This story originally aired and was published on February 20, 2015.
May 21, 2011 was a day Estella Medrano will never forget. A day that will seemingly affect her for the rest of her life.
The 23-year-old Phoenix woman was arrested that day and booked into jail for armed robbery with a deadly weapon.
Nine weeks before, she had given birth to her first child by her boyfriend, a baby girl she named Lilliana, whom she was nursing. Two lawsuits, one in state court, the other in federal court, contend she was falsely arrested and wrongly imprisoned for a crime she did not commit in addition to allegations of negligence on the part of the Phoenix Police Department.
The armed robbery
Related documents:• Hough's police report
• Berke Law Form contract
• Law firm billing records
• Conformed complaint
• USDC complaint
• USDC First Amendment complaint
• Motion for summary judgment
• $10K settlement offer
• $15K settlement offer
• Settlement
On May 18, 2011 at approximately 10:13 p.m., Miguel (Michael) Hernandez robbed a Circle K at gunpoint in west Phoenix with a woman in tow.
Medrano was legally married to Hernandez at the time, but the two were estranged and she denies she was the accomplice.
The store clerk, Jagmeet Bains, called 911 to report that he had just been the victim of an armed robbery. Confused, Bains tried to give descriptions of the suspects. He told the dispatcher the woman was Hispanic, 28 to 30 years old and 5'6" or 5'7" and she was thin.
The 911 operator broadcast a description of the male and then the female stating, she was Hispanic, approximately 20 to 30 years old, 5'6", thin build, wearing a black shirt and jeans. The physical description of the woman with Hernandez would later be updated by police to 5'7", 175 pounds with long dark hair.
According to the police report, the clerk was in the cooler when the duo entered the store. The woman asked Bains for a cup of water. Bains went behind the counter to get the cup.
Store surveillance video shows Hernandez move behind the counter toward the register. He then pulls the hood of his sweatshirt over his head and lifts his shirt revealing to the clerk a 9mm handgun tucked in his waistband.
The store surveillance video shows, as Hernandez reveals his handgun, the woman covered her mouth. It would later be revealed during the investigation, even though there is no audio on the recording, Bains reported she said, "Don't, don't." She turned toward the door and left the store.
The police report states Bains said the woman stood across from the counter while the robbery occurred. Another portion of the police report states that one camera angle on the surveillance video shows the woman left the store prior to Hernandez leaving.
After the robbery, police interviewed Bains. and he described the "don't" comment the woman made as an attempt to stop him. Here's a partial transcript of the interview of Bains by Officer Robert Diventi:
Clerk: She was watching this all happening. She tried to stop him twice, but actually she was -- she also planned. That was all planned.
Officer: She said stop?
Clerk: She asked him stop two times, and then she didn't say anything.
Officer: She thought it was a plan?
Clerk: Yeah. It was all planned.
Officer: She asked him to stop?
Clerk: Yeah. She asked him to stop two times. That's it. And then she…..
Officer: What'd she say? Stop, stop?
Clerk: Don't, don't.
Officer: Don't, don't.
Clerk: Yeah.
While the woman was outside, the police report states, Hernandez ordered the clerk to open the cash register and give him all of the money.
Bains had trouble with the code to the register and told detectives as Hernandez pulled the gun out, something fell out of the gun onto the ground. Hernandez pointed the barrel of the gun on the left side of Bains' neck. Bains heard a click and thought his life was over.
Hernandez then pointed the barrel at Bains' leg and yelled obscenities at him, the police report says. He ordered the clerk to open the register and took $35 and fled the store.
The arrest
Down the street, Phoenix Police Officer David Hough was driving eastbound on Thomas Rd. near the Circle K when he spotted a male and female matching the descriptions of the armed-robbery suspects.
According to police reports, he stopped them, well aware Hernandez was armed. He drew his gun and claimed to be 10 to 15 feet away from them. Officer Hough told the pair to show him their hands. They complied but did not put their hands up in the air.
Hernandez jumped over a six-foot wall into someone's backyard, Hough claims. He says he told the woman to stay put so he could chase after Hernandez, but that's not in his official report, which does not mention any conversation with the woman.
