PUBLIC OCCURRENCES: 06/01/2009

INTRODUCTION

On Friday, January 16, 2004, at approximately 1:37

p.m., the Miami-Dade Police Department received a 911

telephone call stating that there was a burglary in process

at 14773 Southwest 58th Street. The caller, who spoke

Spanish, said that he lived across the street from the home

being burglarized, and that he had observed two (2) white

males jumping the fence and going into the back yard. Units

were dispatched at 1:39 p.m., from the Hammocks District with

Officer William Nelson assigned as the primary unit and

Officer Jorge Espinosa assigned as the back-up officer.

Officer Espinosa arrived first and, while checking the

exterior of the residence, discovered that a sliding glass

door in the rear of the house was open. Officer Espinosa

entered the residence and confronted two male burglars in the

master bedroom. One of them, later identified as Rolando

Llanes, jumped out of the bedroom window, while the other

man, later identified as Leonardo Barquin, allegedly pointed

a weapon at Officer Espinosa. Officer Espinosa then fired

two shots at Barquin, hitting him at least once. Barquin

then jumped out of the window and ran to climb the fence in

the backyard in an attempt to escape. Officer Espinosa

followed Barquin who allegedly pointed the weapon at the

officer at second time. Officer Espinosa responded by firing

one more shot as Barquin went over the fence.

Barquin ran over to Southwest 57th Terrace, where

he collapsed and was subsequently apprehended by Officer

Espinosa. Barquin had been shot twice and was bleeding

profusely. He was airlifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital,

where he expired at 9:56 p.m. that night. Rolando Llanes

continued to flee for several blocks and was later

apprehended. Both Llanes and Barquin were in possession of

items taken in the burglary of the residence at 14773

Southwest 58th Street. Neither Barquin nor Llanes had a

weapon when they were arrested and no weapon was ever

recovered.

SWORN STATEMENT OF OFFICER JORGE ESPINOSA

On February 17, 2004, a month after the shooting

incident, Officer Espinosa stated the following:

On January 16, 2004, he was assigned to uniform

patrol in the Hammocks District and was working the 6:00

a.m., to 2:00 p.m. shift. He was in a marked unit on 147th

Avenue approaching Sunset Drive, when he received a call for

a burglary in process. He quickly arrived in the area of

58th Street; however, he was having trouble locating the

correct address. He saw an older Hispanic male in his front

yard on 58th Street. When Officer Espinosa pulled up to him

to seek directions, the man said in Spanish "it is the pink

house". Officer Espinosa then drove his vehicle to the front

of the house (located at 14773 Southwest 58th Street), parked

the vehicle and walked up to the front door, which was

locked. He then saw that the gate leading to the backyard

was propped open. He went through the gate to the backyard

of the residence and noticed that the sliding glass door

leading into the house from the patio was open.

While announcing "police" several times, Officer

Espinosa went into the house with his H & K USP .40 caliber

pistol drawn. Upon entering the house, he heard "loud

noises" in a room to his right, and heard "objects being

thrown in the room." He walked to the room where he heard

the noises, saw that the door was open and announced "police"

two or three more times. Officer Espinosa then explained:

It was a dark room and there was still

throwing - there was objects being thrown inside

the room. I again, announced "police" about two

times and I heard from one of the subjects in the

room, "metro" really loud. I then heard the

shattering of glass inside the room and I saw a

subject with a white sock over his hand, and what

appeared to me as a semi-automatic handgun inside

of his hand, at which point, he pointed it at me

(indicating) and said "I'm kill you, cop" (sic)

and turned his body toward me. Simultaneously as

he said, "I'll kill you cop," I just shot at him

right after he said that. He was like at the

window.

According to Officer Espinosa, he was standing at

the foot of the bed when he fired his weapon two times. (See

sketch of bedroom attached as Exhibit A). When asked about

the number of subjects in the room, he said that it appeared

to be two; however, one had already gotten out of the window.

Concerning the subject remaining in the room, subsequently

identified as Leonardo Barquin, the following questions and

answers ensued.

Q. The person who pointed the weapon at you, where was he

standing at when you shot him?

A. He was going through the window.

Q. Do you know if either leg was outside the window?

A. I couldn't tell you.

Q. Or his torso?

A. It was dark and I couldn't tell.

Q. The person who had the white sock on, and the weapon in

his hand, could you tell if he had another sock on the

other hand also?

A. I couldn't tell, I was focused on the weapon in his

hand. I was scared and I was in fear of my life and I

couldn't see it.

Q. One question I didn't ask you was while you were inside

the bedroom, could you tell if any objects were being

thrown at you?

A. Again, it was dark inside the bedroom. I couldn't see

any objects being thrown at me, I just could hear a

lot of objects being thrown.

The foregoing quotations from Officer Espinosa's sworn

statement constitute the totality of questioning by the

Miami-Dade Police Department Homicide Detectives about what

happened in the bedroom that day when Espinosa allegedly fired

two shots at the suspect.

However, the questioning does continue seeking to

determine what happened after the subject escaped through the

window:

Q. What happened once this subject made it through the

window?

A. I noticed that they went through the window and I

doubled back where I came in through originally and

when I was approaching the sliding glass door to exit

the house, I advised, "shots fired" on the radio. And

at that time, I ran out toward the outside patio and I

seen the first person get on the fence. It was a

thinner white male. He got on the fence, which is on

the northeast corner of the home in question. He got

up there and he stood up on the top of the fence. He

was already on the other side, and the second male, the

larger guy, got up there as the first guy helped him

get on the fence. As I was getting to the fence to try

to get him, to try to detain him, he turns around and

points again his arm at me, with what appeared to be a

semi-automatic black handgun. Again, in fear of my

life, I thought he was going to kill me and I fired at

him one more time.

Q. About how far away from him do you think you were when

you discharged your weapon?

A. About six feet - five feet, six feet.

Q. How many times did you discharge your weapon?

A. One time.

Q. While we are speaking about your weapon, how do you

normally keep your weapon loaded? With how many

rounds?

A. I keep it loaded with the magazine full and one actual

round in the chamber.

Q. Did the subject ever fire any shots at you?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Once the subject was at the top of the fence and he

pointed a weapon at you, and you fired, what happened

next?

A. I heard them fall onto the other side, which would be

the northeast corner lot. They fell on the other side.

Since I knew they had a gun on them and I was scared

that they would shoot me if I got up on the fence, I

decided to get on the air and run around back towards

the entryway where the gates was, where I originally

entered the property.

Q. When you exited the residence after the first

engagement, as you went through the patio area, which

way did you run? Did you go directly towards the

fence?

A. I ran up a little bit towards the east. There was a

table there and I ran around the table.

