Daniel Villegas Complaint

Case 3:15-cv-00386-FM-LS Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 42
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, EL PASO DIVISION
DANIEL VILLEGAS,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF EL PASO, ALFONSO MARQUEZ,
)
CARLOS ORTEGA, SCOTT GRAVES, JOE LAREDO,)
KEMMITT BELLOWS, EARL ARBOGAST, LINK
)
BROWN, JOHN SCAGNO, UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES
)
OF THE CITY OF EL PASO,
)
)
Defendants.
)
3:15-CV-386
JURY DEMAND
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, DANIEL VILLEGAS, by his undersigned attorney,
complains of Defendants, CITY OF EL PASO, ALFONSO MARQUEZ,
CARLOS ORTEGA, SCOTT GRAVES, JOE LAREDO, KEMMITT BELLOWS, EARL
ARBOGAST, LINK BROWN, JOHN SCAGNO, UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY
OF EL PASO, and states as follows:
Introduction
1.
Based entirely on a series of what a court has
called completely unreliable statements illegally and

coercively induced by Defendants from 16-year-old Daniel
Villegas and three other teenagers, Plaintiff was wrongly
convicted and spent nearly two decades in prison for a double
murder that he did not commit.
2.
The Defendants used violence, threats of
violence, and false promises of leniency to coerce Mr. Villegas

and the three other teenagers to make false statements.
3.
The illegal and coercive methods used by
Defendants to obtain these four false statements and secure Mr.

Villegas wrongful conviction were part of what the El Paso
County District Court recently called a pattern and practice of
using illegal and coercive interrogation tactics both in this
investigation and others.
4.
The same court explained that the statements
induced by Defendants that caused Mr. Villegas nearly twodecade long wrongful imprisonment contained details that are
demonstrably false and factually impossible.
5.
In addition to coercing false statements
implicating Mr. Villegas, Defendants withheld exculpatory

evidence pointing to two other individuals as the real
perpetrators of the crime.
6.
Mr. Villegas was vindicated 20 years after his
false confession when, in December 2013, the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals agreed with the strong recommendation of the
El Paso County District Court to vacate his convictions.
7.
This lawsuit seeks to redress the violation of
Mr. Villegas constitutional rights, obtain compensation for the
damage Defendants inflicted upon him, and bring these injustices

to light so that similar misconduct never occurs again.
Jurisdiction and Venue
8.
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983 and Texas law to redress Defendants tortious conduct and

the deprivation under color of law of Plaintiffs rights as
secured by the United States Constitution.
9.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1367.
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
The events giving rise to this complaint occurred in this

judicial district.
Parties
10.
Plaintiff Daniel Villegas is a 38-year-old
resident of El Paso, Texas. Mr. Villegas has two children,

including a daughter who was born prior to his wrongful
conviction, and from whom he was separated during the almost
twenty years of his wrongful incarceration. He has been employed
in the construction industry since his release from prison.
11.
At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Alfonso
Marquez, Carlos Ortega, Scott Graves, Joe Laredo, Kemmitt

Bellows, Earl Arbogast, Link Brown, John Scagno, and unknown
employees of the City of El Paso (hereinafter Defendant
Officers) acted under color of law and in the scope of their
employment.
In addition, Defendant John Scagno was, at all
relevant times hereto, Chief of the El Paso Police Department,

and had supervisory authority over the other Defendant Officers.
All are sued in their individual capacities.
12.
corporation.
Defendant City of El Paso is a Texas municipal

The City of El Paso is or was the employer of each
of the Defendant Officers, who were police officers in the El

Paso Police Department at all times relevant hereto.
The Crime
13.
Around midnight on April 10, 1993, 18-year-old
Robert England, 17-year-old Armando Lazo, 17-year-old Jesse

Hernandez and 18-year-old Juan Medina left a party and were
walking together along Transmountain Drive in El Paso, Texas.
When they reached Electric Street, an individual discharged
multiple shots at them from the passenger side of an unknown
vehicle, which immediately fled the scene.
14.
Jesse and Juan were not struck by the bullets.
Robert, however, was shot in the head and killed. His body was
found approximately 148 feet from six .22-caliber bullet casings
grouped together on Electric Street. Armando was also shot, but
made his way to the front door of a neighboring home, where he
collapsed and eventually died. No shell casings were found other
than the group of six clustered together.
15.
The survivors, Jesse and Juan, both gave
statements to the police after the shooting. They explained
that, minutes before the shooting, they saw a car approach them
and then drive past them as they walked along Transmountain
Drive. After the group turned onto Electric from Transmountain,
the car returned with its lights off and parked across the
street. Juan heard one of the occupants call out Come here,
and Jesse heard one yell Que putos. Shots rang out, and both
Jesse and Juan fled. They did not know that Armando Lazo and
Robert England had been shot until after they returned and spoke
with police at the scene.
16.
Neither Jesse nor Juan was able to identify the
individuals in the car or even the number of occupants. Each

told police the car looked like a Monte Carlo, but Juan told the
police the cars color was goldish while Jesse stated it was
maroon and red. Police never located the car used in the
shooting.
17.
The senseless nature of this crime and the tragic
death of the two innocent teens put fear into the community, and
details related to the shooting were widely reported in the
local media.
Defendants Misconduct
18.
Defendants Marquez, Graves, Arbogast, and Laredo
were all assigned to investigate the Lazo and England murders.

