No. ____________

THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

____________________________________________________________

IN RE THE PERSONAL RESTRAINT PETITION OF:

CHARLES WEBER,

PETITIONER.

____________________________________________________________

OPENING BRIEF OF PETITIONER WEBER____________________________________________________________

MICHAEL C. KAHRS, WSBA #27085Attorney for Petitioner Weber5215 Ballard Ave. NW, Ste. 2

Seattle, WA 98107(206) 264-0643

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. STATUS OF PETITIONER/PROCEDURAL HISTORY.. . . . 1

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B. THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

C. THE DEFENSE INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

D. THE TRIAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

E. POST-TRIAL INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

III. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

IV. ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

A. MR. WEBER WILL SHOW HE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEFBECAUSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS RESULTINGIN THE CONVICTION OF AN INNOCENT MAN. . . . 18

B. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.. . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1. Legal Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2. Trial Counsel’s Pretrial Investigation Was Ineffective,Resulting In the Conviction of an Innocent Man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3. Trial Counsel Failed To Mount a Reasonable DefenseAt Trial, Resulting In the Conviction of an InnocentMan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4. The Numerous Errors Before and During Trial WerePrejudicial and Cumulatively Denied Weber a FairTrial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

i

C. NEW EVIDENCE PERMITS THIS COURT TO GRANTMR. WEBER THE RELIEF HE SEEKS – VACATION OFHIS CRIMINAL CONVICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

D. THE PROCEDURAL CLAIM OF ACTUAL INNOCENCEOPENS THE PROCEDURAL DOOR TO CONSIDER MR.WEBER’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS.. . . . . . . . . . . 31

E. WEBER IS INNOCENT BECAUSE ANOTHERCOMMITTED THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE WASCHARGED AND CONVICTED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1. The Evidence Establishes Without Question ThatWeber Is Innocent As Charged And Convicted. . . 34

2. This Court Has the Authority to Assert It Is In theBest Interests of the Court System to not IncarcerateInnocent Individuals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3. The Knowing and Continued Incarceration of anInnocent Citizen Shocks the Conscience. . . . . . . . 38

4. Our State Courts Must Consider Procedural DueProcess and the Prohibition of Cruel and UnusualPunishment When Examining Freestanding ActualInnocence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5. Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

F. WEBER IS ENTITLED TO A REFERENCE HEARING TODETERMINE HIS INNOCENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

V. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

VII. PARTY DECLARATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Cases Page #

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Bearden v. Georgia, 372 U.S. 252 (1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Boulsey v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Harris v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432 (9 Cir. 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27th

Hart v. Gomez, 174 F.3d 1067 (9 Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21th

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 37, 39, 41

Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006 (9 Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20th

Jones v. Arkansas, 929 F.2d 375 (8 Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32th

Lord v. Wood, 184 F.3d 1083 (9 Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21th

Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 36

Phillips v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966 (9 Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20th

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). . . . . . . . . . . 40

Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 38

Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446 (9 Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 21th

Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 37, 45

iii

Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527 (1986).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Spence v. Superintendent Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162 (2 Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33nd

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20

United State v. Makalajunas, 186 F.3d 490 (4 Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . 33th

United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

State Cases

Alderwood Assoc. v. Washington Environmental Council, 96 Wn.2d 230, 635 P.2d 108 (1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). . . . . . . . . . 38

In re Pers. Restraint of Brown, 143 Wn.2d 431, 21 P.3d 687 (2001). . . . 27

In re Pers. Restraint of Carter, 154 Wn. App. 907, 230 P.3d 181 (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32

In re Pers. Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 792 P.2d 506 (1990). . . . 18

In re Pers. Restraint of Hews, 99 Wn.2d 80, 660 P.2d 263 (1983). . . . . . 44

In re Pers. Restraint of Hoisington, 99 Wn. App. 423, 993 P.2d 296 (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

In re Pers. Restraint of Pirtle, 136 Wn.2d 467, 965 P.2d 593 (1998). . . . 20

In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876, 828 P.2d 1086 (1992). . . . 18

In re Pers. Restraint of Woods, 154 Wn.2d 400, 114 P.3d 607 (2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

iv

Miller v. Comm. of Correc., 242 Conn. 745, 700 A.2d 1109 (Conn. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Montoya v. Ulibarri, 142 N.M. 89, 163 P.3d 476 (N.M. 2007). . 38, 41, 43

People v. Cole, 1 Misc.3d 531 (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. NY 2003). . . . . . . . 38

People v. Washington, 171 Ill.2d 475, 655 N.E. 2d 1330 (Ill. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 39

State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . 38

State v. Dodd, 120 Wn.2d 1, 838 P.2d 86 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

State v. Duvall, 86 Wn. App. 871, 940 P.2d 671 (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 42

State v. Livey, 130 Wn.2d 1, 921 P.2d 1035 (1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-40

State v. Manussier, 129 Wn.2d 652, 921 P.2d 473 (1996). . . . . . . . . . . . 41

State v. Martinez, 121 Wn. App. 21, 86 P.3d 1210 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . 38

State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

State v. Weber, 127 Wn. App. 879, 112 P.3d 1287 (2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252, 149 P.3d 646 (2006).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 634 P.2d 868 (1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Summerville v. Warden, State Prison, 229 Conn. 397, 641 A.2d 1356 (1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Statutes and Rules

RAP 16.11(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

RAP 16.12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

v

RAP 16.4(c)(1).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

RCW 10.73.090. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

RCW 10.73.100(1).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Other Authorities

U.S. Const. amend VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Wash. Const. art. I, § 22.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

vi

Petitioner, Charles Weber, by and through his attorney, Michael C.

Kahrs, of the Kahrs Law Firm, P.S., applies for relief from personal restraint.

I. STATUS OF PETITIONER/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Washington State

Penitentiary, located in Walla Walla, Washington.

On June 5, 2003, the King County Prosecutor filed a second amended

information charging Charles Weber with attempted murder in the first

degree, assault in the first degree, unlawful possession of a firearm in the first

degree, and violation of the uniform controlled substances act. CP 34-36.

Weber initially pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.

The jury subsequently found Weber guilty at trial of the lesser included

offense of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree

and possession of a firearm in the first degree. State v. Weber, 127 Wn. App.

879, 883, 112 P.3d 1287 (2005).

On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s

vacation of the assault conviction due to double jeopardy issues was incorrect

and instead the second degree attempted murder count should have been

vacated, leaving Weber with the longer sentence. The trial court’s denial of

Weber’s prior juvenile adjudication for sentencing purposes was also

overturned. Subsequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals,

setting forth the facts as it knew them.

1

In the early morning of March 18, 2003, Weber was at afriend's apartment with several people drinking beer. Weberand his friend, Nick Renion, started to argue with GabrielManzo-Vasquez (Manzo). During the argument, Weberpulled a gun on Manzo. Manzo escaped the apartment byjumping out of a bedroom window and ran to his vehicle.Weber followed Manzo outside and fired multiple shots atManzo's vehicle. One of the bullets grazed Manzo's side,causing a slight injury.

When the police investigated the incident, Manzo told themthat a man he knew as “Guero Loco” shot him. “Guero Loco”translates as “crazy white guy” in English. Manzo providedthe police with a physical description of Weber, including adescription of the distinctive tattoo of "206" on the back of hisneck. Manzo identified Weber in a photo montage with 80percent certainty and stated that he could be only 80 percentcertain because he could not see the blacked out tattoo. Attrial, Manzo identified Weber as his shooter and confirmedthat he had the correct tattoo.

State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252, 648, 149 P.3d 646 (2006).

Subsequently, Weber filed a pro se Personal Restraint Petition with

the Court of Appeals. There, he raised various issues including insufficient

evidence, failure of appellate counsel to raise ineffective assistance before the

Supreme Court, failure of his trial counsel to interview all pertinent

witnesses, improper jury instruction, and prosecutorial misconduct. He asked

for a reference hearing. The Supreme Court ruled against Weber’s

arguments. In re PRP of Weber, No. 815790-8 (Sept. 29, 2008).

Weber is filing this PRP based on new evidence showing that his trial

counsel was ineffective and that he is innocent of the charges he was

2

convicted of at trial. Weber is seeking to proceed at public expense because

he is indigent. Counsel for Weber is representing him pro bono. Weber has

filed contemporaneously with this PRP a motion to proceed at public expense

and to have the verbatim report of proceedings previously used by this Court.

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS

A. INTRODUCTION

Charles Weber had no idea that when he sat down that evening of

March 17, 2003, to watch videos with his cousin, that his evil doppleganger

would commit a crime for which Weber would be subsequently arrested and

convicted. Weber presented an alibi defense at trial but was convicted –

convicted because the shooter was identified as having a similar nickname

and the same tattoo and even looked somewhat like him. We know now

Weber was wrongfully convicted and it was his doppleganger, nicknamed

“Boxer,” who did it.

B. THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION

The shooting occurred in the early morning of March 18, 2003. After

investigating the scene of the reported shooting, officers from the King

County Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”) responded to a call from a private security

guard who had met the victim at his apartment house. Exhibit 1 (Report of

Officer Hoyne).

3

The victim talked to the officers not long after the incident. When he

was first interviewed, Gabriel Vazquez Vazquez provided a narrative to the

investigating detective, who wrote it down in his report. Exhibit 2 (Report

of Officer Baxter).

In this initial statement, Vazquez said he was at a party thrown by his

friend Rhonda Encinas. He stated he met three guys whom he had seen once

before. He stated that the three were members of the Barrio Locos gang. He

described two of them as white and one as Mexican. He then named Nick

Renion, Andreas, and the shooter, who had a nickname of “Guero Loco.” Id.

Vazquez described the shooter as a white male in his 20s,

approximately 5'6" tall, very skinny with a shaved head. He was described

as having a tattoo of “206 ” on the back of his neck. Id.

Vazquez said the argument started over an alcoholic beverage with

Renion. Renion wanted Vazquez to go outside and fight Renion. When

Vazquez refused, he claimed Guero Loco pulled a semi-automatic pistol and

told him he better go outside or he would be shot. The gun was described as

stainless steel or nickel plated. Vazquez describes pushing the gun down.

Encinas then tried to then intervene. During this time, Vazquez ran into the

bedroom and shut the door. Another male, later identified as Victor Garcia-

Rodriguez, was in the bedroom. Id.

4

Vazquez said he held the door shut and then climbed out the window

onto an awning. He ran to the side and jumped off the awning onto the

ground, running to his truck. Vazquez said all three men followed him down

the stairs. He said Guero Loco fired about 8 shots at him. He felt a sharp

pain in his stomach but kept driving. He then drove home. Id.

Based upon the information provided by Vazquez, a deputy checked

a database for variations on this nickname. Based upon the similarity

between of the nickname as described by Vazquez and a supposed nickname

used by Weber of “Vario Loco,” combined with the “206” tattoo on the back

of his neck, he was determined to be a person of interest. Exhibit 3 (Report

of Officer McCurdy). A photo montage was then put together.

Later that same day, an officer noticed a car driven by Charles Weber

failing to stop at a stop sign. Exhibit 4 (Report of Officer Litsjo). Because

Weber was identified as a person of interest because of the “206” tattoo and

the alleged nickname of “Vario Loco,” the office confirmed probable cause

and placed Weber under arrest. Id. Incident to the arrest, the car was

searched. The only items of interest found were two baggies with white

powder. No evidence was found in the car linking Weber to the prior assault

on Vazquez. The vehicle was then sealed and impounded. Id.

5

Weber was then booked into the King County Jail. His booking

photographs show that his hair length was approximately ½ inch. Exhibit 5

(King County Jail Booking Photographs).

Garcia-Rodriguez was interviewed the next day, March 19, 2003,

when Officer Thompkins went to the location of the party. Exhibit 6 (Report

of Officer Thompkins). There, Garcia-Rodriguez told Thompkins that when

he arrived there were some three Russian guys in the apartment. He went

into his bedroom and was at the location of the party with Encinas, Vazquez,

Renion, Guero Loco and an unknown male. He stated that later that evening,

while in bed in his room, there was a disturbance and Vazquez came into the

room and asked him to block the door while he escaped. He said Encinas had

prevented them from coming into the room. He identified an individual at

the party with the Spanish nickname for crazy white guy. Garcia-Rodriguez

stated there was some type of argument about BL, which is the initials of the

gang Barrio Loco. He stated that he did not know the third person who was

present. Garcia-Rodriguez never saw Guero Loco with a gun. He claimed

to see the three men run out the front door after Vazquez jumped out the

window chasing Vazquez. They then decided to get the car and start chasing.

It was supposedly a gray car. Id.

Encinas was then interviewed by Thompkins on the 20th. She

claimed not to know anything about a gun or shots but knew Vazquez had

6

been shot because he had informed her the next day. Not once did this

interview did Thompkins ask Encinas questions about who Andreas was even

though he was the other known witness. She provided an accurate phone

number for Vazquez. Id.

Vazquez was called and then interviewed by Thompkins. Vazquez

was asked to pick out Guero Loco and Renion from two photo montages. He

picked out Renion with certainty. He then selected Weber’s photo with 80%

certainty that he was the one who shot at him. He stated if he could see

Weber’s tattoos he could be more sure. Id.1

Thompkins then interviewed Weber’s alibi witnesses, Stephanie

Fisher, on May 30, 2003. Fisher told Thompkins that she understood that the

victim identified Weber because “he was too afraid to identify the real

shooter.” Thompkins deliberately did not explore this reasoning. Id.

Fisher had understood Encinas would testify that Weber wasn’t at the

scene and that she wouldn’t be needed at trial. Encinas had apparently visited

Weber in jail and told Weber she would come forward and tell the police

Weber wasn’t at the scene. Fisher hadn’t previously wanted to get involved

because of personal issues. Id.

All tattoos were covered up in the photo montage. 1

7

Thompkins then talked to Fisher and learned about her pending

divorce. He then told her how various crimes such as theft, forgery,

embezzlement and perjury could be used against her in future court

proceedings and that attorneys look for this in custody disputes. Id.

Fisher provided a taped statement, saying that Weber was at her house

that night but he left on two occasions for 30-45 minutes. Thompkins claims

she didn’t know what he was doing during that time. She then recalled he left

one of those times after midnight. Id.

The KCSO never checked for fingerprints on the shells. They never

checked for gunpowder residue on Weber’s clothes or body. No investigation

was conducted at Weber’s house.

C. THE DEFENSE INVESTIGATION

Subsequent to his arraignment, Weber was assigned an attorney from

the Northwest Defenders Association, Randolph Hall. The first time he met

with him was before a status conference. Exhibit 7 (Declaration of Charles

Weber). At this meeting, Weber told Hall He was innocent. After being told

what the evidence consisted of, Weber pointed out there was no physical

evidence linking him to the crime. Hall told Weber he was looking at a lot

of time and that he should take the plea deal. Weber refused to take the plea

deal because he was innocent. Id.

8

Weber was told that the party was at Encinas’ apartment. He thought

his counsel told him Nick Renion was there but he states with certainty that

he wasn’t told about Andreas. Hall never asked Weber about where Encinas

might be so that he could ask her some questions. Weber was never asked

about where Renion might be located. Weber was never visited by the

defense investigator, Kristen O’Leary, while he was in jail. Id.

There were several known witnesses to what happened at the party.

These included Nick Renion, an individual known “Andreas,” Victor Garcia-

Rodriguez, and Rhonda Encinas. Trial counsel for Mr. Weber interviewed

the victim. Exhibit 8 (Defense Interview of Vazquez). He told the

investigator that he arrived at around 8:00. There were three Russian guys

present when he arrived. They had been there when he had visited

previously. The guy with the gun and four male friends arrived around

midnight while the Russians were still there. Vazquez said he had seen the

guy with the gun and two of his friends before. The shooter identified

himself to Vazquez as Guero Loco. Before midnight, Vazquez had drunk six

beers. Id.

According to Vazquez, Guero Loco was there for half an hour. He

left and came back around 3:00 a.m. In the mean time, Vazquez had drunk

another beer and a half. Besides Guero Loco and Renion, the third person

9

was identified as Encinas’ cousin Andreas. The Russian guys and a couple

of Guero Loco’s friends then left. Id.

Vazquez stated the argument started over beer. Guero Loco pulled a

gun and told Vazquez he needed to go outside to show respect to Renion.

Vazquez said Renion told Guero Loco to put the gun away and pushed the

gun aside. At this time, Vazquez then ran into the other room, out the

window, onto the awning, and finally onto the ground. Id.

He further stated that as he was reversing his vehicle, he saw the

shooter put a clip into the gun and shoot toward him. He said there were

street lights but it was almost 5:00 a.m. and the sun was coming up. He

subsequently said that he had explained to the detective that without the

tattoos, he could not identify Guero Loco with certainty. Id.

He interviewed Mr. Weber’s one known alibi witnesses, his cousin.

The renter of the location where the party and shooting took place, Rhonda

Encinas, was not interviewed. The individual named as part of the2

altercation, Nick Renion, was not interviewed. Finally, the other witness

known simply as Andreas, was not located, and of course, not interviewed.

There is no evidence that any of the Sheriff’s officers who would testify were

interviewed.

Defense counsel was chastised by the Court for not using all available means2

to interview Encinas.

10

D. THE TRIAL

In opening statements, defense counsel argued that Vazquez had made

up the whole story. Patrol Officer McCurdy testified that Vazquez told him

about Renion, Andreas and Guero Loco. 1VPR 37. He described Guero3

Loco as around 5'6" tall, weighing about 160 pounds and had numerous

tattoos including a large “206” tattooed on the back of his neck. He also said

he had the nickname of “Guero Loco.” 1VPR 39. He testified he was

familiar with Spanish and wrote down what he heard. 1VPR 40. When

Vazquez later reviewed his statement, he did not ask that “Guero” be

changed after taking considerable amount of time reviewing the statement.

1VPR 106.

The next important witness to testify was the victim, Vazquez.

Vazquez testified that he saw three Russians there when he got there. 2VPR

125. They were drinking vodka and he was drinking Miller beer. 2VPR 127.

Victor arrived and went into the bedroom to watch TV. 2VPR 127. Sherry

came and left. 2VPR 127-28. The shooter came with three friends. He was

identified at trial by Vazquez as Weber although he had changed his hair.

There are five days of testimony in this trial. Since the days are not3

numbered sequentially, each day will be numbered separately. 1VRP shallrefer to testimony on June 17, 2003. 2VRP to testimony on June 18, 2003. 3VRP shall refer to testimony on June 19, 2003. 4VRP shall refer totestimony on June 25, 2003. 5VRP shall refer to testimony on June 26, 2003.

11

2VPR 128-29. Vazquez testified he had met him before. 2VPR 129-30. He

said to call him Guero Loco or Boxer. 2VPR 131. He had a “206” tattoo.

Id.

He met two other cousins of Encinas. One was Renion, the other he

couldn’t remember. 2VPR 133-34. Guero Loco left for about an hour.

2VPR 136.

The fight was about not wishing to go outside and fight Renion; it was

about respect. 2VPR 139-41. Guero Loco pulled a gun and pointed it at

Vazquez. 2VPR 142-43. The gun was brown. 2VPR 144. Vazquez said he

pushed the gun down and Encinas got between the two men. 2VPR 145.

Vazquez testified he ran into the bedroom and closed the door. Id. He asked

Victor to call the police and then jumped out the window. Id. He said he had

drank about 9 beers and he was in the bedroom 5 to 7 minutes. 3VPR 6,

3VPR 8.

Vazquez said he got into his truck. When he was starting to back up,

he saw the shooter coming down the stairs and going to between the street

and the parking lot. 3VPR 14-15. He said Guero Loco pulled a magazine for

the gun from his right-hand pocket in his jacket. 3VPR 15. The shooter was

holding the gun in his left hand. Id. Vazquez said that while he wasn’t sure

initially, he was absolutely sure Weber is the individual who shot at him

because of the tattoo. 3VPR 36, 3VPR 38.

