they were stopped by the defendant. The defendant struck the victim, and when the victim and witness proceeded to leave, the defendant shot the victim with a shotgun. The defendant was charged with first degree murder.

On September 5, 1986, DETECTIVE SALDATE testified before the Grand Jury. At that time, SALDATE stated that the victim had been shot four times, when in fact he had been shot only once.

Due to SALDATE'S error, the court remanded for re-determination of probable cause. Later, the defendant pled guilty to manslaughter under a plea agreement, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.


CR 87 - 00882 State vs. Moynihan

On December 31, 1986, the defendant went into his roommate's room and shot him. The defendant later bludgeoned the victim with a pistol in an attempt to get the victim to die. Later, the defendant returned and suffocated the victim to death. The defendant was charged with first degree murder.

On January 22, 1987, DET. SALDATE elicited an incriminating statement from the defendant. Defense counsel, in its motion to suppress the defendant's statements, argued that SALDATE violated the defendant's Miranda rights during the interrogation. Defense counsel also raised the possibility that the defendant was intoxicated during the interview, and that his confession was therefore involuntary. The defendant entered a plea agreement before the Voluntariness Hearing was held. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to ten years in prison.


CR 87 - 00882 State vs. Kelley

On December 31, 1986, the defendant was playing poker when he heard Chris Moynihan shoot Scott Solliday. He went into Scott's room and saw Moynihan bludgeon Scott with a BB pistol. Later, Kelley helped hold the victim's arms as Moynihan attempted to suffocate Scott, but Kelley left before Scott died. Later, he helped Moynihan dump the corpse into a canal.

On March 17, 1987, DET. SALDATE interrogated Anthony Kelley. According to SALDATE, Kelley was evasive and noncommittal during the interview. The defendant later explained this behavior by saying that he was "messed up, coming off of crystal" when DET. SALDATE questioned him.

The defendant entered a plea agreement before the Voluntariness Hearing was held. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendant pled guilty to hindering prosecution and was sentenced to one year in prison.


CR 87 - 11508 State vs. Running Eagle

On , 1987, RUNNING EAGLE and Cory Tilden burglarized the garage next to the victims' house. The victims confronted the defendants during the burglary. An argument ensued, and the victims fled into their house, where the defendants bludgeoned and stabbed them to death. RUNNING EAGLE was charged with two counts of first degree murder, one count of first degree burglary, and one count of second degree burglary.

On June 20, 1988, SALDATE testified that during his interrogation of RUNNING EAGLE, the defendant stated that he wanted to remain silent. In spite of this, SALDATE continued to question him. SALDATE also testified that he repeatedly poked the defendant in the chest during questioning, and that he generally stays within 6 to 12 inches from a suspect's face during an interrogation. SALDATE stated that at one point the defendant had tears in his eyes.

SALDATE also testified that he questioned a witness who claimed he was too drunk to remember anything. SALDATE repeatedly told the witness that he "had to do better than that," until the witness eventually agreed with SALDATE'S understanding of the facts.

The trial court found the defendant's statements admissible. A jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of first degree murder, one count of first degree burglary, and one count of second degree burglary. The defendant was sentenced to death.

Please, also read RUNNING EAGLE'S account
which we included for you to read

.

CR 88 - 05881 (B) State vs. Conde

On May 27, 1988, the defendant and his partner robbed a bank at gunpoint. He then stole a customer's car keys, and then he stole a car at gunpoint. As they fled, they shot and killed a security guard. Later, they robbed another victim of her car. An off-duty police officer observed them driving erratically and began pursuit. The officer followed them until they stopped. When the officer got out of his car and identified himself, they opened fire and fled in a vehicle. The suspects then stole another car at gunpoint. Later, police discovered Conde at an apartment complex. Several officers accosted him and ordered him to stop, when Conde responded by firing at them. They returned fire, and Conde received multiple wounds. He was taken to a hospital for treatment. The other suspect was not apprehended. Conde was charged with first degree murder, first degree burglary, 5 counts of armed robbery, attempted robbery, and 5 counts of aggravated assault.

On or about May 30, 1988, DETECTIVE SALDATE interrogated the defendant while the defendant was in a hospital bed. According to SALDATE, Mr. Conde was drifting in and out of consciousness. After SALDATE read him his rightsSALDATE was not sure whether the defendant understood them, yet he continued to ask questions even though he noticed that the defendant was in pain. SALDATE had to jostle Mr. Conde several times in order to get his attention. At that point, the defendant requested some pain medication, and the nurse said she would give it to him when the questioning was over. Finally, SALDATE terminated the interview, but only after the defendant had made inculpatory statements.