19.
After giving an initial statement describing the
little he observed to police on April 10, 1993, surviving victim
Jesse Hernandez was picked up by Defendant Marquez on April 12,

1993 and brought to the police station.
20.
At Defendant Marquezs request, Jesse wrote down
his description of the circumstances of the shooting on a legal

pad. Marquez took the pad, threw it at the 17-year-old, and told
him to cut the bullshit. Marquez lied and told Jesse that Juan
Medina had implicated Jesse as the perpetrator. Marquez
threatened Jesse that he would go to jail and get the electric
chair if he did not confess.
21.
Even though he was a victim of the shooting, not
its perpetrator, Jesse later testified that the interrogation by

Defendant Marquez was so coercive that he began to believe he
might have killed his friends. He stated I was thinking . . .
if Juan is saying that I killed my friends, you know, maybe I
did it. Defendant Marquez, using lies and threats, convinced
Jesse that [m]aybe [he] blacked out.
22.
Jesse nearly succumbed to Defendant Marquezs
coercive interrogation and came close to falsely confessing.

Jesse stated that [i]f he [Marquez] had really kept on
because I really wanted to get out of there, I would have signed
anything. I would have said yeah.
23.
Ultimately, Jesse did not confess, so Defendant
Officers moved onto other vulnerable targets in their efforts to

secure a confession at any cost.
24.
On April 15, 1993, Defendant Ortega and other
Defendant Officers travelled to Chaparral, New Mexico and

brought 15-year-old Michael Johnston and 14-year-old Jacob
Jauregi back to El Paso for questioning in the double murder
investigation.
25.
Michael was kept in handcuffs in El Paso police
custody for eight hours overnight, from 7 p.m. until 3 a.m.

Despite his mothers request that police not interrogate her son
until she had contacted a lawyer, Defendants Marquez, Arbogast
and Ortega coerced the 15-year-old to falsely confess.
26.
Defendant Officers obtained Michaels false
confession by threatening to take him to jail to be subjected to

inmate assault and sexual abuse. They screamed so loudly at the
boy that he could feel their spit on his face. They threatened
Michael that if he did not confess, he would get the electric
chair, but if he did confess, he would get off easy. Indeed,
Defendant Marquez threatened that he would turn on the switch
himself at the execution if Michael did not confess. Michael
later explained that these illegal and coercive tactics led him
to falsely admit to committing the crime.
27.
Jacob Jauregi also falsely confessed his
involvement in the shootings after being subjected to a

similarly coercive interrogation by Defendant Officers.
28.
Despite the inculpatory statements obtained from
both Michael Johnston and Jacob Jauregi, charges were not

pursued against either boy. Police determined that Defendant
Officers induced false confessions because the information
provided by Michael and Jacob during their interrogations did
not match the circumstances of the crime.
Defendants Frame Mr. Villegas
29.
Unable to obtain usable confessions from Jesse,
Michael, or Jacob, the Defendants were now desperate to pin the

crime on someone in the face of mounting public pressure to
solve these high-profile murders.
30.
On April 21, 1993, Defendant Officers contacted
17-year-old David Rangel, who is Mr. Villegas cousin. Police

first falsely told David that they wanted to speak with him
about a telephone harassment complaint. However, after
Defendants Graves and Arbogast brought him to the police
station, Defendants Marquez and Laredo instead interrogated
David about the Lazo and England murders.
31.
Marquez and Laredo told David that they knew he
had killed Armando Lazo and Robert England, and falsely told him
that he had been implicated by eyewitnesses. During the
interrogation, Marquez and Laredo cursed at David, threatened
him with life in prison, and told him he was a pretty white boy
with green eyes who could expect to be fucked in prison.
32.
David was frightened and, facing a barrage of
accusations that he was the shooter, denied his own involvement

and told police the only thing he knew about the murders:
several days previously, he had a phone conversation with Daniel
Villegas in which the 16-year-old Villegas had jokingly claimed
to have shot Armando and Robert with a sawed-off shotgun.
33.
This story did not fit the facts of the shooting,
as the victims were shot with a .22-caliber firearm, not a

sawed-off shotgun. Moreover, David Rangel told police that he
knew Mr. Villegas was joking. Regardless, from this point
onwards, Defendant Officers became relentlessly focused on
convicting Mr. Villegas for the murders.
34.
Defendants Marquez and Laredo ordered 17-year-old
David Rangel to write a statement implicating Mr. Villegas. In

an attempt to put an end to the unrelenting interrogation, David
complied he wrote that Mr. Villegas told him that Villegas
used a sawed-off shotgun in the shooting. Upon reading this,
Marquez angrily threw away the first statement, and forced David
to sign a new statement excluding mention of the weapon. Again,
scared by the illegal and coercive tactics used by Defendants,
David complied.
35.
The final statement obtained from David Rangel by
Defendant Officers, typed by Defendant Marquez, stated I have
been asked if I know what kind of gun or weapon was used in the
killing and I dont know.
36.
Davids statement also contained demonstrably
false details about the shooting. The statement describes the

car as black, but the only eyewitnesses described the car as
maroon and red or goldish. Furthermore, the statement claims
that there were two separate rounds of gunfire in two separate
locations, which conflicts both with the survivors description
of the shooting and the forensic evidence of the shell casings
indicating that the shots were all fired from one location.
37.
With tunnel vision now leading Defendant Officers
to Daniel Villegas as their one and only suspect, they set out
to interrogate more young men who they could coerce into
implicating Mr. Villegas.
38.
On the same day as the David Rangel
interrogation, on April 21, 1993 at approximately 5:30 p.m.,

