Client Outcomes

Criminal Charges Dismissed Against CIM Sgt. Tommy Ramos.

Sgt. Tommy Ramos never thought he would have to experience the nightmare of defending criminal charges or enduring the wrath of the Federal Government in his more than 25 years of serving with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Chino Institute for Men Unfortunately, he had to deal with both. Fortunately, for Sgt. Ramos the story ended well when on November 26, 2007, when Federal Court Judge Manuel Real dismissed the remaining charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The Incident

The incident that started the nightmare occurred on May 9, 2002. On that day, two groups of inmates assaulted a Correctional Sergeant and a Correctional Officer in the East Facility of CIM. At about 7:30 a.m. a group of Hispanic inmates refused an order to leave the dining hall. When a sergeant approached the inmates to gain their compliance, an inmate named Villa punched the sergeant in the face with a closed fist. A few minutes later, in what may have been a coordinated attack, another group of Hispanic inmates attacked a correctional officer, first throwing a jacket over his head then severely beating him while he was virtually defenseless.

After both altercations were stopped the Department began its investigation. The Department identified nine inmates involved in the altercations and ordered that they be sent to Administrative Segregation in the Central Facility of CIM. The nine inmates were held in holding tanks until transportation was arranged.

On May 9, 2002, Sgt. Ramos was the Watch Sergeant in the Central Facility. He arrived to work at approximately 2:00 p.m. Sgt. Ramos began organizing the transportation of the inmates to Ad Seg. Sgt. Ramos assembled a transportation team and an escort team to move the inmates.

When the inmates arrived at Central Facility, Sgt. Ramos carefully looked at each inmate and noted that no injuries appeared on any inmate. After the transportation of the inmates was complete, a staff member advised Sgt. Ramos that an inmate may have slipped and fallen while exiting the van during the transportation.

A short time later, Sgt. Ramos went to Ad Seg and personally interviewed each inmate. Each inmate advised Sgt. Ramos that they experienced no problem with staff during the transportation or escort. That is, all inmates except one. Inmate Villa (the original combatant) told Sgt. Ramos that he was severely beaten by staff during the transportation and escort. Sgt. Ramos inspected inmate Villa and found he had an abrasion on his forehead.

Sgt. Ramos immediately tried to contact his watch commander only to find the watch commander had gone home. Sgt. Ramos successfully contacted the West Facility watch commander about inmate Villa’s allegations. Sgt. Ramos then ordered the inmate receive a medical examination, be photographed, and go through a video taped interview. The Department began an internal investigation within a few hours of Sgt. Ramos’ interview of inmate Villa.

Over the next several days, Sgt. Ramos wrote a report pursuant to Title 15 (the Department’s Use of Force Policy). Sgt. Ramos ordered all of the transportation and escort officers to also write reports. The involved officers were reluctant to write reports despite Sgt. Ramos’ order. Ultimately, only one officer submitted a report to Sgt. Ramos. Sgt. Ramos submitted his comprehensive report on May 23, 2002, to the facility captain. Sgt. Ramos was never contacted or interviewed by the Department’s internal affairs investigators.

At this point Sgt. Ramos believed this incident was over. Sgt. Ramos suspected that inmate Villa may have self-inflicted the abrasion on his forehead. Nevertheless, Sgt. Ramos took the appropriate steps to show that a proper investigation was conducted and the inmate received a medical examination and treatment.

The Investigation

CDCR conducted its internal affairs investigation and found that no staff members committed any form of misconduct. The Department then sent the investigation to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office for review. The District Attorney’s office also found that no staff members committed any form of criminal misconduct. Sgt. Ramos’ lawyers were told the Department even had the Attorney General’s office review the matter. No action was taken against Sgt. Ramos or any other staff member. Sgt. Ramos considered the matter closed.

Sometime in approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney began its own investigation of inmate Villa’s allegation that he was beaten by staff on May 9, 2002. Why the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office chose to investigate this matter three years after the fact is a mystery. Following the FBI’s investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s office convened at least two and possibly three Grand Juries in an attempt to indict involved staff members. Finally, in March 2007, the Grand Jury indicted Sgt. Ramos for a violation 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3) (obstruction of justice) and Correctional Officer Robert McGowan for civil rights violations and obstruction of justice.

The Federal government alleged Sgt. Ramos’ report was misleading and was intended to hinder or delay the investigation of Officer McGowan’s assault on inmate Villa and other inmates. The absurdity of this charge is immediately apparent because Sgt. Ramos’ report clearly describes how a staff member reported to him that an inmate may have fallen out of the van. The report also describes in detail inmate Villa’s allegations of staff misconduct and a description of inmate Villa’s injuries.

Following the indictment the Government continued its investigation. On August 29, 2007, it filed a first superceding indictment whereby it charged Correctional Officer Hector Flores with conspiracy to obstruct justice and added an additional charge against Sgt. Ramos of conspiracy to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Specifically, the Government now alleged that Sgt. Ramos entered into a conspiracy with staff members including Officer Flores to obstruct the justice of the Grand Jury proceedings.

The Obstruction of Justice Minefield

The charge of obstruction of justice poses a significant threat to the careers and freedom of peace officers in California. The Federal charge of obstruction of justice is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3). Section 1512 is written very broadly and does not require a direct and intentional act of dishonesty or untruthfulness. Rather, § 1512 merely states that anyone who engages in misleading conduct with the intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the communication of information to a law enforcement officer, related to the possible commission of a federal offense is guilty of obstruction of justice. This means that any statement or report, even a compelled or ordered statement, can be the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. If the Federal Government believes that an officer somehow engaged in misleading conduct by making a statement, he may be charged with obstruction of justice.

