In May of 1997, Ronald Mortensen, a Las Vegas native and newly commissioned police officer was railroaded
and wrongfully convicted in a Nevada State District Court by the Clark County District Attorney and Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department for a homicide committed by another person.
The same detectives who botched the investigation of the Tupac Amaru Shakur murder framed Mortensen
for the killing of a Sureno Gang Member in order to protect another police officer, the son of a longtime Metro
detective who was a close friend and former partner of the lead detective in both controversial investigations.
Because of the intense politics at play in the Mortensen case, he has been forced to endure inordinate delays
and obstacles in the appellate process to which other defendants are not subjected, in the hopes Mortensen
will be buried and forgotten in the penal system. The local media refuses to print or broadcast facts and new
evidence favorable to Mortensen which substantiate his innocence claim, perhaps because of the role the same
media sources played in convicting an innocent man.
In as much as the conspiracy against Mortensen has been joined by some Nevada jurists, Mortensen has not
been allowed the opportunity for a full and fair evidentiary hearing on his issues raised in a Habeas Corpus
post conviction writ filed in State District Court, despite rights to which he is entitled under state and
federal law.
Mortensen is the victim of severe defense attorney malpractice that occurred in both the trial and appellate
stages, as well as egregious prosecutorial and police misconduct which was allowed to flourish in part due
to inept and ineffective defense counsel whom many have said was afraid to mount a proper defense because
of his own political aspirations to become the District Attorney of Clark County.
Several partisan individuals in powerful political positions have steadily worked against Mortensen
for the past 12 years to block the truth in the Mortensen case from coming to light.
But friends and family of Ronald Mortensen who dedicate this site believe the time has come to expose this
miscarriage of justice to inquiring, fair minded citizens to judge for themselves whether Mortensen’s relief
from wrongful conviction is long overdue.
The Power of District Attorneys in Grand Jury Proceedings
If you are among the thousands of people who moved into Las Vegas and the surrounding areas since early
1997, or if you do not live in the Las Vegas area, you likely have not heard of the Ron Mortensen case.
Mortensen, an off duty Metro police officer was convicted of murder in the first degree in the drive-by
shooting of Daniel Mendoza. He is serving two life sentences without the possibility of parole.
This might suggest a good internal police investigation and the District Attorney’s successful pursuit of justice.
In my opinion, it represents a total miscarriage of justice because Mortensen was not the shooter.
Let me tell you why I believe this.
But, first, let me just briefly introduce myself. I am a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel with a Ph.D.
from the University of Illinois in the interdisciplinary field of industrial relations. In the Air Force I was a
rated aircraft performance engineer and later a master navigator. Most of my Air Force experience was flight
related, but I had a three year tour as an Air Force ROTC instructor, where I taught management courses
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to college seniors. In civilian academia I directed a graduate
school of industrial relations and supervised some 60 student research papers a year, and I taught
courses in fair employment practice. I am not a lawyer, but I was well versed in the text on Employment
Discrimination Law by Schlei and Grossman. I am not related to Mortensen and I had not involved myself
in his case until the spring of 2007.
My review will suggest that Mortensen would not have been indicted, given an open academic investigation.
And, I do not believe a UCMJ Article 32 Investigation, the equivalent of the civilian preliminary hearing,
would have recommended a court martial. It is likely, also, that a preliminary hearing, had it been allowed by
the District Attorney, would have produced a different result from that of the grand jury.
The story that needs to be told is what happened before Mortensen’s indictment. What is uncontested is
that Chris Brady, the driver, and Ron Mortensen, the passenger, both off duty Metro police officers, were in
the truck from which six shots were fired out of the passenger side window in a drive-by shooting.
Apparently, one of the bullets killed Daniel Mendoza. A forensic expert’s notes doubted that the nature of
the fatal injury was a result of a weapon fired from the truck. However, that doubt apparently was not fully
explored. It became a non-issue.
Mortensen has always maintained that he was simply expecting Brady to give him a ride home after
celebrating his (Mortensen’s) 31st birthday at a party at which both had consumed alcohol. Mortensen
further maintains that Brady unexpectedly drove into a Hispanic neighborhood where Brady grabbed his
(Mortensen’s) weapon from the seat and did the shooting. Subsequently, that is after the trial, Mortensen,
passed a polygraph test in which he said he had no intention of harassing Hispanics, and that he did not
fire the weapon.