On October 30, 1989, DET. SALDATE testified at trial. Upon cross examination, the defense asked SALDATE whether he had threatened to put a witness in jail if the witness refused to talk to SALDATE regarding the crime.

On November 1, 1989, the defense asked SALDATE whether he had threatened to revoke a different witness' probation if she refused to talk to SALDATE.

The court found the statements involuntary and therefore suppressed them. (There was also a problem with whether the police brought Conde before a magistrate in time, but is this SALDATE'S fault ?) A jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder, first degree burglary, five counts of armed robbery, 8 counts of aggravated assault, and one count of attempted armed robbery. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison.


CR 88 - 09605 State vs. Reynolds

On September 6, 1988, the defendant broke into the victim's apartment via an arcadia door. He grabbed the female victim by the hair and legs and dragged her upstairs. At that point, a witness heard the sounds of a struggle, after which the defendant came back downstairs and left. Several witnesses saw the victim alive later that night. The defendant was charged with first degree murder.

On October 18, 1988, SALDATE testified before the Grand Jury. According to SALDATE, a witness had stated that he had seen the suspect enter the victim's apartment "late at night," when in fact the same witness had told Det. Addington (SALDATE'S associate) that the suspect came in at 8 p.m. Because several other witnesses had seen the victim alive 2 hours later, long after the suspect had left, SALDATE'S misstatement was extremely prejudicial.

Likewise, in the same Grand Jury proceeding, a juror asked DET. SALDATE whether the defendant had been drunk on the night of the murder. SALDATE answered that the defendant had been drinking but was not drunk, when in fact the defendant had told SALDATE that he had been drinking beer and smoking marijuana, and was therefore "too drunk" to remember certain events.

Due to the above, the trial court remanded for a new finding of probable cause, after which the State dismissed the case.


CR 89 - 08086 State vs. Rangel

On June 24, 1989, the defendant picked up his girlfriend from work. While driving, they got into an argument. The defendant stopped and got out of the truck. His girlfriend came out with a gun she had found in the vehicle. When she began complaining about the gun, the defendant grabbed the gun and shot her to death. The defendant was charged with first degree murder.

On August 3, 1989, Rangel was interrogated by DETECTIVE SALDATE. During the interview, Rangel requested an attorney three separate times. DETECTIVE SALDATE refused his request each time, and continued to question him.

After Rangel confessed, DET. SALDATE testified before a Grand Jury on August 9, 1989. In order to obtain an indictment for first degree murder, SALDATE failed to present the entirety of the information that the State had in its possession at the time of the Grand Jury hearing.

For instance, SALDATE stated that Rangel denied having a gun, but failed to mention that he later admitted that he did in fact have a gun on the night of the victim's death. Additionally, SALDATE testified that police had not found the weapon, but he specifically failed to disclose the fact that Rangel had specified where he had hidden the gun. Finally, SALDATE testified that the defendant stated that he saw the victim drive away from the crime scene. However, SALDATE failed to mention that Rangel later confessed that the victim did not drive away, but rather stayed with him until the time of her death.

On October 16, 1989, due to the above, the court granted Rangel's motion to remand to the Grand jury. After being indicted a second time, the defendant pled guilty to second degree murder pursuant to a plea agreement. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.


CR 90 - 00296 State vs. Mahler

On January 19, 1990, DETECTIVE SALDATE interrogated Mr. Mahler. Mr. Mahler immediately refused to answer any questions. At that point, SALDATE should have ceased interrogation, but he did not. SALDATE stated that he wanted to "... get (Mahler's) side of the story." Mr. Mahler answered that the police would have to either cut his girlfriend a deal, or provide him with a lawyer before he would answer any more questions. DET. SALDATE then assured the defendant that his girlfriend would be released. Here, SALDATE'S promise of leniency for Mahler's girlfriend made the confession involuntary and therefore inadmissible. Finally, SALDATE ignored Mahler's previous request for a lawyer.

Due to the above, the Court of Appeals suppressed Mr. Mahler's confession.


CR 90 - 05217 State vs. Jones

On March 9, 1990, the victim met one of the defendant's female friends in Metro Center and agreed to give her and her friends a ride home. Once on the highway, the group commandeered the victim's car. The group then drove for a while, and then stopped and forced the victim to walk deep into the desert, where the victim was shot to death.

