“I Fear for My Life” Part 2, Anyone Named Adam Garcia

As revealed by Black Voice News in “I Fear for My Life, Part 1, Adam Garcia’s Nightmare” the first story in the series, “Due Process:  Searching for Justice in the Inland Empire,” Adam Garcia, charged with serious crimes by the Riverside County District Attorney (RCDA) Michael Hestrin, claims he is innocent.    

A review of underlying official records in Part 1 revealed several alleged discrepancies in the RCDA’s case such as while Adam appeared for his August 3, 2020, hearing, he was denied entry to the courthouse by security officials for what they claimed were COVID-19 symptoms, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. The warrant led to Adam being arrested twice by unlicensed fugitive recovery agent Otto Carchi.    

Nearly four years hence, the district attorney continues to use the warrant against him.

In Part 2, Anyone Named Adam Garcia, Black Voice News examines official records underlying Adam’s criminal charges, which include allegations of being over the age of 21 and enticing a minor for unlawful sexual intercourse.

Allegations Leading to Criminal Charges

Four Thermal Sheriff’s Station Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) deputies investigated Adam’s case, including Juan Garcia and M. (Margarita) Lopez, with deputy investigators Kenneth Willow and Julio Oseguera, supplementing Lopez’s report.  

According to Lopez’s May 11, 2016 incident report, the victim claims she met a man who said his name was Adam at the Palm Desert Mall in October 2015, where he purportedly gave her his name and number.  

The victim continued communicating with the man she met at the mall, inviting him to meet her and a friend at the Rock-N-Roll Mini-Golf, where alleged unlawful intercourse occurred.  

The victim’s mother, living separately from the victim and her father, heard about it from the victim’s sister in January 2016. 

The victim told Lopez her father caught her communicating with the man she met at the mall in 2015 and took her to the Indio Police Department to file a report.

Lopez determined the evidence remaining was, the father had the victim’s phone, the note with Adam’s name and number was misplaced, and a physical description of a Hispanic male, 5 foot 9 inches, chubby, dark eyes, dark hair, and dark skin. 

Multiple subjects matched the description, suspect information was limited, and the incident happened nine months before the report.  As a result, the investigation was suspended.

In his investigation, Willow searched computer records for Adam Garcia in Palm Desert, locating someone allegedly matching the description in Lopez’s report. Adam was markedly light-skinned compared to others in the photo lineup. 

Retired Law Enforcement Sergeant Karen Groves explained that the subjects in a photo lineup are to be similar in skin color.

Conflicting Official Records

Riverside Superior Court records show Adam being arrested on March 9, 2017.  The RCSD Sheriff’s Standards Manual requires written reports for all arrests.  There is no written report indicating Adam being arrested by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. In addition, the court record does not show an arrest warrant issued.     

Willow’s March 8, 2017, declaration, supporting an arrest warrant, claimed the victim positively identified Adam in two photo lineups. 

Riverside Superior Court records show conflicting violation dates of August 31, 2015, and March 9, 2017, for when the incident occurred both dates are reflected in the court record.  RCSD records contain no specific violation date.  

The investigation began when RCSD records showed Deputy Garcia responded to a miscellaneous non-criminal incident at the 47,000 block of Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, report LA152430068 on August 31, 2015.

Willow’s report, however, states the father took his daughter to the Thermal Sheriff’s Station on the same date, August 31, 2015. 

About a year later, Lopez’s incident report LA161320023, dated May 11, 2016, indicates a crime occurred in the 54,000 block of Avenue Vallejo in La Quinta between October and December 2015. 

Ten months later, Willow’s report dated March 8, 2017, shows the crime occurred in August 2015,  with the crime scene as the Rock-N-Roll Mini Golf, 46805 Dune Palms in La Quinta, a business that closed permanently on August 31, 2015.  

Incident reports show different dates and locations for when or where the alleged crime purportedly occurred or how RCSD became involved in investigating Adam.  

Willow found errors in Lopez’s report, such as the victim and her father going to the Indio Police Department when they were actually at the Thermal Sheriff Station.   

Willow’s report showed the victim’s forensic interview was at the Thermal Sheriff Station while he testified it occurred at the Barbara Sinatra Children’s Center. 

An excerpt from the court transcript of August 6, 2021, preliminary hearing showing RCSD Investigator Willow’s testimony regarding the location of the victim’s forensic interview.  (Source: Court Reporter Leslie Brock)  

Investigation of Electronic Evidence

When the alleged victim’s father took her and her cell phone to the sheriff’s station to make a report on August 31, 2015.  Deputy Garcia told the father that “Nothing could be done.” 