Both officers were unaware until later that day that a bystander, Mendoza, had been killed. Whereupon,
Brady met with his father, Michael Brady, a long time Metro detective, apparently telling him that
Mortensen was the shooter. Michael Brady took his son to the Metro Homicide office where a shaken,
crying Christopher Brady gave an eighteen minute statement to Brent Becker (Michael Brady’s former partner)
and to Paul Bigham in the presence of Michael Brady.
That eighteen minute statement was effectively the beginning and the end of the internal police investigation.
Chris Brady was named the chief witness, a hero, who solved the crime. Later sworn testimony, after the trial,
would show that on several occasions Christ Brady had told Marc Barry, another Metro police officer that he
(Brady) would like to do a drive-by shooting. Nevertheless, the Nevada Supreme Court, on appeal, ruled that
that fact, had it been known by the jury, would not have changed the verdict. Arguably, Mortensen’s fate was
sealed by the decision that followed the eighteen minute investigation. He was incarcerated that very day
and he has languished in prison ever since.
Within ten days of the shooting (on January 7, 1997) John P. Lukens Esq. wrote the following letter to
Stephen Stein Esq., Chris Brady’s lawyer.
Dear Steve:
This letter will confirm a conversation of this date. In this morning’s Review Journal, there appeared a
story by a writer, Tanya Flanigan. That story gave the impression that your client, Christopher Brady, would
face charges arising out of the incident wherein this office will be filing Open Murder charges against
Ronald Mortensen.
This is to advise you that that story is incorrect. Based upon all evidence we have reviewed to date, we are of
the opinion that Christopher Brady committed no act for which he could be prosecuted. Christopher Brady
is simply a witness who came forward with the information that led to solving a crime. (Italics are mine.)
We anticipate presenting the case to the Grand Jury on or about January 16th, 1997. Christopher Brady will
be subpoenaed to appear and testify along with other witnesses.
Regard & etc.
John P. Lukens, Esq.
Chief Deputy District Attorney
If Mortensen’s defense attorney, Frank Cremen Esq., can be criticized for rushing the case to trial, and he
has been criticized, his rush pales in comparison to the District Attorney’s rush in indicting Mortensen.
Cremen tried to forgo the grand jury procedure in favor of a preliminary hearing. He wrote to Lukens on
January 10, 1997.
Dear John,
I want to again acknowledge receipt of your notice that you intend to present the case against Ron Mortensen
to the Clark County Grand Jury on January 16. As you know, a preliminary hearing has been set
by Judge Abbatanglo for January 24, 1997. I would like to ask your office to reconsider your decision to
present this case to a grand jury. I think, given the facts and circumstances of the case,
it would be best for all parties concerned if the evidence were presented publicly at a preliminary hearing.
Grand jury proceedings conducted in secret, without the benefit of cross examination of pertinent
witnesses, will leave a myriad of questions unanswered.
Hoping that you will reconsider your decision, and given the fact that a preliminary hearing has been
scheduled, I will be issuing subpoenas for certain witnesses. If you nonetheless choose to proceed with a
grand jury presentation, I would ask that certain questions, the answers to which I believe are exculpatory of
Ronald Mortensen, be posed to certain of your witnesses, and in particular, to Chris Brady.
I know that by reputation, Chris Brady is considered by many of his fellow officers as a “rogue”. I know that
he has referred to himself as a “ghoul,” a “black knight,” and a “pirate.” I know that he has also talked of
going “marauding.” These statements I think are latent with suggestions that he is capable of the conduct
that is now being ascribed to my client. (Italics are mine) You night also ask Mr. Brady about his expressed
deep hatred of Sheriff Keller and his comments, uttered within the past month, of assassinating him.
Given Brady’s reputation and character, I think it is altogether necessary that inquiry be made of the
investigative officers as to why Brady was not asked to participate in a line-up, when particularly two of the
three witnesses for whom a line-up of Mortensen was held did not identify Mortensen, but a corrections
officer for whom I think the evidence will show does resemble Mr. Brady. There is also quite a bit of
confusion among the witnesses as to the length of hair of the person whom (sic) they say did the shooting.
Mortensen’s hair has always been short, in military style. He gets his hair cut every other week. Brady, on
the other hand, has the longer modish hair in the back of his head consistent with the description given by
Rosa Zurita.
I find it curious that Brady’s clothing worn on the night in question was not impounded so that it could be
examined for powder residue. I also find it curious that no statement was taken from Brady’s father, who
evidently assisted Brady before Brady presented himself to the police on Sunday evening December 29th. It
is now evident that Brady’s father was present when Brady was questioned. Brady is not a juvenile and I fail
to see the need for his father’s presence. I think these are fair questions that must be asked at any probable
cause proceeding. The answers to these questions have ramifications far greater than the question of
probable cause.