12

Detective Alvarez got on the stand and testified how the information

the victim provided was an exact match with Charles Weber. 4VPR 10. He

stated knew of no other individuals in the White Center area with a “206”

tattoo on his neck. 4VPR 10. He testified that no weapon was found during

the search of the car. 4VPR 16.

The next major witness was Thompkins. He testified about the

missing witnesses. He said Renion had some criminal liability. 5VPR 61.

However, he had not had a warrant issued for his arrest based upon this

incident. 5VPR 62.

Thompkins testified about his search for Andreas. All he did to

identify or locate Andreas was to look in the computer database for

individuals with that name who were associated with Renion or Weber. He

did not find anyone. 5VPR 62. He also testified he talked with Encinas.

4VPR 82. He stated that she was uncooperative but did provide some

information orally. 4VPR 83. He did say that he talked to her father who

was cooperative. 4VPR 88-89. He did not ask her father about a nephew

named Andreas.

Thompkins also testified about putting together the montage of

photographs for identification by the victim. Using a booking photograph

and a computer system, a montage is built using characteristics similar to the

subject in question. 4VPR 96-97. The necks were blacked out to rule out the

13

tattoo as the identifier. 4VPR 97. He showed the victim the montage that

had been put together. 4VPR 94-95.

Fisher then testified for the Defense. She stated that she was at home

with her baby and her cousin, Weber, watching movies and drinking beer.

5VPR 92-93, 95. She and Weber lived with Weber’s mother. 5VPR 94. She

was awake the entire night. She was able to place Weber there on that night

because he got arrested the day before her stepfather’s funeral, which was

March 19. 5VPR 109.

Fischer testified that Weber left twice. The first time, he went to get

milk for the baby. 5VPR 95-96. He was gone maybe half an hour. The

second time was between midnight and one a.m. to go get beer. 5VPR 96.

It took about ten minutes. Id.

She stated that she had not come forward because she understood that

Encinas, who was at the scene, would provide needed testimony. 5VPR 98.

Fisher also was dealing with a divorce and child custody issues. 5VPR 98-

99. She was afraid because she had been threatened with perjury, which

would affect her custody battle, by Thompkins. 5VPR 99.

Even though an alibi witness was produced, Mr. Weber did not testify

on his own behalf. The State asked for and obtained a warrant for Encinas

as a material witness. Hall, when asked if he had any position on signing the

warrant, stated the following:

14

And I certainly haven’t been provided with any informationregarding how to contact her myself or I haven’t been able tomake efforts to determine her availability. So that’s the onlything I would say for the record.

2VPR 3.

E. POST-TRIAL INVESTIGATION

After Weber filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the United

States District Court, Western District of Washington, appointed counsel and

approved funding for an investigator. The investigator, Alwin Farr, looked

for witnesses named in the police reports and at trial. 4

All attempts by Farr to locate the victim failed. Vazquez had supplied

an invalid social security number to the Sheriff’s office. Farr was unable to

find him on any of the databases he uses. Inquiries at and/or near his listed

residence failed to produce any leads and no one clearly remembered him.

Exhibit 9 (Declaration of Alwin Farr).

Rhonda Encinas was located because she was scheduled to appear at

a court proceeding. At the court, Farr took a recorded statement. In this

statement, Encinas claimed she was very drunk at the time and could not even

recall shots being fired. She was re-contacted and signed the statement

Weber was unable to provide names of individuals at trial because he was4

not present at the scene of the crime.

15

reflecting her conversation with Farr. Exhibit 10 (Declaration of Rhonda

Encinas).

The fact that Andreas had told Vazquez he was a cousin to Encinas

was relayed to Weber by Counsel. Based on this information, Weber

identified the missing witness as Andrew Larson. Larson is a cousin of both

Renion and Encinas. Farr then located Larson and interviewed him. Larson

stated that he had been at the party at Encinas’ apartment that night when

several shots were fired. He was in the kitchen when the shot were fired and

he did not see who fired them. Exhibit 11 (Declaration of Andrew Larson).

Larson was absolutely certain that Weber was not at the party. He had

known Weber since 6th grade. Larson stated that the only person he knew

there, other than Encinas, was his cousin Renion. Id.

When asked why he did not come forward for trial, Larson stated had

not known why Weber had been arrested. Larson thought Weber had been

arrested for the possession of drugs. The first time Larson learned that Weber

had been convicted of attempted murder was when he was contacted by the

investigator. Had he known what Weber had been charged with, he would

have come forward immediately to the proper authorities. Larson was

subsequently asked about an individual known also as Boxer and Guero

Loco. Larson identified him as being at the party when the shots were fired.

Id.

16

Farr then interviewed Fisher. Fisher again reiterated her trial

testimony about Weber being with her most of the evening except for the two

trips. Farr finally attempted to locate the other witness, Garcia-Rodriguez.

All of these attempts failed. Exhibit 9.

After the shooter was identified as Boxer, a witness named Scott

Meth came forward who knew Boxer also as Guero Loco. He described him

as having a bunch of tattoos all over and a bald head. Meth describes that day

as hanging with a group who ended up at Encinas’ apartment. Boxer was

identified as being there at that time. Manzo was also there at the same time.

Exhibit 12 (Declaration of Scott Meth).

Another missing witness, Brian Strickland, has provided knowledge

that Boxer had a tattoo of “206” on the back of his neck, had a similar

nickname and looked like him. Exhibit 13 (Declaration of Brian Strickland).

III. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

This petition is filed pursuant to RAP 16.4(c)(1). No other remedies

are available to the Petitioner on the ineffective assistance of counsel issue

presented. Petitioner’s restraint is unlawful for the following reasons:

1. Weber is actually innocent of the charges he was convicted of.

2. Weber was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance

of counsel.

17

IV. ARGUMENT

A. MR. WEBER WILL SHOW HE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEFBECAUSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS RESULTING INTHE CONVICTION OF AN INNOCENT MAN.

Weber must show that, because of his being provided ineffective

assistance of counsel, a constitutional error resulted in actual and substantial

prejudice. In re Pers. Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 811, 812, 792 P.2d5

506 (1990). In support of such a claim, evidence must be presented that is

more than speculation, conjecture, or inadmissible hearsay in the form of

affidavits or other evidence. In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876,

886, 828 P.2d 1086 (1992). Weber makes this showing, through declarations

and evidence, that he has suffered actual and substantial prejudice because he

was convicted of a crime for which he is innocent.

Although Weber is potentially time barred in accordance with RCW

10.73.090, he will show that he is entitled to a new trial because of his trial

counsel being ineffective. This Court may consider this issue both because

of the new evidence presented and because equitable tolling is permitted

based on a procedural claim of actual innocence. Although this is a

successive PRP, it is not an abuse of the writ because new grounds have been

filed and Weber had previously proceeded pro se.

Non-constitutional errors can also count but are not relevant to this PRP.5

18

Finally Weber will show that he is entitled to his free-standing claim

of actual innocence. It will be shown that this Court has the power to grant

relief from conviction based on the factually based claim of actual innocence

and that the nature of the relief is dependent on the status of the case below.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.

1. Legal Standard

Effective assistance of counsel is “fundamental and essential to fair

trials.” Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963). “Effective

assistance of counsel is guaranteed by both the federal and state

constitutions.” In re Pers. Restraint of Woods, 154 Wn.2d 400, 420, 114

P.3d 607 (2005) (citing U.S. Const. amend VI; Wash. Const. art. I, § 22). To

prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Petitioner must

demonstrate first that the performance of his counsel fell below an objective

standard of reasonableness, and second that “there is a reasonable probability

that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding

would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694

(1984). Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test removes the need

to consider the other. Id. at 688. See also Woods, 154 Wn.2d at 420-21.

Counsel’s performance is deficient when it falls below an objective standard

of reasonableness. State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 705, 940 P.2d 1239

(1997). Prejudice occurs when, but for the deficient performance, there is a

19

reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed. In re Pers.

Restraint of Pirtle, 136 Wn.2d 467, 487, 965 P.2d 593 (1998).

There is a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the

wide range of reasonable professional assistance,” and that “[j]udicial

scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential,” Strickland,

466 U.S. at 689. However, defense counsel must, “at a minimum, conduct

a reasonable investigation enabling him to make informed decisions about

how best to represent his client.” Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1456 (9th

Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original); see also Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d

1006, 1013 (9 Cir. 2002). A defense attorney’s failure to consider alternateth

defenses constitutes deficient performance when the attorney “neither

conduct[s] a reasonable investigation nor ma[kes] a showing of strategic

reasons for failing to do so.” Sanders, 21 F.3d at 1456; see also Phillips v.

Woodford, 267 F.3d 966, 980 (9 Cir. 2001). Counsel “has a duty to maketh

reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes

particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. The

failure to investigate is especially egregious when a defense attorney fails to

consider potentially exculpatory evidence:

A lawyer who fails adequately to investigate, and to introduceinto evidence, information that demonstrates his client’sfactual innocence, or that raises sufficient doubts as to thatquestion to undermine confidence in the verdict, rendersdeficient performance.

20

Lord v. Wood, 184 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9 Cir. 1999) (finding defense counsel’sth

performance deficient because he failed to interview or call at trial three

witnesses who had told police and investigators that they saw the victim alive

a day after the defendant allegedly killed her); see also Hart v. Gomez, 174

F.3d 1067, 1070 (9 Cir. 1999) (finding defense counsel’s performanceth

deficient because he failed to review or introduce at trial documents

corroborating defense witness’s testimony); Sanders, 21 F.3d at 1457 (finding

defense counsel’s performance deficient because he failed to investigate or

introduce at trial evidence implicating his clien’'s brother). This case falls

directly under Lord, Hart and Sanders.

2. Trial Counsel’s Pretrial Investigation Was Ineffective,Resulting In the Conviction of an Innocent Man.

Trial counsel was presented with a conundrum – the evidence on first

blush suggested Weber was the culprit. After all, Weber had been identified

by the victim as being at the party, had a similar nickname to the shooter, and

the shooter supposedly had a tattoo of “206” on the back of his neck. And

yet, Weber demanded to go to trial and rejected a proffered plea deal.

Counsel was presented with two different possible scenarios. First, Weber

was innocent as he always claimed and the victim had made a mistake in

identification. Second, Weber was guilty of the crime but refused to accept

the plea. If it was the first, then there must be reasons why Weber was

21

identified. If it was the second, then counsel’s job is to make the state prove

its case.

Given the facts of the case, the second scenario was completely

unrealistic. Trial counsel was presented with specific identifying features of

the shooter and at first blush, Weber met the description. Trial counsel

attacked Manzo’s testimony to show inconsistencies in the story by Manzo.

However, other witnesses in the neighborhood testified they heard the

shooting. No evidence was presented of a motive to make up such a story.

There was just too much corroborating evidence that a shooting had taken

place. Under either scenario, trial counsel failed to do his job. If Hall had

taken Weber at his word that he was innocent, he would not have rushed to

trial and instead taken the time to locate missing witnesses and interview

them.

Counsel was aware that Manzo had previously met Weber and

presumably had knowledge of his tattoo at that time. It could simply be a

story of a mistaken identification. After all, a lot of people today have a

tattoo of an area code on their body as a statement of civic price. Just6

One tattoo website stated the following:6

Many people take a lot of pride in where they come from: aparticular region, zip code, or area code. Be wary if you tattoothis – you’ll look silly with the 909 area code on your backwhen your 909 area code changes to 951.

22

because the case looked at first blush as difficult, he still had the obligation

to investigate, especially since his client consistently claimed he was

innocent.

Apparently, trial counsel, just like the State, could not locate Encinas

and Renion, although they had opportunities. Counsel failed to seek any

material witness warrants. He did not seek any continuances solely so he

could locate the missing witnesses.

There was also a third known witness at the scene according to

Manzo: “Andreas.” During the defense interview of Manzo, Andreas was

identified as another cousin of Encinas. What did counsel then do with this

information? Nothing. There is no evidence other family members of

Encinas were interviewed with the purpose of identifying who Andreas was.

Thompkins testified at trial he talked with Encinas’ father. Trial counsel

could have obtained his contact information from Thompkins.

What about Weber? He knew an Andrew and could have identified

him as Encinas’ cousin. However, Weber distinctly remembers not talking

with his counsel about Andreas. There was no way he could be identified

without trial counsel brining it to Weber’s attention.

http://hubpages.com/hub/tattoo-art.

23

The pretrial interview of Vazquez also failed to solicit critical

information that reinforced Weber’s claim of innocence, and which was not

presented to the jury. First, the shooter was apparently left-handed because

he pulled the gun out with his left hand and loaded the clip with his right. A

gun expert has provided testimony stating that it is most likely the shooter

was left-handed. Exhibit 14 (Declaration of Marty Hayes). Weber is right-

handed. This fact was not challenged at trial because counsel was

unprepared.

Next, Vazquez claimed the shooter had a shaved head when he

initially talked to the police. Weber most certainly was not, as his booking

photos show. Counsel failed to use this information at trial to show a

possible misidentification because counsel was unprepared.

Finally, Manzo testified about the shooter having a second nickname,

Boxer. Weber never had this nickname and many would testify to this. This

information was not solicited during the interview. All of this information

pointed to a different individual being the shooter, information which the

police could use to identify the real shooter.

3. Trial Counsel Failed To Mount a Reasonable Defense AtTrial, Resulting In the Conviction of an Innocent Man.

Trial counsel’s actions at trial fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness and denied Weber the effective assistance of counsel at trial.

24

There were numerous opportunities for trial counsel to challenge or follow

up on evidence presented by the State. The failure to challenge the evidence

cannot be explained away as a mere strategic decision.

First, trial counsel failed to ask questions exploring the initial

statement made by Vasquez that the shooter was bald. Weber was not bald

at the time of the shooting, as his hair was approximately a half-inch long

when he was arrested the following day. Consequently, further inquiry would

have raised a reasonable doubt regarding the certainty of the victim’s

identification of Weber as the shooter.

Trial counsel also failed to explore the incongruity of the testimony

that the shooter loaded the clip with right hand and fired the gun with his left.

Expert testimony could have easily established the unlikelihood that a right-

handed person, such as Weber, would fire a gun with his left hand. While not

absolutely conclusive evidence that Weber was not the shooter, exploration

into the likelihood of a shooter using his non-dominant hand would have

supported a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. There is no conceivable

strategic rationale for failing to explore this evidence.

Trial counsel’s failure to inquire further into alternate nicknames for

the shooter fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. At trial,

testimony was revealed that the shooter was also known by the nickname

“Boxer.” Trial counsel failed to follow up that evidence with testimony from

25

witnesses who knew Weber that would establish that he has never been

known by that nickname. The failure to make inquiries was not strategic, it

was simply a failure of trial counsel to adequately mount a defense in a

murder trial.

Trial counsel failed to explore the commonality of “206” tattoos

among the populace, which increased the likelihood in the jurors’ minds that

Weber was properly identified by the victim. Shortly after the incident, the

victim stated that he could be sure of the identity of the shooter if he could

have seen the “206” tattoo in the photo montage. Consequently, the victim

seemed placed undue weight on the appearance of the tattoo, ignoring other

distinguishing features. Then, when the victim saw Weber, he noticed the

tattoo and failed to distinguish Weber from the tattoo. Had trial counsel, on

cross-examination, asked Detective Alvarez about the ubiquity of “206”

amongst suspected gang members and others in the Seattle metro area, it

would have been clearer to the jury that picking out the tattoo would not

necessarily rule out another person as the shooter. This failure of inquiry

could not have been a reasonable strategic decision because any attempt to

induce doubt regarding the identity of the shooter would have been

preferable.

26

4. The Numerous Errors Before and During Trial WerePrejudicial and Cumulatively Denied Weber a Fair Trial.

The prejudicial effect of counsel’s errors must be considered

cumulatively rather than individually. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362

(2000); Harris v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432, 1438-39 (9 Cir. 1995). It is theth

errors counsel made in pretrial investigation and during trial itself which

determine whether or not he was ineffective. Counsel failed to conduct a

reasonable examination before trial, and he failed to adequately inquire into

numerous subjects that each would have induced a reasonable doubt in the

jury. Based on all of the numerous the errors, Weber is entitled to a new

trial.

C. NEW EVIDENCE PERMITS THIS COURT TO GRANT MR.WEBER THE RELIEF HE SEEKS – VACATION OF HISCRIMINAL CONVICTION.

RAP 16.4(c)(3) requires vacation of a conviction when “[m]aterial

facts exist which have not been previously presented and heard.” Such facts

must meet a five prong test:

that the evidence (1) will probably change the result of thetrial; (2) was discovered since the trial; (3) could not havebeen discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence;(4) is material; and (5) is not merely cumulative orimpeaching.

In re Pers. Restraint of Brown, 143 Wn.2d 431, 453, 21 P.3d 687 (2001)

(quoting State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 222-23, 634 P.2d 868 (1981)).

27

The one year statute of limitations is not applicable for newly discovered

evidence when acting with diligence. RCW 10.73.100(1).

Taking each prong in turn, the first prong requires the new evidence

to probably change the original result. The evidence meets this standard.

Weber had always claimed, but was unable to prove without depending on a

family member, that he was not at the party. It has now been shown, by the

testimony of Larson, that he was not at the scene of the crime. The testimony

of Meth, Strickland, and Larson establishes that an individual, Boxer, looked

so like Weber as to have the same physical features, tattoo, and almost the

same nickname. Testimony of Meth establishes that Boxer was bald at the

time of the party, just like the description Manzo gave in the initial police

report. Testimony by weapons expert Hayes establishes the shooter was most

likely left-handed, unlike Weber who is right-handed. Testimony of Larson

establishes Boxer was at the party at the time of the shooting. All this

evidence is new and was not presented to the trier of fact.7

The third prong requires it could not have been discovered prior to

trial with the exercise of due diligence. This prong is also met. Both the

This new evidence dovetailed with the old evidence that the shooter was7

bald at the time, unlike Weber. The evidence supports the prior testimony ofWeber’s alibi witness, Fisher. Of course, Manzo testified at trial the shooterhad hair. Such mistakes can happen to a witness after seeing a lineup andthen testifying several months later. Lest it be forgotten, Manzo had also metWeber at least one time prior to the incident.

28

KCSO and the defense were unable to locate the missing witnesses from the

police report. Manzo was not part of the gang database maintained by the

KCSO because they only looked at Weber based upon the nickname and

“206” tattoo. Without the ability to obtain information from the new

witnesses, it was impossible to establish with 100% certainty that Weber was

not at the party at Encinas’ apartment that night.8

As for diligence, Weber had no investigator before he filed his Writ

of Habeas Corpus in federal court and an attorney and investigator was

appointed. All this information came to light after this point. Weber was

diligent because he was not in the position to find out information for which

he had no leads.

It was only after the missing witness, known previously only as

“Andreas,” was identified and interviewed, that the picture started to form.

First, it was established that Mr. Weber was not at the party and therefore

innocent of the charges. Once the issue of innocence was established along

with the fact that a shooting occurred, then there was only one real possible

Fisher had testified Weber had left twice during the evening. This could8

have left the door open in the jurors’ for him to have committed the crimeand then return back to watching videos even though the shooting took placeafter the legal time for selling alcohol had passed. This scenario has nowbeen completely put to bed as impossible.

29

explanation – another person who looked like Weber, with the same

nickname and tattoo, committed the crime.

After further review of the evidence, it was discovered that during

trial, the victim said the shooter referred to himself also as “Boxer.” Because

Weber has never used this nickname, this information was deemed

potentially critical. Further inquiries into the community developed that a

light skinned Hispanic individual, possibly from California, that was hanging

out in the neighborhood at the same time and at the same parties had a similar

nickname of “Guero Loco.” However, he also had the nickname of “Boxer.” 9

Boxer also had many visible tattoos on his neck. This information was

diligently gathered.