The foregoing quotations are the entirety of

the information provided by Officer Espinosa about the

third shot fired at the subject.

According to Officer Espinosa, he then ran through the

side gate to the house back to the front yard. Leaving his

marked unit parked in front of the residence, he turned left

and ran down 58th to 147th Avenue(FN1) (FN1, Nine (9) houses

away from the crime scene.) He turned left on 147th Avenue

and then ran to 57th Terrace, which was the next street over

running parallel to 58th Street(FN2) (FN2, The length of two (2)

houses including the front and backyard). Turning left on

57th Terrace, he ran until he heard "wheezing types of

noises3". (FN3, Six (6) houses away from 147th Ave.) Officer

Espinosa then stated the following:

On 57th Terrace, I turned left, which would

be westbound on 57th Terrace, and I ran past

about two or three houses to where I approximate

the house would be, in back of where they jumped,

to be where they would be coming out from. At

that point, I heard wheezing types of noises. I

was giving - I was trying to set up a perimeter

on the radio, giving description of the subjects

as I was running toward there, and at that time,

I located the noises and saw the subject lying on

the ground between a house and a fence, with a

white sock on his arm and his hand. I drew down

my weapon on him and advised him to show me his

hands. He spread them out, at which point I got

on the air and I advised that there was one

subject in custody, and I started fire rescue.

Q. Did you ever put handcuffs on that subject?

A. No, I did not. As soon as I called for fire rescue on

my radio, and I still had my gun drawn up on him, I see

a white Maxima type of vehicle - undercover CST unit -

drive up. Two detectives jump out of the vehicle and

begin walking towards me. One detective, Serrano,

walks up to me and pulls me aside to where there is a

parked vehicle, and told me to stand there. I stood by

the parked vehicle, and that was like toward the center

of the roadway. At that point, I had a view of the

Southwest neighborhood there. At that point, he told

me, "stay right here, are you okay?" He asked me if I

had been injured. I told him no I didn't have any

injuries.

Officer Espinosa's sworn statement took a total of

fifteen (15) minutes and provided only the information

included above.

OFFICER JORGE ESPINOSA'S INJURIES

Detective Jaen-Rosello was directed to process the

crime scene beginning at 14773 Southwest 58th Street (the

residence where the shooting occurred), following the blood

trail leading down Southwest 57th Terrace, culminating at

14750 Southwest 57th Terrace (where Barquin was apprehended).

He also processed the third crime scene at 14744 Southwest

55th Terrace, where the second subject, later identified as

Rolando Llanes, was apprehended. These crime scenes will be

discussed in detail at a later point in this memorandum;

however, it is relevant to discuss at this point what he

observed, and Detective Taaffe photographed, concerning

Officer Espinosa. After taking the officer's weapon,

detective Jaen-Rosello reports the following:

The following injuries are observed on

officer J. Espinosa. A redness of the skin is

noted on his right rib cage, and abrasion on his

let elbow, a cut of his left thumb, and an

abrasion on his right hand (behind thumb).

These injuries were observed and photographed on

January 16, 2004, immediately after the shooting incident,

and their description was included in a death scene

investigation report approved by detective Jaen-Rosello's

supervisor on February 11, 2004. However, in his sworn

statement taken on February 17, 2004, Officer Espinosa was

never asked about his injuries.

STATEMENT OF OFFICER WILLIAM NELSON

Officer William Nelson gave a sworn statement on

January 16, 2004, at 10:50 p.m. on the evening of the

shooting incident. On January 16th, he was assigned to

uniform patrol in the Hammocks District, and was working the

8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift. At approximately 1:39 p.m., he

was dispatched as the primary unit to a burglary in process

at a pink house across the street from 14798 Southwest 58th

Street. The 911 call had originated from the latter

location. The dispatcher also advised Officer Nelson that

there were two (2) male subjects in dark clothing. Officer

Jorge Espinosa was also dispatched as the back-up unit;

however, Espinosa arrived at the scene first. A few moments

later, while Officer Nelson was still enroute, he heard

Officer Espinosa in a "very excited" voice request emergency

assistance. A few moments later, he heard Espinosa ask again

for emergency assistance and stating that shots had been

fired. Finally, he heard that Espinosa was at "57" and that

Espinosa was requesting fire rescue.

Assuming that "57" meant 57th Street or 57th

Terrace, Officer Nelson sped to 57th Terrace arriving

approximately two (2) minutes later. Upon arrival at 14750

Southwest 57th Terrace, he saw Officer Espinosa standing in

front of the house with the wounded subject a few feet away.

Officer Nelson ran up to the victim (Barquin) and noticed

that the victim had a white sock on his right hand, and that

he was bleeding profusely. Officer Nelson got his first aid

kit from his vehicle and began to assist the victim. He

believed that the victim had been shot in the left buttocks,

and the left thigh, and had a wound on his right elbow

possibly a graze wound from a bullet.

While administering first aid, Officer Nelson

attempted unsuccessfully to get the victim's name. However,

he did not respond and just "stared into space". Officer

Nelson then said, "So, is breaking into a house fun?" At

that point, the victim made eye contact with the officer and

replied, "No." The victim then said, "Please don't let me

die." Fire rescue then arrived and took over the victim's

treatment.

While fire rescue was treating the victim, Officer

Nelson retrieved the victim's pants, which had been cut off

of him in order to facilitate treatment, and emptied the

pockets looking for identification. He did not find any

identification; however, he did recover a watch, a set of

handcuffs, a couple of keys, an American Express card, and a

clear plastic bag containing white pills.

After the victim was airlifted from the scene,

Officer Nelson helped secure the area and began to follow the

blood trail backwards toward where the shooting had occurred.

He lost the blood trail at the side of 14770 Southwest 57th

Terrace, where he observed that the area appeared to have

been recently washed down. He saw a White Latin male, in his

mid-twenties, in the backyard of the residence behind a

locked wrought iron gate; however, he did not speak to him.

The Latin male at 14770 Southwest 57th Terrace was

subsequently identified as Alberto Angel Ferro. (See Ferro's

statement and interviews at page 15, infra)

Officer Nelson told homicide detectives and crime

scene personnel what he had heard and observed, and gave a

sworn statement later that night.

MEDICAL TREATMENT OF LEONARDO BARQUIN AT

JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Concern has been expressed about the condition of

the victim's body when viewed by the family; therefore, it

would be both helpful and appropriate to discuss Mr.

Barquin's emergency medical treatment at Jackson Memorial

Hospital.

After being treated at the scene by Officer Nelson

and by Miami-Dade Fire Rescue personnel, Mr. Barquin was

airlifted to Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital

and arrived at 2:30 p.m. He was admitted with two (2)

gunshot wounds, an open wound of the forearm, traumatic

shock, and an extensive loss of blood. His estimated blood

loss was forty-two (42) liters, and he was given fifty-two

(52) units of blood products intravenously.