Defendant Graves arrested 15-year-old Rodney Williams.
39.
Defendant Officers knew that Rodney was a friend
of Mr. Villegas, and arrested him for the purpose of fabricating

a case against Mr. Villegas.
40.
Defendant Graves did not read Rodney his rights,
and he violated Texas law governing the treatment of juvenile

arrestees.
10
41.
At the police station, Defendant Arbogast
initially interrogated Rodney, but he determined that Rodney had

no relevant information to offer.
42.
Nevertheless, Defendants Graves and Marquez
continued to interrogate Rodney. As Rodney protested his

innocence, Graves and Marquez told him he would go to prison
where he would be raped. They threatened that he would be
charged with the murders if he did not give an inculpatory
statement, while falsely promising that if Rodney implicated
himself and Mr. Villegas, he could go home. Graves and Marquez
claimed that they were not interested in Rodney, but that they
wanted to go after Mr. Villegas.
43.
Rodney eventually signed a false statement that
had been typed by Graves and consisted entirely of information

provided to him by Graves. The signed statement falsely read
that Rodney, Daniel Villegas, Marcos Gonzalez, Enrique Ramirez
(known by the nickname Popeye) and Fernando Lujan (known by
the nickname Droopy) were in the car at the time of the
shooting, and that Mr. Villegas was the shooter. Defendant
Officers knew that Marcos Gonzalez, Enrique Ramirez and Fernando
Lujan were all friends of Mr. Villegas.
44.
The Defendant Officers who fabricated this
statement did not know that this was factually impossible.

Ramirez and Lujan could not have been involved in the crime, and
11
indeed were never charged, because at the time of the crime

Ramirez was incarcerated and Lujans electronic monitoring
device confirmed he was three miles away from the murders.
45.
Rodneys statement used the name Snoopy to
refer to Lujan because Defendant Officers had inadvertently fed

Rodney the incorrect nickname while they were fabricating his
statement.
46.
Later that same day, April 21, 1993, shortly
after 10 p.m., Defendants Marquez, Graves, Laredo and Arbogast

falsely arrested 17-year-old Marcos Gonzalez and 16-year-old
Daniel Villegas.
47.
Defendant Officers knew that Marcos was a friend
of Mr. Villegas, and arrested him for the purpose of fabricating

a case against Mr. Villegas.
48.
The arrest of Mr. Villegas was based solely on
the fabricated and coerced statements taken from David Rangel

and Rodney Williams, and therefore Defendants lacked probable
cause to justify that arrest.
49.
Mr. Villegas informed Defendant Officers that he
was 16-years-old, but Defendant Officers again failed to follow

the procedures mandated by Texas law for the treatment of
juvenile arrestees.
50.
Mr. Villegas was placed in a police car with
Defendants Marquez and Arbogast.
12
51.
Marcos Gonzalez was placed in a police car with
Defendants Graves and Laredo.

52.
Defendant Officers drove Daniel Villegas past the
home of Fernando Lujan (aka Droopy).

53.
Next, Defendants Marquez, Arbogast, Laredo and
Graves drove to the Northpark Mall, where they conferred with

Defendant Brown and other unknown police officers for thirty
minutes, more or less, while Marcos Gonzalez and Daniel Villegas
remained handcuffed in separate vehicles.
54.
Next, Defendant Officers took both Marcos
Gonzalez and Daniel Villegas to the Five Points Police Station.

55.
After they arrived at the police station, Daniel
Villegas and Marcos Gonzalez were separated. While other

Defendant Officers were processing, transporting, and then
interrogating Mr. Villegas, Defendant Graves interrogated Marcos
Gonzalez.
56.
Graves threatened to beat Marcos and told him
that he would be raped in prison if he did not confess. Marcos

initially refused to confess and denied his involvement in the
shooting, at which point Graves slammed Marcos repeatedly
against the wall. Graves was then able to induce an initial
false confession from Marcos.
57.
In this initial statement, Marcos falsely claimed
that he was in the car on the evening of the shooting, but that
13
he got out before the shooting and only learned about it

afterwards when Mr. Villegas told him what had happened.
58.
Defendant Graves subsequently forced Marcos to
give a second statement in which he falsely claimed to have

stayed in the car and been present at the time of the shooting;
this statement again falsely implicated Mr. Villegas as the
shooter.
59.
The fabricated statements induced by Defendants
from teenagers David Rangel, Rodney Williams, and Marcos

Gonzalez were all used in the prosecution and convictions of Mr.
Villegas.
Mr. Villegas False Confession
60.
Daniel Villegas and the other teenagers induced
to give false statements by Defendant Officers were at

heightened risk of police coercion and manipulation due to their
young age.
61.
Mr. Villegas was a uniquely easy target to frame
and was particularly vulnerable to coercive interrogation

tactics. Court-ordered psychological evaluations conducted after
his arrest noted that Mr. Villegas had extreme difficulties
with learning and with school, and concluded that he had belowaverage cognitive skills, poor concentration, and questionable
insight and judgment. He had dropped out of school in the eighth
14
grade, and could only read at a third grade level. He also

suffered from emotional problems and Attention Deficit Disorder.
62.
Mr. Villegas had never been interrogated by
police before April 21, 1993.

63.
After Mr. Villegas was arrested, Defendants
Marquez and Arbogast placed him in a police car. During the

drive to the police station, Defendant Marquez subjected Mr.
Villegas to repeated verbal abuse. Marquez cursed and yelled at
Mr. Villegas, telling him you are going down for this and we
are going to take you to kick your ass, or words to that
effect.
64.
When he was eventually taken into the police
station, Defendant Officers handcuffed Mr. Villegas to a chair.