Of the fourth prong, of course this new evidence is material. It is not

only material but critical in establishing that another individual, not seen

around White Center since about the time of the shooting, was the actual

shooter and Weber is innocent.

Finally, there is no question the information is not “merely

cumulative or impeaching.” It is the testimony of the victim which has led

to the discovery of the shooter. Very rarely is a Court provided such

Guero Loco or Heuro Loco are both acceptable forms of the Spanish slang9

for Crazy White Guy. “Wedo Loco” is a bastardized form and is not widelyused, if at all.

30

compelling information as to the description of the individual who committed

the crime, information provided through a combination of sources, all

relevant, none cumulative or impeaching of the original testimony. Weber

is entitled to have his conviction vacated both because there is insufficient

evidence for a conviction but also because he is actually innocent of the

charges.

D. THE PROCEDURAL CLAIM OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE OPENSTHE PROCEDURAL DOOR TO CONSIDER MR. WEBER’SCONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS.

The one-year time bar of RCW 10.73.090 is not jurisdictional, thus

it is subject to equitable tolling. See In re Pers. Restraint of Hoisington, 99

Wn. App. 423, 993 P.2d 296 (2000). Equitable tolling is a remedy that

“permits a court to allow an action to proceed when justice requires it, even

though a statutory time period has nominally elapsed.” State v. Duvall, 86

Wn. App. 871, 874, 940 P.2d 671 (1997). Historically, equitable tolling has

been applied for bad faith, deception, or false assurances, when the petitioner

has been diligent. Id. at 875. Recently, it has been expanded to include

assertions of absolute innocense. In re Pers. Restraint of Carter, 154 Wn.

App. 907, 230 P.3d 181 (2010) (review granted). Carter challenged his

sentence many years after the initial sentencing. Id. at 912. United State

Supreme Court jurisprudence was acknowledged as permitting a procedural

default to be overcome in cases where a constitutional violation has resulted

31

in the conviction of someone who is innocent. Id. at 917 (citing Murray v.

Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986); accord, Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298

(1995)). To establish this procedural actual innocence claim, a petitioner

“must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not

that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Boulsey v. United

States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998). After considering the factors involved,

including that Carter presented no showing of bad faith, deception or false

assurances, the Court applied the exception, stating

[w]e apply the exception here based on our conclusion,explained below, that Carter is “actually innocent” of hispersistent offender status. We emphasize that this exceptionapplies only in extremely rare instances, as where a petitioneris “actually innocent” of his persistent offender status. Justicerequires, however, that we apply the actual innocenceexception in this instance to overcome the one-year statute oflimitation in RCW 10.73.090.

Carter, 154 Wn. App. at 920 (footnote omitted). The Supreme Court has

supplied persuasive authority and has applied the actual innocence exception

to sentencing issues. Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 347 (1992) (applied

to the sentencing phase of a capital case). Subsequent courts have applied it

to other sentencing regimes. Jones v. Arkansas, 929 F.2d 375, 380-81 (8th

Cir. 1991). See also Spence v. Superintendent Great Meadow Corr. Facility,

219 F.3d 162, 165 (2 Cir. 2000). When considering the sentencingnd

question, the Spence court observed that

32

[w]hen transporting the concept of “actual innocence” to thesentencing phase of capital trials, the Supreme Court hasrequired that the legal error the defendant raises (hisconstitutional claim) must have caused an actual error indetermining guilt or eligibility for sentence, by “preclud[ing]the development of true facts [or] result[ing] in the admissionof false ones.” In so ruling, the Court has made clear that theavailability of actual innocence exception depends not on the“nature of the penalty” the state imposes, but on whether theconstitutional error “undermined the accuracy of the guilt orsentencing determination.”

Id. at 171 (quoting Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 537-39 (1986)). This

Court can do no less.10

Weber has alleged the constitutional claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel. Each point of that testimony has been refuted by the actual facts

presented herein. Weber has “demonstrate[d] that, in light of all the

evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have

convicted him.” Boulsey, 523 U.S. at 623. He was not at the scene and one

who meets the description was. When Manzo was shown a photo lineup just

a couple of days after the incident, he was only 80% sure it was Weber. Now

we know why – it wasn’t Weber.

Some courts have limited this to only recidivist penalties, such as the three10

strikes law. United State v. Makalajunas, 186 F.3d 490, 495 (4 Cir. 1999). th

Even this type of case can be applied here because subsequent to thisconviction, he was convicted of a assault in prison for mutual combat and hasbeen sentenced to life without parole.

33

E. WEBER IS INNOCENT BECAUSE ANOTHER COMMITTEDTHE CRIME FOR WHICH HE WAS CHARGED ANDCONVICTED.

1. The Evidence Establishes Without Question That Weber IsInnocent As Charged And Convicted.

No physical evidence was ever presented to the jury that Weber was

guilty of the crime for which he was charged. He was convicted by the

testimony of one person only, Manzo. Convictions based upon eyewitness

identifications are known to be flawed. Of the over 230 individuals

exonerated through DNA, over 175 were convicted based upon flawed

eyewitness identification. Innocence Project. This is another of those cases,11

without the DNA.

Charles Weber was identified as a person of interest because of a

nickname and tattoo. A photo lineup was put together by Det. Alvarez.

When Alvarez then showed the lineup to the victim, Manzo tentatively

identified Weber as possibly being the shooter. Without the tattoo, Manzo

gave an 80% probability Weber was the shooter.

According to Professor Greoffrey Loftus, this identification process

was potentially flawed. Exhibit 15 (Declaration of Geoffrey Loftus). First,

Manzo had apparently met Weber at least once before. He was provided a

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Reevaluating_Lineups_Why_11

Witnesses_Make_Mistakes_and_How_to_Reduce_the_Chance_of_a_Misidentification.php

34

photo lineup without any individuals with a shaved head. Detective

Thompson who administered the photo montage knew Weber was the suspect

which can provide inadvertent information to the victim. Thompson also

failed to provide a sequential lineup procedure which is more accurate.

Information obtained post-incident can affect memory. Here Manzo

had met Weber and had identified him from the montage of individuals with

hair. Having done so, it is likely that the trial identification was affected by

this process. Manzo was also absolutely certain of Weber’s identify once the

tattoo had been shown. But as evidence shows, there is another with the

same tattoo.

Information provided by the victim both immediately after the

shooting and at trial also rule out Weber as the shooter. First, Manzo had told

the first investigating officer that the shooter was bald. Second, he had told

the jury that the shooter had the nickname of Boxer. Finally, the jury heard

testimony from Manzo establishing that the shooter was most likely left-

handed. None of these facts qualified Weber as a suspect.

After further inquiry, it was established that Andreas (Andrew

Larson), a known witness from the police reports, knew Weber from school

and knew he was not present that night when he was at Encinas’ apartment.

It subsequently turned out Larson knew Boxer from the neighborhood and

35

has stated under oath Boxer was there that night around the time shots were

fired, even though he did not see the actual confrontation.

More inquiry into the neighborhood revealed that Boxer was bald at

the time of the shooting. It has also been shown that Boxer also had a tattoo

of “206” on the back of his neck. Finally, individuals are willing to testify

that Boxer was the same build, approximate height and of similar appearance

to Weber. Sufficient evidence has been presented to show that Weber’s alibi

that he spent the night of March 17, 2003, with his cousin at his Mom’s

trailer, was good. If this Court does not grant the ineffective assistance claim,

then it must consider Weber’s actual innocence.

2. This Court Has the Authority to Assert It Is In the BestInterests of the Court System to not Incarcerate InnocentIndividuals.

The United States Supreme Court has assumed, for the sake of

argument, that a demonstration of actual innocence would render an

execution unconstitutional. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). This

language built on what was held in Murray v. Carrier:

However, in an extraordinary case, where a constitutionalviolation has probably resulted in the conviction of one whois actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ,even in the absence of a showing of cause for the proceduraldefault.

Murray, 477 U.S. at 495. This does not mean there had to be a constitutional

36

violation at trial, only that it would be a constitutional violation to continue

to incarcerate one who is factually innocent.

To prevent abuse of this process,“the threshold showing for such an

assumed right would necessarily be extraordinarily high.” Herrera, 506 U.S.

at 417. The Court’s reasoning appears grounded in due process. Id. at 419

(citing Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 406 (1986); Rochin v. California,

342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952); Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 445-446

(1992)) (O’Connor, J. concurring)). The Herrera Court refused to rule,

because “federal habeas courts sit to ensure that individuals are not

imprsoned in violation of the Constitution, not to correct errors of fact.”

Herrera, 506 U.S. at 400. The Herrera court then stated that since a state

procedure existed to challenge his confinement (clemency), it would not

consider the matter. Herrera, 506 U.S. at 391-92. It was subsequent to

Herrera that it permitted review with a constitutional violation. Schlup, 513

U.S. 298. Because the federal courts have refused to consider factually

innocent claims without trial court constitutional violations, this Court must

take up the challenge.

Five state high courts have incorporated the substantive claim of

actual innocence into their jurisprudence. See, e.g. People v. Washington,

171 Ill.2d 475, 655 N.E. 2d 1330 (Ill. 1996); Miller v. Comm. of Correc., 242

Conn. 745, 700 A.2d 1109 (Conn. 1997) (denied, eyewitness identification

37

issues); Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (granted,

recanted testimony); State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541, 547-548

(Mo. 2003) (granted, recanted testimony); Montoya v. Ulibarri, 142 N.M. 89,

163 P.3d 476 (N.M. 2007) (denied, recanted testimony conflicted with trial

defense). Other states have had lower courts establish this due process right

including New York. See e.g. People v. Cole, 1 Misc.3d 531 (Sup. Ct., Kings

Cty. NY 2003).

3. The Knowing and Continued Incarceration of an InnocentCitizen Shocks the Conscience.

As the United States Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he touchstone of

due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of

government,” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 588 (1974). Substantive

due process rights can exist from unconstitutional legislative or executive

acts. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that certain governmental

actions which “shock the conscience” violate a person’s substantive due

process rights. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. at 172, 174 (conviction based

on evidence obtained by involuntary stomach pumping overturned). Our

courts have agreed with this concept as set forth in Rochin, holding that

outrageous governmental action can violate an individual’s substantive due

process rights. See State v. Livey, 130 Wn.2d 1, 921 P.2d 1035 (1996); State

v. Martinez, 121 Wn. App. 21, 86 P.3d 1210 (2004). The Livey court stated

38

that “[f]or the police conduct to violate due process, the conduct must shock

the universal sense of fairness.” Id. at 19 (citing United States v. Russell, 411

U.S. 423, 432 (1973)).

The Illinois Supreme Court addressed a substantive due process claim

in light of the ruling in Herrera. It said that the Herrera court ruled against

substantive due process because the person is viewed as guilty, he cannot

claim “he, an innocent person, was unfairly convicted.” Washington, 655

N.E. 2d at 1336. As the Washington court pointed out,

truly persuasive demonstration of innocence would, inhindsight, undermine the legal construct precluding asubstantive due process analysis. The stronger the claim – themore likely it is that a convicted person is actually innocent –the weaker is the legal construct dictating that the person beviewed as guilty. A truly persuasive demonstration ofinnocence would effectively reduce the idea to legal fiction.At the point where the construct falls apart, application ofsubstantive due process principles, as Justice Blackmunfavored, is invited.

Id. (internal quotations omitted). Our courts should so similarly hold12

because we recognize that government actions can shock the conscience.

In Livey, a governmental informer had an affair with and apparently

convinced the defendant Livey to buy drugs for a friend of his who was an

undercover police officer. Livey, 130 Wn.2d at 5-8. After examining several

Washington cites to two other states besides Texas and Connecticut for this12

proposition. Id. at 1377 (citing In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d509, 855 P.2d 729 (1993); Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991)).

39

elements relating to entrapment types of cases, the Livey court examined the

fundamental fairness issue, finding the first such violation in Washington:

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is whether thegovernment conduct amounted to criminal activity or otherimproper conduct repugnant to a sense of justice. On therecord presented to this court, we find that the government'sconduct was so outrageous that it shocks the universal senseof justice.

Id. at 26 (citation, quotation removed). To reach this decision, the Court

evaluated the totality of the circumstances to find that the governmental

action in question violated the notion of fairness. Id. at 21. Holding an

innocent man for a crime for which he did not commit also violations the

notion of fairness. Such an action would shock the conscience.

4. Our State Courts Must Consider Procedural Due Process andthe Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment WhenExamining Freestanding Actual Innocence.

The federal constitution is a baseline of individual rights and states

can determine their own constitutions to provide greater rights to the

individual than is provided in the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Pruneyard

Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980). State courts are obliged

to determine the scope of their state constitutions, notwithstanding federal

constitutional law on the same issue. Alderwood Assoc. v. Washington

Environmental Council, 96 Wn.2d 230, 237-38, 635 P.2d 108 (1981). For

this Court to independently interpret a state constitutional right, at least the

40

following six criteria must be examined: (1) the textual language of the state

constitution; (2) differences between the texts of the state and federal

constitutions; (3) constitutional history of the state provision; (4) preexisting

state law; (5) structural differences between the two constitutions; and (6)

“matters of particular state and local concern.” State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d

54, 58, 61-62, 720 P.2d 808 (1986). This Court has already determined that13

due process in Washington generally follows the same standard as set forth

in the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Manussier, 129 Wn.2d 652, 679-80,

921 P.2d 473 (1996).

In Herrera, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the

freestanding actual innocence claim because of federalism concerns. These

concerns particularly affect the sixth prong of the Gunwall analysis. The

New Mexico Supreme Court, in Montoya, directly addressed these concerns

in context with its own state constitution. See Montoya, 163 P.3d at 483

(citing Herrera, 506 U.S. at 399, Summerville v. Warden, State Prison, 229

Conn. 397, 641 A.2d 1356, 1378 (1994)). The Montoya Court made it quite

clear it has a vested state interest in maintaining the integrity of state courts

and that the best place to do this was in state court, not federal court.

Montoya, 163 P.3d at 483 (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887

As noted, this list is not exhaustive but a minimum set of criteria which a13

court must use when performing this analysis.

41

(1983)). Our courts have a similar interest in maintaining the public’s

confidence in our state justice system. Because this interest is so critical, for

this type of claim there is a heightened standard of review in our courts.

The article I, section 14 prohibition against cruel and unusual

punishment is read similarly to the Eighth Amendment under Gunwall. State

v. Dodd, 120 Wn.2d 1, 22, 838 P.2d 86 (1992). However, the same analysis

applies and it must also be read more expansively.

And while the Montoya ruling is first based on due process, it is the

combination of constitutional interests, due process rights and the prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment that requires actual innocence to be

considered. As the Montoya Court stated:

It cannot be said that the incarceration of an innocent personadvances any goal of punishment, and if a prisoner is actuallyinnocent of the crime for which he is incarcerated, thepunishment is indeed grossly out of proportion to the severityof the crime.

Montoya, 163 P.3d at 484.

Combining two constitutional concerns often heightens the calculus

when evaluating the level of review. A classic example is combining due

process and equal protection concerns. See, Bearden v. Georgia, 372 U.S.

252 (1963) (mixed equal protection and due process requires heightened

intermediate level scrutiny). Individually, both follow the standard

constitutional level of review but together, they must be considered with a

42

heightened concern because our court system is concerned with basic fairness

of the legal system. It seems appropriate that the due process and

fundamental fairness of punishment require this Court to permit this issue to

be raised.

Because the federal courts have rejected addressing this issue, the

state courts must and have stepped in. It is time for this Court to follow its

sister courts’ lead in this area.

5. Standard of Review.

While the various state courts started out with different standards of

proof, the various courts have acknowledged the requirement that any level

of proof must be high to assure finality in the legal system. The Montoya

Court’s evaluation of this issue, looking at the courts which have decided this

issue before, held that “a petitioner asserting a freestanding claim of

innocence must convince the court by clear and convincing evidence that no

reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence.”

Montoya, 163 P.3d at 486. This standard was settled upon to strike a

reasonable balance between competing standards.

Under this standard of review, the facts show there was absolutely no

adverse testimony against Weber except for the flawed identification. The

testimony of his cousin Fisher dovetails exactly with the new evidence

presented here. Weber is not guilty because a missing witness now places

43

him elsewhere right before the shooting. Weber is not guilty because

testimony now places another with the exact same description as Weber at the

party at the time the shooting took place. Finally, three facts, on the record

by the victim, establish the shooter had another nickname, Boxer, was bald,

and was apparently left-handed. No jury could have found that Weber was

guilty of this crime, based upon this other evidence.

F. WEBER IS ENTITLED TO A REFERENCE HEARING TODETERMINE HIS INNOCENCE.

The Supreme Court provided three options on how the courts evaluate

PRPs:

1. If a petitioner fails to meet the threshold burden ofshowing actual prejudice arising from constitutionalerror, the petition must be dismissed;

2. If a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing ofactual prejudice, but the merits of the contentionscannot be determined solely on the record, the courtshould remand the petition for a full hearing on themerits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP16.11(a) and RAP 16.12; or

3. If the court is convinced a petitioner has proven actualprejudicial error, the court should grant the PersonalRestraint Petition without remanding the cause forfurther hearing.

In re Pers. Restraint of Hews, 99 Wn.2d 80, 88, 660 P.2d 263 (1983).

Because Weber has proven prejudicial error, his PRP should be granted.

44

However, at a minimum, he has made a prima facie showing of actual

prejudice requiring a reference hearing.

Where Courts want to ensure that the facts alleged are true,

warranting relief of one who has been convicted, they turn to evidentiary

hearings. Our court rules for PRPs permit such a hearing. RAP 16.11(a).

This Court is permitted to refer this case to superior court for a determination

on the merits.

This referral for a reference hearing is logical given the rare nature of

the actual innocence exception. This was the resolution the Schlup court

ordered because the trial court could take testimony from the few key

witnesses if such testimony was deemed appropriate. Schlup, 513 U.S. at

332. This Court should do the same.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Weber was neither provided effective

assistance of counsel nor should he have ever been convicted because he is

innocent of the charges against him.

VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner Weber asks this Court to

order a new trial. In the alternative, he asks this Court to order the King

County Superior Court to hold a reference hearing in accordance with

RAP 16.11(a).

45

VII. PARTY DECLARATION

MICHAEL C. KAHRS, attorney for Charles Weber, Petitioner, does

hereby declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of

Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of his ability.

Respectfully submitted this _____ day of April, 2011.

____________________________MICHAEL KAHRS, WSBA #27085Attorney for Petitioner

46

EXHIBITS

1 Report of Officer Hoyne

2 Report of Officer McCurdy

3 Second Report of Officer McCurdy

4 Report of Officer Litsjo

5 King County Jail Booking Photographs

6 Report of Officer Thompkins

7 Declaration of Charles Weber

8 Defense interview of Vazquez

9 Declaration of Alwin Farr

10 Declaration of Rhonda Encinas

11 Declaration of Andrew Larson

12 Declaration of Scott Meth

13 Declaration of Brian Strickland

14 Declaration of Marty Hayes

15 Declaration of Geoffrey Loftus

16

47

dd

S

·;··::II···:····I······:I·····:::I···:'······:,·····...i : : .:: • ::1: :.. .:L L .j .. ~ .. ~ .. : ) .Yi . ~:

Association Type:

VICTIM~

------- --~ ..To:

Victim Statement

King County Sheriff's Office CaseNbr:

03-082341DateReportTaken: Time:

3/18/03 9:39

008:

6/22/76

/rhis statement is true and accurate, and was prepared for me, with my assistance by DeputyMcCurdy. He read it to meJ and I agree with what has been written. I will assist in the prosecution ofthe case.

Reporting Otfic~rs Name:McCurdy. Patrick S.