On March 22, 1990, police stopped a vehicle that belonged to a missing person. Samuel Knott was driving, and John Jones was a passenger. The police took Knott in for questioning, while Jones voluntarily drove to the police station to wait for Knott. While Jones was waiting in the police station lobby, DETECTIVE SALDATE directed an officer to lock him in an interview room. Jones was handcuffed to a desk inside the room.

Later, Knott implicated Jones in a murder, after which police interrogated Jones, who eventually confessed. The trial court found that SALDATE had placed Jones in custody by locking him in the room, that he had no probable cause to arrest Jones, that therefore Jones' confession was the product of an unlawful arrest, that the taint thereof was not purged by intervening circumstances, and that Jones' confession was therefore inadmissible.

In the defendant's response to the State's request for a pre-trial hearing, the issue was whether police would have inevitably discovered the victim's corpse. When questioned on this matter, DET. SALDATE "... attempted to create the possibility that Samuel Knott could have led police to the crime scene." However, that possibility was negated by the information that DET. SALDATE had at the time of the inquiry.

In affirming the trial court's ruling, the Court of Appeals stated that SALDATE had detained the defendant without probable cause in the hope that something might turn up. Without the confession, the State dismissed the charges.


CR 90 - 04928 State v. Jones

On April 24, 1990, the victim died from a gunshot wound to the head. Several people were present when the shooting occurred, but did not see the actual shooting. The defendant was arrested and charged with first degree murder.

On April 24, 1990, Jones was interrogated by DETECTIVE SALDATE. The defendant initially denied any involvement in the crime. At this point, the defendant learned that his girlfriend was in custody and being questioned by the police. The defendant then told SALDATE that he would like to talk to her so that she would not lie for him and consequently be arrested for lying. DETECTIVE SALDATE never informed the defendant that the police did not intend to arrest her. The defendant's girlfriend was brought into the interviewing room, whereupon the defendant made an inculpatory statement. Because DET. SALDATE never disabused the defendant of the notion that his girlfriend would be arrested, the defendant confessed in exchange for what he believed to be an implicit "promise" that his girlfriend would not be arrested.

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress. The defendant was acquitted in a trial to a jury.


CR 90 - 00050 State v. King

On December 27, 1990, the defendant and his partner robbed a convenience store. The defendant shot and killed the clerk and the security guard. The defendant was charged with two counts of first degree murder and one count of armed robbery.

On December 28, 1990, DETECTIVE SALDATE interrogated the defendant. Halfway through the interview, the defendant said he would not answer any more questions, and yet DET. SALDATE continued to question him. In addition, at the Voluntariness Hearing held on June 22, 1990, DETECTIVE SALDATE stated on direct examination that the defendant never said he did not want to answer any more questions. On cross examination, defense counsel read SALDATE'S report of the interview, wherein the defendant had stated "... I'm not going to answer any more of your questions."

The court excluded all of the defendant's statement made after that point in the interview. A jury found the defendant guilty of 2 counts of first degree murder. The defendant was sentenced to death.

E X E C U T E D

Please also read the Skepical Juror's account about the case of ERIC KING

.

CR 90 - 00296 State vs. Ross

In State vs. Ross, DETECTIVE SALDATE displayed a photo lineup to Samantha Tingue, the sole eyewitness to the murder of her husband. After she failed to identify the defendant, SALDATE informed her father-in-law that she had chosen the wrong person. The father-in-law then relayed this information back to Mrs. Tingue.

Comments by the police following an identification are routinely condemned. See State vs. Day, 148 Ariz. 490, 755 P.2d 743 (1986).


CR 89 - 08277 State vs. Fraser

On August 1, 1989, the defendant shot and killed his girlfriend's stepfather in the victim's front yard. Between August 2, 1989 and August 6, 1989, the defendant fraudulently forged and passed forty-three of the victim's checks. The defendant was charged with first degree murder and fraudulent schemes and artifices.

On July 29, 1991, DET. SALDATE testified at trial. Upon cross examination, defense counsel asked SALDATE several questions that implied that SALDATE had put words in the defendant's mouth during the interrogation.

The court found the statements admissible. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 21 years in prison.



This page was last modified:
Friday, 18-Jan-2013 21:51:10 CET
The Debra Jean Milke Case


Return to previous page Home | Table of Contents ]  



© 1998-2014
http://www.debbiemilke.com/ [Renate Janka]