Defendant Marquez and two other Defendant Officers began
harassing the 16-year-old to make a statement. They accused him
of being involved in the murders, and when Mr. Villegas denied
involvement, Defendant Officers kept telling him we know you
did it and instructed him to confess.
65.
Defendant Marquez struck Mr. Villegas on the back
of the head while telling him we know you did it. Defendant
Officers told Mr. Villegas that he was going to get fucked in
jail. Defendant Marquez screamed at Mr. Villegas, and told him
that if he did not confess, Marquez would drive him out to the
desert, handcuff him to the car door and kick your ass.
15
Marquez told Mr. Villegas they would leave him out in the desert
to walk back into town, and when Mr. Villegas got back, Marquez
would personally . . . put you in a tank with a bunch of fat
faggots and theyre going to rape you.
66.
All of this coercive and threatening
interrogation occurred before Defendant Officers explained Mr.

Villegas rights to him or brought him before a magistrate to
verify that he wanted to give a voluntary statement legal
requirements mandated under Texas and federal law precisely to
avoid involuntary and unreliable confessions given by juveniles.
67.
Defendant Officers later falsely claimed that Mr.
Villegas had been properly informed of his rights before his

interrogation began and fabricated evidence supporting this
false timeline. Defendant Ortega and other Defendant Officers
suppressed or destroyed evidence that would corroborate the
correct timeline of events, including the Miranda warning card
signed by Mr. Villegas while in police custody.
68.
After Defendant Marquez told Mr. Villegas that
Rodney had implicated him in the shooting, Mr. Villegas gave an

initial statement, which Defendant Marquez typed. In this
initial statement Mr. Villegas denied being the shooter.
69.
Defendant Marquez took this statement from the
typewriter and crumpled it up. Defendant Marquez slapped Mr.

Villegas and told him he would be executed, and that Marquez
16
would pull the switch on the electric chair himself, if Mr.

Villegas did not confess to being the shooter.
70.
Defendant Marquez prepared a second statement for
Mr. Villegas and fed him information about the crime, telling
Mr. Villegas that he committed the murders with Rodney Williams,
Marcos Gonzalez, Popeye, and Snoopy. Mr. Villegas told
Defendant Officers that he did not know anyone with the alias
Snoopy but that he did know Droopy (the nickname used by
Fernando Lujan).
71.
As he was feeding Mr. Villegas this information,
Defendant Marquez continued to threaten and coerce Mr. Villegas.

Marquez told Mr. Villegas that if he made a statement he would
be taken to the juvenile probation department and not to jail.
If he refused, then Marquez told Mr. Villegas that he would beat
him.
72.
The Defendant Officers never provided Mr.
Villegas with access to a phone or allowed him to contact a

lawyer or his family.
73.
Defendant Graves was interrogating Marcos
Gonzalez at the same time as Marquez was interrogating Daniel

Villegas. The two Defendants conspired with each other by phone
during their respective interrogations to ensure that Marcoss
statement would be more consistent with the statement that
Marquez fabricated for Mr. Villegas.
17
74.
Defendant Graves changed crucial details between
the first and second statements he coerced from Marcos Gonzalez,

to make the second statement mirror the eventual statement that
Defendant Marquez coerced Mr. Villegas to sign.
75.
Eventually, at 2:40 a.m. on April 22, 1993, the
Defendant Officers coercion forced Mr. Villegas to

involuntarily sign a one-page typewritten false statement that
had been prepared by Defendant Marquez.
The statement falsely
implicated Mr. Villegas as the shooter in the murders, but

provided no corroborating details apart from those already known
to the police.
76.
Defendant Marquez was aided by Defendants Graves,
Arbogast, Ortega and Brown, and other Defendant Officers, in the

false arrest, unlawful detention, and illegal and coercive
interrogation of Mr. Villegas.
77.
When Mr. Villegas was free from the threats made
by Defendant Officers, Villegas recanted his confession. Later

that same morning, he told Juvenile Probation Officer Monica
Sotello that he didnt do it and that he only confessed
because Defendant Officers coerced him.
Defendants Ignore Exculpatory Evidence
78.
In their rush to frame Mr. Villegas, Defendants
Marquez, Graves, Arbogast, Laredo, and other Defendant Officers
18
suppressed and failed to investigate information that pointed to

other individuals as the perpetrators of the shooting.
79.
Early in their investigation, Defendant Officers
received information that brothers Javier and Rudy Flores were

involved in the shooting. Three days after the shooting, on
April 14, 1993, Defendant Officers took statements from the
Flores brothers. Rudys statement placed him at the scene of the
crime at the same time as the murders, and there were numerous
inconsistencies between Rudys and Javiers statements.
80.
Defendant Officers also took statements from four
people who all implicated the Flores brothers.

81.
According to a report prepared by Defendant
Marquez, [d]uring the entire case he and other investigators

continued to receive numerous reports that the Flores brothers
were responsible for the shooting.
82.
Defendant Officers knew that the Flores brothers
had a motive for the shooting, as they had received information

that Rudy and Javier had fought with the murder victims, Armando
and Robert, before the shooting. In particular, Defendant Graves
took a statement from Terrance Farrar, who told police that he
witnessed Rudy threaten to kill Armando Lazo at a party two
weeks before the shooting.
19
83.
Defendant Officers also knew that Rudy owned a
car that matched the eyewitness description given by Jesse