In treating the gunshot wounds, the surgeons found

that the victim had a through-and-through gunshot wound to

the left thigh with massive bleeding through the femoral

artery. He also had a gunshot wound to the right buttocks

with massive bleeding into the abdomen. Before he could even

be operated on, he went into cardiac arrest, and had to be

resuscitated. In an attempt to stop the bleeding, the

surgeons had to make multiple incisions and dissections, and

had to pack his body with special bandages. The wounds were

then closed by suture after a very low systolic blood

pressure was established. The open wound on his arm was

determined to not be a gunshot wound, and was not life

threatening. Despite all these efforts, Mr. Barquin expired

at 9:56 p.m. that evening. One spent projectile was

recovered from the body of Mr. Barquin and turned over to the

Miami-Dade Police Department.

Because of the extensive surgical intervention, and

the packing of Mr. Barquin's body with bandages, there was

significant damage to his body as well as significant

swelling. The undersigned Assistant State Attorney reviewed

the condition of Mr. Barquin's body with the Medical Examiner

to determine if there was any evidence of beating or other

trauma as suspected by some in the victim's family. We were

assured by the Medical Examiner that all wounds and marks on

Mr. Barquin's body were consistent with two (2) gunshot

wounds, with injuries caused by jumping through a window and

fleeing, and with surgical intervention at the Ryder Trauma

Center. There was no evidence of beating or other trauma.

REPORT OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER

Dr. Mark Shuman conducted the autopsy on January

17, 2004. Dr. Shuman determined that the cause of death was

multiple gunshot wounds. Leonardo Barquin had two (2)

gunshot wounds, one was a penetrating gunshot wound to the

right buttock, and the other was a perforating gunshot wound

of the left leg. These wounds one described more

specifically as:

PENETRATING GUNSHOT WOUND "A" OF RIGHT BUTTOCK:

An entrance type gunshot wound is 29-3/8 inches

below the top of the head and 2-3/4 inches to the right of

midline on the right upper buttock. It is a 0.9 x 0.5

centimeter, horizontally oriented, oval, skin defect with a

0.2 centimeter, circumferential, abrasion collar that is

irregular inferiorly. No shoot or stipple is associated with

the wound. The projectile continued through the sacrum, into

the pelvis, through the distal descending colon, through a

loop of small bowel that had been repaired surgically, and

was recovered by the surgeons in the right side of the

pelvis.

The direction of the path of the wound is back to

front and right to left.

PERFORATING GUNSHOT "B" OF LEFT LEG:

An entrance type gunshot wound is 38-1/4 inches

below the top of the head and 2-3/4 inches to the right of

the posterior midline of the left thigh. It is a 0.9 x 0.4

centimeter, horizontally oriented, oval defect with a 0.1

centimeter, circumferential, abrasion collar. No shoot or

stipple is associated with the wound. The wound is

surrounded by an 8.0 x 3.5 centimeter, pink and purple

ecchymosis. The projectile passed through the muscles of the

left thigh medial to the left femur, injured the left femoral

vein, which has been sutured, and exited the left anterior

thigh. The exit wound is within a surgical incision on the

left thigh. It consists of a 1.6-centimeter, semicircular

defect in the left side of the surgical incision, 37-3/4

inches below the top of the head; and a 1.1-centimeter,

irregular, semicircular defect in the right side of the

surgical incision, 39-1/4 inches below the top of the head.

The direction of the path of the wound is back to

front and slightly right to left.

The victim also had multiple abrasions on his

scalp, arms and legs, and two (2)-scalp contusions. All of

the injuries were consistent with the victim's jumping

through a window, jumping over a fence, and fleeing through

the yards of several residences.

Finally, the victim's body had extensive evidence

of medical intervention, including a number of incisions and

sutures.

It was decided by the undersigned Assistant State

Attorney to first cover Officer Espinosa's account of what

happened on January 16, 2004, juxtaposed with the injuries,

medical treatment, and autopsy of the victim, Leonardo

Barquin. With this knowledge, one can better understand the

following crime scene reports and witness statements, and can

better understand the many unanswered questions and

unresolved issues in this investigation.

Crime Scene # 1 (The residence at 147th 73 Southwest 58th

Street)

January 16, 2004

The first crime scene is the location of the

burglary, and the shooting, which is located at 14773

Southwest 58th Street. The crime scene is described as

follows and is depicted in Exhibits A and B.

The scene is the three-bedroom, two-bath,

single-family home, located on the north side of

the street facing south, with the above listed

address. The rear yard of the house is

surrounded by a wooden fence. There is a small

palm tree in the northeast corner of the yard.

There is a plastic chair up against the tree

facing the rear fence. The chair is

bloodstained. There are also bloodstains on the

fence, above the chair, on the side that faces

south as well as on the side that faces west.

There is a toy gun on the ground in the southeast

quadrant of the yardFN4. (FN4, According to the

crime scene personnel, the toy gun had the

appearance of having been in the yard for a great

deal of time. It was not suspected to be the

weapon allegedly wielded by Barquin.)

The south master bedroom awning window is

broken. On the ground, below the window, there

are broken pieces of aluminum from the window

frame, glass fragments, and broken pieces of the

wooden Venetian blind. A set of storm panels and

a white sweat sock are lying nearby. There are

bloodstains on top of the storm panels on a glass

fragment, on a piece of wooden slat, and on the

white sock.

The sliding glass door that leads to the

rear yard from the family room is open. Beside

the door is a sofa upon which is a piece of 2 x 4

wood. Reportedly, the wood was used by the owner

to secure the sliding door. The front door is

secured from the inside bay chain lock.

There is extensive ransacking in the master

bedroom. The armoire, dresser, and chest of

drawers have open drawers. Much clothing and

many documents are strewn about the floor. The

dresser is located along the east wall, across

from the bed. A small top drawer on the dresser

is open, revealing women's lingerie. A casing,

head stamped "Federal S & W", is located on the

lingerie.

The broken rear window is located in the

north bedroom wall. On the floor, below the

window, is a bent bloodstained screen. There are

also bloodstains on the floor and windowsill.

There is an exercise machine near the west side

of the window. Under the machine is a

projectile.

January 17, 2004

On January 17, 2004, the owner of the burglarized

residence called the Miami-Dade Police Department with a

surprising discovery. He had discovered another shell casing

while cleaning up the debris. Mr. Lopez, the homeowner,

reported that the casing was under the glass and debris, and

that he had not touched or moved it. The following describes

the crime scene as reported by Detective Jaen-Rosello at

approximately 5:20 p.m., on January 17th, and depicted in the

sketch attached as Exhibit B:

The scene is the residence located at 14773

Southwest 58th Street. The scene is confined to

the Southwest portion of the back yard. Located

on the ground under the master bedroom window is

a "Federal S & W .40 caliber" casing. The casing

is observed among and under pieces of glass and

other debris, which came from the broken window.

