Springfield Police Allegedly Coerced Witnesses in Wrongful Conviction

Springfield, Mass. – A man who had a conviction for murder overturned in a retrial last year is suing two Springfield Police Department detectives for allegedly using coercion to produce witness testimony against him in court. 

Charles Wilhite was convicted in 2010 of murdering Alberto Rodriguez in a shooting in Springfield in 2008, spending over three years in prison before a jury found him not guilty during a retrial in January last year.

The complaint filed in federal court in Springfield alleges that Detectives Anthony Pioggia and Steven Tatro “pressured, threated, and coerced” a number of individuals to implicate Wilhite in the shooting, and says he “spent more than three years in prison for a crime he did not commit.”

It explains that “Wilhite was convicted of first-degree murder based solely on false eyewitness testimony,” which was eventually recanted by two witnesses, and there was “no physical evidence linking him to the crime.”

The complaint alleges that “Pioggia and Tatro fabricated evidence and used grossly improper identification procedures to cause Mr. Wilhite’s arrest, trial, conviction, and lengthy imprisonment.”

It alleges that “Three witnesses told police that a Hispanic male in a gray hooded sweatshirt had run” from the area “just after the shooting,” and that “two confidential informants later told Defendant Pioggia that the shooter was a Hispanic male,” whereas Wilhite is African-American.

It is also claimed that the victim was known to have had a feud with a local business owner, and that a day prior to his death, Rodriguez was threatened by “a young Hispanic male.” At the beginning of the investigation, homicide detectives Pioggia and Tatro, interviewed Giselle Albelo, who lived near where the shooting took place.

The complaint claims that Albelo “was not a witness to the murder,” and that she “was home at the time of the shooting and had not heard any shots fired.”

It’s alleged that the two detectives, “threatened and intimidated Ms. Albelo in order to get her to say that she had witnessed the shooting,” and that they “pressured” her to say she was nearby “at the time of the shooting and had seen a black male shoot Mr. Rodriguez,” until she “acquiesced to the pressure and signed a witness statement written by Defendants Pioggia and Tatro.”

Despite this, it’s alleged that “Albelo’s witness statement did not fit the physical evidence,” and “was wrong about basic and crucial details, including where the victim was when he was shot and where the shooter was standing.”

Though Albelo identified Wilhite from police photos, it’s alleged that she did so as “the result of police pressure and intimidation,” and that the detectives “were improperly suggestive in showing Ms. Albelo the photo array so that she would select Mr. Wilhite’s picture.”

It’s alleged that in 2007, the detectives “tried to pressure Mr. Wilhite to become a witness in a murder case even though Mr. Wilhite had not been a witness to that crime,” and that the “detectives threatened and intimidated Mr. Wilhite in an attempt to have him sign false witness statements containing information that he had not provided to the detectives,” though Wilhite refused.

Another witness, Patryce Archie, allegedly gave a statement within two days of the shooting to another detective explaining that she “did not see what happened,” despite being in the vicinity.

In a subsequent interview with Pioggia and Tatro, Archie allegedly said “she had seen a black male standing” near where the shooting took place, but that “she could not identify the man because she had only seen his nose and lips.”

When viewing police photographs, it’s alleged that the detectives “used unduly suggestive procedures to get Ms. Archie to select Charles Wilhite’s picture,” including having her “repeatedly view the array until she selected a photograph, even after she told the detectives she was not able to identify anyone.”

It’s further alleged that the detectives drafted a new witness statement that “materially misrepresented the identification procedure that resulted in Ms. Archie selecting Charles Wilhite’s picture,” and that they “made it appear that she had identified Mr. Wilhite when she had not made a positive identification.”

A third witness, Maria Torres, “told police on the night of the shooting that she had seen a Hispanic male in a gray hooded sweatshirt running from the scene with a gun in his hand just after the shots were fired.”

The complaint alleges that during a subsequent interview with Pioggia and Tatro, she was shown photos of “black males,” none of whom she identified, repeating “that the person she had seen with the gun was a ‘light-skinned’ Hispanic male,” whereas “Springfield Police Department records describe Mr. Wilhite as a ‘dark brown, non-Hispanic’ male.”

In a second subsequent interview, Torres was again shown police photos of Latino and African-American men, but she “did not identify anyone from either array as the person she had seen running” from the crime scene “with a gun.”