ReviewedOate:

Page 2 of 2

KING COUNTYName (Last, First, Middle):

MANZO VAZQUEZ. GABRIEL NMI

SHERIFFAssociation Type:

VICTIM

King County Sheriffs Office CaseNbr:

03-082341DateReportTaken:

03/18/03

last night I went to a party at my friend, Rhonda's apartment in Southpark. I've been to a few parties therebefore. I went alone, and we were all drinking there.

While we were at the party, there was a group of three guys there together. leve seen them once before, whenI was at Rhonda's apartment and they came by with some things th~t they had stolen from some cars. They allare "Barrio locos" gang members. They've all told me that they are "Sl" and they have gang tattoos. Two of theguys are white, and one is Mexican. I know the two white guys as "Guero Loco" and Nick, and the Mexican asAndreas. Guero Loco has a tattoo of 11206" on the back of his neck. I: know about their gang membership, andwe've talked about it because I used to gang-bang when I lived in Stockton California. .

later in the party, Nick tried to start a fight with me, but I wouldn't fight him. He said, "Let's go outside!", but Iwoudn't. Guero Loco pulled a silver colored semi-auto gun out of his waistband and pointed it at me. He said,"You'd better go outside. or I'U shoot.you!"

I pushed. the gun down, and Guero loco yelled, "Don't touch the.tuckin' gun, man! Now go outside!nI said. IINo, because if it was just one on one I'd do it, but it I go outside then the two of you will jump me!nGuero loco said, "No, all three of us will jump you it you don't go outside!feI was afraid that he was going to shoot me, so I turned and ran into the bedroom, and shut the door. They tried

to force the door open and get me, but I held it shut against them. There was some·Mexican guy in the room that Idon't know, and he saw what was happening.

I. climbed out of the bedroom window, and onto a awning. I ran to the side of the apartment, arid jumped off·ofthe awning and onto the ground, and then I ran to my truck that was parked in the apartment parking lot.

I jumped into my truck. and it woudn't start. Guero loco and the other:s ran down the apartment steps andpointed the gun at me. .. I finally got my truck started, and I backed out of the lot. As I did, Guero Loco started shooting at me. I saw thefirst shot come through my windshield, and I feld a sharp pain in my stomach, and thought that I had been shot. Ibacked onto the roadway, and then put it into drive and peeled out and drove away home. Guero loco fired about8 shots at me. .

My truck had a fiat tire, and a broken window, but I kept driving because I was scared.I drove all of the way home,. and stopped a security guard in my apartment complex. I found two of the bullets

on my front seat, and I gave them to the security guard. He called the police for me. I saw that I had only beengrazed by one of the bullets on my stomach, and I 'didn't need to go to the hospital. .

When the police officers came,l showed them my stomach, and my truck, and they took lots of picture·s. I firsttol~ them that it happened in my apartr:nent parking lot, because I was afraid that if these guys were arrested thatthey would try to find me and kill me. When they told me that they knew what had happened, though, I told thetruth because Jdidn't want to get into trouble. I signed a medical release form and a "consent to search" form forDeputy McCurdy so that detectives.could search my truck. I don't think that I will be going to the hospital, becausethis is just a scratch.

I agreed to let Deputy McCurdy impound my truck for the detectives.Deputy. McCurdy drove me back to the apartment and 1showed him where I was, and told him what happened.

. I saw the shell casings still on the ground as the officers taok pictures of them. I helped Deputy McCurdy toprepare this statement later at the police station.

This statement is true and accurate, and was prepared for me, with my assistance by Deputy McCurdy. Heread it to me, and I agree with what has been written. I will assist in the prosecution of the case.

Reporting Officers Name:

McCurdy, Patrick S.

ReviewedDate:

Page 1 of 1

DO NOT DISCLOSE!: rj

DomesticViolence:

FOLLOW-UP REPCH 03-082341

103-M-O

Pagei

District: K-1

Reported:

03/18/03

DOW

Tue

Time:

21:00

Incident Type:

ASSAULT, HANDGUN

Initial FCR

103-E-O

Court Juvenile

□

Occ Between:

03/18/03

DOW

Tue

Time:

21:00

And:

03/18/03

DOW

Tue

Time:

21:00

LocationName:

THE SOAP BOX

Incident Location:

SW100ST/8AVSW

City:

SEATTLE

State:

WA

Zip

98106

SUSPECTS/ARRESTED PERSONS SECTION

Association:

SUSPECT

Last, First Middle

WEBER, CHARLES W

interpreter pooKea

Needed

uitation «f oo-ueTenoani #

Address

9685 MLK WYS#A6

Sex

M

Race

W

DOB

10/26/78

City

SEATTLE

Height

5'8"

Weight

170

Hair

BLK

Glass'

ST

WA

Eyes

BRO

Zip

98118

Phone Numbers:

Home 723-3091

Facial Hair

CLEAN SHAVE

Scars, Marks & Tatoos

TS: "SURENO", "VL" - R SHLDR /

"SUR13" - L SHLDR / "SUR" W/3

DOTS, fiWEDO LOCO", "206",

NICK", "LOCO"-L HAND/

"WEDO", CROSS, "WEDO LOCO" -

R HAND / CROSS W/"REST IN

PEACE CHUCK SR" - L CHEST

Clothing Gang Set

Occupation

CONCESSIONS

Employer

KING DOME

OLN

WEBERCW229P6

ST

WA

SSN

539-90-0209

AFIS#:

VEHICLE SECTION

IMPOUNDED Vehicle

Vehicle Association

IMPOUNDED

License

129PEH

State

WA

Year

1987

Make

DODGE

Model

DIPLOMAT

Style

4DR

Color

SIL

Features VIN

1B3BG56P0HX727505

Registered Owner Name

WEBER, CHARLES W

Registered Owner Address

9685 MLK WY S #A6 SEATTLE, WA

Legal Owner Name

WEBER, CHARLES W

Legal Owner Address

9685 MLK WY S #A6 SEATTLE, WA

Vehicle Disposition (If towed, list towing company, address) Hold ReasonForHold

No

Stolen Vehicle □ DivoricelnProgress

□ HDBComplaint

PaymentsOverdue □ Keyslnlgnition

□ DoorsUnlocked

EstimatedValue Radio Notified Clerk Date Time

Recovered Vehicle Condition (damage, items stripped, etc.) Other Agency/Case Number Owner Notified By Date Time

REVIEW

DateSubmitted:

03/18/03

DateTimeReviewed:

Reporting Officer:

04209 Litsjo, Kurt N.

Reviewing Officer:

Event Processing Status:

Submitted

Date Status Last Changed

03/18/03 10:12:43 P

n

Aid Req Weapons Q Injury Q Alcohol Computer Dom Viol Drug Juvenile [] Gang

CASE FOLLOW-UP REPORT

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Wednesday 03/19/03 10:10 -2019238626

KING COUNTY

DO NOT DISCLOSEI: D IHrillFFDomesticViolence: D

MO

INCIDENT ~SUPPLEMENTAL

REPORT

03·082341 Page 3

103-E-1 . District: K-7

Suspect Trademarks: GANGMEMBER(S) FIRED SEVERAL ROUNDS INTO AN OCCUPIED CAR AFTER A DISPUTE

Instrument: SEMI-AUTO HANDGUN

Entry Point: NIA

Entry Method: N/A

PremisesType

PARKING LOT OF A DUPLEX, PUBLIC ROADWAY ILocked IOccupied "rotal Property Cost:

o D $0.00

D Aid Req ~ Weapons ~ Injury ~ Alcohol 0 Computer DOom Viol . 0 Drug D Juvenile ~ Gang

Narrative:I am a Deputy for the King County Sheriffs Office, assigned to uniformed patrol in a marked patrol car.On 03/18/2003, I was working in the early hours of the morning, when a person called 9-1-1 in the southpark area

(around S 114th and Des Moines Memorial Rd S) to report a shooting that they had just witnessed. I did not go initially, butI heard the radio broadcast, arid heard the dispatcher say that a dark colored Blazer was involved, and it drove awaySouthbound on Des Moines Memorial Dr. S. .

Deputy Baxter went to the scene of the shooting in Southpark. A short time later, I heard as several Seatac patrol unitswere dispatched to contact the victim of the shooting at the "Olympic View Apartments" in Seatac.

At the request of Deputy Baxter, I went to the "Olympic View" to assist with the investigation.When I arrived, Deputies Underwood, Hoyne and Dimmitt were speaking with M Gabriel Manzo Vazquez.Deputy Hoyne gave me two expended bullets, and a fragment-of a third. One of the bullets (Evidence item #PSM-1)

was completely intact. The other bullet had fragmented (item #'s PSM-2), but did not appear to be the round that thefragmented piece (item # PSM-3) came off of. Deputy Hoyne told me that when he arrived in the complex, the complexsecurity guard gave him the bullets and said that Manzo Vazquez had given them to him, and that Deputy Underwoodfound the bullet fragment in the rear seat of the victim's car that was parked in the apartment parking lot. Deputy Hoyne

.said that Manzo Vazquez told him that he found the two bullets in his front seat.I looked at Manzo Vazquez's car while I was there. It was a dark blue "Iowrider" style Chevy Blazer, that matched the

description given during the initial broadcast. The Blazer had several unmistakable bullet holes in it. One bullet hole wasin the front windshield, directly in front of the driver's seat. Three more were on the right rear quarter panel of the truck.The right rear window was broken, and I could easily see where one bullet had grazed the rear window post. Both reartires were also flat, and the right rear tire appeared to have a puncture in the sidewall, possibly from another bullet.

I spoke with Manzo Vasquez, and he told me briefly what had happened earlier. He was intoxicated, but not drunk. Hewas very lucid, and though English is his second language (Spanish is his primary language), we had absolutely noproblems understanding each other. He said that he had been drinking with several people at a party in Southpark in anapartment over a laundromat. I immediately recognized the apartment that he was describing. I am very familiar with itbecause of numerous gang-related complaints and parties that I have been to there in the last several months.

Manzo Vazquez said that he got into an argument with a white gang member at the party who claims hispanic gangmembership in the ''VL'' "Varrio Locos" gang, centered in the White Center area. The "VL" is also often referred to as the''Vato Locos", or "Barrio Locos", or "Sur 13" or any combination thereof. Manzo said that everyone called the man "Nick".

He told me that "Nick" challenged him to go outside and fight him, but he wouldn't. When he refused, Nick's friend that·was with him pulled a nickel or silver colored, semi-automatic, handgun out of his waistband and pointed it at him.

Manzo Vasquez knew the man (Nick's Associate) only by his moniker, "Guero Loco", which essentially means "CrazyWhite Guy" in Spanish. Manzo Vazquez also told me that "Guero Loco" has a tattoo of "206" on the back of his neck,which refers to gang affiliation in the Seattle area (the '206' area code). Manzo Vasquez met 'Guero Loco' once before, atthe same apartment when 'Guero Loco' came by with some things that he had stolen that night during car prowls.

Manzo Vazquez said that when the suspect pointed the gun at him, that he tried to push it down, and the suspect yelled,"Don't touch the fuckin' gun, man!" He then said, ''You'd better fuckin' go outside and fight him, or I'll shoot you!"

Manzo said that he refused, and said, "No. If it was just one on one I would, but if I go out there, the two of you guys aregoing to jump me!"

A third suspect that Manzo Vazquez knows as "Andreas" also stood up and said, "No. Three of us are going to jumpyou! Now go outside!"

Manzo turned and ran into the back bedroom, and shut the door. He said that he had to hold it shut against the threesuspects who were trying to force it open.

Manzo said that he jumped out of the bedroom window onto an awning, and then jumped from the awning onto theground, where he ran to his car parked in the apartment parking lot.

Manzo said that as he tried to start his car, 'Guero Loco' came running down the stairs into the parking lot. As Manzobacked out of the lot and onto the street, the suspect began firing several (about 8 or so) rounds at him. The first round

l<ING COUNTY

,~.

DO NOT DISCLOSEI: 0 5H.DomesticViolence: D IFF INCIDENT

SUPPLEMENTALREPORT

03·082341

103·E·1

Page 4

District: K-7

fired came through the windshield towards Manzo.Manzo said that as he backed up, and then drove away Southbound, past the scene, that the suspect continued firing

rounds at him. He told me that he felt a sharp pain in his abdomen, and thought that he had been shot. He drove all of theway to his home in Seatac, where he saw a uniformed security guard, and thinking that he was a police officer, flagged himdown and told him what had happened.

I looked at Manzo's abdomen, and I could clearly see a fresh abrasion that ap'peared to be from a bullet grazing him.There was no puncture wound, and Manzo did not require medical attention. Though he said that he would not be likely togo to the hospital, I had Manzo sign a "Medical Information release waiver", which I later submitted with the case report.

I also had Manzo sign a "Consent to Search" form for his vehicle, which I also submitted with the case report.As I spoke with him, the Seatac Officers took photos of Manzo and his truck and gave the roll of film to me. I submitted

the film" for processing later that morning.I recognized the suspect "Nick" that Manzo described to me as "Nicholas Renion", a well known White Center "VllI

gang member. I know Renion well because he was the first person that I arrested as a King County Deputy, several yearsago when he was only 13 years old. Renion is also the suspect of a Robbery with a handgun of a transient in White Centerthat I investigated a few weeks ago. I have had a photo montage of Renion in my patrol car since the robbery because Ihave been trying to find the Robbery victim again to identify Renion.

I took the photo montage from my car, and read the montage instructions to Manzo,' which he said he understood. Ishowed him the montage, and he picked Renion's photo as the suspect who had started the fight immediately withouthesitation. He signed the Montage instructions, and the photographic montage. i also submitted those later with the casefile. "

I sealed and taped the truck for evidentiary processing by the King County Major Crimes Unit later, and requested a towtruck for an impound to "covered storage" to preserve any evidence that was still inside. Before I sealed the driver's-sidedoor, I left the car keys on the front drivers-side seat.

I brought Manzo with me to the crime scene where the shooting had occurred, and met Deputy Baxter there. At thescene, I saw eight shell casing that had been ejected from a handgun lying on the ground of the parking lot, and on asidewalk in front of the laundromat. I also found what appeared to be a bullet hole in a window across the street, but Icould not find the round inside when the people working let me come in to look for it.

I took a written victim statement from Manzo, which he read and signed, and then submitted all items at the King CountySheriff's Office Precinct 4.

No further information is available at this time.

dditional Attachments/Reports Associated with this Incident/Follow-up Report:A-102 Master Evidence Report Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

photographic line-up Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

h/w photographic line-up form Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

Signed Printed Victim Statement Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

h/w Consent to Search form Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

h1w medical release form Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

Continuation/Statement/OR Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

h/w vehicle impoun Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

Certification

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place: Signature/Agency: _

END OF REPORT

And: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59

po NOT QJSCLOSEI: 0DomesticVlOlence: 0

~Reported: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59,Oce Between: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59

SH IFFKING COUNTY

Incident Type:

ASSAULT,HANDGUN

INCIDENT REPOI\.»*")

InitialFCR

103-E-0

THE SOAP BOX

03..()82341

103-E-Q

Court

Page 1

District: K-7

Juvenile

o

Incident location: City:

11445 DES MOINES MEM DR S SEATTLE

State: Zip

WA 98168

SUSPECTS/ARRESTED PERSONS SECTION

SetClothing

BLACK T SHIRT WITH WHITELETTERS READING"PLAYERS" AND BLACK PANTS

DOB

Scars, Marks & Tatoos

"206" ON BACK OF NECK,VARIOUS TATTOOS ON HANDS

SexM

Association: last, First Middle Interpreter jBooked, Citation # Co-Defendant #

SUSPECT UNKNOWN (ASSAULT, HANDGUN), Needed 0 I. 0 1~A~d~dr-es-s----_a------":-----'-:::C~it-y------''--------r';:;;;:---,-::Zi;:-·p--'-- -'---C=:Ph:-o-ne---:-:CNu-m-:b-e-rs--':-----I

Set

AFIS#:

Phone Numbers:Home 2061243-6380

SSN

Gang

MI

OLN ST SSN

MANZOG*243L2 WA 611-26-7121

OLN

First Name

Employer

Employer

last, First Middle

MANZO VAZQUEZ, GABRIEL NMI

dditional Alias': last Name

UEROLOCO

VICTIMS, WITNESSES AND OTHER PERSONS SECTION

HEAVILY TATTOOED ARMSOccupation

CONSTRUCTION

Occupation

Association:

dditional Alias': last Name First Name MI Moniker

Bueno Suerte

REVIEWDateSubm itted:

03/18103Reporting Officer:

07259 Baxter, Garrett G.Disposition:

INCIDENT REPORT ON SCENE - NO ARREST/NO BOOKING

DateTimeReviewed:

3/18/200314:23ReviewedBy:

04403 Corey, James R.CIDScreener:

04403 Corey, James R.

DateAssigned

03/18/03InvestigatorAssigned

02827 Tompkins, ScottDate Status last Changed:

03/18/03 2:23:20 PM

o Aid Req ~ Weapons 0 Injury 0 Alcohol 0 Computer 0 Dam Viol o Drug 0 Juvenile ~ Gang

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Wednesday 03/19/03 10:09 INCIDENT REPORT 96-34(1047991360

KING COUNTY

DONOT~OSB' 0 filFFDomesticViolence: 0

INCIDENT REPO~ 03-082341

103-E-O

Page 2

District: K-7

Association:

Occupation

ADMINISTRATOR

Last, First M"lddle

MARTINI, JENNIFER LEIGH

OLN

MARTlJL28808

Gang

ST SSN

WA

Phone Numbers:Home 2061241-8333

Set

AFIS#:

PROPERTY SECTIONStatus 'cle

EVIDENCE SHELL CASINGSQty Unit of Meas: Description

8 EACH SHELL CASINGS

MO

Brand Model Serial #

Value

Suspect Trademarks: SHOT AT VICTIM WITH A HANDGUN

Instrument: HANDGUN

Entry Point: N/A

Entry Method: N/A

. PremisesType

PARKING LOT

o Aid Req ~ Weapons 0 Injury 0 Alcohol 0 Computer

Narrative:

ILocked IOccupied rTotal Property Cost:

o 0 $0.00

o Dom Viol 0 Drug 0 Juvenile ~ Gang

On 03/18/03 at apprx. 0259 hrs. I was dispatched to the area of 11233 Des Moines Mem Dr. S. on a report of gunshotsbeing fired with a dark colored SUV associated with it. The RIP had reported that she saw the SW pull stop in front ofeither the Samoan Community Center or the laundry mat at S 116 St. and Des Moines. The initial report stated that theSUV had left the scene South bound on Des Moines followedbya lighfcolored sedan. .

Upon arrival myself and several other units searched the area in an attempt to locate the vehicles but we found could notfind them. I then went to the area of the shooting and began searching far evidence. At 11417 Des Moines Mem Dr. S.,the Samoan Community Center I found a window on the East side of the building with a hole in it that appeared consistentwith a bullet hole. I could not find any other evidence of a shooting at that location. I photographed the hole and submittedthe film for processing.

I then went to RIP Martini's location. She stated that at apprx. 0300 hrs. she was on her fourth floor balcony which· facesSouth and has a view of Des Moines Mem Or. S. She said that a dark colored SUV was driving South on Des MoinesMem Dr. S. and stopped in the road near the Samoan Community Center. She stated that she thinks that she saw thefront passenger window roJldown but was not sure. She said that she then heard four gunshots, a pause and then fourmore gunshots. She stated the vehicle remained there for a few more seconds and tlien drove South on Des Moines. Shesaid that the vehicle pulled away casually. She stated that shortly after that she observed a light colored four door sedanpullout of that same general area and drive South on Des Moines.

Martini provided a statement.

While I was at the scene the SeaTac units got a call from V Manzo Vazquez. Deputy Underwood responded there. ManzoVazquez reported that he had been shot at in his Blue SW. The vehicle had four apparent gunshot holes. Manzor iVazquez initially stated that the shooting had occurred at his apartment complex in SeaTac. He later admitted that it hadoccurred at 11445 Des Moines. He stated that he lied because he was afraid of retaliation from the suspects. DeputyMcCurdy responded to that location to assist.