Hernandez.
84.
In addition, a woman named Connie Serrano
witnessed Sally Flores, Javier and Rudys sister, trying to

dispose of a .22 caliber weapon, the same caliber as the murder
weapon, at Javier and Rudys home shortly after the shooting.
Ms. Serrano was also told by Rudys best friend Half-Pint that
Rudy had admitted his involvement in the shooting.
85.
Ms. Serrano tried to tell the police numerous
times about the information she had about Rudy, including after
the false confession coerced from Mr. Villegas by Defendant
Officers, but she was rebuffed and told that police already had
the right killer.
86.
Likewise, Jamarqueis Graves overheard a
conversation in which the Flores brothers referred to Daniel

Villegas being locked up for a crime they had committed. Mr.
Graves also witnessed one of them trying to dispose of a .22
caliber weapon.
87.
In addition, Defendant Officers were aware of
information that Celia Fierro, Javiers girlfriend, was in the

car at the time of the shooting. Ms. Fiero would have been able
to confirm that Mr. Villegas had nothing to do with the
shooting. Neither Ms. Fierros existence as a witness nor the
20
information she held was ever provided to Plaintiff or his

attorneys.
88.
Furthermore, Defendant Officers obtained an
audio-taped statement made by a witness who had information that

Rudy had bragged about his involvement in the shootings. That
tape recording was never produced to Plaintiff or his attorneys.
89.
Defendant Marquez falsely claimed that he
listened to the tape with Detective Arturo Ruiz and Lieutenant

Paul Saucedo, and that any leads it generated were followed up
on. This version of events was contradicted by both Ruiz and
Saucedo, who denied that Marquez ever shared the tape with them
and denied that the investigative leads it might have generated
had been exhausted.
90.
Moreover, Defendant Officers knew that on the
same day of the murders, Rudy was present at another shooting

involving a .22-caliber weapon. Defendant Bellows responded to
that shooting. A .22-caliber weapon was recovered from that
shooting but the Defendant Officers have never revealed the
results of any testing to compare the shell casings and bullets
recovered from the Lazo and England murders against the
ballistics evidence in the other shooting. Defendant Bellows and
other Defendant Officers suppressed this potentially exculpatory
evidence.
21
91.
Despite the evidence pointing to the Flores
brothers involvement, Defendant Officers dismissed the

information as rumors and eliminated the Flores brothers as
suspects.
92.
Defendant Officers had tunnel vision. They
ignored evidence and failed to pursue leads that might

contradict their fabricated evidence implicating Mr. Villegas.
93.
In addition to all the evidence against the
Flores brothers, Defendant Officers were aware of confessions

from at least four other alternative suspects: the confessions
of Michael Johnston and Jacob Jauregi described above, as well
as admissions made by Rick Martinez and Eduardo Valles.
Defendant Officers essentially ignored this evidence.
94.
Moreover, Defendants Marquez, Graves, Arbogast,
Laredo, Ortega, Brown and Bellows, and other unnamed Defendant

Officers, suppressed or destroyed this and other exculpatory
evidence, including the Miranda warning card signed by Mr.
Villegas while in police custody, Mr. Villegass first
statement, David Rangels first statement, evidence of Javiers
girlfriends presence at the shooting, and the missing tape. In
addition, Defendant Officers failed to pursue the above-named
and other investigatory leads knowing that they would result in
the discovery of additional exculpatory evidence, and fabricated
inculpatory evidence in order to frame Mr. Villegas.
22
Marquezs History of Misconduct

95.
At the time he coerced a false confession from
Mr. Villegas, Defendant Marquez already had a lengthy

disciplinary record, including allegations of criminal conduct
and assault. In March 1993, the month before his interrogation
of Mr. Villegas, Marquez had been suspended from duty for three
days due to his repeated misconduct.
96.
Specifically, Defendant Marquez has a history of
lying, to such an extent that a special prosecutor sought a

perjury indictment against him.
97.
Defendant Marquez interrogated and eventually
obtained a confession from a suspect in an unrelated homicide

case after that individual had requested to contact an attorney
and had affirmed that she did not want to give a statement to
police. The confession was challenged at a suppression hearing,
during which Marquez lied about the interrogation.
98.
Defendant Marquez has admitted that he has worn a
doctors smock during interrogations in order to trick suspects

into giving statements to him.
99.
Defendant Marquez has admitted that he could have
gotten anybody to confess to the Lazo and England murders if he

wanted to do so.
100. Defendant Marquez has admitted that he has
engaged in the destruction and suppression of exculpatory
23
evidence. Specifically, when a suspect would give an initial

statement that he did not like, he has admitted that his
practice was to destroy that statement, deny its existence in
future proceedings, and work to obtain a more favorable
statement from the suspect.
101. Ultimately, based on this and other evidence, the
El Paso County District Court concluded that Defendant Marquez
had a history of committing egregious misconduct and was not
credible. It reached these conclusions based on the
corroborating evidence presented . . . that Detective Marquez
had a pattern and practice of using illegal and coercive
interrogation tactics both in this investigation and others.
Mr. Villegas Convictions
102. Without any physical evidence to tie Mr. Villegas
to the shooting, prosecutors had to rely on his coerced false
confession and the fabricated statements created by Defendants
attributed to David Rangel, Rodney Williams and Marcos Gonzalez.
103. After the jury hung at his first trial, Mr.
Villegas was retried. His coerced confession and the fabricated
statements of the three other teenagers coerced by Defendants
caused Mr. Villegas to be wrongfully convicted for the murders
of Armando Lazo and Robert England. On August 24, 1995, Mr.
Villegas was sentenced to life in prison for a crime he did not
commit.
24
Mr. Villegas Convictions Vacated

