f~L:

121375

INV

UNIT: PROF STND

CHARGE: PERJURY
RD: HS332400
OPS CR:
AGENCY: SAO
SOlJRCE: ASA CUYLER-SHERMAN

ASA: FREEMAN, LAUREN

JUDGE:
REQUESTOR: DEP. C.HlEF GOIDEN

NOTE:

on

On April 13; 201 J, during a hearing a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress lite victim's lineup identi6cati.on in the Anned
Robbery/Attempt Murder case of Peo. V. Ranceallen Hankerson (lOCR-11882), CPO Allison Bogdalek testified under oath
before judge Gaughan that photographs of the defendant were not shown to the victim prior to the defendant's arrest. Defense
counsel then confronted CPO Bogdalek with squad car camera video footage in whiclt CPO Bogdalek contradicts her Motion
testimony. The video/audio footage shows that afterpullins the defendant's car over but prior to arresting the dctendant, CPO
Bogdalek calls Area l Sgt Dowd and tells him that a photo anay containing the delCndant had been shown to the victim. She
further states that although. the victim did not identify Hankerson in the photo array, a '\vitness" had positively identified his
photo. When confronted with the video during her testimo ny, CPO Bogdalek responded !hat she didn't "rcrnember doing a photo
anay" (Motion Transcript pg. 32) and Uiat she didn't "remember whal (she) was referring to" during the recorded footage
(Transcript pg. 35). The Motion teslimony continued:
THE COURT: Officer, it's confusing right now. Did the photo array ever ooour?
CPO BOGDAI.EK; No.

.MR. QRAPSAS: So, when you j:old the.detective th.ere wau photo anay, were you lying to hiii1?
.CPO BOGDALEK: I don't remember doiog one, so eithoc I was lying to him or I honestly dont remember. (Transcript pg. 35)
CPO Bogdalek then testified that she cou.tdn 't recall the identity ofthe witness lo whom she referred and stated !hat she couldn't
recall anything about a witness in the reports. (Transcript pg. 35-36) CPO Bogdalek's parlncr, CPO Catinella, testified at the
Motion but was never asked about the photo array.
Following lhe officers' testimony, on May 10, 2011, AS.A Risa Uu!ier called victim
llS lhe ollfywilness for the
People. Despite die squad car camera footage,testified that he was never shown any photos before positively identifying the
detendant Hankerson in the line-up. He also tcstifi.ed that he had known Hankerson &om the tore for approx. 3 years as
"Ramsey'' before Hankerson had robbed his store and shot him 0 11 May .29, 20 l 0. Consequently, Judge Gaughan de!llc4 the
defendant's Motion and the case was continued until sel for trial on Aug. 3, 2012.
Fifteen monlhs la.ter, on Juli24, 2012, AS.As Natosha Cuyler-Sherman and Ashley Moore held jury !rial prep in a conference
, sole civilian eyewitness
, and all of 1110 involved Chicago f'.olice personnel The A.S.As have
room witltwriUe.n an intra-Qffice, corlfidential Memorundum dooumenling the even~ of the meeting. While discussing the.case, AS.A
Cuyler-Sherma~ I.old CPO Bogdalek tbat they needed to talk about the photograph issue. CPO Bogdalck asked the AS.As to step
outside \vith her to alone and once in the hallway, began to CIY She told the AS.As the following, in summary and not vetbalim:
Thish~ been .bothering her.since ii first happened and even ntore since she testified Photos had, in fact, been shown to~t
his ho111e and~uld not identify Hankerson from the photos. When lhe defend.tint was placed into custody, she tried to
talking to a Sergeant about the photos but the Sergeant and CPO Catinella told her to never mention the negative photo array
again. None of the photos shown towere inventoried. CPO Catinella is no longer her partner and she was bei11g chastised
because she wouldn 'I soop talking about the photographs. She had asked several superiors what to do, including two Sezgeants and
a Lieutenant, and tJ1ey told her not to say 1111ything but it has continued to bother her and someone else told her before coming to
trial prep to tell die AS.As the truth. She had wanted tD do so for a Jong time but was afraid.
Following the conversation witl1 CPO Bogdalek, the AS.As spoke with vicfi~ alone and confronted him wiih CPO
Bogdalck's confession. Victi~re "on the Ramadan" that he was not shown any photographs by !he officers. The
AS.As explained to him that they knew the truth. They then tcnninated his trial prep and let him.
and the assisting
officers go. Officers Bogdalek, Catinella and Hamilton (the original responding officer) remained in the conference room with
De~ Michael Walsh and the AS.A'!. AS.A CuylerSl1ennan then explained that she wanted the truth t.o be told regarding the
photographs. At first, CPO Catinella denied that photos had been shown
CPO Bogdalek, howe~r, confronted CPO
Catinella, stating that CPO Catinella knew th~ truth. CPO Catinella then put his head dow.n a.nd apologized for lying lo the
AS,A.s, admitting !hat there were photos shown toand tlta.had fajled to identify the defendant. After the other
officers left, CPO Catinella aga.in apologized for lying and 3.8ked i
h11d admitted that Ute photo array had been shown lo
him AS.A Cuyler-Sb.ennan responded
had not yet admitted tb.e truth and that she knew- was lying. CPO
Catinella tli.en told AS.A. Cuyler..Shennan that if he could talk to,would admit that he was shown the photognip~.
AS.A Cuyler-Shennan told CPO Catinella that this was unneces11ary and would be handled another way. .Thu AS.As tl1cn