Lopez’s report shows no effort to pursue the cell phone or service provider needed to subpoena the phone records.

After interviewing the victim and her father, Willow determined the victim and Adam called and texted each other, yet never pursued billing records. Willow did however,  forward his report to the district attorney for a decision on whether to file criminal charges.

The District Attorney Zeroes In

At RCDA’s direction, sheriff investigator J. Oseguera pursued the victim’s cell phone, cloud, and Instagram accounts, and on June 28, 2017, reported he was unsuccessful.  By December 7, 2017, Oseguera further reported he could not find the victim or her parents. 

Without further evidence, on March 23, 2018, DDA Samantha Paixao filed a complaint against Adam.

Child Abuse Central Index 

Lopez’s report of the purported crime stemmed from Child Protective Services (CPS), which alleged a minor told her therapist about having consensual intercourse with an adult.   

Private investigator Groves and Adam’s mother, M. Garcia, confirmed the content of the CPS report. It alleged parental neglect. The report was closed on May 16, 2016. 

There is no record of Adam in the California Department of Justice (CDOJ) Child Abuse Central Index (CACI).  The CACI is available for law enforcement investigations and prosecutions and contains the names and descriptions of suspects and victims from substantiated child abuse reports.

Officers Unqualified to Investigate 

Under the law, officers investigating abuse or sexual abuse of children are required to complete the Institute of Criminal Investigation (ICI) course titled,  Sexual Assault Investigation Procedures.

A 2015-2022 list of ICI attendees does not reflect whether RCSD investigators Kenneth Willow, Ernest Lopez, Margarita Lopez, Ricardo Contreras, or Julio Oseguera have ever attended this training as required.  Additionally, RCDA investigators Jason Chancellor and Denise Porras were not listed as having attended the training.

Purpose of a Preliminary Hearing

Speedy preliminary hearings ensure defendants, unable to afford bail, are not jailed for months without a judicial determination of probable cause.  

A defendant incarcerated for felony charges, under California law, has a right to a preliminary hearing within 10 court days of pleading. The timeline is different for those, like Adam, who are out on bail. In this instance, according to the law, Adam was entitled to a preliminary hearing within 60 days of pleading.

Under the law, either the defendant waives his right to a speedy preliminary hearing, or the court finds a good-cause exception, to allow a continuance.  Otherwise, the judge has to dismiss the felony complaint.

Request for Continuance Altered 

Adam pled not guilty on April 30, 2021, his preliminary hearing had to be held before June 29.  

Adam requested a continuance and on May 17, DDA Molly Tucker told Adam she would allow a continuance until July 30, and if he agreed to sign the Request for Continuance form, she would file it.  

Adam signed the form and sent it back to DDA Tucker. 

When July 30, arrived, the RCDA requested a continuance until August 6, 2021, claiming key witnesses were unavailable.  Adam would not waive his speedy trial rights, and his attorney objected. 

DDA Arthur Hester, however, claimed Adam waived time for the preliminary hearing in the Request for Continuance that was altered after Adam signed it. Regardless, retired Judge James Hawkins granted the continuance until August 6, 2021. 

Adam discovered the document was altered in November 2022, when he obtained a copy of the Request for Continuance from the Riverside Superior Court Clerk’s office and realized that words were added indicating a waiver after he signed the document.

Evidence Against Adam at Preliminary Hearing 

At the August 6, 2021, preliminary hearing, Hester focused on the victim and witness’ photo identifications of the suspect. 

In an interview with Black Voice News, criminal defense attorney Jim Terrell exclaimed, “That is not a valid ID.” 

“There was no admonition [a warning to the witness that individuals depicted in the photo lineup may or may not be the suspect], and the officer says this is not for identification,” Terrell advised, “This is highly prejudicial and forever precludes a fair lineup or photo six-pack.”

At the preliminary hearing, after reviewing his incident report, Willow quoted the witness stating, “Wow, that – that looks like him.  Yeah, that looks like him.  A little bit. Yeah,”  claiming that was her reaction to the photo lineup when it was actually her reaction to Adam’s single mugshot. 

Omitted from Willow’s incident report but which can be heard on the audio recording, Willow asked, “But you don’t know who this person is?”  The witness responded, “No, I don’t.” Neither DDA Hester nor Willow set the record straight that this was the witness’ reaction to Adam’s mugshot, not a photo lineup. 

At the witness’  six-pack photo lineup; she wrote “between this man” and “this man as well” on two photographs, excluding Adam as a suspect.  