104. Mr. Villegas had nothing to do with the murders
of Mr. Lazo and Mr. England. He was nowhere near the scene of
the crime. At the time of the shooting, he was watching a movie
at the Village Green Apartments.
105. Because Mr. Villegas statement was a coerced
false statement rather than a true voluntary confession, despite
Defendant Officers best efforts to fabricate a compelling and
consistent confession, his statement contained numerous details
which were demonstrably false.
106. The statement names Popeye as the driver of the
car, but Enrique Ramirez (aka Popeye) was incarcerated at the
time of the shooting.
107. The statement names Droopy as one of the
occupants of the car, but Fernando Lujan (aka Droopy) was at
home at the time of the shooting, as established by an
electronic monitoring device which showed that Lujan never left
the house.
108. The statement asserts that Mr. Villegas and his
friends stole beer from a nearby store before the shooting, but
the storeowner confirmed that no theft occurred.
109. Mr. Villegass false confession describes the car
as white, but the only eyewitnesses described the car as maroon
and red or goldish.
25
110. The statement claims that someone in the car

yelled Que vario, but neither surviving eyewitness heard that
phrase.
111. The statement claims that, after the first shots
were fired, Armando Lazo was chased down and shot in a second
round of gunfire while he was running away. This conflicts with
the description of the shooting given by both surviving
eyewitnesses. Moreover, no one heard multiple rounds of gunfire.
The location of the shell casings confirms that only one round
of gunfire took place and the assailants did not chase Armando
down before shooting him. This eyewitness and forensic evidence
was corroborated by a neighbor who lived adjacent to the scene
of the shooting, and who heard five to six consecutive shots in
a single round of gunfire. Finally, Armando was shot in the
front of his abdomen and his thigh, not in the back,
demonstrating that he was not running away when he was struck.
112. In 2009, following an evidentiary hearing, the El
Paso County District Court strongly recommend[ed] that Mr.
Villegas convictions be vacated. The court found that Mr.
Villegas, Rodney Williams and Marcos Gonzalez were subjected to
illegal and coercive methods and that their confessions were
completely unreliable. The court concluded that the new
evidence presented at the writ hearing adequately meets the
standard to demonstrate Villegas actual innocence.
26
113. In December 2013 the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals vacated Mr. Villegas conviction.
114. In November 2014, the El Paso County District
Court suppressed Mr. Villegas false confession as involuntary
and ordered that it could not be used against him at a re-trial.
The court found that Defendant Officers had obtained the
statement in violation of [Mr. Villegas] constitutional
rights, and that the testimony of Defendants Marquez and Ortega
regarding his interrogation was not credible. Finding no
possible basis to disagree with the Courts ruling, the State
did not appeal.
Mr. Villegas Damages
115. Mr. Villegas spent nearly twenty years in prison
for a crime that he did not commit.
116. During his wrongful incarceration, Mr. Villegas
was stripped of the various pleasures of basic human experience,
from the simplest to the most important, which all free people
enjoy as a matter of right. He missed out on the ability to
share holidays, births, funerals and other life events with
loved ones, and the fundamental freedom to live ones life as an
autonomous human being.
117. Mr. Villegas became a father on November 30,
1994, shortly before his first trial. He missed being present at
the birth of his daughter due to the ongoing criminal
27
proceedings against him. After his wrongful conviction, he was

separated from his infant daughter and was unable to parent her
and to participate in her growth and development. He was also
separated from the mother of his daughter, to whom he was
engaged, and was thus deprived of companionship and matrimonial
support.
118. Throughout the period of his wrongful
incarceration, Mr. Villegas suffered numerous instances of
physical abuse perpetrated by both guards and prisoners, as well
as numerous instances of attempted sexual assault.
119. As a result of his wrongful incarceration, Mr.
Villegas must now attempt to rebuild his life without the
benefit of two decades of life experience that ordinarily equip
adults for that task.
120. Mr. Villegas has suffered tremendous damage,
including physical sickness and injury and resultant emotional
damages, all proximately caused by Defendants misconduct.
Count I Due Process Right to a Fair Trial
42 U.S.C. 1983
121. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is
incorporated as if restated fully herein.
122. As described more fully above, the Defendant
Officers, while acting individually, jointly, and in conspiracy
with other named and unnamed individuals, as well as under color
28
of law and within the scope of their employment, deprived

Plaintiff of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
123. In the manner described more fully above, the
Defendant Officers deliberately withheld exculpatory and
impeachment evidence, fabricated false statements, reports and
other evidence, and suborned perjury, thereby misleading and
misdirecting the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.
Absent this
misconduct, the prosecution of Plaintiff could not and would not

have been pursued.
124. The Defendant Officers misconduct also directly
resulted in the Plaintiffs unjust criminal conviction, thereby
denying him his constitutional right to a fair trial, and a fair
appeal thereof, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
125. As a direct and proximate result of this
misconduct, Plaintiff sustained and continues to sustain
injuries, including physical injury and sickness and resultant
emotional pain and suffering.
126. The misconduct described in this Count was
objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with
willful indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
127. The misconduct by the Defendant Officers
described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to the policy
and practice of the El Paso Police Department, which Plaintiff
29
was the victim of, and his injuries were proximately caused by a
policy and practice on the part of the City of El Paso to pursue
and secure false convictions through profoundly flawed
investigations as described more fully above.
128. Specifically, during the relevant time period, a
group of El Paso police officers, including some or all of the
Defendant Officers herein, engaged in a systematic pattern of
coercion, fabrication of evidence, withholding of exculpatory
information, and other illegal tactics, the sum total of which
completely corrupted the investigative process.
129. This institutional desire to close cases through
unconstitutional tactics regardless of actual guilt or
innocence, in order to enhance police officers personal
standing in the Department, was known to the command personnel,
who themselves participated in the practice.
130. The above-described widespread practices, so
well-settled as to constitute de facto policy in the El Paso
Police Department during the time period at issue, were able to
exist and thrive because municipal policymakers with authority
over the same either concurred with the practices or exhibited
deliberate indifference to the problem.
131. The widespread practices described in the
preceding paragraphs were allowed to take place because the City
of El Paso declined to implement sufficient training and any
30
legitimate mechanism for oversight or punishment. Indeed, the El