Iha-

T hursday, February 27, 2014

to-

Page 1of3

SAO 00004

(;.I.J REP(lRT
tenninated the meeling and rotumcd lo IILeir office. Several minutes later, CPO Catinella called AS.A Cuylcr-Shennan and again
apologized for lying.
On July 26, 2012, The Attempt Murder/Anncd Robbery case ag;linstdefendanl Rancea!Jcn Hankerson was MS Nolle Pros. in
COuti.

On Sepl 26, 2012, IAD Sgt Mike Barz interviewed witness

at her umdence. stated lhat she could not
recall ever being shown photographs of possible offenders by anyCPOs pnor to viewing the physical lineup at the police station on
June 1, 2010 (in which sll.e could not identify defendant Hankerson). When Sgt Ban showed her photo anays oonlainiog CPOs
Bogdalek and Catinella, she could not intify them as officers that she had met or spoken to during tile course oftlte investigation
in 20 10.

SUBJECT
01

SUBJECT NAME

ATTORNEY

GANG

Bogdalek, CPO Allison

l'f,,,\Cf; 01:

EMl'I,OYMI~NT;

I'lWNE:

Chicago Police Department~ Star #18598 (009)

lRNO:

'ro

IAP NOTE ::
DETERMINE WHETHER
PROFFER CPO CATINELLA, SGT. DOWD AND OTHBR POUCE PERSONNEL.
ESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY.
ALSO DECIDE WHETHER TO HAVEARMBD ROBBERY/SHOOTING VICTIM
SUPERVISORY NOTE::

lNCr.n;KNT
llATE~4/13/2011

TO
AIH:lU.fl:SS: 2600 s. California, Room 500

JOUClC UlST: .
CITY CHICAGO

009

.VlCTL'\!lS
ETHNIC

NAME
, The People

.,,;JmRJtSS:
J?HCJ!'IC~:

EVENTS
01

Bogdalek, CPO Aliison

10/15/2012

JNVESTIGATION SCIIEDlJLREVENT: 2/26/2014

Thursday, February 27, 2014

CLOSE

Page 2 of 3

SAO 00005

(~J"'
CL

10/15/2012

REP()RT

SCHEDULE .EVENT' 10/15/2012

!NVESTIGATI

OPEN CPO BOGDALEK ADMITTED TO AS.A'S THAT SHE GAVE UNTRUTHFUL TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.

DISPOSITIONS
01

Bogdalek, CPO Allison

DISPOSTION:

2/26/2014 CLOSE

RESTITUTION:
FINES:
FORFEITURES:

BOX NUMBER:
COURTCOSTS:
COMMUNITY SERVICE:
SHERIFF'S WORK PROGRAM:

A Memorandum detailing the investigation was submitted electronically to Chief Blakey

and Deputy Chief Golden on January 7, 2014. On February 26, 2014, Deputy Chief Golden
told A.S.A. Freeman that S.A. Alvarez officially informed Chief Blakey that no criminal
charges would be filed against Target.

Thursday, February 27, 2014 .

Page 3 of 3

SAO 00006

ATIORNEY WORK PRODUCT

CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM

JACK BLAKEY,
CHIEF, SPECIAL PROSECUTIONS BUREAU

TO:

MIKE GOLDEN
DEPUTY CHIEF, SPECIAL PROSECUTIONS BUREAU
WILLIAM DELANEY
SUPERVISOR, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT
FROM:

LAUREN FREEMAN
ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT

DATE:

DECEMBER 20, 2013

RE:

PERMISSION TO INDICT CPO ALLYSON BOGDALEK AND PERMISSION TO OFFER .

CPO DOMINICK CATINELLA USE IMMUNITY FOR GRAND JURY AND TRIAL
TESTIMONY IN RETURN FOR PLEADING GUILTY TO ATTEMPT OBSTRUCTING
JUSTICE (MISD.)