According to Detective Gallagher the casing was

found by the homeowner while cleaning the debris.

The casing is approximately eight feet east of

the west wooden fence, and one foot six inches

from the bedroom exterior north wall. For an

exact location, please refer to the backyard

sketch prepared by Crime Scene Detective C.

Green. The rest of the scene is unremarkable.

The second casing was not all that was found on

January 17, the day after the shooting. A third casing was

discovered in the backyard near the fence where Barquin had

fled. This scene is described as follows and is also

depicted in Exhibit B:

The scene is the rear (north) yard of the

residence. The yard consists of grass with palm

trees. There is a rear patio with furniture

directly behind the house and a hot tub located

at the northwest corner. A single chair is

located in the northeast corner of the rear yard

by the fence corner.

Homicide Detective Chavarry requested that

a metal detector be utilized to locate a missing

casing. One (1) Federal .40 S & W casing was

visually found near the northeast corner of the

rear yard. Photographs are taken of the casing

and its location.

The Blood Trail and Crime Scene # 2

(The residence at 14750 Southwest 57th Terrace

Where Leonardo Barquin was apprehended.)

Detective Jaen-Rosello prepared the report on the

secondary crime scene, which is sketched in Exhibit C.

The secondary scene consists of 14780,

14770, 14760, and 14750 Southwest 57th Terrace.

The residences extend northeast from the primary

scene located at 14773 Southwest 58th Street, and

all face north. The first residence which is

14780 Southwest 57th Terrace. Blood is noted on

the inside wooden fence (Marker 1), and also on

the concrete slab (Markers 2 & 3) located in the

southwest corner of the yard. The trail

continues on a northeasterly direction along the

tile walkway (Marker 4), and on the inner and

outer side of the gate (Markers 5 & 6) located on

the east side of the residence.

The blood trail continues east onto the

property of 14770 Southwest 57th Terrace. Blood

is noted on the north end of the exterior west

wall (Marker 7), on the southwest corner of the

driveway, and also on the west side of the

walkway (Marker 8).

The blood trail continues east onto the

property of 14760 Southwest 57th Terrace.

Several planters with various types of trees and

plants are located in front of the residence;

each planter is enclosed by concrete borders.

Blood is noted along the concrete borders, and

also on the plants located in the planter in the

west side of the walkway (closest to the front

door), on the walkway near the front door, on the

driveway, and along the planter's concrete

borders located on the east side of the driveway

(Markers 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15).

The end of the blood trail is located along

the east side of 14750 Southwest 57th Terrace.

This is the location where the victim collapsed

and was apprehended. A concrete walkway is

located on the west side of the residence, and

leads to an iron gate, which is closed. Blood is

noted on the west exterior wall of the residence,

which is situated along the east side of the

walkway. Blood is also noted on the walkway

itself, and on the outer side of the wooden fence

located on the west side of the walkway.

Discarded fire rescue supplies are lying on the

grass near the north end of the walkway. Lying

on the concrete walkway are a white "Polo" sock,

a pair of light blue boxer shorts, a pair of

black shorts, a book of matches, an "American

Express" credit card with numbers

"371128729711002" and the name "Gus Minguez" on

it, several loose coins, a set of keys, a white

metal watch, a cigarette lighter, a pair of

handcuffs with the numbers "14324" on them, and a

clear plastic bag containing several white pills.

The shorts and boxer shorts were cut off the

victim by fire rescue personnel. The clothing

and all the before mentioned items were stained

with blood. The rest of the secondary scene is

unremarkable.

Crime scene # 3 (The residence at 14744 Southwest 55th Terrace

where Rolando Llanes was apprehended.)

The third crime scene was where Rolando Llanes was

apprehended. This scene is described as follows; however,

there is no corresponding sketch:

One (1) floor CBI facing north. A

stonewall is located in front of the house.

Behind the stonewall, property taken from a

residence located at 14773 Southwest 58th Street

was recovered. The west side of the residence is

bordered with a wooden fence. Inside the fence,

markings in the soil indicate the fence was

scaled to allow entry into the rear yard.

The following was collected and signed over to

Detective B. Nichols:

One (1) Swiss Army watch, white metal, S/N

700013131.

One (1) Seiko watch, white metal, S/N 1D3580.

One (1) Enicar watch, white metal, S/N Unknown.

One (1) Flat head screwdriver.

One (1) Electrical device.

One (1) Pair of sweat socks.

Laboratory Analysis Report from the Firearm and

Tool Mark Unit.

In a report prepared by Firearms and Tool Mark

Unit, it was determined that the three (3) casings, and two

(2) projectiles (one from the master bedroom, and one

recovered from the victim), all were fired in the H & K USP

.40 caliber pistol used by Officer Espinosa on January 16,

2004.

Latent Fingerprint Report

In a report prepared by the Crime Scene

Investigation Bureau, Identification Section, only one latent

print could be identified. The latent print of Rolando

Llanes was lifted from the glass sliding door of 14733

Southwest 58th Street.

Forensic Biology Analysis Report

On its Forensic Biology Analysis Report, the Crime

Laboratory Bureau determined that all of the blood samples

and swabs collected from the master bedroom, and backyard of

14773 Southwest 58th Street, as well as the blood trail

leading to 14750 Southwest 57th Terrace (where Barquin was

apprehended) belonged to Leonardo Barquin.

It should be noted that there is no report nor any

indication that the projectile recovered in the master

bedroom under the treadmill was analyzed to determine if it

had the victim's DNA on it, and to possibly confirm that it

was the result of a through-and-through shot to the victim's

thigh.

Statement of Rolando Llanes

Rolando Llanes was a friend of Leonardo Barquin,

and helped him burglarize the residence at 14773 Southwest

58th Street, on January 16, 2004. He was arrested shortly

after the burglary, after fleeing and hiding in the yard of

14744 Southwest 55th Terrace. After his arrest, Mr. Llanes

was interviewed by Miami-Dade detectives, and gave a sworn

statement at 6:58 p.m., on the same day. The following

summarizes the information provided by Mr. Llanes:

Mr. Llanes, who was eighteen years old at the time,

was a friend of Leonardo Barquin, and was called on the

telephone by him at approximately 11:00 a.m., on January

16th. They agreed to meet at the Amoco Station on 152nd

Avenue Southwest and Southwest 56th Street to "just chill"

and to "just walk around". Mr. Llanes did, however, bring a

pair of white socks with him just in case they decided to

break into a house. Mr. Barquin had a pair of white socks

also. The two met at approximately noon and began to walk

around the residential neighborhoods looking for a house to

burglarize. They located a house (14773 Southwest 58th

Street), knocked on the door, and determined that no one was

home. They went to the backyard and saw that a window was

"cracked open." Mr. Llanes climbed into this window, which

turned out to be the master bedroom. He then went around to

the family room, and opened the sliding glass door for Mr.