Paso Police Departments systems for investigating and
disciplining police officers and other employees accused of the
type of misconduct that befell Plaintiff was, and is, for all
practical purposes nonexistent.
Indeed, the Department
maintained a code of silence that effectively eliminated any

form of accountability, discipline or oversight.
132. El Paso police officers and the other employees
of the City of El Paso who manufactured criminal cases against
individuals such as Plaintiff had every reason to know that they
not only enjoyed de facto immunity from criminal prosecution and
Departmental discipline, but that they also stood to be rewarded
for closing cases no matter what the costs. In this way, this
system proximately caused abuses, such as the Defendant
Officers misconduct at issue in this case.
Count II Coerced and False Confession (Fifth Amendment)
42 U.S.C. 1983
134. In the manner described more fully above,
Defendant Officers, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy
with one another, as well as under color of law and within the
scope of their employment, forced Plaintiff to incriminate
31
himself falsely and against his will, in violation of his rights

secured by the Fifth Amendment.
135. As described more fully above, the Defendant
Officers participated in, encouraged, advised, and ordered an
unconstitutional and unlawful interrogation of Plaintiff, which
caused Plaintiff to make involuntary and false statements
implicating himself in the murders of Armando Lazo and Robert
England.
136. The coerced, involuntary, false statement written
by the Defendant Officers and attributed to Plaintiff was used
against Plaintiff to his detriment in a criminal case. This
statement was the only reason that Plaintiff was prosecuted and
convicted of the murders.
objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally, with
malice, with reckless indifference to the rights of others, and
in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiffs clear innocence.
138. As a result of Defendants misconduct described
in this Count, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and sustained
and continues to sustain injuries, including physical injury and
sickness, and resultant emotional pain and suffering, great
mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, and other grievous and
continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.
32
139. The Defendant Officers misconduct described in

this Count was undertaken pursuant to the City of El Pasos
policy and practice in the manner more fully described above.
Count III Coerced and False Confession (Fourteenth Amendment)
42 U.S.C. 1983
Defendant Officers, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy
with one another, as well as under color of law and within the
scope of their employment, forced Plaintiff to incriminate
himself falsely and against his will, in violation of his right
to due process secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.
142. As described in detail above, the misconduct
described in this Count was done using extreme techniques of
physical and psychological coercion and torture against a 16year-old boy. This misconduct was so severe as to shock the
conscience, it was designed to injure Plaintiff, and it was not
supported by any conceivable governmental interest.
objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally, with
malice, with reckless indifference to the rights of others, and
in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiffs clear innocence.
33
144. As a result of Defendants misconduct described

in this Count, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and sustained
and continues to sustain injuries, including physical injury and
sickness, and resultant emotional pain and suffering, great
mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, and other grievous and
continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.
Count IV - Failure to Intervene
42 U.S.C. 1983
147. In the manner described above, during the
Constitutional violations described above, one or more of the
Defendant Officers stood by without intervening to prevent the
misconduct.
148. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant
Officers failure to intervene to prevent the violation of
Plaintiffs constitutional rights, he sustained and continues to
sustain injuries, including physical injury and sickness and
resultant emotional pain and suffering.
149. These Defendants had a reasonable opportunity to
prevent this harm, but failed to do so.
34

objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with
willful indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
Count V - Conspiracy
42 U.S.C. 1983
153. Prior to arresting Plaintiff, the Defendant
Officers reached an agreement amongst themselves to frame
Plaintiff for the crime, and to thereby deprive Plaintiff of his
constitutional rights, all as described in the various
Paragraphs of this Complaint.
154. In addition, before and after Plaintiffs
conviction, each of the Defendant Officers further conspired,
and continues to conspire, to deprive Plaintiff of exculpatory
materials to which he is lawfully entitled and which would have
led to his more timely exoneration of the false charges as
described in the various Paragraphs of this Complaint.
155. In this manner, the Defendant Officers, acting in
concert with each other and with other unknown co-conspirators,
including persons who are and who are not members of the El Paso
35
Police Department, have conspired by concerted action to

accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful means.
156. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the coconspirators committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful
participant in joint activity.
157. As a direct and proximate result of the illicit
prior agreement referenced above, Plaintiffs rights were
violated, and he sustained and continues to sustain injuries,
including physical injury and sickness and resultant emotional
pain and suffering.
undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference
to the rights of others.
Count VI - Supervisory Liability
42 U.S.C. 1983
161. The constitutional injuries complained of herein
were proximately caused by a pattern and practice of misconduct,
which occurred with the knowledge and consent of those of the
Defendant Officers who acted in a supervisory capacity,
36
including but not limited to Defendant Scagno, who served as