TARGET:

CPO ALLYSON BOGDALEK #18598 (009 Dist.)

D.0.B. Aug. 13, 1980; Date of Appointment April 28, 2003

ALLEGATION: During a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Identification, target Bogdalek

knowingly testified falsely that a photo array containing defendant Ranceallen Hankerson was
never shown to the victim.
POTENTIAL CHARGES:
PERJURY - 720 ILCS 5/32~2 (Class 3 Felony)

(a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any
. other matter where by law the oath or affirmation is required, he or she makes a
false statement, material to the issue or point in question, knowing the statement is
false.
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE~ 720 ILCS 5/31~4 (Class 4 Felony)

(a) A person obstructs justice when, with intent to ... obstruct the ... defense of any
person, he or she knowingly commits any of the following acts:
(1) Destroys, alters, conceals ... physical evidence ... (or) furnishes false information ...
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (Based on above charges; Class 3)

1
SAO 00008

I. FACTS
A. UNDERLYING ARMED ROBBERY CASE
On May 29, 2010, a masked man entered Shamsan Food and liquors at 737 West 515t Street
in Chicago. Inside the store, the offender pointed a handgun at
- ) , the
store owner, and demanded that he open the store's safe. When- told the offender that
there was no safe, the man shot in the leg. The offender, with the help of an unknown
suspect, then forced to open the store's cash register from Which the offenders took
$400 cash. The offenders then fled the store on foot. later told police that he recognized
the masked shooter as he had been in the store many times before. On June 1, 2010, police
arrested RanceaUen Hankerson (''Hankerson") whom identified from a physical line-up.
Hankerson was charged with armed robbery and attempt murder and was later indicted for
those charges under case number lOCR-11882. The case was assigned to the call of Judge
Vincent Gaughan and defense attorney Nick Grapsas represented Hankerson.
B. OFFICER BOGDALEK'S TESTIMONY

On April 13, 2011, a hearing was held before Judge Gaughan on Hankerson's Motion to
Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence and Motion to Suppress Identification (specifically, the
physical line-up). Chicago Police Officer Allyson Bogdalek ("target") testified under oath at the
hearing that she and her partner, Officer Dominick Catinella, never showed a photo array
containing Hankerson's photo t o - , prior to Hankerson's arrest on June 1, 2010. Defense
counsel then confronted target with squad car camera audio/video footage of the arrest that
contradicted target's testimony. The video showed that target and Catinella stopped a car

containing Hankerson and both officers exited the squad car.. Target returned to the squad car
a few moments later and called a person (now known as Sergeant John Dowd) on her cell
phone while Catinella remained outside. Catinella then re-entered the car while target can be
heard asking Sgt. Dowd if she and Catinella should bring Hankerson to the Area. Target then
told Sgt. Dowd that the victim and "a witness" had viewed a photo array containing
.

Hankerson's photo but that only the witness had been able to positively identify Hankerson's
photo as that of the offender.
The transcript of the hearing reflects that when confronted with the video footage by the
defense attorney, target responded that she did not remember showing the victim pictures and
did not remember what she was referring to during her phone conversation with Sgt. Dowd
(Transcript pp. 32 and 35). Her testimony continues (Tr. pg. 35):
THE COURT (Judge Gaughan): Officer, it's confusing right now. Did the photo array ever
occur?
BOGDALEK: No.
2

SAO 00009

MR. GRAPSAS: So, when you told the detective there was a photo array, were you lying
to him?
BOGDALEK: I don't remember doing one, so either I was lying to him or I honestly don't
remember.
Target then testified th at she could not recall the identity of the witness who had positively
identified Hankerson's photo and that she cou ld not recall any mention of that witness in the
police reports. (Tr. pp. 35-36)
Catinella also testified at the hearing but he was never questioned about the photo array. It
is important to note that neither Catinella nor target ever informed ASA Risa Lanier, the
prosecutor then handling the case, of the existence of a photo array during their preparation
for the hearing in this case. It is also important to note that neither target nor Catinella mention
a photo array in their supplemental report.
The hearing was commenced and continued to May 10, 2011. On that date, ASA Lanier
called -

to testify as the sole State witness in the hearing. Despite the squad car camera

footage, testified that he. was never shown any photos of Hankerson prior to positively
identifying him in the physical line-up. He also testified that he had known Hankerson for about
three years before the robbery because Hankerson was often in his store. he knew Hankerson by the name "Ramsey." Although masked, -

testified that

was able to identify

Hankerson because he recognized Hankerson's physical characteristics and knew where

Hankerson lived.
Judge Gaughan denied Hankerson's motions. He ruled that it did not matter whether or not
target was lying about, or did not remember, the photo array since- knew Hankerson and
had immediately identified Hankerson by his nickname as the offender.
C. TARGET AND CATINELLA'S ORAL CONFESSIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT ASAs