With all of these facts in mind, I would once again request that you allow the preliminary hearing to
proceed. Please let me hear from you.
Sincerely yours,
Frank J. Cremen.
Cremen’s letter had no impact: the District Attorney not only took the case to the grand jury,
but Lukens chose not to challenge Brady in any way. It is well settled in Nevada law the prosecutors are
required to present evidence, exculpatory of targeted defendants, to the grand jury panel. Cremen’s letter
identified numerous charges that would have challenged the credibility of Brady.
Nevertheless, Chris Brady was the star witness. Not only was his attorney, Stephen Stein, a friend of
Michael Brady, Chris Brady’s father, allowed to attend the secret proceedings, he was called as the first
witness, and he vouched for the veracity of Brady’s testimony. Why Stein was allowed to participate in the
proceedings can be answered only by the District Attorney. What is clear, however, is that Stein’s testimony
was designed to strengthen Brady’s testimony in the eyes of the jurors.
The partiality given to Brady during the grand jury proceedings is evident. For example, Attorney Gary
Guymon asked Detective Brent Becker: “Without Chris Brady coming forward on the 30th, would you have
been able to solve this crime?” Becker answered: “Very unlikely.” Another line of questioning inferred that
Brady had put his career in jeopardy by accusing Mortensen: “Officer, by coming forward you put your
career in Jeopardy?” Brady answered, “Yes, sir I have” What was the purpose of this question, but a ploy to
build up Brady in the eyes of the jury while misleading them? Chief Deputy District Attorney, John P. Lukens
had already written to Brady’s attorney: “Based on all evidence we have reviewed to date, we are of the opinion
that Christopher Brady committed no act for which he could be prosecuted.”
A juror was cutoff in mid-sentence as he or she apparently tried to get Mortensen’s view of what had
happened. A juror commented: “I would like to know if Mr. Mortensen ever admitted shooting…”
Mr. Guymon interrupted: To that I’m going to ask that the detective not answer that question for a number of
reasons. I don’t think we can talk about that issue at this point in time.” Before the jurors were to begin
deliberation they were asked if there were any questions. A juror replied: “No, but no one answered my
question. Did Mortensen ever admit to...” The foreman interrupted: “Your question was answered in that
they are not going to answer that question just because he admits it or not. It’s irrelevant for them to
answer that question. The attorneys can’t answer that question.” The juror: “They told me the next witness
would be able to answer that.”
The jury began deliberation at 3:35 PM and returned at 4:00 PM on January 16, with the indictment of
Mortensen. The speed in reaching the decision is a measure of the control exercised by the office of the
district attorney.
The attempt to control went beyond the grand jury to include the public at large. Even before the grand jury
was seated an article by Glen Puit appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal on January 11, 1997.
The headline reported, “Tests show LV officer’s gun used in killing.” The sub-headline added, “Ballistics tests
tie a bullet found in Daniel Mendoza’s body to Ron Mortensen’s firearm, sources indicate.” Who were the
sources? In a letter to me on 24 May 2007, Mortensen wrote, “A few years later Glen (sic) Puit told me it was
Guymon who planted the story.” Gary Guymon went on to serve as a prosecutor in Mortensen’s trail.
In fact, the bullet went through Mendoza’s body and was never recovered. Planting a story that tied
Mortensen’s name to the shooting early on could influence the public and the pool from which the jury
would be drawn. The Puit story went on to report: “Police have not been able to pinpoint a motive in the
shooting. However several community activists have expressed concern the incident could have been racially
motivated. The Las Vegas branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has asked
the district attorney’s office to prosecute the case as a hate crime.
As noted above, information that exculpated Mortensen and implicated Brady was not considered. In the
grand jury process, without cross examination, witnesses could become practiced and reassured
in the testimony they would give at the trial. As chief witness, Brady’s testimony led to the indictment of
Mortensen.
To prepare for the preliminary hearing, which had previously been scheduled, Cremen had requested
internal police files describing the bad acts relating to Brady’s performance. Significantly, now that the
preliminary hearing had been preempted by the grand jury, Lukens wrote to Cremen: “As your client, Mr.
Mortensen, had now been indicted, there is no need for Metro to produce records pursuant to your
subpoena for the preliminary hearing previously scheduled for January 24, 1997.” The bad acts that would
have implicated Brady were now off limits.