Barquin. Putting white socks onto both hands, they both went

back to the master bedroom, and began rummaging around

looking for items to steal. After about five (5) minutes, he

heard "police...stop...police! Upon hearing the police, both

he and Barquin ran toward the window. Llanes managed to get

out, being the thinner man, while Barquin got stuck. As

Llanes ran to the fence in the backyard, he heard two (2)

shots, and heard Barquin make "a hurt noise." He kept

running, then heard two (2) more shots. As he heard the

second two (2) shots, he jumped the fence, ran through

several yards, and went to a nearby shopping center on 57th

Terrace. He never saw the police officer who shot Mr.

Barquin. He tried to hide in the restroom of the

Blockbusters Video store; however, it was locked and he could

not get in. When he ran back outside, he was spotted by the

police and began running again. He ran to 14744 Southwest

55th Terrace, where he hid and emptied his pockets of the

items, which he had stolen in the burglary. He never saw

what Barquin had taken in the burglary. However, he did

state that neither he nor Barquin had a weapon.

He was arrested a few minutes later. The following

items were recovered on the ground adjacent to where he was

arrested: A Swiss Army Men's watch, a Seiko Men's watch, an

Enican Men's watch, a flat head Stanley screwdriver, an

unknown electronic device, and two (2) white socks, two (2)

pair of silver earrings, one (1) pair of gold earrings, a

gold I.D. bracelet ("Carolina"), a gold bracelet with

multi-color stones, a gold ring, a silver bracelet, blue

plastic bead bracelet, a silver necklace, and a gold "Angel"

pin.

Interviews of Daniel and Elizabeth Lopez

Daniel and Elizabeth Lopez owned the home at 14773

Southwest 58th Street, which was burglarized by Mr. Barquin

and Mr. Llanes. Mr. Lopez was notified by his alarm company

at approximately 1:50 p.m. that his home alarm had been

activated. He was in Broward County and believed it was

likely a false claim; therefore, he did not go home at that

time. When asked about a weapon in the house, he stated, "I

don't own a gun, nor have I ever had one."

Elizabeth Lopez stated that she and her husband

were having marital problems, and that she had not been home

since Wednesday, (2 days before). She stated that when she

left, there had been a black revolver with wooden grips in a

zippered bag in the closet in the master bedroom.

Daniel Lopez was questioned again about a weapon

and he admitted that he had a felony conviction, and did not

want to admit to possession of a firearm. However, he stated

that he did, in fact, have a .22 caliber black revolver with

wooden grips, and that it was kept in a pouch. He also

admitted that he moved the weapon from his house to his place

of business, a tree farm, when his marital problems began.

At 8:30 p.m., on the night of January 16th,

detectives went to the tree farm at 21975 Southwest 264th

Street in Homestead, with Mr. Daniel Lopez, and observed a

black .38-caliber Colt Detective Special, two (2) inch

revolver with wooden grips.

As far as the items recovered from the pockets of,

and nearby Barquin, and Llanes, Mr. and Mrs. Lopez identified

all items as belonging to them, except for the white socks

and screwdriver. The American Express credit card in

Barquin's pocket was in the name of "Gustavo Minguez" who is

the brother of Elizabeth Lopez.

Statement of Sergeant Francisco Armendariz

Francisco Armendariz is a Sergeant in the General

Investigations Unit and is assigned to the Hammocks District.

On January 16, 2004, he responded to the radio call for an

officer needing assistance. He received the call at

approximately 1:45, and arrived in the area a few minutes

later.

He went to the location where Rolando Llanes had

been arrested and saw him seated in the back seat of a marked

unit. Sergeant Armendariz immediately recognized Rolando

Llanes since he had investigated his activities for some

time, and had, in fact, arrested him for burglary six (6)

months before. When Sergeant Llanes spoke to him, Llanes

responded: "Why did you have to shoot my homeboy, Leo?"

Sergeant Armendariz asked if he meant Leonardo Barquin, to

which Llanes responded, Yeah, that's him."

Sergeant Armendariz also was familiar with Leonardo

Barquin whom he (the Sergeant) had surveilled for numerous

hours as a known burglar.

Statement of Alberto Ferro

Alberto Ferro was the individual seen by Officer

Nelson in the backyard of 14770 Southwest 57th Terrace

shortly after Leonardo Barquin was arrested. Mr. Ferro

became an object of intense scrutiny by both the Miami-Dade

Police Department, and the FBI in their attempt to locate the

weapon allegedly pointed at Officer Espinosa by Barquin. As

previously noted, neither Leonardo Barquin or Rolando Llanes

had a weapon when arrested, and no weapon was ever recovered

from the crime scenes. Therefore, in addition to the

physical search of the ground covered by Llanes and Barquin

during their flight attempt, the focus turned to Mr. Ferro

since he lived just behind, and to the east side of the

location where Barquin had been shot and was at home during

the incident. Additionally, the blood trail left by Barquin

passed by and through Ferro's yard.

Mr. Ferro was first interviewed and gave a sworn

statement at approximately 8:00 p.m., on the evening of the

incident. Mr. Ferro, who was twenty (20) years old at that

time, stated that he lived at 14770 Southwest 57th Terrace

with his parents, and was at home on the day in question. In

the interview, the detective asked about events happening at

approximately 2:30 p.m., however, one can properly assume the

meant approximately 1:30 p.m., since Ferro responded by

discussing the incident in question. Ferro stated that he

was in his room playing videogames, and saw a person in black

running past his window wearing "a long sleeve black - kind

of looked like a hoodie." A moment later, he went to his

front yard to bring in the garbage a can and saw an officer,

firearm drawn, running toward him from the east approximately

from four (4) houses down. The officer yelled at him to get

down, to which Ferro raised his hands. He told the officer

that he lived there, and then he walked to the back of the

house. According to Ferro, while in the backyard, he heard

what he believed was two (2) gunshots. He did not see anyone

fire the shots; however, he returned to the front of his

house and saw two (2) officers this time walking toward him.

He stated that he heard one officer (the one that he had seen

first running toward him) tell the other officer that he "had

to shoot him because he saw a weapon, and the person had a

weapon or something." The sworn statement was concluded with

Ferro denying that he had neither seen nor retrieved any

evidence from his yard.