On July 24, 2012, fifteen months after the hearing, ASAs Natosha Cuyler-Sherman and
Ashley Moore met in. a State's Attorney's Offie conference room w i t h ( - ) (the only other eyewitness to the armed robbery), target, Catinella, and other officers,
in order to prepare for the now-scheduled jury trial. With all present, Cuyler-Sherman told
target that they needed to discuss the photo array issue. At that point, target asked the ASAs
to speak privately with her outside the room. Once in the hallway, target started to cry and
told the ASAs that she and Catinella had, in fact, shown- photos before they arrested
Hankerson but t h a t - was unable to identify Hankerson's photo contained n the array
Target stated that this fact had been bothered her since it first happened and even more so
since she testified at the hearing. Target sa id that after Hankerson's arrest, she tried to talk to a
3

SAO 00010

sergeant about the array but the sergeant and Catinella told her never to mention the negative
photo array again. Target advised that none of the photos were inventoried. She said that
Catinella was no longer her partner and that she was being chastised because she would not
stop talking about the photographs. Target claimed to have asked several superiors, i ncluding
two sergeants and a lieutenant, for advice but they told her not to say anything. Target stated
that someone advised her to tell the ASAs the truth at the meeting. Target claimed that she
wanted to tell the truth for a long time but had been afraid to do so.
Following their conversation with target, the ASAs spoke w i t h - alone and confronted
him with target's confession. -

swo re "on the Ramadan" that he was not shown any

photographs by the officers. The A.S.A.s t o l d - that they knew the truth. The A.S.A.s then
terminated the meeting and sent-and

home. Target, Catinella, Det. Mike

Walsh, and a.nother officer remained in the conference room. ASA Cuyler-Sherman then told
the group that she wanted the truth regarding the photographs. At first, Catinella denied that
they showed a photo array t o - . Target, however, confronted Catinella and told him that
he "knew the truth." Catinella then put his head down, apologized to the ASAs for lying, and
admitted that they showed a photo array t o - but t h a t - failed to identify
Hankerson's photo. After the remaining officers left, Catinella again apologized for lying and
asked i f - had admitted to viewing the photo array. ASA Cuyler-Sherman responded that
-

had not and that she knew-was lying. Catinella offered to talk t o - but ASA

Cuyler-Sherman replied that it wo.uld be handled another way. The ASAs then terminated the
meeting and returned to their office. Several minutes later, Catinella phoned ASA CuylerSherman and again apologized for lying.
ASAs Cuyler-Sherman and Moore wrote a confidential memorandum describing the
admissions of target and Catinella regarding the photo array and submitted it to their
supervisors. Based on this information, the decision was made to dismiss the charges against
Hankerson. On July 26, 2012, the A.S.A.s no/le prossed Hankerson's case.

II.

OFFICER CATINELLA'$ PROFFER

On September 27, 2013, ASA Freeman interviewed Catinella, with proffer protection and
without Garrity or Miranda rights, in the presence of SAO Investigator Paul Rice and Catinella's
attorney, Jerry Bischoff. Catinella confirmed the existence of the negative photo array and
negated any "innocent mistake'' defense that target could offer. He stated the following, in
summary:
The day before the arrest, he was working with target while Catinella's regular partner,
Officer John Haggerty, was not working that day. Catinella did not use the computerized photo
array application available on the CLEAR system but chose five individual photos in addition to
Hankerson's photo to use in the photo array. The photos were printed in black and white and
4