DO NOT D1SCLOSEI: 0

DomesticViolence: 0

INCIDENT REP( .~ 03-082341

103-E-G

Page 3

District: K-7

Deputy McCurdy sealed off the vehicle and it was towed by airport towing. Deputy Underwood followed the tow to thestorage area. See their respective officer reports for further.

1·later talked to Manzo Vazquez and he told me that he was at his friend Rhonda's apartment at 11445 Des Moines drinkingwith her and some of her friends. He stated that Nick Renion and S1 was there. He stated that he only knew S1 by anickname "Guero Loco". He said that he was a White male in his 20's apprx. 5'6" tall and very skinny with a shaved head.He said that he was wearing a Black T Shirt with the word "Players" in white letters and Black pants. He stated that he gotinto an argument with Nick over a alcoholic beverage. He said that Nick wanted him to go outside. He stated that herefused to go outside with him because he did not want to fight him. He said that S1 then pulled out a large stainless steel

. or nickel plated semi-automatic pistol and told him that he better go outside or he would shoot him. He said that Rhondatried to convince them to stop but they would not. He said that he then went into Rhonda's bedroom and jumped out of thewindow onto the roof that covered the entrance to the laundry mat down stairs. He said he then jumped to the ground andgot into his vehicle. He stated that S1 then came outside with the gun and began shooting at him as he backed of of theparking lot on the South side of the bUilding. He said that he kept driving backwards on Des Moines and stopped a littleways down the street. He said that he then drove forward and went South on Des Moines and drove home as fast as hecould. He stated that one of the bullets grazed his stomach. I took a photograph of the injury.

Deputy McCurdy took a statement from Manzo Vazquez. See his Officer's Report.

I checked the scene around that location. I found four shell casings on the ground on the South side of the building and.four shell casings in front of the laundry mat. I photographed them and then collected them as evidence. They werelogged into Precinct 4 evidence.

Deputy McCurdy and I tried to make contact at Rhonda's apartment but we received no answer.

This case will be forwarded to the detectives for further follow u .

dditional Attachments/Reports Associated with this Incident/Follow-up Report:"., A-102 Master Evidence Report Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

"' Continuation/Statement/OR Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

certification

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place: Signature/Agency:. _

END OF REPORT

-..~

M! INCIDENT 03-082341 Page 1DO NOT DISCLOSEI: 0

SUPPLEMENTALDomesticViolence: 0 REPORT 103-E-1 District: K-7

Reported: DOW Time: Incident Type: IlnitialFCR Court I~venile03/18/03 Tue 3:00 ASSAULT, HANDGUN 103-E-oOce Between: DOW Time: And: IDOW Time: ILocationName:03/18/03 Tue 2:59 03/18/03 Tue 2:59 THE SOAP BOXIncident Location: City: IState: IZip11445 DES MOINES MEM DR S SEATTLE WA 98168

SUSPECTS/ARRESTED PERSONS SECTIONAssociation: I Last, First Middle I:nterpreter IBooked/ Citation # Ico-Defendant #

SUSPECT ,ANDREAS Needed 0, 0I

Address ICityI:A IZi

P Phone Numbers:

Sex IRace

I I; IHeight Iweight IHair IGlass' IEyes IFacial Hair

M W 5' 10" 180 BlK BRO GOATEEScars, Marks & Tatoos IClothing Gang Set

Occupation Employer 10lN ST \SSN AFIS#:

Association: Ilast, First Middle I:nterpreter IBooked / Citation # ro-Defendant #

SUSPECT RENION, NICHOLAS VALENTION Needed 01

0Address ICity 1ST IZip

Phone Numbers:

104171 S SEATTLE WA 98168 Home 206/246-0524

Sex IRace IDOB

IIHeight Iweight IHair IGlass' IEyes IFacial Hair

M W 03/12179 5' 9" 150 BRO· BRO GOATEEScars, Marks & Tatoos IClothing Gang Set

TATTOO'S PRAYER HANDS WITH SUR 13 VATOlOCOS"THUGS PRAY TOO" ON LEFT AKA:VARRIOSHOULDER, "CASPER ON LOWER lOCOS AKA:FOREARM BARRIO

LOCOSOccupation Employer 10lN ST ISSN AFIS#:

WASHING HOUSES SOSEACC RENIONV213DK WA 538-13-0835f,dditional Alias': last Name First Name MI Moniker

CasperRENION, BENJAMIN J.

REVIEWDateSubm itted: Reporting Officer: Disposition:

03/18/03 03267 McCurdy, Patrick S. INCIDENT REPORT ON SCENE - NO ARREST/NO BOOKING

DateTimeReviewed: ReviewedBy: CIDScreener. Event Processing Status:

03/18/0323:01 09455 MacDonald, Cheryl A. 09455 MacDonald, Cheryl A. Approved

DateAssigned InvestigatorAssigned Date Status last Changed:03118/03 02827 Tompkins, Scott 03118/03 11 :01 :58 P

o AidReq ~ Weapons ~ Injury ~ Alcohol o Computer o DomViol o Drug o Juvenile ~ Gang

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Wednesday 03/19/03 10:09 INCIDENT REPORT 96-34C1047990733

District: K~7

Page 203-082341

103-E-1

INCIDENTSUPPLEMENTAL

REPORTKING COUNTY

,?O NOT D!SCLOSEI: 0 IN .&1FFDomesticViolence: 0 •.... 1\

VICTIMS, WITNESSES AND OTHER PERSONS SECTION

AFIS#:

Phone Numbers:Home 206/277-7390

MI

OLN

MANZOG*243L2

Set

STOCKTON,-'-----------------''---------~CA

First Name

III' -

J

City

last, First Middle

MANZO VAZQUEZ, GABRIEL NMI

dditional Alias': last Name

M

Occupation

DISHWASHER

Scars, Marks & Tatoos

HEAVILY TATTOOED ARMS, "Sur13" on web of left hand

Bueno Suerte

VEHICLE SECTION

Color

VIN

1G8CT18B1F0209590

CHEVROLET BLAZER BLUE669MXHlicense

VICTIM Vehicle

VICTIM

Legal Owner Name

MANZO VAZQUEZ, GABRIEL NMI

Registered Owner Name

MANZO VAZQUEZ, GABRIEL NMI

Vehicle Disposition (IHowed,list towing company, address)

AIRPORT TOWING COVERED STORAGE, 81 Yes ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION

Vehicle Association

Features

Stolen Vehicle 0 DivoricelnProgress 0 PaymentsOverdue ~ Keyslnlgnition EstiinatedValue Radio Notified Clerk Date lime

o HDBComplaint ~ DoorsUnlocked 86 0311810 5:40Recovered Vehicle Condition (damage, items stripped, etc.) Other Agency/Case Number Owner Notified By Date lime

BULLET HOLE IN WINDSHIELD, 3 BULLET JTY MCCURDY 0311810 5:40

PROPERTY SECTION

Serial #

Value

Selial#Model

Model

Brand

Brand

rticle

PSM-1 BULLETDescription

EXPENDED BULLET RECOVERED FROM VICTIM'S CAR1Status rticle

~EVI__D_E_N_C_E__~PSM~ FRAGMENTEDBULLET

Qty

1Status

EVIDENCE

Description

EXPENDED FRAGMENTED BULLET RECOVERED FROM VICTIM'S CARrticle Brand Model

PSM-3 BULLET FRAGMENT

Value

Selial#

Qty Unit of Meas: Description Value1 BULLET FRAGMENT FOUND IN VICTIM'S CAR

KING COUNTY

DO NOT DISCLOSEI: D IHrillFFDomesticViolence: D

MO

INCIDENT ~SUPPLEMENTAL

REPORT

03·082341 Page 3

103-E-1 . District: K-7

Suspect Trademarks: GANGMEMBER(S) FIRED SEVERAL ROUNDS INTO AN OCCUPIED CAR AFTER A DISPUTE

Instrument: SEMI-AUTO HANDGUN

Entry Point: NIA

Entry Method: N/A

PremisesType

PARKING LOT OF A DUPLEX, PUBLIC ROADWAY ILocked IOccupied "rotal Property Cost:

o D $0.00

D Aid Req ~ Weapons ~ Injury ~ Alcohol 0 Computer DOom Viol . 0 Drug D Juvenile ~ Gang

Narrative:I am a Deputy for the King County Sheriffs Office, assigned to uniformed patrol in a marked patrol car.On 03/18/2003, I was working in the early hours of the morning, when a person called 9-1-1 in the southpark area

(around S 114th and Des Moines Memorial Rd S) to report a shooting that they had just witnessed. I did not go initially, butI heard the radio broadcast, arid heard the dispatcher say that a dark colored Blazer was involved, and it drove awaySouthbound on Des Moines Memorial Dr. S. .

Deputy Baxter went to the scene of the shooting in Southpark. A short time later, I heard as several Seatac patrol unitswere dispatched to contact the victim of the shooting at the "Olympic View Apartments" in Seatac.

At the request of Deputy Baxter, I went to the "Olympic View" to assist with the investigation.When I arrived, Deputies Underwood, Hoyne and Dimmitt were speaking with M Gabriel Manzo Vazquez.Deputy Hoyne gave me two expended bullets, and a fragment-of a third. One of the bullets (Evidence item #PSM-1)

was completely intact. The other bullet had fragmented (item #'s PSM-2), but did not appear to be the round that thefragmented piece (item # PSM-3) came off of. Deputy Hoyne told me that when he arrived in the complex, the complexsecurity guard gave him the bullets and said that Manzo Vazquez had given them to him, and that Deputy Underwoodfound the bullet fragment in the rear seat of the victim's car that was parked in the apartment parking lot. Deputy Hoyne

.said that Manzo Vazquez told him that he found the two bullets in his front seat.I looked at Manzo Vazquez's car while I was there. It was a dark blue "Iowrider" style Chevy Blazer, that matched the

description given during the initial broadcast. The Blazer had several unmistakable bullet holes in it. One bullet hole wasin the front windshield, directly in front of the driver's seat. Three more were on the right rear quarter panel of the truck.The right rear window was broken, and I could easily see where one bullet had grazed the rear window post. Both reartires were also flat, and the right rear tire appeared to have a puncture in the sidewall, possibly from another bullet.

I spoke with Manzo Vasquez, and he told me briefly what had happened earlier. He was intoxicated, but not drunk. Hewas very lucid, and though English is his second language (Spanish is his primary language), we had absolutely noproblems understanding each other. He said that he had been drinking with several people at a party in Southpark in anapartment over a laundromat. I immediately recognized the apartment that he was describing. I am very familiar with itbecause of numerous gang-related complaints and parties that I have been to there in the last several months.

Manzo Vazquez said that he got into an argument with a white gang member at the party who claims hispanic gangmembership in the ''VL'' "Varrio Locos" gang, centered in the White Center area. The "VL" is also often referred to as the''Vato Locos", or "Barrio Locos", or "Sur 13" or any combination thereof. Manzo said that everyone called the man "Nick".

He told me that "Nick" challenged him to go outside and fight him, but he wouldn't. When he refused, Nick's friend that·was with him pulled a nickel or silver colored, semi-automatic, handgun out of his waistband and pointed it at him.

Manzo Vasquez knew the man (Nick's Associate) only by his moniker, "Guero Loco", which essentially means "CrazyWhite Guy" in Spanish. Manzo Vazquez also told me that "Guero Loco" has a tattoo of "206" on the back of his neck,which refers to gang affiliation in the Seattle area (the '206' area code). Manzo Vasquez met 'Guero Loco' once before, atthe same apartment when 'Guero Loco' came by with some things that he had stolen that night during car prowls.

Manzo Vazquez said that when the suspect pointed the gun at him, that he tried to push it down, and the suspect yelled,"Don't touch the fuckin' gun, man!" He then said, ''You'd better fuckin' go outside and fight him, or I'll shoot you!"

Manzo said that he refused, and said, "No. If it was just one on one I would, but if I go out there, the two of you guys aregoing to jump me!"

A third suspect that Manzo Vazquez knows as "Andreas" also stood up and said, "No. Three of us are going to jumpyou! Now go outside!"

Manzo turned and ran into the back bedroom, and shut the door. He said that he had to hold it shut against the threesuspects who were trying to force it open.

Manzo said that he jumped out of the bedroom window onto an awning, and then jumped from the awning onto theground, where he ran to his car parked in the apartment parking lot.

Manzo said that as he tried to start his car, 'Guero Loco' came running down the stairs into the parking lot. As Manzobacked out of the lot and onto the street, the suspect began firing several (about 8 or so) rounds at him. The first round

District: K-7

Page 403-082341

103-E-1KING COUNTY

r-DO-N-OT-D-IS-CL-O-SE-I:-D-r:S=H==;"A~I=F=·F=---s-U-p-::I~::-~=-E:::I~::E:::::J=-T-A--:L-'

DomesticViolence: 0 Il REPORTfired came through the windshield towards Manzo.

Manzo said that as he backed up, and then drove away Southbound, past the scene, that the suspect continued firingrounds at him. He told me that he felt a sharp pain in his abdomen, and thought that he had been shot. He drove all of theway to his home in Seatac, where he saw a uniformed security guard, and thinking that he was a police officer, flagged himdown and told him what had happened.

I looked at Manzo's abdomen, and I could clearly see a fresh abrasion that appeared to be from a bullet grazing him.There was no puncture wound, and Manzo did not require medical attention. Though he said that he would not be likely togo to the hospital, I had Manzo sign a "Medical Information release waiver", which I later submitted with the case report.

I also had Manzo sign a "Consent to Search" form for his vehicle, which I also submitted with the case report.As I spoke with him, the Seatac Officers took photos of Manzo and his truck and gave the roll of film to me. I submitted

the film for processing later that morning.I recognized the suspect "Nick" that Manzo described to me as "Nicholas Renion", a well known White Center ''VL''

gang member. I know Renion well because he was the first person that I arrested as a King County Deputy, several yearsago when he was only 13 years old. Renion is also the suspect of a Robbery with a handgun of a transient in White Centerthat I investigated a few weeks ago. I have had a photo montage of Renion in my patrol car since the robbery because Ihave been trying to find the Robbery victim again to identify Renion.

I took the photo montage from my car, and read the montage instructions to Manzo, which he said he understood. Ishowed him the montage, and he picked Renion's photo as the suspect who had started the fight immediately withouthesitation. He signed the Montage instructions, and the photographic montage. I also submitted those later with the casefile.

I sealed and taped the truck for evidentiary processing by the King County Major Crimes Unit later, and requested a towtruck for an impound to "covered storage" to preserve any evidence that was still inside. Before I sealed the driver's-sidedoor, I left the car keys on the front drivers-side seat.

I brought Manzo with me to the crime scene where the shooting had occurred, and met Deputy Baxter there. At thescene, I saw eight shell casing that had been ejected from a handgun lying on the ground of the parking lot, and on asidewalk in front of the laundromat. I also found what appeared to be a bullet hole in a window across the street, but Icould not find the round inside when the people working let me come in to look for it.

I took a written victim statement from Manzo, which he read and signed, and then submitted all items at the King CountySheriffs Office Precinct 4.

No further information is available at this time.

dditional Attachments/Reports Associated with this Incident/Follow-up Report:A-102 Master Evidence Report Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

photographic line-up Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

hIw photographic line-up form Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

Signed Printed Victim Statement Tuesday 03118/03 Active

hlw Consent to Search form Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

hIw medical release form Tuesday 03118/03 Active

Continuation/Statement/OR Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

hIw vehicle impoun Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

certification

I certify (or declare) under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place:, Signature/Agency: _

