Guilty plea reopens legal avenues for Mortensen

Bill Gang

Friday, Aug. 20, 1999 | 3:38 a.m.

Former Metro Police Officer Christopher Brady's guilty plea to a civil rights violation in the slaying of Daniel Mendoza should have provided some closure to a community wound that has been festering more than 2 1/2 years.

Instead, it has resurrected concerns about unfair treatment of minorities by law enforcement and likely will result in new avenues of appeal for Mendoza's convicted killer, former Metro officer Ron Mortensen.

While Brady's guilty plea to federal charges requires him to accept a nine-year prison term, Mortensen's attorney, Frank Cremen, said Brady's details of his crime are contrary to his testimony at Mortensen's murder trial.

Cremen indicated Thursday that he may file a motion for a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence that Brady "perjured himself" at Mortensen's trial.

The attorney said Brady admitted in his guilty plea to charges of conspiring to harass Hispanics and that he has been a frequent visitor to the gang-infested area near Paradise Road and Twain Avenue where Mendoza lived.

But at Mortensen's trial, Brady testified he had not been in the area for years and Mortensen was the one who guided him to McKellar Circle for the fatal confrontation.

"Was he lying when he first testified or is he still lying?" Cremen asked. "Mortensen's conviction clearly was predicated on perjured testimony."

Reports that a federal grand jury was probing Brady and Metro surfaced over a year ago, but inaction resulted in the case fading into relative obscurity.

But behind the scenes, federal prosecutors and Brady's attorney, Daniel Albregts, were inching toward a deal.

Albregts said at a news conference Thursday that two or three weeks ago the prosecutors turned up the heat on the back burner where the case had simmered for months and gave Brady an ultimatum -- plead guilty or be indicted and face a jury.

Brady chose the plea bargain although the deal included a nine-year sentence and a fine of, perhaps, $250,000. Brady pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the civil rights of Mendoza and other Hispanics who were harassed by Brady and Mortensen on the crisp December night in 1996.

Albregts said it could have been worse -- much worse.

"It was a difficult decision," the veteran lawyer said. "We spent a lot of time. I tried to make him aware of what he was looking at."

That included the possibility of a life prison term without the possibility of parole if he were charged with and convicted of taking part in acts while knowing that the slaying of Mendoza might have been a foreseeable consequence.

Brady knew well the risk. He had seen it happen first hand.

That was the chance Mortensen took when he stood trial on murder charges for being the gunman who fired about half a dozen shots out of the window of Brady's truck at a group of Hispanics gathered outside an apartment on McKellar Circle.

The shooting occurred during a drunken rampage by the police officers as they celebrated Mortensen's birthday.

While Brady broke open the case by admitting his role to homicide detectives and naming Mortensen as the gunman, Mortensen professed his innocence and testified it was Brady who fired the shots.

While there were calls from the community -- and even from some within the district attorney's office -- to prosecute Brady in state court on charges he was an accessory to Mendoza's murder, he was declared to be only a witness and allowed to walk free.

Cremen said Brady's guilty plea "shows that the picture of him as a somewhat errant but mildly heroic man was nonsense."

Brady's version of the murder, however, was supported by those who were the targets of the bullets and the jury believed them -- convicting Mortensen of first-degree murder and sentencing him to a life prison term without the possibility of parole.

"It is important to note that by pleading guilty to conspiracy to violate civil rights, Brady did not and has not admitted to killing Daniel Mendoza, nor has he recanted his early statement that he had no idea Mendoza was going to pull his gun and shoot," Albregts said.

Albregts said the federal prosecution is not indicative that state prosecutors fumbled the legal ball.

"There are no state laws for civil rights violations," he said. "And there was nothing in the federal investigation that implicates Brady in the murder."

District Attorney Stewart Bell said he is "pleased the federal investigation came to the same conclusion we did, that they went to harass Hispanics and not to kill."

Bell emphasized that now "Metro, the DA's office, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, a jury and a court have determined that Mortensen was the shooter."

"Between the state and the feds, we've gotten Mortensen life without parole and Brady nine years," he said. "That's pretty good accountability for their actions."

Albregts said it would have been almost impossible to defend Brady on the civil rights charges because he admitted at Mortensen's trial that they specifically went to the McKellar Circle area to "harass (gang) bangers and dopers."

"Given the statements the potential for conviction was good," the attorney said.

Albregts said Brady decided to resolve the case through the plea bargain "to save his family, friends and loved ones."

Cremen predicted that had Brady stood trial, "a lot more was going to come out."

"If you read between the lines, by letting Brady plea bargain it indicates something more serious was out there," Cremen said.

"Federal prosecutors had their chips on the table and chose not to play the chips," he said. "Brady made the same choice."

"Certainly one must wonder if that is in the best interest of the public."

Cremen said the lengthy plea bargain process prevented him from using some of the information that just surfaced in his appeal of Mortensen's conviction to the Nevada Supreme Court.

He said defense attorneys have only two years from the time of a conviction to raise all the appeal issues and that deadline for Mortensen passed in May. Motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence, however, does not have such a time limit.