Ex-Cop Raises ID Issue In Case

Wednesday, October 12, 2005


By Scott Sandlin, Journal Staff Writer

An ex-cop accused of multiple assaults, sexual and otherwise, while on duty is raising questions about faulty police eyewitness identifications in the criminal case against him.
Christopher Chase contends bad eyewitness identifications resulting from poor techniques, including photo arrays, have been blamed for dozens of wrongful convictions nationwide.
Chase, 31, was charged in June 2003 by a Bernalillo County grand jury with 32 counts of criminal sexual penetration, battery, assault and kidnapping. The alleged incidents occurred while he was a uniformed officer in the Albuquerque Police Department.
But more than two years later, the criminal charges and four civil lawsuits remain up in the air. Chase, meanwhile, has been free on bond.
Chase is long gone from APD; he was fired in the wake of the investigation and resulting criminal case. But the city continues to pay his defense in the remaining civil lawsuits by the same alleged victims named in the criminal case.
Two civil suits have been resolved at trial in federal court. In one, the city paid $10,000 after a summary trial in favor of the plaintiff, who was a teenager at the time Chase allegedly hit him in the head with a flashlight.
In the other, a jury returned a $943,380 verdict against Chase to a woman who said she'd been raped by Chase. Chase repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify in that case. The verdict, along with $150,000 in attorney fees awarded by the court, has been appealed.
Chase's criminal trial is set for Dec. 12 before Judge Denise Barela Shepherd. Chase has spent the better part of the past two weeks in state district court on pretrial issues raised in that case— primarily defense attorney Jacquelyn Robins' contention that her client was wrongfully identified during the police investigation.
Robins, citing a growing body of research, is calling into question what she claims are flawed photo array techniques used in identifying suspects. Robins plans to call Roy Malpass of the University of Texas at El Paso, a criminal justice expert in the field, to testify. The prosecution has requested that his testimony be excluded as confusing and unnecessary.
Lawyers in the federal lawsuit brought by alleged victim Kelly Ham make a similar argument. They say Ham was unable to identify Chase as the person who assaulted her "even when presented with defendant Chase in the courtroom."
Assistant District Attorney Michael Fricke countered that Chase's alleged victims "had many minutes or more to observe (him)," including one woman allegedly assaulted twice, each incident separated by five months.
Despite minor differences in the eyewitness descriptions, each provided similar characteristics, Fricke argued, saying it was a question for a jury to decide.
But Robins also has asked Shepherd to carve up the case into discrete groupings according to the date of the alleged incidents, and Chase's three city-paid civil attorneys want the same on the civil side.
"Chase will demonstrate that he will be prejudiced by a joint trial of all 32 counts and that the court must order separate trials," Robins said in a pleading.
The civil attorneys say evidence of alleged assaults against people other than the plaintiff can't be admitted because it is tenuous, prejudicial and cumulative.
Brad Hall, who represents plaintiffs in three pending federal cases set for separate trials starting in March, calls that argument "non-sensical."
"Chase has been adequately identified ... Detective Monte Curtis investigated the claims and identified Chase as the perpetrator ... If he was not the perpetrator, why did he 'take the Fifth'?" Hall said in the Ham case.