Making matters worse, an ordered or compelled statement that would otherwise be protected under Garrity[1] and Lybarger[2] can be used against an officer in an obstruction of justice or perjury criminal proceeding. The case of US v. Veal, [CA 11 (FLA) 1998, 153 F.3d 1233][3] , held that the Government may use an officer’s compelled or ordered statement in the officer’s prosecution for obstruction of justice. Under Garrity and Lybarger a compelled statement such as a report or an internal affairs statement may not be used against the officer in a criminal proceeding. However, Federal Courts have held that if the officer makes an untruthful or misleading statement as part of the officer’s compelled statement, that misleading or untruthful statement is viewed as a second and separate act of misconduct. Therefore, the officer’s compelled statement may be used against him in an obstruction of justice or perjury prosecution.

It is extremely important for all peace officers to understand the protections of Lybarger and Garrity and the risks posed by Veal. Simply put, if an officer is compelled to give a statement he or she must be extremely careful to only give an accurate and truthful statement.

The problem for Sgt. Ramos was that his report (which was a compelled statement) was accurate and truthful. The Government simply alleged that it was “misleading” in that it either omitted key pieces of information or diminished the importance of other pieces of information. Obviously, in Sgt. Ramos’ case, the Government was intent upon finding misleading conduct even when none existed.

The Jury Trial

The jury trial began on October 9, 2007, before Judge Manuel Real in the Central District of the United States District Court, in Los Angeles. In Federal Court, the judge has the discretion to simply select the jury himself. Judge Real did so without the participation of any of the lawyers. Judge Real chose a jury of twelve men and women in approximately one hour’s time.

Over the course of the trial, Judge Real severely limited the scope of the evidence that was allowed for both the Government and the defense lawyers. Sgt. Ramos’ lawyer was not even able to get the Department’s use of force policy (Title 15) directly into evidence. He simply had to rely on Sgt. Ramos’ testimony regarding his knowledge and application of Title 15.

At the close of the Government’s case, lawyers for Sgt Ramos, Officer McGowan and Officer Flores made separate Motions for Judgment of Acquittal. After careful consideration, Sgt. Real dismissed the charge of obstruction of justice against Sgt. Ramos. Judge Real found that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Sgt. Ramos had attempted to mislead anyone by his report. Judge Real found that Sgt. Ramos’ report was comprehensive and included sufficient information to warrant a dismissal of the obstruction of justice charge. However, Judge Real refused to dismiss the conspiracy to obstruct justice charge against Sgt. Ramos. Judge Real also allowed other charges to stand against Officers McGowan and Flores.

The trial concluded and the jury deliberated for an extended period time. To the shock of everyone in the courtroom the jury found Sgt. Ramos, Officer McGowan and Officer Flores guilty of all remaining counts.

Sgt. Ramos’ investigator was able to talk to two of the jurors after the verdict. The jurors were clearly confused about the elements of conspiracy. This confusion was heightened by the fact that Judge Real did not give the jury a copy of the law (or jury instructions) to reference during deliberations. The jurors had a difficult time pointing to specific pieces of evidence to support the conviction against Sgt. Ramos. Rather, the jury seemed to conclude that there was some overall feeling of misconduct and coverup. Apparently, the jury’s solution was to disregard the law and convict all of the defendants.

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

The lawyers for Sgt. Ramos, Officer McGowan, and Officer Flores immediately re-filed their Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on the conviction. The judge has the power under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 to overturn the jury’s verdict if he believes the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions.

On November 26, 2007, Judge Real did just that. Judge Real granted Sgt. Ramos’ Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and dismissed the charge of conspiracy to obstruction justice. Judge Real also granted Officer McGowan and Officer Flores’ Motions and dismissed all pending counts against them. Judge Real found that while viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government, a reasonable jury could not have concluded that Sgt. Ramos conspired to obstruct justice.

Sgt. Ramos was obviously overwhelmed by the Judge’s decision. “I couldn’t sleep the whole night before the hearing. This whole experience has been a nightmare. I am just happy that the Judge was finally able to see the truth.” Sgt. Ramos continued “the worst part of this case is that it was not my job to organize the transportation of the nine inmates to Central Facility. I decided to step up because the watch commander did not take control of the situation. Correctional supervisors need to be on their toes at all times. I had no idea that a routine situation like this could turn so bad.”

This case is an unfortunate illustration of some of the risks that correctional supervisors face while simply doing their jobs. This was an incident where Sgt. Ramos was not directly involved in a use of force situation. No one ever alleged that he mistreated an inmate. Sgt. Ramos appeared to go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that a proper investigation was done once the inmate made allegations of staff misconduct. Despite his efforts, the Federal Government tried to convict Sgt. Ramos of two counts of criminal misconduct. Those two counts could have landed Sgt. Ramos in prison for 8 years or more.

As a sad footnote to this entire case, none of the nine inmates that were originally involved in the brutal assaults of a sergeant and officer were convicted of any additional crimes nor did they receive any additional time on their sentences. Apparently the Federal Government’s interests lied in convicting an officer at any cost, rather than serving justice.

[1] Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)
[2] Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 40 Cal.3d 822.
[3] US v. Veal, [CA 11 (FLA) 1998, 153 F.3d 1233]

By Paul Q. Goyette

Paul Q. Goyette is the managing partner of Goyette & Associates, Inc., which specializes in the representation of public safety employees and their associations in numerous types of legal matters.