END OF REPORT

Sex DOe

Incident Number

~5- (J/~2..FCRCode

ltY3 ~I:F

ZIP Occupalion

t c.. Cil ~61F(}201~' 0Other Agency Case bel

U/llf:91Towing Company WACIC #

?-z{{ 1.-fp

StateCity

KING COUNTY

Stale

wA

Drive(

~~~--=----tSHC-==IF==F::::--v-e-hi-cl-e-Im-p-o-un-dti~~ort

o Probabl

o KCC 46.08.050. RCW 46.55.085. Violation 24 hour notice. Vehicle on public right-of-way.

~ Residence Address

~a: I-:R~eg-.~o""'w""ne-I ---rN:-:-a-m-e-;;(L"'::'ast'::'."':'Fi~lIs~tl:--------------;Add:-::::::re::ss::-----------1-'"""j':C:::iIy:--------;;s:::ta::te----Zlnpo----1

:f k:0~sa:m::..:ea::..:sD=riv::::.er_U.M,~A~iJ~1;~O~~~'.Jl..j,~~~@IJl,~",..,.£~2..-~t-~Ll::!:-1'"!:..-!:121]~~~cA~~~~~# ~8~;.U~Il:!I~l:A./::y-· ~w.~~~J.."'~tbQ.8'_-ILegal Owner Name (Last, Ftlst) Address Cily Slate ZIP

~me as Reg. Owner

W license No.

rl {, b1/1 ~tI:I: Owner Dale I lime

g! Notified

(Date)

o Evidence vehicle not moved --'-_---:=-:-=-:- .,.--,.--__-:::=--:-::-_---::--_--::-_.,.-----:=-:=-:-__-:--:- _o Attempted contact with Reg. owner (RIO) as noted above. 0 RIO number unlisted o Tabs'expired.

("""'~ KCC 46.08.040(A). RCW 46.55;113(2}. Vehicle impeding or likely to impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, specifically: _

o Vehicle is being held for evidentiary reasons.

o KCC 46.080.040(F}. RCW 46.55.113(3). Vehicle involved in collision.o Vehicle blocking the roadway. 0 Vehicle unattended, driver gone on arrival. 0 Driver injured, transported to hospitaL

o KeC 46.080.040(G}. RCW 46.55.113(4). Driver arrested. .o Refused to sign waiver and vehicle illegally parked. 0 Due to state of intoxication, driver unable to understa,nd and sign waiver.

o KCC 46.08.040(H}. RCW 46.55. 113(6}. Vehicle parked in marked disabled parking space without proper permit.

~Other/Continuation/lnventory (give details). -:- _

COVJt12 To e<.v,{l2 em STOfl ALt::'

o KCC 46.080.040(D). RCW 46.55. 113(5}. Vehicle stolen under case number _

o KCC 46.080.040(D}. I believe the vehicle is a possible unreported stolen because _o Attempted to contact RIO as noted above. 0 RIO requested impound on stolen report.

o KCC.46.08.040(E}. I have a reasonable belief that the vehicle constitutes evidence of a crime or contains evidence of a crime of:

o KCC 46.08.040(8}. RCW 46.55. 113(1}. lIIe~ally parked _

> 0 KCC 46.080.04O(C}. RCW 46.55. 113(2) or (7). Vehicle poses immediate danger to public safety.~ 0 Driver suspended. 0 No vehicle insurance. 0 Driver has numerous FTA's. 0 Driver revoked as habitual traffic offender

~ 0 DWlS/R Impound - City of (See back - give DWlS/R Driver second [Pink] copy)!;( o Other -'-- -'--- _

~U)W

~m........«~oW:I:o

Deputy Authorizing Impo)fnd

AS. .~l«rl':SO C-I07 1610 (Rev. 4101)

Serial No. Unit No.

tr3)..~:r t-(-/L-IWhite - Records Pink - OWLS Driver Yellow - Tow Companv

Dale

03 b.3

DO NOT DISCLOSE!: rj

DomesticViolence:

FOLLOW-UP REPCH 03-082341

103-M-O

Pagei

District: K-1

Reported:

03/18/03

DOW

Tue

Time:

21:00

Incident Type:

ASSAULT, HANDGUN

Initial FCR

103-E-O

Court Juvenile

□

Occ Between:

03/18/03

DOW

Tue

Time:

21:00

And:

03/18/03

DOW

Tue

Time:

21:00

LocationName:

THE SOAP BOX

Incident Location:

SW100ST/8AVSW

City:

SEATTLE

State:

WA

Zip

98106

SUSPECTS/ARRESTED PERSONS SECTION

Association:

SUSPECT

Last, First Middle

WEBER, CHARLES W

interpreter pooKea

Needed

uitation «f oo-ueTenoani #

Address

9685 MLK WYS#A6

Sex

M

Race

W

DOB

10/26/78

City

SEATTLE

Height

5'8"

Weight

170

Hair

BLK

Glass'

ST

WA

Eyes

BRO

Zip

98118

Phone Numbers:

Home 723-3091

Facial Hair

CLEAN SHAVE

Scars, Marks & Tatoos

TS: "SURENO", "VL" - R SHLDR /

"SUR13" - L SHLDR / "SUR" W/3

DOTS, fiWEDO LOCO", "206",

NICK", "LOCO"-L HAND/

"WEDO", CROSS, "WEDO LOCO" -

R HAND / CROSS W/"REST IN

PEACE CHUCK SR" - L CHEST

Clothing Gang Set

Occupation

CONCESSIONS

Employer

KING DOME

OLN

WEBERCW229P6

ST

WA

SSN

539-90-0209

AFIS#:

VEHICLE SECTION

IMPOUNDED Vehicle

Vehicle Association

IMPOUNDED

License

129PEH

State

WA

Year

1987

Make

DODGE

Model

DIPLOMAT

Style

4DR

Color

SIL

Features VIN

1B3BG56P0HX727505

Registered Owner Name

WEBER, CHARLES W

Registered Owner Address

9685 MLK WY S #A6 SEATTLE, WA

Legal Owner Name

WEBER, CHARLES W

Legal Owner Address

9685 MLK WY S #A6 SEATTLE, WA

Vehicle Disposition (If towed, list towing company, address) Hold ReasonForHold

No

Stolen Vehicle □ DivoricelnProgress

□ HDBComplaint

PaymentsOverdue □ Keyslnlgnition

□ DoorsUnlocked

EstimatedValue Radio Notified Clerk Date Time

Recovered Vehicle Condition (damage, items stripped, etc.) Other Agency/Case Number Owner Notified By Date Time

REVIEW

DateSubmitted:

03/18/03

DateTimeReviewed:

Reporting Officer:

04209 Litsjo, Kurt N.

Reviewing Officer:

Event Processing Status:

Submitted

Date Status Last Changed

03/18/03 10:12:43 P

n

Aid Req Weapons Q Injury Q Alcohol Computer Dom Viol Drug Juvenile [] Gang

CASE FOLLOW-UP REPORT

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Wednesday 03/19/03 10:10 -2019238626

Incident Location: City:

11445 DES MOINES MEM DR S SEATTLE

And: DOW TIme:

03118103 Tue 2:59

Juvenile

o

District: K-7

Page 1

Zip

98168

Court

03-082341

103-E-o

Initial FeR

103-E-O

THE SOAP BOX

INCIDENT REPOR.~

Incident Type:

ASSAULT, HANDGUN

KING COUNTYSH,'IlIFFpo NOT IllSClOSE!: 0

DomesticVlOfence: 0

Reported: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59Oce Between: DOW TIme:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59

SUSPECTS/ARRESTED PERSONS SECTIONAssociation: Last First Middle

SUSPECT UNKNOWN (ASSAULT, HANDGUN),

Scars, Marks &Tatoos

Co-Defendant .,

Set

Phone Numbers:

Clothing

BLACK T SHIRT WITH WHITELETTERS READING"PLAYERS" AND BLACK PANTS

DOB

"206" ON BACK OF NECK,VARIOUS TATTOOS ON HANDS

Sex

M

First Name

Occupation

dditional Alias·: Last Name

UEROLOCO

Employ~r OLN

MI Moniker

SSN AFIS#:

VICTIMS, WITNESSES ·AND OTHER PERSONS SECTION

HEAVILY TATTOOED ARMS

Set

Phone Numbers:Home 206/243-6380

AFIS#:SSN

611-2~-7121

Gang

OLN ST

MANZOG*243L2 WA

Employer

last. First Middfe

MANZO VAZQUEZ, GAS"RIEl NMI

Occupation

CONSTRUCTION

Association:

VICTIM

dditional Alias·: Last Name First Name MI Moniker

Bueno Suerte

REVIEWDateSubm itted:

03118/03

Reporting Officer:

07259 Baxter, Garrett G.Disposition:

INCIDENT REPORT ON SCENE - NO ARREST/NO BOOKING

DateTimeReviewed:

3/18/2003 14:23

ReviewedBy:

04403 Corey, James R.CIDScreener:

04403 Corey, James R.

DateAssigned

03/18103

InvestigatorAssigned

02827 Tompkins, ScottDate Status Last Changed:

03/18103 2:23:20 PM

o Aid Req ~ Weapons 0 Injury 0 Alcohol D Computer 0 Dam Viol o Drug 0 Juvenile ~ Gang

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Wednesday 03/19/03 10:09 INCIDENT REPORT 96-34C1047991360

District: K-7

Page 203-082341

103-E-Q

INCIDENT REPO~

KING COUNTYoo~::::::~ IIHilIIFF

Association;

Occupation

ADMINISTRATOR

Last, First Middle

MARTINI, JENNIFER LEIGH

"" .

----OLN

MARTlJL28808

Gang

ST SSN

WA

Phone Numbers:Home 206/241-8333

Set

AFIS#:

PROPERTY SECTIONStatus rticle

EVIDENCE SHELL CASINGS·Brand Model Serial #

Qty Unit of Meas: Description

8 EACH SHELL CASINGSValue

MOSuspect Trademarks: SHOT AT VICTIM WITH A HANDGUN

Instrument: HANDGUN

Entry Point: NIA

Entry Method: N/A

. PremisesType

PARKING LOT I

Locked IOccupied ITotal Property Cost:

o D $O~O

o Aid Req . ~ Weapons 0 Injury 0 Alcohol 0 Computer DOom Viol D Drug 0 Juvenile ~ Gang

Narrative:On 03/18/03 at apprx. 0259 hrs. I was d.ispatched to the area of 11233 Des Moines Mem Dr. S. on a report of gunshotsbeing fired with a dark colored SUV associated with it. The RIP had reported that she saw the SUV pull stop in front ofeither the Samoan Community Center or the-laundry mat at S 116 81. and Des Moines. The initial report stated that theSUV had left the scene:South bound--on Des Moine-s followe(fbY--~flight-colotedsedan. - .- .... .

Upon arrival myself and several other units searched the area in an attempt to locate the vehicles but we found could notfind them. I then went to the area of the ~hootingand began searching for evidence. At 11417 Des Moines Mem Dr. S.,the Samoan Community Center I found awindow on the East side of the building with a hole in it that appeared consistentwith a bullet hole. I could not find any other evidence of a shooting at that location. I photographed the hole and submittedthe film for processing.

I then went to RIP Martini's location. She stated that at apprx. 030Q hrs. she was on her fourth floor balcony which· facesSouth and has a view of Des Moines Mem Dr. S. She said that a dark colored SUV was driving South on Des MoinesMem pre S. and stopped in the road near the Samoan Community Center. She stated that she thinks that she saw the .front passenger window roll·down but was not sure. She said that she then heafd four gunshots, a pause and then fourmore gunshots. She stated the vehicle remained there for a few more seconds and then drove South on Des Moines. Shesaid that the vehicle pulled away casually. She stated that shortly after that she observed a light colored four door sedanpuJ.1 out of that same general area and drive South on Des Moines.

Martini provided a statement.

While I was at the scene the SeaTac units got a call from V Manzo Vazquez. Deputy Underwood resp.onded there. Manzo'Vazquez reported that he had been shot at in his Blue SUV. The vehicle had four apparent gunshot holes. ManzoNazquez initially stated that the shooting had occurred at his apartment complex in SeaTac. He later admitted that it hadoccurred at 11445 Des Moines. He stated that he lied because he was.afr~id·ofretaliation from the suspects. DeputyMcCurdy responded to that location to assist.

J(ING COU"NTY

DO NOT DISCLOSEI: 0 5·111t1FFDomesticViolence: D

INCIDENT ~EPC.~ 03-082341

103·E·O

Page 3

District: K-7

Deputy McCurdy sealed off the vehicle and it was towed by airport towing. Deputy Underwood followed the tow to thestorage area. See their respective officer reports for further.

1·later talked to Manzo Vazquez and he told me that he was at his friend Rhonda's apartment at 11445 Des Moines drinkingwith her and some of her friends. He stated that Nick Renion and 51 was there. He stated that he only knew 51 by anickname "Guero Loco". He said that he was a White male in his 20's apprx. 5'6" tall and very skinny with a· shaved head.He said that he was wearing a Black T Shirt with the word "Players" in white letters and Black pants. He stated that he gotinto an argument with Nick over a alcoholic beverage. He said that Nick wanted him to go outside. He stated that he .refused to go outside with him because he did not want to fight him. He said that S1 then pulled out a large stainless steel

. or nickel plated semi-automatic pistol and told him that he better go outside or he would shoot him. He said that Rhondatried to convince them to stop but they would not. He said that he then went into Rhonda's bedroom and jumped out of thewindow onto the roof that covered the entrance to the laundry mat down stairs. He said he then jumped to the ground andgot into his vehicle. He stated that S1 then came outside with the gun and began shooting at him as he backed of of theparking lot on the South side of the building. He said that he kept driving backwards on Des Moines and stopped a littleways down the street. He said that he then drove forward and went South on Des Moines and drove home as fast as hecould. He stated that one of the bullets grazed his stomach. I took a photograph'of the injury.

Deputy McCurdy took a statement from Manzo Vazquez. See his Officer's Report.. -

I checked the scene around that location. I found four shell casings on the ground on the South side of the building and.four shell casings in front of the laundry mat. I photographed them and then collected them as evidence. They werelogged into Precinct 4 evidence.

Deputy McCurdy and I tried to make contact at Rhonda's apartment but we received no answer.

This case will be forwarded to the detectives for further follow u .

dditional Attachments/Reports Associated with this Incident/Follow-up Report:A-102 Master Evidence Report· Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

Continuation/Statement/OR Tuesday 03/18/03 Active

Certification

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place: Signature/Agency: _

END OF REPORT

KING COUNTY

FOLLOW-UP REP~· 03-082341

103-M-2

Page 2

District K-7

Scars, Marks & Tatoos

TATTOO'S PRAYER HANDS WITH"THUGS PRAY TOO" ON LEFTSHOULDER, "CASPER ON LOWERFOREARM

Association:

SUSPECTAddress

104171 SSex

M

Last, First Middle

RENION, NICHOLA~VALENTION ..City

SEATTLEDOB

03/12179

Co-Defendant #

Phone Numbers:Home 206/246-0524

Set -

VICTIMS, WITNESSES AND OTHER PERSONS SECTION

Occupation

WASHING. HOUSES

Employer

SOSEACC

OLN"RENIONV213DK

SSN

538-13-0835

Set

Set

AFIS#:SSNST

MonikerMI

OlN

First Name

Employer

Last, First Middle

ENCINAS, RHONDA LYNN

DOB

06/22176

dditional Alias': last Name

LEFT WRIST/RIGHT LEG ANDANKLBBACKSHOULDER

Scars, Marks &Tatoos

TATTOO OF 'CRAZY LIFE' ONRIGHT ARM; TATTOO OF '13' ANDFEMALE FACE ON LEFT ARM;TATTOO OF 'SUR' ON CHEST

Sex

M

..A_Ss_O_ci_ati_·o_o: .....t-L_as_t_'F_irs_t_M_id_d_le_---r~--_-_--_--r_ _ __.__::-:----'---__1~VICTIM MANZO-VAZQU~, GABRIEL

d City

Occupation

NONEAssociation:

Occupation

NONE

Employer OlN

Gang

ST SSN

Set

AFIS#:

1;)0 NOT D'SCLOSEI: D

DomesticViolence: DIZINCi COUNTY

FOLLOW-UPRE~ 03-082341 Page 3

103·M·2 District: K-7

PROPERTY SECTION

Status rticle Brand

E~DENCE MONTAGE

Qty

rticle Brand Model

Model

Serial #

Value

Serial #

Qty Unit of Mess: Description

GARCIA SELECTION OF WEBER

MOSuspect Trademarks:

Instrument:

Entry Point:

Entry Method:

PremisesType

D Aid Req 0 Weapons D Injury D Alcohol D Computer

Value

ILocked IOccupied ITotal Property Cost:

o D $0.00

D Dam Viol D Drug D Juvenile D Gang

Reporting Officers Entries Associated with this Case Follow-up Report:lTuesday 03/18/03 15:00

I RECEIVED THIS CASE FOR FOLLOW UP.

Wednesday 03/19/03 I 8:00

I ARRIVED AT THE RJC. THE NIGHT PRIOR PCT #4 DEPUTIES AND DETECTIVES DEVELOPED LEADS IN THISleASE AND HAD THE ·SHOOTER IN CUSTODY.

I PROCESSED THE CASE AS AN IN-CUSTODY FOLLOW UP.

Wednes~ay 03/19/03 12:02

I REQUESTED THE 911 TAPE(S) FOR THIS INCIDENT AND THE SUSPECT CRIMINAL HISTORY REPORT.

Wednesday 03/19/03 12:25

I CALLED THE VICTIM. THERE WAS NO ANSWER.

Wednesday 03/19/03 13:39

I ARRIVED AT THE VICTIMS HOUSE. THERE WAS NO ANSWER AT THE DOOR OR ON THE PHONE WHEN IIrRIED TO CALL INSIDE. I LEFT A BUSINESS CARD ASKING FOR CONTACT.

Wednesday 03/19/03 14:00

I ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION OF THE ASSAULT. THERE ARE TWO APARTMENTS ABOVE THE LAUNDRYMAT. I FIRST CONTACTED THE NORTHERN MOST UNIT. I SPOKE WITH A MAN NAMED VICTOR GARCIA­RODRIGUEZ. HE SAID THAT "RHONDA" WAS RHONDA ENCINAS AND THAT SHE WAS CURRENTLY AT ACOURT APPEARANCE. HE PROVIDED ME WITH HER CELLULAR PHONE NUMBER TO CONTACT HER, -779­1956.

I ASKED VICTOR IF HE WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT. HE. WAS HE WAS HOME, AND SAWSOME OF THE INCIDENT. VICTOR SAID HE WAS AT THE APARTMENT WITH RHONDA, GABE, NICK, IIGUEROLOCO", AND AN UNKNOWN MALE. HE SAID THEY WERE ALL DRI.NKING AND HE WENT TO BED. LATER INIrHE EVENING HE HEAR A DISTURBANCE AND SOMEONE YELLING ABOUT GANGS. THE VICTIM GABE THEN

QO NOT DI.SCLOSEI: D

DomesticViolence: D

FOLLOW-UPRE~ 03-082341 Page 4

103-M-2 District: K-7

UICKLY ENTERED HIS ROOM AND TOLD HIM TO BLOCK THE DOOR WHILE HE ESCAPED OUT THEINDOW. . VICTOR SAID THAT NICK, "GUERO LOCO" AND THE OTHER MALE WERE TRYING TO GET INTO

HE ROOM. VICTOR BLOCKED THE DOOR FROM THE INSIDE WHILE RHONDA BLOCKED IT FROM THEOUTSIDE. HE SAID GABE LEFT VIA THE WINDOW. SHORTLY AFTER HE HEARD SEVERAL GUNSHOTS ANDLOOKED OUT THE WINDOW TO SEE THE THREE SUSPECTS CHASING GABE WHO WAS FLEEING IN HIS