Chief of the El Paso Police Department at all relevant times,
such that these officers personally knew about, facilitated,
approved, and condoned this pattern and practice of misconduct,
or at least recklessly caused the alleged deprivation by their
actions or by their deliberately indifferent failure to act.
164. Absent knowing participation by the command
personnel responsible for supervising the Defendant Officers,
the misconduct alleged in this Complaint could not have
occurred.
Count VII State Law Claim
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
37
167. The acts and conduct of Defendant Officers as set

forth above were extreme and outrageous. Defendant Officers
actions were rooted in an abuse of power or authority, and they
were undertaken with intent to cause, or were in reckless
disregard of the probability that their conduct would cause,
severe emotional distress to Plaintiff, as is more fully alleged
above.
severe emotional pain and suffering.
Count VIII State Law Claim
Civil Conspiracy
170. As described more fully in the preceding
paragraphs, Defendant Officers, acting in concert with other
known and unknown co-conspirators, conspired by concerted action
to accomplish an unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful
purpose by unlawful means.
171. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendant
Officers committed overt acts and were otherwise willful
participants in joint activity including but not limited to the
38
malicious prosecution of Plaintiff and the intentional

infliction of emotional distress upon him.
undertaken intentionally, with malice, willfulness, and reckless
indifference to the rights of others.
severe emotional pain and suffering.
Count IX State Law Claim
Abuse of Process
175. As described more fully in the preceding
paragraphs, Defendant Officers made an illegal, improper, or
perverted use of the process, a use neither warranted nor
authorized by the process.
176. Defendant Officers had an ulterior motive or
purpose in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use
of the process.
39
Count X State Law Claim

False Imprisonment
Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiff to a willful detention
without his consent and without the authority of law.
Count XI State Law Claim
Respondeat Superior
183. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding
paragraphs, each of the Defendant Officers were members of, and
agents of, the El Paso Police Department, acting at all relevant
times within the scope of their employment and under color of
law.
40
184. Defendant City of El Paso is liable as principal

for all torts committed by its agents.
Count XII State Law Claim
Indemnification
186. Texas law provides that public entities are
directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for
which employees are liable within the scope of their employment
activities.
187. Defendant Officers are or were employees of the
El Paso Police Department, who acted within the scope of their
employment in committing the misconduct described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DANIEL VILLEGAS, respectfully

requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against
Defendants, CITY OF EL PASO, ALFONSO MARQUEZ, CARLOS ORTEGA,
SCOTT GRAVES, JOE LAREDO, KEMMITT BELLOWS, EARL ARBOGAST, LINK
BROWN, JOHN SCAGNO, UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF EL PASO,
awarding compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys fees, as
well as punitive damages against all individual defendants, and
any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
41
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, DANIEL VILLEGAS, hereby demands a trial by
jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all
issues so triable.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
/s/ Felix Valenzuela

Attorney for Daniel Villegas
Felix Valenzuela
State Bar No. 24076745
VALENZUELA LAW FIRM
221 N. Kansas Street, Ste. 1200
El Paso, TX 79901
T: 915-209-2719
F: 915-493-2404
felix@valenzuela-law.com
42

Daniel Villegas Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniel Villegas Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniel Villegas Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the lawsuit about?

What is the lawsuit about?

What illegal interrogation tactics did the defendants allegedly use?

What illegal interrogation tactics did the defendants allegedly use?

Case 3:15-cv-00386-FM-LS Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Based entirely on a series of what a court has

called completely unreliable statements illegally and

Case 3:15-cv-00386-FM-LS Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 42

The Defendants used violence, threats of

violence, and false promises of leniency to coerce Mr. Villegas

The illegal and coercive methods used by

Defendants to obtain these four false statements and secure Mr.

The same court explained that the statements

In addition to coercing false statements

implicating Mr. Villegas, Defendants withheld exculpatory

Mr. Villegas was vindicated 20 years after his

false confession when, in December 2013, the Texas Court of

This lawsuit seeks to redress the violation of

Mr. Villegas constitutional rights, obtain compensation for the

Case 3:15-cv-00386-FM-LS Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 3 of 42

damage Defendants inflicted upon him, and bring these injustices

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1983 and Texas law to redress Defendants tortious conduct and

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 and 1367.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).

The events giving rise to this complaint occurred in this

Plaintiff Daniel Villegas is a 38-year-old

resident of El Paso, Texas. Mr. Villegas has two children,

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Alfonso

Marquez, Carlos Ortega, Scott Graves, Joe Laredo, Kemmitt

In addition, Defendant John Scagno was, at all

Case 3:15-cv-00386-FM-LS Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 4 of 42

relevant times hereto, Chief of the El Paso Police Department,

Defendant City of El Paso is a Texas municipal

of the Defendant Officers, who were police officers in the El

Around midnight on April 10, 1993, 18-year-old

Robert England, 17-year-old Armando Lazo, 17-year-old Jesse

Jesse and Juan were not struck by the bullets.

The survivors, Jesse and Juan, both gave

statements to the police after the shooting. They explained

Case 3:15-cv-00386-FM-LS Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 5 of 42

Neither Jesse nor Juan was able to identify the

individuals in the car or even the number of occupants. Each

The senseless nature of this crime and the tragic

Defendants Marquez, Graves, Arbogast, and Laredo

were all assigned to investigate the Lazo and England murders.

After giving an initial statement describing the

little he observed to police on April 10, 1993, surviving victim

Case 3:15-cv-00386-FM-LS Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 6 of 42

Jesse Hernandez was picked up by Defendant Marquez on April 12,

At Defendant Marquezs request, Jesse wrote down

his description of the circumstances of the shooting on a legal

Even though he was a victim of the shooting, not

its perpetrator, Jesse later testified that the interrogation by

Jesse nearly succumbed to Defendant Marquezs

coercive interrogation and came close to falsely confessing.

Ultimately, Jesse did not confess, so Defendant