Before the sworn statement, Mr. Ferro was

interviewed by detective P. Diaz and Detective C. McCully.

According to the report filed by Detective Diaz on January

29, 2004, Ferro repeated almost verbatim what he had told

Detectives Diaz and McCully in the sworn statement taken

later that evening at police headquarters. Detective Diaz is

also the individual who took Ferro's sworn statement.

However, Detective McCully's report, prepared on

April 28, 2004, tells a different version of the interview

with Ferro conducted before his sworn statement. Detective

McCully wrote the following:

On January 16, 2004, Ferro had acknowledged

to this investigator and to Detective Diaz that

he knew Barquin and Llanes. Detective Diaz went

on to take Ferro's statement, which stated in

part that although he knew Barquin and Llanes, he

was not involved in this burglary, and that he

did not receive a firearm from either of the

above subjects after they exited the burglary

victim's residence....

Detective McCully recontacted Ferro on February 27,

2004, and asked him to take a polygraph. Ferro agreed and

the examination was scheduled for March 12, 2004.

After Detective McCully made repeated attempts to

contact Ferro about his scheduled polygraph examination,

Ferro finally called him. Slattery Associates conducted the

examination. In the pre-interview, Ferro admitted that he

was involved in a burglary attempt with Leonardo Barquin and

several others in approximately April 2003. Ferro also

stated that he believed Barquin was a member of the Latin

Kings; however, he denied his own membership.

Ferro was asked three (3) relevant questions during

the polygraph examination:

1. Did you take part in the burglary

involving Leo Barquin?

[Writer's note: "that burglary" is not

identified].

2. Did you take or conceal a gun, which

Leo Barquin may have had on January 16, 2004?

3. Are you intentionally withholding

information about that burglary and shooting

involving Leo Barquin?

Ferro answered "no" to all three (3) questions to

which George Slattery determined the answers were consistent

with deception. Unable to explain "why he failed the

polygraph examination, Ferro was allowed to go home.

Ferro was re-interviewed and given a polygraph

examination by the FBI on December 10, 2004. He was asked

two (2) questions:

1. Did [you] plan with Leonardo or Rolando

to steal from that house?

2. Do you know for sure if Leonardo had a

gun that day? (Emphasis added).

Ferro responded "no" to both questions and it was

the examiner's opinion that his responses were indicative of

deception.

After being told of the deceptive results, Ferro

admitted the following as contained in an FBI report dated

December 27th, 2004:

Ferro admitted that he knew and associated

with Barquin and Rolando. Early in 2003, Ferro,

Barquin and Michael last name unknown (LNU)

attempted a burglary in the South Miami area.

Also, in June 2003, Barquin was supposed to do a

burglary with Ferro, but he never showed up.

That day Ferro was arrested by MDPD in the

process of committing said burglary. Ferro has

been present at Michael's house when Barquin and

Rolando talked about prior burglaries and planned

future ones.

On more than one occasion, Barquin offered

to sell Ferro items that he stole from homes he

burglarized. Ferro denied purchasing any of the

stolen property offered by Barquin. Ferro added

that one time Barquin was selling two guns that

he (Barquin) claimed were stolen. Ferro saw the

guns, described one as a black pistol, possibly a

Glock and the other a small "silver pistol"

similar to the ones "seen in James Bond movies."

Barquin bragged that he had burglarized a police

officer's home and stole a gun. Ferro observed

Barquin was always talking about having guns and

selling stolen guns. Ferro never purchased a gun

from Barquin.

Ferro described Barquin as a violent

individual who was always talking about fighting

and hurting people. Ferro stated that Barquin

claimed he was Latin King gang member. One time,

Ferro observed Barquin produce a baseball bat and

attack someone he was having an argument with.

Ferro stated that Barquin and Michael sold

marijuana and cocaine. Ferro frequently

purchased marijuana and cocaine from Michael, but

admitted that he has purchased marijuana from

Barquin. Ferro, Barquin and Michael regularly

gathered at Michael's house to socialize and

smoke marijuana.

Regarding the burglary and police shooting

on January 16th, 2004, Ferro stated that he was

home with his grandmother and housekeeper that

day. Ferro explained that he was in his bedroom

playing a television game when he observed

through his window someone running across the

front of his house. Ferro could not describe the

person, but said the individual was wearing a

black sweatshirt with a hood. He stated that

this is the attire that burglars wear because it

helps conceal their faces. Ferro immediately

proceeded outside to investigate what was

happening. As Ferro exited the front of his

house, he observed blood dropping on his driveway

and two MDPD officers running towards him. The

MDPD officer closest to him was holding a gun and

a police radio, and shouting, "freeze." Ferro

stated that he stopped and raised his hands.

Moments later, Ferro observed said officer turn

away from him and point his weapon towards the

back of his neighbors house. Ferro could not see

from where he was standing who the officer was

pointing the gun at. Realizing that he was not

the person that officer was shouting at, Ferro

grabbed a garbage can that his grandfather left

outside earlier that day and returned it to his

backyard where it is normally kept. Then Ferro

entered his house through the rear sliding glass

door and told his grandmother and housekeeper to

stay in the house, because there was police

activity outside. Ferro later opened his front

door and stood in the doorway, smoked a cigarette

and watched the police activity outside. While

standing in the doorway, Ferro observed a large

police presence in the neighborhood, and was

instructed by an MDPD officer to say inside.

Ferro claimed that he did not know at that time

who the police were chasing. It was not until

later that evening that a neighbor informed Ferro

that Barquin had been shot and killed by the

police.

Ferro denied finding a gun on his property

that day or anytime subsequent to the incident.

He denied knowing that Barquin or Rolando were

going to commit a burglary in his neighborhood

that day. He advised that he has never

burglarized houses in his neighborhood, but

stated that in 2003, Barquin and Rolando

burglarized a house about four blocks from his

house. Ferro denied having any contact with

Barquin and Rolando on January 16, 2004. Ferro

stated that a couple of days after the shooting,

he was outside his house when Michael drove up in

his car, and commented about Barquin's death.

Michael did not say anything about Barquin having

a gun the day of the shooting.

Ferro believes that Barquin probably had a

gun the day of the shooting. He explained that

Barquin stole guns from the houses he

burglarized, sold guns and talked about carrying

a gun on his person. Ferro added that Barquin

talked about having a gun on him when he

burglarized homes. Ferro believed that Barquin

was capable of shooting someone, but Ferro did

know if Barquin ever shot or attempted to shoot

anyone.