AR. THE THREE SUSPECTS THEN GOT INTO A CARANO FOLLOWED, NEVER TO RETURN.

leTOR IDENTIFIED CHARLES WEBER FROM A MONTAGE AT THE PERSON HE KNEW AS "GUERO LOCO".ICTOR PLACED WEBER AT THE APARTMENT, BUT NEVER ACTUALLY SAW HIM WITH THE GUN.

I DID NOT HAVE A MONTAGE OF NICK RENION AT THE TIME I WAS INTERVIEWING VICTOR. I DID HAVE THEONTAGE USED BY DEPUTIES THE NIGHT PRIOR AND I SHOWED THAT TO VICTOR. I SPECIFICALLY

POINTED OUT RENION AND ASKED HIM IF THAT WAS THE PERSON HE KNEW AS NICK. HE·SAID IT WAS, -DDING THAT NICK WAS RHONDA'S COUSIN. .

ICTOR ALLOWED ME TO TAKE PHOTOS OF THE INSIDE OF THE APARTMENT AND OF THE WINDOW THATHE VICTIM JUMPED OUT OF. I ALSO TOOK PHOTOS OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE.

DURING THE INTERVIEW OF VICTOR HE HAD MENTIONED THAT THE LAUNDRY MAT HAD SURVEILLANCEAMERAS. AFTER I LEFT VICTOR I WALKED THOUGH THE BUSINESS. I SAW SIGNS STATING THAT THE

BUSINESS HAD SURVEILLANCE BUT I DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE ANY INNER OR OUTER CAMERAS. I ALSOaULD NOT LOCATE ANY CONTACT INFORMATION ON AN OWNER OF MANAGER.

ednesday 03/19/03 14:28

I CALLED THE KING COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER AND INQUIRED ABOUT A CONTACT CARD FOR THEOAP BOX LAUNDRY MAT. I WAS ADVISED THEY SHOW THE OWNER AS A MR. NGUYEN AT 244-3162.

HEN I CALLED THAT NUMBER"' FOUND IT WAS DISCONNECTED.

ednesday 03/19/03 15:00

I CALLED THE CELL PHONE NUMBER FOR RHONDA ENCINAS. SHE WAS UNABLE TO MET WITH ME IN THENEXT FEW HOURS, BUT AGREED TO MEET ME IN THE MORNING.

hursday 03/20/03 8:39

I TRIED CALLING THE VICTIM. THERE WAS NO ANSWER.

hursday 03/20/03 10:15

I MET WITH WITNESS RHONDA ENCINAS. RHONDA TOLD ME·THAT THREE GUYS WERE AT HER HOUSEND THEY HAD A FIGHT WITH GABE. SHE SAID GABE HAD TO lEAVE OUT THE WINDOW TO ESCAPE THE

FIGHT. SHE CLAIMS NOT TO HAVE SEEN A GUN OR HEARD THE SHOTS, BUT ADDED SHE KNOWS GABE1:\S SHOT BECAUSE HE CALLED HER THE FOLLOWING DAY AND TOLD HER so. RHONDA SAID SHE TRIED

o PROTECT GABE BY BLOCKING THE BEDROOM DOOR WHEN HE WENT OUT THE WINDOW AND BLOCKINGHE EXIT DOOR WHEN THE SUSPECTS TRIED TO GO OUTSIDE TO GET GABE.

RHONDA WOULD NOT COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE INVESTIGATION. SHE lOOKED AT RENIONSONTAGE, BUT ONLY WOULD SAY, -"EVERYONE KNOWS THAT'S NICK'" BUT I CAN'T SIGN IT.

RHONDA SAID THAT SHE HAD GOTTEN THREE THREATENING PHONE CALLS YESTERDAY RELATING TO THISINCIDENT. SHE SAID CALLERS STATED,WEBER WAS IN JAIL AND THAT SHE WAS THE PERSO"N WHOLIKELY CALLED THE COPS.

HONDA TOLD ME THAT EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE SHE LIVES AND WHERE HER PARENTS AND KIDSIVE. SHE SAID THAT SHE IS VERY CONCERNED FOR HER SAFETY. AT ONE POINT SHE ASKED IF SHEOUlO PROVIDED A STATEMENT AFTER SHE MOVED TO A NEW APARTMENT?

~o NOT D!SCLOSEI: D

DomesticViolence: DIZING C01JNTY

FOLLOW-UP RE~. 03-082341 Page 5

103-M-2 District: K-7

I SPOKE TO RHONDA FOR SOME TIME ABOUT HER SECURITY AND PROVIDING A STATEMENT IN THIS CASE.LTIMATELY SHE WOULD NOT ASSIST.

hursday 03/20103 10:40

RHONDA ENCINA DID HAVE A MORE ACCURATE PHONE NUMBER FOR GABE, -277-9673. I CALLED THEICTIM AND HE AGREED TO MEET WITH ME. THE APARTMENT NUMBER LISTED ON THE CASE REPORT~S WRONG AND GABE PROVIDED THE CORRECT ONE.

hursday 03/20103 10:50

I MET WITH THE VICTIM. I SHOWED HIM MONTAGES OF RENION AND WEBER. HE SELECTED RENIONROM THE MONTAGE AS THE PERSON HE KNOWS AS NICK, AND THE PERSON WHO STARTED THE FIGHTITHHIM.

HE SELECTED WEBERS PHOTO WITH 80% CERTAINTY AT BEING THE PERSON WHO POINTED THE GUN AT1M INSIDE THE APARTMENT AND SHOT AT HIM OUTSIDE THE APARTMENT. HE SAID IF HE COULD SEEHE SUBJECTS TATTOOS HE COULD BE MORE SURE. '( WEBERS TATTOOS HAD BEEN COVERED IN THEONTAGE).

hursday 03/20/03 13:14

EARLIER IN THE MORNING I HAVE THE CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT CHECK THE BUSINESS RECORDS FORHE SOAP BOX LAUNDRY MAT. THEY LOCATED A OWNER WITH A NUMBER SIMILAR TO THE ONE GIVEN BYHE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, 244-3126.

I TRIED CALLING THE NUMBER SEVERAL TIMES THROUGH-OUT THE MORNING. THE LINE WAS ALWAYSBUSY.

T 1314 HOURS I FINALLY GOT THROUGH AND LEFT A MESSAGE FOR THE OWNERS TO CALL ME.

hursday 03/20/03 15:03

I REQUESTED A COpy OF ALL THE PHOTOS TAKEN BY PATROL IN THIS CASE.

Summary/Conclusion:CASE CLOSED, CLEARED BY ARREST.

SUSPECT WEBER CHARGED WITH ASSAULT TWO AND VUCSA.

dditional Attachments/Reports Associated ,with this Incident/Follow-up Report:Cert for Determination of Probable Cause Wednesday 03/19/03 Active

911 Request Wednesday 03/19/03 Active

Charge Sheet Wednesday 03/19/03 Active

Triple I Wednesday 03/19/03 Active

A-102 Master Evidence Report Thursday 03/20/03 Active

Certification

I certify (or declare) under penalty of pe~uryunder the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

END OF REPORT

FOLLOW-UP REPc-lQO NOT D'J)CLOSE!: 0

DomesticViolence: 0

Reported: DOW Time:

·03/18/03 Tue 2:59Dec Between: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59

KING C01JNTYIncident Type:

ASSAULT, HANDGUNAnd: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59

Initial FeR

103-E-0

THE SOAP BOX

03-082341

103-M-2

Court

Page 1

District: K-7

Juvenileo

Incident Location:

11445 DES MOINES MEM DR SCity:

SEATTLEZip

98168

SUSPECTS/ARRESTED PERSONS SECTIONAssociation: Last, First Middle

ARRESTED WEBER, CHARLES W

Co-Defendant .,

Set

Sex DOB

M 10/26n8Scars, Marks &·1atoos

TS: "SURENO", ''VL'' - R SHlDR 1"SUR 13"· L SHlDR 1"SUR" W/3DOTS, "WECO lOCO", "206","NICK", "LOCO"· l HAND 1'WEDO", CROSS, "WEDO lOCO" ­R HAND 1CROSS W/"REST INPEACE CHUCK SR" - L CHEST

Address City

9685 MLK WY S #A6 SEATTLE

Occupation Employer

CONCESSIONS KING DOMEOLN ST SSN

WEBERCW229P6 WA 539-90-0209AFIS#:

harges Codes:

OO-F CONTROLLED SUBSTANCEVIOLATION

103-F ASSAULT, HANDGUN

.RCW( or Local Ord) Code - Description

-VUCSA

-ASSAULT 2

Counts:

1

1

REVIEWDateSub m ittad : Reporting Officer:

03/20/03 02827 Tompkins, Scott AEvent Processing Status:

Submitted

DateTimeReviewed: Reviewing Officer: Date Status Last Changed:

03/19/03 10:10:57 A

D Aid Req D Weapons D Injury D Alcohol D Computer D Dam Viol D Drug o Juvenile D Gang.

CASE FOLLOW-UP REPORT

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Thursday 03/20/03 15:12

9

1048097457

DomesticViolence: SHERIFKING COUNTY

FOLLOW-UPSUPPLEMENTAL

REPORT

03-082341

103-M-1

Page 1

I

i District: K-7

Tue 12:59Oce Between: DOW Time:

3/18/2003 Tue 2:59

. nCI ent ype:

ASSAULT, HANDGUN

And: DOW Time:

3/18/2003 Tue 2:59LocationName:

THE SOAP BOX

VICTIMS, WITNESSES AND OTHER PERSONS SECTION

Inadent Location:

11445 DES MOINES MEM DRSCity:

SEATTLE

Zip

98168

MANZO VAZQUEZ, GABRIEL NMI

City

16702 31 AV S #110 SEATAC

Sex DOB

M : 6/22/1976

Scars, Marks &Tatoos

HEAVILY TATTOOED ARMS, "SUR13" ON WEB OF LEFT HAND "VIVAMEXICO" ON STOMACH. BULLETWOUND ON STOMACH (SCARE). 3DOTS BY LEFT EYE.

Set

Occupation

DISHWASHER

Employer

QUADALAJARA HACIEN

OLN ST

MANZOG*243L2 WA

SSN

611-26-7121

AFIS#:

dditional Alias': Last Name

Suspect Tradema

Instrumen

Entry Poin

Entry Metho

First Name MI Moniker

Bueno Suerte

PremlsesType I~Cked I~CCUPled ITotal Property Cos

D Aid Req o Weapons o Injury D Alcohol 0 Computer o DomViol o Drug o Juvenile D Gang

Reporting Officers Entries Associated with this Case Follow-up Report:rruesday 04/08/03 15:03

I SENT A REQUEST TO THE WSP CRIME LAB IN REGARD TO THE BULLETS AND CASINGS RECOVERED. I~SKED FOR FOUR EXAMS;1. DETERMINE WEAPON OF ORIGIN

I REVii:.v·YDateSubmitted: Reporting Officer:

IEvent Processing ~tatus:

5/21/2003 02827 Tompkins, Scott A Submitted

DateTimeReviewed: Reviewing Officer: Date Status Last Changed:I 4/8/2003 2:48:32 PMI I

I

o Aid Req 0 Weapons 0 Injury 0 Alcohol 0 Computer DOom Viol 0 Drug

CASE FOLLOW-UP REPORT

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Wednesday 05/21/03 13:49

o Juvenile. D Gang

96-340483-A

1085643010

KING COUNTY

FOLLOW-UPSUPPLEMENTAL

REPORT

03-082341 Page 2

103-M-1 District: K-7

3. ARE THE CASINGS AND BULLET LINKED TO THE SAME GUN. IBIS ENTRY.

Tuesday 04/08/03 15:08

I REQUESTED THE NARCOTICS EVIDENCE FROM THE PROPERTY UNIT.

Tuesday 04108/03 15:21

I SENT A LATENT PRINT REQUEST ITEM GWA-2, THE BAGGIES CONTAINING METH FOUND BY DET ALVEREZ.

Friday 04/11/03 10:55

T THE REQUEST OF DPA COLASURDO I EXAMINED AND PHOTOGRAPHED EVIDENCE ITEM GWA-1. ITCONTAINED 11 ONE INCH PACKETS OF WHITE POWDER. I PHOTOGRAPHED THE EVIDENCE ANDFORWARDED THEM TO COLASURDO.

'ednesday 04/16/03 8:00

I RECEIVED AN OFFICERS REPORT FROM DPTY HOYNE.REPORT ADDED TO CASE FILE.

ednesday 04130/03 10:30

I SUBMITTED A LAB REQUEST TO HAVE ITEM GWA-1 ANALYSISED AT THE CRIME LAB.

ednesday 04/30/03 11 :02

I RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM LYNN DEAN OF THE LATENT PRINT LAB. SHE ADVISED ME THAT NOPRINTS OF VALUE WERE FOUND ON THE SUBMITTED BAGGIES, -GWA-2.

ednesday 04/30/03 11:04

I PRINTED OFF DPTY DIMMllTS FOLLOW UP OFF THE IRIS COMPUTER SYSTEM. REPORT ADDED TO CASEFILE.

Monday 05/19/03 14:00

DPA COLASURDO AND I MET WITH WITNESS MARTINI AT HER HOME. WE DISCUSSED HER OBSERVATIONSNO I TOOK PHOTOS OF THE CRIME SCENE FROM HER PATIO.

FOLLOWING THAT COLASURDO AND I MET WITH THE VICTIM. WE BROUGHT HIM TO THE CRIME SCENE ANDHE WALKED US THROUGH THE EVENTS OF THE SHOOTING.

ednesday 05/21/03 9:00

I EXAMINED THE VICTIM'S CAR WITH DPA ANDY CALOSURDO.

ednesday 05/21/03 13:35

I TOOK A STMT FROM WITNESS CHRIS BOONE.

Certification

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place: Signature/Agency: _

DO NOT DISCLOSEI: oDomesticViolence: 0

KING COUNTY

FOLLOW-UPSUPPLEMENTAL

REPORT

03-082341 Page 3

I

103-M-1 I District: K-7I

KING COUNTY

FOLLOW-UPSUPPLEMENTAL

REPORT

03-082341

103-M-1

Page 1

District: K-7

Tue 2:59Oce Between: DOW Time:

3/18/2003 Tue 2:59

net ent ype:

ASSAULT, HANDGUNAnd: DOW Time:

3/18/2003 Tue 2:59 THE SOAP BOX

ourt uveme

D

VICTIMS, WITNESSES AND OTHER PERSONS SECTION

Inddent Location:

11445 DES MOINES MEM DR SCity:

SEAITLEZip

98168

MANZO VAZQUEZ, GABRIEL NMICity

1670231 AV S #110 SEATACSex DaB

M 6/22/1976Scars, Marks & Tatoos

HEAVILY TATTOOED ARMS, "SUR13" ON WEB OF LEFT HAND "VIVAMEXICO" ON STOMACH. BULLETWOUND ON STOMACH (SCARE). 3DOTS BY LEFT EYE.

Set

Occupation

DISHWASHERdditional Alias': Last Name

Suspect Tradema

Instrumen

Entry Poin

Entry Metho

Employer

QUADALAJARA HACIENFirst Name

OLN ST SSN

MANZOG*243L2 WA 611-26-7121MI Moniker

Bueno Suerte

AFIS#:

ype

D Aid Req D Weapons D Injury D Alcohol D Computer D Dam Viol D Drug D Juvenile o Gang

Reporting Officers Entries Associated with this Case Follow-up Report:Tuesday 04108/03 15:03

I SENT A REQUEST TO THE WSP CRIME LAB IN REGARD TO THE BULLETS AND CASINGS RECOVERED. I~SKED FOR FOUR EXAMS;1. DETERMINE WEAPON OF ORIGIN

Date8ubmitted:

5/21/2003

DateTImeReviewed:

RepOrting Officer:

02827 Tompkins, Scott A

Reviewing Officer:

Event Processing ~tatus:

Submitted

Date Status Last Changed:

418/2003 2:48:32 PM

o Aid Req D Weapons D Injury D Alcohol D Computer D Dam Viol D Drug

CASE FOLLOW-UP REPORT

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Wednesday OS/21/03 13:49

D Juvenile. 0 Gang

96-340483-A

1085643010

03-082341 Page 2

103-M-1 District: K-7

FOLLOW-UPSUPPLEMENTAL

REPORTKING C()UN1"'{DO~:::::~::I: ~ SHERIFF

3. ARE THE CASINGS AND BULLET LINKED TO THE SAME GUN. IBIS ENTRY.

uesday 04108/03 15:08

I REQUESTED THE NARCOTICS EVIDENCE FROM THE PROPERTY UNIT.

uesday 04108/03 15:21

I SENT A LATENT PRINT REQUEST ITEM GWA-2, THE BAGGIES CONTAINING METH FOUND BY DET ALVEREZ.

Friday 04111/03 10:55

T THE REQUEST OFDPA COLASURDO I EXAMINED AND PHOTOGRAPHED EVIDENCE ITEM GWA-1. ITCONTAINED 11 ONE INCH PACKETS OF WHITE POWDER. I PHOTOGRAPHED THE EVIDENCE ANDFORWARDED THEM TO COLASURDO.

ednesday 04116/03 8:00

I RECEIVED AN OFFICERS REPORT FROM DPTY HOYNE.REPORT ADDED TO CASE FILE.

ednesday 04130/03 10:30

I SUBMITTED A LAB REQUEST TO HAVE ITEM GWA-1 ANALYSISED AT THE CRIME LAB.

ednesday 04130/03 11:02

I RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM LYNN DEAN OF THE LATENT PRINT LAB. SHE ADVISED ME THAT NOPRINTS OF VALUE WERE FOUND ON THE SUBMITTED BAGGIES, -GWA-2.

ednesday 04130/03 11:04

I PRINTED OFF DPTY DIMMITTS FOLLOW UP OFF THE IRIS COMPUTER SYSTEM. REPORT ADDED TO CASEFILE.

Monday 05/19/03 14:00

DPA COLASURDO AND I MET WITH WITNESS MARTINI AT HER HOME. WE DISCUSSED HER OBSERVATIONSND I TOOK PHOTOS OF THE CRIME SCENE FROM HER PATIO.

FOLLOWING THAT COLASURDO AND I MET WITH THE VICTIM. WE BROUGHT HIM TO THE CRIME SCENE ANDHE WALKED US THROUGH THE EVENTS OF THE SHOOTING.

ednesday 05/21/03 9:00

I EXAMINED THE VICTIM'S CAR WITH DPA ANDY CALOSURDO.

ednesday OS/21/03 13:35

I TOOK A STMT FROM WITNESS CHRIS BOONE.

Certification

I certify (or dedare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place: Signature/Agency: _

JUN.26 '03 02:21PM KCP MAJOR CRIMES

'('SHERIFFKIN(~T (-:OU~~TY Fax Cover Sheet

P.1/2

Criminal Investigations Division

Major Crimes Unit/Missing Persons Unit RECEIVEDRegional Justice Center

401 4th Ave North JUN 26 2003Kent, Washington 98032 NORTHWEST DEFENDERS ASSOOo

To: %t.I)!/ Date:

Attn: t&:// 'Fax Number:

Re:

Phone:

Fax:

Pages:

(206) 296·7530 Major Crimes

(206) 296-7692 MIssing Persons

(206) 205-5120

Page 1 of 7.-

D Urgent

Subject:

[J For Review D Information o Please Reply

This facsimile transmission, and any documentS IlCCOmpanying it, may contain confidential information bclotiging to the sender and whic;h may in part ofwhole be protected by Title 18. United States Code~ Section 31S3 (0) (1) and Pretrial Confidentiality RegulatioDS. Tms infonnation is intended solely torthe \1SC oftbe individual or ~ntitynarned above. Ifyou ~re not the h1tendcd recipient, you arc here by 1'loDfl~d thal any disclosure, copymg, disttIbuting Or

the taking ofactiol1 ht reliance 'Upon the contents ofthe infonnatioD is prohibited. Ifyou received this transmisgion in error, 'ple~o notify oUt officeimm~diately by telephone to arrange for tbc relurn ofthe documents trMSmitted. Thank you for your fUll cooperation.

FAX COVElt.doc

JUN 26 '03 02:21PM KCP MAJOR CRIMES P.2/2

Business Phone(206) 205-7810

El Continuationo statement181 Officers Witnesso Officers Report

Name (last. First. Middle)Rp...1 TOMPKINS,SCOTT ,A

King County Sheriff

Continuation/StatementJO..R.

Incident Number

3-082431Date Time

6/13/03 13:23Residence Phone

( )

Residence Address401 4th Ave North, Rjc-104

CityKENT

state Zip

WA 98032Occupation

DET.RaceW II

DOB

To

CASE FILEViaDirect

SubjectASSAULT

06/05/03 @ 1515 HOURS:

I CHECKED RHONDA ENCINAS OUT OF THE KING COUNTY JAIL AND BROUGJIT HER TO THE C.I.D.OFFICE FOR AN INTERVIEW. PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW I SERVED HER WITH A TRIAL SUBPOENA.

I TOLD RHONDA I WANTED A TRUTHFUL STATEMENT FROM HER ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THENIGHT OF THE SHOOTING. RHONDA SAID THAT Sf-IE HAD DRUNK TOO MUCfI THAT NIGHT ANDHAD PASSED OUT.

IN TALKING TO RHONDA SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BEING J.~ABELED AS ASNITCH. WE TALKED ~OUT I-US FOR SOME TIME AND I ASKED HER IF ANY CRIME WAS WORTHCOMING FORWARD TO THE POLICE ABOUT. SHE SAID NO. I USED BXAMPLES OF HER KIDS BEINGMOLESTED. SHE SAID SHE WOULD KILL THE GUY. BUT WOULDN'T ASSIST THE POLleE. I ASKEDHER WHAT SHE WOULD DO IF ONE OF THE JAIL GUARDS PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED HER. SHE SAIDSHE WOULD NOT COME FORWARD.

RHONDA REITERATED WHA"r SHE I{AD TOLD ME IN HER FIRST INTERVIEW, •THAT PEOPLE KNOWWHERE HER FAMILY AND CffiLDREN LIVE AND SfIE IS IN FEAR OF THAT. SHE ALSO SAID THATWEBER IS A ttGANGSTER" AND SHE WAS AFRAID OF IRAT.