"I saw the lady for maybe 20 seconds," said Hough when he was interviewed at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office on Sept. 23, 2011, records show.
Hernandez was found later that night hiding in a storage shed. He was arrested, prosecuted, convicted of armed robbery and sent to prison.
The woman Hough left to chase after Hernandez was gone, and police began an investigation to find out who she was.
The creation of a photo lineup
Police checked known associates of the robber, Miguel Hernandez. Medrano was legally married to Hernandez in Nevada, but the relationship had ended. She says she couldn't afford a divorce and would later tell investigators she hadn't seen him in a long time.
Officer Thomas Baker showed Medrano's driver's license photograph to Officer Robert Diventi. Diventi had reviewed the surveillance video and records show he told Baker the woman in the photograph was definitely the female he saw in the surveillance video.
Officer Kendall Nunley created a photo lineup using Medrano's driver's license photo and five other females with similar physical characteristics, known as fillers, plucked from the MVD database.
The lineup was shown to the store clerk, who picked one of the fillers.
It was then shown to Officer Hough, who immediately identified Estella Medrano as the female suspect he had stopped that night. Medrano's MVD photo was four years old.
"That's her. Done," said Hough in a recorded interview with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office during a meeting with defense experts.
He was adamant Medrano's face was burned in his memory.
"When you point your gun at somebody, that's the mental picture in your face for a very long time," he said.
According to court records, the store clerk's identification would carry less weight because he had a "poor memory" and "feared for his life." Documents state, "Officer Hough was a trained witness."
Estella Medrano's arrest: May 21, 2011
Officer Benjamin Denham called Officer Baker and he provided facts to support probable cause, which would be used to arrest Medrano as well as during her initial court appearance.
Records show the decision was based on Medrano's past association to Hernandez, her driver's license, which reflected her height and weight as 5'7", 175 pounds and Officer Hough's identification of Medrano in the photo lineup.
Officer Pamela Zielin and Sgt. Mykel Moller arrested Estella Medrano outside her grandmother's house.
"She matched a description of five-foot-seven, a hundred and seventy-five pounds, that on her MVD record, she did match, but in fact, she was 30 pounds heavier on the day of her arrest," said James Cool, Medrano's attorney.
But Cool maintains no one seemed to notice the weight issue. Jail booking records show Medrano weighed in at 200 pounds. Another report shows 203 pounds and yet another shows 208 pounds.
Medrano was booked on one count of armed robbery with a deadly weapon, a Class 2 felony.
"They let me use the phone to call my grandma to let her know that I wasn't going to be coming back to her house that day, and I asked her to watch over my daughter for me and that's the first time I really got choked up," said Medrano.
Probable cause statement
The probable cause statement says Medrano distracted the clerk by asking for a cup of water and stood by and watched as Hernandez took $35 from the register behind the counter. It also states that Medrano's "boyfriend" pointed a handgun at the clerk.
But records reveal they had no evidence of any ongoing romantic relationship between Medrano and Hernandez.
It also states Medrano was arrested "with incident," meaning she ran away or fought them. That statement went unchallenged, but police later admitted Medrano didn't resist arrest and was "extremely cooperative" and that it was a "typographical error."
"Yet that information was never shared with the judge, who ultimately decided to continue to holding Ms. Medrano, and it was never shared with the grand jury who indicted Estella for armed robbery," said attorney Cool.
On May 31, 2011 a Maricopa County grand jury handed down an indictment against Estella Medrano for armed robbery. The grand jury, with 14 members present, deliberated upon the evidence and with 14 jurors voting, by a vote of 14 to 0, returned what's known as a "true bill," allowing prosecutors to proceed with charges.
She would spend 81 days locked in a cell.
The alibi
Medrano did not initially offer police an alibi for her whereabouts the night of the robbery. But she did tell them she was not there and was innocent and immediately offered to give her DNA and fingerprints.
During his deposition, Officer Denham admitted he never asked Medrano to account for her time.
During discovery in this case, the city of Phoenix says it learned at the time of her arrest she had an alibi and "lied" to the police when she stated that she was home alone with her baby the night of the armed robbery.