Willow testified the victim’s reaction to Adam’s photograph at her first photo lineup was, “Wow, that – that looks a lot like him.  Yeah, that looks a lot like him, but he had a beard last time I saw him.” Words Willow described as “ambiguous” in his report.

Willow explained at a second photo lineup on March 2, 2017, the victim allegedly identified Adam in about three minutes, by initialing Adam’s photograph.

These eyewitness identifications appear to have played a role in Judge Anthony Villalobos ruling that there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause for the charges against Adam.

Adam Objects to Arraignment

When the court finds probable cause for the charges, the defendants are again arraigned.   

At his November 22, 2021, arraignment, Adam told Judge Moore he should not be prosecuted because the investigator committed perjury at the preliminary hearing.  

Judge Russell Moore explained Adam’s declarations were insufficient as they were not signed under the penalty of perjury and entered a not guilty plea.  

Willow’s Report Proves False Testimony 

Willow’s report shows during her September 19, 2016, forensic interview by Denise Bowman, the victim viewed a photo lineup.     

The victim chose Adam’s photograph observing, “This one gets to me.  I don’t know.  It looks like Adam to me,” explaining she had not seen him recently, and he had a beard. 

Willow described the victim’s identification of Adam as ambiguous, requiring another photo lineup.

Six months later, on March 2, 2017, investigator E. (Ernest) Lopez conducted a second photo lineup.  

Six months later, on March 2, 2017, investigator E. (Ernest) Lopez conducted a second photo lineup.

Willow’s report concludes the victim positively identified Adam in two separate photo lineups.

District Attorney Allowed False Testimony 

Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4(c), defines misconduct as an attorney recklessly or intentionally misrepresenting evidence. 

It appears DDA Hester reasonably knew the evidence in Willow’s reports, knew Willow’s testimony was inaccurate, and was required to inform the court.  Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-110 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

Judge Villalobos based his decision to hold Adam for trial on Willow’s testimony.

Adam’s Criminal Charges Dismissed 

Adam filed a writ of mandate with the Appellate Court, to dismiss his charges for violating his speedy trial rights.    

In its November 30, 2021, Opinion, the Appellate Court informed RCDA that their position was to dismiss the charges reciting Penal Code Section 859b, and a prior court decision.  

RCDA Michael Hestrin agreed the complaint should be dismissed, further asking the appellate court to have the Riverside Superior Court determine whether RCDA could refile the charges under Penal Code Section 1387.  The Appellate Court issued its order to the Riverside Superior Court to dismiss the complaint and declined to address the district attorney’s ability to refile the charges. 

The District Attorney Refiled Charges

Effective January 1, 2019, the laws on sexual offenses were amended, extending the statute of limitations retroactively for 10 years.  

With Adam’s alleged August 31, 2015, violation date, the RCDA could refile charges until 2025. 

On December 17, 2021, the district attorney asked Judge Alfonso Fernandez to ignore the Appellate Court decision and find there was good cause to continue the preliminary hearing, allowing Adam’s charges to be refiled.  

Alternatively, Adam argued that RCDA’s altered Request for Continuance and perjury by Willow at the preliminary hearing should prevent the refiling of charges.  

Judge Fernandez allowed the charges to be refiled.  

At the hearing, Adam received the complaint, a common way defendants learn of charges filed against them.  Adam pled not guilty.    

On February 1, 2022, RCDA amended its complaint adding aggravating sentence enhancements provided under the California Rules of Court against Adam.  Under the law, after a defendant pleads, the court’s permission is required to amend the criminal complaint,  RCDA did not ask the court’s permission.  

Prosecution of Adam Continues

Since the complaint against Adam was refiled, he continues to claim his innocence and defend himself from the criminal charges.   

According to court transcripts, both the public defender’s office and conflict panel have declared conflict in representing Adam. 

At the January 9 hearing, court-appointed conflict-panel attorney Ryan Markson recused himself.  The court confirmed it would seek counsel for Adam. 

Adam requests California State Attorney General Rob Bonta investigate his criminal prosecution. 

As Adam continues to fight his case the cost burden has created a financial hardship. If you would like to assist with his legal defense and other court-related costs, donations may be sent to CashApp: $4yourhelpthankyou; Venmo: @v4yourhelpthankyou; Zelle:  livebycolor@gmail.com . If you would like to contribute via PayPal and do not have an account follow this link to contribute: Family In Need (paypal.com). If you have a PayPal account you can donate via   thankuforyourdonation@gmail.com.