I TOLD RHONDA THAT WE HAD WEBERS FINGERPRINTS ON BEER CANS FROM THAT NIGHT. HERSELECTIVE MEMORY KICKED IN AND SHE RECALLED THAT THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEENBECAUSE SHE &tLOCKED UP AND LEFT AFTER IT l-IAPPENED".

IN THE END RHONDA TOLD ME THAT SHE PLANNED TO "TESTIFY TRUTHFULLytt AT TRIAL1 BUTSHE WOULD NOT TELL ME WHA1~ UTI-IE TRUTH" WAS.

06/111O..3 @ 1240:

I HAD BEEN ADVISED BY DPA COLASUlIDO THAT DPTY MCCURDY HAD TBSTIFIED AT PRE-TRIALTIiAT HE HAD CONTACTED THE APARTMENT NEXT TO WHERE THE SHOOTING OCCURRED ANDFOUND THAT THEY HAD HEARD THE GUNFIRE.

I CONTACTED THE APARTMENT AND FOUND NO ONE HOME. AS 1WAS LEAVING A CAR PULLEDUP. I CONTACTED THE OCCUPANT AND FOUND THAT HE LIVED IN THE APARTMENT IN QUESTION.I USED THE LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES TO SPEAK TO TIfE RENTER, IGNACIO VELEZ-BEJAR. HESAID HE WAS HOME DURING THE INCIDENT BUT HE SLEPT THROUGH IT. INGACIO SAID HIS WIFE,ARACELI FIGUEROA HEARD TIiE GUNFIRE AND WAS CONTACTED BY THE DEPUTIES. SHE WASCURRENTLY AT WORK AND THERE WAS NO WAY TO CONTACT HER. I LEFT MY CARD ANDASKED THAT SHE CALL ME WITH TI-ffi USE OF AN INTERPRETER.

Officer(s) Reporting Serial No. Unit No. Supervisor Reviewing: Date: Copies to:TOMPKINS, 02827 172SCOTIA

KCP (C-I02C) 9/93 Page lof2

IZINCi C()UNTY

FOLLOW-UPSUPPLEMENTAL

REPORT

03-082341 Page 3

103-M-1 District: K-7

03-082341RE: STEPHANIE FISHER

ON 05/30/03 AT 1200 HOURS I MET WITH STEPHANIE FISHER IN REFERENCE TO THECHARLES WEBER CASE. FISHER WAS SAID TO BE AN ALffil WITNESS FOR WEBER. I METFISHER AT HER HOME IN SEATTLE WHERE SHE LIVES WITH HER 15-MONTH-OLDDAUGHTER.

FISHER TOLD ME SHE UNDERSTOOD WEBER WAS BEING CHARGED WITH "SHOOTING ATSOMEBODY", BUT SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHO. SHE SAID IT WAS HER UNDERSTANDINGTHAT THE VICTIM I.D.ED WEBER BECAUSE HE WAS TOO AFRAID TO I.D THE REALSHOOTER. I DID NOT EXPLORE THIS REASONING.

FISHER LEARNED OF THE ARRESTED THE DAY AFTER WEBER WAS BOOKED. WEBER'SMOM CALLED HER TO ADVISE HER OF THE ARREST. IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY THATFISHER WAS NOTIFIED SHE WOULD BE NEEDED AS AN ALffil WITNESS. SHE SAID HERUNDERSTANDING WAS THAT RHONDA ENCINAS WAS GOING TO COME FORWARD TO SAYWEBER WASN'T THERE, AND THAT SHE WOULDN'T BE NEEDED. SHE KNEW THATRHONDA HAD BEEN VISITING WEBER IN THE KING COUNTY JAIL AND THAT SHE WASTELLING WEBER SHE WAS GOING TO TELL POLICE HE WASN'T THERE. WHEN THATDIDN'T HAPPEN RHONDA WAS ASKED TO COME FORWARD AND BE WEBERS ALIBI FORTHE NIGHT. SHE SAID SHE HADN'T PREVIOUSLY WANTED THE GET INVOLVED.

I ASKED FISHER WHAT SHE SAID TO WEBER'S MOTHER WHEN SHE INFORMED HERCHARLES HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR DOING SOMETHING HE COULD NOT HAVE DONEBECAUSE HE WAS WITH HER. SHE SAID SHE COULDN'T REMEMBER.

AFTER GETTING THE BASIC INFORMATION OUT OF THE WAY I SPOKE WITH FISHERABOUT HER LIFE. I FOUND THAT SHE WAS GOING THOUGHT A DIVORCE AND CUSTODYDISPUTE WITH HER EX-HUSBAND. WE ALSO SPOKE ABOUT HER YOUNGEST CHILDMADISON AND HOW MUCH SHE CARED FOR HER. I THEN EXPLAINED TO HER WHATCRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE WERE AND HOW CRIMES SUCH AS THEFT, FORGERY,EMBEZZLEMENT AND PERJURY COULD BE USED AGAINST HER IN COURT AND IN FUTURECOURT PRECEDING. I EXPLAINED THAT THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE KINDS OF THINGATTORNEYS WOULD LOOK FOR IN CUSTODY DISPUTES.

I THEN SPOKE TO HER ABOUT THE CRIME. I TOLD HER THAT TWO PEOPLE HADSELECTED WEBER FROM MONTAGES AS HAVING BEEN THERE. FURTHER THAT WE HADHIS FINGERPRINTS ON BEER CANS THAT WERE BOUGHT JUST THAT NIGHT. I ALSO TOLDHER THAT ALTHOUGH RHONDA WAS SEEMINGLY SIDING WITH WEBER, SHE WOULDMOST LIKELY TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY RATHER THAT FACE A PERJURY CHARGE.

I THEN TOLD FISHER HOW I KNEW THE FAMILY HAD PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON HERABOUT TESTIFYING AND HOW THEY PUT HER IN AN AWKWARD POSITION WITH HERBABY. I TOLD HER THAT IF SHE PROVIDED ME WITH A TRUTHFUL STATEMENT THATTHE ONLY WAY WEBER WOULD HEAR IT IS IF SHE TOOK THE STAND AND LIED, - AND ITHAD TO BE USED TO IIvlPEACH HER. MY ADVICE TO HER WAS TO TELL HER FAMILY THATALTHOUGH SHE LOVED CHARLES SHE COULD NOT GO THROUGH WITH PERJURY ANDTHAT SHE WASN'T GOING TO TESTIFY. I TOLD HER SHE COULD LEAVE IT AT THAT, ANDNEVER HAVE TO TELL THEM SHE SPOKE TO ME OR THAT SHE TOLD ME THE TRUTH.

FISHER AGREED. SHE PROVIDED ME A TAPED STATEMENT SAYING THAT ALTHOUGHCHARLES WEBER WAS AT HER HOUSE THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING, BUT THAT SHEFAILED TO TELL HIS A'!TORNEY THAT HE DID LEAVE ON TWO OCCASIONS FOR 30-45MINUTES EACH. FISHER SAID SHE DID NOT KNOW WHERE HE WAS DURING THAT TIME,

AND HE NEVER TOLD HER ABOUT THE SHOOTING. FISHER DOES NOT REMEMBER THEEXACT TIME WEBER LEFT THE HOUSE, BUT RECALLS IT BEING AFTER MID-NIGHT.

SCOTT TOMPKINS, DETECTIVEKING COUNTY MAJOR CRIMES

06/11/03 @ 1251

I CONTACTED DELTA ELECTRIC. I SPOKE WITH SERGEY CHEKHOVSKIY. HE SAID HE OPENS THEBUSINESS AS 0700 HOURS AND ON THE MORNING OF THE SHOOTING HE WAS CONTACTED BYSHERIFF'S DEPUTIES. HE SAID HE EXAMINED THE APPARENT BULLET MARK AND HE THINKS ITWAS NEW. HE DOES NOT RECALL SEEING IT PRIOR, BUT ADDED THAT OTHER IN THE SHOP SAIDIT WAS THERE IN THE PAST.

SERGEY CHEKHOVSKIY206/246-7884

fficer(s) Reporting Serial No. Unit No. Supervisor Reviewing: Date: Copies to:)MPKINS, 02827 172~OTTA

P (C-I02C) 9/93 Page 2 of2

~ King County Sheriff's Office

911 TAPE I INFORMATION REQUEST Date of Request: 03/19/03

Case/lncident~: I 03-82341

For a cassette copy of the Communications Center tapes relating to an incident,please provide the following information:

KCSO Case I Incident # ~ same as above Other # or Additional #:

Date I Time of Incident: Date: 03/18/03 Time: 0259

Date / Time of 911 Call: ~ same as above Date: Time

Call Made From: Phone#: UNK Location:

Caller dialed 911 : ~Yes ONo o Un.known

~ Phone Tape only o Radio Tape only D Phone & Radio Tape o CAD printout

D Hold the master tape for evidence purposes

Make the tape in: D Real time (includes time between transmissions & unrelated transmissions)

D Voice activated time (includes only recorded information about this incident)

Special Instructions: Please make a note below if there is something specific you need or arelooking for, other than the information described above. Le., transmissions between specific times orbetween specific officers, etc.

ANY AND ALL PHONE CALLS ON THIS CASE.

Requester Serial # Unit # Phone #

TOMPKINS, SCOTT 02827 172 205-7810

KING COUNTYSHERIFF

IncidentNumber:_~ - CJi2 f~King County Sheriff's OfficeInvestigative Hold Release

To Tow Company via facsimile

Tow Company: ~'~z::;.,--

Vehicle Description:

. License /;21 P~~tat~ tvfr-Make 6J~e.., Model O}eVIN J 83'8 GS6 P rt:L /~X22 2s:er~

~ r'.

This fax authorizes the relea~eof the above listed vehicle'from investigative hold as of

{ 3(1 if hrs on Y'C# 713 .~ . DATE

KCSO has notified the owner of the release of the investigative hold on the-vehicle as noted below and is np~ responsible for an'y' storage chargesincu'rred after transmittal of this fax.

o By Phone

o Legal Owner

Serial #. B""2/}j Z?

2.

KCSO is res.ponsible for:1. Fees. (Check applicable box A "or B) . ,

if( A. Towing & storage charges for period vehicle on investigative .hold.(Vehicle impounded with investigative hold for evidentiary reasons' only under Kec46.08.040 (E) or v~hicle impounded as suspected stolen that~s later found not to

Obe stolen.) -'1~

B. Storage charges only for- p~ripd vehicle on investigative hold. (Vehicleimpounded with investigative hold for all other. ~easons including suspected" stolenvehicles under KCC 46",080.040 (0) when it is determined vehicle was stolen.)

Owner Notification. ' (Ch,?ck :applicable box)

o A. Registered owner notified of investigative hold release.Date: . Time: How Notified: 0 In Person· 0 By Phone

or· 0 B. Legal owner notified of investigative hold release.

Date: Time: How Notified: 0 In Person-4 or

~< C. Unable to contact/locate:. 0 Registered Owner

Release Authorized by__S <'_~~Z__~....._""-#--~--'Ciiiiiiiiiiiiiii---· __(Prin£ Name) ,

Signature: 4.----:·;>"~L~-..:;,..2--~-"ti-~~---:I~~~~.,...-:;.... _

Send original to Records Unit with fax transmittal.sheet as attachment.

KCSO B-169 04/02

SHERIFFIZING COUN'ry

~

PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICESREQUEST FORM

Photo Lab Number

Reorders must have Case # or Photo Lab #

Please Print Clearly

If no case number, describe subject matter

Forward To: (Officer or Sergeant NAME REQUIRED)PRINT NAME:

CASE OR INCIDENT NUMBER

[Q] KJ -[Q] [&j [2[3] @] [Z]Crime FCR

'5~ 0- jtJ3·-Jn -Dept., Precinct or Unit Phone # ,c;, Date ('7~ ,z

/'Z:re.-- /'?1~ . -747'0 J ~ ~Sergeants approval for RUSH

UNIT:

o Misdemeanor DV Case: Hold for KC prosecutor Pickup District Court --.; _ DOV: _

SUSPECT FULL NAME: ----------------Please check the appropriate boxes below for services desired and fill inthe quantity boxes

DOB: _

~lmm~w.I~.IIw.I!~w.~W,III~I~!lllllilllillillillllllllllll!1IIIIIi

J,!:D=--~O~th~e~r:===::=L _I_!:D::::L~O~t:!.lh~er.:.::====:;=:..L ;imHHm~mmmHm W~~~~~~mi~;~m~HH~~~~~Hi~~~~HH~~mW~H~~~~~i:~~~~~H~~i~~~~~~~~Hj~~~i~ijjjPrint Requirements Prints Per Frame Total Prints

t-~-::-a-~_;_~-;-;-:-:O-n~-~-p-,e-:-s-~-~-he-c-k-a-p-D-ro_p..;_~_~_~_:_:_.~_h_O_O:_O_LA_R_O_I_D ....T_im_e_O_f_S_h_oo-t----t:llll~~IIII~l~~~~'I~~~~~~i!!ii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i!!iii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Special Instructions:

7/tf> >875?1 ~L(

f/r lYl '15

('e.z:> ;5

~!Jn?/~

L)0"/#-S~

Released by Photo Staff (Initial) Received by (Signature) Date $

KCSO E-147 (8/99) (White, Yellow copy for Photolab; Pink copy returned with prints; Gold copy for Originator)

~\

King County Sheriff's Office911 TAPE I INFORMATION REQUEST Date of Request: 3/19/2003

Case/Incident #: I 03-82341

For a cassette copy of the Communications Center tapes relating to an incident,pl~ase provide the following information: .

KCSO Case I Incident # [gI same as above Other # or Additional #:

Date I Time of Incident: Date: 03/18/03 Time: 0259

Date I Time of 911 Call: [gI same as above Date: Time

Call Made From: Phone #: UNK Location:

Caller dialed 911 : [gI Yes ONo o Unknown

IZI Phone Tape only o Radio Tape only o Phone & Radio Tape o CAD printout

o Hold the master tape for evidence purposes

r~ake the tape in: D Real time (includes time between transmissions & unrelated transmissions)

D Voice activated time (includes only recorded information about this incident)

Special Instructions: Please make a note below if there is something specific you need or arelooking for, other than the information described above. Le., transmissions between specific times orbetween specific officers, etc.

ANY AND ALL PHONE CALLS ON THIS CASE.

Requester Serial # Unit # Phone #

TOMPKINS, SCOTT 02827 172 205-7810

Incident Location: City:

11445 DES MOINES MEM DRS SEATTLE

Zip

98168

THE SOAP.BOX

FOLLOW-UP 03-082341 Page 1

SUPPLEMENTALREPORT 103-M-1 District: K-7

Initial FCR Court Juvenile

103-E-0 DAnd: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59

Incident Type:

ASSAULT,HANDGUN

KING COUNi'Y

DO NOT DISCLOSEI: 0

DomesticViolence: D

Reported: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59Occ Between: DOW Time:

03/18/03 Tue 2:59

VICTIMS, WITNESSES AND OTHER PERSONS SECTION

Set

AFIS#:SSNST

Gang

Employer OLN

SOAP BOX LAUNDRY MA

DOBSex

Scars, Marks & Tatoos

Occupation

OWNER

Association: Last, First Middle Phone Numbers:

CONTACTED CO THANH Home 253n09-0120~~----_-..--'------r=:-=-------------r:=---,--=--..a----1Alt 253/333-1516Address

PROPERTY SECTION

Value

Value

Serial #

Serial #Model

Model

Brand

Brandrticle

rticle

D.O.C. PAPERWORK

Description

OF S-WEBER. "WECO LOCO"

Unit of Meas: Description

IN THE NAME OF CHARLES WEBER

MOSuspect Trademarks:

Instrument:

Entry Point:

Entry Method:

PremisesType

o Aid Req 0 Weapons 0 Injury D Alcohol 0 Computer

ILocked IOccupied ITotal Property Cost:

DO· $0.00

DOom Viol D Drug D Juvenile D Gang

IREVIEWDateSubmitted: Reporting Officer: Event Processing Status:

03/28/03 02827 Tompkins, Scott A Submitted

DateTimeReviewed: Reviewing Officer: Date Status Last Changed:

03/21/0311:13:37 A

D Aid Req D Weapons D Injury D Alcohol 0 Computer D Dom Viol D Drug D Juvenile D Gang

CASE FOLLOW-UP REPORT

Printed by: Tompkins, Scott A On: Friday 03/28/03 09:46

96-340483-A

1737785222

KING (:()UNTY

FOLLOW-UPSUPPLEMENTAL

REPORT

03-082341 Page 2

103-M-1 District: K-7

Reporting Officers Entries Associated with this Case Follow-up Report:Friday 03/21/03 11 :02

I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM MS. NYGUEN. SHE HAD RECEIVED MY PHONE CALL AND WAS CALLINGBACK TO REPORT THAT SHE HAD SOLD THE SOAP BOX LAUNDRY MAT OVER A YEAR AGO. SHE SAID THENEW OWNER WAS A MR. THANH CO AT 2531709-0120.

Friday 03121/03 11 :15

I CALLED MR. CO, OWNER OF THE LAUNDRY MAT. HE SAID THAT HE HAD DIGITAL CAMERAS INSIDE THEBUSINESS, BUT SOME POINT OUTSIDE. HE SAID IT IS HARD TO SEE OUTSIDE DURING THE NIGHT BUT HE

OULD CHECK THE CAMERAS AND GET BACK TO ME.

uesday 03/25/03 8:13

I SPOKE WITH SOAP BOX OWNER THANH CO. HE HAD CHECKED HIS VIDEO SYSTEM AND FOUND THAT THEMACHINE AT COVERED OVER THE DAY IN QUESTION, -THUS NO PART OF THE CRIME WAS SEEN.

uesday 03/25/03 12:30

I EXAMINED THE VICTIM'S CAR AT AIRPORT TOWING.

I PHOTOGRAPHED THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE CAR AND THE DAMAGE DONE BY THE BULLETS.

HERE WERE FIVE BULLET HOLES ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND BOTH REAR TIRESERE DEFLATED.

I USED ORANGE DOWELS TO TRACK THE PATH OF THE BULLETS THROUGH THE VEHICLE. I DID NOT FINDNY MORE BULLETS WITH IN THE CAR, BUT SOME SUCH AS #5 I COULD NOT TRACK ALL THE WAY TOHERE FINAL DESTINATION.

HOT 4 ENTERED THE SIDE WINDOW AT 50 INCHES OFF THE GROUND AND TRAVELED BACK TO FRONT,HROUGH THE PASSENGERS HEADREST, SKIPPING OFF THE STEERING WHEEL BEFORE EXITING THE

FRONT WINDSHIELD.

SHOT 5 ENTERED 21 INCHES OF THE GROUND AT CLOSE TO A 90 DEGREE ANGLE AND TRAVELED SIDE-TO­IDE THROUGH THE CAR. THE SHOT PERPETRATED THE DOOR, EXITED THE MAP POCKET ON THE INSIDEF THE DOOR AND THEN TRAVELED THROUGH A PLASTIC PIECE COVERING THE SEAT ROLLERS. I COULD

NOT TRACK IT FURTHER.

HE FOLLOWING MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT EXACT, BUT ARE CLOSED ESTIMATES..

HOTS 1-3 GROUPED 29 INCHES OFF THE GROUND. SHOTS 2 & 3 TRAVELED FROM BACK TO FRONT WITHN LOW ANGLE TOWARDS THE DRIVERS SEAT. SHOT 1 HIT WITH MORE OF A 90 DEGREE ANGLE WITH A

DOWNWARD TRAVEL.

I DID NOT FIND ANY WEAPONS OR OTHER CONTRABAND IN THE VEHICLE.

FTER THE EXAM I RELEASED THE POLICE HOLD ON THE CAR AND CALLED THE VICTIM TO COME PICK ITUP.

uesday 03/25/03 14:25

UDGE PHILLIPSON SIGNED A SEARCH WARRANT ALLOWING FOR A SEARCH OF THE SUSPECT VEHICLE.

ednesday 03/26/03 12:25

I ARRIVED AT THE TOW LOT TO SEARCH THE SUSPECT VEHICLE. I EXAMINED THE CAR AND ALL OF THEEVIDENCE STICKERS PUT IN PLACE BY THE ARRESTING DEPUTIES WERE STILL IN PLACE.

D::::S::::~:::I: ~ SH'ERIFF sJ~:-~~1~:AL ::::~1 P~::r:t: K-7I PHOTOGRAPHED THE CAR INSIDE AND OUT. I SEARCHED THE CAR AND DID NOT FIND ANY WEAPONS.RECOVERED A PHOTO OF S-WEBER IN THE GLOVE BOX. ON THE BACK OF THE PHOTO THE MONIKER'WEDO LOCO" WAS WRITTEN. I ALSO RECOVERED D.O.C. PAPERWORK IN WEBERS NAME FROM THEDASHBOARD.

HERE WAS ONLY ONE KEY FOR THE CAR. IT FIT THE IGNITION, BUT NOT THE TRUNK. I FORCED THERUNK OPEN IN ORDER TO SEARCH IT.

Friday 03/28/03 9:43

DDITIONAL FOLLOW UP SENT TO PROSECUTORS OFFICE.

Summary/Conclusion:CASE CLOSE.

dditional Attachments/Reports Associated with this Incident/Follow-up Report:A-102 Master Evidence Report Thursday 03/27/03 Active

Certification

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws at-the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place: SignatureJAgency:. _

END OF REPORT