SAO 00011

appeared darker than they should have been. The next day, he again worked with target. He
picked up the photos and placed them in an envelope along with a photo array consent form.
He and target then went t o - home on South Darnen Avenue in Chicago. answered
the door and was home alone at the time. led them to his bedroom where Catinella
noticed numerous pill bottles around the room. In target's presence,- signed the consent
form and viewed the photos but could not identify the offender. Catinella then placed the
photos and consent form in the envelope and left the house with target. Catinella and target
were driving to the station to inventory the photo array when they saw Hankerson riding in a
car and pulled the car over. Catinella had previously brought up Hankerson's photo on the
squad car computer in order to recognize him. Hankerson exited the car he had been riding in
and fled on foot. Target gave chase and sustained minor injuries when Hankerson shoved her.
After arresting Hankerson, they pic~ed u p - from his home and drove him to the Area to
view a physical line-up that contained Hankerson. positively identified Hankerson from
the line-up as the man who robbed and shot him. Catinella claimed that after the line-up, he
and target forgot that they had left the photo array in the squad car and he never saw it again.
Catinella stated that has never met Sgt. Dowd and did not know with whom target was
speaking when she was on her cell phone in the squad car. He had been outside of the car
when she placed the call and when he re-entered the squad car, he assumed she was speaking
to the detective assigned to.the case.
Catinella stated that he and target did not discuss the photo array until a year later just prior
to the hearing. None of the other CPO personnel or the ASAs involved in Hankerson's arrest or
prosecution knew about the photo array. Just before the hearing began, he and target met
outside of Judge Gaughan's courtroom where they had a brief conversation about the photo
array and mutually decided to "forget" that it ever existed. They did not want to risk damaging
the strong case against Hankerson because of their own incompetence. He stated that he
never asked target to lie if she was to be asked about the photo array during her testimony. He
believed that no one else besides him, target, and the person she had spoken to on the phone,
knew about the photo array. Consequently, he and target didn't believe they would be asked
about it during hearing. After she testified, target told Catinella that she was asked about the
photo array during her testimony but felt that "it went O.K. 11 She told him that she had been
asked if a photo array had been "completed" in the case. She mentioned that she felt she
hadn't lied because, in her opinion, the photo array had never been "completed," meaning that
it had never been inventoried.
Catinella insisted that he "knew for a fact" that no photos were ever shown to witness
and claimed that he did not know why target said that a witness also viewed the
photo array. He also insisted that he did not tell ~o deny that target and he showed him
the photos .. He opined that-may have forgotten that he viewed the photo array because
of the pain medication that he was taking at the time.

SAO 00012

Ill.

TARGET'S PROFFER

On Oct. 29, 2013, A.S.A. Freeman interviewed target, with proffer protection and without
Garrity or Miranda rights, in the presence of SAO Inv. Paul Lambert and target's attorney,
Colleen Daly.
Target's account of the circumstances surrounding her Motion testimony was similar to CPO
Catinella's proffered interview account, with these notable differences, in summary:
Target stated that she was present i n - bedroom when-thumbed through the 6
or 8 separate photos that Catinella gave~ pulled out Hankerson's photo and told
CPO Catinella that he thought that the man in the photo looked like the offender who shot him
but he couldn't be sure.
Target stated that following Hankerson's arrest a n d - positive line-up ID, target had an
argument with CPO Catinella about the photo array on the 3ri:1 floor of Area 1. She wanted to
inventory the array and indude it in her supplemental report but he wanted to forget about it
because it hurt the case. She walked over to two or three detectives at the area and explained
her situation. These detectives, who she cannot identify, advised her to "forget about it." She
gave up, wrote up the supplemental report without mentioning the photo array, and signed it.
After writing her report, she went back to the oogth District to check out. Before checking out,
she complained to her sergeant, Sgt. John Ward, about leaving the photo array out of the
reports. Sgt. Ward called Catinella over and asked Catinella if Catinella and target had
conducted a photo array. Catinella replied, "No," arid Sgt. Ward said the argument was settled.
Target stated that she does not remember whether or not she and Catinella discussed the
photo array on the day of her Motion testimony. Neither of them told the A.S.A. litigating the
Motion about the photo array.
When asked about the photos on cross-examination, she panicked. She did not lie to protect
the case against Hankerson but knew that she and others would get into trouble for not
inventorying or repo'rting the photo array. She felt it was necessary to testify consistently with
her reports.
Target stated that she and Catinella never showed the photo array to anyone b u t - She
cannot remember why she told Sgt. Dowd that a female witness had identified Hankerson's
photo.
During the proffer, target was read portions of her Motion testimony from the transcript and
identified each specific answer where she intentionally lied.

IV.

OTHER EVIDENCE

A. INTERVIEW OF OFFICER JOHN HAGGERTY

SAO 00013

On August 27, 2013, A.S.A.s Freeman and McCarthy interviewed Officer.John Haggerty.
Neither administrative nor Miranda Rights were given prior to the interview. Haggerty stated
t he following, in summary:
The two officers chose target as their third partner because she was "the best of the rest"
and a hard worker. Haggerty is still Catinella's partner. Before target was stripped, the three
officers worked in pairs in a two-rrian car while the third partner had his or her day off.
One morning when Haggerty arrived at work, Catinella handed him the case report for the
armed robbery/shooting o f - . It was common for them to work up cases in the
district. They went to the store b u t - was not there so they went t o - house. told the officers that he knew th.e offender from before but that the offender was wearing a
mask. Haggerty assumed that they would never get felony charges approved by the SAO and
wanted to stop spending their time working up the case. Haggerty was off during the next
several days and believed that Catinella and target continued to work the case.
Haggerty could not recall if he ran Hankerson's prior arrestreports on May 30, 2010, the
date shown on the CLEAR printout. He stated that it was possible that he was looking for a
good CB photo of Hankerson for Catinella to use in a future photo array. He.recalled teaching
Catinella how to put together photo arrays by following CPD General Orders but does not
remember if it was for this case or for a prior case. Haggerty did not know whether a photo
array was conducted in this case although he suspected that it would be the next logical step in
the investigation. Haggerty never saw the photo array that was used this case. Neither
. Catinella nor target ever told Haggerty that they had shown photos to ~r a witness.
B. INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT JOHN DOWD