On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that two incidents reported to the internal affairs division of
the police department to show a pattern of Hot-headed, impulsive, brutish behavior by Brady were not
admissible: “by offering evidence for that purpose, defendant (Mortensen) was impermissibly attempting to
show that the witness (Brady) acted in conformity with that type of behavior on the night of the shooting.”
Cremen’s letter was a theory of Mortensen’s defense, which was that Brady was the shooter. The letter with
the theory (highlighted by my italics) became a lost issue. The letter, itself, was not included in the file
submitted for review by the Nevada Supreme Court. Having ignored the provocative issues enumerated in
Cremen’s letter, which was available before the grand jury proceeding, was it in the interest of the District
Attorney to exclude the letter from the record? Because the letter was not in the record, the Nevada
Supreme Court found that the State was not aware of Mortensen’s theory of his defense until the end of
March, and because the truck was altered in January, the Supreme Court ruled that the State’s failure to
acquire Brady’s truck and clothing before they could be altered did not violate due process.
The power of the District Attorney in controlling the outcome of this case is clearly evident. To win the
acquittal of Mortensen, Brady, by default would have had to be convicted. Brady was not about to be
convicted in the trial of Mortensen. Brady was protected and arbitrarily exonerated by the District
Attorney. Had the District Attorney decided to indict Brady and exonerate Mortensen, he could have done
so, and with good reason.
In a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus, much attention was focused on whether or not Brady should
be charged as an accomplice. However, to charge Brady as an accomplice would in effect, by default, mean that
Mortensen was the shooter. Likely for this reason the writ was withdrawn. The emphasis by Cremen should
have been to develop what his letter implied: to quash the indictment of Mortensen and to indict Brady.
Mortensen’s conviction raised the question of why should it have been for murder in the first degree. Had
Mortensen been guilty, knowing the burden he would face at trial, given that the district attorney had
defined Brady as a crime solving witness, he likely would have plead to a reduced charge. But, knowing he
did not do the shooting, his plea was: Not Guilty.
The charge of first-degree murder in this case will likely be reviewed by the Nevada Supreme Court because
a recent decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Here are the essential facts: In Leventral D. Polk
v. Brian Sandova, et.al. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court regarding
instructions formerly given to juries in murder cases in Nevada. The instructions blurred the distinction
between first and second degree murder. The Nevada Supreme Court formerly allowed what is known as the
Kazalyn instruction, which said that only premeditation is sufficient in finding murder in the first degree.
Later, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Byford that both premeditation and deliberation were required.
However, the Court ruled the Byford would not be applied retroactively.
In Polk, the trial judge gave the Kazalyn instruction to the jury and because Polk came before, Byford the
Nevada Supreme Court ruled that premeditation alone was sufficient. Here is where the 9th Circuit
intervened and reversed the Nevada Supreme Court, saying that Polk’s federal constitutional rights were
violated, because the jury convicted him of first degree murder without a finding of the essential element of
deliberation. Because Mortensen’s jury was given the Kazalyn instruction, he can expect a similar reversal of
the jury verdict.
The prosecutors, in the end, said that although Brady’s and Mortensen’s testimonies contradicted each
other, the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence were prevailing. That is witnesses said that Mortensen
was the shooter, and the pattern of the spent shells outside the truck showed the truck was moving, making
it unlikely the driver, Brady, could have reached across Mortensen, while driving, and fired the weapon.
Attorney Kathryn Monroe, director of the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center, located in Salt Lake City,
wrote me: “Studies of innocence cases have established that eyewitnesses’ testimony is extremely unreliable
and was responsible for 75% of the wrongful convictions in the 200 DNA-based exonerations we have had
during the past two decades. Even rape victims who had the chance to study the faces of their attackers for
a period of time have made incorrect identifications. Especially unreliable are the kinds of witnesses who
were involved in Mr. Mortensen’s case – who claim to have seen a quick, dramatic crime that takes place as
a bystander.” (Italics are mine) Detective Brent Becker said in two interviews that the shooting event lasted
between only 8 to 10 seconds. Add to this, the instant crime was a drive-by shooting in poor lighting at
about one A.M., where witnesses themselves could be in the line of fire. Add to this, also, that one key
witness, Ruben Ramirez, an admitted drug dealer with a series of charges including robbery, domestic
violence, and possession of a dangerous weapon, had criminal charges pending in the days before the
Mortensen trial. On appeal, the state supreme court denied that Ramirez’s impending cases affected the
outcome of the jury decision.
