Arrest of investigator could affect cases

Erica D. Johnson

Friday, Feb. 13, 2004 | 9:45 a.m.

County officials say it is unlikely that the recent arrest of an investigator with the district attorney's office will affect any convictions he helped secure, but some defense attorneys say the allegations could be grounds for future appeals.

Peter Baldonado, an investigative field officer with the major violator's unit, was arrested by the FBI Wednesday on charges alleging he agreed to fix bench warrants for a woman in exchange for sexual favors.

District Attorney David Roger said while an investigation into the matter is pending, he doubts the charge will affect any of the high-profile cases Baldonado investigated during his decade working in the office.

"We're still reviewing that," Roger said. "But it was rare that Pete was a witness in a case. It would have been a rare occasion that an investigator would have testified at all."

District Court Administrator Chuck Short said he also didn't believe any cases would be affected because Baldonado played a limited role in most of the trials held through the court.

"I think it's highly unlikely," Short said. "In criminal cases there's normally more than one witness whose testimony is relied upon by a jury when making the determination of guilt or innocence."

But longtime criminal defense attorney John Momot said the charge could potentially be an issue for appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court on several cases down the road.

"Absolutely," he said. "This has far reaching implications. I'm going to check out (Baldonado's) involvement with any of the cases I've had over the years."

While Momot has defended several high-profile defendants, including Sandy Murphy, Ted Binion's accused killer, he declined to say which cases involved Baldonado.

Momot said potential appeal issues would go far beyond Baldonado's testimony in a trial. The investigator's credibility could also have affected his gathering of evidence or interviewing of witnesses prior to trial, he said.

"(Baldonado) may have contacted witnesses, put pressure on witnesses or coerced them in some fashion. He could have gotten them to negotiate," Momot said.

Baldonado's arrest came after a joint investigation by Roger and the FBI revealed that he made an agreement with an informant to quash her bench warrants in exchange for sex. Baldonado was arrested after officials secretly recorded conversations between him and the woman.

Roger said officials are still investigating whether Baldonado is linked to any other crimes and whether any other employees were involved.

"So far, we have found that no other county employees were involved in this matter," he said. "I suppose some people were unwittingly involved, but no criminal charges will result from that."

Deputy Special Public Defender Brett Whipple has already asked the court for a new trial for his client, Pascual Lozano, based, in part, on Baldonado's testimony.

Lozano was sentenced to death for firing the shots that killed a 9-year-old girl. During his trial, the victim's 14-year-old sister said she saw the shooter but was unsure of his ethnicity. Baldonado testified that the girl told him that the gunman was Hispanic. Lozano is Hispanic.

Whipple said he would raise the issue of Baldonado's charge if the case reaches the Nevada Supreme Court on appeal.

Kate Kruse, a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas who teaches a class on legal ethics, said it is likely that other defense attorneys will raise the issue of Baldonado's credibility on appeal.

"As an officer of the court he had a duty to uphold fairness and justice," she said. "The fact that he was possibly responsible for distorting that process is concerning."

Still, attacking Baldonado's credibility is not a sure bet for a new trial. Defense attorneys would have to prove Baldonado's involvement in a case directly caused a defendant's conviction, Kruse said.

"A lot of these cases turn on whether the outcome of the trial would have been affected by his conduct," she said.

Short said the Nevada Supreme Court would have to look at the context of the entire case, not just Baldonado's involvement.