On September 10, 2013, A.S.A. Freeman and SAO Inv. Paul Rice interviewed Sgt. Dowd with
proffer protection and in the presence of his attorney, Bob Kuzas. Sgt. Dowd was not given
administrative or Miranda rights prior to the interview.
Sgt. Dowd stated that he had worked with target for about two months sometime in 2004
and had remained friendly with her since then. They did not socialize together but he would
see her occasionally at events outside of work and she occasionally called him for advice. On
June 1, 2010, he was working in Area 1 Property/Burglary/Theft and was not target's
supervising sergeant. After watching the recorded squad car video, he confirmed that he
generally remembered the phone conversation with target recorded on the video, but not the
particulars. When target told him about "photo arrays", he assumed that she was referring to
photos shown on her squad car computer. He believed that patrol officers were required to
have a sergeant with them when conducting photo arrays. Sgt. Dowd stated that target called
him a se~ond time that same day for advice. He told her that she should discuss her questions
with her supervising sergeant. Sgt. Dowd does not know CPO Catinella.
7

SAO 00014

C. INTERVIEWS OF DET. MICHAEL WALSH AND OFFICER MELINDA HAMILTON

On Dec. 20, 2013, A.S.A. Freeman and SAO Inv. Paul Lambert interviewed Det. Michael Walsh
in the presence of attorney his attorney, Will Fahy. Officer Melinda Hamilton was also
interviewed and was not represented. Neither Det. Walsh nor CPO Hamilton was given
administrative or Miranda rights prior to their interviews and both were interviewed without
proffer protection.
Oet. Walsh stated, in summary, that he was assigned to the case after Hankerson was
arrested. His sergeant that day was Sgt. Dowd. Det. Walsh confirmed that he was unaware
that any photos were shown to the victim until after the motions were litigated when a female
African American A.S .A. called him on the phone. Det. Walsh cannot remember when the
phone conversation took place Qut knows it occurred at some point between the conclusion of
the motion testimony and the day of jury trial prep. On the phone, the A.S.A. asked him if he
knew that a photo or photos had been shown t o - . Det. Walsh answered that he knew
nothing about photos. He told the A.S.A. that if, in fact, photos had been shown to the victim, .
the A.S.A. should make sure the defense attorney knew about it.
Det. Walsh further stated that he remembers the trial prep. meeting in which the A.S.A.
confronted the officers. He doesn't remember details of the conversation but remembers the
A.S.A. telling target and Officer Catinella that she knew that photos had been shown to the
victim because of the squad car video. The AS.A. told target that target testified at the motion
that no photos had been shown to the victim, yet the squad car camera video contradicted her
. testimony. Target admitted that they had shown photos to the victim. Catinella continued to
deny that they showed photos but finally admitted it by saying, "0.K., we did show the victim a
photo (or photos) and he couldn't make identification." Det. Walsh does not remember target
or Catinella stating that they "lied," about the photos but that this was obvious by the way they
initially denied, but then admitted, they showed the photos. Det. Walsh was angry at the
officers. As he, target, and Catinella left the room, he told the officers that all they had needed
to do was write a quick supplemental report about the photo array.
Det. Walsh asked Sgt. Dowd about the photos long after the case was dismissed. Det. Walsh
was upset because he did not understand why the officers told Sgt. Dowd about the photos
during the recorded phone conversation but never.told Det. Walsh. Sgt. Dowd said he did not
know anything about the photos, other than what he learned on the phone during the recorded
squad car camera conversation.
CPO Hamilton was interviewed on Dec. 20, 2013, and also substantially corroborates target's
and CPO Catinella's admissions to the A.S.A.s during trial prep. In summary, Hamilton recalls
being in the conference room during trial prep when the African American female A.S.A.
entered the room. Hamilton could not remember exactly who was in the room but remembers
that Bogdalek, Catinella, the detective, and the A.S.A. were all there. The A.S.A. seemed upset
and told all of the officers that she needed to know the truth about the photo array. She asked
whether a photo array was shown to the victim and Catinella said, "No." The A.S.A. said that
she knew that was not the truth and that one officer told her that there was a photo array

