In a stunning legal reversal, federal prosecutors relented on Friday and set the stage for a new trial of the man convicted in 2010 of killing former intern Chandra Levy.
Acting just days before a series of high-stakes courtroom confrontations set to start next Tuesday, the prosecutors advised defense attorneys that they would no longer oppose a motion for a new trial for Ingmar Guandique.
Based in large part on the testimony of former Fresno gang leader Armando Morales, a jury in November 2010 convicted Guandique of first-degree murder for the 2001 killing of Levy. The testimony later became clouded by post-trial revelations about Morales’ previously undisclosed record of cooperating with law enforcement.
If the judge grants the defense request, the prosecutors’ unexpected decision will return to the national spotlight a murder mystery that most thought had been long-since solved. A date for the new trial has not yet been set.
Never miss a local story.
In a statement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said: “We remain firm in our conviction that the jury’s verdict was correct and are preparing for a new trial to ensure that Mr. Guandique is held accountable.”
Guandique’s attorneys praised the decision.
“The government’s case against Ingmar Guandique was based on a lie,” defense attorney Jonathan Anderson said. “We are gratified that the government has now acknowledged that it cannot defend this conviction, and we look forward to justice being served in a new trial.”
Ingmar Guandique was convicted in 2010 of murdering Chandra Levy and sentenced to 60 years in prison.
The decision by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and its timing, also means defense attorneys won’t get to cross-examine the original trial prosecutor over her handling of Morales.
In a long-anticipated hearing starting Tuesday, Guandique’s attorneys were going to get their first shot at questioning Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Haines.
“The focus of these proceedings is what did the government know, and when did it know it,” D.C. Superior Court Judge Gerald Fisher said in a recent hearing.
Levy’s fate drew national attention at the time of her disappearance, and again during Guandique’s 2010 trial, amid revelations that she had been having an affair with then-congressman Gary Condit. Prosecutors said Condit was never a suspect in the killing, but his reputation was in tatters following the revelations of the affair.
Morales testified, compellingly, that Guandique had confessed to him while they were cellmates in a federal prison in Kentucky. Morales told jurors that he had no prior experience as an informant, which seemingly contributed to his credibility.
Prosecutors did not have any DNA evidence linking Guandique to Levy, a 24-year-old just finishing up a D.C. internship and getting ready to move back to her family’s Modesto home at the time of her death.
But after Guandique was convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison, Justice Department officials say they learned in 2012 that Morales had earlier cooperated with law enforcement. Ever since, attorneys have undertaken an exhausting and occasionally frustrating inquiry.
“It’s a bit like finding a needle in a haystack,” Assistant U.S. Attorney David Gorman told Fisher at one point during a May 18 hearing.
Morales is now being held at an undisclosed prison, as he awaits his scheduled release next year following completion of a sentence imposed in 1996 on weapons charges.
The victim’s mother, Susan Levy, said she isn’t particularly rattled at the news.
“I just want justice to do its thing and do it correctly,” she said Friday afternoon, only moments after receiving courtesy notice from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington.
“I’d like to make sure that the person caught is responsible for what happened. No matter what happens, it’s not going to bring my daughter back,” Levy added.
The now-canceled hearings that were to start Tuesday would have built upon a mountain of law enforcement, prison and other documents whose collection has been both painstaking and, defense attorneys believe, incomplete. The Justice Department assigned three paralegals, two full-time attorneys and one part-time attorney to the task of reviewing materials, at one point.
Despite that effort, defense attorney Jonathan W. Anderson nonetheless told Fisher on May 18: “We know that there are relevant emails missing.”
Defense attorneys also had indicated they might be seeking sanctions against the Justice Department for its alleged failures in producing documents.
“The government delayed its responses solely for the purpose of delaying Mr. Guandique’s discovery of material information,” Anderson alleged in a recent court filing.
At times, documents have been turned over at nearly the last minute. For instance, a heavily redacted memo from Haines about Morales was given to defense attorneys at 6:45 p.m. Sunday, May 17, one day before a hearing.
Further underscoring the courtroom climate that would have been awaiting Haines and other Justice Department witnesses, Anderson asked pointedly at the May 18 hearing whether Haines had been disciplined by her superiors. Gorman quickly said she had not been.
“Quite the opposite,” Gorman said.
Haines received a Justice Department award for “Superior Performance as an Assistant U.S. Attorney.”
Garth Stapley of The Modesto Bee contributed to this story