Special prosecutor sought in murder conviction challenge

ELKHART — A hearing this week may determine whether a new prosecutor is appointed in the case of a man who is challenging his 2005 murder conviction.

Rodolfo Alexander Jr., 39, was convicted of murder during a 2005 jury trial and received a 55-year sentence. He was found guilty for his role in the death of Karla Castro during a drive-by shooting of another vehicle on Aug. 13, 2003.

The intended target, Jesus Gonzalez, survived despite being shot five times, including twice in the face.

Alexander was not accused of pulling the trigger himself but was charged as an accessory because he drove the vehicle that was involved. The alleged killer, then-17-year-old Ignacio Bahena, is still wanted on a warrant more than 20 years later.

Alexander has petitioned the court for a special prosecutor in his latest bid for post-conviction relief. He argues that Elkhart County Prosecuting Attorney Vicki Becker will be the central witness at his post-conviction hearing and her conduct while deputy prosecutor will be questioned.

“Mr. Alexander has uncovered shocking new evidence showing that Ms. Becker knowingly presented false testimony against him,” the motion states. “The evidence was buried by Ms. Becker for decades, in violation of her constitutional and ethical obligations, while Mr. Alexander languished wrongfully imprisoned.”

The petition was filed by Alexander’s legal team, which includes members of the Exoneration Justice Clinic at Notre Dame Law School. The motion has been set for a hearing Thursday in Elkhart County Circuit Court.

‘False impression’

At issue is testimony regarding the gun that was used to shoot the other vehicle and whether Eduardo Brena gave it directly to Bahena or provided it to Alexander, who then gave it to Bahena.

Brena pleaded guilty in 2004 to providing a firearm to a minor. He affirmed several times under questioning in court that he had given the gun to Bahena on the day of the shooting, according to transcripts cited in Alexander’s motion.

The transcript was not provided to Alexander’s trial counsel, according to the motion.

Brena testified at Alexander’s trial several months later that he gave the gun to Alexander a few days before the shooting and then saw it in Bahena’s possession. Brena’s testimony and his credibility were critical to the verdict against Alexander, according to the motion.

“Ms. Becker put Mr. Brena on the witness stand at Mr. Alexander’s trial to lie to Mr. Alexander’s jury in a way that directly contradicted his plea colloquy,” Alexander’s motion states. “This testimony left Mr. Alexander’s jury with the powerful but false impression that Mr. Alexander gave Mr. Bahena the firearm used in the murder the day before the murder occurred. Ms. Becker made no attempt to correct this false testimony.”

In an April 22 response to the petition, Becker points to the legal principle of accessory liability, which includes helping another person commit a crime. The testimony elicited from Brena when he entered his plea was meant to establish a factual basis under the law, she notes.

“During the plea colloquy, Brena answered the questions of his attorney, Mr. (Christopher) Crawford, to establish a factual basis for said crime, claiming that he had ‘recklessly’ provided a firearm to the primary defendant in the murder case, Ignacio Bahena. He never states he ‘gave’ the firearm directly to Bahena during the plea colloquy,” the response states. “One can commit an offense through another person when the intent is to accomplish or acquiesce to a specific act and the actor engages in a substantial step toward that conduct.”

The motion also points out that Alexander’s attorney, then-Chief Public Defender Cliff Williams, would have been familiar with Brena’s plea and his statements to police because Crawford was employed by him.

Brena testified at trial that although he gave the gun to Alexander, he authorized it to be given to Bahena before Bahena used it to kill Castro, according to Becker’s response. She accuses Alexander’s legal team of misrepresenting the record as part of a personal attack.

“As petitioner’s Verified Petition and argument is a misrepresentation of the actual record, occurred in open court, and was clearly known by counsel for Petitioner at the time of trial ... it cannot legally constitute a ‘withholding’ of evidence,” the response states. “Petitioner’s exaggerated claim that the existence of the plea and/or the admissions made by Brena during the questioning of his own attorney is ‘shocking new evidence,’ and adding the allegation that same was ‘buried for decades’ is not only a misrepresentation of the factual record but is inflammatory and could reasonably be interpreted as an intentional attempt to mislead the court or harass Prosecutor Becker.”

Detective Conway

Alexander’s petition for a special prosecutor also highlights one of the Elkhart Police detectives who was involved in investigating Castro’s death and interviewing Alexander, Detective Carl Conway. The detective was also involved in investigating the November 2002 murder of Helen Sailor, for which Andrew Royer was convicted.

Royer’s conviction was overturned years later. A 2021 Indiana Supreme Court opinion notes that prosecutors did not disclose to Royer’s trial attorneys that Conway was removed from the police homicide unit for lying to an attorney in another homicide investigation.

“Det. Conway’s superiors determined that this misconduct compromised Det. Conway’s credibility for future homicide trials and removed him from the unit,” Alexander’s petition states. “Ms. Becker, as the prosecutor on this case, had an affirmative obligation to disclose this information to Mr. Alexander.”

Becker’s response points to Williams again and notes that he had actual knowledge of the situation as the attorney at the heart of the allegation against Conway. A claim of failure to disclose exculpatory information can’t be based on information that is already known to a party, according to her response.

Becker adds that neither the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission nor the Indiana Court of Appeals has found that she committed a conduct violation related to disclosure of Conway’s removal from the homicide unit.