SAO 00015

shown to the victim. Target then told Catinella that she had already told the A.S.A. the truth.
CPO Catinella then admitted, in summary, "0.K., we did show a photo array to the victim." The
A.5.A. then reviewed Hamilton's involvement in the case and allowed her to leave. As Hamilton
left the room, the A.S.A. was showing the squad car camera video to target and Catinella.
Officer Hamilton had no further involvement in the case.
D. INTERVIEW OF SGT. JOHN WARD
On Dec. 20, 2013, A.S.A. Freeman and SAO Inv. Paul Lambert interviewed Sgt. John Ward in
the presence of his attorney, Thomas Needham, without proffer protection or administrative
rights. Sgt. Ward recalled, in summary, that on an unknown night during "check-off," target
approached him in the 009 1h Dist. check-off room. She asked him something like, "What should
I do with a photo array?" Sgt. Ward replied, "You have to inventory it." CPO Catinella then
walked up to him while target was still there and Sgt. Ward asked him, "Did you do a photo
array?" CPO Catinella replied, "No." Sgt. Ward then said to both of them, if you did a photo
array, make sure you inventory it." That was the end of the conversation. Sgt. Ward does not
remember any argument between target and CPO Catinella and he never told them to forget
that the photo array ever occurred, as alleged by target.
Sgt. Ward also remembers a separate conversation he had with target. He knows this
conversation took place at the station, sometime after Hankerson's arrest, before target was
stripped. He remembers that target approached him and asked him what to do because she
had a problem with a past photo array. He did not inquire further about the nature of the
problem but told her that she should come clean with the A.S.A.s and tell them about it. He
believed that she followed his advice because the next thing he heard about target was that she
was stripped.
E.

"CLEAR" RECORDS

When an officer generates a photo array using CLEAR's photo array application, a record
of the photo array is stored in CLEAR's database under that officer's user code. Target's likely
defense that no photo array ever existed would be buttressed by the fact that no such record
was found in this case. However, in his proffered statement, Catinella explained that he did
not use the CLEAR photo array application to generate the photos he used in the array.
Instead, on the day prior to Hankerson's arrest, he chose individual black and white mugshots
and then picked them up the day of the arrest. The CLEAR records show that on May 30, 2010,
{two days before the arrest), Catinella's access code was used to view 22 mughshots. The
records also show that Catinella's access code was used to query Hankerson's IR# to obtain his
criminal background about two hours prior to Hankerson's arrest. Arguably, this was the same
time that the officers pulled up Hankerson's photo on the squad car computer.
During Catinella's interview, he also stated that officers will often use their partners' access
codes if their partner is already logged into a computer. He believes it is possible that he was
logged on with Haggerty's or target's access code when he generated some of the black and

SAO 00016

white mugshot photos. The CLEAR records show that on May 31, 2010, CPO Haggerty's access
code was used to access mugshots of Hankerson from three prior arrests.
F.

INTERVIEW OF SGT. MAITHEW LITTLE

On Dec. 20, 2013, A.S.A. Freeman and SAO Inv. Paul Lambert interviewed Sgt. Mat hew Little.
Sgt. Little was not represented by counsel and was not given proffer protection or
administrative rights. In summary, he stated that he was target's sergeant in the Gang Unit for
approx. 6 months before she was stripped . One night in their Homan Square office, she asked
him if she could talk to him about something. She told him that she was testifying the following
day in a trial and had given prior testimony in that case that was "mistaken" or "inaccurate."
He could not remember which of those two words she used. She asked him what she should do
and he responded that she needed to tell the A.S.A.s ab.out it. He did not ask for further details
and she provided none. He had no idea that the matter she spoke of would later cause her to
be stripped. He has had many conversations with her since she was stripped but she has never
provided the details of what occurred.
Sgt. Little added that target was one of the best and mosthonest officers he has supervised
and he "wished (he) could help her out of this mess." He is certain th at her former partner
(who he did not know) "jammed her up." He has informed target's counsel that he would
gladly testify as a character witness on target's behalf.

Y..:_

CASE STRENGTHS WITHOUT CATINELLA'S IMMUNIZED TESTIMONY

A. TARGET CONFESSED TO A .S.A.s CUYLERSHERMAN AND MOORE.

B. TARGET'S SIGNED, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, FILED THE NIGHT OF HANKERSON'S

ARREST, DOES NOT MENTION THE PHOTO ARRAY.

C. DURING MOTION PREP, TARGET AND CPO CATINELLA NEVER TOLD A.S.A . LANIER
ABOUT THE PHOTO ARRAY.

D. TARGET'S AND CPO CATINELLA'S THIRD TEAM MEMBER, CPO JOHN HAGGERTY, WILL
TESTIFY THAT TARGET AND CPO CATINELLA NEVER TOLD HIM THAT A PHOTO ARRAY WAS
CONDUCTED WITH THE VICTIM.