Ferro advised that a few days after the

shooting, a man claiming to be Barquin's

step-father tried two times to make contact with

him. Ferro did not know the man's name. The man

came to Ferro's house twice wanting to talk to

him, but he was not home. The first time the man

spoke with Ferro's father and the second time he

spoke with Ferro's grandfather. Ferro believes

that the reason for the visit was to influence

his statements to the police and attorneys

regarding the shooting and his knowledge of

Barquin's past. Ferro added that Barquin's

family stands to make a lot of money for the

shooting and want him to help them with the

lawsuit. About three weeks ago, Ferro was

approached by Michael's older brother, Ramiro

(LNU) at the Dadeland Mall. Ramiro brought up

Barquin's shooting and told Ferro that Barquin's

mother wanted to talk to him about the shooting.

Ferro stated that Barquin's mother wanted to talk

to him because she is suing the MDPD. Ferro

said, "I know she wants to offer me money to say

things to the police that would help her with the

lawsuit." Ferro stated that someone at TGK, Dade

County's Correctional Facility, made two, three

attempts to call him at home. All the calls were

received by his grandfather and occurred at 2:00

or 3:00 in the morning. Ferro advised that his

grandfather never said if he spoke with the

caller, but Ferro believes it was Rolando trying

to make contact with him.

Ferro did not provide any further

information at this time.

Two points should be noted in Ferro's FBI

interview: (1) He does not mention hearing two gunshots

while he was in his backyard, and (2) he continues to deny

finding a weapon belonging to either Barquin or Llanes on the

day of the shooting.

The Professional Compliance Bureau Investigation

Officer Jorge Espinosa resigned from the Miami-Dade

Police Department on March 1, 2006. From at least as early

as May 2003 until at least the date of his resignation,

Officer Espinosa was under criminal investigation by the

Professional Compliances Bureau (PCB) of the Miami-Dade

Police Department. According to PCB reports and interviews

conducted by the undersigned Assistant State Attorneys with

PCB investigators, Officer Espinosa was suspected of engaging

in a wide range of criminal activities including acting as a

lookout for narcotics rip-offs, arson, insurance fraud,

credit card fraud, and involvement in residential burglaries.

In fact, on January 16th, 2004, the day of the shooting

incident, Officer Espinosa's vehicle was secretly equipped

with an electronic tracking device (Teltrac) so that PCB

investigators could monitor his travels while on duty.

Upon learning of this information, the undersigned

Assistant State Attorneys decided to keep the police shooting

investigation open to determine if any of Officer Espinosa's

suspected criminal activities related in any fashion to the

shooting of Leonardo Barquin of Leonardo Barquin (specially

the allegations of involvement in residential burglaries).

It was also decided to keep the shooting case open in the

hope that, if Espinosa or any of his associates were arrested

as a result of the PCB's or any other police agencies'

investigations, new witnesses or new information might be

developed which could shed new light on the shooting of

Leonardo Barquin.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND OPEN ISSUES

At the outset, the undersigned Assistant State

Attorneys are concerned that, despite the known issues with

the crime scene and the placement of the casings and

projectiles, despite the fact that no weapon was found, and

despite the fact that Barquin had been shot from behind, the

sworn statement of Officer Espinosa took only fifteen (15)

minutes. The statement was taken a month after the incident

after the problems listed above were well known; yet the

interview was cursory and made no attempt to resolve these

serious issues. Furthermore, it is the policy of the

Miami-Dade Police Department and the Police Benevolent

Association (which provides union and legal representation to

the police officers) to not allow prosecutors to interview

the officer, to attend the talking of the sworn statement, or

even to provide any questions or input to the detective

conducting the interview. Therefore, the office of the State

Attorney had nothing to do whatsoever with the taking of the

sworn statement.

As can be seen, Officer Espinosa was simply allowed

to state his version of the events with no follow-up

questions and no attempt to address the inconsistencies

within his own statement. The detectives who conducted this

investigation are experienced professionals who would never

allow a civilian witness to be questioned in such a cavalier

fashion. Allowing such minimal questioning to occur creates

the perception that police officers do not effectively

questions one of their own. Once the reports are turned over

to the prosecutors months later, the crime scene no longer

exists, the shooting officer will not speak to prosecutors,

and there is little that can be done by prosecutors at that

point to obtain additional information. Yet flawed

investigation or not, we are required to make the important

determination of whether or not the killing of a human being

is justified.

With this background, and in addition to the issues

previously noted in this report, the following is the list of

the serious and significant unanswered questions that we

have:

(1) Why were the crime scene sketches of

the bedroom and the yard not used in the

questioning of Officer Espinosa? The exact

locations of Espinosa and Barquin at the time of

the three (3) shots, both in the bedroom and the

backyard, is invaluable information in

determining whether the shooting was justified or

not.

(2) why did the officer advance so far into

the bedroom (from the door to the foot of the

bed) before firing a shot? Officer Espinosa is

never asked and never addresses this point.

Instead, he implies that the shooting happened

immediately upon his entry into the bedroom.

(3) were the two (2) shots fired in the

bedroom fired from the same location or did the

officer move between the first shot and the

second shot? This answer would assist in

answering question number four (4).

(4) How do you explain one casing in the

open desk drawer and one casing outside of the

window, on the ground, under the grass and

debris? Did the officer fire out of the window?

(5) How do you explain the officer's

statement that the victim was facing the officer

and pointing a weapon at him with the officer's

other statement that the victim was going out the

window? Some explanation and a reenactment would

have provided essential information on this

point.

(6) Was it possible for the victim to point

a gun at the officer, yet be shot from behind?

(7) How do you explain the officer's

statement that he saw the victim pointing a gun

at him in the bedroom, yet it was too dark to see

anything else? What were the lighting conditions

in the room at the time?

(8) Could a person with a sock on his hand

also hold a weapon and point it at someone?

(9) Could the officer tell what shots

actually struck the victim? How did the victim

react physically when the three (3) shots were

fired?

(10) Was the projectile recovered on the

bedroom floor under the treadmill the result of a

through-and-through shot to the victim's thigh?

(11) Was the victim struck two (2) times

inside the bedroom or one inside and one outside

in the yard?

(12) What was the explanation for the bent

screen (with blood) on the floor in the bedroom?

Was it bent and knocked out upon Llanes entry

through the window?

(13) As for the shot fired at the victim in

the backyard, if the officer knew that the victim

had a weapon, why did the officer get so close to

him? On his sworn statement, the officer said

that he was five (5) to six (6) feet away from

the victim when he fired.

(14) Where exactly was the officer when he

fired the shot at the victim as he was climbing

over the fence? Is this consistent with the

location of the shell casing?

(15) Was it possible for the wounded victim

to climb the fence with a sock on his hand and

still turn and point the gun at the officer? The

officer should have been closely questioned about

this point.

(16) Why did the detectives and crime scene

personnel fail to find the casing below the

window and the casing in the backyard until the

next day when the homeowner called? This failure

rendered the finding of the casings virtually

useless as evidence and leaves open the

speculation that they could have been improperly

placed there after crime scene personnel left the

scene.