It’s alleged that Torres was asked to “select a picture based on the skin tone of the person she had seen,” and that she “selected a picture of a light-skinned Hispanic male from the array of Hispanic males.”

She was allegedly asked “to again review the array of black males and consider whether it was possible the person she saw running … had been black." 

It’s claimed that she “said it was possible and selected a photograph from the array of black males based on skin tone,” picking out “a light-skinned black male,” though not Wilhite.

She was allegedly asked again to “whether anyone else’s skin tone was ‘close,’” and she “eventually selected Mr. Wilhite’s picture.”

It’s alleged that Pioggia failed to explain in a report that “he had asked Ms. Torres to select a picture based on skin tone,” and that he “pressured and coerced” her.

The complaint claims that the Pioggia and Tatro questioned Anthony Martinez at the Hampshire County Jail, following his arrest for armed robbery.

It’s alleged that the detectives “offered Mr. Martinez favorable treatment on his pending criminal charges if he supplied information implicating Charles Wilhite in the murder of Alberto Rodriguez.”

In a witness statement signed by Martinez, it’s alleged that he saw Angel Hernandez – Wilhite’s co-defendant in the murder trial – hand Wilhite a gun, saying “’I’ll pay you to go kill him,’” and also “’I know it looks funny because I am in jail and all of a sudden have this information, but it is the truth.”

Despite this, it’s alleged that many of the details in Martinez’ “statement were inconsistent with the accounts of all other witnesses in the case,” and that his “statement was obviously false.”

After his arrest, the complaint claims that Wilhite repeatedly told the detectives that he had not been near the vicinity of the shooting the night of the murder, and he “explained that he had not been involved in the shooting in any way.”

It claims that there “was no physical evidence linking Mr. Wilhite to the crime or the crime scene,” and that the “only witnesses to implicate Mr. Wilhite in the murder were the witnesses … who were interviewed by Defendants Pioggia and Tatro.”

After Wilhite’s indictment in October 2009, one of the witnesses, Giselle Albelo, then “recanted her witness statement and identification of Charles Wilhite in a sworn affidavit.”

The complaint explains that her affidavit alleges she felt “’fear’” and “’extreme pressure from police to provide certain details’ at the time signed her witness statement,” and that she “admitted that her witness statement was not true, that she had been home at the time of the shooting, and that she had not witnessed the crime.”

Following this, it’s alleged that Pioggia twice visited Nathan Perez – who was also facing pending legal prosecution – in Hampden County Jail to “obtain new witness testimony that would implicate Charles Wilhite as the shooter and undercut Giselle Albelo’s recantation.”

The complaint alleges that Pioggia told “Perez that he would be charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder if Mr. Perez could not identify the shooter,” but that “his pending criminal charges would be dropped if he cooperated with police.”

Though it’s claimed that Perez repeatedly said “that he could not identify the shooter,” it’s alleged that eventually “Perez agreed to identify Mr. Wilhite as the shooter in exchange for immunity from an accessory charge and for favorable treatment on his pending criminal charges.”

According to the complaint, Wilhite was convicted of murder in the first degree in December 2010, and the “only evidence presented against Mr. Wilhite was the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses from whom Defendants Pioggia and Tatro had obtained witness statements.”

However, in August 2011, “Perez signed a sworn affidavit recanting his statement to police, his trial testimony, and his identification of Charles Wilhite,” and signed a “separate sworn statement detailing how Defendant Pioggia threatened and coerced him to falsely identify Mr. Wilhite as the shooter.”

Judge Peter A. Velis granted Wilhite a new trial in May 2012 following an evidentiary hearing, and according to the complaint, he said testimony by Pioggia was “’implausible.’”

Wilhite was found not guilty at a retrial in January last year, but it’s claimed that he “suffered significant emotional injuries as a result of his arrest, prosecution, and wrongful conviction,” he “was depressed while in prison,” and he often though “about how he would not be able to be there” for his daughters as they grew up.

Neither the Springfield Police Department, nor the City of Springfield’s solicitors responded to requests for a press statement.

According to a prepared press statement given to Open Media Boston, Wilhite’s legal counsel Howard Friedman said, “When a crime occurs, police want to clear the case with a conviction. To this end, some police officers focus on suspects single-mindedly and pressure witnesses to say what the officers want to hear. The police officers may try to make the facts fit the suspect instead of doing good investigative work.”