VI.

CASE WEAKNESSES WITHOUT CATINELLA'S IMMUNIZED TESTIMONY

A. ONLY THE A.S.A .S WILL TESTIFY THAT TARGET AND CATINELLA ADMITTED THEY
INTENTIONALLY "LIED" ABOUT THE PHOTO ARRAY. NIETHER DET. WALSH NOR
OFFICER HAMILTON WILL TESTIFY THAT TARGET OR CATINELLA SPECIFICALLV
ADMITTED TO "lYING."

B. THE VICTIM

SWORE "ON THE RAMADAN" THAT HE WAS NOT SHOWN

PHOTOS.

10

SAO 000 17

In the absence of CPO Catinella's testimony, it is easier to believe that-did not view
the photo array because he knew Hankerson and positively identified him in the line-up.

C. WITNES

ALSO DENIED BEING SHOWN PHOTOS.

I - had positively identified Hankerson in a photo array, it makes little sense that she
would fail to identify him in the line-up that followed the same day. CPO Catinella will testify
that they never conducted a photo array with
However, th is could cut both ways
because it could support target's defense that she was confused and mistaken, not lying, during
her testimony.

11111

0. SGT. JOHN DOWD WILL CORROBORATE THAT HE WAS ON THE.OTHER ENO OF

TARGET'S PHONE CALL.
E. INTERVIEWS OF OET. MICHAEL WALSH ANO CPO HAMILTON WILL CORROBORATE
TARGET'S AND OFFICER CATINELLA'S ADMISSIONS TO A.S.A.S CUYLER-SHERMAN AND
MOORE.
F. SERGEANT JOHN WARD CORROBORATES THAT A PHOTO ARRAY EXISTED

VII.

CONCLUSION

Without Catinella' s testimony, under grant of use immunity, this case may not be provable.
Only Catinefla can provide the testimony that will detail how the photos were generated,
presented t o - and left in the car. Most importantly, Catinella's statement about meeting
with target prior to her motion testimony negates her probable innocent mistake defense by
proving that she had guilty knowledge when testifying on the stand ..
In the absence of Catinella's testimony, the State would have great difficulty corroborating
confessed to lying rather than confessing to making a mistake. The only evidence the State
could offer would be target's own statement made during the recorded phone call,
corroborated by her own confession to the A.S.A.s. Many judges would exclude Catinella's
confession to the A.S.A.s as hearsay evidence although it is arguably admissible as a statement
against his own interest. The defense could easily argue that target has been confusing two
investigations all along and never showed the victim or witness photo array. Her defense
would be corroborated by the testimony of both-and
. It would additionally
be corroborated by the fact t h a t - knew Hankerson long before the armed
robbery/shooting and arguably, would have identified Hankerson had a photo array had been
shown to.him.

In addition, only Catinella can verify the physical photo array's existence in the absence of
corroborative evidence from CLEAR records. He would explain how the array was compiled
since Catinella did not use the usual photo array computer application to generate the photos.
Instead, he generated individual black and white photos, some using Haggerty's access code.

11

SAO 00018

11111

Catinella's testimony could also provide explanations f o r -' and

denial that the
photo array took place and for-failure to identify Hankerson in the photo array.
Cat inella can describe the pill bottles littered about- bedroom, suggesting he was taking
a large amount of pain killers for his bullet wound when the array was shown to him and simply
forgot about the array. Catinella can also explain that the black and white photos were printed
too darkly and consequently, Hankerson was more difficult to see. Finally, he can state
was never shown a photo array, explaining her denial.
definitively that

V.

RECOMMENDATION

Although he didn't testify falsely, as did target, CPO Catinella is equally blameworthy for
agreeing with target to bury the negative photo array. Unfortunately, the case against target is
far stronger with CPO Catinella's testimony. However, there may be ethical issues with
presenting him to the Grand Jury because he appears to lack credibility about simply
"forgetting" about the photo array in the car. Therefore, we recommend that CPO Catinella be
granted Use Immunity in order to testify before the Grand Jury, concerning the generation of
the photo array, how they ~howed it to the victim, and the officers' agreement prior to the
motion testimony to "forget" the photo array, prior to target's motion testimony. I recommend
that he be granted this immunity in exchange for a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor charge of
Attempt Obstructing Justice. In the event that CPO Catinella rejects this plea deal, I
recommend that he be charged with the felony offense of Obstructing Justice for initially lying
about the photo array to A.S.A.s Cuyler-Sherman and Moore.
Based on the evidence set forth above, I respectfully request permission to indict target for
the felony offenses of Perjury, Obstructing Justice, and Official Misconduct.

12
SAO 00019