According to court filings, Medrano said she was actually with her boyfriend, the father of Lilliana, at the time. Because he is in the country illegally, Medrano says she didn't want to provide his name to police, as she might risk his being arrested and deported.
Documents show another witness testified that, while she was visiting Medrano in jail, she begged her to tell police she was with Lilliana's father the night of the armed robbery but she refused.
Medrano's attorney, James Cool, had the following response to the claim his client lied:
"Estella did not 'lie' to police. Police never asked her where she was that night as far as depositions and their reports reveal. Estella didn't affirmatively offer that she had seen Lilliana's father that night, but she was never dishonest with police.
"I don't believe the complaint from 2012-2013 says anything different. If it does, that was my error. I wrote the complaint with a dramatically different understanding of the pertinent facts than I have now after two years of fact discovery. But Estella has never been dishonest with police. If our complaint makes an inaccurate statement, that's the result of her lawyer not correctly understanding what she told me."
"I got more scared that I would never get out I would spend many years there and I wouldn't be able to go home," said Medrano.
Officer David Hough 100 percent certain
Officer Hough met with prosecutors and investigators from the Office of the Legal Advocate at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office on Sept. 23, 2011 to discuss evidence the public defenders had uncovered. It was an informal interview but was recorded.
Hough stood by his identification of Estella Medrano when pressed by experts working for her defense. Even when told the robber's sister, Jeannette Hernandez, said it wasn't Estella Medrano.
"She is a hundred percent sure that the woman in the video is not Estella," said a one of the defense experts on the recording.
And Hernandez's mother said the same about photos taken from the surveillance video.
"The lady in the store pictures is definitely not Estella Medrano," she said.
Hough was shown a photograph of Christina Ruelas. She was Hernandez's girlfriend at the time of the robbery according to statements she made during an interrogation by police. Defense experts had spoken with her father, Fernando Ruelas, and say he identified his daughter as being the woman in the surveillance video from the store. They informed Hough about this revelation, but Hough stood by his identification of the suspect.
"But I saw her there," he said. "But I still think that was her. I definitely wouldn't want the wrong person, but I'm, I'm still saying it's her."
On Oct. 14, 2011 Phoenix Police Detective Candice Wilson left a voice mail message for Medrano's public defender.
"I would say 70 percent of the photos look like Christina and I admit there are some photos that look like the other girl too," she said on the message.
On Dec. 8, 2011, Christina Ruelas was interviewed by Wilson. Defense documents show Ruelas was told her father identified her as being the woman in the store surveillance video. In a profanity-laced tirade, Ruelas refused to give in saying over and over again, "It wasn't me."
But she also told Wilson it wasn't Estella Medrano either.
"You got the wrong girl," Ruelas said. "You better go looking for the other girl because you already know it wasn't her."
She said the woman was named Lori, but could not provide a last name or Lori's exact whereabouts.
To this day, no one has been arrested or charged as the female accomplice in the armed robbery.
Medrano released on house arrest
On Aug. 10, 2011, Medrano was released from jail and placed on house arrest. She was ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device – an ankle bracelet – and comply with a curfew.
"No one tested the DNA for four months, no one compared the fingerprints to the samples for three months," said Cool, Medrano's attorney in her civil case.
None of the DNA or fingerprint evidence implicates Medrano.
"Estella remained under indictment for charges of armed robbery and no one would dismiss it," said Cool.
On Jan. 3, 2012 the charges against Medrano were at last dismissed by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. The reason given: "In the interests of justice."
Lawsuits pending in state and federal court
On Feb. 6, 2012 James Cool lodged a notice of claim against the city of Phoenix on Medrano and her daughter's behalf. It described all of the facts that would later evolve into two lawsuits.
On July 13, 2012 Cool filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court against the city of Phoenix and the officers involved in her arrest along with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, alleging her civil rights were violated.
The lawsuit alleges she was maliciously prosecuted, falsely arrested and imprisoned and that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights by arresting and holding her without probable cause.
It also contends the officers were negligent in their investigation of the armed robbery, and includes a loss of consortium claim, for the time mother and daughter lost with one another.