A recent story in the Las Vegas Review Journal reported that it is common practice in Clark County for
prosecutors to allow payments, for time and travel, to witnesses who are being prepared to testify for the
prosecution. The article called into question the effect of this practice when illegal drug users, who are
prepared as witnesses, use such payments to purchase drugs. More to the point here is, did it affect the
testimony of Ramirez, given not only the pending charges but also the payments from the prosecutors as he
was being prepared to testify for the prosecution?
Regarding the scatter pattern of the ejected shell casings, a scientific study in Force Science News, June 15,
2000, reported findings are now firm: Ejected shells can’t reliably tell much about a shooter’s location.
“Nearly 8000 rounds fired by Los Angeles County sheriffs have now conclusively proved what Force Science
Research Center first asserted more than two years ago…findings show that the ejection spread can vary up
to 24 feet with the same gun fired by the same shooter, depending on how the weapon is gripped and
moved.”
Mortensen’s conviction has been appealed two times to the Nevada Supreme Court, as noted above.
His appeals have been denied. Mortensen’s latest writ of habeas corpus was heard recently in the local district
court by Judge Douglas Herndon. This evidentiary hearing, which was delayed for more than two years as
Mortensen was held in the Clark County Detention Center, sought to show the cumulative effect of the
single issues appealed and denied in the state Supreme Court. More specifically, David Schieck, Esq.
challenged the decision of Cremen in rushing to trial before all probative issues had been explored. Schieck
supported his challenge, in part, by citing the state Supreme Court’s conclusion that with due diligence the
issues on appeal could have been discovered before the trial. The inferred lack of due diligence was a strike
against Cremen, but it was and is Mortensen who is paying the price.
In judging the performance of a defense counsel, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of
Strickland v. Washington set a standard that said, in effect, defense counsel assistance must be reasonably
effective. In applying the standard, judges decide if the performance of the defense counsel produced a just
result. Chris J. Owens Esq., Chief Deputy District Attorney, argued that none of the issues cited by
Mortensen would have changed the jury verdict. That is, Brady’s bad acts, Brady’s telling Marc Barry he
would like to do a drive-by shooting, the failure of the State to preserve evidence that might have implicated
Brady, the pending criminal cases against witness Ramirez, Mortensen’s testimony that many Metro officers
could have challenged the credibility of Brady’s testimony, and the host of other irregularities identified in the
writ would have had no effect on the decision of the jury.
Judge Herndon denied the writ of habeas corpus. For Mortensen to have prevailed, Herndon would have
had to rule against the performance of Cremen. In rendering his decision, Herndon rested, in part, on his
personal knowledge of Cremen’s abilities and professional reputation. With that personal knowledge,
should he have recused himself? Once again the case is headed for the Nevada Supreme Court.
The Court will not review the power of the District Attorney and the decisive control he applies through
grand jury proceedings. By comparison, UCMJ Article 32 boards have rigid protections against what is
called command influence. That is, commanders do not control the boards. In the Mortensen case, I believe
there was a force analogous to command influence at work, which began with Brady’s father and found its
way to the District Attorney.
I recently spoke, by telephone, to Mortensen’s wife, Zoe, who continues to stand by him, knowing he is
innocent. She hopes that someday, somehow, the truth will come out and vindicate her husband. In the
meantime, she is working and raising their daughter, who is now 14. Ron continues to attempt to win his
release through the legal system. Aside from helping other prisoners with their appeals, since his
incarceration he has earned a Bachelor of Science in Law from the Southern California University for
Professional Studies. Prior to his employment as a Metro officer, he earned a commission in the US Army
through the ROTC program, upon graduation from UNLV.
I do recall the tension that was created in the local community during the pretrial phase, which might have
influenced the jury pool. The tension continued throughout the trial; it was especially acute when the
verdict was about to be announced.
The focus of the appeals is necessarily on the trial, itself. I have focused more surely on what happened
before Mortensen’s indictment and the grand jury proceeding. I conclude that an objective review by the
grand jury would not have led to the indictment of Mortensen. I hope my review helps in promoting justice
in this case. In their hearts of hearts, I believe the present District Attorney, David Rogers, Chief Deputy
District Attorney Chris Owens, and Judge Douglas Herndon all believe Mortensen was not the shooter. But,
they are tied to the roles they play in defending a jury verdict, a verdict that In this case was flawed by
overlooking pertinent evidence, which was available, but not presented at trial.
September 24, 2009