(17) Was it physically possible for Rolando

Llanes to be standing on top of the fence helping

the victim to get over the fence like the officer

testified?

(18) Why did the officer run so far (i.e.,

down 58th Street, up 147th Avenue, and down 57th

Terrace) in his attempt to apprehend the wounded

victim, rather than using his police vehicle

which was parked in front of the residence and

which the officer had to run past? It is

possible that Officer Espinosa jumped the fence,

like Barquin and Llanes, and followed behind

Barquin to where he collapsed. This possibility

was never considered in the officer's interview

and could have provided an explanation for

Espinosa's injuries.

(19) What was the explanation for the

officer's injuries? Nothing in his statement

explains the injuries noted and photographed by

crimes scene personnel immediately after the

shooting.

(20) Did the officer know the victim?

According to the statements of other officers,

Barquin was reasonably well known in the Hammocks

District.

(21) Why was ASA Miller-Batiste kept away

from the crime scene while the PBA attorney was

given full access?

Because of these unanswered questions and the

ongoing criminal investigations of Officer Espinosa, the

undersigned ASA's have been reluctant to issue a final

closeout memorandum in this case. We have serious doubts

about the truthfulness of Officer Espinosa and the

investigation conducted by the Miami-Dade Police Department

did nothing to dispel these doubts. In fact, several aspects

of the investigation, as discussed above, increased our

doubts and made clearing or charging Officer Espinosa even

more difficult.

After being provided with the investigative file

concerning the shooting, the undersigned ASA's engaged in

several efforts to gain additional information so that this

case could be brought to closure with either a clearance or

an arrest. For example, we contacted the attorney for

Officer Espinosa and requested an opportunity to speak with

him in order to clear up several issues not covered in the

police investigation. We informed the attorney that we were

unable to close out the shooting investigation until we could

resolve these issues and that the investigation would remain

open and "hanging over the officer's head." The attorney

declined our request without a subpoena to compel his

testimony. Since the subpoena, by operation of state law,

would confer immunity on Officer Espinosa, we of course

declined.

We also contacted the Office of the United States

Attorney and the FBI on two (2) occasions to request that

they take a fresh look at the case by utilizing the

investigative power of a Federal Grand Jury. The undersigned

ASA's contacted both agencies in July of 2006 and Chief

Assistants Jose Arrojo and Don Horn made the same request in

December of 2005. The State Attorney herself even wrote a

letter to the United States Attorney and the FBI in August of

2006 requesting their assistance. To all of our entreaties,

we were informed that the FBI had reviewed the case in late

2003 and early 2004 and had determined that no federal

investigation was warranted.

When Officer Espinosa resigned from the Department

on March 1, 2006, we felt that some of the pressure for

acting swiftly had been relieved since he was no longer

carrying a badge and a gun. However, we still wanted to keep

the case open hoping for new information. We had hoped, and

in fact still hope, that the criminal investigations

involving Espinosa might develop new information. That is

why, as we have previously explained, we kept the case open.

We originally requested in the summer of 2008, that

the Miami-Dade Police Department release Officer Espinosa's

PCB investigative file so that we could discuss it in the

present report. For reasons that are unclear, this file was

finally produced on April 3, 2009.

After all of these efforts and with all of the

aforementioned unanswered questions and unresolved issues, we

have now reluctantly to close out this investigation for the

reasons that follow.

Legal Analysis

The legal analysis must consider (1) whether the

shooting of Leonardo Barquin was justified by Officer

Espinosa's belief that he was in fear of imminent bodily harm

or death from Barquin's pointing a gun at him on two

occasions; (2) whether Officer Espinosa was justified

shooting Barquin as a fleeing felon or (3) whether Officer

Espinosa's shooting of Barquin was not justified and,

therefore, Espinosa should be subject to criminal charges.

Florida Statute 776.05 provides in pertinent part:

A law enforcement officer need not retreat

or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest

because of resistance or threatened resistance to

the arrest; the officer is justified in the use

of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to

be necessary to defend himself or herself or

another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in arresting

felons fleeing from justice....

Based upon the flawed and incomplete investigation

in this case, there is simply not enough information to make

a determination that the officer was attempting to defend

himself from bodily harm. Likewise, there is an insufficient

record to make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that

the officer did not believe that he was at risk, thus making

the use of force not legally justified.

Because of the aforementioned insufficient evidence

and incomplete record; it is our determination that, Officer

Espinosa can be neither cleared nor charged criminally under

the provision of the statute relating to the defense from

bodily harm.

Next we turn to the use of force necessary to

arrest a fleeing felon. Although, this justification was not

offered by Officer Espinosa, legally it must still be

considered. Despite the flawed investigation, three (3)

pertinent facts are known: (1) The victim, Leonardo Barquin,

and his accomplice, Rolando Llanes, were burglarizing the

residence at 14773 Southwest 58th Street; (2) Both Barquin

and Llanes fled the scene of the crime of burglary, and

burglary is a felony; (3) Barquin was shot while attempting

to flee from justice after committing a felony. The only

element remaining for a legally justified use of force under

this provision is, was such use of force necessary? This

requirement has troubled the undersigned ASAs from the

beginning of this investigation. Was it necessary to shoot

Barquin to prevent him from fleeing if he had a weapon? Was

it necessary to shoot Barquin to prevent him from fleeing if

he did not have a weapon? Unfortunately, the law in Florida

instructs us that it does not matter whether the fleeing

felon was armed or not. A fleeing felon can be shot in the

back while unarmed and while not posing any risk to anyone,

and the law makes it perfectly clear that the officer's use

of deadly force is legally justified.

Under Florida Statutes, and given the flawed and

incomplete records before us, we are unable to state beyond a

reasonable doubt that the shooting of Mr. Barquin was not

necessary to prevent him from fleeing. Yet despite this

conclusion, we are reluctant to, and will not, conclude that

the shooting of Mr. Barquin was necessary and thereby render

Officer Espinosa's use of deadly force legally justified.

The sad and unsatisfying conclusion to this case is that

since we are unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Officer Espinosa's actions were unlawful, and likewise unable

to prove that his actions were legally justified, we have no

other choice at this point to close the case as inconclusive.

This will allow the matter to be litigated in civil court,

where the burden of proof is different and the standards for

the justified use of force against a fleeing felon are

different, should the parties wish to do so.

Prepared by:

Assistant State Attorney Assistant State Attorney

PUBLIC OCCURRENCES

Saturday, June 27, 2009

China's Great Wall of Silence: Publication in Observechina.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

SAO Barquin Shooting Close Out Memo Conclusion: "Inconclusive."


	观察 > 专题与评论