City hires private law firm
On July 24, 2012 the city of Phoenix retained the Berke Law Firm to defend the city and its employees in the Estella Medrano matter. So far, billing records show taxpayers have paid $133,445.03 to defend the Medrano case and the meter is still running.
In February of 2013, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Arthur Anderson dismissed Medrano's state claim for failing to lodge a notice of claim within 180 days of her arrest.
On May 22, 2013 Cool also filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging her civil rights had been violated.
In October of 2013 Judge Anderson's ruling would be overturned by the Arizona Court of Appeals in the state claim, reinstating six of Medrano's eight original claims.
Officer Hough concedes
It wasn't until June 10, 2014 at his civil deposition Hough conceded for the first time the possibility that Medrano wasn't the accomplice.
According to the deposition transcripts, Hough is asked, "Do you think it's possible you identified the wrong person?" Hough responds, "You think it's possible that I identified the wrong person?"
He's asked again, "Do you think it's possible that you identified the wrong person in this case?"
Hough answers, "I guess. It could be."
Settlement offers
In a letter dated Sept. 24, 2014, attorney Lori Berke offered Medrano a $10,000 settlement. In response, Cool proposed a best and final counteroffer settlement of $175,000.
On Oct. 20, 2014 Berke rejected the best and final counteroffer. She says the city of Phoenix Claims Committee authorized her to offer an additional $5,000 for a settlement offer of $15,000.
In that offer Berke wrote:
"Your client lied to police when she told the police that she was home alone with her baby on the evening of the armed robbery, a claim she continued to make at the time she filed her notice of claim and even when she filed her lawsuit."
Berke further wrote:
"She in fact made the decision not to share that information with the police to protect her boyfriend who is in the country illegally, should this case make it to trial, we are confident that the jury will not be sympathetic toward your client over the fact that she was separated from her daughter for over two months. Instead she chose her boyfriend over her baby."
Medrano's attorney responded by saying:
"The allegation that Estella lied is not only false, but also totally irrelevant to the case. I can only conclude the accusation is a clumsy attempt to intimidate Estella or to invoke racial prejudice."
In late 2014, Medrano won her appeal on the state claim. On Jan. 13, 2015 the City Claims Committee authorized Berke's firm to up the ante.
Berke wrote:
"I am writing to extend a settlement offer to your clients, Estella Medrano and Lilliana Valencia, in the amount of $75,000, with each side to bear their own attorney's fees and costs, to globally settle both the state and federal lawsuits your clients have brought against the City of Phoenix and several of its police officers."
The letter further states if the offer is not accepted by the deadline, attorneys would file a motion for summary judgment in the federal lawsuit on the one remaining claim of false imprisonment. And after that, they would do the same in the state claim.
It says:
"We are extremely confident that the federal lawsuit, and later the state lawsuit, will both be dismissed on summary judgment."
Estella Medrano and her attorney rejected the offer.
An acknowledgment?
When we tried to ask the city its position on Medrano's claim and about the police department's handling of the 2011 armed robbery, we were unable to get any answers.
Phoenix Police Sgt. Trent Crump sent 12 News the following in an email:
"The police department will allow the judicial process to take its course and allow relevant facts to be presented before commenting."
The city's settlement offer, while not an admission of wrongdoing, does seem to indicate attorneys see some merit in Medrano's case. At least $75,000 worth of merit.
As of February, 2015, Medrano had lawsuits pending in state and federal court. The state court case was on hold pending the resolution of the city's motion for summary judgment in the federal court case, which argued that the officers have qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and had probable cause to arrest Medrano.
If the city prevails, Medrano plans to appeal. If Medrano defeats the motions for summary judgment, the case is expected to proceed to a jury trial in federal court in August 2015.
For Medrano, a legal clearing of her name will not end the nightmare. Likely for a long time to come, a simple online search for her name may turn up her mug shot. Among other things, this makes applying for a job a challenge.
She's paid dearly for the mistake, and is pained that she'll never regain the early months of her daughter's life she missed while jailed for a crime of which she was never convicted.
